Poll on Obama & NASA

[SportscarBruce]

If you feel as I do, that it's a gigantic mistake to kill NASA's Constellation program which amounts to a mere fraction of the budget, then let off some steam and vote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/01/2010-02-01_lost_in_space_president_obamas_proposed_budget_ scraps_nasas_planned_manned_missi.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhoBTy3Z4Q0

[Mark in Oshawa]

It is a mistake, but it is yet another example of Obama listening to the fringe radicals rather than doing what is best. NASA shouldn't be a political football...

[Jag_Warrior]

My question would be, what would be the effect of canceling this program... and how would we be worse off without it?

I'm not in favor of doing away with NASA. But I've often seen that the benefits from some of its activities have been oversold, in order to get more money.

[Hondo]

There is no reason to go back. The last mission of the original program was cancelled due to lack of interest and lack of any return on the investment beyond meeting the goal of finally beating the Soviets to a spectacular goal in space. If the Soviets had beaten us to the moon, we'd be on Mars by now.

NASA has done a very poor job of selling space projects. It receives very little press about the benefits to mankind in general that it has discovered and developed with it's shuttle and space station projects. The fact that Russia has been equally quiet about any breakthroughs would lead a prudent individual to deduce, there have been no benefits. What we have learned has been the limitations and weaknesses of humans in long term space exposure and zero gravity.

In this decade, the GPS system is going to start requiring massive amounts of maintaince and replacement. A better project to spend money on than another big rocket. I don't know why you'd need another rocket anyway. The Saturn V was a wildly successful project, with no failures. There's your big rocket, designed, tested, tried and true.

During hard times, taxpayers and voters don't care about moons or the origins of the universe unless it will get them a job, pay the electric bill, or buy food.

[Mark in Oshawa]

For what NASA costs, it seems to me prudent to keep their hands in the space business. The US should never lose that program to be able to put astronauts up. The rest of the world has helped pay for this as well over the years, as many nations have trained with NASA and paid to send their people up. We cant know what the future holds, but in some time in the next century, man is going to need to go back into space beyond low earth orbit. The US cannot allow their leadership in this to be just dumped aside while NASA is being funded only to prove the IPCC is right (god forbid that the media wake up to the inconsitencies in the Global warming debate that is being talked about in the British Press). NASA's space program is now being scrapped for the most part to save a few dollars but very few parts of the US budget ever see actual cuts. The military and NASA seem to be the favourite targets for the chattering classes.....

[anthonyvop]

My question would be, what would be the effect of canceling this program... and how would we be worse off without it?

I'm not in favor of doing away with NASA. But I've often seen that the benefits from some of its activities have been oversold, in order to get more money.

Irony

[Jag_Warrior]

Irony

Ironic

[Rollo]

There is no reason to go back. The last mission of the original program was cancelled due to lack of interest and lack of any return on the investment beyond meeting the goal of finally beating the Soviets to a spectacular goal in space. If the Soviets had beaten us to the moon, we'd be on Mars by now.

I agree :up:

The primary reason was to beat the Soviets:
http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/transcript.pdf
"But we’re talking about these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all these other domestic programs and the only justification for it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them."
- JFK, 21 November 1962

When you bear in mind the events in only the previous month, I think that the reasons why JFK decided to go to the moon in the first place were clear. Namely that following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the subsequent no-invasion agreement of Oct 28, that engaging the Soviets in a race to the moon (and hopefully tieing up trillions of Roubles in the process), was a safer option than engaging them in a full-scale nuclear war.


During hard times, taxpayers and voters don't care about moons or the origins of the universe unless it will get them a job, pay the electric bill, or buy food.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641146/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
A record 20 million-plus Americans collected unemployment benefits at some point in 2009

A man on the moon is scant consolation really.

[Sonic]

And so the age of the American domination of space dies in the lifetime of those who pioneered it. :(

Ah well, thank goodness for India and China, and then there's always the plucky privateers.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I agree :up:

The primary reason was to beat the Soviets:
http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/transcript.pdf
"But we’re talking about these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all these other domestic programs and the only justification for it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them."
- JFK, 21 November 1962

When you bear in mind the events in only the previous month, I think that the reasons why JFK decided to go to the moon in the first place were clear. Namely that following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the subsequent no-invasion agreement of Oct 28, that engaging the Soviets in a race to the moon (and hopefully tieing up trillions of Roubles in the process), was a safer option than engaging them in a full-scale nuclear war.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641146/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
A record 20 million-plus Americans collected unemployment benefits at some point in 2009

A man on the moon is scant consolation really.

Rollo, we all know why the US went to the moon, and we all know what happened once they got there, but the point is that for the actual percentage of dollars NASA manages to eke out of the budget, the employment, research and benefits long term are worth a lot more. The US gov't has been fighting "the war on Poverty" since the 60's, and has been in debt or in the black a few times. They have spent TRILLIONS probably by now on social programs, yet the same issues still plague America. I would suggest that NASA is much more effective in getting results for their money than the social justice/assitance bodies of the US Federal gov't and their State counterparts do when it comes to actually improving the well being of the society they claim to serve.

I do know this much: Social policy and programs in the US chew up a lot more money, and are a political football that use their "constenuncy" as pawns. I think they have little incentive to actually SOLVE the problem...it is an industry.

[Hondo]

And so the age of the American domination of space dies in the lifetime of those who pioneered it. :(

Ah well, thank goodness for India and China, and then there's always the plucky privateers.

Funny you should say that. At the end of the Apollo program, boatloads of people went off the deep end in depression and alcholism once they realized they had worked themselves out of a job. These people knew exactly what skylab and shuttle (finished product) represented and knew the game was over.

Space exploration is not a necessity. It is a luxury for those that can afford it. I did read where India wants to go to the moon by 2013. I don't know how much aid they get from the USA in dollars, but if I had control over the budget the money from the USA would stop. After the great tsunami a couple of years ago, India was lamenting the lack of a tsunami warning system. My sympathy to India was tempered with the observation that if India can afford a nuclear weapons program, they can afford a tsunami warning system. Of course, I was told what a heartless basterd I am. Maybe, but if you've got the cash to go to the moon, you don't need my help with feeding your people or developing your country.

The only real reason to go back to the moon and stay there would be to claim the whole thing as yours and that isn't going to happen.

[SportscarBruce]

Say goodbye to the United States of America, the world leader in technology and space exploration,

Say hello to the Universal Social Agency, the erroding safety net for a civilization in decline.

I could not hope to improve on a comment made by this very keen observer so I shall repeat it;

“History teaches us that the onset of the decline and fall of a civilization, society, or nation is marked by a turning away from advancement, exploration, expansion, curiosity, and adventure, and a turning inward to petty material comfort, the distribution of largesse to the masses for essentially non-productive purposes, to those who do no work in return for their reward, panem et circenses. I think we are seeing that now in this country. The outward appearence of strength is merely an illusion. The tree is decaying from within. Listen with the ears of history. Already the storm-blast whistles through the branches. The election of a man with essentially no experience, no record of accomplishment or achievement, no qualifications to hold high office, based mainly on political theater and collective racial guilt and the exploitation of that, is yet another indicator of this decline. History further shows that the outcome of the inevitable fall of a decaying culture is a long period of darkness, chaos, anarchy, further loss of knowledge, and generations of misery for the average individual. Is it too late to stop the madness? The recent election in MA gives me some small measure of hope, but ruination in as short a time as two to four years is certainly possible. Again, let history be your guide.
JamesBurkes (02/01/2010, 8:34 AM )”

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story

[janvanvurpa]

Say goodbye to the United States of America, the world leader in technology and space exploration,

Say hello to the Universal Social Agency, the erroding safety net for a civilization in decline.

I could not hope to improve on a comment made by this very keen observer so I shall repeat it;

“History teaches us that the onset of the decline and fall of a civilization, society, or nation is marked by a turning away from advancement, exploration, expansion, curiosity, and adventure, and a turning inward to petty material comfort, the distribution of largesse to the masses for essentially non-productive purposes, to those who do no work in return for their reward, panem et circenses. I think we are seeing that now in this country. The outward appearence of strength is merely an illusion. The tree is decaying from within. Listen with the ears of history. Already the storm-blast whistles through the branches. The election of a man with essentially no experience, no record of accomplishment or achievement, no qualifications to hold high office, based mainly on political theater and collective racial guilt and the exploitation of that, is yet another indicator of this decline. History further shows that the outcome of the inevitable fall of a decaying culture is a long period of darkness, chaos, anarchy, further loss of knowledge, and generations of misery for the average individual. Is it too late to stop the madness? The recent election in MA gives me some small measure of hope, but ruination in as short a time as two to four years is certainly possible. Again, let history be your guide.
JamesBurkes (02/01/2010, 8:34 AM )”

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story


In the appalling blather quoted above, we'll have to assume unintentional irony of the phrase "the distribution of largesse to the masses for essentially non-productive purposes, to those who do no work in return for their reward," in the context of this thread of reducing the GOLDEN RIVER poured into huge Defense contractors---for it is the same cast of rogues supplying NASA as has been sucking at the Public Teat in supplying massive, elaborate, and above all costly weapons systems--as there has never been an endeavor so berift of benefit that has been so lavishly rewarded.

Like "defense' contracting, NASA has been a study in Corporate-welfare that is hard to rationally understand how it continued to exist.

The rest is just typical insane wishing-for-the apocolypse that has taken over so many of the weaker minds of the Right wing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In the appalling blather quoted above, we'll have to assume unintentional irony of the phrase "the distribution of largesse to the masses for essentially non-productive purposes, to those who do no work in return for their reward," in the context of this thread of reducing the GOLDEN RIVER poured into huge Defense contractors---for it is the same cast of rogues supplying NASA as has been sucking at the Public Teat in supplying massive, elaborate, and above all costly weapons systems--as there has never been an endeavor so berift of benefit that has been so lavishly rewarded.

Like "defense' contracting, NASA has been a study in Corporate-welfare that is hard to rationally understand how it continued to exist.

The rest is just typical insane wishing-for-the apocolypse that has taken over so many of the weaker minds of the Right wing.

