Related Sections: Interviews Movies News Top Stories
Obama cancels moon mission: Who should sponsor human spaceflight?
According to science fiction, we were supposed to have a moon base by 2001 and were supposed to have a joint U.S.-Soviet manned mission to Jupiter to make contact by this year, 2010. (That's not to mention flying cars and personal jet packs, but we digress.)
Well, kiss all those dreams goodbye, at least as far as the U.S. government and NASA is concerned.
President Barack Obama's newly released proposed budget would cancel President George W. Bush's plan to return U.S. astronauts to the moon aboard the new Constellation rocket.
Obama's administration will instead direct NASA to turn to long-range research and development which could eventually lead to a manned space program to Mars, according to a report on AFP:
The decision will mean that NASA will be constrained to low-earth orbits for years to come, and will transform the aspirations of the US space program following the planned retirement of the Shuttle fleet in September.Under the new plan, Obama will also propose boosting the development of commercial rockets and other vehicles that can ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), an outside US government advisor said.
Not everyone is thrilled with this decision. Daily Tech quotes former astronaut Bill Nelson:
"I, for one, intend to stand up and fight for NASA, and for the thousands of people who stand to lose their jobs," said Senator Bill Nelson (Democrat, Florida). Nelson served as a captain in the U.S. Army during the late 60s and early 70s—he also participated in a 1986 space shuttle mission (STS-61C) as a payload specialist.
But others think it's time government got out of the manned-space business, according to the Philadelphia Weekly's Cup O' Joel blog:
Human spaceflight is really cool—but it's also expensive and inefficient. Get a man to the moon—or, more theoretically, to Mars—is hard. People aren't made to live in space; keeping them alive there is tremendously difficult.That's not to say it's not worth doing. But in an era where government needs to start making real choices about what it should or shouldn't be doing, it's difficult to justify manned flights to the moon. The best argument isn't for going to the moon itself; it's that the journey would create jobs and spinoff technologies that would benefit Americans. No doubt that's true: I still love Tang. But the goal of a program that does those things should—on the taxpayer dime—be vital to the American project. Going to the moon again simply isn't.
The other best argument? That we should be developing the technology to abandon Earth if the day comes that the planet becomes uninhabitable. Seems like our resources would be better and more usefully focused on keeping the planet [habitable].
What do you think? Should the government be in the manned spaceflight business? Or private business? And how important is manned spaceflight?
By Justo at 2:55 PM ON 02/01/10
Hope and Change indeed....
By Paul at 2:55 PM ON 02/01/10
Manned spaceflight is very important, but maybe we should encourage Lockheed Martin and Boeing to explore it. At least for now.
By chech1965 at 2:57 PM ON 02/01/10
NASA would never be able to afford to do what is necessary in space. It NEEDS private enterprise to fund it. NASA needs to become the shepherd that lays out the ground work, provides the expertise and let the super rich do the actual flights. Its only a matter of time before we start running out of certain metals on Earth...and all eyes turn to the moon.
By bigalosu at 3:10 PM ON 02/01/10
It's happening just how they said it would...
Private business sponsored space exploration leads to the birth of Weyland-Yutani!
By untied831 at 3:20 PM ON 02/01/10
I believe that the exploration of space should be a world wide responsibility. Unite with other countries to share technology, funding to go to the moon and onto other planets. The United States should think about that option.
By garyk at 3:24 PM ON 02/01/10
Kraft Foods, who now owns Tang, should sponsor some of it. How much Tang has sold over the years because folks still associate it with the space program.
By Nikst at 3:35 PM ON 02/01/10
Put the effort on Mars. Forget the Moon
By Ladystarr at 3:50 PM ON 02/01/10
Space should be come privatized. Virgin is close. But we should create a better space station to have an initial jumping off point for the Moon, Mars or beyond. More efficient rockets (fuel) and mode of transportation are needed. Become privatized, become competitive, and then we will be back in space.
