Slashdot Mirror
Obama Outlines Bold Space Policy ... But No Moon
The Bad Astronomer writes "In front of a mostly enthusiastic audience at NASA's Kennedy Space Center today, President Obama outlined a bold, new space policy. It's a change from his previous policy; the Constellation rockets are still dead, but a new heavy-lift rocket system is funded. He specifically talked of manned asteroid and Mars missions, but also stated there would be no return to the Moon. This is a major step in the right direction, but still needs some tweaking."
$6B for five years? $1.2B a year. Less money than Microsoft is losing on Bing. Less than 5% of the annual revenues of Mars candy. For humans to stretch the limits of the frontier, to go to Mars and the Asteroids this is all? This is bold? What deep commitment.
I honestly liked it better when he didn't care enough to pretend to try. Do it or don't do it. Don't go halfway into it and set everybody up for disappointment. This is important stuff.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I am a big fan of the space program. I am glad he hasn't just gutted it. Of course, I think the future lies in the private industry. But what do I know, I no rocket scientist accountant.
Yeah, I sighed. It's a shame that this concept is so hard to explain.
To go to the Moon you need a booster, a capsule and a lander. Without an Apollo sized budget its too expensive to build all three at once. So the question becomes: what can we do with just the booster and the capsule while the lander is being built?
There's lots of things of value. Developing cis-lunar space. Going to asteroids, to learn how to divert one that may threaten the Earth. To the Moons of Mars to learn how to do long duration deep space flights.
Eventually, the lander will be ready and NASA will try it out on the Moon, and then onto a Mars landing.
But that's not the kind of argument you can put on a bumpersticker or insert into a presidential speech.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Phil Plait offers his comments on Obama's new space policy: Obama lays out bold and visionary revised space policy.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I think he's probably right in terms of what a government research program should have as its goals. IMO, the purpose of government research on this scale is to drive forward technological development and give the private sector a kick in the pants.
We've already been to the Moon, that technology was developed during the 1960s. We could probably do it better now, but the advancements wouldn't be nearly as significant as what is required for a manned mission to Mars. Leave the moon to the private sector, we should expect to see a private company touching down there within a decade or maybe two. Mars is still a pie-in-the-sky target, let's point NASA at that.
I should have checked the link before posting the above.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
In 2 and a half years when Obama is replaced by the next guy we can recycle this whole thing over again. Each administration takes over and points NASA in yet another direction killing off whatever the current direction is. Next administration will probably kill the heavy lifter project and replace that with a direct shot to mars.
Got Code?
So if it's not a moon, then I guess it's a.....Space Station?
We can't always expect him to bend over and pull his pants down. Come on. A president can only give us a Moon once every blue moon.
oh wait . . .
what is the point of going to Mars if we have no capability of setting up a base there? No capability of any rescue? The moon is our kindergarten - a place to learn about how to live for long periods of time in extremely harsh environments. It is close enough that rescue or other aid may be possible. It is close enough that there is greater flexibility in the mission. The sad thing is that what we did in a handful of years in the 1960s is going to take us a decade or more 50 years later.
You can bet that when the Chinese land on the moon and start talking about setting up bases there'll be a renewed call for the US to end up on the moon again post haste. I can tell its going to be like toddlers and toys. One wont play with a toy until he sees someone else enjoying it and wants in on the action.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
I think a giant telescope on the moon would greatly increase our knowledge of the universe. Maybe our current technology is not sufficient for longer distance space travel and gaining more knowledge about the universe might be better for now.
Oh boy, I bet the moonies must be very upset by Obama right now !
The reaon is that NASA is going to get private space off the ground. As long as we adhere to this and get BIGELOW AEROSPACE off the ground, then we will hit the moon around 2020. Bigelow and Musk have BOTH said that they want on the moon around that timeframe.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
. . . you can expect BIG CHANGES in NASA policy:
* NUKE MARS! Eliminate alien threats before they start. And incidentally destroy any pesky bible-insulting fossils.
* Spaceport Wasilla: Because Alaska is already halfway to heaven!
* Drill Baby Drill through the crystal sphere separating us from the stars!
"That's no moon!" /obligatory
This is a moon - (_._)
I am not stubborn. I am right!
Who cares about dry asteroids, when we have water-laden comets flying around? Comets are much more interesting exploration targets at about the same marginal cost. They're hollow, allowing for habitats to be built inside them for a usefully radiation-shielded planetary cycler, filled with plenty of propellant to maneuver with. The cost to excavate an ordinary asteroid to achieve the same utility would be absurd.
Also, uncharted comets from the Oort clout are more likely to represent substantial Near Earth Object threats with only months instead of the decades notice we have for all the large asteroids, so the more we find out how much we're able to deflect their trajectories by blowing up a nuke next to them, the better.
Is it just me, or was Slashdot broken?
Something must have gone very very very wrong, somewhere.
Even if you're a Republican, it should have been obvious during Dubya's administration that there would be a backlash to his fuckuppery, and that it would be enough to sink all our boats.
Obama isn't truly American. He does not share the American dream. He doesn't see things eye to eye with his fellow Americans. He doesn't even care
Look up his life history - he is living the American dream. I don't know how anyone can claim he doesn't believe in it as that is what made him president. How many other self-made men have become president?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
We have a two party system. There is no third option. The country had a choice of sticking with the party that ran the country for 8 years or going with the other party. There was nothing else. Sure there are third party candidates here and there but none of them have any real support of the population to put them as front runners or even on a ballet. That is why we have President Obama
Also what is a true American? I live in the United States and I don't even know what the definition of a true American is.
Is being a true American standing up for your rights when their trampled on? Is it serving in the military? Is it pushing yourself everyday all day to be a self made individual?
They called John McCain a true American hero during the 2008 election but all I saw was an old generation of ideas and values that didn't work in the modern world.
George W. Bush was called a real American because he defended us against terrorists at all costs. Does blowing billions of dollars on something that has no return on investment make someone a true American?
And whats this American Dream? I recall it being that if you worked hard and played by the rules you can do whatever you want. Well it feels like the only way to make money in this country is break all the rules and let others do the hard work while taking all the credit. Is this the new American Dream? Is this a true American?
How many other self-made men have become president?
He was created by the media and its obvious that he's in way over his head.
To boldy not go where man has gone before.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
and then full it with gasoline
You aren't wearing a Revolutionary era costume and chanting, "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!" are you?
I'm just going to reply to this because I think it's funny. But if the "new" American dream is to "the only way to make money in this country is break all the rules and let others do the hard work while taking all the credit." and if you don't like that then maybe you should go with McCain and his "old generation of ideas and values".
Since you don't seem to agree with the new generations ideas of values.
Quite apart from the national security issues, there's a lot of science to learn out there or on the way. As Kennedy put it: "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
But no, what we need now is a President to look up into the evening sky and see bright Mars. To wonder what it might be like for men to walk on it, to explore and harvest the vast resources of space - and then shrug, crack a beer and catch the game on ESPN.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No - he created himself by carefully managing the media. The media did not pull him out of his bed at 4 am and tell him to run for the senate and then for presidency. And managing the media is a skill that you will find in almost anyone who has successfully run for higher office.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
No moon? That's a space station?