Gee Jan, call everyone on the right a weak minded idiot and warn us all of the dreaded Military/industrial complex. So take all that money to fight poverty like the billions already spent, and tell me how putting a bunch of guys at Boeing out of work helps the economy or the guys at Grumman or anywhere else where they were building bits and pieces of space kit. Then come back to me and show me the projects cleaned up and the jobs created. I guarntee you the mess will still be there because the people you purport to be the problem are at the very least putting people to work with decent to high paying jobs, whereas the poor ( the excuse anyone wants to have for killing the space program) will be helped? They were not by LBJ, they were not by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton or both Bush's and they wont be by Obama either.

At some point, money should be spent for the purposes of maybe 4 generations hence putting man into space on a permanent basis. When do we start? We will never start if we scrap the whole idea....

You talk about neo-con's being evil pessmists? You are FAR too pessimistic of your country's role in the world or what it could be. This isn't about the miltary you know...it is about being part of the solution for mankind 150 to 200 years from now.

[F1boat]

The rest is just typical insane wishing-for-the apocolypse that has taken over so many of the weaker minds of the Right wing.

I remember a very humorous British article, which said the Americans how cool is NOT to be a World leader. Sadly, I lost it...

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Americans are not the world's leader, but they at least do their own thing and up until Obama were not led by someone who merely wanted to say he was sorry.... Well...except for Jimmy Carter. A nice man with no clue....

[Sonic]

Space exploration is not a necessity. It is a luxury for those that can afford it. I did read where India wants to go to the moon by 2013. I don't know how much aid they get from the USA in dollars, but if I had control over the budget the money from the USA would stop. After the great tsunami a couple of years ago, India was lamenting the lack of a tsunami warning system. My sympathy to India was tempered with the observation that if India can afford a nuclear weapons program, they can afford a tsunami warning system. Of course, I was told what a heartless basterd I am. Maybe, but if you've got the cash to go to the moon, you don't need my help with feeding your people or developing your country.

Actually I agree with you. Whilst I'm sad to see the end of NASA's mission to the moon and beyond, I was half joking regarding India. As you say they receive a large sum of financial aid each year to assist people who live in abject poverty - this is not a time to be jetting (or in this case rocketing) off around the solar system.

That said I still believe that exploration of space should continue - perhaps in less of a "spacerace" fashion (what's the point in 4 nations all spending huge sums on the same goals?) And more of a united space agency, pooling skills, ambition and funds together. Coupled with private business looking to make a few quid and man on mars need not be a dream for much longer.

[Mark]

While it would be nice to go back to the moon, I do see Obama's point. That they were doing it just with updates of technology developed during the 1960's, and we weren't seeing anything radical or new.

As much as I would love to see a moon mission in my lifetime, it wouldn't really achieve anything, it's been done. Lets try something new.

[Mark]

That said I still believe that exploration of space should continue - perhaps in less of a "spacerace" fashion (what's the point in 4 nations all spending huge sums on the same goals?) And more of a united space agency, pooling skills, ambition and funds together.

It sounds great, but human nature is that the best innovation comes from competition. Which is why we saw the moon landings in the first place.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if China mounted a mission to the moon next.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I would like to see NASA going back to the moon but when I saw the proposals a few years ago it didn't really look like much of a step forwards from the 60's.

[chuck34]

It's kind of funny to me to read through all this. You guys that are cheering on the demise of NASA and the US space program are all for using that money to create more jobs, etc. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK NASA DOES? How many thousands of people are going to be out of a job? This is the one area (science, exploration, pushing tech) where government spending is actually called for. And as Mark has said, NASA's budget is sooooo small that if it went away completely (as some of you seem to be for) that NO ONE would notice. If nations stop exploring and pushing their limits, then they stop being relevent. If anything can be learned from history it would be THAT.

[anthonyvop]

I can easily fond 100's of government programs that are total wastes of money and could easily be cut before I would even touch NASA.

Actually I would increase NASA's budget significantly.

[Hondo]

It's kind of funny to me to read through all this. You guys that are cheering on the demise of NASA and the US space program are all for using that money to create more jobs, etc. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK NASA DOES? How many thousands of people are going to be out of a job? This is the one area (science, exploration, pushing tech) where government spending is actually called for. And as Mark has said, NASA's budget is sooooo small that if it went away completely (as some of you seem to be for) that NO ONE would notice. If nations stop exploring and pushing their limits, then they stop being relevent. If anything can be learned from history it would be THAT.

I'm not calling for the demise of NASA or the end of the US space program. I am saying that returning to the moon, at this time, is a waste of time and money. They really could have pulled out the old Saturn V, made a few technology upgrades, and had a new heavy lifter far cheaper than designing a new one from scratch. They both fly using the same principle, massive amounts of fuel. They both escape Earth's gravity using the same principle, massive amounts of fuel.

NASA ought to be using it's budget to develop different methods of propulsion, different energy sources, new, cheaper composites, new alloys, lighter more effective radiation protection, and much more efficient solar energy. Any serious space exploration, especially manned, is going to require something better than the common rocket. Ion drives work, but take forever to reach any kind of speed. There are plenty of things NASA could develop, maintaining jobs, that would have benefits on the ground and in space. I don't know the definition of Green Energy. Does it mean not using fossil fuels? Does it mean using renewable fuels? does it mean being more efficient? I do know this. Anything you use to convert to energy is going to have a "waste" by-prouduct of some sort that will eventually cause it's own problems. There is a whole host of technology NASA can develop that will help us here and them when they get back up there and none of it is on the moon.

[chuck34]

I'm not calling for the demise of NASA or the end of the US space program. I am saying that returning to the moon, at this time, is a waste of time and money. They really could have pulled out the old Saturn V, made a few technology upgrades, and had a new heavy lifter far cheaper than designing a new one from scratch. They both fly using the same principle, massive amounts of fuel. They both escape Earth's gravity using the same principle, massive amounts of fuel.

You'd think that rebuilding the Saturn V would be quick, easy, and cheap (I thought so too untill I looked into it a bit). But it's not. There are many issues that prevent that. Not least of which is the fact that many of the blueprints have been lost, misplaced, or destroyed. So using Shuttle era parts, sort of reconfigured, is actually better on many levels.

And in the full Constellation plan going to the moon was more of a technology demonstrator/pathfinding mission to get us to Mars. So it's not really an issue of "been there done that". It's more a "we used to know how to do that, so lets see if we remember it right, before we take a BIG step" type of deal.


NASA ought to be using it's budget to develop different methods of propulsion, different energy sources, new, cheaper composites, new alloys, lighter more effective radiation protection, and much more efficient solar energy. Any serious space exploration, especially manned, is going to require something better than the common rocket. Ion drives work, but take forever to reach any kind of speed. There are plenty of things NASA could develop, maintaining jobs, that would have benefits on the ground and in space. I don't know the definition of Green Energy. Does it mean not using fossil fuels? Does it mean using renewable fuels? does it mean being more efficient? I do know this. Anything you use to convert to energy is going to have a "waste" by-prouduct of some sort that will eventually cause it's own problems. There is a whole host of technology NASA can develop that will help us here and them when they get back up there and none of it is on the moon.

This I agree with mostly, but that takes an INCREASE in funding (even if we got rid of manned flight alltogether). And there are a LOT of people calling for a decrease in NASA's funding.

And I strongly disagree with your last statement. There are lots of things to do on the moon as far as broadening our technology. The regolith of the moon is O2 rich, and now that we have found at least some water ice, there is H2. So one of the good things about going to the moon is to test out making fuel off Earth. THAT is something that we NEED to do if we're ever getting off this rock.

[Hondo]

What we need is non-rocket propulsion. I haven't heard about a NASA budget cut per se, only that the return to the moon project is to be scrapped.

There have always been people calling for decreasing NASA's funding. Even during the heydays of the Apollo project people said we shouldn't be in space at all as long as there was one starving negro sitting in Missippippi hitting off a Ripple bottle.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It all comes down to this: Is the USA still in the business of dreaming bigger things for mankind, or will Americans just shuffle around pretending to help the less fortunate?

[Hondo]

By the time Obama and his believers get through with us, we will be shuffling around because we are the less fortunate.

[chuck34]

By the time Obama and his believers get through with us, we will be shuffling around because we are the less fortunate.

Yep, that sure seems to be where we're headed. Making ourselves feel better by telling ourselves that we are helping. All the while unemployment, crime, poverty and the rest get worse.

American NEEDS something to strive for, dream about, inspire people to bigger, better, greater things.

But now we're way off topic, sorry. :-(

[Mark in Oshawa]

By the time Obama and his believers get through with us, we will be shuffling around because we are the less fortunate.

Funny....my apolitical wife said she was tired of the Obama's and their act this am as she opened a Canadian woman's mag and found an article on "Michelle Obama's Arms workout". My wife said, and I quote " I am tired of Obama and his wife, they are just phony and what have they done so far?"

THis from a woman who does not read a paper, and maybe hears about 1/50th of the news I do, but she has had her fill of the rhetoric of the Obama's. I believe in the old days, we called him a BSer...

So now that he wants to kill the space program, I think, ok, at one point will someone just realize this guy is deranged?

[Hondo]

Everybody knows he's a mess, except him. To him, he is the superior intellect.

[F1boat]

I am a bit disappointed with him, but from outside point of view I have to say that he seems a lot more reasonable than W. IMO he has the same problem as Sarkozy in France - he needs to make some unpopular changes, but the people are against them. So I sort of pity Obama.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am a bit disappointed with him, but from outside point of view I have to say that he seems a lot more reasonable than W. IMO he has the same problem as Sarkozy in France - he needs to make some unpopular changes, but the people are against them. So I sort of pity Obama.

Obama isn't Sarkozy. Obama had the majority of Congress on his side, and had 60 Senators that in theory would back him. He could have passed any legislation they wanted, and in the healthcare bill DID. He used up all his politcal capital trying to bring forward a flawed idea (flawed in that there is no real public option that would work better than the flawed private plans, and how is it the politicians wouldn't have to use this PUBLIC option?), while spending money the USA doesn't have. In short, he had the power, and in the end he wasted it. A politician elected with the popularity and fanfare Obama had the majority of the people with him, and with his dithering and posturing, he has lost them and still really has nothing to show for it.

Face it...Obama messing with NASA is just typical of the left wing attitude that they know what is best for society and the economy. Except when given the power and time to do what they believe, the results are worse....

[Rollo]

American NEEDS something to strive for, dream about...

“There is no "British Dream." The reason for this is because we are awake.” :D

[chuck34]

“There is no "British Dream." The reason for this is because we are awake.” :D

Serious question: Is that a good thing?

