Slashdot Mirror
Neil Armstrong Criticizes Obama's Space Strategy
An anonymous reader writes "Former astronaut Neil Armstrong has issued a strongly worded rebuke of President Barack Obama, criticizing the president for proposed revisions to the US space program. Armstrong, along with astronauts James Lovell and Eugene Cernan, called the proposal 'devastating' in a letter obtained by NBC News."
We've got jobless benefits to extend!
THL phish sticks
It's an interesting cultural litmus test - who is the bigger man?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
While making some of the work put into past efforts a waste, I don't think that, given all the other issues facing the country, putting together a space station or another manned mission are really priorities.
"To stop the terrorists."
What a moran. just because he one the Tour de France, doesn't mean he's qualified to comment on our president's policies!
I don't know how long ago this letter was drafted, but in response Obama has already changed some of his plans for NASA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041304043.html
How about a slashdot story about that rather than old news?
we'll just fake future moon landings like we did in the past!
BAZINGA!
Buzz Aldrin (the second human to walk on the moon) has a different take
...but manned space flight really hasn't done much for us.
You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So the space program not only killed seven people, but needlessly killed seven people.
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So the new compromise is "half a spaceship"- one that can land, but not launch. Only a politician could invent that one. NASA programs have horizons of 10 -2 5 years, but politicians respond to two year election cycles. Bush cancels shuttle. Obama cancels is successor. Obama need better science advice.
Government funding of space travel? I dunno, sounds mighty socialist to me. If we didn't cut funding I bet Obama would launch a statue of Lenin into orbit to gaze down disapprovingly at our capitalist paradise!
In all seriousness, without a good heavy launcher we'll be at a strategic disadvantage, and the constant scuppering of next-generation space vehicle development is starting to look really stupid. Between VentureStar and Constellation, exactly how many tax dollars have been wasted because some penny-pinching bureaucrat decided it would be "cheaper in the long run?"
Why go back? There isn't much more to gain outside of planting another US flag.
Which would you rather have, a moonwalk for TV or a bunch of interplanetary probes? Another landing on Venus would be nice, lots to learn there. Some sort of Jupiter, Io, asteroid belt mission would add much more to science than the moon will.
You realize the rockets used were based on Nazi technology to deliver payloads? You realize the computer used for the manned space program was based on the cryptographic requirements to decode the Enigma machines in WWII? Therefore, to enhance technology we can conclude the world needs to be perpetually at war. Isn't this exactly what's already happening?
It's interesting to note that the Air Force is taking over low-high orbit exploration. I recently read an article that if not mirrors slightly what Armstrong is talking about; it certainly elaborates on what proposition America has for it's space exploration future. The Air Force is proposing a new reusable platform aircraft for exploration; following in the long line of advanced craft with the same naming convention such as the Bell X-1 (which broke the sonic barrier) http://www.dailytech.com/US+Air+Force+X37B+Reusable+Spacecraft+to+Launch+Into+Orbit+Later+This+Month/article18077.htm, You'll also note that Nasa has recently started arming unmanned craft with scientific equipment; http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Global+Hawk+Completes+First+Science+Flight/article18096.htm I certainly think were in a transition right now with our space program, With the Air Force reusable platform; It's a scary thought should they decide to make it a weapons platform. I think we should see what's going to happen to our space program; also speak out if we don't agree as americans with what is happening to our space program. It was an awesome step that kennedy took in '61 and what we accomplished on July 20, 1969. It's unfortunate we haven't been back in 40 years. Lets see what we can do now with current technology.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
One of the rare cases where Trek's "philosophy" is actually correct.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Apollo Astronauts: Obama Space Plan Will Put the U.S. "on a long downhill slide to mediocrity"
April 14, 2010 (LPAC)—In an open letter, obtained by long-time space reporter Jay Barbree, and first reported on the NBC Nightly News Tuesday evening, three of the Apollo astronauts who embody the dedication, no-nonesense attitude, and commitment that brought this nation to the Moon, attacked President Obama's proposal to kill NASA's Constellation program. Neil Armstrong, Commander of Apollo 11, which landed the first astronauts on the Moon; James Lovell, the Commander of the near-fatal Apollo 13 mission (NASA's "finest hour"); and Gene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17, and the last man to set foot upon the Moon, described the cancellation as "devastating."
Reprising the history of the American space program, the three former astronauts state: "World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation." No program in modern history, they state, "has been so effective in motivating the young to do 'what has never been done before.'"
Nor was the development and design of the Constellation program haphazard or ill-conceived, they state. "The Ares rocket family was patterned after the [Wernher] von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V" rockets, which took them to the Moon. Although we will have "wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation," equally important, "we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have destroyed." This, for a second time, following the cancellation of the follow-on missions to Apollo, to live on the Moon.
The timing of this letter is no accident. On Thursday, President Obama makes a whirlwind stop in Florida, at the Kennedy Space Center, to try to sell this destruction of manned space flight. Three days ago, more than 4,000 people rallied nearby in protest, to tell the President what they think of his plan. There has been virtually NO support anywhere for this "outsourcing" of NASA. Out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, ONE has backed the President. And he will see, again, the outrage of the American people.
You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?
You may be overreaching. Dan thinks that manned space flight does not demand cutting edge hardware.
http://www.dansdata.com/spacecomp.htm
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Manned space flight isn't about being "cost effective", "high priority", or "a good return on investment" (yes, I've heard all of these terms used in regards to spaceflight). It's about exploration, curiosity, and wonder. I challenge you to tell someone who was around on July 20, 1969 that manned spaceflight is pointless.
It's about doing something simply to show that it can be done, like the explorers of centuries past. I suppose some people find that concept unimportant or even boring.
I would say that those people are unimportant and boring.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Robots can't do everything repairs to equipment for one are tough to do because of the delay and not seeing the full picture. Manned endeavors are ways to get the general public interested in science again to do this requires great feats which have been canceled by Obama so we don't intimidate countries that hate us. Furthermore I think it is Obama's goal to make the US weak because nobody hates a loser, but nobody respects one either.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
My opinion will probably get modded down, simply because someone on slashdot disagrees with it.
I think giving up on manned space flight is a mistake. I think MORE money put into it will eventually bring new technologies and new technologies bring economic success as American CEOs love outsourcing the economic benefits of existing technology.
That said, I really think people have lost a sense of gravity for where the country is right now.
A year ago the world and the US was on the edge of falling into an economic depression. Unemployment is almost 10%, the worst it has been since the Regan years in 1981. There is no money, anywhere. Turn on the news any given day of the week and you will hear that.
Now is not the time for more government spending.
It would be like a person deciding to buy a new car (without a need) after getting fired and after having their savings account depleted by a health care expense.
How can we 'refine' what we no longer have?
The Saturn V's gone. The shuttle is in it's waning years. Constellation is cancelled. We have no launch vehicle anymore.
But it's ok, if we need someone shot into space, we'll just ask the Russians or Chinese. The Indians are getting close too. Apparently THEY still see reasons to maintain and develop space programs. What's our ruddy excuse?
...that some of those living astronauts who are NOT political cronies of Obamarama looking for the next state funded handout finally made a statement, and a well "voiced" one at that.
@peter303
Bush may have cancelled the Space Shuttle, but at that time there was Constellation on track for the mid 2010s possibly earlier for some usable portions of it. Obamarama just has too many backroom deals and handouts to payoff his "supporters" with to be able to do anything meaningful.
Anyways, there still might be a chance that the Air Force would fund something, as they still will need that LEO and more capability to fulfill there space defense function that they were alotted.
Watch out for the black helicopters soon to be circling around you...
No, I don't realize that. I don't think computers would be recognizably different without the manned space program. In fact, I think most of the computers on the ISS are Thinkpads developed with little or no consideration for space exploration. But if I'm wrong, tell me which part of the computer you are referring to.
the destruction of nasa
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=13392
The problem is that you want me to pay for your wondrous little field trip.
War provided the necessary impetus to develop the technologies. The fact that we invest more in research during war doesn't make investing in research bad. Investing in pure research is hard to sell though, so we hide it behind something more impressive. Personally, I'd rather we hid it behind a peaceful space program, rather than hiding it behind bombing people in the stone age back to the pre-Cambrian, but that's me.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
...but manned space flight really hasn't done much for us.
You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?
That doesn't mean WE have to be the ones footing the bill, though. Countries without space programs have computers. It seems silly to think we wouldn't benefit from some other country's space program, so why not let them foot the research bill while we work on coming up with a sensible financial strategy (not that we'll actually do that, but still).
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
You realize that isn't really true, right? The semiconductor industry was booming just fine without NASA.
Sent from my Apollo Guidance Computer.
...but manned space flight really hasn't done much for us. Better to continue gathering knowledge and refining launch vehicles until there is some pressing need to shoot people into space.
