×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Taps Charles Bolden To Lead NASA

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the in-need-of-a-steadying-hand dept.

NASA 199

viyh notes that President Obama has named former astronaut Charles F. Bolden Jr. as NASA administrator. Obama's campaign space adviser, Lori Garver, will be Bolden's deputy. Bolden flew four shuttle missions, two as commander, as well as 100 combat missions over Viet Nam. If confirmed, Bolden will take over an agency uncertain of its direction. The shuttle Atlantis's landing will mark the end of the servicing era — it was the last planned mission to repair any satellite. Some inside the agency are less than happy about how NASA's future looks from here.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

199 comments

Uncertain? (5, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068525)

I thought NASA was pretty damned certain of where they were heading over the next few years, the only uncertain part was what the next NASA administrator would try to change.

Re:Uncertain? (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068651)

the only uncertain part was what the next NASA administrator would try to change.

And how much the next president cuts their budget.

Re:Uncertain? (2, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068931)

there is nothing left to cut because the cow went dry...

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money." http://www.drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm [drudgereport.com]

Re:Uncertain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069897)

It's refreshing that someone calls deficit spending for what it is. IMO.

Re:Uncertain? (1)

hypnolizard (1464539) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069175)

Its because we didn't invest enough in Science & Engineering so the only astronauts available will be foreign graduates on H1Bs.

He's gone back to basics to tackle the education bit first by putting the money there.

Qualifications?! Dude, He's Black (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069971)

Get with the program, would you?

NASA requires a technologically oriented manager. (0, Troll)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068719)

What's uncertain is how well an experienced pilot with very little technical knowledge [wikipedia.org] can run a huge agency that has extremely complicated technical problems.

Why do people think that managers with little technical knowledge can run technological organizations?

I've written some articles [futurepower.net] about that issue.

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068829)

simple a puppet..

if thay put smeone who knows what the hell thay are ding in there then how can Obama ever git what he wants witch in nasa limmated and private space like the falcon project witch should really be named phniox or maybe thay damn jupater programe insted of aries

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (1)

Cyrus20 (1345311) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068873)

witch? git? seriously please read your posts before you submit

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068925)

he's clearly a NASA insider who had her/his spell-checker budget slashed.

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (4, Interesting)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068985)

Have you read your first link? Besides, have you ever seen the cockpit of a fighter before? let alone the space shuttle? He was a damned test pilot, his whole job was to fly questionable craft at ridiculous speeds, i'm sure he knows how to spot and fix technical problems. Now he's piloting NASA, i think he'll do fine.

The last guy, Griffin, had 7 degrees and i think everyone was unhappy with him. So we gave an academic a shot, now let's try someone else.

Selected by NASA in May 1980, Bolden became an astronaut in August 1981. His technical assignments included: Astronaut Office Safety Officer; Technical Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations; Special Assistant to the Director of the Johnson Space Center; Astronaut Office Liaison to the Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance Directorates of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Kennedy Space Center; Chief of the Safety Division at JSC; Lead Astronaut for Vehicle Test and Checkout at the Kennedy Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator, NASA Headquarters. A veteran of four space flights, he has logged over 680 hours in space. Bolden served as pilot on STS-61C (January 12â"18, 1986) and STS-31 (April 24â"29, 1990), and was the mission commander on STS-45 (March 24, 1992 â" April 2, 1992), and STS-60 (February 3-11, 1994).

Bolden was the first person to ride the Launch Complex 39 slidewire baskets which enable rapid escape from a shuttle on the launch pad. The need for a human test was determined following a launch abort on STS-41-D where controllers were afraid to order the crew to use the untested escape system.

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (4, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069845)

his whole job was to fly questionable craft at ridiculous speeds

He'll fit right in with the other drivers on the Beltway (I-495.)

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (1)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069871)

He'll fit right in with the other drivers on the Beltway (I-495.)

Local humor, hilarious(to the 5 people reading this that live in your area).

The head of NASA needs to think like a designer. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069913)

He's been a test pilot, and all that implies.

That does not imply that he is a design engineer, which is what is required. The head of NASA does not need to do design himself, but he needs to think like a designer, and recognize the likely limitations of every design and of every test of every design.

Re:NASA requires a technologically oriented manage (4, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069987)

I think it is worthy to note that he also achieved the rank of Major General (two-star general)... in of all things the U.S. Marine Corps. That is also by itself an impressive accomplishment in a branch that is loathsome to do promotions of any kind... at least compared to the other military branches. If it were merely for his accomplishments as an astronaut, he should have been merely a full Colonel, as it typical for most retired astronauts.

This also indicates a level of leadership skills, showing that the Marine Corps would be willing to trust him with a group of Marines at least as numerous as the number of employees that can be found at NASA. The NASA administrator and a division commander (often a Major General) could be considered quite comparable in terms of responsibilities.

Why this might be a point of contention to show a lack of qualifications boggles my mind.

African-American Racism Against Whites & Asian (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069003)

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks. Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate. Only about 65% of them supported Obama.

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama due to the Democratic party (and its ideals) that he has supported. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.

Re:African-American Racism Against Whites & As (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069313)

Now I realize you're a trolling fuck wad, but 65 is a bigger number than 35. 65% is still a majority.

