Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Look this is not an issue of the President on a personal level it is this myth that has been used for years that NASA funding is somehow better used on earth. While in 1965 that may have been closer to the truth because there was no GPS, and we were not as a society almost completely dependent on space for our communication today it is simply not true. The same can be said for the moon, the moon while in 1969 when Armstrong set foot there was more a matter of national pride than it was of exploration by the tiime Apollo 17 came around it became a scientific mission and one of discovery. Today as our nations power needs get increasingly larger and I hear constantly how many want to create a "green economy" with domestic energy, then that supposes that we USE ALL resources to harness that energy including one of the leargest sources for future energy needs and yes people thats the moon. One of the reasons I pointed out on funding for High Speed rail is that it is taxpyer funded and that is the ONLY way in which it survives all you need to do to know that is look at any High Speed Rail project the world over. The jobs created by such a project come no where near what a project the size of the constellation program creates nor does it have ANY of the long term benefits. think for a moment all of you who are opposed to this, the Budget for NASA on this program represents a tiny fraction of healthcare so much so that if the Govt. just purchased smartly the entire project as well as healthcare could be funded. So this argument that we need the money here is a baseless one when you consider that NASA's budget is smaller than DOE's , DEA, DOD, HHS, and many many others.
Save money is fine but waste and redirect the resources to fake global warming
what a waste
It's more than a waste if you ask me. It's proof that Obama is INSANE.
It's the kind of thinking we'd expect from a petty despot, one who is so convinced that his own neurotic view of the world is right and true, he has no ability to recognize reality.
Honest to God... what sane person would assume that there's no essential difference between a bunch of astrophysicists and aero engineers as opposed to great bands of hippies taking weather readings?
To date, NASA has created something like 6300 patents. Going to the moon is NOT about going to the moon. It's about setting a goal that harnesses innovation. "Necessity is the mother of invention". By placing the goal posts just so, we discover worlds of technological advance on our path from A to B.
If the only purpose of human beings is to eat, sleep, and shit... we're not appreciably different as a species than cockroaches. But... this is the pessimism in which liberals spend their lives, never hoping for more or better.
Now I want some con who posts here to tell me what the difference is between GOVERNMENT-RUN space programs, which provide GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS to hire employees (still paid by us, folks), and a GOVERNMENT-RUN health care system, or any other government-sponsored program which you idiots blather incessently about. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
The difference between healthcare and space exploration?...
How many healthcare plans can you name that use weapons-grade materials? How many could rip holes in the planet's atmosphere or change the trajectories of orbiting bodies nearby? How many can drop a rocket into the heart of a city should they experience a failure?
What NASA does is sometimes dangerous. They use contractors, of course... but they oversee the work, and even though mistakes sometimes happen, I can't imagine what a free-for-all would look like in the private sector.
Okay as many seem to be under the impression that the Govt. can simply just ask a private company to handle all their launch needs for them. Lets look at the main contenders shall we.
The Falcon launch vehicle family is designed to provide breakthrough advances in reliability, cost, flight environment and time to launch. The primary design driver is and will remain reliability, as described in more detail below. We recognize that nothing is more important than getting our customer's spacecraft safely to its intended destination.
Like Falcon 1, Falcon 9 is a two stage, liquid oxygen and rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) powered launch vehicle. It uses the same engines, structural architecture (with a wider diameter), avionics and launch system.
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - Falcon 9
On Monday 7th December Virgin Galactic unveiled SpaceShipTwo to the world at Mojave Spaceport, California. 800 press, future astronauts and VIP guests gathered in the desert for a press conference and to view the roll out of the .
Welcome | Virgin Galactic
None of these two main contenders which by the way I fully support have anywhere near the capability to support the lifting capability that NASA will need to support the International Space Station for 10 to 15 years. None of these two companies have ANY heavy lift capability to provide on-orbit capability for modules or heavy needs of the ISS or near earth exploration. So that leaves three nations with that capability and those are Russia, China, and France. As we have the capability with the Delta series of rockets to continue with manned space flight this too has been set on the back burner. What we have done with this decision is basically for the next 20 years and beyond is "OUTSOURCE" another industry this one being or space industry to other nations. Call it Wal'Marting Space Exploration if you will and I was always under the impression that my friends on the democrat side were in facor of jobs, and domestic energy and scientific research.