By divephotog at 3:54 PM ON 02/01/10
Picture it if you will....
The new model shuttle, on the launchpad....
And every inch of it covered with advertising from sponsors for that flight, like an Indy race car at the pole.
Geico, Army, Aflac, STP, AAA, AARP, etc, etc, etc.....
By metalfan20 at 4:02 PM ON 02/01/10
The manned missions must continue peoples jobs are on the line and space is the only way we'll be able to continue economic growth. I do beileve that establishing a colony on the moon and mars would be the best thing to come out of this. the Cup of joel blog or what ever is an idiot, our technological advances will allow us to adpat to space, under such an arguement one could imply that no human should be living in anarctica...but they. I can give a dozen resaons why this should continue. I'm so sick of politics ruining scientific advancement it doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum they always find a reason.
By GAVAL at 4:03 PM ON 02/01/10
Wow, just when I thought I couldn't hate the curret administration and what they're doing any more...
Newsflash, Obama! When the shuttle program ends this year, you'll have LOTS of extra money to fund the Consellation program.
Instead he choses to divert much of that funding to monitor "man made" climate change.
Another news flash! Climate change happens whether man influences it or not! You don't need half a trillion dollars to keep track of it!
/angry
By FilmNut at 4:05 PM ON 02/01/10
Don't blame Obama, blame the Republicans and the previous administration. Blame Bush for proposing a moon mission, that we all knew was a hallow, blatent lie, his administration and the republicans would of never, ever approve that, it was nothing but talk. Obama is trying to fix our problems, because one side of congress seems to think that there's nothing wrong. Had we not had the economic melt down, there is no doubt that Obama would of approved a moon mission, but since we're in dire economic situations, Obama really has no choice. I don't approve of the decision, but until the party of "NO" becomes the party of "YES" projects like this will be hurt.
In all, if we didn't have pointless wars, and ignorant, self-centered, greedy politicians i wish our government would back NASA more, Mars is the main focus, that is where we need to go, but we also need better education so people understand that space exploration helps advance our knowledge and technology, not just TANG.
By steelbird at 4:08 PM ON 02/01/10
"And we have liftoff - we have liftoff of the Bud Light Shuttle."
But seriously, private enterprise needs to be involved. Look at what Bert Rutan has done without government support. Perhaps NASA should be working with him on a kind of variant of his spacecraft that can dock with ISS, or manned craft to the moon - combined with remote rockets. That would be a good way to replace the shuttle.
By AZ_Iceman at 4:08 PM ON 02/01/10
The only way these things or similar happens is if private enterprise does it (maybe with grant assistance) because there is big dollars to be made in it.
Government is only going to do things like this now out of necessity. Especially in a time of needed fiscal responsibility
By DarkHawke at 4:35 PM ON 02/01/10
@FilmNut: You're wrong, and I have proof: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story
This article details that far from having its budget frozen, NASA will actually have a modest INCREASE in its budget. Obama made an affirmative CHOICE to redirect NASA's efforts away from manned spaceflight beyond the ISS and toward global warming research. He is DELIBERATELY scuttling a program that could serve to elevate our entire species in favor of dumping more of our hard-earned down a rathole of a hoax. No budgetary or war-funding considerations in the mix. At all. And besides the impetus behind the program coming from the Bush Administration, the article quotes a prominent Republican senator as supporting it, so the "party of no" in this circumstance appears to be the Democrats.
By NJeffrey at 4:35 PM ON 02/01/10
If the President wants to create and/or save jobs (as well as help his Union friends) he should consider that funding the Space Program means building new facilities at NASA and building new space vehicles, which means jobs, almost all of which will be built by Union labor. It also means giving the American People a Dream. You can talk about Hope, but without a Dream there is no Hope. While commercial enterprise may someday replace a lot of what the government is funding now, in these current economic times, there is no reason for businesses to invest in Space Travel. It's up to the Government to keep it going, or else we can watch on the sidelines while Russia, China, Japan and others do it and reap the benefits from it. Anyone remember what John Kennedy said about going to the moon? Apparently the President is not old enough to remember. Perhaps he should read some history books.