Re:African-American Racism Against Whites & As (1)

guinsu (198732) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069647)

I don't see anything about the racial bias in white's voting patterns. In fact going by the voting patterns of Asians and Hispanics whites should have voted 65% for Obama - which would have easily won him the election blacks or not. Way to push racism on one group while ignoring any others.

Re:Uncertain? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069475)

According to a friend of mine who is working on Orion, they desperately need someone to go in there in clean out the bureaucracy. Any change to the design, no matter how small, has to clear dozens of bureaucrats, which have hung on to the organization like leeches for decades.

Major changes have become downright impossible. The original plan for Orion was a completely new design that offered several aerodynamic improvements, but the bureaucrats threw it out, because it was too big a change from the old tried-and-true designs.

While there is certainly something to be said for playing it safe and sticking with known-good technology, the bureaucracy keeps NASA from making any revolutionary leaps forward.

So yes, NASA's future will be nice and consistent, barring major changes by the new admin. But it will be a nice, consistent decay into irrelevancy. If Bolden shakes things up a bit, then NASA might be able to start making the huge leaps that it was once known for. I wouldn't count on it though.

What is NASA to Americans? (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068583)

Used to be, back when I was in high school, that we listened to Kennedy's speeches about space and dreamed of becoming astronauts. NASA, in those days, was something of a heroic world where the best and brightest grouped to find ways to get men to the moon and return them safely to Earth.

We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen. They were our Sanjaya back then. The right stuff, they had it, and we wanted to have it too.

But now, NASA is just a sad shadow of what it used to be. The agency is hamstrung by lack of funding, but more than that, in the decades that have passed since I was a boy, educational standards have dropped to such an extent that even if we were to increase funding to reasonable levels, that we'd need to bring in foreign contractors just to make up the intelligence gap.

The average American doesn't care about space. They care about what is directly in front of them. Their car, their job (if they still have it), and their bellies. The curiousity and hunger for space is gone except in a scattered few.

It'll be another 12 years before any kind of rehabilition can take place. Until the next generation of kids passes through schools that encourage thought, discipline, and creativity and not just feel-good, everyone wins, it only matters if you try "education".

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068633)

News flash: The Apollo program was run by non-Americans. Without expertise you imported from Germany it never would have got off the ground.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068953)

True, but at least we had the determination and will to bring the best and brightest to get the job done. Today our immigration policy is close our eyes to the influx of service-hungry uneducated Mexicans, and close the borders to the educated Europeans. Yeah, that's going to be a long-term success.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068671)

Do you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest, pooftah?

On Monday, we celebrate the fallen soldiers who died while freeing you from enslavement in two World Wars. In another couple of weeks, we'll also celebrate being rid of the Brits and their everloving Queen and her retarded offspring.

America is doing just fine, thank you very much. While you and your ilk can look on with envy, we'll remain the only relevant international power, and -- don't worry -- we'll be there to save your asses when you need it again in the future.

God bless America

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068921)

Relevant international power? LOL. BTW, what is Viet Nam? I've only heard of Vietnam.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069237)

The Vietnamese name consists of two parts (the third letter unfortunately cannot be represented properly on /. - its html code is & # 7879 ; (ignore spaces)). Therefore, in my area (San Francisco Bay Area), where a lot of Vietnamese live, Vietnam is commonly called Viet Nam.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069157)

When your examples of how a country is still going strong are 65, 90 and 230 years old respectively, you've done some calculations wrong.

naaahhhhh (2, Interesting)

whistlingtony (691548) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068695)

I agree that NASA is a pale shadow of what it used to be. I'm not sure I agree with why.

Kids are fine these days. There are plenty of smart folks out there kicking ass. Why is it that every generation thinks kids suck today? Have we all forgotten the stupid stuff we did?

NASA may be lacking funding, but are they using the funding they have wisely?

Why do we maintain the space station? There's no real good science going on. Why do we want to go to the moon? There's nothing there. Why would we want a colony on Mars or the Moon? No magnetic shield makes radiation very hazardous. We can't live there.

Why don't we use robots? Well, we do, and frankly all the good exploration comes from robots, not from people.

Yes, we've lost the jazzy "coolness" of space. Know why? 'Cause it's EMPTY. Nothing there. Nothing to get excited about. B O R I N G.

Lets explore the oceans instead!

Lets put our gumption and know how to solving problems here. There's plenty to go around... and you know what? Plenty of people hack, build, problem solve, and explore right here.

Creativity and exploration isn't dead. It just went somewhere more fascinating than cold empty space.

-T

Re:naaahhhhh (3, Interesting)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068905)

Why don't we use robots? Well, we do, and frankly all the good exploration comes from robots, not from people.

Sample #15415 would disagree with you...

Re:naaahhhhh (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069037)

Lets put our gumption and know how to solving problems here. There's plenty to go around... and you know what? Plenty of people hack, build, problem solve, and explore right here.

This is very true, but it isn't the same issue as NASA's relationship to the politics surrounding Apollo. There was no pressing scientific or technical reason to push for a lunar landing before 1970. JFK made a credible political case for it. Lots of emotion, lots of handwaving, lots of Red Baiting. It just happened to be in a sphere the US is / was pretty good at (high tech).

