Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Outlines Bold Space Policy ... But No Moon

Posted by timothy on from the all-things-to-all-people dept.

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."

82 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Color me not impressed by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $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.
    1. Re:Color me not impressed by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a time when every other discretionary budget is being cut, any increase is a show of support.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Color me not impressed by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I still don't understand why we're building a new heavy lifter when we have a heavy lifter we've spent several billion already over the past 6 years. How close was Ares V to being done? was it really THAT mismanaged that it's cheaper and more efficient to start from scratch?

    3. Re:Color me not impressed by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The military budget is not being cut (significantly). US military spending, regardless of how it is classified, is discretionary in reality.

      You could fund a manned Mars mission (pessimistic estimated total cost: $100 billion) with a 3% cut in the US military budget for ten years.

    4. Re:Color me not impressed by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ares V development hasn't even started.. and ask Jeff Greason said "even if Santa Claus brought us the new program for xmas, we'd have to shut it down because we don't have the budget to operate it". The research is for *affordable* heavy lift. If you can't make heavy lift affordable (or as the codeword goes "sustainable") you have to do without it.. which is where the propellant depots and in-situ resource utilization comes in.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Color me not impressed by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could fund a manned Mars mission (pessimistic estimated total cost: $100 billion) with a 3% cut in the US military budget for ten years.

      You could pay for massive upgrades to child protective services, social security, medicare, etc. with $100 billion. You could put a million pedophile priests in jail for $100 billion. You could reinvigorate Detroit and create tens of thousands of jobs for $100 billion.

      The point is that you could do a LOT of things with "just a small cut in the military budget", but it wouldn't sit well with the electorate. Obama already takes enough shit for being "soft on terrorists" and "elitist". I doubt he'd want to completely botch his re-election with a snooty re-allocation of military funds ("purtecctt amurreriicaa") to the space program ("scieencee and la dee daa").

      --
      An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    6. Re:Color me not impressed by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      ummm.. you're aware that the bulk of the money of the commercial crew program will be going to the same old contractors that have been sucking of the NASA teat since it was begun right? It's not like pork is a new thing.. the difference is that this time NASA might actually get their money worth (maybe). In the mean time, the COTS program continues (it was started under the previous administration) and, if successful, will be some of the most efficient money NASA have ever spent.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Color me not impressed by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He'd be "soft and the terrorists" and "elitist" no matter WHAT he did. Those are talking points that are applied without regard to any facts.

    8. Re:Color me not impressed by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why you don't give your opponents actual facts, because his opponent's blatant lies are the only thing keeping the fifty-someodd percent of the electorate with him.

    9. Re:Color me not impressed by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I don't understand is why they were building a new heavy lifter when we've had a working heavy lifter for the past 30 years: The STS system. Remove the shuttle, put the engines on the bottom of the tank, and the cargo/Orion on the top, and you've got a launch vehicle that can put 75+ tons into orbit. Production lines already in place, no major development needed. Cheap and affordable, and with a minor shuttle extension no loss of jobs.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Color me not impressed by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. The escape mechanism was shown not to be effective. Ares I-X severely damaged the launch pad, didn't separate cleanly, and had a problem with the parachutes. You can argue that these problems would get fixed in due time, but if you weren't getting the benefit of a faster program, then there is less reason to abandon the development of new technologies.

      Furthermore, the problems associated with the use of solid fuel propellants with manned flights has been pretty clear. They do not give as much performance as liquid-fueled rockets. This has lead to ARES V being so big that the launch infrastructure would have to be upgraded to deal with its girth. Solid fuels cannot be shut off in case of emergency. And when they explode, they explode. Liquid-fueled rockets may come apart, but cryogenic fuels such as LOx and LH2 do not explode when combined; it needs to be heated or otherwise ignited. For proof, look at the Challenger disaster. When the SRBs ran away and the fuel tank came apart, there was no explosion; the huge cloud was cryogenic fuel being mixed together. In fact, the crew cabin survived the separation even when detached from the rest of the Shuttle; a few astronauts survived until they hit the water.

