It seems to me that NASA administrators are the ones making this decision, not the administration.
4.
Fledermaus
NASA is not making the decision, they are trying to find a way to deal with the Bush’s “Mars, bitches!” policy that he announced and then promptly forgot.
Policy decisions have consequences, Bush is ultimately responsible for setting agency priorities and he decided that Mars was mission #1 because . . . because . . . well I can’t remember why he thought Mars deserves such a high priority but it is NASA’s job to make it happen, however ill-conceived it may be.
5.
CaseyL
I’m still madder than hell we’re letting Hubble die.
6.
Aaron
Sounds more like a threat from NASA than a true plan to cut. Even so, 4.2 million a year for Voyager…is it really worth that much?
How much useful data is it still producing, and could we get better data in the future using more advanced probes? (Keep in mind, the solar system isn’t going anywhere soon.)
Sure, I’d be all sentimental about V-ger but then again I don’t keep my 1976 Pinto around, either.
Your 1976 Pinto isn’t transmitting data from outside Neptune and isn’t going to possibly give us information about the Oort Cloud before it gives out. Just saying.
I gotta come down on the side of Kimmitt on this one; this is just asinine. I could see shutting it down if Voyager had experienced complete failure of all sensors, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Here’s enough to fund Voyager for the next three years:
$3,000,000 for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation;
$1,430,000 for various Halls of Fame, including $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn., and $70,000 for the Paper Industry International Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wis.;
$500,000 for “First Tee Program” to introduce young people to golf.
Sue
Just another indication of how the Bush Administration’s anti-science position is hurting this country. Very sad.
Kimmitt
Due respect, but this isn’t General stupidity at all.
John Cole
It seems to me that NASA administrators are the ones making this decision, not the administration.
Fledermaus
NASA is not making the decision, they are trying to find a way to deal with the Bush’s “Mars, bitches!” policy that he announced and then promptly forgot.
Policy decisions have consequences, Bush is ultimately responsible for setting agency priorities and he decided that Mars was mission #1 because . . . because . . . well I can’t remember why he thought Mars deserves such a high priority but it is NASA’s job to make it happen, however ill-conceived it may be.
CaseyL
I’m still madder than hell we’re letting Hubble die.
Aaron
Sounds more like a threat from NASA than a true plan to cut. Even so, 4.2 million a year for Voyager…is it really worth that much?
How much useful data is it still producing, and could we get better data in the future using more advanced probes? (Keep in mind, the solar system isn’t going anywhere soon.)
Sure, I’d be all sentimental about V-ger but then again I don’t keep my 1976 Pinto around, either.
Kimmitt
Your 1976 Pinto isn’t transmitting data from outside Neptune and isn’t going to possibly give us information about the Oort Cloud before it gives out. Just saying.
Slartibartfast
I gotta come down on the side of Kimmitt on this one; this is just asinine. I could see shutting it down if Voyager had experienced complete failure of all sensors, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Mr Furious
Here’s enough to fund Voyager for the next three years:
$3,000,000 for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation;
$1,430,000 for various Halls of Fame, including $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn., and $70,000 for the Paper Industry International Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wis.;
$500,000 for “First Tee Program” to introduce young people to golf.
$100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation
$7.6 million for HAARP ($90.4 million since 1995)
Mr Furious
UP