By aglaia at 4:47 PM ON 02/01/10
OpenLuna.org.
By M at 4:51 PM ON 02/01/10
FilmNut is correct, the right-wingers are responsible for the economic meltdown, Obamas doing the best he can with the garbage he was given.
By divephotog at 5:00 PM ON 02/01/10
By grannon at 5:02 PM ON 02/01/10
I don't know if I want private enterprise to fund missions to the moon or wherever we decide to go. I also doubt the government will ever allow private enterprise to go into space on their own. They'll claim there is no way to track orbital debris, or private rockets will be a threat to the space station or some other trivial reason that all focuses on the security of the nation. Why is it that no one mentions that the technology for manned space flight made available the technology for ICBMs and star wars type defense systems. Do you honestly thing the United States Government is going to allow private businesses the ability to mass produce and launch vehicles capable of conveying potentially harmfull payload into orbit.
How's that for sounding like a conspiracy therorist.
By shadow at 5:06 PM ON 02/01/10
Ok let’s get this straight for once. NO HUMAN HAS EVER GONE TO THE MOON! It was all a fake! The government knows it and you all know it. How long must we wait for the US government to admit that their was never a moon mission in 1969. That the space race was a fake. It was a great acting job to fool the American people. Of course, they are not going to admit it because the US will be a laughing stock to the rest of the world. Do you think we had the defined technology to fly a rocket to moon back in 1969? I think not. People at that particular time were stupid. They believe any thing that the Government threw at them. Now we are a little wiser. If their was an actual mission to go to the moon, I am not going to sit in front of the TV and said, “Wow! It is actually happening.” I would get my telescope and want proof that the USA is really going to the Moon. To think we are still so stupid in this present time period is ridiculous.
By Captain America at 5:17 PM ON 02/01/10
Well, shadow has gone ahead and outed himself as a blithering moron. Anyone else want to throw their hat into the ring and try to lay claim to the King Bonehead crown?
By krazy joe at 5:19 PM ON 02/01/10
Another Day/another Obama frak up.
Is it 2012 yet?
By Joe B. at 5:31 PM ON 02/01/10
Of all the terrible, terrible things ObamASS has already done to this country, this is the lowest blow of all. I actually feel sick about it. He's a short-sighted moron that doesn't appreciate what the space program has done for this country.
By Oscar at 5:31 PM ON 02/01/10
Get real. Republicans are moaning about budget deficits. Americans are out of work and want money for jobs, education, and health care.
Where is money for the space program supposed to come from? Should it be taken from the Defense, Education, or other programs?
Are you willing to tell some mother or father that there isn't money for a jobs program?
I'm all for the space program and wish there were a way to get there. But, blaming Obama for having to deal with the Great Recession that Bush left him seems ignorant.
By aleatoric at 5:32 PM ON 02/01/10
Don't worry. After Bush's damages finally die down and Obama sets up his long-term stabilization plans (people expecting the economy to turn around overnight = picard facepalm) the economy will recover around the time the next Republican is elected president. Everyone will be all, "WAHOO!! REPUBLICANS DID IT!!!" But then they'll start some random arbitrary war. Then at the end of the red term, after driving us into debt again, they'll re-announce that "DON'T WORRY, WE'RE GOIN TO THE MOON BABY!!! WAHOO!"
By Blaen at 5:45 PM ON 02/01/10
Yes we need to look after the environment of this planet. But isn't human life too precious to restrict ourselves to one little bio-dome??
By Major America at 5:50 PM ON 02/01/10
@Shadow - personally I think you're full of s**t. Also, anyone that doesn't know the proper use of "their, there, and they're" shouldn't be writing at all. If you're going to make an absurd point at least use proper grammar.