      Also, Ares was going to develop the Ares I for manned vehicles and Ares V heavy lift for cargo. Ares V never really got developed because Ares I fell behind schedule and ate up all the money. A better way would be to develop two medium-lift vehicles to simplify the development. Cargo heavy lift can be provided by industry or by scaling up a medium-lift design with SRBs like other designs.

      The new program will focus on the development of lift technologies and boosters without a specific goal. The problem with specific goals and insufficient budgets is that you get rush jobs. If NASA had to put a man on the moon by 2020 but didn't have the money to do it, then we'd have an unwieldy mess that never gets anywhere. Moving the focus to getting the work done would be more productive. Then we can work on getting orbiters and interplanetary spacecraft together once all the heavy-lift has been done.

      Is it controversial? Hell yes. Is it a good idea? I dunna; it's risky. But is an end to the US manned space program? No. It's a daring move that throws in all the marbles in the hopes that we trade a bad program to a better future.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:Color me not impressed by shiftless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless he pulls a miracle from his ass, he's not going to get re-election. As of now, he and every congresscritter is in damage control mode saving themselves, their legacy, and the party. ....and yet his approval rating is still 50/50, pretty much exactly where its been holding steady since july of last year, and only 15 percentage points lower than when he was elected.

      Despite disagreement over his policies it is widely known that he enjoys a lot of respect from both sides.

      Oh, AND the economy is already showing signs of improvement.

      My prediction: he'll be re-elected in a landslide.

    12. Re:Color me not impressed by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US Federal Budget has grown by over $600 billion in the last year; if discretionary budgets are being cut it's not because Congress and the White House are showing any fiscal responsibility. I highly doubt your claim that every discretionary budget is being cut, not when spending jumps by 20% (from $2.9 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Color me not impressed by cheekyboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hehe americans are dumb.

      Didnt you learn from history, rome died because of military spending.

      Besides, if you spend $100b on nasa, immediately the fed gets 40% back in taxes, the rest of the 60% is spent on subcontractors and they get taxes 40% of that, those workers then buy stuff of pay rent / bills. In the end 90% of that 100b is spent locally. ie self feed back revenue.

      And its either $80b going to boeing & corps buying stealth fighters, or $80b going to buy rockets / space ships.

      And most of the military budget is wasted on the 200+ bases globally.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    14. Re:Color me not impressed by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solid fuels cannot be shut off in case of emergency.

      [sigh] This urban myth again.
       
      The US Navy would be surprised to learn that solids can't be shut off - after all, they only operated rockets using thrust termination (SUBROC, Polaris A-1, Polaris A-2, and Poseidon) for over thirty years. Solids *can* be shut off, and the technology is well known. NASA chose to omit thrust termination systems from the Shuttle because of weight and because the piggyback configuration meant that shutdown transients would shear the Orbiter off of the tank severely damaging it. A rocket with a tandem configuration (like Ares I or V) could use it with little problem.

  2. "No Moon" by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:"No Moon" by smchris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to disagree. The best way to "learn" how to do long duration deep-space flights is a moonbase, don't you think, not a first-try, no-exit-strategy, let's hope everything works shoot-'em-to-Demos one shot.

      Bush was going to Mars too, so my concern is not alleviated that we're still talking fantasy appeasements while starving the program.

    2. Re:"No Moon" by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that's not the kind of argument you can put on a bumpersticker or insert into a presidential speech.

      Bumper sticker, no. Speech, well, you need the right president.

      Where Bush had a space program that made him look good but would never accomplish anything, Obama has one that has folks scratching their heads but which might just take space travel out of its 40-year coma.

      And no, I'm not blaming W for the mess that is NASA. Every President since JFK has put politics over real accomplishments in this area, though Bush was just a little more cold-blooded about it.