Look this is not an issue of the President on a personal level it is this myth that has been used for years that NASA funding is somehow better used on earth. While in 1965 that may have been closer to the truth because there was no GPS, and we were not as a society almost completely dependent on space for our communication today it is simply not true. The same can be said for the moon, the moon while in 1969 when Armstrong set foot there was more a matter of national pride than it was of exploration by the tiime Apollo 17 came around it became a scientific mission and one of discovery. Today as our nations power needs get increasingly larger and I hear constantly how many want to create a "green economy" with domestic energy, then that supposes that we USE ALL resources to harness that energy including one of the leargest sources for future energy needs and yes people thats the moon. One of the reasons I pointed out on funding for High Speed rail is that it is taxpyer funded and that is the ONLY way in which it survives all you need to do to know that is look at any High Speed Rail project the world over. The jobs created by such a project come no where near what a project the size of the constellation program creates nor does it have ANY of the long term benefits. think for a moment all of you who are opposed to this, the Budget for NASA on this program represents a tiny fraction of healthcare so much so that if the Govt. just purchased smartly the entire project as well as healthcare could be funded. So this argument that we need the money here is a baseless one when you consider that NASA's budget is smaller than DOE's , DEA, DOD, HHS, and many many others.
It's truly intriguing how one expensive program where the outcome is an unknown is highly touted by the Republicans/conservatives/whatever, but hey, if it's a domestic program proposed by Democrats where the outcome is an unknown it's projected to be a disaster before it even begins.
say what you want about climate change, but I'm very concerned about global warming, concerned that it might not happen, had to shovel 11 inches of snow today, that's as much as we normally get in an entire winter
Okay as many seem to be under the impression that the Govt. can simply just ask a private company to handle all their launch needs for them. Lets look at the main contenders shall we.
The Falcon launch vehicle family is designed to provide breakthrough advances in reliability, cost, flight environment and time to launch. The primary design driver is and will remain reliability, as described in more detail below. We recognize that nothing is more important than getting our customer's spacecraft safely to its intended destination.
Like Falcon 1, Falcon 9 is a two stage, liquid oxygen and rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) powered launch vehicle. It uses the same engines, structural architecture (with a wider diameter), avionics and launch system.
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - Falcon 9
On Monday 7th December Virgin Galactic unveiled SpaceShipTwo to the world at Mojave Spaceport, California. 800 press, future astronauts and VIP guests gathered in the desert for a press conference and to view the roll out of the .
Welcome | Virgin Galactic
None of these two main contenders which by the way I fully support have anywhere near the capability to support the lifting capability that NASA will need to support the International Space Station for 10 to 15 years. None of these two companies have ANY heavy lift capability to provide on-orbit capability for modules or heavy needs of the ISS or near earth exploration. So that leaves three nations with that capability and those are Russia, China, and France. As we have the capability with the Delta series of rockets to continue with manned space flight this too has been set on the back burner. What we have done with this decision is basically for the next 20 years and beyond is "OUTSOURCE" another industry this one being or space industry to other nations. Call it Wal'Marting Space Exploration if you will and I was always under the impression that my friends on the democrat side were in facor of jobs, and domestic energy and scientific research.
May we assume you're somehow privy to all of the information gathered, both technical and financial, that led to these decisions? Or could it possibly be that you really do not, in fact, know EVERYTHING?
According to the director of the OMB this morning the reasoning behind it is so that NASA can concentrate on MARS missions. What I find interesting about that is, moon missions were a step in the learning process for manned Mars mission. Another thing that is interesting here is that Mars is many years if not a generation away perhaps two and the potential for energy sources on the moon is there. I said this in another post, I frankly am sad for young people because they will NEVER know the sense of pride as an Amercan citzen and what it feels like to watch one of their fellow citizens step foot on another body in our solar system. They will never be able to enjoy benefits from that discovery process and will for some time to come have to beg other nations in order to discover the world and the universe around them.
Look this is not an issue of the President on a personal level it is this myth that has been used for years that NASA funding is somehow better used on earth. While in 1965 that may have been closer to the truth because there was no GPS, and we were not as a society almost completely dependent on space for our communication today it is simply not true. The same can be said for the moon, the moon while in 1969 when Armstrong set foot there was more a matter of national pride than it was of exploration by the tiime Apollo 17 came around it became a scientific mission and one of discovery. Today as our nations power needs get increasingly larger and I hear constantly how many want to create a "green economy" with domestic energy, then that supposes that we USE ALL resources to harness that energy including one of the leargest sources for future energy needs and yes people thats the moon. One of the reasons I pointed out on funding for High Speed rail is that it is taxpyer funded and that is the ONLY way in which it survives all you need to do to know that is look at any High Speed Rail project the world over. The jobs created by such a project come no where near what a project the size of the constellation program creates nor does it have ANY of the long term benefits. think for a moment all of you who are opposed to this, the Budget for NASA on this program represents a tiny fraction of healthcare so much so that if the Govt. just purchased smartly the entire project as well as healthcare could be funded. So this argument that we need the money here is a baseless one when you consider that NASA's budget is smaller than DOE's , DEA, DOD, HHS, and many many others.