Well if you look at it as a pure investment we have paid for a good portion of the ISS. Man flights are needed to continue to maintain the space station. We will save 250 a launch by using russia until they see that they can charge us what ever they want the flights only used to be 20mil per passenger. There is no liable business plan it is use like the health care bill and the housing. A plan to be there with clear goals and objectives a lunar colony can acomplish this because an observatory on the dark side of the moon can yield very accurate measurements to the rest of the galaxy. Space flight gave IBM and MIT the first grant for controller development out of that we gt computers and microcontroller the controllers that make your care more efficient inderectly cam from space development. Human flight may not be yielding great discoveries but maybe here is the fault there could be techniques developed treat deseases such as bone loss and musle loss, radiation exposure, and the sort. Last I think we shoul dhave people and life in another planet just as a fail safe. Incase there is anything that occurs here we can have our cousins in another planet that would continue life, life may be such a fenomenon that is not abundant throught the empty rocks of the universe and why not have colonies that could be a testing platorm for all kinds of idiological governments and the sort. Why not have a colony that is self sufficient and helps us grow as a species, I am quite sure the budget of nasa is hardly anything compaired to medicaid walfare or social security, it is about 18billion less than what gm got for their bail out. Nasa patents should be used to generate revenue and be self sustaining like the US post office. Anytime budget cuts ocur they want to cut nasa and nsf, who needs science anyway, its not like our society has benefited from such in the last 100 years. I think there should be think tanks that the government keeps up that produce reat inovative products and are proprly fnded with no red tape, with out such we will end up with a bunch of derivative financial products that use an inflated money supply. Nasa is was a symbol of technical superiority, but it is degrading the next launch vehicle is not designed correctly very unstable great for being an ISB since you can make it turn on a dime, not sure if that is good for peope ridding somthing that depends so much on computer controls, a simple software glich and you got a toyota iin your hands.
What? The Apollo mission has returned more money in Taxes then it costs because of the industries it created. Smoke detectors, plastics, computers, project management. and about 200 others.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're right about cost but I think you're wrong about capabilities. We know more about the moon as a result of the Apollo program than we do as a result of all the unmanned missions combined. A few guys on Mars could do what the rovers have done in a couple of months. Human beings are much more adaptable than any robot that will could conceivably be made within the next 20 years, probably more like 50 years.
What holds space flight back is the cost. Its simply too hard to get anything into orbit right now, let alone the extra weight of life support and supplies that human beings need. Not to mention that if we're ever going to have long range space flight we're going to need to start building ships big enough that they can be spun for gravity. The cost of launching that much material right now makes it impossible but there are, as I see it, two ways around the problem.
One: New launch technologies. There have been technologies on the drawing board that would revolutionize space travel for decades, but nothing has gone anywhere because the funds for R&D have always been spent on current missions and incremental improvements to existing designs. Nuclear rockets have been possible for at least 30 years, but public fears have made them impossible. Non-rocket launch technologies aren't really feasible yet, maybe in 20 or 30 years but current materials are either inadequate or too close to trust in such an expensive and high profile endeavor.
Two: Pull us up by our bootstraps. Launching a manned interplanetary ship from earth is too hard? Build it in orbit then. Mine the materials from NEO's, set up foundries and chemical refineries in orbit, process water and out of asteroids, and build orbital refueling stations. By the time the orbital infrastructure is set up, the materials for a space elevator will be there and it can be manufactured in orbit, eliminating the cost of launching the cable and allowing it to be manufactured as it is being deployed, saving time and money.
Maybe they could scale Constellation down to reach LEO (low earth orbit). Forget the moon, that is just going into another gravity well. it is not a "stepping stone" to mars, the asteroids, or the other planets.
The Soyuz spacecraft is based on a diving bell and was outdated almost as soon as it was built. It would be a shame if that will be the only way to get humans into space.
I was KIND OF with you until you said this:
Furthermore I think it is Obama's goal to make the US weak because nobody hates a loser, but nobody respects one either.
You honestly believe that Obama is actively working towards making the United States weaker? Put down the Tea Party(TM) brand leaves, and try to have a single rational thought.
Seriously.
Living With a Nerd
War in Iraq or return to the moon? You had the choice and you chose poorly. Don't pretend that this is just the new guy's problem or that spending money on health care is the issue. If America is broke (and it is, as well as being broken) you have to be more circumspect about where you spend your limited funds. Constellation failed on the last guy's watch because the vision for creating it and the funds for building it were limited from the outset. See here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09844.pdf
...like sending them up to the Indian space station, or visiting the Chinese moon base.
If you take the long view, Obama's plan to slow down the US space program may be the best thing for it. The most progress NASA ever made was while trying to catch up with the Russians, so trying to recreate the same circumstances might...
Nah, I've tried, but I can't really defend this move. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it looks like it's going to cause more harm than good.
Plus the space program is a way to put money into the struggling economy that will have benefits for US and mankind down the road.
I'm a fan of manned space travel, but going to Mars or the Moon in today's economic climate is pure folly.
I don't know if a trip to Mars is worth the human risk anyway. We'll need to go someday, but our fatality rate for earth-orbit activities has been too high for the past 20 years. Let's get our batting average up before we venture off to Mars.
And get our economy up...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Because it's far more expensive. Robots can't be programmed to react to strange things. So 1 in 5 shuttles blows up and kills 2 people; versus 5 in 5 shuttles blowing up and costing a trillion and a half dollars each. The research grinds to a halt, and because we fail on a technological level at something, some threat later becomes insurmountable, and hundreds of millions of people die. Oops.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The US space program has killed 14 people within spacecraft, 3 more in a test craft.
Countless test pilots have been killed in experimental aircraft.
These people know the situations they're put in, and to die on the job like they did, and to call it needless, grossly insults their memory. These people put their lives on the line for the betterment of science and humanity and I highly doubt any of them would want it any other way.
Landing on the moon did an AMAZING amount to boost the morale of the country, cause people to dream, push themselves, open their minds to possibilities, etc. If it weren't for landing on the moon, the country (and thus the world) would be decades behind where we currently are.
I'd go so far as to say if we, or hell..anyone else, for that matter...could even just land on the moon again...the same thing would happen. Did it provide immediate benefits that justified the cost? No. What it did instead was inspire not three generations of people to dream, to reach for the stars, to explore, to innovate...
Lets see how much cheaper his plan is once Russia jacks up their prices for getting into LEO and the US has no alternative. Once you disband these programs you can't decide later on to just start them back up. If Obama's plans fail then the US will have to invest huge sums of money to get back to where NASA currently is.
This country is, after the "Republican Revolution" has had its time to work its devastation, in a severe economic depression. The USA had its chance forty years ago, and decided it preferred to get sneakers with lights on them. The US culture has spent decades painting intelligent people as "nerds" while extolling the virtues of being a dumb jock or bubbleheaded bimbo. Meanwhile, other countries have valued education and have left the USA in the dust. The USA is now a third world country, except for the military. What does it make anymore? Bombs. The country doesn't DESERVE to go into space. It probably won't even survive the next five years.
Given that almost everything in the technology industry came directly or indirectly as a result of NASA and the space program, it's value is obvious. Most of us who read Slashdot owe the effort that went into the Apollo program for our jobs. The microprocessor, for example, was invented by Intel FOR the space program.
That's NASA FUD. Microprocessors were not invented for the space program. Apollo and the Shuttle both predate Intel, and both had non-integrated CPUs. Microprocessors were invented to make it cheaper to build desktop calculators. The USAF had a major role in developing lightweight and reliable electronics, computers and missile guidance, but that's not NASA.
The space program did not create Teflon. Or Velcro. Or even Tang.
NASA's biggest contribution to commercial technology was probably NASTRAN, the finite element analysis program.
It seems more logical to use a modular approach rather than One Big Custom Package approach. The large portions of a ship can be carried up using rockets that don't have to be man-rated, reducing their cost. Smaller, safer lifters can then take the personnel into LEO to meet up with the rest of the ship, dock, and then fly off together to study asteroids or whatnot. This appears to be what Obama is leaning toward.
Table-ized A.I.
yes..however NASA spent a shit ton load of money on companies tasked with developing systems for the Apollo.
The manufacturing techniques, systems design, and fab development we now use was all created to meet NASA's needs.
Think about that. Because of a large push from NASA, the computer industry was born. N private industry was seriously persuing making smaller faster computers. The few in the industry where still thinking large lumbering machines that would be usde by a few of the largest companies.
The computer industry is just one industry that got serious legs under it because of NASA.
Now think how much tax revenues is generated from just the computer industry. It that light the Apollo missions where some of the best investments ever made.
Ironically, that development is what made sending robots to other planets possible.
Frankly, I hate the Robots V. man debate. It should be Manned and robotic.
We need to be doing work that sets the foundation for interstellar missions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Robots can't make snap decisions and are somewhere between 'not mobile' to 'barely mobile.'
What are the odds a robot would've found the Genesis Rock during Apollo 15? And return it?
In fact many of these people chose their job _because_ it is dangerous. There are always people who want to push the limits.
You honestly believe that Obama is actively working towards making the United States weaker? Put down the Tea Party(TM) brand leaves, and try to have a single rational thought.
Seriously.
Let's see... He's so far not met a dictator he won't bow to, he's not met an ally of ours that he won't diss, he'll have his picture taken with anyone except the Dali Lama or the PM of Israel, and is being called a wuss by... the President of France?!! He has caused damage to our relationships with allies like the UK and Israel that may NEVER be healed.
Oh, and he just agreed to a treaty that FORBIDS us to modernize our weapons technology, and has canceled the missile shield for Eastern Europe.
In short, Obama has thus far been a menace to our allies, and has given aid and comfort to states that could be considered our enemies.
Unless someone FORCED him to do all that, I'd call that weakening America on purpose, because it sure isn't making us any stronger.
Why is it that Obama can find hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on a health care boondogle, to buy General Motors, Chrysler, and bail out banks, but won't spend 20 billion on NASA? NASA, unlike any appendage of the government other than the military, actually gives a RETURN on investment.
Strong countries have space programs. As of later this year or early next year, the US will have less of one than some third world countries. Is that strength? Let that sink in.