(Millions of geeks suddenly sighed at the pun and were silenced.)
...To be a true American one must feel proud every single time...America is the first (and so far) only country in the world ...Obama isn't truly American. ...
That pretty much sums it up I think. I am an American and I am NOT proud of everything my country does. The fact is, I'm an American, really and truly; Obama is a real, true American, and the fact that we can disagree with you (or that you are allowed to disagree with us) is one of the the few accomplishments Americans actually can be proud of.
The fact is, one doesn't have to feel an overwhelming sense of stunning self-satisfaction for simply having been born into this great nation; America -isn't- the only nation on earth and never has been, and like it or not you've got a lot more fellow Americans than you think you do.
It's crap like this that makes me sick of my fellow Americans and, in many cases, their smug, self-satisfied pride at being born into such a great heritage.
That said, I think Obama has bigger fish to fry (yes, bigger than another trip to the moon). For one thing, I'd like some form of profitable employment and so would thirty percent of other voting age Americans who are unemployed or working part time at Wal Mart (or whatever the number is this week). I'd like to see America claw its way back to the top of the world powers, a position nobody thinks it still has. And I'd like to see America stop bleeding its jobs to its enemies in China, India, and Mexico.
Once we do that, and we're in a position to afford such frills as a moon trip again, I'm all for it.
And while we're at it, he's no true Scotsman, either.
The military budget is a trillion dollars every year. You could just end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and net over 150 billion in one year.
Mars. Put a man on Mars. Everyone wants to 'Reach for the Stars' by going to the Moon. No, lets go to Mars.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
America -isn't- the only nation on earth and never has been
Not to troll, but there are quite a few Americans upon whom I really wish you could impart your wisdom.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
There is a tiny bit of good thought in this: We will finally discuss space radiation and advanced propulsion systems.
Without a nuclear propulsion system that works, a mars mission or a mission to anything but a close flying asteroid is foolhardy.
We have built them before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA).
This is how engineering works:
1. Find elephant
2. Take SMALL bite.
3. Chew bite.
4. Spit out bones (of dead mars crew in slow rocket)
5. Continue until elephant is gone
It is rare that we get a huge leap in technology where physics is involved.
We have been working on the fusion reactor for 60 years. No breath holding or life betting on this one. Trust me. You don't want to build the next Tokamak and try and power Chicago with it.
Stated otherwise: You don't build a boat and test it by taking a transatlantic voyage.
Additionally, the moon part of these missions isn't really about "going" to the moon. It's about *building* on it. What we did before was the equivalent of a day trip in the woods.
Going to mars with chemical rockets is like taking a backpack into the woods across an ocean with only a Columbus style sailing ship back across that ocean to call on for help.
The moon is close, relatively speaking. The moon can be landed on, and then escaped from, with 40 year old technology as it sits. If you build an Apollo era lunar module as an escape capsule, you're done. You only have to live in it for a couple of days.
Mars CANNOT be escaped from with ANY technology currently available. Period. And building a habitation on mars makes the job significantly more difficult. Everything about Mars is harder and will require more time and money with much larger potential for failure and longer lead times.
If you build a habitation (read beginnings of colonization) on the moon, you may be able to build some things which can be tested in a "real" environment prior to getting to a place where you have no help.
There is almost no possibility of resurrection of your (scientific/monetary/personnel) outlay on mars. This is less true with the moon.
And the moon is still a huge challenge. Did I say huge? I meant *HUGE*.
We haven't been to the moon. We touched it, for a brief moment. Do we need to make it to Mars, HELL YES.
But we need to be smart about it.
I love how certain readers of Slashdot keep substituting -1 Troll for "-1 Strongly Dislike And Wish To Censor".
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the troll you're replying to being modded as such.
McCain could have been a fucking Gandhi -- which he wasn't, by a long shot -- but as soon as he chose the dumbest person on planet Earth as his VP, I would sooner have chosen a random 12 year-old child as candidate, or even that pornstar who elected herself. Hell, I would have picked you, and I think you're a pretty dumb dude.
i'm confused... what exactly has Obama done differently to embody this backlash?
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
I don't know, the GP was basically calling Obama a nigger. That's pretty trollish.
Maybe you're looking for a "+1 yeah he's a fucktard but he did have one good point" mod?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Something must have gone very very very wrong, somewhere.
Well, that much is obvious - the Bush presidency.
To get the Mars funding he's going to propose sending a group of rough neck drillers to Mars to look for oil. Hopefully Bruce Willis will be available. The toughest part of the plan will be the Mars to Earth pipeline.
I don't know, the GP was basically calling Obama a nigger. That's pretty trollish.
Apart from the "N" word that you yourself wrote, please pardon me for I simply couldn't find any "N" word from the GGP message.
Who's trolling whom, btw?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
you guys are slow for news
nasa may be getting a boost in funds but the actual space program is now being privatized
and to think Canadian press got that before slash dot WEIRD
We beat the Russians to the moon. It's time to give up the cold war-era quest for bragging rights, and let commercial organizations take it from here.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel? Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus? Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants? Is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response? Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court? Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Give me a fucking break. I have my issues with Obama, but you're comparing the former editor of the Harvard Law review with a guy who would've flunked out of college if his father wasn't running the CIA.
Bingo, give that man a ceeegar! I know hardcore repubs that voted Obama. Why? Because, and I quote "If that old fart McCain has a coronary caribou Barbie will be president! ZOMG!" Hell if that ain't enough to make you vote for Obama I don't know what would.
As for TFA, if reality had ANY basis at all on politics NASA would be deader than Dixie. Why? Because we are broke, that's why. We need to stop throwing cash around, worry about getting Americans back to work, and get our house in order before we start blowing cash on space again.
Get the troops out of those hellholes (like you promised), close up about 3/4ths of those military bases we've got dotting the planet, cut the military budget by at LEAST 25%, and THEN we can start talking about blowing money on new rockets, okay? Until then let private businesses like Space-X do the work, we have much more important matters to attend to.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Does anyone else think it is a bad idea? I hear a lot of hedging about how good it will be in the long run, but no one seems to think it's a terrible idea.
It seems like this is just a description of a scaled back space program. Gutting NASA's manned spacecraft development and pushing future development into the future seems like it could be even more detrimental than simply canceling the shuttle programs.
As I understand it, backers of using private space companies argued that delegating the heavy cargo transport to a private company would leave NASA to focus on exploration and science. Isn't it to opposite of this to move NASA into developing a heavy lift vehicle, and having private corporations take up manned spaceflight?
As a side note, it's interesting to remember that one of the major reasons we were able to overtake the Russian space program during the 1960's was that we focused on technical and scientific advancements rather than pure heavy lifting, in which the Russians had an estimated decade advantage.
This seems to be disappointing to those of us that would like to become future astronauts.
Science will save us. The question is, will it destroy us first?
Someone sounds like a sore loser.....or maybe just a plain loser.
That's a space exploration plan!
Is it pushing yourself everyday all day to be a self made individual?
I think the freedom to do this with minimal interference is a big part of the "American Dream."
And I think that I might define a "True American" as a person who really pushes himself or herself to excel, but one who does not attempt to prevent others from doing the same.
I miss the old country. And I'm only 35.