Since then, NASA hasn't had the high profile testosterone producing issue to follow the lunar landings. Mars? A bit too far away to sustain the hype. ISS - an interesting case. It certainly has increased our ability to do long term grunt work in space - maintaining a manned station in a hostile environment, fixing said station without pre planning every bolt twist for five years, dealing with the myriad of details to do this without killing anyone and with significant budget constraints. That sort of thing doesn't get everybody's panties dropping even if it's more important in the long run.

Nope, we need some some of external challenge to get the gingiosm and the dollars flowing. If we can't find any helpful aliens, maybe we can cut a deal with the Chinese?

Re:naaahhhhh (3, Insightful)

diewlasing (1126425) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069135)

Are you serious?

While I agree we need to explore our vast oceans more extensively, I completely and utterly agree space is empty and boring. There are so many things we don't know and haven't discovered (just like in the oceans). In fact, I would go so far as to say there's a whole universe out there we haven't explored. You're statement that space is boring and empty is highly suspect at best and downright wrong at worst.

And as for the space station, at the very least it gives us good data on how humans and possibly other living organisms can survive in space

Re:naaahhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069495)

I completely and utterly agree space is empty and boring.

ahh i believe someone mistyped

Re:naaahhhhh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069519)

Anyone who thinks space is empty and boring are they themselves .. empty and BORING. I am all for exploring the ocean, I love the ocean, I was raised right next to it and I have always been fascinated by it. But for the most part we know whats there, rocks, fish, whales, dolphins, corals, eels, plants, anemones, etc, etc. Can you tell me what it's like to be in the ocean, and see things for yourself just by a few crappy photos from an unmanned sub? No ... you can't. Just like you can't tell what it's like to stand on the surface of the moon and see the Earth in the sky, or to stand on the surface of another planet. People like you are the kind of people who assume that what they see on there Television and/or computer screen is what it is really like .... it's not. Either that or you have forgotten what it is like to actually BE THERE versus seeing it on a screen.

Re:naaahhhhh (1)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069567)

The nation's 15-year-olds make a poor showing on a newly released international test of practical math applications, ranking 24th out of 29 industrialized nations, behind South Korea, Japan and most of Europe. U.S. students' scores were comparable to those in Poland, Hungary and Spain.

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/mathscience/article-math2.htm [usatoday.com] If you can NOT use the math what worth is it. Tim S

Re:naaahhhhh (1)

genner (694963) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069947)

Yes, we've lost the jazzy "coolness" of space. Know why? 'Cause it's EMPTY. Nothing there. Nothing to get excited about. B O R I N G.

Lets explore the oceans instead!

Why? There's nothing there.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (2, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068713)

After Apollo was over, one of the greatest collection of scientists and researchers got their walking papers when NASA was disassembled. Why not take an agency like that and say "now, go cure cancer" or "figure out how to power the Nation for the next 1000 years"?

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068747)

...Because those two problems require vastly different fields and specialities than rocket science?

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069053)

Because rocket scientists don't want to be humanity's bitch, solving whatever problem you don't feel like thinking enough to solve?

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (5, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069245)

In brief, because it doesn't work like that. The people who built Apollo would not have a clue about curing cancer, because rocket building and molecular biology have bloody little in common. Nor can they reliably make Einstein-like leaps of genius. No one can.

If there's any problem with educational priorites, it is that "intelligence" is valued over hard-earned competence, and leaps of genius are romanticised at the expense of all the small, important steps.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069367)

True. I can picture a board meeting on how they'd attempt to cure cancer: "Lets point a rocket at it!"

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (2, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069389)

A lot of the science went into keeping humans alive where they shouldn't be. I'd say NASA knows a thing or two about the human body.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069557)

Apollo-era NASA was not a collection of scientists and researchers. It was an engineering job, first and foremost. They took stuff that was learned in 1943 Germany and applied it on a larger scale. Big engineering job, no research at all.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28070059)

Apollo-era NASA was not a collection of scientists and researchers. It was an engineering job, first and foremost. They took stuff that was learned in 1943 Germany and applied it on a larger scale. Big engineering job, no research at all.

It isn't exactly true that there was no research at all. There was a whole bunch of it, but I'll admit that it was applied sciences (material science and engineering research) rather than "pure" science like what was done for the planetary science expeditions of the Mariner and Voyager space probes.

The V-2 rocket had about as much in common with the Saturn V as the ENIAC has with the computer you are reading this from... other than the same lead engineer was in charge of the design of both the V-2 and the Saturn V.

All that more of a pity that the USA threw away Von Braun and his engineering team like yesterday's newspaper after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069613)

Like others have said, that's not NASA's area of expertise. That's more a job for DARPA, IMHO.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068733)

I can't help but agree that "the right stuff" is no longer there. There are a few still, and it will never go away completely, but too many are just sitting on their fat bottoms smoking pot.

Today you are more successful in the US if you work as a lawyer, work as a stock broker or is a criminal than anything else. And none of the occupations are really building any future.

Of course - this is cynic...

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (4, Funny)

robably (1044462) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068735)

There's a mistake there - Louis Armstrong was the jazz trumpeter and singer, it was his son, Neil Armstrong, who went to the moon.