It's truly intriguing how one expensive program where the outcome is an unknown is highly touted by the Republicans/conservatives/whatever, but hey, if it's a domestic program proposed by Democrats where the outcome is an unknown it's projected to be a disaster before it even begins.
Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
John F. Kennedy (DEM)
Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
Maggie, your trying to compare a budget that is around 18 to 20 billion a year to say one that is around 200 to 250 billion a year. The smaller one is NASA's by the way Maggie. and there are many many benefits that this nation gets from NASA. In fact NASA is one of the few Govt. departments that has a proven track record for a return on it's investment. This talk of spending too much money on NASA is a non-starter, did you know last year that 17 billion was about how much the President was proposing making Medicaid cuts and what about Medicare cuts 450 billion or so, thas a heck of a lot more than NASA. It's just unrealistic to say we spend too much money on NASA when we can come up with millions to build tunnels for turtles and homes for mice and study gas emissions from the back end of cows.
Okay as many seem to be under the impression that the Govt. can simply just ask a private company to handle all their launch needs for them. Lets look at the main contenders shall we.
The Falcon launch vehicle family is designed to provide breakthrough advances in reliability, cost, flight environment and time to launch. The primary design driver is and will remain reliability, as described in more detail below. We recognize that nothing is more important than getting our customer's spacecraft safely to its intended destination.
Like Falcon 1, Falcon 9 is a two stage, liquid oxygen and rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) powered launch vehicle. It uses the same engines, structural architecture (with a wider diameter), avionics and launch system.
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - Falcon 9
On Monday 7th December Virgin Galactic unveiled SpaceShipTwo to the world at Mojave Spaceport, California. 800 press, future astronauts and VIP guests gathered in the desert for a press conference and to view the roll out of the .
Welcome | Virgin Galactic
None of these two main contenders which by the way I fully support have anywhere near the capability to support the lifting capability that NASA will need to support the International Space Station for 10 to 15 years. None of these two companies have ANY heavy lift capability to provide on-orbit capability for modules or heavy needs of the ISS or near earth exploration. So that leaves three nations with that capability and those are Russia, China, and France. As we have the capability with the Delta series of rockets to continue with manned space flight this too has been set on the back burner. What we have done with this decision is basically for the next 20 years and beyond is "OUTSOURCE" another industry this one being or space industry to other nations. Call it Wal'Marting Space Exploration if you will and I was always under the impression that my friends on the democrat side were in facor of jobs, and domestic energy and scientific research.
May we assume you're somehow privy to all of the information gathered, both technical and financial, that led to these decisions? Or could it possibly be that you really do not, in fact, know EVERYTHING?
I know a little about NASA yes Maggie and also know the state of private space ventures in this nation as well. It doesn't take much when you know these things to understand that to base your findings on an over reliance of private ventures to reason that they have little capability to support the needs of NASA at the moment. I never assumed to know everything in this matter, however I do know that having to rely on other nations for our space needs is a matter of keen national interest that most can understand.
The irony is that in discussing global warming on this board over the past several months, I personally have strongly defended NASA for the reasons you stated. And guess what...I was constantly met by a barrage of arguments against mine which was indeed that the space program resulted in a myriad of scientific, technical and even pharmaceutical revelations that would not have been possible, and that much of that valuable information brought thousands of private sector businesses into being. My attempt to draw a correlation to a large government sponsored green energy program was met with the wrath of the right wingers. So now suddenly everyone suddenly agrees that NASA has done great things other than just flying off into space and ya'll LOVE NASA. Go figure. Nah, it figures...why am I not surprised.
It's truly intriguing how one expensive program where the outcome is an unknown is highly touted by the Republicans/conservatives/whatever, but hey, if it's a domestic program proposed by Democrats where the outcome is an unknown it's projected to be a disaster before it even begins.
Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
John F. Kennedy (DEM)
Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
Maggie, your trying to compare a budget that is around 18 to 20 billion a year to say one that is around 200 to 250 billion a year. The smaller one is NASA's by the way Maggie. and there are many many benefits that this nation gets from NASA. In fact NASA is one of the few Govt. departments that has a proven track record for a return on it's investment. This talk of spending too much money on NASA is a non-starter, did you know last year that 17 billion was about how much the President was proposing making Medicaid cuts and what about Medicare cuts 450 billion or so, thas a heck of a lot more than NASA. It's just unrealistic to say we spend too much money on NASA when we can come up with millions to build tunnels for turtles and homes for mice and study gas emissions from the back end of cows.
Nevermind, Navy. With that comment, you've also shown that you only read and acknowledge what suits the right-wing agenda. And by the way, the NASA program is NOT going to be cut in its entirety, or did you choose to ignore that linked facts I provided earlier on in this thread.