You mean this post of yours: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1620474&cid=31868494
That is essentially thinly veiled racism. It even features the classic Faux News talking point to emphasise the "Hussein".
Speaking of that, what relevance does his name have on anything? Does that make him less American, that his name is different?
I guess you're one of those people currently yelling about how Obama "cancelled national prayer day".
You are also claiming that he's not truly American - may I ask, what is he if he is not American? What is the requirement to be a "True American"? Does that mean "belongs to the Republican party"?
He is a black liberal. Double-bad to the reptiles.
But I was wondering the same thing. Where were all these people when the drunk coke-sniffing draft-dodging Village-Idiot-In-Chief and Darth Vader's bastard son were running the show?
We have a two party system. There is no third option. The country had a choice of sticking with the party that ran the country for 8 years or going with the other party. There was nothing else. Sure there are third party candidates here and there but none of them have any real support of the population to put them as front runners or even on a ballet. That is why we have President Obama
That's also why we had President Bush. Twice. Well, three times actually.
So yeah, good luck with that.
No going back to The Moon.
Never mind that The Moon is our stepping stone to missions further out in our solar system.
What? He think's the ISS is an appropriate waypoint on our way out?
NOT
EVEN
CLOSE!
This is what happens when you put someone who understands nothing more than fundraisers and Chicago Cronyism (aka Chicago Politics) in a position to affect the financing of people several orders of magnitude more intelligent and important to our world than he is.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Look up his life history - he is living the American dream.
Oh really?
Without his White grandparents, where would Barack Obama be?
Why are you guys so easily forget the contributions of Obama's White grandparents to his success?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You know, the American Dream is a lie. It's clever propaganda that is deeply ingrained in your life. Because of the American Dream, droves of poor people blame themselves for not making it, since, you know, anything is possible if you just work hard, according to the American lie. Suckers.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
That is essentially thinly veiled racism.
Thinly veiled racism ?? LOL !!
So you mean I can't call him "Hussein Barack Obama" for fearing to be called a "racist" ? LOL !!
Obama is Hussein Barack Obama, it's in the record. Obama himself has acknowledged that fact himself.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Have you posted anything of value here? All of your upmods are obvious karma whoring. Your username blatantly shows that you had knowledge of the slashdot community when you signed up, indicating that A)This account is a dupe to preserve karma on your primary account or B)Your original account was severely downmodded and you created a new one to avoid the inherent -1 penalty that you earned due to rampant trolling.
Ares was not going to create new technology. It would use rehashed technologies from Saturn and the Space Shuttle. This was expected to create a better program because the technology would be flight-tested and well-known. However, it would also obviously stop innovation into new motors and technologies. Ares fell behind schedule and went over-budget almost immediately.
To me, it all spells: give it away to commercial sector, spin off that program to private company or consortium. X-prize space startups are still struggling with their original designs and their goals are not ambitious enough, this would be a kick in their butts to shape up and hurry up, or a call to unite around this donated program.
"In front of an enthusiastic audience, President Obama Bold New..."
Good god.. audiences are usually always enthusiastic, because every major politician will have advance teams designed to create friendly crowds. The audiences are friendly, no matter what the politician says. So... its really kind of a stupid quote.
"Bold new plan"... like, spend some money on some stuff, still basically kill an active program, but then have some "other" program that goes to Mars maybe in 20 years with no real plan. It's really not a change in the plan at all. Manned space exploration is dead.
To me, a bold new plan would be to admit what everyone with half a brain already knows. In order to really get people or significant cargos to Mars and to other distant places in the solar system, we need to have alternative propulsion. That means, nuclear powered space craft for nearer places like Mars, and solar sails most likely for other stuff. Chemical rockets are simply not powerful enough. Unless you put nukes up in space, Mars is just not going to happen...
Fund THAT, and you'll have a believer out of me. But right now, I would have settled for the Moon.
This is my sig.
No, not just the emphasis on the "Hussein" (which is a talking point used to attempt to make him look less American) but the whole post as a whole. He, of course, is fully aware of what his own name is and has "acknowledged the fact" (wtf?! like it was ever in any doubt as to what his name was). Where the issue comes in is when an aspect of that name is taken by the opposition (and you cannot deny that that Repubs liked to put heavy emphasis on this) that he has a "muslim sounding" name in an attempt to make him look "unamerican". A tactic you then used in your post. Why bring it up if not to attempt to back up your point that he "is not truly American"?
No TV in Indonesia in 1969? What, you think the rest of the world is some backwards tribal village with no power or modern amenities?
You have no reason to bring up his name, and his physical location, or to assume that Indonesia is some third world hovel when talking about the moon landings *except* to make a point that he is "not a real American".
It's the equivalent of picking out the fact that John McCain's name is "McCain" and that sounds Scottish and is not American, which is clearly foolish and irrelevant.
If that isn't the very definition of racism, then I am not sure what is going to cut it with you.
What exactly was your point. The specific point you were making about where Barack Obama was at the exact time of the moon landings, and the name he was going by at the time. What precisely did you want to convey to people reading the post?
I am genuinely interested.
You can call him Barack Hussein Obama all you like without being a racist. Emphasising his "non American" name is not racism, it's just dirty politics, it's the rest of the assertions that qualify.
Either way, it is pretty clear from your posts that I am arguing with someone who is trolling.
give companies rights to a HUGE exploitable area once they have landed a habitable craft onto the moon.
Lets say for each colonists, say 10km. they can they build the next mine or power plant within that area.
How does that change the fact that he started as an ordinary dude and is now president?
Yes, he's half white too. White people can have "living the American dream" stories too, y'know.
And despite our continued begging, slashdot STILL hasn't brought in a "+1 Troll" rating.
We had President Roosevelt six times. Consider yourself lucky! ...
One way or another.
Can be watched here.
P.S. You may safely skip the first 6 or even 10 minutes of it.
Refuted. The troll is vehemently refuted.
We have a two party system. There is no third option.
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
As for the moon; it's so close and so big that an unbiased observer might call our system a double planet. You won't find anything like this in the solar system and even though we're towards the small end of the planets, we have one of the biggest moons. There are some good things in Obama's plan, but the fact that his plan avoids the stepping stone God dropped in fron of us just because we've stepped there before is absolutely insane. Don't be surprised if India or China or Samsung gets man on Mars first by not avoiding the obvious. Yes we can explore space without using the moon but, did the polynesian's discover Hawaii without exploring neighboring Polynesian islands? Did the Europeans venture to the New World without exploring the Mediterranean?
You may need this for your new bold space policy
Dude you do not know what you are talking about.
The moon is not a stepping stone, it is a hole. More specifically, it is a gravity hole that will require more fuel to get out of. It would be much easier to completely bypass the moon.
If one could make fuel on the moon, then it would be a good idea to build a base over there and use it as a stepping stone. But although this has been researched to death, nobody has figured out a practical way to make fuel on the moon. So as things stand currently, there is nothing on the moon that is at all useful for a Mars mission.
So the logical thing is to go straight to mars. Or if assembly is required, to assemble everything in earth orbit and go straight to mars.
Self-made man my ass. He is a polititian pure and simple. That means he has been raised, sponsored, and groomed by a large network of people with an agenda.
