PDA

View Full Version : NASA Administrator Isn't Sure Global Warming is a Problem



Fraser
2007-May-31, 04:37 PM
I've got to say, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this today. NASA Administrator Mike Griffin was interviewed on NPR about the threat of global warming. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05/31/nasa-administrator-isnt-sure-global-warming-is-a-problem/)

zooball
2007-May-31, 05:52 PM
I simply do not like this guy, nor his predecessor. Both strike me as political pawns at the whim of the administration--basically guys who will cut the budget to spend billions elsewhere (you know where). Griffin has seen to it that robotic exploration is gutted, and now he is doing his best to destroy the manned efforts.

But on a more personal note: I mean c'mon! Look at his picture! A half smile smirk that screams "Ha, ha! I will destroy NASA! And there isn't anything you can do about it!"

I hope the next administration appoints a scientist who has earned their credit through years of hard work within NASA--enough of these puppets!

Noclevername
2007-May-31, 06:21 PM
I hope the next administration appoints a scientist who has earned their credit through years of hard work within NASA--enough of these puppets!

I really hope that'll happen. Not likely, though. I'ts a political appointment, period. Those skilled in politics are rewarded most, those who focus on other areas (like, say, real science and engineering) can't spend enough time butt-kissing to develop those skills.

Jim
2007-May-31, 06:28 PM
Yeah, I heard the interview on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499) this morning and meant to mention it here.

But, your blog left out my favorite statement: "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown."
(emphasis added)

So, because our cave-dwelling, fur-wearing ancestors were unable to control the climate, there's no hope for us? And this guy is in charge of one of the greatest technological organizations in history? But then, he is a political appointee, not chosen so much for his scientific acumen as his ability to follow the company program.

However, Mr. Griffin seems to have been left out of the loop. While he's claiming we shouldn't be doing anything, his boss is preparing to ask the G8 to do something (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10577080). Someone didn't get the latest memo.

Argos
2007-May-31, 06:33 PM
I´m conviced that GW is going to be a good thing for rich nations located north of the 35N paralel. Besides the softening of the climate [maybe Blackpool turns itself into a really viable summer destination], it´s possible that the agricultural boundaries will extend further into the northern escapes of the northern hemisphere.

Meanwhile, in the tropics...

Braungucke
2007-May-31, 07:30 PM
I´m conviced that GW is going to be a good thing for rich nations located north of the 35N paralel. Besides the softening of the climate [maybe Blackpool turns itself into a really viable summer destination], it´s possible that the agricultural boundaries will extend further into the northern escapes of the northern hemisphere.

Meanwhile, in the tropics...

I'm convinced that GW is going to be a good thing for NOBODY, because there will be more hurricanes, more floodings, more droughts and more extreme weather at all!

But, hey: nevermind! http://i.slickdeals.net/images/smilies2/seehearspeak.gif

abraham
2007-Jun-01, 12:30 AM
well it sounds like Bush is finally taking GW seriously *sort of* I'm happy that GW is being taken seriously by Germany and other nations... wish the regulations would change faster for more countries.... hey France is way ahead of the curve by implementing Nuclear reactors all over their country. I cant wait for helium three to be brought back from the moon... *helium three is a nuclear fusion (not fission) fuel that doesn't destroy reactor walls with neutrons (currently the only source of helium three is decommissioned nuclear warheads) there is virtually no waste when compared with even nuclear fission. only problem is getting tons of it back to earth to power fusion reactors. hey there is a chance we could use the massive gun idea they had in the nineteenth century to shoot the helium three back to earth since the extreme G's involved would damage the helium three. (the major problem is that to do that with people would kill them)


but hey... doesn't long grass use more CO2 than short grass? aha an answer to GW is cutting your grass less LOL... or you can use your electric powered lawn mower to cut it (but then if you don't live in France its probably powered by a coal burning plant) just to clarify I live in America and coal suX0r

Abraham Adams

The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
Carl Sagan

Northwind
2007-Jun-01, 01:17 AM
And I wondered why NASA seemed blind to the power of electricity in space, question answered :(

GOURDHEAD
2007-Jun-01, 02:44 AM
I'm not convinced we know which way the climate is changing, nor how much, nor what's causing it. We may know what's been happening over the last several years.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-01, 02:53 AM
I'm not convinced we know which way the climate is changing, nor how much, nor what's causing it. We may know what's been happening over the last several years.