[Mark in Oshawa]

“There is no "British Dream." The reason for this is because we are awake.” :D

Awake, broke, and in a recession. Just like America....

I know tho, you Brit's are not dreamers, you are doers, but the Americans dream and do....so they tend to do big. Obama just killed the idea of thinking big, and is just running their finances over to the Chinese for social programs that have done nothing but add to the dependencies of the poor they purport to serve.

[Jag_Warrior]

So because some NASA programs are worthwhile, some believe that all NASA programs are worthwhile. In my world, we call that the sacred cow. That's where you tend to find the boys & girls with the gold plated pencils... who have 1001 reasons why they need gold plated pencils.

Like most threads here, this one has eventually been taken over by hyperbole. Personally, I'm all for NASA, research & development. But there is not a single area of government that is soooo valuable that it shouldn't have to justify its programs by way of cost/benefit analysis.

Bruce's initial post was legitimate and sincere. I believe my question was legitimate (and sincere) as well. But no one (other than one silly, sarcastic comment from the Peanut gallery) addressed my initial question: what would be the effect of canceling this program... and how would we be worse off without it?

I don't follow the ins & outs of NASA that closely. So tell me what I'm missing (specifically and ONLY in regard to THIS program).

[Hondo]

Like everything else Jag, it's not that simple but I'll keep your answer simple. The effect would be the unemployment or reassignment of people currently working on the Constellation project. How will we be worse off? That depends on the the eye of the beholder. Probably the worse thing would be any unemployment caused, but even that's a dog chasing it's own tail. The jobs being lost would be government funded jobs so you would also be reducing government spending, which is a good thing. HOWEVER, and I have not checked closely, the cancellation of a project at NASA or any other agency does not always mean a budget cut. Sometimes for various reasons a project will be shelved and another started to take it's place will be done without a change in budget. You went home working on this and the next morning you're working on that. Different project, same paycheck. Another possible worse, No heavy lifter rocket and manned spacecraft that can break Earth's gravity and go to the moon and back. But we haven't had that for almost 40 years anyway.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag, I am on the page with Fiero. The whole point of NASA originally was research and going into space with either satellites for various civilian purposes, or to explore options for mankind in space by understanding it better. Now Obama will be putting them on climatatic research? Sounds like a hijacking of an agency to support a failed policy. NASA should justify its salary in what it was originally mandated and set up to do. With the ongoing changes to one's climate, that should be taken by NOAA or some other agency. Of course....it isn't my money, but the fact remains is NASA was set up by JFK to explore peaceful peace exploration. It wasn't an agenda of conquest or some nefarious goal....

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't mean to oversimplify this, but so far, the reason for not cutting this project sounds a lot like why Congress keeps ordering more (unneeded) C-17's: taxpayers funding "make work" jobs.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but that's a very poor reason to fund this project. These are highly skilled and highly educated engineers. In a country that has a severe shortage of engineers, I just don't believe they'd have an overly hard time securing other employment, if other NASA projects are not available. The only downside there would be fewer Indians and Pakistanis being "imported" on H1B's.

I'm sure there are some merits to this program. But like I said, I just haven't heard what they are, other than the desire to know more about space travel. In the coming years, I think a LOT of things are going to have to be trimmed.

If ol' Bessy stops giving milk, time to sharpen the knives and make some hamburger. There were no sacred cows where I grew up.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't mean to oversimplify this, but so far, the reason for not cutting this project sounds a lot like why Congress keeps ordering more (unneeded) C-17's: taxpayers funding "make work" jobs.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but that's a very poor reason to fund this project. These are highly skilled and highly educated engineers. In a country that has a severe shortage of engineers, I just don't believe they'd have an overly hard time securing other employment, if other NASA projects are not available. The only downside there would be fewer Indians and Pakistanis being "imported" on H1B's.

I'm sure there are some merits to this program. But like I said, I just haven't heard what they are, other than the desire to know more about space travel. In the coming years, I think a LOT of things are going to have to be trimmed.

If ol' Bessy stops giving milk, time to sharpen the knives and make some hamburger. There were no sacred cows where I grew up.

So if NASA dumps their contracts for building space vehicles and these guys get laid off, that is ok with you? Maybe it is ok with me too EXCEPT the point is are they being laid off because the money will be used for a "BETTER" purpose or a more politically acceptable purpose. Taking billions out of building space vehicles that down the road are steps for humans to go into space beyond the moon may sound good now, but where will that money go? Building houses in the inner city? Funding another run at healthcare? How about to other NASA dept.'s to prove global warming is man's fault in the face of all the evidence of scientific malfeasence and tampering? OH I know, how about we give the money to ACORN's successor's when they come along. Jag...the point is, Obama isn't cutting NASA to SAVE money and cut the debt and deficit, he is social engineering with the money and your country is spending money like they are printing it. What it spends on NASA is peanuts...

There may be no sacred cows, but if the only cow's you are willing to carve up are the two agencies of the US gov't that actually can point to actual successes on occasion, but are not politically "correct" then basically you are just playing politics with people's lives and THAT is the sort of narcissistic crap many of Obama's critics just love to point out.

[Jag_Warrior]

If it was me, I'd be looking at everything: defense, discretionary and non-discretionary... foreign and domestic. Prove your worth or...
http://images.clipartof.com/small/5821-Farmer-Getting-Ready-To-Butcher-A-Chicken-Clipart-Illustration.jpg

[chuck34]

Jag, to adress your points a bit.... Obama is supposed to be all about jobs in 2010. So right there is the number 1 reason not to cut this program. You don't like that answer, and that's fine, it's not a great justification I agree. However, it has been, currently is, and will be in the forseeable future, Obama's justification for pretty much anything he's done.

For me, personally, NASA (both R&D, and exploration) is the perfect example of what government SHOULD be doing. Pushing the boundaries of our known universe, both physically and technologically, is what government should be doing. I believe this, basically, because it takes more money than any corporation can come up with. Now to address your specific point about WHY. Well as I've said before, civilizations tend to look inward and die once they stop pushing boundaries. From your earlier comments about hyperbole, I can deduce that you don't like that answer. Fine, but it is what it is. Civilzations NEED to push the boundaries of what is possible, to expolore, to dream, to strive for something. Hyperbole? Maybe, but that's what I think.

Now to your point of why THIS program. You seem to be ok with NASA doing R&D. But R&D to what purpose? If there is no end goal, no deadline, nothing to strive for, the R&D will just go on and on with nothing to really show for it, and no way to know if it's serving any real purpose or not. Constellation serves a purpose. We are (or at least were) going to the moon to re-learn how to go beyond low earth orbit. Once there we were going to learn how to mine materials, manufacture fuels and other products, and all the other things needed to expand beyond this rock. After that we were going to push on to Mars, a place that we may actually be able to colonize one day. If you still think that is just hyperbole, or a "make work program", or a waste of funds ... well then I think we're done here. I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

That being said, yes there is a lot of waste in NASA, and I think that could be cleaned up.

[F1boat]

Obama isn't Sarkozy. Obama had the majority of Congress on his side, and had 60 Senators that in theory would back him. He could have passed any legislation they wanted, and in the healthcare bill DID.

Sarkozy too has a majority in the French Parliament, but if people are not ready for reforms, you can't really make them work. In my opinion Obama is right about his reforms, but if you don't want them, he can't make them work. But from what I remember healthcare reforms are one of the thing he promised to do. And he is trying to.
Just like Sarko promised social, pro-right reforms. But the people do not want them. So in the end they can't happen. The reason for me are the people, they are scared from changing the established order.

[Hondo]

Nice answer chuck on your #42 post. I tried to avoid a lot of detail in answering Jag, but you pointed out that most serious NASA projects are a series of steps, towards a final goal and that is correct.
NASA never was, and is not now, a strictly civillian space exploration organization. It has always been the wink & nod mistress of the Defense Department and various intelligence agencies. One also needs to remember the times into which it was born. Communist expansion and the Domino Theory were very much taken seriously and feared by the free world. Sputnik impressed the world and scared the world and made it clear that the superiority of Capitalism or Communism would be decided by a space race in the public arena. Back then, NASA didn't really have a budget. If 6 different companies had different ideas on how to do something, all 6 were funded to develop their ideas. The whole deal was about speed and progress, not fiscal responsibility. We won, but times have changed since then.
I can think of stuff like much lighter radiation protection, small & light sealed, fixed output nuclear powerplants, small, lightweight batteries and cheaper, more efficient solar power that benefit both space travel and life on the ground right now. I just don't see the need for Constellation right now.

[chuck34]

Nice answer chuck on your #42 post. I tried to avoid a lot of detail in answering Jag, but you pointed out that most serious NASA projects are a series of steps, towards a final goal and that is correct.
NASA never was, and is not now, a strictly civillian space exploration organization. It has always been the wink & nod mistress of the Defense Department and various intelligence agencies. One also needs to remember the times into which it was born. Communist expansion and the Domino Theory were very much taken seriously and feared by the free world. Sputnik impressed the world and scared the world and made it clear that the superiority of Capitalism or Communism would be decided by a space race in the public arena. Back then, NASA didn't really have a budget. If 6 different companies had different ideas on how to do something, all 6 were funded to develop their ideas. The whole deal was about speed and progress, not fiscal responsibility. We won, but times have changed since then.
I can think of stuff like much lighter radiation protection, small & light sealed, fixed output nuclear powerplants, small, lightweight batteries and cheaper, more efficient solar power that benefit both space travel and life on the ground right now. I just don't see the need for Constellation right now.

The need for Constellation is to push forward all the things you called for (radiation protection, nuke plants, batteries, and solar power). All those things dove-tail perfectly into Constellation. You NEED some of those things, specifically the radiation protection, and the others would be really nice.

But without a goal (such as reaching the moon, Mars, beyond) those R&D efforts really have no driving force. We'll get them when we get them attitudes set in, which easily turn into why are we doing this, which then easily morphs into let's cancel the whole thing. However, if you have to reach the moon by the end of the decade, you're going to focus on the stuff that needs to get done because it HAS to get done for the next step to happen.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'll take the time to read more about this program and maybe I'll change my mind. But so far, I haven't heard anything that convinces me that it's anything but a pie in the sky project, with nebulous goals, and has little to do with more pressing and immediate concerns here in the U.S. It might be a nice goal for mankind. But since the U.S. taxpayers are the ones picking up almost all of the costs, I'm not convinced of how (truly) necessary it is.