I checked on the internet, it's true.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (3, Funny)

dietdew7 (1171613) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069185)

Anyway, that's what Wikipedia says. Just give me 10 minutes before you check it.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068797)

They care about what is directly in front of them

Usually, that's a TV, probably with coverage supplied by satellites, put there by someone's space program. I think NASA's failure (and all post-Apollo Presidents) has been to fail to point out the benefits, both direct and indirect, of space exploration. We're in a Reaganesque "government is stupid" era where national programs get the ingrained grief of being another step towards Socialism. Until that changes, we're not going to see bold spending. Hell, we can't even get national healthcare because of the contradictory argument that a government program won't fix what private healthcare ruined.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0, Offtopic)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069369)

You don't want national healthcare.

What will happen is someone will notice that nearly all (over 90%) of healthcare spending is spent on the last year of life. A law will be passed saying "let 'em die" more or less and this will rescue all healthcare in the US immediately - and the costs to the taxpayer will be 10% of what is spent today.

Not so popular with anyone over 50, but immensely popular with everyone under 50. And most of the people paying taxes, unless they happen to be older. The main difference between US healthcare and the rest of the world is that spending ratio. Eliminate it, and all will be well with healthcare spending.

But not so popular with anyone over 50.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (4, Insightful)

ZharK (48807) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069725)

You don't want national healthcare.

What will happen is someone will notice that nearly all (over 90%) of healthcare spending is spent on the last year of life. A law will be passed saying "let 'em die" more or less and this will rescue all healthcare in the US immediately - and the costs to the taxpayer will be 10% of what is spent today.

Not so popular with anyone over 50, but immensely popular with everyone under 50. And most of the people paying taxes, unless they happen to be older. The main difference between US healthcare and the rest of the world is that spending ratio. Eliminate it, and all will be well with healthcare spending.

But not so popular with anyone over 50.

I don't know about other countries with national healthcare plans, but where I live, it certainly isn't so that we don't spend on the dying. In fact it's common knowledge that a considerable amount of money is used for taking care of people their last year alive. My guess would be that this also is the case with a great deal of other countries having a national healthcare plan.
The whole argument you're making assumes that democratic governments would be allowed to treat elderly like that, I doubt it for most western countries.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

lag10 (667114) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068799)

We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen.

I think you mean Neil Armstrongs. Louis Armstrong was a musician, not an astronaut.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068853)

Louis Armstrong was a musician, not an astronaut.

But his cheeks ballooned out like he was undergoing catastrophic decompression, so the mistake is understandable.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068897)

We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen.

Louis was a trumpet player.
Neil was the first to ever touch another celestial body.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

devnulljapan (316200) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068943)

>BadAnalogyGuy (945258): We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen. They were our Sanjaya back then. The right stuff, they had it, and we wanted to have it too.

I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

The colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people going by
I see friends shaking hands saying how do you do
They're really saying I love you.

I hear babies crying, I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll never know
And I think to myself what a wonderful world
Yes I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I agree, always wanted to play the horn like that, but what does that have to do with NASA?

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

wbren (682133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069001)

We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen.

I also think of Louis Armstrong [wikipedia.org] as a superman. He played that trumpet like a god! But getting back to the article, I think Neil Armstrong [wikipedia.org] also qualifies as a superman.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1, Flamebait)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069017)

What is NASA?

It is a series of somewhat or even merely marginally related pork barrel projects created to provide economic stimulus to the aerospace engineering field. Each feast/famine cycle creates enough new engineers that when the next bust cycle happens there are enough unemployed engineers and technicians to start the next round of technology start-ups at pitiful wages.

Does it have much if anything to do with space itself? Not really. Since NASA is now going to be without a spacecraft to send up astronauts for the next dozen years or so (assuming that the Orion/Ares vehicles ever even get built) they might as well kill off the astronaut corp while they are at it.

I hate to be this pessimistic about NASA, and they did a lot of good back in the day. It is increasingly becoming ossified with institutional paranoia about trying anything new or even remotely dangerous (called risk aversion) and so much political in-fighting about a host of problems that for me it would be better to simply kill NASA as an agency altogether.

This is hardly the first time I've said this as well, but it is increasingly becoming more and more apparent all of the time. The aviation research could be done by the National Science Foundation (the first "A" in NASA) or reassigned to the FAA instead. Let the Jet Propulsion Lab be an independent agency with its own budget and a couple of the more valuable parts of NASA kept in the hands of other agencies (like NOAA) and then there is no reason at all to keep NASA.

There is no reason to care about space because there is nothing in NASA to care about other than NASA pork-barrel jobs in your own congressional district. That and that alone is all that is keeping NASA going at the moment.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069213)

Well, frankly, NASA's the only part of the budget I don't mind seeing my tax dollars go to.

You go ahead believing your taxes go to Congressmen's paychecks and welfare and food stamps and Medicare...I'll hold out hoping that mine's being diverted to Orion.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (2, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069597)

Well, frankly, NASA's the only part of the budget I don't mind seeing my tax dollars go to.

You go ahead believing your taxes go to Congressmen's paychecks and welfare and food stamps and Medicare...I'll hold out hoping that mine's being diverted to Orion.