By Homer Simpson at 6:29 PM ON 02/01/10
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
By Krazy Joe at 6:32 PM ON 02/01/10
The Republicans have always been better for the economy yet morons keep voting Democrat.
By shadow at 6:37 PM ON 02/01/10
The moon mission in 1969 is a fake. Get over it.
By Starlionblue at 6:42 PM ON 02/01/10
"The moon mission in 1969 is a fake. Get over it."
Where's your evidence? Go ahead, make my day. Tell me why you think it was faked.
By hermy at 7:20 PM ON 02/01/10
We shoulden't make his a dumb Democrat vs Republican agrument.If the world in general wasen't so hell bent on killing each other.We would have Taco Bells on mars by now.
By TomKo44 at 8:10 PM ON 02/01/10
Obviously the only one to sponsor the trip to the moon is The Colbert Nation!
By robeuax at 8:28 PM ON 02/01/10
Private companies will not go into space unless they can make a profit, achieving orbit maybe but a moon or mars mission, too expensive to be done by any entity but a government. Hermy is right,the D vs R is getting as old as Blame Bush. Look forward.
By Goldilocks at 8:33 PM ON 02/01/10
The Republicans should sponser space flight, because we need to keep the scientific initiative and human knowlage going, and also because Obama and the Democrats in general are from some backwards planet in outer space themselves! (For those who can't guess it, I am a Republican and pro-space-exploration! Call me an "astronut", but I happen to like intelligence and the advancement of science!).
By hermy at 9:07 PM ON 02/01/10
Ask someone living in Haiti right now or someone without health insurance how much we should spend on space exploration.and for the record i'm a independant.with opinions that lean left and right
By Red Mask at 9:11 PM ON 02/01/10
Space flight as far as the Moon should mostly be funded by private firms. The freedom of scientific exploration should not be bound by government control.
By Kingcruiser at 9:46 PM ON 02/01/10
Meltdown? We've had a Democratic Congress for the final two years of the Bush administration. When Bush was screaming Fannie Mae was out of control, Barney Frank said "no problem" and funded even more money to it.
"IF government is the solution, you can bet government created the problem in the first place."
And Stimulus? The Japanese tried that over and over in the 1990s. We did during the Carter years. Doesn't work, but Japan now has a huge debt, and so do we.
Yes, scrap the NASA budget...
Especially if you're going to monitor Polar Bears with it...
By Mandy at 9:48 PM ON 02/01/10
Goldilocks@ ironic preaching the republican pursuit of science, the same political party that doesn't want evolution taught in American classrooms...
By Axewerfer at 9:54 PM ON 02/01/10
It's a bold and exciting move, which means it'll never pass Congress. If this were done well, with an emphasis on permanent habitations and refueling stations at the Lagrangian points, we would have a stable jumping-off point for missions to Mars and Europa, both of which are much more exciting than the moon.
Having a permanent, self-sufficient colony on the moon would be nice, but the logistics involved almost require a space elevator to pull off. In the short term, this is pretty frustrating, but long-term, it has the potential to get NASA back on track creating wild and crazy new technologies, and stimulating an entirely new economic sector. Like it or not, democratic governments just aren't very good at space travel. I mean, the Constellation project itself was over budget, behind schedule, and completely uninspiring. Pour some cash into revisiting the VentureStar program. Mastering that alone would put us ahead in materials sciences and hypersonic travel.
But, again, it'll never pass Congress.
By KellyO at 9:55 PM ON 02/01/10
This is a great decision by President Obama. We are on the brink of a financial crisis in the USA and we can't afford to waste taxpayer's money right now.
In fact, I believe that we grow faster and further with space exploration if we encourage and enable private companies as much as possible. Space travel should be privatized. It should be competitive. There should be great incentive to compete in the space travel industry.
The private sector can race faster, harder and farther in space than the US/Soviet race could every dream of.
