Slashdot Mirror
Armstrong, Cernan Testify Against Obama Space Plan
MarkWhittington submitted a story about the first man to walk on the moon testifying yesterday that President Barack Obama's plans to revamp the human space program would cede America's longtime leadership in space to other nations.
dont we have bigger issues than who has the biggest space penis??
But we have to do it. How else will we have money in the budget to bail out bankers and pay for their billion dollar bonuses?
What do we gain from manned space flight that we wouldn't gain, in a far cheaper way, from unmanned missions?
...which has been overambitious and underfunded.
We haven't had a decent space plan since getting to the moon. We have had some lofty goals, but never proper commitment or funding. We've also had changing directions every administration or so.
Perhaps the worst thing about Obama's plan is that it is a little more in line with reality instead of wishes?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
a media event!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
We haven't had a decent manned space plan. Galileo, Cassini, Spirit & Opportunity, and plenty others worked out very well.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Me personally, I give a flying fuck about space. (For now, and here's why)
We're fighting 2 wars we can't win due to the rules of engagement and the enemy's "tactics".
We're HUGELY in debt, each and every one of us.
The government's solution is to spend even more fucking money.
So yeah, Space can piss off right now, IMO. Let some other fucking country "take the lead" while we fix this broken fucking country.
Sent from your iPad.
He's not killing NASA, he's increased their budget by quite a bit.
What do we gain from manned space flight that we wouldn't gain, in a far cheaper way, from unmanned missions?
Colonization of other worlds is clearly impossible without manned flight.
Buzz Aldrin disagrees
Neil Armstrong Vs. Buzz Aldrin Over Obama's Space Plans
CBSNews URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002451-503544.html
Who do you think would win in a fight, Buzz Ald(I won't even finish the question)
Obama didn't kill NASA, he killed Ares which from what I've seen, wasn't going very well. It's sad that 40 years after we got to the moon the first time, we haven't made much progress in developing a good vehicle to return. Not that the moon is really where we should be going at this point. The asteroids and Mars are better targets due to their long term potential to fuel space based industry and such. NASA needs to go a different direction than it was if we are to have any progress. NASA should be focusing on operations farther out from Earth like Mars, the asteroids etc not a taxi service to LEO.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Humans in space? Colonies on other worlds? Ending the cosmic equivalent of having all of our eggs in one basket? We're one natural disaster away from complete annhilation of our race. I'd kinda like to have at least a few people offworld just in case.
All this talk of "Unmanned missions are just as good!" is pretty unconvincing when reports come back that the latest rover mission may be failing because it's stuck on a 3 inch rock and can't wiggle it's way off . . .
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
He's not killing NASA, he's increased their budget by quite a bit.
He's only killing NASA's next shuttle plan (and the plan to go to Mars), something they had been working on since their current one began falling apart and proving to be obsolete. FTFA:
Neil Armstrong has renewed his criticism of Barack Obama's space vision, insisting that the president's decision to scrap Constellation and head off to Mars was "poorly advised".
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Colonization of other worlds is clearly impossible without manned flight.
Colonization of other worlds (which ones did you have in mind, by the way?) is clearly impossible without technologies that don't exist on Earth right now and won't exist for at least another few decades. Spending many billions of dollars on chemical rockets isn't going to get the job done.
Of all the things that Obama is doing, am I the only one who feels that him killing NASA really struck a nerve? It's literally the only thing he's done that made my blood boil.
'Killing NASA'? You know what makes my blood boil over this is people who act like they know what they're talking about. Obama has not 'killed NASA' - he's increased their budget. One thing he HAS done is killed a ridiculous program started by Bush. While I'm not a big fan of Obama's support for NASA in general, Constellation was a badly-planned program from the get-go. It's unfortunate that Ares was kept, but that would've been a political nightmare due to the number of lost jobs.
Killing NASA by increasing its budget certainly counts as change though. Most of the earlier presidents focused on improving NASA by decreasing its budget.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Like any bureaucracy, NASA existed only as long as it pleased its political leaders. The result is a space agency that's known for stunts.