    3. Re:"No Moon" by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where Bush had a space program that made him look good but would never accomplish anything, Obama has one that has folks scratching their heads but which might just take space travel out of its 40-year coma.

      Had space travel been in a coma, you'd have a point. But it hasn't. Instead we've actually had what all the space fans claim to have wanted for years - a routine workaday program. Turns out they were lying, what they want is stunts and spectaculars and big penile substitutes.
       
      And really, Obama's program is something of a bust - a modest amount of money, a booster with no mission (I smell pork), and a capsule that might be adapted to have a mission at some date in the misty future. No clear goals, no timetables, no roadmaps nothing but warm fuzzy rhetoric.
       

      And no, I'm not blaming W for the mess that is NASA. Every President since JFK has put politics over real accomplishments in this area, though Bush was just a little more cold-blooded about it.

      I hope you're not referring to the Apollo program, because that was pure politics through and through.

    4. Re:"No Moon" by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can only assume that you are a moron.. but let's try to educate you a little here. That 600 million metric tons that I said? That's approximately 1/100,000,000th of 1% of the mass of the Moon. So even if, over the period of hundreds of years, we cleared out the entire mass of the water ice that is expected to be at the north pole of the Moon, you next have to divide that by the square of the distance between the center of the Moon and the center of the Earth to get the effect of the change of the gravitational pull of the Moon on the Earth. It's less than the fluctuation of the solar output has on light pressure on the atmosphere. And, just for shits and giggles, you said "and brought it back to earth", which isn't the intention, there's plenty of water on Earth, there's no sense in bringing it back here.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:"No Moon" by CarbonShell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bad analogy.

      When riding a bike you take it step by step. You don't sit your daughter on a bike and after the first few attempts go to the next biggest mountain and push her down the steepest slope.

      Or you could say that after you have swam across the Hudson, you just skip crossing one of the Great Lakes and go for an Atlantic crossing.

      You just don't throw a crap load of money and time out the window on a mission you know has a high chance of failing.
      Especially not when people's lives are on the line!

      So we can throw some hardware at Mars. Great.
      But who would really volunteer on a suicide mission like a trip to Mars?

      The moon would be the next logical step.
      We build a base, do R&D in creating habitats on the Moon.
      From there we can leap on.

      Not to mention if something happens on the Moon, you can still escape and get back in reasonable time. Mars?
      To roughly quote Douglas Adams: 'no need for panic or haste, you're not going to make it anyway'

      Asteroid mining I can understand. (IMHO one of THE things we should invest in, both for mining as for science)
      But why do we even want to fly to Mars?
      What does Mars have to offer that we could not do on the Moon. At least base research wise?

    6. Re:"No Moon" by SECProto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Had space travel been in a coma, you'd have a point. But it hasn't. Instead we've actually had what all the space fans claim to have wanted for years - a routine workaday program.

      You are calling 4 manned trips a year to LEO a "workaday" program? Where it takes 12 years to get a space station completed? The shuttle directly limited spaceflight development by being dangerous, expensive and overly complex - leading to the 4 trip per year limit. Keeping up our presence in LEO going is important, absolutely, but spending 1 billion per launch to do so is not.

      Obama's program is something of a bust - a modest amount of money, a booster with no mission (I smell pork), and a capsule that might be adapted to have a mission at some date in the misty future. No clear goals, no timetables, no roadmaps nothing but warm fuzzy rhetoric.

      Commercial companies are developing the tech for manned LEO, so we really shouldn't be designing our own. To do better missions further out, we need a heavy lifter - exactly what Obama is proposing. By requiring the design to be finalized by 2015, it gives a deadline so that it is not just "pork barrel funding" - but still enough time to include some new tech like on orbit refueling (could greatly expand our working distance from earth). It has timeframes, goals, and roadmaps - it just isn't based on old, already-used tech, so he can't say exactly what the booster will be like. I think it is significantly better than the Constellation program - less expensive, same goals, better tech, more likely to actually happen.

