It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

isnt it shame for USA/NASA?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
the NASA space budget for one year is greater than the Ruscosmos(russia) budjet for10 years...they claim themselves to be world learders

yet I came to know that after the collapse of the colombia space shuttel uptil now(the discovery hasent taken off yet) the aging Russian soyuz had been the only link of NASA to space ........is the ifo correct......if so isnt it a shame for the NASA?




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
the NASA space budget for one year is greater than the Ruscosmos(russia) budjet for10 years...they claim themselves to be world learders

yet I came to know that after the collapse of the colombia space shuttel uptil now(the discovery hasent taken off yet) the aging Russian soyuz had been the only link of NASA to space ........is the ifo correct......if so isnt it a shame for the NASA?


the original poster I'm guessing does not use English as their first language, to make sure the thread doesn't simply die because people can't be bothered to read I've roughly re-wrote it.

The yearly NASA space budget is roughly equal to ten years of the Russian space budget, they claim that they are world leaders.
I’ve come to know that after the collapse of the Colombia Space Shuttle, the aging Russian Soyuz has been the only link for NASA to reach space, is this information correct, if so, isn’t it a shame for NASA?



[edit on 15-7-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The shame lies on the politicians who tell NASA what to spend the money on. NASA is forced to use a certain company or product because some congressman's home town/state is where that product is made or that company is based.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
hmm.. Yeah.. these NASA guys have become very paranoid with the shuttles..
One should up the security.. If the terrorists get a whiff of how simple it is to fatally damage the launch vehicle, the shuttle may be one of their targets..


But as of now luckily these guys are only into mindless explosions and not sneaky sabotage..


apc

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
We're using old junk because politics has put off, for far too long, the development of new lifting technology...

How many other countries have had their rockets explode on the pad?
A lot.

How many other countries have had their rockets explode a few feet off the pad?
A lot.

How many other countries have consistantly and safely placed men into orbit time and time again?
One... barely two.

Have we been due for a hiccup or two? Absolutely... unfortunately people have to die before bureaucrats take action.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
NASA is a government agency...of course politicians are going to give them direction. It's a good thing, too, because we haven't had direction in a long time...whatever you want to think about W, he's done a great job giving NASA a kick in the pants.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hmm.. Yeah.. these NASA guys have become very paranoid with the shuttles..


Very paranoid?????

If NASA had been as catious in 1986 as they are now, Challenger would never have exploded!

NASA are correct to be paranoid, their whole future lies on the success of Discovery's 'Return To Flight' mission!

Mic



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join