By Manysisters at 10:13 PM ON 02/01/10
Of course, there is no real reason to keep up with the shuttle taxi service now that the Stargate program is up and running....why not let Nascar run it? Or better yet, keep Detroit working and use a Ford factory to build new space taxis...
By Gozer at 10:51 PM ON 02/01/10
FilmNut, M, Oscar, aleatoric...
Right!
krazy joe, Joe B., Goldilocks, Kingcruiser...
Wrong, So misguidedly wrong. But you already know that, and yet you're still willing to be part of the machine that continues to encourage right-wing lies.
By ETo at 11:19 PM ON 02/01/10
John Kennedy just rolled over in his grave!
For Kennedy N.A.S.A. was a tool used to engender hope and change, now "Hope and Change" is the tool being used to dismantle it.
By Goldilocks at 11:26 PM ON 02/01/10
Attn: Mandy: I want evolution tauht in the classrooms; I subscribe to evolutionary theory. Churches are fine for faith-based teachings, and I'm OK with that, also.
Attn.: Hermy: I donated personal money (a substantial amount) to Lutheran Relief, to the American Red Cross, and also to two international animal welfare groups based in the USA whocurently have "boots on the ground" over in Haiti right now helping the animals who were affected by the tragedy there. I also work for wal-Mart, which has been both as a corporate donor as well as a sponsor for other independent nationally-recognized groups donated food, water, medical supplies, shelters, tools, and clothing for the relief effort, as well as monetary donations, and we are still pumping collected funding there as well.
I have also done some lobbying of everyone on my email list and numerous other contacts as well to urge my riends to donate to the appeals for aid as well. How many others out there have done anything but wring their hands, say too bad, and pop another beer?
Attn Gozer: Why do you think us republican right-leaning conservative people are called, the "right"!?
By MCP-001 at 12:37 AM ON 02/02/10
Well, I see that this didn't take very long to degenerate into a political argument.
Getting back to the topic of this thread: Why does the government "need" to be involved in spaceflight?
Did Henry Ford need the government to develop mass production?
Did the Wright Brothers need the government to build their flyer?
Did Spaceship One need the government to get built?
People might be surprised at what can be done without government involvement.
By CD at 1:08 AM ON 02/02/10
I agree with Shadow. Stop the hypocrasy. Explain to me how they got pass the Van Allen belt??? Get real guys.
Also google The Obama Conspiracy. Worth while watching the movie. Some food for thoughts.
By FilmNut at 1:11 AM ON 02/02/10
@Goldilocks
Yeah, but did you notice when the President addressed Congress for the State of the Union, from his perspective the Republicans are situated on the left ... they just think they are on the right. Um, for those who didn't know who the Republicans are, those would be the people who were all dressed in black suits, because they have no independent thought, which is why they only know one word which is NO. They also don't care about you or me, just business and how much money they can stock pile and give to their upper 1 percent friends, and are the first to chest thump to wars, conflicts, and religion. My father has been unemployed for three years, my uncle has been unemployed for two years, and another uncle who suffers from mental illness got laid off from Alstate after 20 years. Now answer me this, when Obama has only been in office for one year and is trying keep our country falling like the Roman Empire, why is it that he is being blocked on every single topic when it comes to well, everything?
I want a Space Program, and we will still have one, but going to the Moon right now is NOT the answer, I also seem to remember some very important astronauts said going back to the Moon is not the answer, we've already been there, Mars should be the focus, but it's going to take time and corporation from everybody, but until people see the light, and until things are fixed in this country, the average person cares more about American Idol, then a mission to the moon. It sucks, but that is the sad truth.
Sigh...
By divephotog at 2:03 AM ON 02/02/10
Shadow, get an education at a real school....
3mm of aluminum is more than enough to sheild against most of the radiation in the belt, and on polar escape orbits, even less is required, as the belts contentrate more along a plane with the equator.