Corporatism != Free Market
We have at least 2 US companies building space launch capability, and several other international "space launch for hire" organizations are operating. NASA's Ares rocket development was a waste of money, and Obama was right to stop it. Let the commercial space trucking business competition get started, and lets try to get new US companies to be the winners in this business. Neil Armstrong is stuck in 1969, but meanwhile, "the times, they are a'changin'".
I agree. I think Obama is on a quest to quell national pride in this country and change the view the world has towards the U.S. (in his mind). This explains comments he makes alluding to the U.S. being no better than any other country. It also explains his nuke policy. So it's no surprise he wants to see us ratchet back our space program. I wouldn't doubt it's designed to give other country's a chance to move forward with their own and not feel as if they're in competition with us.
No the did not needlessly kill 7 people, don't be a dolt.
The point he is making is that Space Flight needs a face in order for people to stay interested. If people aren't interested, then it gets cut.
From that point of view, he is correct.
"Or lets take the Hubble repair missions. A repair mission on the Hubble costs a billion dollars plus. It would be cheaper just to strap a new telescope on a rocket and just launch a replacement instead!"
Now you are being stupid. It would not be cheaper, PLUS it would take 5-8 years to get one up. PLus, how does that fit in with Hubbles mission? do you even know what it's mission was?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What has the manned space program done for us recently? You cannot live forever on past achievements, especially when your life support costs other people billions of dollars a year.
It seems silly to think we wouldn't benefit from some other country's space program
So, their space program is going to employ American citizens, whom spend their wages in American communities and generate tax revenue for American Government? They will let their space program benefit our military, in the form of communications and recon capabilities? They will share all technologies developed for their space program without charging us for them?
so why not let them foot the research bill while we work on coming up with a sensible financial strategy
The 2009 Federal Budget included $3,100,000,000,000 of spending. NASA's 2009 fiscal year budget was $17,614,200,000. That amounts to 0.5682% of Federal spending. In reality it's considerably less than that, when you account for appropriations that weren't part of the budget (war spending, bailouts, stimulus, etc.)
I repeat my statement from another thread: Gutting the manned space program to save money is shortsighted and idiotic policy. NASA is not the reason that Federal red ink is spiraling out of control.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.
Hate to break it to you, Neil, but we've been on the long downhill slide to mediocrity in the USA for quite some time now. It's nothing short of a miracle that NASA has resisted this for so long.
In almost every major technical and intellectual endeavor, we're worse now (relative to other developed nations) than we were 20 years ago:
And Obama is doing his part to encourage this long, downhill slide into mediocrity.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"the private sector" isn't good enough. Only lavishly expensive government programs are good enough. Fucking hypocrites.
Actually, if you're a space geek, the military taking over the space program is the best news you could wish for. Just take a look at who gets a budget. To the DOD, NASA's budget is a rounding error. If you actually want to see this stuff get funded, the Air Force is the best place for it.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
I get SO sick of the Space Nutters like Shakrai. I'm glad you replied. As if the Saturn V and its guidance computer just popped into existence from a vacuum.
"You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?"
Uh, not even close? Is there core rope memory and 8 transistor NOR gates in your computer? The ideas and parts for the Apollo project existed BEFORE the space program was started. I know, I have the purchase orders MIT put in. How could you make a purchase order for parts that didn't exist according to you?
You realize there was an entire industrial and commercial market for computers before man went into space?
We went into space BECAUSE the technology existed already! Not the other way around.
Why does no one mention the F-14 flight control computer when talking about computers? Surely it is as much the ancestor of modern computers as the AGC? Why the focus on space only?
Space is EMPTY. If the dinosaurs had a space program, they would have died in SPACE instead of the Earth. There's nothing in space. It's empty.
no one is saying we shouldn't support extra-terrestrial exploration - they are saying manned space flight is not a cost effective way to do so. we aren't living in the pre- and cold war era where we can spend seemingly infinite $ simply to say "we did it first".
Neil Armstrong doesn't talk very much. When he does, people should listen.
Buzz Aldrin never shuts up. Sometimes, less is more.
NASA is a welfare program, but at least we get something out of it. It isn't just FL, it is Ca, Co, Va, Tx, Ut, LA, AL, MD, ... and the list goes on and on. Almost every congressional district gets something.
Don't we all feel a little better when there's a man on a mission in space? That same money would be lost in SS or Medicare overruns. For me, I'd like to double annual NASA's budget, but not allow them to do the same thing over and over and over. How many crystal growing experiments does the world need?
Someone else said we "wasted lives" in human space flight and complained that 7 people died on Columbia. BS. I worked with the astronauts loading software on their laptops pre-mission. They KNOW the risks and accept them. It isn't some mama-boy's decision. Humans need to take risks to move the entire race forward.
If a life isn't on the line, we don't learn the same things. The Earth is a death trap. In fact, we need to get out into other parts of our galaxy if we don't want the human race to be wiped out. It is gonna happen. Perhaps sooner than later. The latest thing that will happen is the Sun expands and swallows all the inner planets in 3+ billion years. At any other time, a gamma-ray producing star could be pointed towards are stellar neighborhood and destroy all life for 20 light years distance around us.
I think the human race will be wiped out before we learn to get far enough away, but just because it is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't be running towards the goal.
NASA needs budget to pay intelligent contractors. We need to be learning how to get off this rock.
Nobody cares! NASA is disastrously broken and should be killed my the most expedient means for the benefit of the world. Once Americans no longer have access to space the civilized countries of the world can breathe easier.
Troll moderation. Funny. Slashdot is still full of "hope and change". Fortunately the winds no longer are.
Political disagreement is not a valid reason for negative moderation.
Corporatism != Free Market
So we should fund NASA to have a greater variety of jobs to send overseas?
I guess that's why the '70s were such a golden economic age, with low inflation, low unemployment, and high Dow. Oh wait...
That, and space flight was something developed by white people. It'll sure be a cold day in hell before you see a nation of niggers develop a space program. Of course he's going to kill it. It's a constant and irritating reminder of who made this country great - and who isn't making this country great.
"This will diminish America's technological superiority and our lead in spaceflight."
That's pretty stupid. Let me guess: You ahven't rad the proposed changes, and don't even understand what he wants cut?
Fucking idiot.
The constellation program was going poorly. The previous administration kept micromanaging it and demands result based on a complete unrealistic and made up timeline. Plus the results they wanted kept changing.
SO the contellation program had ended up with bugs and delays.
Thbis is not opinion, it's fact.
He doesn't want ti stiop manned flight; he wants it done properly.
"He has shown nothing but contempt for our allies"
Then why are all are allies praising him? why is are foreign relations doing better now then in the last 10 years?
Stop letting Fox news think for you.
"constantly bows (literally) to our enemies."
oh dear lord. Yeah, lets completely ignore other peoples social norms when trying to do foreign relations~
"Given that almost everything in the technology industry came directly or indirectly as a result of NASA and the space program, it's value is obvious"
which is why we wants to increase NASAs budget... dick head.
"The microprocessor, for example, was invented by Intel FOR the space program."
yes, and nw better robotics are being developed for the space mission. your point?
"A full blown effort to return to the moon, to stay there permanently, and to push on to Mars would greatly benefit not only the United States but the world
true, but to do it we will need robotics to help us. Why not send robots to build the basic structures before we get there? use robots to gather material? land supplies before men arrive. Use robots to gather basic soil samples and do analyses in the field. Put mankind there to do science and develop new technologies that will be needed to go to Mars, and then to planets around other stars?
"(and hopefully only"
your predjudice is showing, and it explains you're incorrect information and logical fallacies.
"With the cancellation of Constellation, we will be retiring the shuttle by next year, WITHOUT A REPLACEMENT EVEN ON THE DRAWING BOARD!"
SO you are saying we should keep putting money into a failing program just ebcase nothing else is 'on the drawing board"? really? talk about fiscal irresponsibility. BTW, there are several other programs 'on the drawing board' Once again, your irrational views of the president are causing you to make logical flaws.
"And to those who say "cancel the space program, we have hungry people here on Earth""
I dont' say that, and I am well aware of the benefits of space mission RnD. You seem to think there will be no benefit to mankind from developing robotic missions. Why?
Please read on what and why he want's to make changes. We can have a discussion on those merits without you bringing in you incorrect assumption about Obama.
You and people like you are starting to look ridiculous. You blame everything on Obama. You don't even discuss the pros or cons of what he suggests you simple take the 'Obama wants it therefor I'm against it and I don't need to bother to think a our it at all approach." You are better then that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Constellation program was supposed to re-use as many of the space shuttle components to design and build launch system to get us back to the moon. The Program of record was severely flawed in several ways-
I'm all for going back to the moon and the US creating a Heavy lift Space program under NASA's guidance. But Constellation is not the right program.
I'd be all for something along the lines of DIRECT heavy lift system to continue the US presence in manned space flight.
The Internet has no garbage collection
Been done in a completely automated experimental payload for a fraction of the cost and risk
I don't know what reality you're living in, but automated systems are expensive; especially since we're not talking about experiments done purely on machinery or electronics. A lot of STS-107 mission's experiments were in the fields of life science and earth science.
So the space program not only killed seven people, but needlessly killed seven people.
No one put a gun to their heads and forced them into orbit. They knew the risks of their jobs and accepted them eagerly. You insult their memory by even talking about their accomplishments being "needless".