An intelligent, successful man? Obviously. But a self-made man? Nope not even close.
Without his White grandparents, where would Barack Obama be?
Where would anyone be without his parents. Where, for example, would George W. Bush have been without his dad?
Obama's grandparents are not the ruling political elite. Obama didn't go from rags to riches, but he's a lot more self-made than most US politicians.
I guess people are a bit disappointed that Obama didn't turn out to be the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR, as he was made out to be at some point, but he's by no means as awful as the previous guy.
Also what is a true American?
Well for us up here, it's pretty easy. If you can't play hockey or brew a proper beer then you're American. Tried and True. :)
ideopath @ play
Mod parent insightful. This is exactly what the space program is still missing!
Obama has already mooned the whole country!
The choice is easy, there are so many roadblocks between us and getting to Mars with manned spacecraft they never have to actually do it. Set grand sounding goals to distract from the fact you never intend to meet them. This keeps people happy. It is a typical Obama speech, full on promises and no substance. He is a master at it, or I should say his speech writers are amazing - he usually has great delivery.
Look, we can get to the moon easily compared to Mars. The problem is we can put a real price on the Moon and they don't want to pay it. We cannot put an exact price on Mars but I guarantee when they do its off.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Once you're in orbit you're two-thirds of the way to anywhere, energetically.
Why waste time in a stop-over at the Lunar surface? Because it's close?
I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
Do I smell jealousy?
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
The constitution doesn't have to explicitly make a 2 party system for it to require one. The constitution does not allow organized party coalitions. As a result, in order to get 50% of the vote, you have to create a party that can get 50% of the house/senate seats. And get 50% of the voting population to vote for your candidate. So it absolutely set us up to have a 2 party system. It just wasn't intentional.
Actually, it doesn't make sense to stop to refuel on the moon even if we could manufacture fuel there. It requires considerably more delta V to take off from Earth, land on the moon, take off again and fly to Mars than it does to just take off from Earth and fly to Mars. Even if the fuel was free (delivered by aliens or God) and just sitting in tanks on the moon ready to use, it would make no sense to land there to pick it up.
To clarify, before somebody asks, it actually requires less delta V to go from Earth to Mars than it does from Earth to our moon, due to the Martian atmosphere allowing aerobraking (whether for orbital insertion or direct landings) and parachute-assisted landings.
Sorry you got troll rated, because "the American Dream" is what students of propaganda call a "glittering generality".
It's not so much *clever* as *unassailable*, because it means whatever the hearer choses to project on it, at least as far as specifics are concerned.
We associate certain broad values with the phrase, of course. Freedom of conscience and individual autonomy, for example. That makes the accusation that "so and so does not *share the American Dream*" ironic, because the implication is that the American Dream is *compulsory*. If the best you can do when attacking somebody is to say he "doesn't share the American dream",
I'd say that *you* don't *want him* to share the American dream. You don't think he's entitled to freedom. It amounts to calling him out for his lack of *conformity*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So who or what is this large network of people with an agenda? I really want to know...
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
That said, I think Obama has bigger fish to fry (yes, bigger than another trip to the moon). For one thing, I'd like some form of profitable employment and so would thirty percent of other voting age Americans who are unemployed or working part time at Wal Mart (or whatever the number is this week).
Extending jobless benefits doesn't really help that out. In fact, it harms that goal.
The majority of people on jobless benefits probably aren't keeping up their skills. This is going to constantly put them on a lesser footing with peers that are swapping jobs or anyone who just lost their job. Further, most people on jobless benefits really only search for jobs right when they've lost theirs and just prior to losing the benefits.
Extending jobless benefits isn't compassion, it's a willful destruction of the individual.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I wonder why... "lol guys, where's that flag from 40 years ago?" *dons flame-retardant suit*
We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
I suspect that the real reason is more insidious than that: the present system reaches equilibrium with two parties.
That's not the point. When we say "going to the moon first", we mean that, before we can establish anything on Mars, we should be able to at least do it on the Moon. It does not mean stopping there on the way to Mars.
not a rocket scientist, but making fuel on the moon:
1) mine ice
2) use solar power to melt ice
3) use solar power to electrolise water to oxygen and hydrogen, cool with ambient temps on moon
4) put both in seperate fuel tanks on vehicle
5) launch vehicle
Now i'm not sure oxygen/hydrogen is the most ideal fuel for lunar launches, but even if it isnt optimal, all the required tech is already here, or easily do-able (no-one has mining-robot yet, but come on, put spirit/opportunity in a room with a mining digger, play some barry white...). Off course a good big base would be needed to produce enough fuel for intensive missions, but why not set up an automated fueling station capable of launching supplying 1-2 launches a year with fuel?
People, what a bunch of bastards
Recently? There is only one: William Jefferson Clinton. Read the early life section, his father was a traveling salesman who died when he was young, the mother left the kid with the grandparents to study nursing. In college, he worked as an intern, and received a Rhodes scholarship to study his graduate school.
I find it ironic that the conservatives in this country constantly bash the progressives as being elitist, when in actuality, both it's the Republican presidents that we've had who have grown up in a life of privilege and elitism and the Democratic presidents who grew up without the silver spoon in their mouth. It demonstrates just how clueless our society really is, when they believe a some asshole who is saying inflammatory things for the sake of ratings without trying to find out the truth of the matter.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
You have a problem with Luke Skywalker?
Only the liberal media and Obama would call it "Bold" - This administration has no interest in the future of anything but their own retirements as evidenced by the fact that they are putting many many generations of Americans into debt. I guess I'll read about the real "bold" endeavors into space carried out by the Chinese and Russian space programs - probably on Slashdot no doubt..
Health care was a pretty big fish. No one has to like the big package as it exists right now. What Obama understood is it's easier to fiddle with details once the base package is in place than to keep overcoming sinker efforts by Republicans. Various Pres's couldn't pull that off for the past 50 years.
It's the second term about Year Five that lets a Pres start showing their riskier initiatives because there's nothing left to campaign for. Maybe he'll boost some things in 2013.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Actually, it's Barack Hussein Obama (Hussein is his middle name). I don't know where you're from, but everywhere I've ever lived it's very unusual to refer to someone by their full name, unless you happen to be a parent scolding your child - "Barack Hussein Obama, you get in here this instant!"
And since the only Hussein that the average American has ever heard of is Saddam, the regular use of Obama's middle name is nothing more an attempt to use the ignorance and xenophobia of the American people to garner support for the GOP.
The two party system is defacto because of the rules of the election where winner takes it all. Different election mechanisms produce radically different outcomes. It's not the voters fault if they behave rationally.
Moon mission on the other hand is clear business decision where derailed project had to be killed and easiest way to justify the cancellation is to abandon that goal. Eventually when dust settles moon will be back on the agenda.
You don't need to land the whole mass on the moon. Instead, you can land an almost empty fuel container, fill it up, launch that from the moon, and fill up your main craft in LEO.
Self-made man? Let's be honest here. He had a HUGE helping hand from the liberal establishment in the form of affirmative action. The guy also has a 5-minute political career prior to being President, and this is especially showing in his foreign policy ineptitude.
And while we're at it, he's no true Scotsman, either.
