Comments | pointedview: The U.S. Space Program, Hope, and Idealism

pointedview

The U.S. Space Program, Hope, and Idealism

Jan 09, 2004 11:08

This story from CNN, covering Bush's intent to encourage staffed missions to the moon, is the first thing I've agreed with the president on in quite some time. My good friend, Terrance, decries it as a feel-good tactic designed to distract, and it may well be, but I do not think that necessarily means that it should not be done. One does not have ( Read more... )

news, science, politics/government, space exploration

Comments 5

Seriously . . . twr January 9 2004, 10:24:18 UTC

What progress has the space program made in the last 30 years? Some crappy mars lander? An international space-station?

Just what the hell happened to the Space age? Did the cold war take the space program with it? Why did the rise of the information age have to mean the end of the space age?

I mean, where are the lunar colonies and resorts? Why HAVEN'T astronauts walked on Mars?

We're not all *that* far from the 40th anniversary of the first moon walk, and what have we accomplished since then? Sure, PDAs have more computing power than all of NASA did then, and I'm sure aerospace engineers have been up to something in that time. Why is there nothing to show for it?

Re: Seriously . . . pointedview January 9 2004, 10:30:33 UTC

*nods* Agreed, TWR. We should be further along than we are, already, so we need to shine a spotlight, pay some attention to it, and get moving.

epicureanangel January 9 2004, 10:44:43 UTC

Your argument for supporting this move is fair enough. But had you not had the same passion for space exploration, would you have been as tolerant of this PR gambit ( ... )

pointedview January 9 2004, 10:59:54 UTC

Actually, I think your post presents some excellent questions, and thank you very much for it ( ... )

epicureanangel April 8 2004, 16:20:59 UTC

(Whee, how's this for an old comment)

Reading over this again, your support for starting in the moderate middle makes the most sense, but I don't see how, in the current system of american politics, something like that can be implemented.

Furthemore, when you say you don't vote for the parties, do you mean that you don't vote exclusively for either party, or you exclusively refuse to vote for both parties? Especially in this year's election, at which point do you vote for someone who would not be your first choice, because your vote could be at least be used to elect your second choice over your third choice?