And Moon, you may want to check your dates (as I assume this is what you're referring to), as I believe its still the 1st.
No doubt a tragic event, but one that was bound to happen. And by that I mean that accidents happen. Every time you fly in a plane or drive in a car, you run the risk of getting into an accident of sorts. Imagine those same risks at Mach-20...
The government has been cutting back NASA's budget incredibly over the past few years, and this will just give them more reason to do so (in their minds). Our short-minded administration will likely ensure that NASA's money will go to things that are more "important" to mankind, such as "Homeland Security" and "fighting terrorism."![]()
If anything, I'm a believer that MORE funds should be put forth towards such experiments, which would also be one way of making it safer. NASA, despite having the latest in science and tech to work with, is also dealing with 30-year old technology to help them accomplish their tasks. We aren't in this for the short-term goals. Publicity stunts like Denis Tito's trip are not what manned space flights are about, and its that near-sighted thinking that pisses me off so much. Manned space flight is a very complex, and dangerous endeavor. The amount of time, effor, and technology that goes into a single one of these is more than enough to bankrupt half the countries on the planet. People who think that this stuff is easy or cheap, are simply naive. Those who are expecting immediate results are as well.
When NASA had the accident early on in the Apollo missions, it somewhat sparked a desire in NASA, and even in the country (after some convincing), to pursue this field even further. A tragic event became a catalyst for future space missions. The Challenger explosion (17 years ago this week) was a big speed bump, one that some have still not gotten over yet. Unfortunately, I fear that this one may be what kills, or seriously limits, manned space travel and experimentation in the near future.
Hopefully the American public's knee-jerk reaction won't be to pull such projects from NASA, as the cost for future generations would be far worse than one lost shuttle and seven dead astronauts. It has been risks taken into the unknown which have spurred advancements of us as a species over the past thousands of years. Its not hard to believe that the world, as we know it today, would never have existed if explorers such as Magellan deemed crossing the Atlantic "too risky." However, those risks were taken, for what we'd like to think is a "greater good" for mankind (yeah, most were looking for riches and the like, but the end result is the same).
Bleh, I'm too tired to comment any further, as I've already rambled too far as it is.
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
- Gus Grissom (1926-1967), at a press conference for the first manned Apollo mission.
No doubt a tragic event, but one that was bound to happen. And by that I mean that accidents happen. Every time you fly in a plane or drive in a car, you run the risk of getting into an accident of sorts. Imagine those same risks at Mach-20...
The government has been cutting back NASA's budget incredibly over the past few years, and this will just give them more reason to do so (in their minds). Our short-minded administration will likely ensure that NASA's money will go to things that are more "important" to mankind, such as "Homeland Security" and "fighting terrorism."
If anything, I'm a believer that MORE funds should be put forth towards such experiments, which would also be one way of making it safer. NASA, despite having the latest in science and tech to work with, is also dealing with 30-year old technology to help them accomplish their tasks. We aren't in this for the short-term goals. Publicity stunts like Denis Tito's trip are not what manned space flights are about, and its that near-sighted thinking that pisses me off so much. Manned space flight is a very complex, and dangerous endeavor. The amount of time, effor, and technology that goes into a single one of these is more than enough to bankrupt half the countries on the planet. People who think that this stuff is easy or cheap, are simply naive. Those who are expecting immediate results are as well.
When NASA had the accident early on in the Apollo missions, it somewhat sparked a desire in NASA, and even in the country (after some convincing), to pursue this field even further. A tragic event became a catalyst for future space missions. The Challenger explosion (17 years ago this week) was a big speed bump, one that some have still not gotten over yet. Unfortunately, I fear that this one may be what kills, or seriously limits, manned space travel and experimentation in the near future.
Hopefully the American public's knee-jerk reaction won't be to pull such projects from NASA, as the cost for future generations would be far worse than one lost shuttle and seven dead astronauts. It has been risks taken into the unknown which have spurred advancements of us as a species over the past thousands of years. Its not hard to believe that the world, as we know it today, would never have existed if explorers such as Magellan deemed crossing the Atlantic "too risky." However, those risks were taken, for what we'd like to think is a "greater good" for mankind (yeah, most were looking for riches and the like, but the end result is the same).
Bleh, I'm too tired to comment any further, as I've already rambled too far as it is.
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
- Gus Grissom (1926-1967), at a press conference for the first manned Apollo mission.
img>
It's like a manic depressive, it has good times and it has bad; this is one of the bad times. 
), I think that if NASA is gonna do a launch program on a certain date, I think that it should be for a agenda. Like Apollo, for example. If it was jsut to go out into space, awe hell no! But if it was for exploration of a planet, then yeah, i can deal with that. I don't like seeing people get killed overj ust travel into space, but it was for finding what else is out there, then sure, I could probably deal with that just as long as the one's who are going out there are capable to take the risks they're gonna take.-Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers.-
-Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers.-