And as we all know: "If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!"
If you are so convinced your point of view is correct, why do you post AC?
I'm one of them. "Old McCain" was pretty much my ideal candidate. "New McCain" as spun for the presidency with new and improved(!) opinions on all issues was not. In fact, I believe Obama is a lot closer to old McCain than new McCain is. And Palin hit the Peter Principle as soon as she left local governance. I very nearly bought a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker after that announcement.
And I still support this prez. Not his owned-by-wall-street dithering, but his practical efforts to keep the country from running off the rails, which, Fox News yellow journalism invented terrors aside, he's doing a pretty darn good job of. I was especially impressed with his handling of the Stupak amendment, and the revelation that during all the healthcare debacle he was quietly putting together the largest nuclear summit in decades. Who knew?
I guess I'll read about the real "bold" endeavors into space carried out by the Chinese and Russian space programs - probably on Slashdot no doubt.
The best thing for America would be if people could go to space through private enterprise, without having to have the government do it for them. In what way would a boondoggle to either the Moon or Mars help with that?
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I think that's unfair. For one thing, he is a politician and "managing the media" is a job requirement. If you're waiting for a president who is not an expert at that kind of thing then I certainly wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Another thing, he didn't just "manage the media", he also wrote a very accomplished and worthwhile autobiography at the age of 33 and followed that up years later with his 2nd book, which was a full-bore political manifesto. How many other presidents have been elected on such a clearly laid out inspirational agenda? I should also say I think he has broadly stuck to that manifesto since getting office but YMMV. Most of the people who read those books come away with the impression that here is a guy who is genuinely in it for the love of it and not just the money. Or just maybe the single greatest liar in history.
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
Is this the dark side of the moon?
Tis a good Irishman, so he is, young Mr O'Bama.
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
Dude, Darth was married when Luke was born. He was talking about the other son. You know, the evil one?
And whats this American Dream? I recall it being that if you worked hard and played by the rules you can do whatever you want.
That was never the American Dream. The American Dream is to live a better life, and to have the freedom to choose what that means.
"And since the only Hussein that the average American has ever heard of is Saddam,"
Those (in america and elsewhere) that were awake during the Clinton years may remeber the peacemaking efforts of the (now deceased) King Hussein of Jordon. In fact Hussein is a common name in Islam amd some of them are good guys.
Or a 0.5% cut in Social Security.
This is hardly a bold mission. 15 yrs out and no landing? Yawn. 10 years, landing and returning. That's a mission!
We can pop people into a tin can now and send them around Mars with just a few years. Cosmic rays would probably kill them, but it can be done.
Now that would be an April Fools Day improvement. Redo the entire mod system! You're brilliant!
+1 Troll
-1 Moron
+1 Cowboy Neal
-1 xkcd
Dude, you do not know what you are talking about.
The moon is indeed a stepping stone with a gravity well much lower than that of Earth. You can use the moon as a part-way point. Going straight to Mars require that you build up a lot of enery to escape the Earth's gravitational pull. Even out by the Moon, you're still within that gravitational pull.
So what do you do? You leave the Moon's orbit, (which takes 1/1000th the fuel required to leave Earth's orbit), and head back for Earth. But not in the way you're thinking.
In order to leave both Earth and the Moon's gravity wells with minimal energy losses and minimal fuel consumption, you must slingshot around your gravity well. If you're slingshotting from geosynchronous orbit, you still have to use a relatively large amount of fuel to get on your way. However, if you're slingshotting from the distance of the moon, you simply have to make two controlled burns. One to start you on the proper trajectory toward Earth, and the second when coming around the back end just before slingshotting toward Mars for a final burn. Using this method, you could use both the Moon and Earth's gravitational energy to suppliment your main engines. This would, in turn, allow you to travel much further, much quicker, while using much less fuel overall and generating much fewer stresses on the craft and its occupants.
But bypassing the moon is the perfect idea, you're absolutely right. /s
a Much smaller gravity well on the moon, as then you use significantly less energy to get back up, creating a lunar base of operations would do so much more for the space program than doing anything with mars before then.
Think of it with a 19x smaller gravity well we could use that much less energy on escaping the hole and that much more on getting to say Mars
Where's that cap to the Decanter of Endless water???
We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
Actually we have the two-party system because of efficiency. The core beliefs of most Americans is captured in one of the two political parties. If ever there was a time that a third party had a chance because of shifting political views, the DEMs and GOPs would efficiently shift their message to encapsulate it. For this reason, there will never be a legit 3rd-party candidate, although a 3rd party candidate who generates enough interest will suddenly find themselves in one of the two major parties as those party leaders start preaching the same message.
1) Ice fraction is apparently very small, though estimates vary.
2) No solar power available at the locations where ice exists.
4,5) It requires more fuel to get stuff to/from the Moon than it does to get stuff to/from Mars, because Mars has an atmosphere you can use to slow down with.
If NASA selects pioneers rather than tourists, that's no longer a problem. No one lives forever, not everyone wants to either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay
It might also be an opportunity to make a break with the overly risk averse attitude towards space exploration/colonization we have currently. If expectations of death are managed appropriately (e.g. conditioning the public up front that a given percentage of people WILL die in this, sometimes in transit - but the goal is worth it, and the people who do it are fine with that), we'd probably get more bang for the buck. It's a bit ridiculous to think that 33000 people willingly throw their lives away in the US each year (suicide), but it's somehow the wrong approach to allow a handful of people to place a similar value on their lives for the far greater good of humanity.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
We are going to build a space ship to send men to asteroids and to moons of Mars, yet 90% of the comments are not about space exploration, but about political bullshit.
Fuck you all. Slashdot, you used to be cool. Now, you're about as insightful as Fox news.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
At least he is trying to create a vision to work towards. So I have to give him credit for that. The point I'm looking at we've given up landing on the moon to "go to the orbit" of mars 15 years later. How motivating is it to hear "we were the first to orbit mars"?
There was nothing else.
You have nothing else maybe but many of us do. We have vision and integrity. Sorry that it's such a hard concept for people of your ilk.
Keep sucking on the teat of the status quo. They'll be sure to drain you dry in return.
Your political hatred for our President is hilarious though ultimately misplaced. The policy was developed in consultation with many bright people, including Buzz Aldrin. It's not as though the President came up with this idea himself. Obama has been good at listening to others then taking their advice.
The moon hasn't been a stepping stone out. You know how I know this? Because we went there and then stayed in LEO for forty years. A direct Mars shot has very little to do with a moon shot, if you bother to think about it. Going to the moon is a diversion which will require a lot of time, money, and technology that may not be directly transferable to Mars. The Moon has lower G forces, and the make up is different. Mars can be mined for return fuel and water. The moon cannot. If you want to go to Mars quickly, it is better to go to Mars directly without taking a moon detour.
Long-term survival in space can be practiced in the ISS. We can have practice shots where men or machines with sensors are sent into deep space to see if the systems work. A moon base will not help us with a Mars base because the surfaces are very different from each other.
Try to see through your seething hatred for the President and try to consider the facts. It might be surprising to you.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
yeah he's totally not respected in almost every other foreign nation out there, and he totally didn't just sign a Reagan-esque nuclear arms reduction agreement. Oh wait, wasn't Reagan ridiculed for being an actor (and a bad one at that)? Yeah I suppose politicians should be born and bred like royalty eh? Elect King Bush!
