gabehcoud said:

---

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

---

Now do Reagan...

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

NASA and F-35 is fine, would be more concerned if it was some sub optimal F-36X program/boondoggle or what not

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

Mea culpa on the F35. I'm not up to snuff on that like the rest of you so I was echoing concerns I've read.

Agree starting over is a non-starter with where we are right now.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

---

Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.

I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.

OP is right. Colin Allred would've been a much better Senator to represent Texas!

Old May Banker said:

---

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

---

He's just as slimy as the rest of them. He's just from Texas, a republican and and a smart constitutional lawyer so everyone here loves him. Hell, I do too.

Everyone in congress plays a part. Some better than others, but they're all playing a part and getting rich off the backs of the American people.

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.

---

You posts me ridiculous stuff sometimes but "dedicating your life" to the F35 takes the cake.

Where in the constitution does it say milk the taxpayers whenever and wherever you can?

Most here can name a few innovations due to NASA. A quickie search turned up the following which is not a list but does provide enough to kickstart more detailed searches.

Have you ever wondered how space exploration affects your daily life? NASA's first six decades of discovery have benefited our lives in many ways: your cell phone, for example. Numerous tools and technologies for solving seemingly impossible challenges in the harsh and unforgiving environment of space have been adapted for Earth-bound use. NASA makes sure that these alternative applications, or spinoffs, are made available to the public. The benefits are making an impact worldwide in better health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer products, computer technology, environmental and agricultural resources, and industrial activity. Technology transfer also has a huge economic impact. It's creating businesses and jobs committed to bringing NASA-derived technology and productsthings originated from space explorationinto our cities and homes here on Earth.

Basically, if you aren't impressed by American leadership in space exploration, think of NASA as an investment in technology innovation and a boon to job creation.

The postal service is in the constitution, too.

That doesn't make it immune from criticism.

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

---

Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.

I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.

---

Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.

Noctilucent said:

---

OP is right. Colin Allred would've been a much better Senator to represent Texas!

---

Why is this ****ty response so prevalent.

One can vote for Ted Cruz and also hold him accountable at the same time. It's not an either/or proposition for those with a fully developed frontal lobe.

It's not all things to all people... it literally turned into 3 distinct aircraft with the same name. It's why the program appears behind and over budget.

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.

---

Congress determines the budget.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

---

Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.

I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.

---

Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.

---

For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...

I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.

I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.

But, there actually IS life outside your pod...

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

---

Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.

I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.

---

Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.

---

For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...

I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.

I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.

But, there actually IS life outside your pod...

---

Before my current employer, I worked at several places both large and small. One of them was a government agency. So I have more experience than most on different types of jobs. So I HAVE seen outside my pod.

The FAA's job has been to "set the rules of the road." That is what they are for. Why should yet a SECOND agency get involved in that? It simply makes no sense.

NASA is require to make this country great. Don't agree w/ L. Johnson on many things, but he was right about owning the high ground. GPS, satellite, beyond line of sight capabilities are all thanks to NASA.

We should always strive to seek knowledge.

As for the F-35, it is more then just a stealth/first strike platform. Agree that it is expensive and it should not be the backbone of our fleet due to cost. Remove the stealth capabilities, but keep everything else.. ie F-15EX, and you still have a superior aircraft that you can build in mass.

Ambres said:

---

NASA is require to make this country great. Don't agree w/ L. Johnson on many things, but he was right about owning the high ground. GPS, satellite, beyond line of sight capabilities are all thanks to NASA.

---

GPS was a DoD project, not NASA. Hell, NASA itself is basically a DoD project. It's rockets were all DoD rockets, until until the Saturn V which was built by defense contractors. Hell, the DoD saved the Space Shuttle with funding.

Getting rid of NASA doesn't mean that we ignore space. We just put it in the hands where it should be: DoD for defense and the private sector for their satellites and whatnot.

Would far prefer $ go to NASA and military technology than funding terrorists and illegals. Not blank check funding of NASA/military but pointed smart funding.

NASA could be made great again imo but maybe the new model is working more with private enterprise rather than handling everything operationally "in house" which btw was never really the case. They always relied on contractors heavily even in the heyday.

When you're so libertarian, you cross over into complete anti-war liberal idiocy.