  3. Here's what the Bad Astronomer says about it by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:Here's what the Bad Astronomer says about it by Phroon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn it! You tricked me into reading the article!

    2. Re:Here's what the Bad Astronomer says about it by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Phil Plait offers his comments on Obama's new space policy: Obama lays out bold and visionary revised space policy.

      People also might want to read these comments about Obama's bold, new space policy.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  4. The purpose of government research by Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The purpose of government research by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really want private companies going to the Moon and commercializing it?

    2. Re:The purpose of government research by Kittenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right now it would be good to get anyone to go the moon and commercialize it. That's where the money will come from, though. Holidays, mining, health, retirement villages...

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:The purpose of government research by Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Why not?

    4. Re:The purpose of government research by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Leave the moon to the private sector, we should expect to see a private company touching down there within a decade or maybe two.

      If by "the private sector" you actually mean "India or China" then yea, they'll be there within a decade or two.

      Why would the private sector even want to go to the moon?
      We can't even convince our domestic aerospace giants that building heavy lift rockets is a viable commercial interest.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:The purpose of government research by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes. Why not?

      Because when I take a girl for a walk on the beach at night I want to see the moon, not a Pepsi logo.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:The purpose of government research by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you really want private companies going to the Moon and commercializing it?

      Yes please, as rapidly as possible. Coincidentally, a couple days ago space.com had an interview with construction billionaire Robert Bigelow (who currently has two prototype space stations in orbit, which he launched on his own dime). In the interview he discussed his plans for a private lunar base, which would be assembled from three of his space station modules in lunar orbit or a Lagrangian point, then land assembled on the lunar surface:

      http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/private-moon-bases-bigelow-aerospace-100414.html

      After launching two prototype space stations into orbit, space entrepreneur and pioneer Robert Bigelow is now setting his sights a bit higher. His latest vision: A quick-deploy moon base capable of housing up to 18 astronauts in inflatable modules on the lunar surface.

      The base itself would be fabricated in space, with consideration being given to crewmembers piloting the entire base directly onto the moon's surface. ...

      "We need to make low-Earth orbit work first before we go beyond . . . but I believe we will," Gold told SPACE.com. "Once we've established a robust infrastructure in Earth orbit, created the economies of scale necessary to produce facilities in low Earth orbit . . . at that point, we've really enabled ourselves to look at a variety of options."

      Bigelow's main limiting factor has been the lack of a commercial crew vehicle to transfer customers to his space stations, and NASA's newly-announced commercial crew initiative will solve that problem. Once Bigelow's LEO bases have proven themselves, a private lunar base will be able to take advantage of the propellant depots in LEO and Lagrangian points foreseen under the new NASA plans.

    7. Re:The purpose of government research by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because when I take a girl for a walk on the beach at night I want to see the moon, not a Pepsi logo.

      Ahh, there's your problem. You should concentrate on looking at the girl, not the Moon.

  5. Shit by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Funny

    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."
  6. In 2 and a half years by codepunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  7. No Moon? by z0idberg · · Score: 4, Funny

    So if it's not a moon, then I guess it's a.....Space Station?

  8. major step in the WRONG direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:major step in the WRONG direction by CarbonShell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, how can you study the moon by avoiding it? That is like saying you will study Africa by sailing to South America.

      Plus I get the feeling this is ONLY about being able to say you did something f1rst.

      I agree that manned missions are needed in the long run, but we should use the possibility of unmanned missions to collect as much data as possible before risking not only the massively more amount of money but also the lives of people.

      Learn to walk before you can run. We are still crawling on mommy's lap.

    2. Re:major step in the WRONG direction by Jarnin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's the conundrum: We want to have a presence in space, both robotic and manned, for both science and exploration. It turns out that the robotic/science side of NASA has been doing really well for the last 30 years, minus a few stumbles here and there. The robotic/exploration side of NASA has done really well also, what with all the new telescopes up there and the pictures of the universe they give us. The manned sides of NASA hasn't come close to the achievements of the robotic missions. Obama wants to change that.

