NASA's current design for a man-rated booster, shown to scale with a cheap biro for comparison.
Is this really what the NASA of old, the NASA we cared about, the NASA that made us sit down in front of the TV with all the family, was all about? Not really. My NASA, the one I knew in primary school was better than that, it pushed the boundaries, it was Fonzie, not Pottsy. So what made the big N what it was, and what can make it great again? I figure three things.
1. Stop being a nerd: Seriously, leave the science to the geeks, NAS. Tin Tin went to the moon too, but he left it to Professor Calculus to find out what all those snazzy rocks meant.
2. Get a job. Hey NASA, you know that Obama guy that everybody likes? He wants to stop "ML2:IS" and give the money to school kids! Do you remember back when you were called NACA, and you made all those ducts and things? Do you remember how that impressed people? And you know all that stuff for the flying car that you've got down in the basement? Well I think that would really impress people! People really like you when you give them a flying car!
3. "ML2:IS" sounds kind of cool, but it needs to be FASTER, or FURTHER, or RED or something. We've all seen the Moon, its dull and grey, but you know what movie people really liked? Total Recall. You should do something like that, or something.
I think if NASA did that, they could be the darling of public access television, or at least get a parade.
P.S They should totally hire me
2 comments:
Back in the times of "The Moon Landing", NASA and space exploration was all about heroes, taking risks, and dramatic statements. Now it's just "check out these pretty pictures," "that's not safe enough, so we can't do it yet," and a bunch of very unexciting numbers.
They can totally be like Total Recall, as long as they don't put a corrupt guy in charge who sells everyone air and refuses to turn on the air generator.
Hire be damned. Full time employment!
I do like how they don't take risks with ANYTHING any more (with the potential exception of the foam on takeoff... what the hell is it for?)
For example:
There is a possibility of a minor crack on the underside of a shuttle... so lets rig a laser system underneath to explore the vague possibility that the micro cracks that ALWAYS occur on the takeoff will lead to catastrophic failure when coming in to land.
Personally, i think that if your record is 119 successes and 2 losses in 26 years, you are doing pretty well...
Still... flying cars = the future. We aren't future until we get flying cars, isn't that right?
I also don't understand how they ever thought that they would now be flying into space as a regular thing by now. That shit is WAY expensive.
Post a Comment