Yes, let's kill the F-35 and go back to the JN-4 Jenny. That will keep China in check.

Ambres said:

---

NASA is require to make this country great. Don't agree w/ L. Johnson on many things, but he was right about owning the high ground. GPS, satellite, beyond line of sight capabilities are all thanks to NASA.

We should always strive to seek knowledge.

As for the F-35, it is more then just a stealth/first strike platform. Agree that it is expensive and it should not be the backbone of our fleet due to cost. Remove the stealth capabilities, but keep everything else.. ie F-15EX, and you still have a superior aircraft that you can build in mass.

---

F-15EX isn't cheap

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/more-f-35-why-does-f-15ex-cost-97000000-fighter-211720#:~:text=Initially%20projected%20to%20cost%20under,reasons%20for%20the%20cost%20hike.

The EX was procured because it was basically the QA (Qatari version) with only a couple added US sensors (MPAWS) and there was no way to get more -35's and train/equip/maintenance spares etc. the ANG units whose F-15C's literally would have needed new wings just to limp along another 10 years. It wasn't an 'either/or' except for the option to spend a fortune to re-wing 40+ years old frames or buy new ones.

As well, the real cost of stealth planes is the maintenance of their surfaces. At least the EX should be relatively affordable to maintain long term. Oh, and as well we needed to keep 'not all our eggs in one basket.' At some point in the next 10 years expect the F-22's to be cut (small, expensive to maintain fleet, outdated electronics). NGAD sounds great but supposedly is getting gutted because the price on that was well north of $300 million a copy. I have no idea what USAF does, but it can't just kill the -35's.

Yeah it makes sense to replace the guard 15's and keep the existing support equipment and logistics. I was responding specifically to the claim that we should cut the f-35 because it's too expensive in favor of the EX

I've wondered if it would be cost effective for Lockheed Martin to make a non-stealthy version of the F-35. Make the skin out of the same aluminum alloy as the F-16 and all the rest of the parts would be shared between the 2 versions. We could use this version of the F-35 when fighting against terrorists that lack toilet paper.

gabehcoud said:

---

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

---

ignoramus and i'm not talking about Cruz

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

---

Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.

I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.

---

Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.

---

For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...

I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.

I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.

But, there actually IS life outside your pod...

---

Before my current employer, I worked at several places both large and small. One of them was a government agency. So I have more experience than most on different types of jobs. So I HAVE seen outside my pod.

The FAA's job has been to "set the rules of the road." That is what they are for. Why should yet a SECOND agency get involved in that? It simply makes no sense.

---

NASA does the research to gather data,

The FAA uses the data to develop the regulations.

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.

Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.

---

There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.

---

I never said I agree with any of that.

BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.

Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.

But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.

NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.

---

NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.

---

Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?

---

My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.

Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.

---

Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.

I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.

---

Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.

---

For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...

I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.

I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.

But, there actually IS life outside your pod...

---

Before my current employer, I worked at several places both large and small. One of them was a government agency. So I have more experience than most on different types of jobs. So I HAVE seen outside my pod.

The FAA's job has been to "set the rules of the road." That is what they are for. Why should yet a SECOND agency get involved in that? It simply makes no sense.

---

NASA does the research to gather data,

The FAA uses the data to develop the regulations.

---

FAA's can fund the research just like NASA. There is nothing special about NASA.

Faa is a regulatory agency. Research best operates separate from that, hence darpa, naca (nee nasa). It would be silly to subsume nasa space exploration in particular under the faa. Nothing could be gained imho.

nortex97 said:

---

Faa is a regulatory agency. Research best operates separate from that, hence darpa, naca (nee nasa). It would be silly to subsume nasa space exploration in particular under the faa. Nothing could be gained imho.

---

Don't get me wrong... I'm ONLY talking about what AwK was talking about where they can greese the FAA skids on certain regulations.

NASA should not do any "space exploration" horsecrap. We don't need to spend billions of dollars studying sex habits of butterflies in 0 G. The shuttle program was also a HUGE waste of taxpayer money and caused the death of 14 astronauts. That alone sucked all the air out of the space industry and kept the SpaceX's of the world from actually innovating. Because of that, NASA has kept us decades behind where we otherwise would be.