Or lets take the Hubble repair missions. A repair mission on the Hubble costs a billion dollars plus. It would be cheaper just to strap a new telescope on a rocket and just launch a replacement instead!
Would it? The risk (in both time and money) involved in launching a brand new, unproven telescope doesn't even come close to the cost associated with maintenance on a time-tested, working telescope. Not to mention how long it took to build Hubble in the first place.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
However great a pilot Armstrong has been (literally superhuman when you consider various 'accidents' during early tests of docking in Earth orbit), he sat on the board of Morton-Thiokol (supplier of solid rocket boosters for shuttle missions) for over a decade, until retirement.
Morton-Thiokol is HEAVILY invested in current technology supporting both the shuttle and Ares/Constellation.
I see Armstrong's support for the Ares/Constellation plan as more support for his employer, than for the space program.
It is time to quit lining the pockets of contractors to keep building 1970's technology for the space program and develop some game-changing technology for getting material into orbit. As it is, we are sooooo engrossed with 1970's tech (like returning to the moon???) that we will never send men to the Asteroid Belt in my lifetime.
After all, that IS NASA's game, isn't it?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
because if I start doing research on something today, that means I'll have new product tomorrow! Woooot!
If we want to explore the moon and other places, let do it sensibly: we should be sending robotic 'crews' up to explore, stake out and set up living quarters for humans who would follow. It would achieve two things: make the whole process so much safer and really move robotic science forward significantly. The resultant benefist for humanity back on earth would be of a similar scale to those of the space programs of the 60's.
As to Neil Armstrong, he himself was nearly killed by a simulator that ran out of attitude fuel. A computerized system would have noticed the problem immediately and averted disaster.
*** Don't be dull.***
Victim? I think the word you wanted here was "participant." Saying that people were victims of bad loans is like sayig I'm a victim of McDonalds because I bought fries there. "Oh, but McDonalds didn't give you the details about the fries." Bullshit. If someone had told me I could eat the fries and not get fat it would be my own fault for believing something so monumentally stupid. Read the loan. Understand the loan. Make sure you can and will be able to pay for the loan. Sign the loan. It's not rocket science.
anyone over the age of 10 or so realizes that money is not infinite. we (the US) made a choice. we elected leaders that engaged us in an expensive pointless war. we elected leaders that let big business run amok with our finances then cut and run away with the profits.
every heard of a little thing called consequences? you don't get to fight a inconceivably expensive war in iraq and then have massive funds left over to pump into a space program. remember when you were 6 and you had the realization that if you spent your allowance on a new model car you couldn't buy the candy bar also?
we aren't living in the pre- and cold war era where we can spend seemingly infinite $ simply to say "we did it first".
NASA's budget amounts to around 0.5% of the total Federal budget. I wasn't aware that was a "seemingly infinite" amount of money.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This has already come to pass.
Who would have thought that giving the Russians a monopoly would give them more leverage in setting the price we pay? Maybe we should have a Congressional committee study this phenomenon and produce a report explaining how such a price increase could possibly have happened. Unfathomable mysteries, indeed.
You are better then that.
You mean better than that, oh righteous one?
He has caused damage to our relationships with allies like the UK that may NEVER be healed.
I must have missed something. What are you referring to?
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
He is about the ONLY astronaut that is speaking up that does not have a vested interest via their job. Up until now, all of the other astronauts critizing Obama's cancellation of Constellation had jobs with the companies that were at the core of it. To the best of my knowledge, Armstrong is not working for any of these companies.
And to be honest, I understand what he is saying, yet find some of it suspect. Ares I was not going to be man ready until around 2017. And that was with increased funding. OTH, if we put in far less money, we will have a number of human rated space crafts. And their argument that the private ones timelines are suspect is the exact same argument against constellation. But the private companies are already further ahead with development.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The Apollo mission didn't create those industries. There was some technology developed in the course of the Apollo project that had broader applications. But, computers were already being developed, plastics were already being developed.
If you want to develop useful new technologies, wouldn't it make more sense to invest directly in research and development, rather than investing in a giant publicity stunt in the hopes that there might be some useful spin-offs?
Well, space research started in the late 50's, and Apollo was over and done by the very early 70's. Expecting a benefit in 10-15 years isn't exactly short-sided. Instead, we had the economic malaise of the period. The space program has always been about bread and circuses, so once the show is over all you have is nice memories of essentially meaningless stunts.
See before my posting. Apparently, Armstrong has a strong vested interest in Morton-thiokol. I did not know that. Kind of sad if so. I had actually hoped to have SOMEBODY speak up that did not have a vested interest in all this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
With all due respect to those great men, and their accomplishments, they are wrong.
First of all, everyone take a deep breath, pull up Google, and remember that the space shuttle program was cancelled SIX YEARS AGO by BUSH. That is not a decision by the Obama administration.
Second, the Constellation program was already years behind schedule, billions overbudget, and would still have resulted in years of us paying the Russians for a ride to the ISS, if they could have even worked out the problems and gotten a system flying. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Constellation would have resulted in a massively overpriced, low flight-rate system that was no better than the shuttle it replaced.
By giving private industry more incentives to proceed with their plans for commercial spacecraft (which NASA was previously competing with and blocking investment in), the Obama administration has made it vastly MORE likely that we will return to the Moon and space in general. This time, we will have a business reason to STAY THERE, instead of just going sightseeing.
I am overall not a fan of the Obama administration, but on this one thing, they have absolutely nailed it. This decision is good for the space industry, good for America, and good for the future of mankind.
Necron69
A few guys on Mars could do what the rovers have done in a couple of months.
Actually, I've read somewhere that the amount of geological study performed by both Spirit and Opportunity together (I think) would amount to a single Earth's geologist's (busy) working day - perhaps save for the distance traveled. Pity that I haven't saved that bookmark.
Ezekiel 23:20
You said it. I guess all empires come to an end.
yeah, 230 billion dollars is a lot of money. that's the estimated cost of sending man (again) to the moon.
if you split that up evenly among the states, you could give each each state 4.6 billion dollars ... only a small percentage of that would be needed to get them out of debt. they could use another very small percentage to stimulate jobs. they'd still have billions left over. maybe we use that to start paying off the national debt.
i don't know about you, but having our country on a strong financial standing, being out of debt, and having a job are pretty important things.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/video-neil-degr.html
Yesterday I stumbled upon this speech he made at the University of Buffalo recently. If you haven't heard this guy before, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better introduction than this video. He's great.
Elon Musk, one of the top competitors in the private space launch industry, has built and flown a satellite launch system with only $100 million dollars invested, his Falcon 9 sits on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral awaiting it's maiden flight and looks to be able to become human rated , while in service fulfilling the COTS cargo to ISS program, 2 years before the Constellation paper rocket program makes it's first flight. . If Elon Musk, or his competitors are able to reduce the cost of space launch by even half of what they claim, the number of launches will increase exponentially. What the Space coast loses in socialized pork will be more than made up in real free market beef.
Oh, and he just agreed to a treaty that FORBIDS us to modernize our weapons technology, and has canceled the missile shield for Eastern Europe.
And for some reason you call this reduction of tax-payer-funded dead-weight-loss programs "making America weaker". It isn't clear to any thinking person here why you believe that. We aren't cowards, you know. We don't need to cower behind bluff and bluster and missile shields, proclaiming ourselves the baddest of bad-asses with whom no one ought to mess.
Strong people aren't afraid of others, and don't need to make huge investments in dead-weight-loss programmes, despite the false sense of security those programmes give to stupid people. Obama is showing genuine strength, not bullying cowardice. It's a nice change from the Amerika so many of us were coming to know and hate.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
The manufacturing techniques, systems design, and fab development we now use was all created to meet NASA's needs.
Not one part of that statement is true. You don't know your computer history, and are making yourself look foolish.
There are several push-forward points that can easily be discerned as having major input into the shape of the current computer market. They include Whirlwind/SAGE (IBM, online systems, digital telecoms, core memory, Digital Equipment Corp), Nike-X (IC manufacturing, rope memory, distributed processing) and the VLSI program (RISC, most modern fabbing).
NASA's role was simply more visible, which isn't surprising as most of those other projects were secret for some or much of their lifetime. Much of the actual technology being used came from Air Force projects.
Maury
This will diminish America's technological superiority and our lead in spaceflight. However, I believe that in the case of Obama, that he WANTS to diminish our leadership. He has shown nothing but contempt for our allies since getting into office and constantly bows (literally) to our enemies. I honestly believe that we have a President who does not like this country.
Your the kind of guy Buzz Aldrin should punch in the face. Repeatedly.
- These characters were randomly selected.
The point he is making is that Space Flight needs a face in order for people to stay interested. If people aren't interested, then it gets cut.
While I agree this is a consideration, it doesn't appear to be true.
TV viewership was MUCH higher for the Mars rover landings than anything the Shuttle has done other than exploding. People appear to be interested in the exploration part, not so much the manned part exclusively.
Maury
I never knew that NASA was around in 1907 when nakelite was developed. And computers only exist because of the Apollo mission? Darn. I am sure interested in those 200 others. Probably you will include The non-stick pan with Teflon as well which was invented in 1938.
And obviously all these 200 would not have been developed without the Apollo Mission and even more important, the money spend on those invention would not have been spend in any way and this would not have generated any taxes.
Hey, let's go to the stores and trow in the windows. That will be good for taxes as well as business.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The oligarchy shut down the program because they hate mankind.
Are you fucking serious?
- These characters were randomly selected.
It's a scary thought should they decide to make it a weapons platform.
