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."

Comments

Color me not impressed

[symbolset]

$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.

Re:Color me not impressed

[QuantumG]

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

Re:Color me not impressed

[Skarecrow77]

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?

Re:Color me not impressed

[Entropius]

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.

Re:Color me not impressed

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Color me not impressed

[caffeinemessiah]

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").

Re:Color me not impressed

[Gerzel]

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.

Re:Color me not impressed

[darkmeridian]

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.

"No Moon"

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:"No Moon"

[smchris]

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.

Re:"No Moon"

[fm6]

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.

Re:"No Moon"

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:"No Moon"

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:"No Moon"

[CarbonShell]

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?

Re:"No Moon"

[SECProto]

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.

Here's what the Bad Astronomer says about it

[Adrian Lopez]

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

Re:Here's what the Bad Astronomer says about it

[Phroon]

Damn it! You tricked me into reading the article!

The purpose of government research

[Dice]

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.

Re:The purpose of government research

[Entropius]

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

Re:The purpose of government research

[Kittenman]

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...

Re:The purpose of government research

[Dice]

Yes. Why not?

Re:The purpose of government research

[FleaPlus]

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.

Shit

[Adrian Lopez]

I should have checked the link before posting the above.

In 2 and a half years

[codepunk]

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.

No Moon?

[z0idberg]

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

major step in the WRONG direction

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:major step in the WRONG direction

[CarbonShell]

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.

Chinese

[acehole]

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.

Re:Chinese

[QuantumG]

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.

A giant telescope on the moon

[thoughtsatthemoment]

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.

The west will go to the moon by 2020

[WindBourne]

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.

NAHHH! If Palin is elected president . . .

[StefanJ]

. . . 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!

Re:NAHHH! If Palin is elected president . . .

[selven]

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

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[Cassius Corodes]

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?

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[dunezone]

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?

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[Cassius Corodes]

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.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[chadenright]

...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.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[OnePumpChump]

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

Whatever

[copponex]

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.

Re:Whatever

[hey!]

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.

Re:Whatever

[ArcherB]

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?

Re:Whatever

[ChinggisK]

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.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[An dochasac]

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?

Re:Sure OhBlahBlah. Fly before you can crawl!

[Edmund Blackadder]

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.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[hey!]

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*.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[je ne sais quoi]

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.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[Kumiorava]

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.

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[God'sDuck]

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?

Re:Too bad Obama doesn't share the American dream

[jambox]

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.