As for the moon; it's so close and so big that an unbiased observer might call our system a double planet. You won't find anything like this in the solar system...
Pluto and its moon Charon are closer in size than Earth and our Moon.
That guy's Obama's passive Dad after all. And just look what his big head did to him...
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
No. We have a two-party system as a natural (if unintended) side-effect of the political system set out in the Constitution. There is just no way for a third party to get any political power whatsoever in our system. Without any possibility of political power, you don't really have a party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "brainwashing".
The proof is right there in our history. There have been quite a few times when new parties formed, but every time one of the two old parties died as a result. Two parties is the equilibrium point in our system.
Riiiight. Because "William Jefferson Clinton", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "George Walker Bush" never, ever, ever got mentioned, which is why all three are permanently embedded in my brain.
It really bugs the crap out of me the double standard Obama gets...
Bush as a monkey: "HAHA it's funny because he's stupid!"
Obama as a monkey: "OMG RACIST"
Bush is a puppet: "HAHA it's funny because he's stupid!"
Obama is a puppet: "OMG RACIST"
Bush is an idiot: "So true!"
Obama is an idiot: "OMG RACIST"
Bush is leading the country in the wrong direction: "YES!"
Obama is leading the country in the wrong direction: "OMG RACIST"
Seriously, lay off the stupid claims of racism.
He didn't manage the media, his staff probably did...
If one could make fuel on the moon, then it would be a good idea to build a base over there and use it as a stepping stone.
The answer is yes, we can make fuel. You probably know that we can already extract oxygen from lunar soil (admittedly, it'll take a lot of energy). It is one of the most common elements there. But we also have aluminum and iron in that soil. Aluminum in particular makes a decent fuel. Hybrid motors which push liquid or gaseous oxygen through a cylinder lined with aluminum, can provide the necessary delta-v to get off the Moon.
That means we can provide liquid oxygen (well and aluminum too FWIW) to any point in the Earth-Moon system. In LOX-liquid hydrogen engines (the most popular chemical propellant for acceleration in freefall vacuum), the optimal combination of LOX to LH2 is around 1:4 in molar amounts (it runs fuel heavy, twice as much hydrogen as needed, to exploit the much lower mass and resulting higher exhaust velocity of molecular and atomic hydrogen). That means, if we can supply the LOX from the Moon, we reduce our need for this propellant in orbit by two thirds of total propellant mass. That can be reduced further, if we want to compromise by running a leaner (less fuel-rich) burn.
I suppose we could reduce propellant need to zero, if we also provided the hybrid motors, though LOX/aluminum is much less efficient than LOX/LH2. That could be sufficient for some applications. I don't know what the mass fraction is. But I imagine it's better than 50% payload to lunar orbit and drops significantly past that point.
Actually, it doesn't make sense to stop to refuel on the moon even if we could manufacture fuel there.
It can, if you manufacture both the propellant and the spacecraft that will transport the propellant on the Moon. Then there's almost no need to drop more stuff on the Moon (aside from things you can't make on the Moon with the relatively primitive manufacture base).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because it's not written in law or the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Use the "de facto" qualifier if it makes you feel more intelligent, but don't expect any credit for it. The reality of not just the law, but mechanisms such as voter registration, and the practicalities of campaigning and fundraising, make it clear that there is a two party system just as the GP said.
As for the moon, it is so much smaller than the Earth that an unbiased observer might call it a satellite. Again, if it makes you feel smarter to argue the opposite that's all well and good. You're only only fooling yourself, however, because for all we know that unbiased observer might in fact say that all satellites and planets are the same concept in their language and the human distinction is irrelevant. No matter the cutoff point at which you decide a satellite becomes a planet, it will always be an arbitrary decision.
Consequently, all you're really talking about is your opinion and value system, and which particular inherently flawed, human-written documents and concepts should be treated with more respect than actual, complex reality.
So sure, tell yourself you're more intelligent than the rest of us. Think to yourself that you are so much more intelligent or principled that the decisions of others are insane rather than just a difference of opinion. We can be fairly sure that even if you're right, it is only by coincidence and not by the application of objective, rational thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Consider what has happened. NASA will use public companies for services to certain government space based projects. It sounds to me that the space race with the nations on the other side of the planet will not be with the U.S., but with Boeing, Rutan/Northrop, and the E.S.A.. And of this entire group, Burt has done more with less.
Just a thought for NASA, build their space based observatory on the far side of the Moon.
And another rambling thought for NASA, that they move their administrative offices to the Moon's South Pole, anybody who doesn't want to go, doesn't want to work for NASA.
There are a large group of Americans that are with you. We call them Democrats.
No, we have a de facto (that's two words) two party system because the Constitution was ambivalent on the way elections were actually carried out, thereby leading to an accumulation of power and the invention of institutions (primaries, electoral college) that ensured against the emergence of another party.
Well there seems to be a strong correlation between two party systems and first past the post voting systems. Canada and the UK have one as well. It's not impossible to establish a third party or to replace a party in a two party system (i.e. transitioning to another two party system), but the barrier is very high.
We have a two party system. There is no third option
There were six Presidential candidates on my ballot, and five of them were on the ballot in enough states for it to be possible for them to win; Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, and the Constitution Party.
You only think you have a two party system because the corporate media says so, and refuses to cover the other three big parties. The reason? It's legal to contribute to more than one candidate in any race, and for the corporates to bribe two candidates with campaign cash is a lot cheaper than bribing five.
Make no mistake about it, the mainstream media propagandize for their corporate masters.
Free Martian Whores!
That's not entirely true. There is no two party system in congressional elections, but there very much is a two party system for electing the president, unless you're fine with the senate choosing your presidents for you.
The fact that you need a majority and not a plurality of electoral votes to win the presidency means that a situation where there were 3 parties each getting roughly a third of the vote would result in presidents never being chosen by popular election.
Now, political precedent and tradition can be almost as important as written law. For over a century and a half, there were no term limits on the president, but because Washington had served only two terms, nobody else ran for a third term until FDR.
Similarly, a tradition could be established in the Senate that the Senate always goes with the plurality candidate, and that would effectively give us a multi-party system. Of course, I can't see modern senators voting across party lines to decide who sits in the White House, but it could be done.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
In a sense, it is in the Constitution. It is the natural result of a winner-take-all voting system where voters' preferences are distributed like a bell curve.
Having three (or more) parties is inherently unstable. It will always be in the interest of any party to capture more of the moderate vote (the middle of the bell curve) since that's where most of the voters are. Therefore, the party will move towards the middle. This can quite easily be seen in the change the parties make from primary season to election season.
One party will position itself as slightly to one side of the middle, and the other will position itself slightly to the other side of the middle, each laying claim to that entire side of the bell curve.
If there is a third party, it will find itself either pinched between the two, or on the fringe. If the third party is successful, then one of the two original parties will be either pinched between or on the fringe. So you can have a third party, but since this configuration is unstable, one of the parties will be eliminated. This is exactly what we have seen in American history.
So it might not be directly required by the Constitution, but as long as we have the winner-takes-all voting system, it is the inevitable result.