I think you need to look a little closer to what is going on at NASA then. I love the idea of a government space exploration program. Having a bunch of heroes that do things like repairing a telescope in orbit and fixing it to be able to peer back in time to the very creation of the universe is something I find outstanding. This last shuttle flight was outstanding.

Unfortunately, there is no follow-up flight planned or anything like unto that to be done. The Space Shuttle program is canceled, and all that is left is to decide if perhaps one more flight might be added to the manifest.

Orion... the capsule itself... is something that may have a little bit of merit. It is essentially a revised and revamped Apollo command module capsule. The Ares rocket on the other hand is something that leaves much to be desired and is a step backward in terms of technological development. There is nothing novel or original going into that rocket and looks worse and worse as I dig into the details and how it got proposed in the first place.

No, I'm not necessarily a DIRECT fanboi either, as even that concept has its own set of problems, but at least they are trying to use some rational explanation for why they are building that vehicle. The Ares (I and V... or is that VI or IX) is merely a way to to keep folks employed at NASA who have been designing rockets. As the panic over the fact that NASA will have no manned spaceflight vehicle soon, and that it will be years before they will be able to get back up there (along with unrealistic expectations of congressional funding levels in the future) it all seems doomed to nearly certain failure.

I suppose in the grand scheme of things dumping money into Orion is still better spend taxpayer money than getting dumped into a socialized medicine feasibility study and pilot project. That I might agree with. Still, there is so much better work that could be done with those funds that it makes me cry thinking about what could be done and comparing that to what is being done with that money.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

sgage (109086) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069039)

"We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen. They were our Sanjaya back then."

Yes, ol' Louis Armstrong was the man. He could blow a mean trumpet, and his version of "Hello Dolly" is still the gold standard.

But I think perhaps you meant Neil Armstrong...

What is NASA to Americans? Old. (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069137)

"NASA, in those days, was something of a heroic world where the best and brightest grouped to find ways to get men to the moon and return them safely to Earth."

That's because they were doing something we've never done before. Once we went to the moon, Americans (and humanity in general) were bored with the whole thing... been there, done that. During the Apollo 13 mission, networks cut over to Batman. Higher ratings, you know. Not even going to Mars will have the excitement that the Apollo program first had. Once you've been through that door, the rest of the doors look the same. You wont see the same kind of excitement that Apollo had until the first teleportation machine is built.

"But now, NASA is just a sad shadow of what it used to be. The agency is hamstrung by lack of funding"

NASA is a shadow of what it was because it has matured into a useful, mature agency; one that services satellites with reusable craft, and explores extra-terrestrial bodies via robots. Boring, but very much useful. Mature is neccessary, but mature isn't exciting.

"educational standards have dropped to such an extent that even if we were to increase funding to reasonable levels, that we'd need to bring in foreign contractors just to make up the intelligence gap."

This is mostly hype, and mostly wrong. As an old rock star said, the good 'ole days weren't always good. Schools did used to be more effective, but only because curriculums had a more practical focus (practical maths, job skills, trade skills). On paper, requirements have only gone up, unreasonably so in many cases. We're sending our kids to school earlier, graduating them later, and keeping them in classrooms more hours per day and more weeks per year. Now we're talking about mandating pre-K for all kids. Educational standards aren't the problem, because we're fast coming to a point where we'll put kids in schools as soon as they're physically able. And it's all foolishness.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069167)

"Until the next generation of kids passes through schools that encourage thought, discipline, and creativity and not just feel-good, everyone wins"

Ah-ha, so THAT's who's to blame, the feel-good everyone wins liberals!

I don't think that's very insightful. Sinking educational standards are a product of many forces. But keep some perspective.

First, whether NASA has a pool of 12000 qualified people to choose from, or 11000 doesn't really matter very much - the benefit of hiring an extremely qualified person over another marginally less qualified person is so small, it hardly matters.

Second, hiring the right person is hard. If you were trying to decide between the best and the second best of those 12000, I bet you would choose the "wrong" person half the time.

Third, space exploration, like most science, isn't particularly genius-driven. Just because you use your head in your job doesn't mean you aren't replaceable.

Fourth, the kind of genius that could potentially make a big difference was never reliably produced by any school system.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069347)

that we'd need to bring in foreign contractors just to make up the intelligence gap.

Nonsense. NASA's a big agency, but not so big that it couldn't meet its hiring requirements purely by hiring Americans (not that that is necessarily a good idea for other reasons).

Name a single scientific or technical field where it is impossible to find an American.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (2, Insightful)

dcollins117 (1267462) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069433)

The agency is hamstrung by lack of funding...

I actually had to look this one up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget/ [wikipedia.org]. I guess it depends on your perspective. 17 billion dollars sounds OK to me.

FWIW, I have never heard of a government agency that said it *wasn't* hamstrung by lack of funding, thereby justifying a higher budget each year. That's how the game is played.

Bringing you to Neil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069711)

Neil Armstrong [wikipedia.org] was the astronaut.

Louis Armstrong [wikipedia.org] played the trumpet.

No doubt, Louis had the right stuff, but it was a different stuff than Alan Shepard and Buzz Aldrin.