Actually, thermometers have been in use for much longer than several years.

Callum 80486
2007-Jun-01, 09:25 AM
I think all the global warming stuff has been severely over hyped lately. So the climate's changing, big deal, it changes all the time. There have been many periods in the Earth's history where there were no polar ice caps (and no humans either). I think we should all feel privileged to live in such interesting times.

There is a real danger to over hyping potential disasters. Politicians use them as excuses to push policies that may not be wise at all. For example, I heard suggestions coming out of Europe that a food miles tax should be imposed on foreign imports. This is nothing more than an excuse to limit free trade.

Business too is quick to exploit the fuss. The car companies have invented these wonderful hybrid cars. They use a traditional fossil fuel burning engine to charge a battery which drives a motor, plus some of them can be plugged into a power socket for extra juice. Anyone who knows anything about the laws of thermodynamics can easily see why this system is actually more polluting than a conventional car. Not only are they more polluting, but they also cost more to buy in the first place. Why do people buy them? Because they think they're doing their bit to avoid this great global warming disaster.

Don't get me wrong, I am concerned at the rate at which the world's fossil fuels are being consumed. I don't see an imminent disaster though. Eventually the price of oil will rise and the price of alternatives will fall until the alternatives are cheaper, at that point people will make the switch. Simple. The only thing that could possible stuff it up is politicians making dumb decisions that distort the market.

There are so many lies, half truths and gross exaggerations mixed in with all this environmental stuff. We all need to keep in mind that we cannot break the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of economics. Electric cars!? Where's the electricity supposed to come from? Thin air? And as for bad economic policies, they only lead to poverty. Take any poor country and what do you find? Bad economics.

One of these silly environmental organisations put out a press release last year stating that we'll need another three Earths by 2050. I was astonished that the media was gullible enough to actually report such nonsense. If the human race is extinct by 2050, or has found and fully utilised those extra Earths I'll buy every one on this board a brand new hybrid car.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-01, 10:50 AM
Anyone who knows anything about the laws of thermodynamics can easily see why this system is actually more polluting than a conventional car.

So why does the Toyota Prius get so much better milage then a conventional car? Is Toyota breaking the laws of thermodynamics? Should they be given a ticket by the physics police? Or is the hybrid system it uses simply much more efficient than a conventional internal combustion engine? I think it's the latter, but I could be wrong.


Electric cars!? Where's the electricity supposed to come from? Thin air?

Actually there are many ways of generating electricity and one method involves using wind turbines so electricity can be generated from air, although probably not thin air as building wind turbines at higher altitudes would reduce the amount of power they could produce.

Burning gasoline to produce electricity and using it to power electric cars can be more efficient than burning it in an internal combustion engine because electric motors are much more efficient. Gasoline powered internal combustion engines are about 20% efficient. If oil was burned in a 35% efficient power plant with a 7% loss due to transmission, a 93% efficient inverter and lithium-ion batteries in a car with a 90% efficient electric engine gives an end efficiency of about 27%. This means burning gasoline to power electric cars requires about a quater less gasoline than using it in conventional cars.

Please note that at no point have I said that we should burn gasoline to power electric cars. I'm merely pointing out that it could be done.

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-01, 12:24 PM
Put me squarely in the undecided camp. I don't doubt a global climate shift is going on. I don't doubt that the amount of fossil fuels we burn is a contributing factor. It's the same opinion I've had about smoking. People used to think it was somehow okay. How could a person think that lighting something on fire and breathing in the fumes would be anything but damaging? Essentially we are lighting a whole bunch of fossil fuels on fire and putting the fumes in the air we breathe. It's going to have some negative effects. Fortunately the atmosphere is much larger than our lungs and can dilute the effects.

As to how much we can do to reverse the effects or how bad it really is if the temperature increases a couple degrees, I have no idea. As one person already mentioned – most of the poverty in this world is due to bad governments. Do we really want government to try to solve what might not even be a huge catastrophe anyway? In case we haven’t noticed, government typically doesn’t do things particularly well.

In general I fall into the camp that we should all live in moderation. Don’t ask me whose definition of moderation we should follow though.