Put a man in orbit. First! {Grab genitalia and grunt here).
Put a man on the moon. First! (Grunt repeatedly here).
Seriously, if NASA's main missions now were spaced based power, Zero G industries, low-grav hospitals, a satellite based internet, a space based mirror climate control system, or any of *thousands* of practical, profitable, useful projects, would we even be having this discussion?
Instead, NASA is all about Texas and Florida political pork, controlled by politicians and shaped to *their* ends. Market based solutions, as bad as they are, would still be better than techno-military welfare that we can't afford.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Of all the things that Obama is doing, am I the only one who feels that him killing NASA really struck a nerve? It's literally the only thing he's done that made my blood boil.
He's not killing NASA. Far from it, in fact. From TFA:
Obama just wants to terminate one particular project that he feels is going nowhere and has become a money sink. You may disagree with his decision but it's still not "killing NASA."
This ain't rocket surgery.
Really, unmanned missions bring the same amount of international prestige and goodwill as manned ones? I don't think so -- the United States gained more in this department from a handful of moon shots and space shuttle rides for friends/allies than it has from all the robotic missions combined.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Constellation would have done more to kill NASA than anything in Obama's new plan. Constellation was already over budget and behind schedule. If a fully developed Ares rocket had been dropped in NASA's lap, it wouldn't have been able to afford to operate it. So what do you think the next admin would do with NASA if it had been allowed to continue, accumulating delays and going further and further over budget?
The new plan is the best chance NASA has had in a long time to get back on its feet and stop languishing in LEO. Developing the higher technology needed to go beyond LEO and the moon is what NASA should be concentrating on. Let commercial companies deliver stuff to ISS and LEO.
(One a side note, it seems to me that almost everyone who hates Obama's plan forgets that there would have been just as long, if not longer, gap in US human spaceflight ability WITH constellation. We're not exactly losing a whole lot by giving commercial companies time to produce their human ferrying ability, as opposed to giving NASA time to work on Ares-1)
With NASA buying rides at a few tens of millions each vs. billion+ per launch there will be a lot more money for accomplishing things besides putting stuff into orbit on a rocket with a NASA logo on it.
So I'm all for the new plan. My biggest worry is that congress will screw up the whole thing trying to protect their pork.
I wonder aloud if space exploration isn't an excuse not to fix the mess we've created here on good old planet Earth. I've read sci fi since I was a kid, and there's a lot of future scenarios where humans now live offwold because Earth died of this, or that or radiation in a post-nuclear holocaust, etc.
It's my personal belief that we have to fix the problems now, discuss them, and introduce population controls that cut down on resource damage until we can determine the nature of the problems we face (without glib one-liners).
What makes anyone think that subsequent out-migration to habitable planets will work, when we can't get this one right?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
As I came back from lunch today, I saw a single retiree-looking gentleman standing on the corner of Saturn and NASA Rd. 1 with a sign protesting the Obama plan. That's here at JSC, home of the astronauts.
I dunno, maybe more people will join him once work lets out. As someone who works in this industry, I still remain on the record saying that the current plan is the best one NASA has had since the Shuttle was a dream given form*.
* Not quite the form it should have been, though.
it makes no sense to send people into space... until we know of someplace we can permanently stay.
robots are faster, more accurate, more durable, can stay out there virtually indefinitely, and are 3-20 orders of magnitude cheaper.
from a scientific perspective, low-earth-orbit (the only place we're sending people) just isn't that interesting. virtually all space-related scientific data comes from unmanned probes and robots.
until we're talking about settling another planet/moon, people in space are just tourists. so why is the government funding it?
http://kered.org
Did anyone think to ask him under oath if he actually walked on the moon? Just sayin ...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
All of *my* eggs will always be in one basket. It does me no damn good to have someone walking around on another planet. No, as cool as it is (and yes, it's very cool) it's a *massive* waste of money that could be redirected toward, oh, I don't know, science education, basic research grants, 10-times as many unmanned flights. Besides, the dangers inherent in manned flight hold us back from trying things. I mean, look at our early Mars record: we kept throwing things at Mars and only a few landed nicely. Eventually, we hit a couple jackpots with the current rovers. Prestige? Bullshit! Let's do some *real* science, damn it!!
