“If you are asking me personally, I have not been a big fan of manned expeditions to outer space in terms of safety and cost. But people could make the case – technology is always changing … and that could change depending on the technology,” she said today in a press conference with regional reporters.
I don’t think that safety is that big an issue, though apparently the body politic insists that it is (which is why we make so little progress in opening the frontier). But she’s dead on. The current plan makes no fiscal sense whatsoever, but with a change in technology (e.g., orbital infrastructure), it could be improved dramatically. Of course, it would also involve not just a change in technology, but more importantly, a change in philosophy, from a government command-and-control space program to one much more attuned to market incentives and private initiative. Somehow, I suspect that Nancy will be much less interested in that…
Anyway, it’s a shame that the Augustine panel couldn’t put a stake through the heart of the money-sucking heavy-lift myth. But I’d be happy to attempt to persuade Madam Speaker (assuming that she’s sincere…OK…OK……..OK…………OK, you can stop laughing now) that there are better ways to go.
Yeah, but I think Nancy is talking about changes in technology like the invention of antigravity, or teleportation, or harnessing swans to fly us to the moon …
Shhhhhh!!!! your not supposed to talk about the magic swans on an open discussion board.
I wonder if she has an opinion on the chances that the technology is going to change?
Looking back on it all I’d be willing to give Dr. Griffin a solid B+ on his work at NASA. Heckava job Griffy!
I wonder though that in regards to Pelosi’s opinion on the safety topic that she is not a fan because of a perceived lack of safety. Not because she is critical of attempts to make things overly safe.
All I got from that is, “Space takes taxpayer money that should rightfully go to my campaign contributors and pet projects. Waaaaah. Oh, and then write something about how technology is good so I don’t sound completely Machiavellian.”
Swan is a good name for a piloted orbital vehicle. Much better than others I have heard.
Not as euphonious as Xoie though but much better than Brutus.
Actually, I agree with Ms. Pelosi. I am not in favour of manned expeditions to outer space either. But for a different reason. We ought to be working towards the day when going into outer space is not regarded as an expedition at all.
Whatever Nancy believes or does not believe is likely not to be very relevant in about another year and three weeks.
I don’t see her statement saying the current design is too expensive. (Though you’d think even she could realize that.) I think it was generally dismissive of any manned space actions. Obviously compared to the multi trillion dollar pork bills bouncing around, the money isn’t a issue – especially if the money goes into the right district. I doubt she’d be any more supportive if NASA fielded a CATS or low cost commercial based plan. Likely even less supportive.
I don’t see her statement saying the current design is too expensive.
Do you see that bulge in my cheek? It’s my tongue…
Let me see if I get this right.. she’s not in favor of exploration, in part, because it’s not safe enough. There’s something so deeply craven in that statement it’s hard to comprehend.
Hey, “craven” is her middle name.
Swan is a good name for a piloted orbital vehicle. Much better than others I have heard.
How about “Swan Song”?
this lady pelosi and the dems. keep saying that this awful bill is for the people, even if the majority of us don’t want the stupid thing, how arrogant are they to even believe the stupidiy in wich they speak. I hope pelosi and her gang rot in hell for all the evil they do.