GOURDHEAD
2007-Jun-01, 01:31 PM
Actually, thermometers have been in use for much longer than several years.Indeed they have; does that guarantee that they have been used wisely? What size cells of air and water have been monitored and how thoroughly and frequently? What sizes and frequencies of monitoring of cells would be adequate?

We are obviously dumping copious amounts of carbon into the environment and we seem to have an upward trend in the global temperature. If the data presented in http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html is "reasonably accurate", (I don't see how any such data can be as accuate as is reported, but maybe it does relect some general trend) the levels of CO2 today are near all time lows. I am astonished that the early carboniferous didn't have much more CO2 than the chart shows; it had to take a lot of carbon to produce all those coal deposits. Where could it have come from if not the atmospheric CO2?

In summary, the Earth has endured ice ages with CO2 levels much higher than the current levels, so many factors come into play to direct climate change. I think we don't know enough about the problem to attempt to solve it.

Mercyless
2007-Jun-01, 01:47 PM
I agree with most of what was said by you all. It is still disturbing to verify that these kind of people still run the show.

JIM, great quoting from Asimov (one of my favorite autors).

hhEb09'1
2007-Jun-01, 02:15 PM
The car companies have invented these wonderful hybrid cars. They use a traditional fossil fuel burning engine to charge a battery which drives a motor, plus some of them can be plugged into a power socket for extra juice. Anyone who knows anything about the laws of thermodynamics can easily see why this system is actually more polluting than a conventional car.Which law of thermodynamics covers pollution? :)
Not only are they more polluting, but they also cost more to buy in the first place. Why do people buy them? Because they think they're doing their bit to avoid this great global warming disaster.That, maybe, but our car has saved us quite a bit of money. :)

So why does the Toyota Prius get so much better milage then a conventional car? Is Toyota breaking the laws of thermodynamics? Should they be given a ticket by the physics police? Or is the hybrid system it uses simply much more efficient than a conventional internal combustion engine? I think it's the latter, but I could be wrong.It's more efficient, as a system.

The Honda Civic just had a brushless armature around a drive shaft, connected to an "underpowered" gas engine (meaning the engine could not sustain the acceleration needed for climbing, passing, or merging, but that was what the electric motor was for.) The battery was 120 metal hydride D cells stuck behind the back seat (which folds down in the regular Civic but not in the hybrid). The gas savings came from the use of the smaller gas engine.

What about the problem of batteries, and replacement? We haven't reached that critical point yet, across the fleet. Soon, though.

Prime
2007-Jun-01, 02:49 PM
Once the trigger level of climate change is reached,with an imbalance of greenhouse gasses and heat, the resluting change will become exponential, witin a couple of years, to human life.

Life as we know it, will decease.

Prime

hhEb09'1
2007-Jun-01, 02:54 PM
Life as we know it, will decease.Life, as I knew it a minute ago, is gone. (I know, I know, that's just my knees talking) Or do you mean something else?

Fraser
2007-Jun-01, 03:06 PM
I saw a cool aftermarket upgrade you can add to your Prius that installs a solar panel on the roof, and an extra battery. On a regular day, it generates enough electricity to let you drive about 20 miles, purely from solar power.

When it comes to global warming, nobody knows what the effect is going to be, but it's possible that it's going to be catastrophic. It's also possible that it's going to be mild.

A recent report said that dealing with climate change would cost less than .5% of global gross domestic product.

How much do you pay for home insurance, in case your whole house is destroyed in a fire. I pay about 2% of my income to protect myself against that disaster, and I think the chances of a fire are remote.

Taking action against global warming is an insurance policy. This isn't the kind of thing that we want to gamble with.

Obviously there's no such thing as a perfect climate; however, we have adapted to this climate in millions of ways, big and small.

nauthiz
2007-Jun-01, 03:59 PM
A recent report said that dealing with climate change would cost less than .5% of global gross domestic product.

How much do you pay for home insurance, in case your whole house is destroyed in a fire. I pay about 2% of my income to protect myself against that disaster, and I think the chances of a fire are remote.


Before I read this, I was about to make the same point. And the evidence seems to suggest that the likelihood of climate change causing some serious damage in terms of both the global economy and human welfare is much higher than the relatively minute possibility that the brownstone I live in will burn down.