Dead-weight-loss is what the Air Force does, so we can take it for granted that that's what they will do in this case. They may do some science along the way that has value--military organizations the world over have occassionally managed to rise above themselves and do something that isn't a pure drain on the economy.
But your read on the situation is correct: this is the end of the US civil space program for anything other than robotic exploration and joint missions to the ISS. At the same time the American military is going to rapidly expand into LEO, and probably beyond. I expect that when the next American stands on the Moon they will be an actively serving member of the American armed forces, sent there as part of a purely and obviously military mission.
President Obama is obviously on-board with this shift from America as a scientific and exploratory leader in space to America as a military colonizer of space.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I bet seven people died in the last 24 hours driving to 7-11 for a munchie run. It sucks that those astronauts died, but at least they consented to a risky career. Taxpayer consent, on the other hand, is a lot more indirect, if it exists at all.
Hear hear! People are right when they say robots aren't as good at repair missions as people are. But when you scrap life-support systems and assorted safety stuff, you've got so much money left over that you can build redundant equipment. Gimme ten Hubbles and when a couple of 'em break, you're not gonna hear me crying.
It's all about efficiency.
There was a time when I bought "good" hard disks. It made sense. (Sort of. In theory it did, anyway.) Then something happened with capacity and price, and using RAID1ed cheap shitty disks started to make more sense. You gotta go with the flow that the tech/economics gives you.
The gap between what is possible with automation versus what is possible with people, is really only moving in one direction. People may still be able to argue about which one is better right now, but there's no argument at all when we look at the overall trend and what the future holds. When the genetic engineers come up with Human 2.0 who doesn't need oxygen, perhaps there will be a serious debate again.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Thats one small bumble for a man...
One large Obumble for mankind...
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
not to mention the countless millions that lost their lives in other forms of exploration. during the Age of Discovery it wasn't uncommon for less than half of the ships [citation needed] that set out on a journey to make it to their destination. and im sure lots of people ended up giving their lives when utilizing new technology like flight.
having said that, going back to the moon is a distraction... we need to go to Mars as soon as possible, and go there to STAY
The US only has bought four seats on the ISS for each of 2011 and 2012 ($50M each). And nothing firm after that.
The ISS capacity is three four-month rotations of six astronauts (18 seats). That requires six Soyuz launches, which is a stretch. The US quota is 2 astronauts per rotation.
Neil Armstrong was on the Corporate Board of Thiokol, which became ATK Launch Systems Group. ATK Launch Systems Group was contracted to provide the solid fueled booster for Constellation. With its cancellation, ATK Launch Systems Group is losing value. Now ask yourself, how many shares of ATK Launch Systems Group does Neil Armstrong own from his time on the board? Somehow, I don't think Neil will be coming forth with the answer.
Support SETI@home
I don't know many proponents of the private sector that believe it is the solution for everything. The private sector is better at job creation, it's better at near-term efficiency for most ordinary endeavors. There are a very few things, however, where it is more economically feasible for government to do a thing, than it is for the private sector. For example, maintenance of a military, or building a highway system that spans a continent; these are things where government successfully drives industry. The space program, in terms of the kinds of energies (literal and figurative) needed to succeed at it, is one of those few things that government can establish better than can the private sector. That's just basic economics.
Besides, I thought liberals liked nuance, or is that out of fashion now?
They aren't too clear on what their alternative is. Continue the Constellation program despite the funding constraints? A new program? As I said in the subject line, they may have valid criticisms, but usually we're talking about competing options. So, if we grant the importance of the space program and a manned space program, then what is their proposed strategy for the future? I thought they'd have some specific idea, but there isn't much there other than "not this way". That's unsatisfying.
"You realize the rockets used were based on Nazi technology to deliver payloads?"
Actually not really. When the captured they asked Von Braun how he developed the V2 his response was "ask Goddard". The V2 was a scaled up version of Goddard's last rockets right down the the graphite vanes controlled by a gyroscope.
The US put Goddard to work during WWII building rockets to help flying boats take off quicker...
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
like sending them up to the Indian space station, or visiting the Chinese moon base.
Well, what would be so terrible about that? Let the Indians and Chinese take the lead for a while (and also let them pay for it, BTW).
Hang back for a generation, then leapfrog them after they've taken the risks/done the development.
I've never thought about it that way, but why not? Manned spaceflight is a motherfucker in terms of resources.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
It's a nice change from the Amerika so many of us were coming to know and hate.
So how is letting Iran develop nuclear weapons making the US stronger, a day after obama said China would back an embargo on Iran China said no and promptly sold two tankers of gasoline to Iran. obama is perceived as weak and other leaders do not respect him they know he does not have the stomach or the balls for the international power game. What has the US gotten out of all the appeasing China, Russia, Iran, NKorea, ... all still hate us and seem to take great pleasure in doing the opposite of what obama begs them to do.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Because it's somehow wrong to beat swords into plowshares?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So should I tell all my classmates that the reason they can't find jobs when they graduate is that they bought houses they couldn't afford?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Which part of the computer? How about "semiconductors."
The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer based on semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes. It was estimated that building the ACG consumed close to 100% of the world's semiconductor fabrication capacity while the Apollo Program was in operation.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Don't throw the wasted lives thing in.
They all wanted to go.
Over 300 people have died since 1945 Boxing. "Barbaric activity I feel and never watch it"
In 2006 42 people dies skateboarding.
People die doing many activities so that death count is no reason to stop.
So get back to me after you ban skateboarding.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Americans better get used to it. The "long downhill slide to mediocrity" will involve a lot of cuts to government spending.
This is the worst response I have ever read...
To quote your ignorant post "Nothing was learned that would not have been learned at a fraction of the cost" The reason you learn something from doing a difficult task is it forces you to think in new ways and come up with new solutions. Would freeze dried food have been thought up without the need for manned space travel!? I would also challenge you to live life without the benefits of 1000+ patents and scietific experiences the space program brought us. "The one contribution it has made - fixing the Hubble - could have been finessed more cheaply and effectively simply by building and launching more Hubbles." You have no proof of this because it is not true. Consider we now ship 55 million PER astronaut to Russia for launches when we could be putting educated Americans to work.
Funny thing is, that wasn't a quote from Kirk or Picard... It was Q. And he said it after the Enterprise got carved up by the most vicious villains to come out of Star Trek... The Borg. And it was one of the few times that Q totally beat Picard in an argument.
Of course putting it into context shows that Q was laying down the gauntlet for humanity... He was saying that space exploration will cost lives. Maybe a lot of them. He was calling us out. He was asking us if we have the mettle to do it. Apparently, he's right. We don't. How disappointed he must be!
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
The Apollo moon missions launched us into the 1970s, not exactly the boom years of the American economy or culture. There was Watergate, Vietnam, stagflation, Arab Oil embargo, and 55MPH freeways. I think there was more hope and higher morale getting to the moon in the 1960s. 1969 might have been the best year in my memory - from the Jets upsetting the Colts in the SuperBowl to the Beatles last public appearance and Abbey Road release to the first 747 flight to People's Park to Woodstock to the creation of ARPAnet and UNIX to the first and second moon landings. Since then, it has been pretty downhill, frankly.
All the scientists I know (myself included) would correctly indicate that the sun will not grow cold, but will, after exhausting its core hydrogen fuel, vastly increase its luminosity, and swell in size past the Earth's orbit, essentially vaporizing it. All this, in roughly 5 billion years.
Modern humans as a species are 0.0002 billion years old. Yes, that's three zeroes to the right of the decimal. Do you really believe that we'll care about a couple thousand years worth of exemplars of humanity after we've evolved 25,000 times further than since we separated from proto-human homonids? Will we even be humans at that point? Are there any other conceivable disasters our species or its descendants could suffer during those billions of years, which colonizing space could not prevent?
...not again
-- a bowl of petunias
otoh, didn't the chinese emperor execute the admiral who rounded africa long before magellan?
Cheapskate Troll,
NASA costs $57.10 per taxpayer per year. The average taxpayer pays a total of $25,000 per year.
Wiki Answers
Absolute Astronomy
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
That depends on your thoughts towards applied science versus straight research. When you are developing technology to meet a specific goal then the science is directed towards that goal and then more importantly, applied to actually accomplish the goal.
That is where NASA was, they are not there anymore for a myriad of reasons, one of which is funding, but most importantly there's a lack of a specific goal.
We sent the wrong guy first. Neil Armstrong has chosen to stay almost entirely out of the limelight. He could have done so much more. But rather than use his voice to speak for man's future off this little blue marble he has been NASA's equivalent of JD Salinger the last forty years. But now ... ta-da ... he breaks decade of silence in a document that drips with politics.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Gutting the manned space program to save money is shortsighted and idiotic policy. NASA is not the reason that Federal red ink is spiraling out of control.
Fortunately, the NASA budget got increased for 2010. Maybe not in real dollars (seems to be a wash), but that's not exactly "gutting the manned space program." It's "gutting a program that is on a road to nowhere and replacing it with something else". Could the new program also be on a road to nowhere? Sure. But from what I've seen, it's got a better chance than that welfare program that NASA was working on earlier.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
yah
perhaps you might consider what it is to be human.
various answers, but for an empire human==hodcarrier
or maybe human cattle, more traditionally.
there is a deadly conflict between this view and in this case, explorer of the universe, developer of new tech that enhances man's control of nature, and so. and of course, the associated sense of cultural optimism is really dangerous.
what i say above is important, but a bit superficial. but i think you can at least sort of process it.
and it is a little interesting that kisha rodgers, 22nd cd, texas, won the dem primary in a three way race with over 50% of the vote. her two main slogans were impeach obama and save nasa and you can bet she made the same sort of argument as the video
How is retiring the only platform we have that's capable of manned space flight without a suitable replacement anything but gutting the manned space program?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I was thinking, yesterday, how NASA's decision to ditch all the routine stuff they do in favor of developing the tech and strategies for greater space exploration was a step the right direction! Then along comes this Astronaut hero...
