Discretion is the hallmark of civilization. Always, always distinguish. Cutting across the board with no thought, no discretion and withouit distinction is a blueprint for disaster. Distinction requires thought, and thought requires distinction. When I hear someone say we should not distinguish, then that just tells me they are too lazy to think.
as long as they are still sending orbiters and robots and high powered cameras in space, i don't have a problem with them not sending humans up. You can explore without humans having to be up there, or down there.
I think putting a man in space is partly symbolic these days because much of the same can be accomplished with unmanned rockets and transports. The economic impact of ending a manned space flight program is wide ranging though and there are many industries and communities that will suffer severe economic hardship without a substitute for the shuttle. Its also an industry where US manufacturing was undoubtedly leading the way and its unknown what will happen to those companies now. These ancillary businesses employ thousands of people who's future is now in doubt.
The same can be said for most all budget cuts. Funding cuts by their general nature will create negative economic impact on some people but spending wrecklessly will affect everyone in the long run. I know that wasn't what you were implying but I guess my point is that we are going to have to continue to make hard decisions and cuts moving forward.
The ancillary manufacturing aspect of NASA is somewhat unique when it comes to budget cuts. The highly specialized and technical in nature industries are the last bastion of American manufacturing might. Budget cuts that diminish those industries should be studied in depth to measure the overall economic impact. I havent seen any evidence the administration has put forward to substantiate the loss of jobs is worth the cut. It would be interesting to see an economic impact study concerning the ROI on the programs being cut. Im not saying cutting manned space flight is a bad decision but I havent seen anything to indicate it will be worth the economic loss. If you're already pouring billions into the economy for job stimulus it would seem, on the surface, that investing in NASA would accomplish the same thing.
It's a text book example of how the sheeple of both major parties respond to everything not from their herders.
You bring up a good point. If this administration would quit throwing away large sums of money we could afford to still have a space program. On the other hand maybe this is giving him the excuse he needs to remake NASA to his liking, a global warming agency only.