Re:What is NASA to Americans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28070001)

We looked at the Alan Shepards, Louis Armstrongs, and Buzz Aldrins as supermen.

What did Satchmo have to do with NASA?

astronauts make great astronauts (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068603)

But Frank Borman did not get the job done as the CEO of Eastern Airlines, while John Glenn was less than impressive as a Democratic Presidential candidate in 1984 (and was one of the Keating 5).

In pro sports, Hall of Fame athletes are more than not failures as head coaches.

One problem could be that the program, while brutally tough, is laid out for these guys. As head of the organization, they'll be the ones creating and staffing the program instead of following it.

Re:astronauts make great astronauts (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068697)

Flash forward 24 years, and fellow Keating 5 pal John McCain was less than impressive as a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Re:astronauts make great astronauts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068999)

I don't know if you're trying to make a joke here, but for the record John McCain was the Republican presidential candidate. Very seldom in his campaign did he stray from the Party line.

Re:astronauts make great astronauts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28069651)

I don't know if you're trying to make a joke here, but for the record John McCain was the Republican presidential candidate. Very seldom in his campaign did he stray from the Party line.

Anybody who has paid attention to John McCain knows that he was pissed when Jim Jeffords [wikipedia.org] switched parties to become a Democrat. John McCain seemingly wanted to do that for years, and was constantly voting with Democrats in the Senate for a great many years.

BTW, this was a joke, and I agree with the sentiment. John McCain was a less than impressive Democratic Party Presidental candidate for the Republican Party. I guess it was that last little prepositional phrase that was missing.

The Republican's shouldn't complain too loudly though.... it was Republicans who choose Obama as the candidate of the Democratic Party.

Re:astronauts make great astronauts (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068835)

But, it doesn't look like Bolden got the job because he's got name recognition or he's a crowd favorite that will fill the seats in the local stadium. The problem with a lot of these jokers you're speaking of, they ascend through the ranks because of their reputations and not their abilities. Had Donald Trump or William Shatner gotten the nod, I'd be worried.

The value of space exploration (1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068639)

What is the value of space exploration to us at this point in time? Not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely interested in people's responses.

Re:The value of space exploration (2, Informative)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068967)

It's a big link in our current communication chain for one.

The relative weightless environment lends itself to certain experiments.

Considering where we are going as a race is going to be important soon since we're starting to drain a lot of resources on Earth.

It's also not a good idea to keep "all of our eggs in one basket." Stepping off to other planets will not only give us access to a whole new set of resources but could be important if there was a mass extinction event on Earth.

And the funding for space R&D often finds it's way back to the homes of the tax payers just as military R&D does. The vast majority of all technology around you was funded by wars and man's desire for exploration.

Re:The value of space exploration (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069743)

The environmentalist idiots want to treat Earth as a closed system. No resources available from off-planet. They do not understand what that means, but they think it is a smart idea anyway.

I believe it is an important mission to teach them what is means.

When was the Earth last "sustainable", meaning that natural processes recycled wastes as fast (or faster) than they were produced? Oh, I'd say somewhere around 1800 or so. Maybe 1850. Certainly no later than that. Given that population level and a healthy level of technology, I think the carrying capacity of a sustainable Earth might be as many as 250 million. Not anywhere near 6 billion.

What does this mean? Well, it means that if you want to treat the Earth as a closed system and want to manage natural resources in a "sustainable" manner we need to reduce the population to about 250 million. Overnight. Or at least as quickly as possible. It is highly doubtful that a Islam vs. Rest of of the Planet war would kill that many people. Avian flu isn't going to kill more than a few hundred million, even by the worse estimates.

Nope, we need to offer the alternatives of use off-planet resources or start the killing. Cull 90% of the human race in the name of "sustainability" or get an active space program. One asteroid would provide resources that we haven't even considered for perhaps 25 t0 30 years. What biological and hydrocarbon resources could be gathered from cis-Jupiter space? Simple answer is lots and lots but we are short on specifics right now.

Could be the environmentalists are right. Could also be that the great culling might not really be necessary. I'd suggest giving off-planet resources a try. Sadly, I don't think very many people are going to put it to the leaders of the environmentalist movement quite this way. Where we are likely to go is having 6 billion people living on the resources of 250 million. And strong enforcement to make sure nobody uses more than their fair share.

Re:The value of space exploration (4, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069473)

There are a number of valuable aspects to space exploration.

First and foremost, there are more and better accessible resources of nearly every kind to be found in space. Contrary to detractors of this issue, the problem isn't getting the stuff to the Earth, but rather getting there in the first place with enough equipment to obtain those resources in the first place.

By resources, I mean heavy metals (gold, silver, platinum, iron, copper, aluminum, uranium, and much more) and energy that is available in such staggering amounts that it boggles the mind to even comprehend what is available. All of these can be obtained using existing technologies, or with technologies that have at least had some minor demonstration projects that aren't really exotic or different from what we are already doing on the Earth. Indeed, reducing iron oxide to pure iron is much, much easier to do in space and even beneficial for its "pollutants" (mainly oxygen).

On top of all this, these minerals and resources can be obtained with a much more minimal impact on the environment here on the Earth. If you genuinely are concerned about global warming, trying to figure out how to feed a growing global population, learning how to predict and avoid natural disasters like tsuamis and hurricanes.... all of this demands a strong and growing presence in space.