John Mendenhall
2007-Jun-01, 04:33 PM
Over population is the root problem. Fix that, and the rest goes away. And no, I have no proposals on how to reduce the population soon enough to help. Does anyone know if the Chinese still have there one child program in place?

Fraser
2007-Jun-01, 05:11 PM
And the solution to overpopulation is increasing wealth. When a country reaches a certain level of per capita wealth, its population goes down naturally.

Unfortunately, the solution to wealth currently includes fossil fuels. So, if we can increase wealth without using fossil fuels, it's win win.

CJSF
2007-Jun-01, 05:16 PM
It does not go down "naturally." It goes down because the lifestyles associated with greater weath bias people toward having fewer children. Having greater wealth doesn't suddenly cause people's fertility to decrease; people choose not to have children.

CJSF

frankuitaalst
2007-Jun-01, 05:22 PM
I fully agree with Mr Griffin...
Suppose that a really large asteroid is heading to us ...then I think it would a very good strategy to do NOTHING .
Indeed ..the last time this happened all the dinausaurs were killed , giving opportunities to mammals and humans many millions of years later .
I think a super human race will stand up after a while in this case .
So whats the point ?
Sad

hhEb09'1
2007-Jun-01, 05:34 PM
It does not go down "naturally." It goes down because the lifestyles associated with greater weath bias people toward having fewer children. Having greater wealth doesn't suddenly cause people's fertility to decrease; people choose not to have children.And that's unnatural to you? :)

One Skunk Todd
2007-Jun-01, 06:43 PM
But, your blog left out my favorite statement: "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown."
(emphasis added)

Well if nothing else we could try to accentuate the positive. Presumably he's not a YEC.

GOURDHEAD
2007-Jun-01, 06:51 PM
When it comes to global warming, nobody knows what the effect is going to be, but it's possible that it's going to be catastrophic. It's also possible that it's going to be mild....

A recent report said that dealing with climate change would cost less than .5% of global gross domestic product.....
Taking action against global warming is an insurance policy. This isn't the kind of thing that we want to gamble with. Only if the action we take is based on the correct knowledge base; otherwise we may unwittingly make matters worse.

Walker59
2007-Jun-01, 06:56 PM
Over population is the root problem. Fix that, and the rest goes away. And no, I have no proposals on how to reduce the population soon enough to help. Does anyone know if the Chinese still have there one child program in place?

The One Child Policy was relaxed over the last ten years not so much because of improved living conditions, but because the male population was rapidly exceeding the female. Cultural preference/tradition for having a male child is pretty heavy there. In the last year China has started to reinforce the One Child Policy, particularly in the rural regions of the country.

CJSF
2007-Jun-01, 07:35 PM
The One Child Policy was relaxed over the last ten years not so much because of improved living conditions, but because the male population was rapidly exceeding the female. Cultural preference/tradition for having a male child is pretty heavy there. In the last year China has started to reinforce the One Child Policy, particularly in the rural regions of the country.

Which is a gentle way of saying people were commiting female infanticide.

CJSF

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-02, 12:51 AM
Indeed they have; does that guarantee that they have been used wisely?

I guess there is no guarantee that thermometers were not used for evil.

RUF
2007-Jun-02, 03:02 AM
A recent report said that dealing with climate change would cost less than .5% of global gross domestic product.

Well, once countries like N.Korea, China, Chad, Sierra Leone, DR of Congo, Niger, Mexico, and Venezuela fork over their .5%, I won't feel so bad about the Grand Union doing it either.

PS- Toyota Hybrids don't have "so much better fuel economy" it the driver accelerates normally and uses AC on those hot, humid days. Toyota recently had to revise their Estimated MPG when they got busted for making unrealistic claims.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-02, 03:17 AM
Toyota recently had to revise their Estimated MPG when they got busted for making unrealistic claims.

Methods for measuring fuel consumption were recently changed in the United States. Toyota has always stated that the previous methods gave unrealistic results for the Prius. Even with the changes the Prius does quite well compared with the average car.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-02, 04:31 AM
And the solution to overpopulation is increasing wealth. When a country reaches a certain level of per capita wealth, its population goes down naturally.