Really? It looks like it would take a lot more to get to Mars than to the Moon.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Two things to note here. First, it's not hard to drop out of that treaty. Nobody has done it yet because the costs continue to outweigh the benefits for the near future. But it'll happen sooner or later. Second, not everyone on the planet has signed the treaty. That means you can flag your spacecraft from one of those countries and bypass the treaty altogether.
The moon is not a stepping stone to missions further out in the solar system. Say it with me, Admiral Ackbar:
"That's no moon!"
"It's a trap!"
The moon is a prison where delta-V goes to die. Paraphrasing well-known space curmudgeon Robert Zubrin: "Even if rocket fuel were sitting in tanks on the surface of the Moon, it wouldn't be worth stopping to pick them up."
Mostly because having Moon facilities allows us to build most of the material for the longer trip in a gravity well that is only 1/9th as steep. It also allows practical experience in managing long term space operations.
Let's be clear: nothing humanity has ever done is going to be as daunting or dangerous as a trip to Mars. The circumnavigation of the Earth in rickety wooden boats with sails has nothing on this. The Moon landing itself is nothing compared to a manned Mars mission.
Going back to the Moon is a very practical first step to Mars for many reasons, not least of which is making sure that we still remember how to land on another planetary body without getting everyone killed.
I'm not saying that it is impossible to get people to Mars without landing on the Moon, but it drives me batshit to hear otherwise intelligent people going "landing on the Moon is a waste of time because we've already been there." No one that I knew wanted to land on the Moon to visit the place for tourism. At the very least, you could say it was a "due diligence" trip to prove it was worth trying for Mars.
I was never 100% sure of the Bush administration's commitment to go to Mars, but I am far less sure of the Obama Administration's commitment at this point.
Riiiight. Because "William Jefferson Clinton", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "George Walker Bush" never, ever, ever got mentioned, which is why all three are permanently embedded in my brain.
Honestly, whenever I hear "William Jefferson Clinton" I have stop and think about who that is, because he was always called Bill. I would guess that most people would react similarly if you started talking about James Carter.
People often include the middle initials or names for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for a pretty obvious reason: "George Bush" is ambiguous.
I distinctly remember several missions to the moon when I was a kid. Or were those faked?
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
"No"? Don't you need to mention evidence that actually supports your claim rather than undermines it? Creating himself by managing the media? Getting somewhere really impressive by doing something yourself? That's almost perfect "American Dream" stuff right there.
...I'd really like to see some results while im young enough to appreciate them. With this plan i'll be in my mid 60s by the time anything substantial happens or even begins to happen.
This is what comes of not having flying cars by now!!!
As for the moon; it's so close and so big that an unbiased observer might call our system a double planet. You won't find anything like this in the solar system and even though we're towards the small end of the planets, we have one of the biggest moons
In Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Earth, the mythical planet that was where humanity originated was found because of its rare (or nonexistant) planet with a giant satellite.
I wonder how close Asimov was to reality? How many other smaller planets have such relatively big moons? And if the tidal forces are necessary for life to develop?
Free Martian Whores!
Recently? There is only one: William Jefferson Clinton.
Not quite. You forgot Richard Nixon.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
We have a one party system
There, fixed that for ya.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
So: What's the point?
What can human beings do in space that robots can't?
Pee?
Or more precisely, what can human beings do in space 10 years from now that future robots still won't be able to do 10 years from now?
Pee???
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
"What can human beings do in space that robots can't?"
Not get stuck in two inches of sand on Mars.
That's because the government has not yet announced its related plan to blow up the moon.
You heard it here first.
Sure there are third party candidates here and there but none of them have any real support of the population to put them as front runners or even on a *ballet*. That is why we have President Obama
Obama performs Ballet? I'd love to see him in a tu-tu!
Agreed on the gravity well bit.
My question is - why even land on Mars? What is down there that is so important to look at? If you must, deploy robotics and control them in near-realtime from manned Mars orbiters.
It seems like building stations in space is a lot more practical. Or if having some solid land is useful, settle some asteroids. It is a whole lot easier to dock with an asteroid, and to return afterwards.
I don't really see what is of practical value in landing on any of these planets.
Now, if you want to terraform a planet, now I can see this going somewhere. In that case we should be sending robots and bacteria and plants first. In a century or two the manned mission won't be all that hard - you need to land safely but if something goes wrong the crew can live indefinitely in the forests of Mars or wherever.
People going to Mars is dumb. It sounds great, but is dumb. Everyone wants to be the first person to set foot on another planet. The media would love the human interest stories. But people need air, water, food, temperature control, and a bunch of other stuff. The only useful thing people could do is setup equipment and pick up rocks. Their personal observations of geology would be of limited use. It needs to be recorded so other scientists could analyze it. Multi-spectrum imagers would return more useful info than human eyes and it could be recorded for others to use.
Robots and landers only need power. We need to start using small nuclear cells and stop using solar panels. Then we can really beef up the equipment and movement capabilities the landers use and be more fearless in exploration. The ROI can be enormous and it won't put anyone at risk. More importantly, if you are traveling to planets and objects the goal should be to gain knowledge. Human travel would not only add an immense cost, but it would add a huge distraction to main point of the missions (the actual science and exploration). Yes, people traveling could do some good things, but it is not worth the cost. But humans and space is about politics and not about science.
Governments cannot permanently create jobs without permanently increasing taxes.
Thanks for enlightening me.
My understanding of the American dream was too narrow. I thought the American dream was the dream of becoming rich coupled with the implication that America is the place where this is especially easy.
You're right about it not being clever. Clever would imply an intelligent designer, so to speak, while the American dream and other ideas are just that, ideas, or memes, if you will, wielded and propagated by anyone who sees fit.
And my karma is still excellent, so no biggie.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
It may not explicitly use those words, but the 12th amendment certainly creates a situation that makes it much easier for there to be 2 political parties instead of several:
"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."
To be elected by the electoral college, a candidate must have a majority (i.e. > 50%) of the votes. Otherwise it turns into a runoff in the House. A majority of one party is only guaranteed in a two-party system. Even if we could instantaneously have a multi-party system, I think you'd find parties teaming up to try to get that majority, effectively just congealing back into the two party system we have now. To have any real chance at reform, we need to fix our election system.
It's a sad day for Slashdot that this garbage got modded up.
The moon is not a stepping stone. The moon is a gravity well. You don't go down a gravity well. You stay away from it as much as possible. The correct analogy would be: did the polynesian's discover Hawaii without exploring the Mariana Trench? Did the Europeans venture to the New World without exploring the Laurentian Abyss?
What can human beings do in space that robots can't?
Or more precisely, what can human beings do in space 10 years from now that future robots still won't be able to do 10 years from now?
make babies! otherwise, yay robot babies!
There are so many people like you in your country, who would willingly and gladly destroy your own country, because the guy you voted into power happens to be black.
Riiiight. Because "William Jefferson Clinton", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "George Walker Bush" never, ever, ever got mentioned
Of course they did, but not nearly as often as Barack Hussein Obama. People who disliked Bush never went out of their way to only refer to him as "George Walker Bush."
We'll lay off the stupid claims of racism when the right stops being racially motivated.