      Here's why no moon: We've been there. Besides the 6 manned missions, we've sent lots of landers, satellites and probes. We know it's geography really well, have a decent understanding of the chemical composition of the regolith, and even know where the water-ice is hiding. In other words, we've explored the moon. Not completely, but it's mapped, cataloged and now it's time to move on to the next target for exploration. There's still plenty of science to be done on the moon, but that's best left to the probes and landers and rovers for the time being. I'd like to see the next moon missions be more about science and settlement and less about exploration and national pride, but with China and India ramping up for moon-shots something like that probably wouldn't happen until the mid-2020's at least. The point is, everyone wants to show that they can do it all by themselves. Then we'll work together to do something bigger.

      But exploration is what is being brought to the front again. Asteroids. Deimos and Phobos. Then Mars. Then perhaps a trip around Venus or a shot out to Ceres. Then on to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Then Uranus and Neptune, and after stopping at every ice ball floating beyond Pluto. Go. Map. Look around. Discover. Name things. Then move on. That's what exploration is all about, and has been sorely lacking at NASA for some time now.

  9. Chinese by acehole · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Chinese by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Chinese have no interest in going to the Moon. They are planning a manned space station, to be completed by 2022.

      No amount of screaming "the reds are under the beds!!" is going to bring back the unique set of cold war circumstances that made Apollo a success.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  10. A giant telescope on the moon by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:A giant telescope on the moon by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

      One acronym: VLBI. He didn't say optical telescope. The other reason to put a radio 'scope on the far side of the moon is that the far side is shielded from all of the RF noise that we generate - since the moon is tidally locked, we have a perfect Earth-radio-quiet place to do research that would be impossible on Earth or in LEO.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  11. The west will go to the moon by 2020 by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  12. NAHHH! If Palin is elected president . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . 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!

    1. Re:NAHHH! If Palin is elected president . . . by selven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, I'm sure she's an expert at interplanetary relations. After all, she can see the moon from her house.

  13. Re:why asteroids and not comets? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, "Asteroids" is easier for the public to understand.. barely. But whether it is an asteroid or a comet is a completely flexible decision. The NASA studies all refer to "Near Earth Objects" as you do.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  14. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  15. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by dunezone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  16. New space policy: by Compaqt · · Score: 2, Funny

    To boldy not go where man has gone before.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  17. NASA is not discretionary budget by symbolset · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  18. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  19. No moon? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

    No moon? That's a space station?

    (Millions of geeks suddenly sighed at the pun and were silenced.)

  20. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by chadenright · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  21. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by OnePumpChump · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And while we're at it, he's no true Scotsman, either.

  22. You still need to go to the moon. by nuclearmatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  23. Whatever by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Whatever by gangien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel?

      Who cares?

      Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?

      He's continuing it. not ending it, as promised.

      Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?

      he hasn't exactly reversed the trend. enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely. he left plenty of loopholes for torture. didn't reverse the patriot act. Ect.

      is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?

      We'll find out if another katrina hits, personally i'd have no faith.

      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?

      Same as pretzel.

      Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?

      we'll see what happens with that.

      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.

      well, the said harvard law review guy is continuing most all the policies of said guy who would have flunked college.

      And onto your sig.

      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

      I'll never understand why Chomsky is held in any sort of high regard. A corporation can't force anyone to do anything, without the government, or breaking the law.. Thus, as tyrannical, as it might like to be, it cannot. Government, on the other hand, can, and constantly tries to be. Even though, it's not an intentional thing.

    2. Re:Whatever by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, there's this theme that runs through some (I want to be very careful here) of the anti-Obama rhetoric that paints him as a creation of affirmative action, or the media or something like that. The common thread is that he does not have the ability to bring himself to where he is today, that somebody else must be orchestrating his career.

