Conservative indeed. Smh

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/inside-politics/texas-politics/ted-cruz-deepfake-pornography-bill-deadline-f-35-nasa/287-77a3d3a5-abfc-46d9-8cdc-d08d1cd175d0

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I don't have an issue with NASA and the F-35.

Just because you don't like where things have been going you blow them up. You get them going in the right/focused direction under new leadership.

Silly take.

---

And the evidence that Cruz is getting "them going in the right/focused direction under new leadership"?

Jabin said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I don't have an issue with NASA and the F-35.

Just because you don't like where things have been going you blow them up. You get them going in the right/focused direction under new leadership.

Silly take.

---

And the evidence that Cruz is getting "them going in the right/focused direction under new leadership"?

---

That's not the job of Congress - that's the responsibility of the Executive branch.

I'm a massive fan of NASA but admittedly a lot of that is halo effect from our Golden, Right Stuff era. Now that technology has been democratized, I'm not sure where NASA fits anymore with the superior headwinds that private industry poses. We've obviously been heading more towards a public-private partnership which makes sense, but I'm not sure where that line should be and what NASA should specialize in vs what private industry should specialize in.

Elon has embarrassed NASA on the rocketry front so that seems like an easy cut for NASA to make. I've loosely followed NASA's rocket booster fiasco and that seems to be the nicest thing you can say about that mess. They seem to still do well with unmanned robotics and speciality functions.

Regarding the F-35, that seems to be something we should halt and start over. Being all things to all people generally doesn't work and that was the intent with this plane, right? I know it's massively over budget and behind schedule at this point which I'm sure is due to the fact that it's trying to do way too much.

All politicians regardless of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, will always support the MIC. As they should.

javajaws said:

---

Jabin said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I don't have an issue with NASA and the F-35.

Just because you don't like where things have been going you blow them up. You get them going in the right/focused direction under new leadership.

Silly take.

---

And the evidence that Cruz is getting "them going in the right/focused direction under new leadership"?

---

That's not the job of Congress - that's the responsibility of the Executive branch.

---

Absolutely wrong. It's the responsibility of both.

Simply continuing to throw money at problems is an abdication of leadership.

Even change costs money. Nothing is free.

YouBet said:

---

I'm a massive fan of NASA but admittedly a lot of that is halo effect from our Golden, Right Stuff era. Now that technology has been democratized, I'm not sure where NASA fits anymore with the superior headwinds that private industry poses. We've obviously been heading more towards a public-private partnership which makes sense, but I'm not sure where that line should be and what NASA should specialize in vs what private industry should specialize in.

Elon has embarrassed NASA on the rocketry front so that seems like an easy cut for NASA to make. I've loosely followed NASA's rocket booster fiasco and that seems to be the nicest thing you can say about that mess. They seem to still do well with unmanned robotics and speciality functions.

---

It could be argued that he has ultimately succeeded with the decades-old goal of increasing the commercialization and privatization of the space industry, much of the push for that coming from the agency itself. That has been a pretty steady drumbeat from the space industry ever since Challenger. Without a grandiose goal like putting man on the moon, NASA should more assume the role of a regulatory agency.

And that's not to say that there are still not elements within NASA who long for the glory days of massive budgets to support manned space programs, but those days are over. The ISS is the swan song of that NASA.

torrid said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Elon has embarrassed NASA on the rocketry front so that seems like an easy cut for NASA to make. I've loosely followed NASA's rocket booster fiasco and that seems to be the nicest thing you can say about that mess. They seem to still do well with unmanned robotics and speciality functions.

---

It could be argued that he has ultimately succeeded with the decades-old goal of increasing the commercialization and privatization of the space industry, much of the push for that coming from the agency itself. That has been a pretty steady drumbeat from the space industry ever since Challenger. Without a grandiose goal like putting man on the moon, NASA should more assume the role of a regulatory agency.

And that's not to say that there are still not elements within NASA who long for the glory days of massive budgets to support manned space programs, but those days are over. The ISS is the swan song of that NASA.

---

The future of space travel was written in sic-fi ad nauseam for the last several decades. Huge corporations that eventually become governments onto themselves will own it with loose regulatory oversight by governments who also try to have their own space capabilities in some form.

And we are seeing that very evolution play out in the post space shuttle era.

Old May Banker said:

---

We're to the point of calling one of the most conservative senators a swamp creature... great stuff.

---

Nah, just someone trying to stir the pot is doing it.

I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.

I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.

Reverse user name checks out

YouBet said:

---

torrid said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Elon has embarrassed NASA on the rocketry front so that seems like an easy cut for NASA to make. I've loosely followed NASA's rocket booster fiasco and that seems to be the nicest thing you can say about that mess. They seem to still do well with unmanned robotics and speciality functions.

---

It could be argued that he has ultimately succeeded with the decades-old goal of increasing the commercialization and privatization of the space industry, much of the push for that coming from the agency itself. That has been a pretty steady drumbeat from the space industry ever since Challenger. Without a grandiose goal like putting man on the moon, NASA should more assume the role of a regulatory agency.

