I wrote:
> I think the current NASA program has lots of problems, and doesn't do a > whole lot of science,
Rob replied:
Thats just plain wrong Reggie.I rewrote that sentence about 20 times, and in the end pushed "send" on a version I didn't mean to go out. I basically meant your second sentence above, "NASA doesn't do a lot of good science on the shuttle" or on the ISS. Certainly Hubble, the recent solar observer (can't remember the name right now), and the other astronomy-related things you mention are valid.
"NASA doesnt do a lot of good science on the shuttle" would be more accurate
even though it might be debated.
But you have to recognise that NASA's contributions to astronomy if nothing
else. NASA has several space observatories in operation currently including
Hubble, a gamma ray observatory, an x-ray observatory and a couple of others
IIRC. (Ronn?)
I pretty much agree with everything else you say, except for this:
I would say that greedy people who think long-term would definitely want to be involved in the future of space exploration and colonization. It's just the greedy who think only short-term who are causing all the under-funding problems.In the course of time those who do these things will become wealthy. What is holding us back is timidity, laziness, and greed.
Amen.Its not beyond our reach. And to think so is a failure of the imagination.
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