That's funny, if we send humans to Mars that could be all the time they have to spend. Robots just need sunlight, we humans need much more logistical support. Robots also just need one way tickets.
Or the healthcare plan that doesn't take effect for nearly a decade...
Where's that cap to the Decanter of Endless water???
I'm tired of this argument.
Part of what makes us human is our curiosity; the need to explore, to go and see what's on the other side of that mountain. We need a goal that's inspirational. Yeah, robots do great science, but they're not going to inspire a hell of a lot of people.
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" -- Robert Browning
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Humans in space? Colonies on other worlds? Ending the cosmic equivalent of having all of our eggs in one basket? We're one natural disaster away from complete annhilation of our race. I'd kinda like to have at least a few people offworld just in case.
And we still would be if all we did was build a giant rocket that could, at best, send a handful of people to the moon or eventually Mars.
The technologies the new plan is set to develop much more directly tackle the issue of humans surviving -- not just visiting long enough to plant a flag, but actually surviving -- than Constellation does. Constellation does absolutely nothing but let us put more boot prints on the moon. Yay. When we finally decide to send astronauts to Mars, there should already be robotically assembled habitats and a factory processing ice for oxygen and fuel waiting for them. We should have everything in place so the astronauts can stay on Mars for a year, or even more. It should be the foundation for a permanent settlement on Mars.
If you're serious about this "eggs in one basket" problem, and are serious about humans permanently occupying other planets, then you should be all for the new NASA plan like Buzz Aldrin is. He wants a permanent base on Mars, not a boot-and-flag mission.
Manned missions for their own sake, or to try to recapture lost glory by repeating what we've already done, is just wankery.
All this talk of "Unmanned missions are just as good!" is pretty unconvincing when reports come back that the latest rover mission may be failing because it's stuck on a 3 inch rock and can't wiggle it's way off . . .
Yeah, only 6 years of nearly continuous operation on a budget that is comparable to a manned Low Earth Orbit mission, and vastly less than any manned mission to Mars would be, and where even the stuck rover can still perform useful science, surely shows how unconvincing the argument for robotic missions is.
The enemies of Democracy are
dude, we are barely out of the stone age.
Just 100 years ago most homes did not have electricity or even indoor toilets. Hell we were barely out of the Renaissance era. WW-I did not start until 1914 and at the beginning it was incredibly low tech. Sword fighting was still taught to military personnel.
Honestly, Wait until 2110. WE will have full walking humanoid bots (which will be dumb, send a dog design, they are faster, more agile and capable of doing more.)
Cripes the technology changes over the past 10 years have been more than the past 100. Honestly launching delicate ugly bags of water into space is really dumb for real exploration.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Perhaps if the teachers unions were willing to part with some of their plush benefits that no other industry receives (what other job can you work in and have a lifetime guarantee that nothing short of felony conviction can get you fired?) the public would be willing to pay them more money.
I would have no objection to teachers making six digits or more if they operated under the same reality as the rest of us. If I do a shitty job I can be fired. If a tenured teacher does a shitty job she gets to keep on doing it until retirement.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's one thing I don't get. Why do we believe these other worlds somehow have the answer to all our Earthly problems. We can't even create a self sustaining environment here on Earth, what makes you think we know how to do it on another planet? Getting there is not the hard part...yet it seems so very hard right now.
Assuming we do reach a stage where we can have a self sustaining environment here on Earth...suddenly all the horrid things that can happen to you here on Earth are no longer so important as you could survive without end regardless of what happens to the planet even if all life on the planet dies.
The first step is getting something like the biodome to actually work with NO SUNLIGHT...then and only then could we even consider another planet...unless you plan on eating rocks, breathing toxic gas, and bathing in a sun with no EM protection.
We're not there yet...maybe Obama realizes this.
Ronald Reagan - you mean that guy who raised the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion?
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Give me a one-way ticket to Mars and I'd take it in a heartbeat. No joke.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)