If that weren't enough, the countries and peoples that "control the high ground" will also have the military advantage in any future conflicts. Simply put, if the country you are in doesn't have a strong presence in space (or have a strong ally in space), you are screwed and doomed to be invaded or destroyed as a nation. The economic rationale is a strong one and has a huge and more immediate impact, but this military issue is all that more important to remember, and ultimately the one that got America and Russia into space in the first place. Worries about weapons in space are misplaced.... they are already there and have been deployed there for decades, regardless of what governments may have said in the past.

In addition to all of the above reasons, whenever people get into a new situation and have to work on solutions for new problems, that knowledge gained from living in that new environment can be adapted to other situations back in more familiar territory. Just being in a new situation will allow neural synapses to be organized in a new configuration within your brain, meaning that you are literally going to be thinking differently than others who have not been in that situation, such as being an astronaut in space. This is going to give a diversity of experience that will ultimately enrich all of humanity just simply by being there at all. For this reason alone, it is a pity that more people have not been to the Moon than the dozen men that went there.... we certainly don't have a female perspective of what it is like to walk on the Moon.

The scientific, political, and cultural knowledge that can be gained by going into space is something that is literally immeasurable. If we don't get into space and stay there... and expand our presence in space, humanity is doomed to extinction. It will have also been a waste of life for us to not get there.

Now as to if NASA is the best way to accomplish the task of going into space for Americans, that is something of a much more worthy debate. The key to unleashing the potential of space exploration is to drastically reduce the cost of getting up there in the first place. Common ordinary citizens need to have the ability to go up there and become prospectors, settlers, amateur explorers, and artists... and do so without having a government hand-out to get there.

NASA has supposedly been trying to reduce the cost of going into space with multiple vehicle prototypes like the Space Shuttle, Venture Star, DC-X, and so many other vehicles that it is nearly impossible to name all of the vehicle designs that have been proposed and in many cases had some initial hardware built for those designs. It would literally boggle your mind unless you have been following NASA closely for the past couple of decades. The one "solution" that NASA has all their hopes and dreams pinned upon is the new "Ares" spacecraft, which after all these decades is actually going to be more expensive in terms of how much it is going to cost per pound of stuff put into orbit than the Saturn series of spacecraft. My, what an amazing accomplishment with nearly $200 billion dollars spent on R&D for manned spaceflight over the past several decades since the Apollo program was canceled.

This is why I'm cynical about NASA, and view them as an obstacle to be overcome on the road to humanity getting to the stars. This should not be the case, but they have become a classical government agency of do-nothings.

I hear one of his first changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068643)

NASA will start orbiting Earth to the left instead of the the proper orientation to the right as god intends.

Did anyone else notice this? (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068661)

Bolden is black, just like Obama. That's pretty cool.

Maybe it's just your ignorance, but how many of you didn't realize we had astronauts of many different races and creeds?

Re:Did anyone else notice this? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068741)

Yeah! Bout time we start promoting people based on skin color!

Re:Did anyone else notice this? (4, Insightful)

Mt._Honkey (514673) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068763)

Bolden is black, just like Obama. That's pretty cool. Maybe it's just your ignorance, but how many of you didn't realize we had astronauts of many different races and creeds?

Where the hell did this comment come from, and why is it being modded up? To whose ignorance are you referring? Why is it particularly cool that the NASA administrator and the president are the same color? Would it be less cool if he were some other color? Can you rank for us the various color permutations in order of coolness?

Re:Did anyone else notice this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068809)

Look at his nick. He's just trolling.

Re:Did anyone else notice this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068977)

I just want my president and my nasa administrators to match, ok!

Honestly? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068991)

I don't really pay any attention to what skin color or ethnic background other people are from. It's not like it makes any difference as to what kind of person they are. So I just don't worry about it, even if they're the first race or ethnicity to do or be something.

Jim Wetherbee (4, Interesting)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068771)

I've had the distinct pleasure of working with Jim Wetherbee, the man who has commanded more NASA shuttle flights than any other.

During that time I asked him why he left NASA. And I don't want to put words into his mouth, but suffice it to say I think he felt like the country's support of NASA is terrible and he decided he wanted to go somewhere that he could make a difference (because he no longer felt that way in NASA).

It's sad really. The space program, while expensive, has resulted in many great technological discoveries and inventions. And yet do you even know how small of a percent of our GDP goes towards it? It's pathetic.

I only hope this Bolden is something like Jim Wetherbee. If so, there may be some hope yet.

Re:Jim Wetherbee (1)

quisxt (462797) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069159)

While there is no question that some great technical discoveries and inventions have come out of the space program, it's an open question whether funding NASA is a good way to use the limited amount of money our country is willing to spend on basic science and technology research. We aren't in a space race with the Russians anymore, and astronauts are not longer rockstars who get ticker tape parades when they return safely to earth. These days NASA has to compete at the trough for public funding like everyone else. Them's the breaks. Our country has lived beyond its means for decades. Instead of going to space the challenge the next generation will be faced with is cleaning up all the financial and environmental messes our generation and previous generations created.

