NASA Thank you

  • NASA
  • Thread starter dlgoff
  • Start date
  • Tags
    nasa
  • #1
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,833
1,769
I thought today would be a good time to give NASA some thanks for all the http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/spinoffs_feature_k_4.html" [Broken], being it's the last Shuttle mission to lift off today.

Thank you NASA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
boneh3ad
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,145
823
They aren't going away. Just the shuttle. To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "Many lament the shuttle era's end. But that's misplaced sentiment. Lament instead the absence of an era to replace it."

They just need Congress to wise up.
 
  • #3
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,833
1,769
  • #4
Ranger Mike
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,154
219
Aye aye
 
  • #5
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,885
2,382
I thought today would be a good time to give NASA some thanks for all the http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/spinoffs_feature_k_4.html" [Broken], being it's the last Shuttle mission to lift off today.

Thank you NASA.
Stealing your thumbs up, dlgoff.
thumbs_up-icon.gif


Thanks NASA. Now get to work on the next adventure. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
6,723
423
The spinoff argument is lame. There is no way to know what technologies would have existed in an alternate history in which the US didn't build a government-monopoly crewed space program as a cold-war propaganda exercise. Maybe we would have had bar codes, and maybe we wouldn't. Maybe we would have had something way more awesome than bar codes.

I want to say thanks to NASA for getting out of the way so private enterprise can step in.
 
  • #7
418
0
I’d like to thank the National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration for the wealth of information found within the pdf “STS-135: The Final Mission” - Dedicated to the courageous men and women who have devoted their lives to the Space Shuttle program and the pursuit of space exploration.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/566071main_135_press_kit2.pdf

Thanks NASA! Love ya!:smile:
 
  • #8
100
0
The spinoff argument is lame. There is no way to know what technologies would have existed in an alternate history in which the US didn't build a government-monopoly crewed space program as a cold-war propaganda exercise. Maybe we would have had bar codes, and maybe we wouldn't. Maybe we would have had something way more awesome than bar codes.

I want to say thanks to NASA for getting out of the way so private enterprise can step in.
Would private companies have spent 10 billion dollars on a project with no chance of commercial gain? (Referring to HST). I believe NASA still has it's place in the pursuit of science for the sake of science. Also, let's not forget, NACA and NASA are the same organization and NACA did its fair share of work in the aero field.
 
  • #9
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46
I thought today would be a good time to give NASA some thanks for all the http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/spinoffs_feature_k_4.html" [Broken], being it's the last Shuttle mission to lift off today.

Thank you NASA.
It's not just the popular spin-offs, IMO, that we need to be thankful for. I grew up in the cold war duck-and-cover age. Not many people in my little town had TVs, but the elementary school had one, and the entire school would assemble in the gym to watch each manned launch. NASA was a source of pride to the geeks of my generation.

Sometimes the intangibles are pretty darned valuable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
Regardless of spin offs or any economic incentive I would like to thank NASA for generations of inspiration!
 
  • #11
bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
6,723
423
Would private companies have spent 10 billion dollars on a project with no chance of commercial gain? (Referring to HST).
I didn't say anything about NASA's uncrewed programs, only about their crewed programs. There is no fundamental reason why the HST had to be launched on the shuttle, although it was. It was repaired by spacewalking astronauts, but again, there's no fundamental reason that it had to be that way. In an alternate history where we (god forbid!) didn't have barcodes and crewed spaceflight hadn't been a government monopoly in the US from 1961 to 2011, there still could have been an HST. It could have been launched by NASA or by some other government or by a private contractor.

I'm not proposing that all scientific research be left up to private enterprise, just that crewed spaceflight should not be a pork-barrel propaganda exercise run by a government monopoly.
 
  • #12
61
10
I want to say thanks to NASA for getting out of the way so private enterprise can step in.
Would private companies have spent 10 billion dollars on a project with no chance of commercial gain?
Would private companies have needed to speed 10 billion dollars to get the same results?

I love all that NASA has done. And NASA isn't the problem--Congress is. Every billion dollars (the smallest denomination recognized!) that Congress spends is not spent with an eye toward our nation's future or mankind's future, but only with an eye toward getting reelected. Thus the inefficiency.

If private companies can find a way to make space profitable, the future will not be limited by any corruption in government. So lets get going!
 
  • #13
100
0
I didn't say anything about NASA's uncrewed programs, only about their crewed programs. There is no fundamental reason why the HST had to be launched on the shuttle, although it was. It was repaired by spacewalking astronauts, but again, there's no fundamental reason that it had to be that way. In an alternate history where we (god forbid!) didn't have barcodes and crewed spaceflight hadn't been a government monopoly in the US from 1961 to 2011, there still could have been an HST. It could have been launched by NASA or by some other government or by a private contractor.

I'm not proposing that all scientific research be left up to private enterprise, just that crewed spaceflight should not be a pork-barrel propaganda exercise run by a government monopoly.
Yep, you're right, I totally skipped over your use of "crewed." I can mostly agree with what you said, then. I do, however, think NASA's manned crew was necessary through the cold war era up until the present day.
 
  • #14
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,833
1,769
The spinoff argument is lame. There is no way to know what technologies would have existed in an alternate history in which the US didn't build a government-monopoly crewed space program as a cold-war propaganda exercise. Maybe we would have had bar codes, and maybe we wouldn't. Maybe we would have had something way more awesome than bar codes.

I want to say thanks to NASA for getting out of the way so private enterprise can step in.
Wow. Thanks for bringing this thread to life.

If this paper doesn't fit the guidelines of PF, then please delete this quote and link.

Abstract
This paper reviews the origins of NASA’s Electronics Research Center. Few know of the existence of the center, which remains the only major center that the space agency has closed. The center was located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, across the street from MIT, and functioned there briefly from 1964 to 1970. This paper surveys the process (from November 1961 to January 1963) by which NASA concluded that it needed the Electronics Research Center. It focuses on the agency’s perceived need for internal electronics expertise in order to manage its many industry and university contracts. The paper also notes congressional opposition to siting the center in Cambridge, and briefly mentions a few of the center’s major projects.
http://history.nasa.gov/ercaiaa.html" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685
If this paper doesn't fit the guidelines of PF, then please delete this quote and link.
Delete the quote and link? I don't think so. I think a thank you is in order.

Thank you!

cited paper said:
This paper reviews the origins of NASA’s Electronics Research Center. Few know of the existence of the center, which remains the only major center that the space agency has closed.
I have worked for NASA for 30+ years (yikes!), including one of the organizations sited in that paper, and even I didn't know about this closed center until now. Interesting.
 
  • #16
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,991
4,810
What do you do for NASA DH?
 
  • #17
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,833
1,769
Delete the quote and link? I don't think so. I think a thank you is in order.

Thank you!



I have worked for NASA for 30+ years (yikes!), including one of the organizations sited in that paper, and even I didn't know about this closed center until now. Interesting.
:smile:
 

Related Threads on NASA Thank you

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
754
Top