At the extreme, I would rather live in a nation that had no space program at all, but whose children were #1 in the world in math and science, a nation with a solid manufacturing policy and a trade surplus (instead of a never ending trade deficit) and a nation where infrastructure projects were seriously looked at more than once every 50 years or so. But that's just me... IMO, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I'm not in favor of gutting NASA. But I'm also not in favor of giving them gold plated pencils, just because some Boeing/Lockheed/Bell lobbyist has done a good sales job on a bunch of Congress Critters.

My guess is, Congress will restore funding for this project. And I'm willing to bet that the C-17's (that aren't needed and haven't been ordered) will keep being built too. Like I said, what's pork to one is a worthwhile project to someone else. If not, we wouldn't have all these oddball programs littering the landscape. :dozey:

[janvanvurpa]

I'll take the time to read more about this program and maybe I'll change my mind. But so far, I haven't heard anything that convinces me that it's anything but a pie in the sky project, with nebulous goals, and has little to do with more pressing and immediate concerns here in the U.S. It might be a nice goal for mankind. But since the U.S. taxpayers are the ones picking up almost all of the costs, I'm not convinced of how (truly) necessary it is.

At the extreme,
I would rather live in a nation that had no space program at all, but whose children were #1 in the world in math and science, a nation with a solid manufacturing policy and a trade surplus (instead of a never ending trade deficit) and a nation where infrastructure projects were seriously looked at more than once every 50 years or so. But that's just me... IMO, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I'm not in favor of gutting NASA. But I'm also not in favor of giving them gold plated pencils, just because some Boeing/Lockheed/Bell lobbyist has done a good sales job on a bunch of Congress Critters.

My guess is, Congress will restore funding for this project. And I'm willing to bet that the C-17's (that aren't needed and haven't been ordered) will keep being built too. Like I said, what's pork to one is a worthwhile project to someone else. If not, we wouldn't have all these oddball programs littering the landscape. :dozey:


But, it's not just you.
Millions of straight thinking people think of the same things.

[chuck34]

But, it's not just you.
Millions of straight thinking people think of the same things.

We'd all like that, but it ain't gonna happen even by shifting NASA's ENTIRE budget to education, trade issues, etc.

And NASA does help with education. It gives kids a reason to study Math and Science. If done right the space program can also help other issues as well.

But most people only see NASA as some sort of pork project. One that serves no purpose. Many people want to see that money go to some sort of "jobs" program, but don't count the hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country that are either directly or indirectly involved in the space program.

[chuck34]

Just for reference. The proposed budget for 2010 for NASA is $18.7Billion. That is 0.52% of the Federal Budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget
"when divided by the number of American citizens who pay their taxes on Tax Day, the amount of NASA's budget works out to approximately $57.10 USD per year per taxpayer -- $1.09 a week, or 15 cents a day in current 2007 spending."

And that is the ENTIRE budget for NASA. So let's axe the whole thing. Does anyone really think that an extra 57 bucks a year is really going to educate anyone, or help our infrastructure, or fix a trade deficit?

Compare all that to Defense at $782 Billion, or Social Security Spending at $687Billion, or Medicare/Medicaid at $676 Billion. NASA's budget is a TINY drop in the bucket.

[Jag_Warrior]

And NASA does help with education. It gives kids a reason to study Math and Science. If done right the space program can also help other issues as well.

So you're saying that if we didn't have NASA, our kids would be 35th in the world instead of 25th or where ever they are? Hell, the average high school senior couldn't name his Congressman if his life depended on it. It's nice that a handful of kids probably do get some motivation from NASA's existence. But considering our rank in the world, it's apparently not very effective.

I agree with you to a point, if done right, NASA could help with other issues. But the same could be said of most every government program under the sun... "if done right" - famous last words. :dozey:

An old friend of mine and his wife were building a house a few years ago. Things got tight and he saw that they were going to have to scale back on its size. He estimated that by going from over 4,000 sq. ft. to about 3,200, they could make it work. But to hear her tell it, he wanted her to live in a mud hut in Bangladesh, with no electricity or running water.

The loss of that 800 sq. ft. didn't kill her. And I seriously doubt that the loss of this program would kill NASA. They're going to probably get it back anyway. Hopefully India is turning out enough engineers to make the thing work right. :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

So you're saying that if we didn't have NASA, our kids would be 35th in the world instead of 25th or where ever they are? Hell, the average high school senior couldn't name his Congressman if his life depended on it. It's nice that a handful of kids probably do get some motivation from NASA's existence. But considering our rank in the world, it's apparently not very effective.

I agree with you to a point, if done right, NASA could help with other issues. But the same could be said of most every government program under the sun... "if done right" - famous last words. :dozey:

An old friend of mine and his wife were building a house a few years ago. Things got tight and he saw that they were going to have to scale back on its size. He estimated that by going from over 4,000 sq. ft. to about 3,200, they could make it work. But to hear her tell it, he wanted her to live in a mud hut in Bangladesh, with no electricity or running water.

The loss of that 800 sq. ft. didn't kill her. And I seriously doubt that the loss of this program would kill NASA. They're going to probably get it back anyway. Hopefully India is turning out enough engineers to make the thing work right. :D

Jag..think about what you have said here. You said basicallyl the kids of America are just sucking at math and science. So who's fault is that? The education system at the primary and secondary level. That is something that likely wont be addressed by cutting money out of NASA. It has been screwed up by both parties for years. That said, what incentive or dream would a kid interested in science have if the USA just dumped all over the whole idea of having a space program. How many engineers and scientests were born out of the 60's? The cost of losing a manned space program is not just about the money. Listen, I am with Chuck, there is no gov't program that probably couldn't be trimmed. God knows I rail about government involvement in a lot of things because they do spend more money to accomplish taxes, but on something like the space program, I have to say you would want that in the public domain.

I said it back there before, using NASA as a politically correct research institute to back public policy is just not what it was mandated to do. I watch this from a far, and I wonder what the heck will happen if the US is not involved in space.

[RusH]

NASA got steered in the wrong direction under GWB, and Obama killed it.
Which may be an analogy fitting of the USA.

Anyhow, it`s a mistake when you turn away from tech and innovation. Hopefully the ESA and China :rollyeyes: can pick up the slack for a nation in decline.

[chuck34]

So you're saying that if we didn't have NASA, our kids would be 35th in the world instead of 25th or where ever they are? Hell, the average high school senior couldn't name his Congressman if his life depended on it. It's nice that a handful of kids probably do get some motivation from NASA's existence. But considering our rank in the world, it's apparently not very effective.

I don't have any numbers, but there was a glut of kids coming out of Engineering Schools in the early to mid 70's. Why was that? Because they were inspired to go into that field because of NASA and the moon program. Then we canceled it, and had too many engineers and not enough jobs. I'm not saying that we'll suddenly be #1 in math and science, but directionally it helps. And as Mark said, if you cut funding for NASA that money ain't gonna go to the High Schools throughout the US. Even if it did, do you really think that $57 is gonna make a huge improvement? And you don't seem to be in favor of cutting ALL of NASA, so will a fraction of $57 make our kids jump to #1 in math and science?


I agree with you to a point, if done right, NASA could help with other issues. But the same could be said of most every government program under the sun... "if done right" - famous last words. :dozey:

Yep, I'd agree with you there. So why are you in favor of cutting funding for this program? Aren't there about a million other programs that are just as wastefull, but cost large multiples of this one? Wouldn't it be more effective to start with those?


An old friend of mine and his wife were building a house a few years ago. Things got tight and he saw that they were going to have to scale back on its size. He estimated that by going from over 4,000 sq. ft. to about 3,200, they could make it work. But to hear her tell it, he wanted her to live in a mud hut in Bangladesh, with no electricity or running water.

The loss of that 800 sq. ft. didn't kill her. And I seriously doubt that the loss of this program would kill NASA. They're going to probably get it back anyway. Hopefully India is turning out enough engineers to make the thing work right. :D

Great story, but I don't really think it applies here. And your thought about "getting it back anyway" misses a BIG problem. Back when they canceled Apollo, they also fired a boat load of engineers, skilled techs, and many other people. That led to a lack of experienced people when it came time to get the shuttle off the ground. The "brain drain" was cause for much of the delay in the shuttle program. We're going back down that road for no reason. "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

One of the other reasons that you seem to be using for canceling human space flight is that all the NASA engineers are walking around with golden pencils or something. While this may be the case (I don't know), how is that justification for CANCELATION? That makes no sence to me. If you want to cut the fat out of a program you don't cancel it. You go to them and say, "we need to get this done, but we're in financal hard time, so you're gonna have to do it with less". I'm not following the logic here??

[chuck34]

NASA got steered in the wrong direction under GWB, and Obama killed it.
Which may be an analogy fitting of the USA.

Anyhow, it`s a mistake when you turn away from tech and innovation. Hopefully the ESA and China :rollyeyes: can pick up the slack for a nation in decline.

If you think NASA got steered in the wrong direction, you correct the course. You don't cancel it. I'm really struggling to see the logic of this argument.

[Jag_Warrior]

Another view...


Wall Street Journal
Obama Gets Space Funding Right
By STEVEN WEINBERG

We could send hundreds of robots to Mars for the cost of one manned mission.

In the federal budget released this week, President Barack Obama calls for increasing NASA's funding by 2% while cutting its manned space flight program. If enacted by Congress, the cuts will likely end plans to return astronauts to the moon. Some claim these cuts will damage America's capabilities in science and technology, but the president's spending plan will likely boost both.

The manned space flight program masquerades as science, but it actually crowds out real science at NASA, which is all done on unmanned missions. In 2004 President George W. Bush announced a new vision for the space agency: a return of astronauts to the moon followed by a manned expedition to Mars. A few days later NASA's office of Space Science announced major cutbacks in its important Beyond Einstein and Explorer programs of unmanned research in astronomy. The explanation was that they "do not clearly support the goals of the President's vision for space exploration."

Giving up on manned space flight doesn't mean we have to give up on the exploration of the solar system. The president's budget calls for spending $19 billion on NASA, and for much less than the cost of sending a few astronauts once to a single location on Mars we could send hundreds of robots like Spirit and Opportunity to sites all over the planet.

The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for that technology is in the manned space flight program itself.