Need a new direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068815)

I don't think the problem with NASA is funding. I think it's more that it's become directionless pretty much since we landed on the moon, and especially once the Cold War was over.

What we need are new goals beyond simply exploration. It's a fine goal, but exploration for the sake of exploration is not sustainable. It can't be an end in itself, there must be a next step.

Back in colonial times, the next step after exploration was either settlement or trade. Why can't we apply it now?

Take the moon. We landed there, and then what? We never followed up. I don't know the numbers, but I would guess a moon base would have been far cheaper to build and maintain than the flying hunk of debris we call the International Space Station.

Re:Need a new direction (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069181)

We colonised, traded, eventually enslaved, because there were things to extract, sell, harvest. It's the Moon we're talking about here, a huge desert from which nothing profitable can come from, not even Helium 3.

And what on Earth makes you think that a Moon base would be cheaper than a space station?? I can't begin to fathom what would make you think that letting a cluster of airtight tanks at our door step would be easier than building, manning and maintaining a fucking village on the Moon. And what for anyways? What do you want a colony on the Moon for??

Taps? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068851)

Why is it that whenever the President appoints/nominates someone for an important position, the word 'taps' is mentioned.

Given that this is Memorial Weekend, the word Taps is more associatied with the bugle call for fallen soldiers, and is approppriate for remembering the Challenger and Columbia crews, (and Grissom White and Chaffee)

Re:Taps? (1)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 4 years ago | (#28068993)

Because when President Obama asks someone to work for his administration, he taps them on the back of the shoulder, and says "Hey pal, you lookin for work?".

Re:Taps? (1)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069031)

Why is it that whenever the President appoints/nominates someone for an important position, the word 'taps' is mentioned.

Because taps can mean "To select, as for membership in an organization; designate."

As a veteran, I fought in the Gulf War specifically for the freedom to use the word taps when selecting someone.

Fuck NASA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28068997)

Why the fuck do we pump money in stupid ass NASA when we can't even feed our own fucking people. Fuck you assholes for going along with this bullshit, eggheaded nerds.

This is about scraping the Aeres I and saving $ (4, Informative)

docbrody (1159409) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069027)

Obama wants to combine efforts with the the Air Force, which has a MUCH larger space program and a proven launch capability (Delta IV, Atlas V) already in hand. We will get to the moon faster and cheaper adapting the Airforce's existing technology, rather than letting NASA continue to flail and fail with the Ares I. Choosing Bolden has less to do with his background as an astronaut and more to do with the fact that he was a former general in the US Airforce. Obama wants to "To boost cooperation between NASA and the Pentagon," by, "reviv[ing] the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents, most actively from 1958 to 1973." - including during the original missions to the moon! Insiders at Nasa, including former chief Michael Griffin are extremely resistant. They want to build and control their own technology (this should be familiar to anyone who has ever managed developers). âoeNo one really has a firm idea what NASAâ(TM)s cost savings might be, but the militaryâ(TM)s launch vehicles are basically developed,â said John Logsdon, a policy expert at Washingtonâ(TM)s National Air and Space Museum who has conferred with Obamaâ(TM)s transition advisers. âoeYou donâ(TM)t have to build them from scratch.â And thats the key. All quotes taken from: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g [bloomberg.com]

I hope so (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069659)

This is about scraping the Aeres I and saving $

I hope so. Ares is nonsense. One tiny rocket whose sole job is to lift the crew module into orbit, and it can't even do that; and one giant beast of a rocket that is so big that they can barely fit it through the doors of the assembly building, and will require completely new factories to build. Without the Ares V, Ares I has nothing to lift crew to, except to jump onto the ISS treadmill. Plus, that's all it can lift. No more supplies. No more spare parts. No more modules. Just people up, people down.

NASA already has a successful launch system in the STS system. By simply moving the crew to a module on top of the stack, and moving the engines to the bottom of the stack, you wind up with a vehicle that can lift more than what the shuttle can. Because it is using all the same components, it is essentially already man-rated. Using current components (many of which are in stock) it can be ready sooner. A Jupiter rocket can be built right now, using the same factories that produce the SRBs and External Tanks for current shuttle missions. That means that people will be able to keep their jobs now, instead of having to wait for ten years to maybe work on ARES.

Re:This is about scraping the Aeres I and saving $ (3, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069771)

You hit upon something that does need to be made apparent to other American taxpayers here:

NASA is not only smaller than the U.S. Air Force's space program, it is also smaller than the National Security Agency's space program as well. That is right, not just the #2 space program in America but actually it is #3... in terms of dollars spent and personnel employed on making things that go into space. That should be a hugely sobering thought by itself.

I hope that Obama actually does take a stronger interest in setting space policy, but his efforts to date seem rather lame and more resembling a policy of maintenance rather than trying to boldly set out a new course for NASA.

Re:This is about scraping the Aeres I and saving $ (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069969)

[quote]NASA is not only smaller than the U.S. Air Force's space program, it is also smaller than the National Security Agency's space program as well. [/quote]

You mean, National Reconaissance Office and Defense Mapping Agency.

Charles Bolden (2, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 4 years ago | (#28069627)

When you tap Charles Bolden, you may search for you Control NASA card and put it in your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...