How much money did it cost us to drop the satellite in the ocean this morning? And how much would

[RB TexLa]

the Europeans have charged to launch it for us?

[Johonny]

1. ?

What makes you think the Europeans are better or cheaper at launching rocket than us? Their main launch vehicle has a lift capacity well beyond what was need to place this into orbit. Basically it would have cost a lot more to place that into orbit with them. That doesn't even get into ITAR issues. There aren't many cheaper options than the one used to place the satellite into orbit.

[damntexdem]

2. The satellite is badly needed to monitor global-climate-change-inducing CO2.

A replacement must be launched as soon as possible, at whatever cost.

[RB TexLa]

3. Just saying it could be cheaper for us to get out of that business, the ESA can carry on the

scientific research.

[NeedleCast]

4. Nothing beats seeing progressives reject science!

...


You make my brain hurt.

[RB TexLa]

5. Many nations support the ESA, we could provide support to it as well.

It's not rejecting it, it's letting others take the lead.

[NeedleCast]

6. Why?

I mean really, why would you NOT want your country to be a leader in scientific research? Especially considering the importance of this particular mission?

Shit, the US is already about half a handful of religious fundies from flopping unceremoniously back into the stone age. Less than half the population of the US believe the theory of evolution explains how life came to be...and you want to do less science?

We finally have president in office who's got a chance to turn the tide against the dismal state of scientific education in the US and has already made a great call by reversing the Bush's dumbass policy on stem cell research. Now is not the time to do less.

[RB TexLa]

9. We don't have to turn on it, but you sound like you are more concerned with a particular country

being at the front instead of the scientific research itself. Remember it's we, not me. Merging our space program into another saves money, expands research and expands the concept of "we." And the US doesn't have to be in the lead to benefit from it.

[NeedleCast]

10. I'm concerned with a lot of the implications

One of them is keeping the "best and brightest" here in the US. Which means keeping jobs here in the US instead of turning science into something else we outsource.

I just can't imagine why makes you say we should become a financial support system for the ESA. You want to fund scientific research, but you don't want to fund it here? Why? Explain to my how this makes sense?

[NightWatcher]

7. there are some things that we still need to spend money on that are not "popular"

we also spend government dollars on toilet paper for prisoners, but guess what, it's here to stay and a legitimate expense

[spanone]

8. i saw it was a 280 something million splash

[NeedleCast]

11. Scientists are fallable too

Sometimes things don't do what they're supposed to do.

At least to me, that's not a compelling reason to stop doing them. Hopefully we do it better next time.

[spanone]

13. i'm not knocking it. i love nasa and the entire space program.

[cobalt1999]

12. You do realize that Europe has less of a success rate than the U.S. don't you?

Or are you too busy bashing U.S. science to look that up.