Mr. Weinberg received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 and the National Medal of Science in 1991. He teaches in the physics and astronomy departments of the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Lake Views—This World and the Universe," just out from Harvard University Press.

Obama Gets Space Funding Right (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575042920971568684.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

[chuck34]

Another view...



Obama Gets Space Funding Right (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575042920971568684.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

You can only do so much with robots. They're fine, but there is a limit to what they can do.

"The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for that technology is in the manned space flight program itself."

So you don't see any need for ever trying to keep people alive in space? You're fine with humans staying on earth for at least the forseeable future? There is no reason, that you can see, for HUMANS to venture away from this place?

[Hondo]

Most people enjoy the shows that the robots put on and, oddly enough since it would be much easier to do, no robot yet has been accused of faking a landing. With all the RC toys and video games out there now, maybe people do identify more with the robotic missions.

I still maintain that some things like propulsion and radiation protection can be developed on the ground and tested on robotic flights. Advance missions by robots can narrow down areas of interest for follow up human exploration, saving bunches of money.

I think going to the moon for some countries is a yardstick by which they and the world judge themselves. The USA has gone to the moon and so have we...

All those areospace engineers coming out of school switched to law and journalism and set off to bag politicians.

You want manned exploration. You figure out your light weight radiation protection and come up with a propulsion system that will get to Mars in 30 days and the whole thing will turn around and we'll be on our way.

[chuck34]

Most people enjoy the shows that the robots put on and, oddly enough since it would be much easier to do, no robot yet has been accused of faking a landing. With all the RC toys and video games out there now, maybe people do identify more with the robotic missions.

I still maintain that some things like propulsion and radiation protection can be developed on the ground and tested on robotic flights. Advance missions by robots can narrow down areas of interest for follow up human exploration, saving bunches of money.

I think going to the moon for some countries is a yardstick by which they and the world judge themselves. The USA has gone to the moon and so have we...

All those areospace engineers coming out of school switched to law and journalism and set off to bag politicians.

You want manned exploration. You figure out your light weight radiation protection and come up with a propulsion system that will get to Mars in 30 days and the whole thing will turn around and we'll be on our way.

I'm not saying we don't do all those things. Research is great and needed. But I just don't see shutting off manned flight being a good idea. As I said you end up having a "brain drain" just like after Apollo. Plus, if all NASA is doing is research, it becomes MUCH easier to cut or elimiate funding.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama will cut NASA, but the price down the road for this is greater than the savings now... but that is this adminstration once again not looking at unintended consequences.

[Hondo]

NASA still delivers a lot in the background that you don't know about, aren't supposed to know about, ain't gonna know about.

[chuck34]

NASA still delivers a lot in the background that you don't know about, aren't supposed to know about, ain't gonna know about.

Yes, but for how long? NASA gets a lot of money because of the nice shiney, loud, cool looking thing called the Space Shuttle. How long after that goes away, and nothing replaces it, will Congress keep funding an organization that their constiuents don't ever know anything about?

[Hondo]

The shuttle was a mess from day one. It was reusable only in the sense that a spent cartridge is reloadable. It's capacity was far less than what was needed. Actually the shuttle was built first, then NASA had to figure out a mission for it. The Soviets, realizing how worthless the shuttle was, didn't even fly theirs. They scrapped it after it was built.

Sorry dude, there is no point in going back to the moon and anywhere else takes too long to get there.

[Sonic]

The shuttle was a mess from day one. It was reusable only in the sense that a spent cartridge is reloadable. It's capacity was far less than what was needed. Actually the shuttle was built first, then NASA had to figure out a mission for it. The Soviets, realizing how worthless the shuttle was, didn't even fly theirs. They scrapped it after it was built.

Sorry dude, there is no point in going back to the moon and anywhere else takes too long to get there.

I wonder what your great nation would look like if the original European settlers had said "west coast? Nah too far, takes too long!"

[Hondo]

I wonder what your great nation would look like if the original European settlers had said "west coast? Nah too far, takes too long!"

Our great nation would look the same. The Europeans for the most part settled on the east coast. The later, American settlers pressed west, looking for additional land and opportunity. The taxpayer did not pay for the westward migration.

It's not even close to being an equal comparison.

I know, some like the French and Spanish sailed further west looking for gold and claiming land, there was very little settling done. The spanish moved up into California, but that wasn't a cross country trek.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't think there is any point in going back to the moon with technology that hasn't moved on much since the 1960's.

The only chance to see space technology progress much further is a new Cold War between America(NASA), EU(ESA), Russia and China.

[Jag_Warrior]

You can only do so much with robots. They're fine, but there is a limit to what they can do.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to devote more resources to advanced robotics. There's a limit to what people can do too.




"The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for that technology is in the manned space flight program itself."


So you don't see any need for ever trying to keep people alive in space?

As of right now, whatever the dude with the PhD in Physics says, I'm good with it. I'd look like Sarah Palin arguing wth Paul Volker on Economics. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.



You're fine with humans staying on earth for at least the forseeable future?

Sure. I like it here. Why leave?



There is no reason, that you can see, for HUMANS to venture away from this place?

That I can see? Not really.

[Jag_Warrior]

Obama will cut NASA, but the price down the road for this is greater than the savings now... but that is this adminstration once again not looking at unintended consequences.

He's cutting NASA by increasing its budget by 2%? :confused:

[janvanvurpa]

Our great nation would look the same. The Europeans for the most part settled on the east coast. The later, American settlers pressed west, looking for additional land and opportunity. The taxpayer did not pay for the westward migration.

It's not even close to being an equal comparison.

I know, some like the French and Spanish sailed further west looking for gold and claiming land, there was very little settling done. The spanish moved up into California, but that wasn't a cross country trek.

I guess you never head of the Homestead Act where the US Government gave FREE public taxpayer owned land to anybody who settled it.

I guess you never head of Land grants for railway and canal right of ways?
Grants of up to 5 miles either side of a rail line of taxpayer owned land given FREE to private businesses.........

And I guess you never heard of the immigration of 27 million people into this country between the 1830s to the 1930s essentially filling the empty Midwest and West where ever it was worth settling????

Never heard of Germans being the majority in Milwaukee, Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin, never heard of Swedes and Norwegians being so dominant in some counties in the Midwest or straight across Nebraska, Montana all the way the West?

[chuck34]

The shuttle was a mess from day one. It was reusable only in the sense that a spent cartridge is reloadable. It's capacity was far less than what was needed. Actually the shuttle was built first, then NASA had to figure out a mission for it. The Soviets, realizing how worthless the shuttle was, didn't even fly theirs. They scrapped it after it was built.

I'd pretty much agree with this. But we're not talking about the drawbacks of the Shuttle.


Sorry dude, there is no point in going back to the moon and anywhere else takes too long to get there.

So if it's hard, it's not worth doing? And I've told you the reasons for going back to the moon are to learn how to live and work on other "planets". But apparently you don't see the need for that. So I guess we're done here. :-)

[chuck34]

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to devote more resources to advanced robotics. There's a limit to what people can do too.

I have no problem with that. Robots are perfect for pathfinding type missions. But I don't want to see that done at the expense of human spaceflight.

Let's take robotics to it's logical end. A bit of a thought experiment. So we (the US) stop flying humans into space for the forseeable future. The Russians, Chineese, Europeans, Indians, and Iranians keep flying their people. Let's say 50 years down the road, or 20, whatever, one of our robotic missions finds "unobtainium" on Mars or some asteroid. Who do you think will get there to mine it first, the US who has to completely re-learn how to get to space, or some other country who has 20-50 years more (and recent) experience?


As of right now, whatever the dude with the PhD in Physics says, I'm good with it. I'd look like Sarah Palin arguing wth Paul Volker on Economics. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

Do you really want to start a war of PhD's? I can go dig up articles etc that have the exact opposite view. But then it would just end up as a p!ssing match.


Sure. I like it here. Why leave?

No one is making you leave, but your view is to make people stay.


That I can see? Not really.

That's your view, and that's fine, but I don't agree. There are plenty of reasons to leave. This planet will not support humans forever. There are millions of things that could happen that will mean we wish we could go somewhere else. God forbid, we nuke each other, or Global Warming is real and as bad as they say. What about an asteroid impact, bio-warfare, pandemics, etc.? Wouldn't it be nice to have another outlet as a species?

[chuck34]

He's cutting NASA by increasing its budget by 2%? :confused:

He's not cutting NASA, just the human spaceflight part of it.

Think of it this way, NASA is a company that gets it's sales (money from the government) by heavily advertising to it's customers (loud, flashy Shuttle launches). Now the CEO (Obama) has cut advertising and focused that budget on R&D that may or may not pay out in 10-20 year's time. What do you think is going to happen? Since your customer is no longer aware of you because you stopped advertising, how long do you think the money will keep comming in for your fancy R&D projects?

[Hondo]

I guess you never head of the Homestead Act where the US Government gave FREE public taxpayer owned land to anybody who settled it.

I guess you never head of Land grants for railway and canal right of ways?
Grants of up to 5 miles either side of a rail line of taxpayer owned land given FREE to private businesses.........

And I guess you never heard of the immigration of 27 million people into this country between the 1830s to the 1930s essentially filling the empty Midwest and West where ever it was worth settling????

Never heard of Germans being the majority in Milwaukee, Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin, never heard of Swedes and Norwegians being so dominant in some counties in the Midwest or straight across Nebraska, Montana all the way the West?

Quite frankly, I didn't want to get into a long drawn out history lesson on a comparison that cannot be compared. Yes, thank you, I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that the government paid railroads for miles of track built, whether they went anywhere or not. The Government didn't have huge amounts of money invested in the land that we stole from the poor, feather wearing, hunter-gatherer proletariat that they stole from the poor, feather wearing, hunter-gatherer proletariat before them yada yada yada...

Will you remain angry your entire life?

[Hondo]

I have no problem with that. Robots are perfect for pathfinding type missions. But I don't want to see that done at the expense of human spaceflight.

Let's take robotics to it's logical end. A bit of a thought experiment. So we (the US) stop flying humans into space for the forseeable future. The Russians, Chineese, Europeans, Indians, and Iranians keep flying their people. Let's say 50 years down the road, or 20, whatever, one of our robotic missions finds "unobtainium" on Mars or some asteroid. Who do you think will get there to mine it first, the US who has to completely re-learn how to get to space, or some other country who has 20-50 years more (and recent) experience?