It does look that way upon casual inspection, but space flight is not always intuitive. I don't have my charts in front of me, or I'd give you the numbers.
Clue:
Lincoln and FDR, wouldn't turn out to be the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I thought of that when IO rad the post, but politics has changes so much since then, it's hard to call him recent.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What would we do on the moon?
Don't compare a rock in space with no atmosphere to habitable islands.
OTOH you so ignorant you think your myth man put it there, so there really isn't any hope for you.
Question, would the Europeans continues to explore the Mediterranean of there was no food, water, air, or protection from solar activities? No.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Brilliant.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No where in the constitution, or in the twelfth amendment, is the process for choosing electors defined. The current method of giving the winner all the Electoral Votes is selected by most of the states (but not all of them). Personally, I feel we would better be served by selecting electors by the winner of each house district, with the overall winner receiving the remaining two votes (which would be in full compliance with the constitution's requirements). Getting rid of the Electoral College, however, would be a big mistake in my opinion; if exercised appropriately, the system gives states a voice they cannot receive otherwise.
liberal here having the value of neoconservative? because his policies aren't any different other than having better PR wrapped around them. And i haven't heard too much about how bad the wars are recently... yet they're still ongoing with no "timetable" for withdrawal. seems like Cheney's wet dream to me.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
"What can human beings do in space that robots can't?"
Not get stuck in two inches of sand on Mars.
Don't forget take a squeegee to the damned solar panels.
And let LBJ in as a self-made man, too, while you're at it.
i'd say NASA did pretty well out of this.
If you mean they got more money, yes. They got more money.
If you mean this advances their mission to advance the human frontier and maintain the US position in space science, well, no.
This helps them avoid firing some rocket scientists who would otherwise be helping Pakistan design cruise missiles next year. That's all.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Even braking into lunar orbit then departing lunar orbit, along with that required to lift the filled fuel container to lunar orbit, causes required delta V to exceed what it would take to simply fly to Mars.
Luna is NOT a useful stepping stone for any current or near-future (viable within 30 years) propulsion technology.
I love how when an articulate person who clearly explains every position and advantage, then searches for only the answers that solve the problem instead of Propaganda that inflates the issue is an "Elitist". Whether he is soft on Terror is unknown, a case could be made the softest most damaging President on Terror was Bush himself.
Just because our President has words in his vocabulary with more than 2 syllables and actually understands whats going on 100% of the time is not a bad thing, its a good thing. It does not make him an "elitist" it makes him an educated man, with morals and values who is concerned about all aspects of the future of this country. Not just off setting the profits of his friends and oil tycoons around the country.
I have come to point where I assume everyone against Obama is either Racist, uneducated or a true "Mindless Follower". The kind of people who prefer the hate and propaganda to the truth and progress. If anyone with understanding, reviews his body of work as President, just to this point, he already has a greater legacy than that of GW, who spent his entire 8 years worried about his legacy. And ended up 45-60 days from destroying the Entire country. Imagine our current situation if the Bush "Ostridge effect" had continued and last year was not an election year. We would be at 50% unemployment, no financial system, no homes, no cars, no credit and no security. We would have record suicide rates, medical costs, food and fuel shortages. Imagine the Great Depression time 1000 Overnight.
You speak of facts, you clearly get your news from propaganda outlets that are in business for the entertainment of the right. These people are not real, they have no power, control or true ideas. Only foolish, mostly made up sound bites they can put on television to scare people like yourself into watching their channel, seeing there commercials and spending money on what they like.
These people are sheep, they bark with loud voices, they assemble and picket, and they do so with little or no idea why they are there. "Obama said this, Obama said that" Everyone knows what Obama said, he is going down the list of campaign promises and crossing them off. In a year he has accomplished more than you will in your life. Because he, whether considered an "Elitist" or not has one intrinsic understanding that you do not. The greater good is the reason he was elected, not the Rich, the corporations or anyone else who deems it a right to steal money from my pocket whether through Insurance, inflated taxes or any number of 5000 other things put in place by Republican Administrations of the past to fill the coffers of their friends and business partners.
Your comments show your Nativity in a way that scares me about the future of this country. Right along with the Tea Baggers, Fox News and Sarah Palin.
Commercialization of space will only happen in areas where it can make money - and those areas are generally already commercialized. That's why Obama's plan is a FAIL from day one, unless it can MAKE MONEY, no business is going to do it - the only way it could possibly work is if its government subsidized, and that sucks too. A plan that assumes that manned space flight will be commercialized is a plan for the US to get out of the manned space flight arena.... Virgin Galactic is really nothing more than a high priced thrill ride - it is FAR from commercialized space travel
The book strategy was genius actually, in order to run for serious public office they flip your life upside down to find the dirt. Obama preemptively struck by telling the world 2 years before running everything he ever did wrong, ever. The only thing left in the election was, lack of experience and he is Black.
He won because he laid out clear goals, based on things that were important to the country. He is now being beat up because he is a politician that actually decided to follow up on his campaign promises despite placing his own future as President in jeopardy come election time. I for one am proud to have him, someone who is not talking about "His Legacy", he's the "Decider", blah blah blah.
It is mind boggling how foolish some of these people are.
By the time Ares I/Orion program was cancelled earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 & a full development would have cost another $50 billion. Further, the cost per flight, with estimated overhead, was figured to be at least $1.5 billion each this compared to the $1 billion each for a Shuttle flight, this while lifting only four people to Shuttle's seven & little or no cargo. Cancellation was therefore a matter of time & thankfully the president had the political guts to do the right thing for once. The problem that you see in the media is the claim there is no immediate replacement. The reality is there is a civilian alternative being pushed & it is the same replacement the president looked at when he went to pad 41 at Cape Canaveral launch station & looked at the flight ready vehicle from Spacex, owned by Elon Musk. According to the media the replacement is years away, the reality is the media missing this story. The replacement, is the first flight ready articles of 2 pieces of equipment the Spacex Falcon 9 medium Launch vehicle which on its maiden flight, is already mated to the Dragon Spacecraft. The two items are already at the Cape awaiting the final sign off by the Air Force range safety office & by NASA. That's all that is keeping it on the ground, not a pie in the sky development program that hasn't started yet, this one is 75% complete at this point, that means we have the hardware development mostly complete, all that is needed is permission to launch to prove its viability. Then obviously it will need a series of flights to work off the knee cards if you will & get it man rated, yes that will take years. But not that many years. if you don't believe me, go here & research it yourself; http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
The Moon is NOT a stepping stone into space; neither is Mars. Both are in gravity wells. Once we got a couple hundred miles high, we're in Space. When we land on a planet or a large moon, we are not in space any longer, we are merely off the Earth.
Note that once people learn to live in Space (two asteroids tied together and twirling like a bolo for gravity) and figure out how to live off what we mine from the inside, I suspect living at the bottom of a deep gravity well will not look so enticing anymore.
Landing in gravity wells is not being in Space.
He had to sell his soul as well as the rights to the moon to China last year :p
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
A stepping stone with a significant gravity well of it's own is more like a stepping puddle if you ask me.
Nowhere!
an ill wind that blows no good
And they're not planets.
How is this a troll? LOL?