I don't think I'm the furthest thing from an Astronaut but I'm pretty far from it. With that said, Niel Armstrong is showing his age here. If you leave something stagnant it's gonna keep doing what it's doing. In NASA's case that means more unbalanced budgets, overpriced processes that occur on a regular basis incurring large recurring expenses, and all the rest of the garbage NASA is taking heat for of late. If NASA cannot do the regular stuff (regular, here, being a relative term) without blowing their budget than something needs to change. I say that NASA needs to take EVERYTHING we've payed them to do and give it, without exception, to any public\private entity that can use it (or for that matter - even cares about it - government transparency right?). Then you let the private sector develop and refine those technologies and processes like Virgin Galactic is doing so that the private sector will be able to fly anyone to space, the space station or the moon for a ticket price that is relatively comparable, in price, to first class Airline travel. Once NASA is no longer responsible for being the bus to the space station or, being the really overpriced satellite maintenance\installation technician, THEN they will be able to get back to some Space Tech research (I dunno, something like what Obama has announced for the future - take that Neil). Maybe after all that we could be a "Space Faring Race" like you see in movies.
I guess my point here is something like:
"In it's present state NASA is becoming more of a hindrance to the potential of human space activities. They need let private companies take over the repetitive work and refocus on what they are REALLY good at: Getting the smartest people in America together to come up with new and applicable technologies to lead the way in to space."
Furthermore, the way I see it, NASA is the space equivalent of DARPA for Earth-Based tech. DARPA does all this, seriously, rediculously advanced research for the military, give the results to the military for use and a decade or two later, us civies get to use it. NASA should do the same thing.
I normally read Slashdot via RSS at work during lunch. It's the usual US business setup, meaning IE only with no plug-ins allowed (read: ad blocking). This means I am subjected to Google AdSense blurbs in the Slashdot feed. Any appearance of the word Obama in a news entry like this one GUARANTEES a NewsMax ad right below. For this story, the NewsMax ad states: "Obama Care - Stop Him!" 'Stop Him'? you mean like Shoot to Kill, NewsMax? Is that sentiment in line with most Slashdotters and the gatekeepers of the joint? Seriously - as I don't honestly know - do those who take AdSense money have no say into what ads - or at least what type - appear on their sites and streams?
I'm also disappointed with AdSense as they seemly have no problem in advertising evil. But I can't say I'm surprised; I had to dump Google News long ago as another gaurantee is any US political story will feature a Fox News full-propaganda / half-truth headline, even if there are dozens of other sources listed. I still can't decide if Fox gamed the system and Google just doesn't give a shit, or if there is a business deal in place.
What does AdSense profiteth a website if it looses it's soul?
An unanswered question, as my postings maintain a near-flawless 1 rating.
The problem is that there are more than 437 other people just like you that have there own, different ideas of what I should have to pay $57.10/year for them to do too.
Your full quote was "Gutting the manned space program to save money". The point is not to save money here. Furthermore, we're talking about Constellation, which is not capable of manned space flight right now, and wasn't projected to be for several years to come - if it would work at all. As a result, nothing in the current NASA budget can be construed as gutting the manned space program to save money.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
All I know is, Obama refusing to spend billions on this government-run program proves once again that he is a socialist. :-)
Obama has a very clear plan. It goes like this:
1.Stimulate economy with massive government spending in 09-10.
2.Slash government budget in 2011. (this includes NASA funding)
3.Cross fingers that step 1 works.
4. Increased tax revenues caused by step 1 and spending cuts from step 2 yield budget surplus at then end of 2011.
5. Say, "See, I balanced the budget!" in 2012.
6. Get reelected in 2012.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
and quit whining. If NASA had focused on space based power, zero-g fabrication industries, low or zero-g medical facilities, better and cheaper sattelite communications infrastructure and so on, would we even be having this debate?
Instead, NASA's old guard wants to continue with activities roughly equivalent to grabbing their genitalia and shouting "FIRST! UH! Uh! UH!"
NASA DOES need it's priorities shifted. It needs to grow up, and pointless manned missions to Mars or the Moon are not the way to do this.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Good strategy; I'll give it a try:
"This will probably get modded down, because everyone on Slashdot with modpoints is an asshole!"
(Now I'll just sit back, wait and then reap the glory.. unless those assholes spitefully prevent it. Assholes.]
Don't forget Altamont....
Every year has its good and bad. Hey, at least in the 70's you could still pretty much fuck anything that moved, and the worst that might happen was you catch something you had to go to a Dr. to get a shot for. At least then you didn't have to wrap yourself in saran wrap before thinking of touching another nekkid human being. On the flip side, have you ever seen 70's porn?!!?
My God, some of those women would require a machete and a fully stocked jungle expedition to find the treasure down below....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
America doesn't need another morality-boost, it needs to take its head out its ass and remember for instance that anything with 'social' in its name isn't bad by definition.
Ok Folks, let's discuss a very simple fact: Where is everyone supposed to go? Again, let me ask the question: Where is everyone supposed to go? At current rates the Eath's human population will eclipse 10 billion people in a few years. A few years after that, 20 billion, and so on and so forth. There is'nt enough room on this planet for all those people. So, we have basically two choices. Choice #1: Do Nothing Results: Widespread disease, famine, economic disaster followed by WW III with billions of casualties perhaps even our own extinction. Choide #2: Figure out how colonize space Results: The human race lives on and becomes immune to the events that cause mass extinctions on this wold. Any questions?
Which part of the computer? How about "semiconductors."
The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer based on semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes.
False. There were all sorts of solid state computers built with discreet transistors in the 1950s.
It was estimated that building the ACG consumed close to 100% of the world's semiconductor fabrication capacity while the Apollo Program was in operation.
That estimate would be wrong. The Minuteman missile program was mass-producing IC-based computers in the same timeframe, and that would be the application demanding far more of the world's fab capacity than the handful of prototypes required for Apollo.
You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?
Honest, he said it fell off the back of a truck.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Wouldn't an unmanned program require even more computing power than manned programs, and thus spur on more development in computers?
Gods. Who let Q on board... AGAIN!?
...and they won't need to, as long as humans are there to do it for them. Remove humans, and we will have to figure out how to build robots that can repair equipment. Wait, that sounds like a breakthrough of some sort, doesn't it?
I know it was Q, and to be honest, I still think it's one of the more profound things said on TNG.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I agree with most of your post, but come on, trade routes? Over the poles? Seriously?
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
The US government will still allow plenty of funds be made available to spy on American citizens with powerful telescopes from space. Of course we will need a new scientific poll to tell us how installing windows in our bedroom ceilings will benefit both our health and safety. I would also be willing to bet there will be enough money left over to attach a laser beam and license plate tracking to the telescope to torch americans who have unpaid parking tickets.
that's not a bad plan.
If you think we're going to send our surplus billions of people in to space, you're wrong. There's no way we could launch enough bodies to have any significant effect on the earth's population. Yes, we might be able to send a few people to colonize another planet, but so what? the universe doesn't need us, and there won't be any benefit for the billions of us left behind. Without faster than light travel, intergalactic trade ain't gonna happen.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Conversely, replying in a manner that appears to align yourself with Obama, in a whatever-he-does-is-right manner, is just as narrow as the accusations you hold for your debate opponent.
Since I haven't seen a car analogy yet, and I cannot think of a good one for the actual topic, consider the following:
Your verbiage above is like a Ferrari owner accusing a Lamborghini owner of automatically disliking anything that comes from Modena, Italy, while simultaneously having wet dreams of licking the tires of an Enzo.
The fact that you are talking in your sleep in the above analogy clearly dictates your need to see a doctor. Get help before it's too late.
I think they can save more money by canceling some of the over budget high tech military programs. (Like the JSF)
I don't think we need many of them to fight the Taliban,terrorists or anyone else.
Nah, if Obama wanted the US to appear weak, he would have sliced the hell out of the military budget Right now it's like saying "I want to appear weak... but I also don't want to give up being the most destructive thing in existance, and letting everyone know it."
"My God, some of those women would require a machete and a fully stocked jungle expedition to find the treasure down below...."
;-)
Those were real women, not the whiny, wannabe little girls we have nowadays. Real men liked them the way they were; I know I still do.
This, of course, is nothing but a straw-man argument because there's no demonstrable connection between the moon missions and any of the problems you list. In fact, the last of them is a direct consequence of the one preceding it in your list.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Because of a large push from NASA, the computer industry was born"
As well as certain segments of the materials, communications, battery/energy/transportation, and food industries.
I find this a great political topic. We have intellectuals, with common sense, agree that Obama made the correct business decision, a bunch of business people (like Armstrong, Lovell, etc..) with experience that think they know what the correct business decision should be. And people like us, who based our careers on historical events (like going to the moon, the space shuttle, ISS, etc..) wondering why the situation is F*cked up.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "To the Moon, Alice!"
