Slashdot Mirror
Obama Choosing NOT To Go To the Moon
bonch writes "Obama's budget proposal will contain no funding for the Constellation program, which was to send astronauts to the moon by 2020. Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming. One anonymous official said: 'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.'"
Nobody should act surprised. He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.
Yes. Constellation wasn't just the moon. It was the next generation of NASA rockets for human spaceflight. If Constellation is cancelled, this isn't just the end of the moon. It's the end of Mars too. Hell, it's the end of America's manned spaceflight program in general.
Sounds like he's getting revenge for that Alabama Rep who switched from Democrat to Republican.
I should note, for reference, that if we were to double NASA's budget, we'd increase the current deficit by just over 1%.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration hasn't ever been all about space exploration -- forward looking terrestrial military and civilian aviation research has been a major part of their brief since the agency was founded (actually, since its predecessor agency, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, was founded.) Space exploration is just the stuff that gets the most press.
Space based weather, climate, geological, ocean, etc., studies have all been part of NASA work since approximately the time of the first satellite with sensors usable for such studies.
And if you wanted to direct all climate work to another agency, there is no need to create a new agency, as there is an existing agency within whose main mission such research clearly falls: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Of course, redirecting that work from NASA to NOAA wouldn't mean NASA goes to the moon, it just means NASA shrinks. Its not like NASA has its own independent revenue stream which is being tapped for climate work.
Also, once we finally did start to take part in WWII, our equipment was horribly outdated due to massive military spending cuts that had happened since WWI. Much of the equipment we armed our soldiers with, early on, was the same stuff we had used in WWI (helmets, guns, etc.)
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Minor difference: The "brown people" as you so cynically refer to them asked us to help them. Did we invade Saudi Arabia or did the recognized Government of that country ask us to protect them against Saddam? Did we force Egypt to sign a peace treaty at gunpoint with Israel or did we act as an honest broker?
If it's all about resources then how do you explain our involvement in Afghanistan? Or the Balkens? -- unless they don't count because they aren't filled with brown people. How do you explain our response to humanitarian catastrophes like the Indian Ocean tsunami or Haitian earthquake? How do you reconcile the fact that those humanitarian operations were enabled by our military power with your cynical view of our motives?
I'll be the first to admit that we aren't behaving altruistically. We seemingly have no issue allowing genocide to take place where it doesn't interfere with our strategic interests. But on balance I would still maintain that the United States is a force for stability in the World. If you have an idea that's grounded in reality for replacing our role I'd love to hear it -- I'm getting sick of footing the bill for our role as the global policemen.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Since when is the F-35 a defense boondoggle?"
Where do I start? There's so much. It's over budget, far behind schedule (only 10 percent of scheduled flight testing completed in 2009, with the prototypes spending most of their time parked on the taxiway or in a hangar). The fire control suite and EOTS are nothing but vaporware, promises, and plastic display models at this point. It's overweight. When anaysts said that it was less maneuverable than an F-16, Lockheed said "That's OK, dogfighting is obsolete anyway". Hmm, where have we heard that before? There are noise problems with the engine (on average twice as loud as an F-15 at takeoff), enough of a problem to current designated noise corridors that a least two cities are actually suing USAF not to bring F-35's to their area. Google "F-35 noise", and prepare for a lot of reading. The F-35 is quickly becoming the new F-111, a plane designed by committee for everyone and pleasing no one.
The cost is what'll probably kill this program, or limit its' sales. There are grumbles in the Navy department that they want to kill it in favor of new (and cheaper) Super Hornets. Lockheed says base F-35 models will be around $70 million apiece (compared to $50 a pop for Super Hornets). But realistic" estimates say the tag is more likely between $111 and $132 million, flyaway. At the top range, it would make them more expensive than the far more capable F-22. Oh, and the Navy just completed a study that found the F-35 would cost 70% more per hour to operate than Super Hornets, and that the F-35B's vertical thrust mode would damage current flight decks.
USAF should simply buy new build F-16's. The Navy should buy new Super Hornets. And if the Marines can't have new-build Harriers, then get the Marines out of the fixed-wing business altogether (a possibility that Bill Sweetman over at Aviation Week has also raised).
"
Life is hard, and the world is cruel