Slashdot Mirror
Former Astronauts Call Obama NASA Plans "Catastrophic"
krou writes "Talking to the BBC at a private function held at the Royal Society in London, former astronauts Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan both spoke out about Obama's decision to postpone further moon missions. Lovell claimed that 'it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology,' while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon. Said Cernan: 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence.' Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject."
You do realize this argument is really stupid. The basic argument goes that doing something difficult and useless is really helpful because you solve all these engineering problems along the way that are helpful for other areas. If true, then doing something useful and difficult would be much more helpful. Why not develop super efficient engines for various modes of transportation? Why not build great high speed rail that could connect cities at super sonic speeds? Doesn't sound possible? Not really, but neither did putting a man on the moon. Difference is, this one would be something when we were done.
Okay braintrust, here is the fact. Bush kept the Iraq and Afghanistan wars off of his budget the entire time he was in office. A HUGE chunk of that total is Bush's wars that Obama put on the budget for the first time since we invaded. No more emergency war supplemental bills. They're on the budget now.
And thanks for clearing up why you're so uninformed. Glenn Beck is a self-proclaimed "rodeo clown", and the fact that you don't think you look like a fool for parroting his absolute bullshit puts a smile on my face. Tell me, how did that interview with Massa go? The one that had the potential to "change the course of this nation"? LOL
It got modded troll, but it's 100% true.
No, it's one 100% troll. For one thing, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with NASA's budget. For another, picking on wars is like shooting fish in a barrel - you could just as easily argue that getting involved in WW2 was unnecessary for the US.
It has wasted a trillion dollars, and we have nothing to show for it but a bunch of fresh graves.
First off, that's the (estimated) combined cost for both wars, so you're wrong right off the bat. Second, the figures provided by the various "counter" sites are, for some reason, never sourced. If you can provide the raw data to support that claim, I'd very much appreciate it - nobody else seems to know how to find it. Third, there are plenty of things that you can "show for it" - the problem is that you apparently don't think they've been worth the cost.
We wasted enough money in Iraq to pay for universal health care, AND a trip to the moon.
Canadian healthcare - for a population one tenth the size of yours - costs $120+ billion per year. At a cost of roughly 700 billion over 7 years, the Iraq war wouldn't even be enough to fund OUR healthcare, let alone yours. You're living in a dream world. Wake up.
Everything I have experienced as a Iraq combat vet disagrees with this. All the threats we face are threats of our own creation coming home to roost, often decades later and because of our lack of foresight. For example, our backing of the creation of Israel as an American front to help maintain the middle east with nuclear weapons, which then turns more Arabs against us. Then there are things like our "support" of democracy by doing things like overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader and installing the Shah. The propping up of the country that hosts the most radicals (Saudi Arabia) by forcing them to only sell oil in dollars. (Did you know at least 13 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's and had only cursory experience in Afghanistan and nothing to do with Iraq?) No, we may not be the classic empire that divides in conquers by military force like Rome used to. No, we only do that as a last resort, we use economic means to control things. I am currently reading a very interesting book. (The secret history of the American empire, by John Perkins) One of the first things he does is create 6 criteria for being an "Empire". Guess what? We meet all of them! What I find is that it is such a hard thing to swallow that our "American Ideals" have so been corrupted by politicians and corporations as excuses for travesty time and time again. The only thing that will make a difference is when people like you ( I used to be blind as well) wake the fuck up, stop listening to faux news and start doing you're own academic level research. Then spread the word. Even in my own family I run into resistance. Cognitive Dissonance is a powerful thing.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
In 2001 you got hit by a multinational group of thugs and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
We got attacked by Saudis based in Afghanistan, so we invaded Iraq.
We could have simplified logistics and saved a bunch of money by invading a much closer country like Jamaica. It would have made the same amount of sense under your logical analysis.
That is on average, and there are a lot of reasons why average life span is less that just health care. Drug related violence for one, auto accidents for another which both kill a lot more people per-capata in the US than, say, Western Europe.
For example, life expectancy is higher at birth in the U.K., by 1.7 years for males and .9 years for females, but life expectancy at older ages is greater in the U.S. than in the U.K. For men, life expectancy is greater at birth and up until age 60 in the U.K., but then the pattern reverses and men can expect to live longer in the U.S. at ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85. By age 75, male life expectancy is greater than in the U.K. by at least six months. Likewise, U.K. women have higher life expectancy at birth and up until age 55; at ages 60 and above, American women have greater life expectancy than their U.K. counterparts, and by age 75 women live longer in the U.S. than in the U.K. by 8-9 months.
I don't have an explanation for this, but these numbers would seem to suggest that there are other factors at work than just access to health care. Most people can expect to receive the great bulk of their medical care at the end of their life. Since once you reach the age of 60 in the US you can expect to live longer than you counterparts in the UK it seems to me that there are other factors at play. Here is a crap load of data if interested: http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls
Regardless I vote for sending the guys (and/or gals) to the moon.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Ares I was a piece of pork which should have long since been canceled. I'm glad it's gone. Everyone knows there are currently two US boosters (three soon enough) in the same weight and performance category and part of Obama's plan is to use those to go into LEO. This makes sense.
What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path. I'd like to see some of the ideas behind DIRECT refined so we end up with a moderately economical, scalable launch architecture for really heavy payloads. COTS is not likely to develop this on their own, they're happy at 25 tons to LEO and under. It's where their profit is. Note, I'm choosing to be optimistic on Flexible path being funded and implemented.
It looks like Orion Lite from Bigelow/Boeing/Lockheed is the front runner for crew transport. I'm not sure how much commonality is possible between it and a future Orion Heavy used for lunar or martian missions. Hopefully building one makes it easier to build the other.
When I was 6 years old my parents moved to Titusville, Florida right across the Indian River Lagoon from the VAB. I grew up watching Saturn V's, Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Shuttle space vehicles thunder skyward. I went to school with the sons and daughters of real "Rocket Scientists". I'd say the number one reason I got into the engineering field was the excitement and allure of these kind of epic and difficult endeavors. What inspires people to go into engineering today ? I only worked on Spacecraft and launch systems for 10 years before I got into other things, but would I have been inspired at all by a presidential challenge to build a better battery, or an energy efficient home ? I somehow doubt it. So I would argue that not only does going to the moon spin-of useful technology it inspires the youth of today and tomorrow to achieve great things in engineering !
Like many politicians before him, Barack Hussein Obama broke a campaign promise. He outright lied in order to get the votes independent voters.
How did he break a promise to fund Constellation? From a previous Slashdot story
"In a recent article on The Space Review, Greg Zsidisin reveals that Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, using the redirected funds to nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond, if he is elected president. It is feared that if this happens the Vision for Space Exploration will flounder and that may be the end of human spaceflight altogether."
Seems like he's just following through on what he said almost 2 years ago.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.