Google 'getting a real education in college' and drop the farce. -kh
By Dave at 4:54 AM ON 02/02/10
It's hard to take seriously the writing of someone who supposedly knows something about NASA but thinks NASA invented Tang.
By Necronomic Forecast at 4:56 AM ON 02/02/10
Corporate space travel?
McMoon? iMoon? Urgh...
By JBHypno at 7:17 AM ON 02/02/10
Space travel is very important we need to expand. I want to walk on Mars. He most likely needed to pull the funding to help pay for the ark fleet when 2012 gets around. Giant boats are very expensive. However government space programs limit access to space for people like me who can't compete with MIT graduates. I think both types of programs are needed. Maybe I can be network administrator to the Mars colony.
By Aberzombie at 8:35 AM ON 02/02/10
We need NASA, but private industry also needs to be involved. While I disagree with most of President Obamas socialist agenda, I completely support most of his NASA policies (minus more wasteful global warming research). This may be exactly the opportunity commercial space travel has been waiting for.
By the owlbear at 10:16 AM ON 02/02/10
People need to quit quibbling over petty American politics and realize we're all ruled by one group of elite superrich families that pull all the strings. Politics is just a show so we are so concerned with little differences to know the real story. People from both parties meet with the Bilderbergers and at the Bohemian Grove. The election before last we had the choice of two Bonesmen for president.
By Kermonk at 10:31 AM ON 02/02/10
Well if Bush hadn't wasted all the money by incompetent spending, Obama wouldn't have had to clean up after him.
Grrrrrr Bush!
By SkyScott at 11:04 AM ON 02/02/10
We've been to the moon. We've sent robots to Mars.
Nasa should focus on a means of destroying or diverting meteors.
By MaryAnnMc at 11:15 AM ON 02/02/10
I can't believe this! We need to move forward with the space program, NOW!
The longer human habitation is confined to the earth, with no self-sustaining colonies elsewhere, the longer we are vulnerable to extinction from any number of events, including giant asteroids, supervolcanoes, or our old nemesis, global nulcear war.
Moving forward with going to the moon will advance space technology on a practical basis; there is nothing like practicing on a shorter term haul to get us ready to head for Mars and beyond.
Diverting a certain percentage of funds from quality of life now could save the entire human race in the future.
By Lindley at 12:03 PM ON 02/02/10
Anyone who thinks this is a bad decision clearly hasn't read up on the details. I left a comment full of links to NASA sources including Buzz Aldrin lauding the decision, but it doesn't appear to have made it through for some reason.
Constellation was an unsustainable project at the current funding levels. Bush gave NASA an objective, but not enough money to achieve it. The new plan increases NASA's budget---not enough to make Constellation viable, but some---and a mandate to meet smaller, attainable goals which nonetheless push our capabilities forward.
By frostygus at 12:04 PM ON 02/02/10
"... abandon the planet ..."?!! Even if we had a working space elevator (which we don't), the energy cost of boosting a human (never mind the food, air, and materials) into orbit (let alone to other planets) is ... well ... astronomical. Founding an off-planet colony is feasible, but evacuation is not (particularly when you consider how easy it is to manufacture new colonists on site :-)
By sparrowlord01 at 12:06 PM ON 02/02/10
Earth is a very small planet, with already dwindling resources. There is only so much room. As the human population keeps growing, and lifetimes continue to get longer, we will find ourselves out of room and resources faster than one would think. We are already putting a strain on the environment. Imagine what Earth will be like 100 years from now. Colonizing the moon and then Mars shold not be Optional. It should be Mandatory. People like to stick their heads in the sand and pretend problems don't exist, will go away, or are someone else's problems. This decision is both irresponsible and serves to show just how out of touch the current administration really is.
A few hundred years from now, people will be looking back across a barren and poisoned Earth, as the species dies, and will be vilifying the administrations who had a chance and dumped their responsibility in a close minded attempt to garner a few corporate electoral votes.