We have this really big Near-Earth Object only 238,857 miles away with ice, uranium, iron, titanium, and various other ores. You have gravity, which means that you don't have to come up with exotic methods of extracting iron from iron ore. Also, when building things, one dropped screw doesn't float off into space forever (and become a hazard to other craft). You can use nuclear propulsion all you want without concerns about radiation, etc.
Why bother setting these things up in orbit? Why bother running around trying to mine small asteroids? We've got this nice big stable platform called the Moon just sitting there.
"Landing on the moon did an AMAZING amount to boost the morale of the country"
Not as much as cutting spending and financing programs that will help us. Like schools so my property taxes don't get an severe increase or better health care so my boss doesn't have to carry the burden. Honestly I care about the moon or mars right now because I am trying to make sure that I can continue to pay my mortgage and keep my home. It's a bit shortsighted but after 3 years of this economic rut I don't care. The 90's was the time to push all this space travel crap.
2/5 of the country is pissed at another 2/5ths of the country, and vice-versa. It's how politicians get their power nowadays - anger. I completely disagree that having something cool, fun, and inspiring to come together on wouldn't help to solve the problem to which you're alluding - problem is, we're so trained to hate each other now, that anything one side thinks is a good idea, the other side immediately hates. Democrats announce that they like massages, Republicans immediately hold a press conference to announce that massages are the devil. Republicans announce that they like eating catfish, Democrats immediately hold a press conference to announce that eating catfish is the devil. We need leaders that not only don't cater to this (current leadership fosters/promotes it more than previous leadership did, imo), but that actually ignore it altogether. We're not going to get something like that from either party any time soon. We're not going to get something like that in our extreme-interaction democracy we've forged the last couple decades, from anyone.
That all said, there's a problem with leadership, and there's a problem with the citizens, and both could be inspired by things like a person on the moon - even if the person was from the EU.
However, space exploration won't work in onesies and twosies. Historically exploration has been done by small groups venturing out beyond the known limits of their territory in search of something to add value to their community. Each new group then builds on the experience of previous groups and increases the depth and breadth of knowledge about the unknown territory.
There needs to be a permanent presence in local space that can function as a stepping stone to the next destination. This means at least 2 space stations (preferably more) that can hold several hundred workers. And there needs to be regular flights between the stations and Earth (monthly at a minimum, preferably weekly). This accomplishes several things:
1) We learn how to "live" in space, especially dealing with solar radiation and similar issues.
2) We can accumulate large payloads for journeying to the Moon and other planets.
3) Space travel becomes viable for private business, which will drive it much faster and further than gov't.
4) Public support of space travel/exploration will increase because there will be a realistic idea that, "Hey, I (or my kid) could work in space," as opposed to, "Stop wasting my tax dollars on something that doesn't get me anything," (the 'I don't like Tang' argument).
Until space travel becomes somewhat routine, manned space exploration is not accomplishing much more than a kid throwing a parachute up in the air to watch it float back down. And that will never happen as long as we have to start from the Earth every time.
Later . . . Jim
You are full of shit.
Are you delusional or just uninformed?
Look at any publicly available information about Ares and you will see something like this:
"The first stage is a more powerful and reusable solid fuel rocket derived from the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#First_stage
So, there you go, in easily digestible pre-chewed wiki-ese, the Ares is based on the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket...
Which just happens to have been created by Morton-Thiokol in the 1970's... A company that Armstrong used to sit on the board of... And we are just supposed to takes his comments as whole truth and not ask any questions???
Sorry, smash, but I don't roll that way.
What I gotta ask is... Where the fuck are the mag-lev rail launchers and ballistic cannons to get LOTS of material into space? Where can I go to the local god damned space port and catch a rocket-plane to LEO? Why he hell does everybody going up into the clouds still need to be rated as an astronaut... And just why the FUCK am I NOT working as a Space Cowboy keeping neer-do-wells from messing with the Asteroid miners?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
To be frank, landing humans on Mars is not a real goal because we haven't solved the "life" puzzle yet. We will need to be almost certain there will be no cross-seeding of dangerous microbes either direction. Otherwise, Mars life risks killing Earth life and visa verse. If we contaminate Mars with Earth-life, we may be forever changing it before we get a chance to study it.
Mass off-Earth testing of samples will first be needed for that to happen. That will take lots of robots and an orbital manned lab.
Thus, Obama is correct to man-explore asteroids and small moons first; and keep the station going.
Table-ized A.I.
Wait, you're supposed to clean it up?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you are proposing that we build robots that can communicate faster then the speed of light so that humans can direct the robots in real time. The problem will always be that the picture that is being viewed on earth will be in the past so there will be a fog associated with it. No matter how good the images are being there will always give a cleared picture.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Furthermore I think it is Obama's goal to make the US weak because nobody hates a loser, but nobody respects one either.
That is about the dumbest thing I ever heard. Why would any US president want the US to be weak? Your grasp of logic smacks of crack cocaine and whiskey, or perhaps schitzophrenia. The fact that you were modded "interesting" is almost as sad as your deluded opinion.
I have little opinion of Obama so far; he hasn't don a lot of good, but Jesus, man!
Free Martian Whores!
No, I'm proposing that relying more on unmanned missions creates a demand for more autonomous robots.
Did it provide immediate benefits that justified the cost? No.
Yes it did. One thing is we got Tang. Then of course there were longer range benefits as well, such as in medicine.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Those were real women, not the whiny, wannabe little girls we have nowadays. Real men liked them the way they were; I know I still do. ;-)"
LOL...not me, if I wanna floss after a meal, I'll get the stuff out of the drawer in the bathroom...I prefer 'easy access', so to speak.
But hey, different strokes for different folks I always say.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Manned endeavors are ways to get the general public interested in science again"
We've been doing manned endeavors for decades. If the public isn't interested in science, more of the same isn't going to change that.
All I know is, Obama refusing to spend billions on this government-run program proves once again that he is a socialist. :-)
If Obama did the opposite that's support Obama as a socialist. However other things such as health care have already showed socialism. If Obama only did with health care what he has in his space plan, partially privatizing it. The one power the federal government is granted by the Constitution of the USA is not used in the bill he signed. States still control who can and can not sell health insurance in the state. And what's ironic is that although the new law does not free interstate commerce, the interstate commerce clause is being used to justify the use of force to buy insurance.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The Apollo moon missions launched us into the 1970s, not exactly the boom years of the American economy or culture. There was Watergate, Vietnam, stagflation, Arab Oil embargo, and 55MPH freeways.
The Vietnam War ended in the 1970s but it was started around 1955 by Eisenhower. Now Nixon was president when all the other stuff you list above happened.
1969 might have been the best year in my memory
At least it was better than 1968.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
the same can be said about DDT. It's so unreactive, stable, and non-poisonous
If DDT is not poisonous then why in the world was it ever used? It was used as a pesticide because it is poisonous. However it is relatively stable, so it can bio-accumulate in the environment as well as in our food.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
...Armstrong also needs a good dunking in the Pacific.
Not for the owner, you're paying his mortgage. And profits. A mortgage only lasts so long, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years usually. After that all you pay is maintenance and property tax. However you still pay those when renting.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
depression
Where did you get your PhD in Economics?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been dying to ask this question for years... why not just resurrect the trusty old Saturn and then build on it?
Or was that path considered and tossed out?
Huh?
There are plenty of GOOD risk potential home owners just waiting for housing prices to come back down to earth so they can reasonably afford a reasonably priced home that they can make payments on. Keeping idiots in their homes artificially that shouldn't have been in to begin with, is only prolonging the pain, and keeping recovery in the housing market from ramping up again.
I agree and disagree. I opposed the bank bailout, however since they were bailed out the money should of been used to help those who were having trouble with their mortgages. The bank themselves should not have been given billions of dollars directly. And they should of been allowed to fail.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And there's the thing: technologies developed in the course of an effort to develop crewed space exploration are going to be directed towards enabling crewed space exploration. Such technologies may or may not be useful for other applications.
One could imagine lots of enormously challenging projects that would require research and development, resulting in technologies that may or may not be useful for other applications. Since we can't really predict what spinoffs we might find, shouldn't the choice of which such projects to take on be based upon the direct benefit of accomplishing the goal?
It seems to me that colonizing other worlds is, for the foreseeable future, only a fantasy. We don't know enough yet to create a self-sustaining pocket ecosystem. We need to know more about sustainable practices on *this* planet, before we can work out how to create viable ecosystems on other planets.
If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way.
The second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, disagrees. He said "the strategy will allow NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other destinations 'as quickly as possible.'"
Myself, I support space programs. By businesses and such not by the federal government. Here in the US the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to institute NASA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
go...its just that any commercial venture will have the same issues with rockets that NASA does.
Not all of the same issues. Commercial businesses have to make money to stay in business whereas governments can tax people to death.
Until we have the technology to escape the gravity well of Earth reliably, space flight is an expensive luxury at best...
It will be businesses and private enterprises that will lower the cost of space flight not government.
more then likely we will end up sinking just as much money in some commercial company as we would into NASA.
If so, which I doubt, the money will be from investors and not taxpayers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
He is about the ONLY astronaut that is speaking up that does not have a vested interest via their job.
He who? Neil Armstrong? Neil Armstrong worked for Morton-Thiokol, the company that built the Space Shuttle boosters.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The entire spaceflight program at that time was a massive investment in R&D. We were attempting to do something that not only had not been done before, but we had no idea how to do it. In order to do it we had to push the existing technologies much further than they already were, and in directions that nobody had thought might be possible or practical at the time.