Do you really want to start a war of PhD's? I can go dig up articles etc that have the exact opposite view. But then it would just end up as a p!ssing match.



No one is making you leave, but your view is to make people stay.



That's your view, and that's fine, but I don't agree. There are plenty of reasons to leave. This planet will not support humans forever. There are millions of things that could happen that will mean we wish we could go somewhere else. God forbid, we nuke each other, or Global Warming is real and as bad as they say. What about an asteroid impact, bio-warfare, pandemics, etc.? Wouldn't it be nice to have another outlet as a species?

My point is that the technologies that we need to live in space, can be developed without space travel. We know what the dangers in space are. Once developed, those technologies can be tested on robotic missions. Apollo had nothing to do with manned exploration of space or finding new resources on the moon. It was about beating the Soviets to the moon, in front of the whole world. Thats all. Thats why damn near all the Apollo astronauts left the space program. They found out in short order that there really wasn't a Mars program to follow up the moon landings and didn't want to be confined in Skylab spinning Oreos on camera or seeing if chickens could lay eggs in space. If they had found any rare, valuable, EASY to retrieve minerals or ores it might be a different story. But they didn't. What they found supports the theory that the moon is a large chunk of earth that got knocked loose and gradually reformed it's mass.

I'll split the difference with you. We develop a high speed lunar robot. We attach one of those huge inflatable advertising gorillas or a dragon, or something similar to it. We shoot them to the moon. We sneak them up on the Chinese and Indian moonwalkers, turn on the cameras, inflate the gorilla, and wait for them to turn around! The sight of those guys shrieking like a woman, pissing all over themselves, and moon running for the hills would be priceless! Now that, would be great video as well as being the first international practical joke ever done on the moon. NASA could sell the videos on DVD and make enough money to fund Constellation.

[SportscarBruce]

Hey Fiero5.7, if there were huge untapped reserves of exotic "space crude" worth gabillions of dollars over the cost of getting there and bringing it back would you change your mind? In other words, is it all about the buck in your world? Is there no value in expanding human potential for survival off this planet the global capitalist and multitude hordes are rapidly stripping bare?

[Hondo]

Hey Fiero5.7, if there were huge untapped reserves of exotic "space crude" worth gabillions of dollars over the cost of getting there and bringing it back would you change your mind? In other words, is it all about the buck in your world? Is there no value in expanding human potential for survival off this planet the global capitalist and multitude hordes are rapidly stripping bare?

If "if" was "syph" we'd all be at the clinic. As terrible as you make the world sound via your global capitalist manufactured hardware on the global capitalist refined network any humans you send elsewhere are going to do the same thing there.

[chuck34]

My point is that the technologies that we need to live in space, can be developed without space travel. We know what the dangers in space are. Once developed, those technologies can be tested on robotic missions.

Sure the tech can be developed without humans in space. My point is that I believe the R&D side of this is VERY easy to cancel once the only thing the public cares about is gone. Right now there are hundreds, thousands even, of letters pooring into Congressmen and Senator's offices begging them not to cancel human space flight. So they are at least paying a bit of attention. Do you honestly think that there will be any letters to Congress if the next President decides to cut even more from NASA's budget? I mean we have all this debt and deficit piling up, why do we need all this research into technology that doesn't bennifit us at all, there aren't even any astronauts going to space on US rockets?


Apollo had nothing to do with manned exploration of space or finding new resources on the moon. It was about beating the Soviets to the moon, in front of the whole world. Thats all. Thats why damn near all the Apollo astronauts left the space program. They found out in short order that there really wasn't a Mars program to follow up the moon landings and didn't want to be confined in Skylab spinning Oreos on camera or seeing if chickens could lay eggs in space. If they had found any rare, valuable, EASY to retrieve minerals or ores it might be a different story. But they didn't. What they found supports the theory that the moon is a large chunk of earth that got knocked loose and gradually reformed it's mass.

Can't argue with you there. But this time we are going for other reasons. 1) To relearn how to go beyond earth orbit. 2) To mine the H2 and O2 that we know are there, and make fuel. and 3) To push our technological and physiological boundries.


I'll split the difference with you. We develop a high speed lunar robot. We attach one of those huge inflatable advertising gorillas or a dragon, or something similar to it. We shoot them to the moon. We sneak them up on the Chinese and Indian moonwalkers, turn on the cameras, inflate the gorilla, and wait for them to turn around! The sight of those guys shrieking like a woman, pissing all over themselves, and moon running for the hills would be priceless! Now that, would be great video as well as being the first international practical joke ever done on the moon. NASA could sell the videos on DVD and make enough money to fund Constellation.

Now THAT would be worth seeing. :-)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hey Fiero5.7, if there were huge untapped reserves of exotic "space crude" worth gabillions of dollars over the cost of getting there and bringing it back would you change your mind? In other words, is it all about the buck in your world? Is there no value in expanding human potential for survival off this planet the global capitalist and multitude hordes are rapidly stripping bare?

IN the end, the capitalist has to see a return. NASA isn't a capitalist enterprise, it's job is to repesent your nation in space, which it WONT be doing if it cancels Constellation and just fires up the odd satellite every now and then. IN short, Obama is going to use NASA to do research on his pet project, which will be proving the IPCC right....whether they are or not is inconsquential because in the end, it isn't the science that counts, it is the political mission that is ensured by proving man is destroying the climate of the earth...

[Jag_Warrior]

I have no problem with that. Robots are perfect for pathfinding type missions. But I don't want to see that done at the expense of human spaceflight.

Why not? Why this obsession with manned space flight?



Let's take robotics to it's logical end. A bit of a thought experiment. So we (the US) stop flying humans into space for the forseeable future. The Russians, Chineese, Europeans, Indians, and Iranians keep flying their people. Let's say 50 years down the road, or 20, whatever, one of our robotic missions finds "unobtainium" on Mars or some asteroid. Who do you think will get there to mine it first, the US who has to completely re-learn how to get to space, or some other country who has 20-50 years more (and recent) experience?

Its logical end? How do you know what the logical end of advanced robotics is?

OK, the U.S. finds "unobtanium" on Mars. While the Chinese, Russians, Europeans, Indians, and Iranians(???) are gathering picks and shovels at the launch pad, our robots could be planting flags and digging ore. The fact is, the countries that you mentioned aren't even wasting the first dime on this, are they? More likely that our robots will be there and back, while they're trying to figure out how to keep some rice farmer alive past the half way mark. Hopefully the Japanese kids will build the robot for us and the Indian kids will program it for us, since our kids are "too busy" playing on Facebook and Tweeting about American Idol.



Do you really want to start a war of PhD's? I can go dig up articles etc that have the exact opposite view. But then it would just end up as a p!ssing match.

Sorry Chuck, but whether it's a view I agree with or disagree with, I'd prefer to hear what the (true) experts have to say. Post some other experts' views - that's great. It's fine that we can talk about this. But neither I, nor anyone else on this board, knows as much about this topic as an(y) astrophysicist. It's a pissing match already. But none of us seems to have that much (independent) knowledge of the topic. We might as well be talking about our favorite Star Trek movie. If one of these eggheads came to this board, he'd think we were the Geico cavemen, arguing about where fire comes from. Ugg... Fire!!! :eek:



No one is making you leave, but your view is to make people stay.

Someone might want to go to the Monaco race this year. But my refusal to pay for their ticket hardly constitutes me "making" them stay here.



That's your view, and that's fine, but I don't agree. There are plenty of reasons to leave. This planet will not support humans forever. There are millions of things that could happen that will mean we wish we could go somewhere else. God forbid, we nuke each other, or Global Warming is real and as bad as they say. What about an asteroid impact, bio-warfare, pandemics, etc.? Wouldn't it be nice to have another outlet as a species?

Well, there is one certainty: the sun is going to eventually burn out (in a few billion years, I think :confused :) . So sure, there's a reason to leave this rock. But I would propose that instead of trying to get out of town because of what MIGHT happen (that has an extremely low probability of happening), we should take steps to prevent the (more near term) things that you are concerned about. And let's be honest, the same asteroid that you're worried might hit Earth, could just as easily hit your new colony on Mars or where ever.

Look, the bottomline is, NASA has a budget. As was demonstrated when Bush wanted to put people in space, that takes away from other programs. It's just a question of what the best, most rational goals are, and then what gives us the best bang for the buck. My preference would be to see resources devoted to advanced robotics. It's INCREDIBLY easy to see how that technology could be applied here on Earth, whether above ground or underground and undersea. It's not that nothing can be gained from sending people into space. But it apparently costs more and yields less.

[chuck34]

Why not? Why this obsession with manned space flight?

I know this may be a poor answer according to many, but ... FUNDING. The old quote is "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". But the reverse is also true. If there isn't a manned US presence in space, it will be VERY easy for Congress to de-fund the whole thing. As I said before, how many constituents will call and complain to their Congresscritter that their favorite R&D project has been de-funded?


Its logical end? How do you know what the logical end of advanced robotics is?

So maybe not the "logical end", but at least a plausable end.


OK, the U.S. finds "unobtanium" on Mars. While the Chinese, Russians, Europeans, Indians, and Iranians(???) are gathering picks and shovels at the launch pad, our robots could be planting flags and digging ore. The fact is, the countries that you mentioned aren't even wasting the first dime on this, are they?

The Chinese are going to the moon.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59356,news-comment,news-politics,has-obama-just-handed-the-moon-to-china-conquer-military

The Russians are going to an asteroid
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59356,news-comment,news-politics,has-obama-just-handed-the-moon-to-china-conquer-military

The Indians are trying to get to space on their own, and to the moon some day
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/29/india.manned.space.mission/index.html

How about those Iranians?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8811141352

Yep, sounds like they're all just gathering picks and shovels at the launch pad. No wait, they all have plans of getting to space or the moon BEFORE we even try to get back up there on our own rockets.


More likely that our robots will be there and back, while they're trying to figure out how to keep some rice farmer alive past the half way mark. Hopefully the Japanese kids will build the robot for us and the Indian kids will program it for us, since our kids are "too busy" playing on Facebook and Tweeting about American Idol.

How many sample return missions have been done robotically and how many have been manned?

Perhaps if we had a robust manned spaceflight program some of those kids would be inspired to do something other than play on Facebook or Twitter.