By MSgt at 1:29 PM ON 02/02/10
1. I wish we could cancel Obama's presidency now instead of having to wait three more years.
2. I am a huge supporter of the manned space program, and I believe it should continue.
3. We went to the moon.
4. Shadow is an idiot.
By mrmorocco at 3:20 PM ON 02/02/10
The President is frakkin the country with billions on useless spending (can we say stimulus?) and killing one of the only viable programs we have. The only reason he's canceling this program is not because of the money but because Bush proposed it. I wonder what the good Pres will be saying when the Chinese land there and create their own Moon Base Alpha. Oops, coulda had a V8....
By hermy at 5:03 PM ON 02/02/10
We forget the big reason we got to the moon in the first place was more about beating the soviets there than anything.and to honor a beloved presidents wish.I've met Gene Krantz he's a great guy..And it saddens him what could have been.All his political finger pointing most of you are doing is nuts.There more than enough blame to go around.They all piss away money we don't have.Bush did it.Obama's doing it.And if you live in the rust belt things are tough.I want all that stuff we read about in good sci-fi novels.But it takes money and to many people don't know if they will have a job in six months.
By tehb at 12:45 AM ON 02/03/10
I am sure that some time, maybe during another administration, when we have the money, moon missions will be authorized again. Its unfortunate that NASA missions are so long term (intentionally or not) because we all want to see great things quickly and in our lifetime. We have reasons to go to the moon besides pride, mining, etc. We can't just go earth to mars (well, not the smartest decision anyway). We need practice, and long term infrastructure already in space. The moon will come back with time. Sucks to see it put off as always.
By trekgeezer at 8:46 AM ON 02/03/10
NASA's budget is .8% of the federal budget. They spend more than that every year to build parking lots.
This is one of the most short sited decisions ever made.
By MisesFan at 12:40 PM ON 02/03/10
Hmm...I can't seem to find anything in the US Constitution that authorizes the federal government to fund space exploration.
By gewehre at 10:19 PM ON 02/03/10
Hey MisesFan,
can't find anything in the Constitution that say's I should pay for your health care. Hitler was elected by popular vote and he not only got national health care, he also got the Olympics. Too bad we have to wait until 2012 to get rid of this idiot.
Sociallism doesn't work and never has. The only hope and change I have seen is Hoping to change the current administration. Just hope it happens before this commie destroys this country. Yes, lets shut down the space program , then lets throw a bone to the unions by spending federal dollars for light rail in Florida. Coincedence, I don't think so. The problem with socialists is they are always running out of other peoples money.
And let's go back to the Constitution. The President can only sign or veto legislation. The economy was doing well until the democrats took control in both houses. Bush went six years without a single veto. You've been duped. Hope & change promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. How's that working for you. He promised the expansion of the manned space program.
At least I'm prepared when obama turns us into a third world nation.
Sorry about your luck.
By Gozer at 1:18 AM ON 02/04/10
^^ LOON
By KLD at 4:03 AM ON 02/04/10
I live in Florida, and my father worked at NASA while my brother later worked for Lockheed then United Space Alliance. I'm a fan of space travel, and it's a big thrill to see the shuttle launch. I can watch it from my backyard.
However, I have to agree with what Astronaut Buzz Aldrin recently said: "As an Apollo astronaut, I know the importance of always pushing new frontiers as we explore space," Aldrin said. "The truth is that we have already been to the moon—some 40 years ago. A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster is just what our nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century."
In addition, I think it should be mentioned that the Constellation project is over budget and behind schedule. So if the Constellation project is halted, the space agency will get more of a budget in 2010 (than originally planned with Constellation. And ss of 2011, NASA would receive an additional $6 billion over the next five years -- a grand total of a hundred billion dollars by 2015. I think these changes could actually benifit (and save NASA).