There's a lot of debate over the direct spinoffs from the space program, and rightly so - however, I suspect that the indirect spinoffs literally cannot be counted. Any huge project of that magnitude tends to have the same result.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Who would put it into perspective by telling him...
A rat done bit my sister Nell, with Whitey on the moon.
Her face and arms began to swell, and Whitey's on the moon.
I can't pay no doctor bill, but Whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now I'll be paying still, while Whitey's on the moon.
The man just upped my rent last night, 'cause Whitey's on the moon.
No hot water, no toilets, no lights, but Whitey's on the moon.
I wonder why he's uppi' me? 'Cause Whitey's on the moon?
I was already paying him fifty a week, with Whitey on the moon.
Taxes taking my whole damn check,
Junkies making me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is going up,
And as if all that shit wasn't enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell, with Whitey on the moon.
Her face an' arm began to swell, but Whitey's on the moon.
Was all that money I made last year for Whitey on the moon?
How come there ain't no money here? Hmm! Whitey's on the moon.
Y'know I just about had my fill of Whitey on the moon.
I think I'll send these doctor bills, airmail special
to Whitey on the moon.
it's a terrible plan. there is no recovery and cutting spending in a time of collapse is suicide. all the while giving $23 trillion in bank bailouts, the banks were supposed to keep buying treasuries with our own money that was created into existence. this whole "peg the budget to what the bond market will allow" idea of political economy is ridiculous especially now. we need to get rid of the fed and create a national bank that can make national investments the way banks create loans... only new money created won't be used for gambling and speculation, it will be used for physical economic growth... that includes nasa.
Innovative solutions to problems that NASA solved decades ago?
It might be worth re-inventing certain wheels if we could do a better job of preserving how we did so. Are all the technological advances from the Apollo era preserved for today? Answer: No, many of the advances were rushed into production and weren't written down.
The Information Age is younger than the Space Age.
When we do it this time, I'm hoping there will be a wiki to preserve that knowledge. Preserving knowledge of strategic importance should be part of the government's response to challenges in space, so we don't find ourselves in this embarrassing predicament ever again.
Perhaps (shudder) this actually does need its own agency, perhaps a new wing of the National Archives devoted to keeping a wiki alive for this purpose.
Contrary to the spirit of the common Wikimedia implementation, however, I'd suggest something with stronger attribution - perhaps Confluence or something similar (and yes, I'd prefer an open source solution, and I know Confluence is not) - would be necessary, so people can trace the origins of the knowledge preserved.
I'd be in favor of adding such central knowledge preservation as a requirement for government bids.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
They never said that we could reach the Moon/Mars cheaper if we scratched Ares and Orion; they said that we should not GO to the Moon/Mars.
Even Fox News says Obama's plan includes the goals of returning to the moon and going to Mars.
I agree that we need a heavy lifter. But the cost to start from scratch will exceed the cost to finish Ares. But since the current administration doesn't believe we need a heavy lift capability, it really doesn't matter, now does it?
While I support going back to the moon and on to Mars, I dispute the government should do it. What the government can do is encourage private enterprises to do it. Start with Virgin Galactic fairing passenger contractors to Hotel Bigelow. Those contractors then build a space craft capable of going to the moon and coming back. Heck Bigelow can build Hotel Bigelow Moon where more contractors live while they build settlements on the moon.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yea, I saw your self reply after I posted my own.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The federal government doesn't even have the authority to create NASA.
I'd rather have my tax money go to people working at NASA pushing the envelope of space and engineering, than have people paid to do nothing productive (unemployed, bureaucracy, lawyers...).
I prefer liberty and small government. Let people and businesses push the envelope of science and engineering. Here we've had government running the space program for more than 40 years and where have we gotten since 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon? Now look where computing has gone. My 3 year old laptop and it's CPU has more power than computers did in 1969. Hell, I bet my 10 year old PC under my desk has more power.
Oh, and both Obama and I support infrastructure projects, however where Obama has the federal government paying for them I believe most should be done by local and state governments. And things like rail roads and trains, private businesses not government should be paying them. Without the use of eminent domain.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Will it? Last year SciAm had an article on what may happen to the universe in the future. If I recall right of 5 theories or scenarios only one had the universe collapse on itself. Another one had the universe continually expanding. While today we can see other galaxies in the future humans, if we still exist, won't be able to see beyond our galaxy.
why do you have to invest in space travel now, when you have all those empty oceans?
Why can't we do both? Private enterprises that is, not the government.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
What is, NASA? NASA is not constitutionally authorized.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Parent makes a really good point.
Without the Kennedy imperative to get Apollo to the moon, integrated circuits would not have happened when they did. I'm sure it would have come later, but it would have been sitting in limbo for many years while corporate leaders navel-gazed the market potential....
Huge improvements in miniaturization just would not have had gotten the needed funding to drive them into commercialization. Apollo was the test case that early efforts needed to convince the investors that micro-electronics would be viable.
I think it would be fair to say that we'd probably still be on dial-up connections using 8/16 bit computers right now if it weren't for the drive to create the first multi-gate ICs that made the control computer in the LLM possible.
Truly, the world would be a better place if he had picked another career, like dentistry, if he had to be born at all.
Right!
"I have just discovered a brilliant new form of dental filling! You see, if we use TWICE as much mercury in the amalgam, and add some small quantity of fulminates,..."
I repeat my statement from another thread: Gutting the manned space program to save money is shortsighted and idiotic policy. NASA is not the reason that Federal red ink is spiraling out of control.
While I agree entirely with you, I think it's very important to point this out:
Gutting ________ to save money is shortsighted and idiotic policy.
Feel free to plugin any of the following terms: social security, medicare, defense/military, education, unemployment, the penal system.
The budget is the way it is because there are sizable chunks of the population who feel that _____ is absolutely vital for the future of our society and that ____ pay too many taxes while simultaneously maintaining that ____ is a waste of money and ____ doesn't pay their fair share.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Just because Obama won an election doesn't mean he's qualified to be our president and make policies....
yaaaay revisionist history that they teach in schools now! Wooooot!
Yeah, nevermind that it was France in the war there for the first decade, it was their mess we were trying to clean up, and that they had been in that area since LOOOOOOONG before 1955. Funny that you pick that year of all the years of important events there, too - since Vietnam was a French colony from 1884 until 1954. In fact, the USSR, UK, and US in 1945 decided that the UK would help support French troops in the south, and that China would hold the north, due to a revolutionary trying to make a break for independence. That place was a contested, fought-for, embattled region since the mid 1800s. To think the US started ANYTHING there, and was doing ANYTHING other than trying to clean up France's mess when the US finally did go in (which yeah, it shouldn't have), is downright stupid. The problem was around long before the US involvement. Started by Eisenhower? Really?
Proudly libertarian, small "l", I'm not registered as a Libertarian. The Constitution of the USA is the supreme law of the land. Of course just as there are those who break some laws, there are those including politicians who break the Constitution.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
yaaaay revisionist history that they teach in schools now! Wooooot!
Agreed, but probably differently that what you mean.
Yeah, nevermind that it was France in the war there for the first decade, it was their mess we were trying to clean up, and that they had been in that area since LOOOOOOONG before 1955.
However France did have a plan to clean it up, when Eisenhower stepped in. The Geneva Conference (1954) worked out an agreement between France, North Vietnam and South Vietnam to hold an election in the north and south on whether to reunify. Eisenhower did not agree to this so he sent then Col Edward Lansdale to arm and train South Vietnamese who opposed the accord. "How the U.S. Got Involved In Vietnam" does into more detail.
The problem was around long before the US involvement. Started by Eisenhower? Really?
Eisenhower opposed democracy and stopped the Geneva accord so it that sense he did start it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The vietnam war was an attempted revolution against French rule. Not against Eisenhower rule, French rule. And France had a plan to clean up the mess? Really? The only reason the revolution was started was because France was no longer able to assert control over the area; if they wanted to clean it up, all they had to do was relinquish their control of it.
So why were they unable to assert control over the area in the mid 50's? Oh, something called WW2. Not sure if your whack-job professor told you about that war, considering they convinced you that Eisenhower started Vietnam....or wait! I bet the US started WW2, too!
Not being able or willing to read the links I posted I see no reason to continue.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The Banks and their lack of prudence (politeness for greed), siphoned off much if not most of the US reserve. Now Obama (democrats) are blamed for the job recession. Actually, the Democrats are the victims too. The sad part is that if the Democrats did not save the banks, most of the USA (and their trading partners) would be down the tube. So, it is sad that for a few years, budgets have to be constrained so that the economy can rebound. This implies that the space program has to scale down. The result is that we will see a slow down in new technology, so that my laptop will be hardware wise, uptodate for 2 years, instead of 3 months. Wow, I may even be able to keep my other computers for much longer, saving me lots of money. Of course, the Chinese hardware manufacturers will be disappointed, but thems the brakes (breaks).
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Thank you for your open mind - a person that doesn't agree with you, obviously hasn't read about the subject.
Do you then disagree that Vietnam was rebelling against French rule? Do you disagree revolutionists timed this when they did because France was week, having been steamrolled by Germany? Do you disagree that it was UK troops sent in first to help France retain the area? No, instead you think that a revolutionary war after many decades of being a French colony was somehow, somehow, caused by the US.
Open your mind to the idea that you were brainwashed by a self-hating professor.
I agree with Armstrong - scrapping the Moon project is not just bad for America, it hurts the entire human race http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2010/04/armstrong-lovell-and-cernan-are-right.html
No comment.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?