Not "naturally", it's not a law of physics or anything. It's just a common, though not universal, social occurance. No doubt the greater level of public education in wealthier countries plays a part as well.

I doubt seriously that it would lead to zero population crowth, even if universal wealth for all were to happen, which doesn't look to be anytime soon.

Easy access to space would help solve both problems, economic and population growth would both become open-ended, but that doesn't seem to be happening soon either.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-02, 04:44 AM
I doubt seriously that it would lead to zero population crowth, even if universal wealth for all were to happen, which doesn't look to be anytime soon.

We can't say for sure, but we can look at the population decline of Japan, Germany and other countries. World population is currently predicted to peak at around nine billion plus. Of course plenty of things could happen to change that. There have been significant improvments in the economic well being of people in China and India, which between them contained most of the world's poor. Hopefully other countries will be able to imitate their economic success.

Michael Noonan
2007-Jun-02, 01:20 PM
And the solution to overpopulation is increasing wealth. When a country reaches a certain level of per capita wealth, its population goes down naturally.

Unfortunately, the solution to wealth currently includes fossil fuels. So, if we can increase wealth without using fossil fuels, it's win win.

What if just clean hot air was moved (blown or by updraft) to higher than the greenhouse layer?

Would a percentage of the heat it carries leak to outer space giving fuel access wealth and cooling?

:)

Steven Craig
2007-Jun-02, 03:02 PM
I'm a wacky inventor of water fitness equipment but I graduated with degrees in math and horticulture.

I have been scratching my head for several years over something very, very cold that science missed about Global Warming: I posted these next few paragraphs at earthfitness.blogspot.com

How to turn off Global Warming by increasing Atmospheric Photosynthesis

With a thousand theories rolling around about how to end global warning, I noticed something that science had long ago revealed but never noticed. And it is literally so cold it will drastically change our understanding of Global Warming:

Science has known for many years that the oxygen in our air gets there through plants photosynthesizing water with solar energy. They do this to separate the hydrogen from the water to cook it up with carbon to make carbo-hydrates, (plant food).

They also know that plants get their carbon from CO2 in our air that is a waste product of our bodies and everything else that also burns organic fuels. They also know that all plants need very little oxygen left over from the water separated so they just release it into our air.

Engineers know that nature’s only one step rapid cooling method is ‘Expansion’.

I have not seen any scientific explanation of global warming that accounts for the fact that every atom of oxygen released by photosynthesis also expands about 800 times, which is roughly the difference in weight between water and gasses in air at sea level.

That canned gas we use to clean keyboards and electronics with can frostbite after expanding several hundred times. To there is no doubt that this massive expansion occurs because the oxygen was in water molecules so it has to massively expand.

Most scientists seem to be blaming our very high levels of C02 for holding more heat in the atmosphere, so it seems logical that fossil fuels must be the cause. But over the last hundred and fifty or so years, according to NASA web sites, humans have mowed down around 80% of earth’s heaviest atmospheric vegetation, so it is no longer around to eat nearly as much C02, so the levels greatly increase naturally.

Even considering 20% of photosynthesis taking place in earth’s atmosphere is gone, would still cause a large increases in C02 levels because the natural method earth uses to inhale that pollutant is no longer here.

Toss in my bone cracking cold observation about what Photosynthesis exhales and it is obvious why earth is warming up like an iced tea sitting on a table in the hot sun.

Some scientists will say “Its more complicated then that”, since that saves them from explaining how they missed the fact that every atom of oxygen naturally released bone cracking cold. It is normal for science to deny the most obvious things.

For 50 after Europeans discovered that infections were caused by contamination, the American Medical Society denied that their American surgeons also needed to wash their hands before surgery, (after was cool) they would have looked stupid, had they eagerly agreed.

Science is debating if a space shade umbrella is possible in the next thirty or so years, when all we really need to do is to irrigate earth’s hottest deserts with the fresh water our large rivers just dump into our salty oceans, also using desalinization and huge ice bergs.

If we can pipe huge amounts of oil 2000 miles across frozen mountains and tundra, irrigating deserts that are already under seal level should be a peace of cake. We could almost use long hoses and the siphon effect.