      This, more than anything else I've seen in the last ten years, convinces me that racism is still alive in the US today. It's not that opposing Obama means you're a racist. It's the iron clad, unassailable assumption that he doesn't have the intelligence or talent to be in the political elite of this country by his own merits.

      Listen to the guy in interviews and debates. He not only can think on his feet, he thinks on his feet *faster than the other guy*. Watch him. If someone is caught off guard it is almost never him. Part of that is self-composure, but he's usually a step ahead of the other guy. At the "health care summit" with the Republicans, a few of them may have scored some points, but he easily held his own against the entire Republican caucus. Part of that was his being the moderator, but a lot of it was an ability to command the details while shaping the thread of the debate. That takes an impressive working memory and fluid intelligence. I can't think of an recent president who could have done that.

      Now if you're a racist, a brain like that wrapped in a black skin must be terrifying.

      You might not agree with all of his positions -- I certainly don't. But you have to admit the guy is very, very smart. Intelligence doesn't always lead you to the right conclusion, but it sure helps you get ahead in life.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Whatever by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel?

      Is choking a sign of missing intelligence? Are you saying that no one smart has ever choked on food? Sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack for political gain. That means you are a dick.

      Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?

      A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.

      Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?

      Are you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln? Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated? Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house? Has this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!

      Is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?

      Don't know yet. We have yet to see how Obama responds. As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans. See, GW was a states' rights kinda guy. He extended the power of the federal government to the Governor and Mayor and they both refused help until the shit hit the fan. Then they were quick to blame the federal government for failing to take over Louisiana militarily. Wait, weren't you just bitching about GWB abusing power in your last question? Now you're bitching because he didn't abuse it enough? Make up your mind!

      Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?

      Yes! Yes he did. Well, Sonia Sotomayor was not as experienced as she could have been. But she was nominated because evidently, people of a particular gender and race have life experiences that make them automatically qualified. Wait! I thought it was racist to claim that you were entitled because of your skin color? Oh, that's right. Only white people are racist (yes, I realize that saying so is actually racist. It was sarcasm that you wouldn't get because you agree with that statement.)

      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?

      Wait. Are you saying that mission=war? Really? You know, for the men and women on that aircraft carrier, the mission was accomplished. And it was them who hung that banner, not the president. As a veteran, I can tell you that there is a huge difference. I completed many missions and received medals for doing so, well before the war was actually over.

      But, hey! Let's not let facts and definitions get in the way of your politically based rant. You don't want the truth to invalidate your hate, now do you?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Whatever by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean like how a local plumber embarrassed him and caused him political grief for years by making him admit things that were politically damaging?

      I know. It damaged him so badly that he won the election.

      Or are you talking about how he sends world leaders DVDs that they can't play in their home countries? Wait, you must mean the iPod gift of his speeches that he gives to dignitaries, right? Or does bringing any of this up make me a racist?

      No, what makes you a racist is that you bring up what is literally gossip in comparison with Bush starting an unwinnable war, illegally suspending constitutional rights, and staffing the federal government with his cronies. Remember the the guy who ran FEMA? Who's job before that was judging ponies? A job from which he was fired?

      Your basis of judgement has no correlation to reality, no clear value structure, but does a great job of providing transparency to your prejudices.

    5. Re:Whatever by ChinggisK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To add to that- I was there yesterday when he gave his speech, I was positioned so that I was seeing him from behind and to the side, and I was quite close (~30-40 feet). He didn't use teleprompters, and he never looked down at notes. And that was a 25-minute speech. I thought that was pretty impressive, and I've never been crazy about the guy.

    6. Re:Whatever by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.

      Yeah, the Bush White House had no involvement in requesting bad intelligence, leaking the stories to newspapers, and then going on Sunday talk shows holding up the newspapers as evidence. It was all the Republican controlled congress!

      as this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!