And that's not to say that there are still not elements within NASA who long for the glory days of massive budgets to support manned space programs, but those days are over. The ISS is the swan song of that NASA.

---

The future of space travel was written in sic-fi ad nauseam for the last several decades. Huge corporations that eventually become governments onto themselves will own it with loose regulatory oversight by governments who also try to have their own space capabilities in some form.

And we are seeing that very evolution play out in the post space shuttle era.

---

Maybe. I could also see the long knives come out if there is ever a major Space X malfunction. Probably less so if it's Boeing or Blue Origin that screw up and someone dies. But I think with the type of advance technology we are dealing with, and with it becoming more and more present by the year, that's not a question of if it happens, but when. There will be many fools demanding that the government take it over when it does imo.

No issue with the F-35. Yeah, it's an expensive aircraft, but what aircraft is not expensive now? Plus, it should be a front-line asset for decades and ultimately replace other such long-serving airframes like the F-15 and F-18.

As for NASA, I have thought for several years now that the agency has outlived its purpose. That became clear to me when Obama declared NASA was a Muslim outreach program. Government should have a role in space, but not as in the glory days of Mercury and Apollo. This should be the purview of private enterprise.

The F-35 may be taking on a greater role going forward. The Air Force doesn't have the money to make the next generation of fighter with all of the bells and whistles in the quantities it would need for a possible war with China.

F-35's, B-21's, and 4th generation fighters would have to pick up the slack. Edit: Plus wingman drones.

YouBet said:

---

I'm a massive fan of NASA but admittedly a lot of that is halo effect from our Golden, Right Stuff era. Now that technology has been democratized, I'm not sure where NASA fits anymore with the superior headwinds that private industry poses. We've obviously been heading more towards a public-private partnership which makes sense, but I'm not sure where that line should be and what NASA should specialize in vs what private industry should specialize in.

Elon has embarrassed NASA on the rocketry front so that seems like an easy cut for NASA to make. I've loosely followed NASA's rocket booster fiasco and that seems to be the nicest thing you can say about that mess. They seem to still do well with unmanned robotics and speciality functions.

Regarding the F-35, that seems to be something we should halt and start over. Being all things to all people generally doesn't work and that was the intent with this plane, right? I know it's massively over budget and behind schedule at this point which I'm sure is due to the fact that it's trying to do way too much.

---

Halt and start over? It would take us until about 2065 to be at the same place with a replacement.

You can't make airplanes like they did in WWII anymore.

And by the time we got that Gen 5.5 aircraft ready, China/Russia would have Gen 6 aircraft already deployed.

Quote:

---

And by the time we got that Gen 5.5 aircraft ready, China/Russia would have Gen 6 aircraft already deployed.

---

Aren't all of their new planes, ships, and other military equipment just stolen copies of ours?

aTmAg said:

---

I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.

I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.

---

They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

And by the time we got that Gen 5.5 aircraft ready, China/Russia would have Gen 6 aircraft already deployed.

---

Aren't all of their new planes, ships, and other military equipment just stolen copies of ours?

---

Potentially.

But, I don't think we should take the chance that they would leapfrog us.

Besides, other countries are also depending on future production and have actually paid part of the development costs.

Quote:

---

Being all things to all people generally doesn't work and that was the intent with this plane, right?

---

The F-35 comes in 3 variants (A, B, C). The F-35A is the air superiority airframe that the Air Force operates. The F-35B is an amphibious assault airframe that can be operated in forward deployment zones using the STOVL takeoff system (like a helicopter or an old Harrier). The F-35C is a Naval airframe for operations from aircraft carriers. There are massive differences between each of these variants, so it's not really all things to all people.

What a terrible attempt at a "gotcha"

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.

I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.

---

They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.

---

They shouldn't be. They are wasteful and slow. They should let the private sector do that.

Remember when the Navies of the world, used to build battleships? Now they are cherished museums.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.

I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.

---

They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.

---

They shouldn't be. They are wasteful and slow. They should let the private sector do that.

---

Meh.

I work with them all the time on AAM/UAM. There needs to be some coordination otherwise you'll NEVER get a system that the FAA will approve for UAS in the NAS. I work with a lot of the private sector on this too.

I won't disagree they can be slow though. But, most of the folks BELOW the top bureaucracy aren't really.

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.

I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.

---

They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.

---

They shouldn't be. They are wasteful and slow. They should let the private sector do that.

---

Meh.

I work with them all the time on AAM/UAM. There needs to be some coordination otherwise you'll NEVER get a system that the FAA will approve for UAS in the NAS. I work with a lot of the private sector on this too.

I won't disagree they can be slow though. But, most of the folks BELOW the top bureaucracy aren't really.

---

So the reason we need NASA is because they have a influence with the FAA which is yet another wasteful agency that impedes the progress of mankind?

Not much of a ringing endorsement.