Last, to you Obama haters, please remember that the Augustine panel was put together to discuss all this and poresent its findings to the president, which it did. It's not like Obama has killed NASA; I think he's trying to save it. NASA needs an infusion of fresh blood and new ideas (and a new corporate culture wouldn't hurt either).
By islesfan at 6:07 PM ON 02/04/10
Maybe we could just send Obama to the Moon and save the space program? Then Obama, his telepromptr, and all of his apologists could wine about the Bush administration 24/7 and we wouldn't have to listen.
Obama to the Moon, and the economy to the stratosphere!
By Joe B. at 2:31 PM ON 02/06/10
Obama's a shortsighted jackass who is mortgaging the future of this country.
By Jim M. at 5:53 PM ON 02/07/10
If Obama and his other leftist crownies limit the space program, image what they will do to healthcare!! Ever see the movie John Q? Government run healthcare will be 1000x worse.
By Twospock at 7:02 AM ON 02/08/10
To those who doubt that men have walked on the moon: If the US government had faked it, why would the Soviet Union not have outed them? To suggest collusion between those two governments for the aggrandizement of the USA during the cold war seems rather ludicrous.
To those in favor of private enterprise taking over: I agree, markets often provide the most efficient solutions to problems. The limitation of markets though (as any economist can tell you) is that an incentive must be provided for markets to work. Cars, computers, and yes, even cable channels are created by markets because there are consumers to demand a supply of their services. However, there is very limited space consumerism, and what there is, is limited to earth orbit. The money to be made in space exploration (which is the heart of the matter) is either in spin off technologies, or in resources to be found elsewhere. However, the spin-off technologies are only profitable once a secondary use has been found for them, and resources found in space cannot be exclusively claimed (by international treaty to which the US is a signatory), which actually makes the economic incentive to be second, not first in space exploration (after someone else has sunk in discovery costs). This doesn't create an incentive for competition, which is what makes markets do what they do. Add to that the significant entrance cost to compete, and we have a very limited role for private enterprise. To get private competition in that direction, the government would have to offer significant boons, like they did in other large national projects, such as the intercontinental railroad.
To those who are concerned about our amassing debt, whomever you want to blame for it: The money is being spent anyway, just on different stuff. Even if they closed NASA's doors, it would only reduce the budgeted deficit between 1 and 2 percent.
To those concerned about jobs: thousands of people working in the field of space exploration will lose their jobs with the ending of the Shuttle and Constellation programs.
To the concern about the constitutionality of funding space exploration: Nope, not in the constitution, but neither is the authority to regulate air space through air traffic control. Still, I’m glad it’s done. It seems to me that one of the reasons the US government has endured has been due to its ability to adapt to technological changes. Further, the government has been funding “voyages of discovery” since it’s inception – take for example Lewis and Clark’s exploration of the northern Louisiana Territory. If the founders themselves saw this as part of the mission of a federal government, who am I to disagree?
To those who think this came out of nowhere: During the Democratic Primary Obama’s campaign promise for increasing education funding included redirecting NASA’s missions to the earth sciences. When he reached the general election, he did adjust his space policy to a grander one. With Florida being the largest swing state, and thousands of jobs about to go down the tubes, he really had little choice. But he’s now doing exactly what he promised to do from the beginning. While I disagree with this particular decision of his, certainly he should be lauded for keeping a campaign promise.
And finally, to those who talk of “abandoning the planet” after we’ve “used it up”: It is ridiculous to think that any environment will be better suited for us than the biosphere we evolved in (or was created for us if you prefer). While there are many reasons for people to live on other worlds, that it allows us to be short sighted and destructive on this one is probably the worst.
By the by – yay for MaryAnnMc taking the big(est) picture view.
By Twospock at 7:36 AM ON 02/08/10
And by "intercontinental" I meant "transcontinental".
woops.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Twospock:
And by "intercontinental" I meant "transcontinental". woops....More »