Turning even some of earth’s hottest spots into cooler paradises would not only be much faster and cheaper then a space umbrella, it would provide the world with an economic bonanza, millions of tons of food, new inhabitable lands for exploding populations and much more.

I won’t even start on how great this would also be for endangered species or how it would help lower the raising tides.

Steven Craig

Earthfitness.blogspot.com © 2007 Steven Craig:confused:

Last Man Standing
2007-Jun-02, 03:08 PM
At present according to geological evidence in the Antartic Ice we are adding Co 2 and Methane to the atmosphere at a rate 200 times greater than any recorded in the last 650,000 years. Thats 200 years of gases in one year. 1000 years in 5. Yes the world has adapted before, but never at a rate speeded up to this extent. This increase in Co 2 alone is raising acid levels in our oceans. This threatens all life on the planet. Kill the ocean you lose 75% of all oxygen creation. Weather is not the problem, we can build for weather changes we dress for weather changes. Yes there will be droughts and storms and rising seas, but all of this is trivial compared to the loss of Oxygen creation in our oceans.

As for electrical power, it is already be proven that Ice land recieves enough solar energy in a year that if it was harvested would power the world. Lets also leave out geothermal, tidal, and wind power. Just by making it law to re - roof houses with solar panels as the roofs needed replacement you would generate more power than what the house consumes thereby lowering the need for new fossil fuel power plants. There are answers all you have to do is be willing to part with a little cash, and not buy the SUV.

hhEb09'1
2007-Jun-02, 05:15 PM
Some scientists will say “Its more complicated then that”, since that saves them from explaining how they missed the fact that every atom of oxygen naturally released bone cracking cold. It is normal for science to deny the most obvious things.It appears that this is the start of a subthread that deserves its own thread in ATM :)

Mari
2007-Jun-02, 05:33 PM
I enjoyed all the messages posted here on this forum, I especially found Callum 80486 to have written a most interesting and profound message on the subject of Global Warming. This encourged me to sign up for "Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum" A friendly Hello from the West.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-02, 05:40 PM
Hello, West! And welcome Mari.

GOURDHEAD
2007-Jun-02, 05:47 PM
It is still disturbing to verify that these kind of people still run the show.What kind of people; what show?

hhEb09'1
2007-Jun-02, 05:56 PM
What kind of people; what show?Which post are you responding to? Why did you snip it off? :)

zooball
2007-Jun-02, 06:27 PM
If we do not solve GW now, there will be a runaway effect when the permafrost melts and all that lovely methane gets released--welcome to Venus Beta. If you think that GW is not real and doesn't deserve the most intense human cultural adjustment known in history, then just kiss your children goodbye and tell them their children will be the last generation on Earth.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-02, 06:32 PM
If we do not solve GW now, there will be a runaway effect when the permafrost melts and all that lovely methane gets released--welcome to Venus Beta.

That's one theory, but it's based on a lot of assumptions. The Runaway Greenhouse threshold has not been clearly established yet, nor has the amount of methane available for release, nor has the actual amount and location of all permafrost that would have such an effect.

John Mendenhall
2007-Jun-04, 04:53 PM
The One Child Policy was relaxed over the last ten years not so much because of improved living conditions, but because the male population was rapidly exceeding the female. Cultural preference/tradition for having a male child is pretty heavy there. In the last year China has started to reinforce the One Child Policy, particularly in the rural regions of the country.

Interesting. I was aware of the excess male births problem. I've never seen it suggested, but if the Chinese were to allow those with female first children to keep having children until they have a male, the average number of children per couple is only 1.5, which of course is well below the replacement rate of 2.2 couple. And it should discourage female infanticide, and abortions based on sex determinations.

Nick4
2007-Jun-06, 05:50 AM
We cant get rid of maned missions that would deafet the resons we are exploring. we need to be able to see to feel what we are exploring in person or we will never know whats there. i dont think it sould be up to the government about sending people into space. If a person wants to go into space then it should be there choice. As long as ther is a way into space im sure that people will want to go. I know darn well that i would do anything to get into space...i would love to be the first person to walk on the face of mars or some other planet.

And for the globle warming thing...who dose this guy think he is. i mean everyone is intitled to there opinion but how can you sit back and say the globle warming isent a problem? its probably the biggest problem we face in thes days.

How the heck did this guy become one of the leaders of NASA?