Sorry Chuck, but whether it's a view I agree with or disagree with, I'd prefer to hear what the (true) experts have to say. Post some other experts' views - that's great. It's fine that we can talk about this. But neither I, nor anyone else on this board, knows as much about this topic as an(y) astrophysicist. It's a pissing match already. But none of us seems to have that much (independent) knowledge of the topic. We might as well be talking about our favorite Star Trek movie. If one of these eggheads came to this board, he'd think we were the Geico cavemen, arguing about where fire comes from. Ugg... Fire!!! :eek:

How about Buzz Aldrin, does his opinion count as a "true expert"? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html



Well, there is one certainty: the sun is going to eventually burn out (in a few billion years, I think :confused :) . So sure, there's a reason to leave this rock. But I would propose that instead of trying to get out of town because of what MIGHT happen (that has an extremely low probability of happening), we should take steps to prevent the (more near term) things that you are concerned about. And let's be honest, the same asteroid that you're worried might hit Earth, could just as easily hit your new colony on Mars or where ever.

So your position is that we can't do anything new until everything we are currently doing throughout society is perfect? Good luck ever getting that done.

And yes an asteroid could hhit the Mars colony. But that doesn't wipe out the human species.


Look, the bottomline is, NASA has a budget. As was demonstrated when Bush wanted to put people in space, that takes away from other programs.

So I go back to my earlier point. NASA's entire budget is only 0.52% of the Federal Budget. That won't even make a dent in most other programs. NASA is a bargin.


It's just a question of what the best, most rational goals are, and then what gives us the best bang for the buck. My preference would be to see resources devoted to advanced robotics. It's INCREDIBLY easy to see how that technology could be applied here on Earth, whether above ground or underground and undersea.

I would love to see more robotics as well. But, like I keep saying, without the publicity NASA gets from it's manned missions (little as that may be) it will be MUCH easier to cancel or at least decrease the funding for all the other stuff.


It's not that nothing can be gained from sending people into space. But it apparently costs more and yields less.

You're gonna have to prove that one.

[chuck34]

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03SpaceEffort09121962.htm

"The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds."

"So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space."

"The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space."

"Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation."

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."



Read the whole speech, it's great even today. But apparently ispiration and the will to push forward have been killed by cynicism and apathy. :-/

[janvanvurpa]

Quite frankly, I didn't want to get into a long drawn out history lesson on a comparison that cannot be compared. Yes, thank you, I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that the government paid railroads for miles of track built, whether they went anywhere or not. The Government didn't have huge amounts of money invested in the land that we stole from the poor, feather wearing, hunter-gatherer proletariat that they stole from the poor, feather wearing, hunter-gatherer proletariat before them yada yada yada...

Will you remain angry your entire life?

First, what a strange presumption. Why ever would you think I'm angry?

second the main point aside from the historical record of who emigrated, who filled and supplied the labor to build this country is that DIRECT GOVERNMENT SPENDING was done with a clear eye towards future benefits: By giving massive grants and subsidies and tax reliefs or deferrals to Corporations, there was an expected tangible, measurable benefit to MILLIONS of INDIVIDUALS pretty quickly---as well as long term benefits to the Capitalists....

AND IT WORKED. Sure the Capitalists got insanely rich, but the WHOLE COUNTRY's wealth increased as a result and quite markedly and quite demonstrably...

Read any history, except High School level comic books and see the meteoric raise in EVERYTHING in this country from 1848 onward.....

Nothing approaching even a fraction of the benefits can be said to have "trickled down" from bllions upon billions spent in Manned Space travel.

And now other countries are chipping away at our fantastic productivity lead because they invest in education, production, infastructure, highways, ports, railways, powerplants---boring stuff to boys with stars in their eyes, but the basis for a Nation's wealth.

But this is a Motorsport forum full of boys who are enamored of shiny things to look at and sit and fap fap fap fap about with other boys fap fap fap fap fapping simultaneously, so naturally big exciting noisy things far removed from boring reality are going to be cherished as "the hot thing"...

yeah right.

[chuck34]

And now other countries are chipping away at our fantastic productivity lead because they invest in education, production, infastructure, highways, ports, railways, powerplants---boring stuff to boys with stars in their eyes, but the basis for a Nation's wealth.

So how was our productivity lead doing back in the 60's when we were spending 5% or so of our federal budget on NASA? Now compare that to today, and the last 15 years or so, where we are spending less than 1% on NASA. Yep looks like we need to spend less on NASA to make things better productivity wise?????? But I guess I'm just a boy with stars in his eyes, but also numbers to back me up.

The last time we spent this little on NASA, percentage wise, was 1960. That was before we had ANY real presence in space. But those are just boring facts and numbers that boys don't care about, right?

[janvanvurpa]

So how was our productivity lead doing back in the 60's when we were spending 5% or so of our federal budget on NASA? Now compare that to today, and the last 15 years or so, where we are spending less than 1% on NASA. Yep looks like we need to spend less on NASA to make things better productivity wise?????? But I guess I'm just a boy with stars in his eyes, but also numbers to back me up.

The last time we spent this little on NASA, percentage wise, was 1960. That was before we had ANY real presence in space. But those are just boring facts and numbers that boys don't care about, right?


Ask your question clearly.
What are you attmpting to infer? Correlation or causation?
Or just argue?

[chuck34]

Ask your question clearly.
What are you attmpting to infer? Correlation or causation?
Or just argue?

I'm not infering causation or correlation. Many who argue for the gutting of NASA seem to be infering causation though. The argument seems to be that we are spending too much on NASA, and that is killing our economy in other areas. Well I'm bringing up the fact that back in the 60's (when most people would say that the US was the CLEAR economic world leader) the US was spending 5% of the Federal Budget on NASA. Now we are spending about 10 times less on NASA, 0.52%. And people are calling for more cuts to NASA to boost our economic standing. The numbers just don't play out for more cuts.

But at least there is some correlation in the other way, more spending on NASA correlates to a more healthy US economy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03SpaceEffort09121962.htm

"The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds."

"So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space."

"The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space."

"Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation."

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."



Read the whole speech, it's great even today. But apparently ispiration and the will to push forward have been killed by cynicism and apathy. :-/

JFK gave a pretty good speech. So does Obama. The difference is JFK was thinking ahead and forward....Obama? Well when it comes to his NASA plan, it is just more social engineering.....

[BDunnell]

JFK gave a pretty good speech. So does Obama. The difference is JFK was thinking ahead and forward....Obama? Well when it comes to his NASA plan, it is just more social engineering.....

Yes, he's definitely as bad as Hitler, isn't he?

[BDunnell]

But at least there is some correlation in the other way, more spending on NASA correlates to a more healthy US economy.

Yes, if one ignores the other factors that might come into play in the health of the economy at any one time are completely ignored, I suppose one might be able to make that assertion stand up. Were two particularly healthy periods in the UK economy to coincide with two rises in gun crime, would it be sensible to suggest that the two things are linked — I mean, for reasons other than fitting into a pre-determined argument against a politician you don't approve of?

[Jag_Warrior]

I know this may be a poor answer according to many, but ... FUNDING. The old quote is "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". But the reverse is also true. If there isn't a manned US presence in space, it will be VERY easy for Congress to de-fund the whole thing. As I said before, how many constituents will call and complain to their Congresscritter that their favorite R&D project has been de-funded?

IMO, that just sounds like an excuse to ask for money, whether it's justified or not. Nobody is attempting to "de-fund" NASA. Again with the dramatics and hyperbole.



So maybe not the "logical end", but at least a plausable end.

Why plausible? You believe that technology could/should be developed to send people to other bodies in space, but you believe you know what the limitations of robotics are?

Isn't it odd that we have a rather advanced space program, and yet it's the Japanese who have the most advanced industrial robotics capabilities? Yeah, that is odd. Hmm...




The Chinese are going to the moon.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59356,news-comment,news-politics,has-obama-just-handed-the-moon-to-china-conquer-military

The Russians are going to an asteroid
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59356,news-comment,news-politics,has-obama-just-handed-the-moon-to-china-conquer-military

The Indians are trying to get to space on their own, and to the moon some day
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/29/india.manned.space.mission/index.html

How about those Iranians?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8811141352


Other than the military implications (with bases), we should be worried, why? And these countries saying that they want to do something doesn't exactly put gas in the tank, ya know? But if you'd rather devote NASA's budget to playing tit-for-tat with the Iranians, then that's fine. It's just that I don't agree with using NASA's resources to play dodgeball with Wile E. Coyote.



Yep, sounds like they're all just gathering picks and shovels at the launch pad. No wait, they all have plans of getting to space or the moon BEFORE we even try to get back up there on our own rockets.

Then we should get to work on those C3P0 robots - at least R2D2.



How many sample return missions have been done robotically and how many have been manned?

How many?



Perhaps if we had a robust manned spaceflight program some of those kids would be inspired to do something other than play on Facebook or Twitter.

So NASA should be used as a form of social engineering. Be careful, your liberal is showing. ;) So how is it that kids from developed nations, that don't even have a major space program, make our kids look like Jethro Bodine when it comes to math and science? You're suggesting that it takes gimmicks to get American kids to step up. If that's really true, we're screwed no matter what.




How about Buzz Aldrin, does his opinion count as a "true expert"? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html


Sure. His opinion counts as much Weinberg's in my book. Is it slick outside? Just depends on where you step. I'm sure there are informed opinions on both sides of the issue. I believe I said that previously. :dozey:



So your position is that we can't do anything new until everything we are currently doing throughout society is perfect? Good luck ever getting that done.

Is that what I said? Quite the contrary. I'm just not stuck on the idea that there is only ONE WAY to bring about advancements. And if the sacred cow isn't favored, then everything is going to spiral down the tubes. Asteroids are going to hit the Earth and wipe out humanity, etc., etc., etc. Hell, the Martians are going to unplug grandma! Oh wait, that was a hyperbolic argument from another topic. :D



And yes an asteroid could hhit the Mars colony. But that doesn't wipe out the human species.

One might hit us and another might hit Mars. Never know about those asteroids. They're sneaky devils. Besides, there might be humanoids somewhere else. I don't believe we are SO unique, that lifeforms similar to us might not be out there. And we don't need manned flights to investigate that.



So I go back to my earlier point. NASA's entire budget is only 0.52% of the Federal Budget. That won't even make a dent in most other programs. NASA is a bargin.

