NASA May Drop Ares I-Y Test Flight

Matt_dk writes "Just one week after the first test launch of the Ares I-X rocket, NASA says it may decide to cancel a follow-up launch called Ares 1-Y, which wasn't scheduled until 2014. Reportedly, program managers recommended dropping the flight because, currently, there isn't funding to get an upper stage engine ready in time. Depending on whether the Obama administration decides to continue the Ares I program, this decision may be moot. Earlier this week Sen. Bill Nelson said Obama may make a decision on NASA's future path, based on the report by the Augustine Commission, by the end of November."

Comments

More proof...

[ktappe]

...that Obama is really a conservative, not a liberal. A liberal would have spent money on space exploration without a second thought. I really wish we would someday get a leader who is interested in science and the future of our species.

Re:More proof...

[zach_the_lizard]

Yes, since when did 'conservative' start to mean 'dedicated to spending as much as possible on massive military buildup and wars of world domination', anyway?

After World War Two, the Old Right that was anti-war (World War One and Two) began moving in a more interventionist direction.

The Democrats of the era were already in favor in foreign intervention. Before Pearl Harbor, FDR was waging pretty much an undeclared naval war on Germany to help the Allies. Wilson before FDR engaged America in WWI. Truman jumped into Korea, and Kennedy in Vietnam (though it was in the planning stages, IIRC, in the Eisenhowever administration).

The rise of the neo-conservatives provided the spark to twist the Old Right from non-intervention in economy and diplomacy into an evil legion that pretty much approved of any war put before them. Prior to this point, IIRC, the Old Right called before Pearl Harbor for students to sign up to oppose the draft in case of US intervention in Europe. IIRC it was supposed to be the largest anti-war movement in US history, but it was totally destroyed by Pearl Harbor. Odd how they forgot their roots so quickly; the transformation likely began in this era, and I believe this transformation became more or less complete around the time of Vietnam, where many on the American left became anti-war (save for those such as Johnson). There still were (and are) those who follow the tradition of the Old Right in this era, opposing the war, but they were pushed to the sidelines of the conservative movement.

War mongers such as William Buckley became highly influential on the Right, and Republican presidents that were influenced by this new pro-war tradition cranked up the bellicosity. The US military was thus dispatched to Grenada, to Iraq, to Lebanon, and to many other places. Liberal leaders began to pick up some of the anti-war slack, but, just as with the Old Right, they haven't been totally effective. And not all of them have been converted, either. Bill Clinton, for example, began US interventions in Somalia and Serbia. He continued the bombing of Iraq, and also bombed Sudan and Afghanistan half-heartedly a few times after the embassy bombing in Kenya. Returning to a neo-con, Bush engaged the US in yet more war. While he was president, the anti-war movement sprang up. It was mostly confined to liberals, but there were also libertarians amongst their midst.

With Obama's election, the anti-war movement has (sadly) died down amongst the liberals. I still hear libertarians denounce the wars, but I now hear fewer liberal voices amongst them. Conservatives call for the expansion of the war into Iran and, on the furthest fringes, Pakistan.

Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early

[CannonballHead]

Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications.

Over what, eight years?

We just spent almost a trillion in one year as a "stimulus" that has apparently helped nothing... and if it has, very little and it's really hard to tell and it appears that a lot of it is being wasted. As one economist put it, it's like taking a trillion out of your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket; no net gain. And the current administration is trying to say that it's working, but that higher unemployment is still on its way... so the economy is getting better and employment is getting worse. *scratches head*

But pardon me for interrupting your hate-Bush-more-than-anything-else party. Just wanted to mention that the current administration appears to like spending more and spending faster... and seems to like it a lot more than the previous administration... to the extent that while promising to get rid of wasteful spending, I haven't heard of a single spending cut - only dramatic increases that appear to have done negligible good...

FRIST STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

right now. I tried, 200 runningj NT tired arguments Members all over

Re:Blew Your Wad Too Early

[Abcd1234]

Because there is always evidence for anyone's point, these days, and you can find economists that say the stimulus hurt and the stimulus helped the economy.

...

If you asked me what I actually thought - in my non-economist and "my macro-econ class boiled down to really complex terms for really simple ideas"-mindset opinion - I would tell you that I think it did nothing good and, if anything, some amount of bad. All it seemed to do to me is put the US government even further into debt. I know, we can't get rid of all debt ...

Uhuh. So you have a completely uneducated opinion based on one econ class you took once, then you chose to cherrypick opinions from economists in order to reinforce your views which were, in all probability, already coloured by partisan glasses.

Like I said... that's some very level-headed, unbiased analysis, there.

Confirmation bias. Look it up.