NASA Priorities Out of Whack?

amerinese writes "Just last week, we saw a story on NASA reconsidering the fate of the DAWN mission, another reminder of the space agency's budget woes. Gregg Easterbrook over at Slate.com argues not only is the budget a little short, but NASA's priorities are all wrong. From the article: 'For at least a decade, it's been clear that the space shuttle program is a clunker. Nonetheless, NASA's funding remains heavy on the shuttle and the space station, while usually slighting science. This year's proposed budget for fiscal 2007 takes the cosmic cake.' Is NASA just not thinking creatively enough?"

What NASA Stands For

[mkoenecke]

Thank goodness the folks at Slate have a better understanding of NASA's purpose than I do: I have a hard time figuring out where "environmental and climate research" is derived fomr "the National Aeuronautics and Space Administration." But then again, I've always been bad at figuring out acronyms.

Re:It's not what makes sense...

[gEvil (beta)]

So, is finding aliens, a la Alien, sexy?

Re:It's not what makes sense...

[Daniel_Staal]

So, is finding aliens, a la Alien, sexy?

No, but finding aliens, a la Species is.

Re:I mostly agree

[Kitsune818]

I saw a demonstration of this in the biography "Total Recall".

Re:Say what?!?

[NadNad]

you can't raise dust with no air.

Say what, indeed! I guess that dust one sees in those newsreels of the moon landings and buggy-rides was there because some Hollywood effects hack didn't do his research. Just because there are no air currents to carry the dust around doesn't mean when you wipe moon dust off of a surface that it doesn't go flying in whatever direction you wiped it...

because NASA is focussed on UFOs

[Chemkook]

Anyone who is in the "know", knows what NASA's primary object is.

If not, view this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-908036967 6973948865 [google.com]