And going back to one of my earlier points, the budget that it has should be spent in a wise and rational fashion. What that is, well, people may disagree... as they currently are. But if other programs, that could bring about greater advancements, suffer, just so we can brag that we're back on the moon, IMO, that would be a foolish waste of resources.



I would love to see more robotics as well. But, like I keep saying, without the publicity NASA gets from it's manned missions (little as that may be) it will be MUCH easier to cancel or at least decrease the funding for all the other stuff.

If NASA's manned flight expeditions are nothing more than PR telethons, then things are worse than I thought. That suggests that we aren't capable of making rational decisions with regard to space. I see this as a pure scare tactic: if we don't get funding for manned flights, NASA is going to get unplugged! And then an asteroid is going to hit us and we'll be sorry we didn't listen then! Please...



You're gonna have to prove that one.

Don't have to. In addition to what Weinberg stated, the article that you linked appears to suggest the same thing:

The Chinese space programme gets by on around $1.3bn per year - compared to Nasa's $17.6bn - but it is already proving an embarrassment to America.

I'll state what I've already said and I'm done with this topic - it's just going in circles now. Again, the bottomline is, NASA has a budget. With every dollar, there is what's known as an opportunity cost. If you spend it on this, you could have spent it on that. Which way do you go? As was demonstrated when Bush wanted to put people in space, that necessarily takes away from other programs. It's just a question of what the best, most rational goals are, and then what gives us the best bang for the buck. My preference would be to see more resources devoted to advanced robotics. It's INCREDIBLY easy to see how that technology could be applied here on Earth, whether above ground or underground and undersea.

[Jag_Warrior]

But this is a Motorsport forum full of boys who are enamored of shiny things to look at and sit and fap fap fap fap about with other boys fap fap fap fap fapping simultaneously, so naturally big exciting noisy things far removed from boring reality are going to be cherished as "the hot thing"...

yeah right.

+1 on that one! :up:

[SportscarBruce]

CDAWszeZtNg

[SportscarBruce]

US aid to Israel in fiscal year 2010 at $2.775b
Dec 21, 2009

US foreign aid to Israel will rise by US$225 million in fiscal year 2010. Israel can spend up to 25% of the sum for defense purchases...

Annual aid to Israel under the MOU is to rise from $2.55 billion in 2009 to a ceiling of $3.1 billion in 2013, and it will remain at that level for the rest of the period.

Like in previous years, Israel can spend up to 25% of the sum for defense purchases from Israeli manufacturers, and the remainder must be spent for defense purchases in the US.

Egypt will receive $1.3 billion in aid in 2010, and Jordan will receive $540 million.

The budget signed by Obama, for the first time, also grants $500 million to the Palestinian Authority. The aid also includes $100 million to be used by US General Keith Dayton, who is in charge of training the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank.

http://www.port2port.com/Index.asp?CategoryID=46&ArticleID=2338

I motion all this taxpayer money, approx. $4.5 billion dollars, be applied to NASA instead of propping up questionable "allies" and the Military/Industrial Complex.

[Sonic]

Well it looks as though we fall into two camps;

Those of us (me included) who have stars in our eyes and dream of human exploration of the solar system and those who believe problems closer to home deserve more attention.

I guess this has always been the case throughout history - Columbus had his detractors, he tried (and failed) to gain funding from rulers of Portugal and England before finally making his voyage, and I'm sure that there were plenty who thought those who eventually settled on the Polynesian island were bonkers setting off into the vast Pacifica Ocean on little more than canoes with sails. Thankfully there have always been people willing enough to take the risks (both financially and literally) to advance Humankind and I'm certain someone (private or otherwise) will take up the baton dropped by NASA and explore the moon once more.

[Jag_Warrior]

http://www.port2port.com/Index.asp?CategoryID=46&ArticleID=2338

I motion all this taxpayer money, approx. $4.5 billion dollars, be applied to NASA instead of propping up questionable "allies" and the Military/Industrial Complex.

I like the sound of that. :s mokin: But we'll need to dig up Alan Cranston and kill him again. Otherwise, he'll start spinning in his grave.

[chuck34]

Yes, if one ignores the other factors that might come into play in the health of the economy at any one time are completely ignored, I suppose one might be able to make that assertion stand up. Were two particularly healthy periods in the UK economy to coincide with two rises in gun crime, would it be sensible to suggest that the two things are linked — I mean, for reasons other than fitting into a pre-determined argument against a politician you don't approve of?

Be careful, correlation does not equal causation. And I'm not suggesting causation at all. However, it appears that those in the "de-funding" camp like to suggest causation of NASA spending with our economic downfall. I am meerly pointing out the flaw in that logic.

[chuck34]

Jag, I don't want to argue with you. You seem to be trying to box me into this argument of robots vs humans. I am NOT arguing that at all. I would love to see BOTH have an increase in funding. But as I keep saying, if you get rid of human spaceflight, it becomes easier to cut the R&D/robotics. And I do NOT want to see that.

As for being "worried" about all those other countries. I'm not worried about them, I'm worried about what that says about the US, and our leadership in the world, just like JFK.

[Hondo]

Then again, there is always the dark conspiracy theory that NASA and the US government, along with the Soviets and their agency were contacted by beings from another world. During the course of this communication the Earthlings were informed in no uncertain terms would any humans be tolerated beyond the Van Allen Belt again. In addition, any robotic probes viewed as a potential danger, would be destroyed.

I like that one.

[anthonyvop]

http://www.port2port.com/Index.asp?CategoryID=46&ArticleID=2338

I motion all this taxpayer money, approx. $4.5 billion dollars, be applied to NASA instead of propping up questionable "allies" and the Military/Industrial Complex.

Considering that the US military is NASA's biggest client and technological partner that is a pretty silly statement to make.

F.Y.I. Egypt gets about the same of amount of aid as Israel. That came about because of Jimmy Carter and the Camp David Accords. Basically Carter signed an agreement to fund both nations to keep them from killing each other.

I guess the fact you forgot to mention Egypt was just an oversight on your part.

[Jag_Warrior]

Since Buzz Aldrin was previously mentioned, I thought it would be interesting to post this since he speaks his mind in this article as well.


If the U.S. won’t be going to the moon again anytime soon, who is?

Forty years ago the U.S. raced to plant the first foot on the moon. Now, as India, Russia, South Korea and China compete to return for further exploration, the U.S has all but dropped out -- and even Buzz Aldrin thinks that may be OK.

Aldrin, speaking to FoxNews.com, says the next step for NASA should be to create a long-term plan for more ambitious efforts -- visiting Mars or a nearby asteroid -- aided by robotics and astronauts from other countries. "It's much better to take our experience and aid other countries in conducting their races," says Aldrin.


Good "balanced" article. There's a lot more to it than just what I quoted.

Moon Base Alpha: If Not U.S., Then Who? (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/moon-base-alpha/)

[SportscarBruce]

Since Buzz Aldrin was previously mentioned, I thought it would be interesting to post this since he speaks his mind in this article as well.



Good "balanced" article. There's a lot more to it than just what I quoted.

Moon Base Alpha: If Not U.S., Then Who? (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/moon-base-alpha/)

Gene Cernan, Lunar Module pilot for Apollo 10 and 17, has another view on the matter;


Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, says it is critical to go back to the moon for America's future. He is speaking out against President Obama's decision to eliminate the NASA program that would take the U.S. astronauts back to the moon.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/national/100202-gene-cernan-nasa-future

[SportscarBruce]

I guess the fact you forgot to mention Egypt was just an oversight on your part.

I did mention Egypt and included their take into the total for 2010. Why not try reading the post before typing a rebuttal?

[SportscarBruce]

Here is a video outlining political promises made and broken, the Constellation program, and what is at stake.

a2IQVZmHnJQ

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, he's definitely as bad as Hitler, isn't he?

Never compare anyone to Hitler Ben unless he has camps full of undesirables he is sending the the gas chambers.

Obama is naive... He was promising the moon and the stars to get the votes of NASA people in the above clip, when it was clear to anyone paying attention that the US was heading for rough waters economically. The seeds of the recession were coming. The Democrats were talking down the economy all through the Bush years trying to pin it on him....so it isn't like THEY could then say they didn't know when they were almost HOPING for the recession ( I said Almost, they wanted to throw as much dirt on Dubya as they could..and he made it easy at times).

So Obama cannot go to NASA now and talk about killing their projects and just making them an R and D outfit for such stuff as global warming and have any credibility.

This agency of the US Government was created for ONE purpose and ONE purpose only. To explore space and put men into space. Simple as that....and they added on other things after, but the core mission was to win the space race and make sure the USA had a presence there. Now this man with little substance behind his soaring rhetoric wants to all but gut the astronaut program? I am surprised this isn't getting more traction with people in the USA...

[SportscarBruce]

Kh0XHn3FtiU

Whatever happened to dreams?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Kh0XHn3FtiU

Whatever happened to dreams?

Obama is cancelling them..something about being fiscally prudent. Funny....he doesn't say that when he pours money into his pet causes...

[SportscarBruce]

Obama is cancelling them..something about being fiscally prudent. Funny....he doesn't say that when he pours money into his pet causes...

Accurate assessment. How pitiful.

[Hondo]

A mere $5 billion for ACORN. Yup, the rascals snuck it back in there. Go figure.

[chuck34]

A mere $5 billion for ACORN. Yup, the rascals snuck it back in there. Go figure.

Just think what NASA could do with an extra $5 Billion.

The Augustine Committee said that an extra $3 Billion was needed to make the current Constellation program work. And that's incuding all the inefficiencies, and design issues still there. If they would have switched to DIRECT or something simmilar they could have done it for an increase of only $1 Billion.

But yeah, the guys at ACORN are doing a bang up job, so we should give them some extra. This makes me sick.

[Mark in Oshawa]

A mere $5 billion for ACORN. Yup, the rascals snuck it back in there. Go figure.

I thought they were cut off? Go figure..... well ACORN style activism was Obama's bread and butter coming up in the Chicago machine. We would have to be fools to not think he wouldn't find some way to reward them.

[Hondo]

They were temporarily cut off. After further review, they were reinstated real quiet like. For every loophole, there is a loophole.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They were temporarily cut off. After further review, they were reinstated real quiet like. For every loophole, there is a loophole.

They maybe hope having ACORN get non-existent voters on the voter's registration list might save a few districts for them this fall I guess...