      Weee! Let's take a trip down anecdote lane, and throw the constitution out the window on the way there!

      As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans

      The head of FEMA was appointed by Bush. The guy he appointed - Mike Brown - judged horsies in preparation for running one of the largest and most critical federal agencies in existence. FEMA is responsible for responding to natural disasters. But it's nice that you're trying to pass the buck.

      Well, Sonia Sotomayor was not as experienced as she could have been

      Sotomayor was a Federal Judge from 1991 until her nomination. Let's see what the Wik has to say about Miers...

      Miers's nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice.

      You know, for the men and women on that aircraft carrier, the mission was accomplished.

      98% of the casualties from the Iraq war happened after he declared an end to major combat operations. He lives in a dreamworld which you seem to share.

    7. Re:Whatever by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding."

      Except when the President line item vetoes the parts the were put there as part of a negotiation. It' also does nothing to counter the point about the war, but since you can't counter that you lumped it in with another point..and did so poorly.

      "Are you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln? Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated? Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house? Has this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!"

      What a stupid argument. it does nothing to counter the points. However as an FYI:

      "re you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln?"
      Clearly he didn't.

      "Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated?"
      I know one person, and am well aware of many others. The information is widely available.

      " Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house?"

      is your claim that federal officials never go into anyone's house?

      Why the hell would you think something has to happen to you for it to be true?

      " As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans"
      No. G.W. Bush hamstrung FEMA with Homeland Security. He botched it.

      "He extended the power of the federal government to the Governor and Mayor and they both refused help until the shit hit the fan."
      yeah, that's what they claime, but if you look at the timeline of events, you will quickly see that isn't true.

      Friday the 26th:
      GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA

      the 27th:
      GOV. HALEY BARBOUR DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MISSISSIPPI

      the 29th:
        KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL
      BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED OF THE LEVEE BREACH
        WHITE HOUSE CIRCULATES INTERNAL MEMO ABOUT LEVEE
      BROWN WARNS BUSH ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DEVASTATION
      about noon: MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY REQUESTS THAT DHS DISPATCH 1,000 EMPLOYEES TO REGION, GIVES THEM TWO DAYS TO ARRIVE

      8PM:GOV. BLANCO AGAIN REQUESTS ASSISTANCE FROM BUSH:

        BUSH GOES TO BED WITHOUT ACTING ON BLANCO’S REQUESTS
      on the 31st:
      PRESIDENT BUSH FINALLY ORGANIZES TASK FORCE TO COORDINATE FEDERAL RESPONSE:

      It is interesting how you twisted a statement regarding inexperience into racism.

      You are correct regarding mission, however it in know way was presented in that way. In Fact bush said all major combat was done. When in fact he know it wasn't.
      "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." GWB. Clearly we hadn't.

      "You don't want the truth to invalidate your hate, now do you?"
        Irony, you haz it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. Re:Gutted Program by NNKK · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "backers of using private space companies" are talking about. It's not *heavy* cargo transport, it's not even about fundamental advancement. It's about *routine* transport (of both cargo and humans). It's been there, done that, got the t-shirt stuff.

    The point is that we know how to do it, and it's time for robust, competitive private industry to make it cheap. Then NASA can focus on the next step instead of worrying about how to maintain and resupply the ISS.

  25. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by feepness · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by migla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  27. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by An+dochasac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  28. Re:Sure OhBlahBlah. Fly before you can crawl! by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:Sure OhBlahBlah. Fly before you can crawl! by RoboRay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  31. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  32. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many other self-made men have become president?

    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!
  33. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by SBrach · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have a problem with Luke Skywalker?

  34. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  35. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by Kumiorava · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  36. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by God'sDuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  37. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by jambox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!
  40. Not brainwashing by manekineko2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  41. Re:Is manned space exploration efficient? by CompMD · · Score: 2, Informative

    "What can human beings do in space that robots can't?"

    Not get stuck in two inches of sand on Mars.