The People don't want more spending on his Global Warming scam. There is already enough World-Wide Government spending on their Global Warming scam. Lets get to the Moon and Mars. If you're gonna spend our tax dollars on NASA then spend it on something the people want. We don't need more funds being diverted to studying Climate. NASA already has several programs doing this. This President just seems so arrogant at this point. He does not listen to the People.
The Artic, the Navys new battlefield!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy will soon have a new battlefield on its hands. Climate changes near the North Pole have been dramatic. The amount of summertime ice has decreased by half over the past 50 years. The ice is also 50 percent thinner, resulting in greater seasonal variations.
The Arctic is changing, and it is changing rapidly, said Rear Adm. David Titley, oceanographer of the Navy. If the Navy does not start looking at this today we could wake up in seven or eight years and find ourselves way behind the power curve.
Navy: Time is now to prepare for ice-free Arctic - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times
I'm going to reserve comment on this issue only because it it's hard to know what to think on this one. While it's prudent to cover open ocean , especially in the Artic , I have to wonder how much of this is motivated by the new "clean and green" science push.
The irony is that in discussing global warming on this board over the past several months, I personally have strongly defended NASA for the reasons you stated. And guess what...I was constantly met by a barrage of arguments against mine which was indeed that the space program resulted in a myriad of scientific, technical and even pharmaceutical revelations that would not have been possible, and that much of that valuable information brought thousands of private sector businesses into being. My attempt to draw a correlation to a large government sponsored green energy program was met with the wrath of the right wingers. So now suddenly everyone suddenly agrees that NASA has done great things other than just flying off into space and ya'll LOVE NASA. Go figure. Nah, it figures...why am I not surprised.
Honestly Maggie, not in anyways facetious... I have NO CLUE as to what you're talking about. If there were discussions about "green energy", I'm not privy to them. I only keep up with a couple of threads a day, and usually here in the politics section.
What I'm saying is that it's Napoleon-Insane-Crazy for Obama to just redirect NASA any which way he pleases as if all scientific disciplines were interchangeable. If he wants to set up a separate agency geared toward "green energy"... that's a whole different thing than just redirecting an existing one. Next thing he'll set the U.S. Postal Service to curing cancer. Makes as much sense.
If he wants a "green energy" agency... he can take it up with Congress.
The irony is that in discussing global warming on this board over the past several months, I personally have strongly defended NASA for the reasons you stated. And guess what...I was constantly met by a barrage of arguments against mine which was indeed that the space program resulted in a myriad of scientific, technical and even pharmaceutical revelations that would not have been possible, and that much of that valuable information brought thousands of private sector businesses into being. My attempt to draw a correlation to a large government sponsored green energy program was met with the wrath of the right wingers. So now suddenly everyone suddenly agrees that NASA has done great things other than just flying off into space and ya'll LOVE NASA. Go figure. Nah, it figures...why am I not surprised.
Honestly Maggie, not in anyways facetious... I have NO CLUE as to what you're talking about. If there were discussions about "green energy", I'm not privy to them. I only keep up with a couple of threads a day, and usually here in the politics section.
What I'm saying is that it's Napoleon-Insane-Crazy for Obama to just redirect NASA any which way he pleases as if all scientific disciplines were interchangeable. If he wants to set up a separate agency geared toward "green energy"... that's a whole different thing than just redirecting an existing one. Next thing he'll set the U.S. Postal Service to curing cancer. Makes as much sense.
If he wants a "green energy" agency... he can take it up with Congress.
He already has, to which of course all Republicans/Conservatives/righties just-say-no (except of course to offshore drilling and nuclear power plants).
My response above was in fact agreeing with your analysis about the space program's offshoots and ventures into other scientific arenas.
The point (analogy) referred to had nothing to do with what YOU said, but what has previously been discussed on this board. Maybe I wasn't clear. In an attempt to defend government-sponsored subsidies for alternative energy projects, some calling for another Apollo type commitment, I have attempted to show where large and costly programs like that eventually result in even bigger payoffs by generating business in the private sector. But that when I made the argument that an Apollo-type commitment dedicated to alternative energy would have the same results, I would get smacked down by the very people (not you) that it would never happen with a big energy program. Why not?
The larger point, of course, is the hypocrisy of the points of view:
Multi-billion space project = good
Mullti-billion alternative energy project = bad
BOTH achieve the same results for the private sector.
... but I'd rather see it spent here than in some sheik's pocket.
Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
John F. Kennedy (DEM)
Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
Maggie, your trying to compare a budget that is around 18 to 20 billion a year to say one that is around 200 to 250 billion a year. The smaller one is NASA's by the way Maggie. and there are many many benefits that this nation gets from NASA. In fact NASA is one of the few Govt. departments that has a proven track record for a return on it's investment. This talk of spending too much money on NASA is a non-starter, did you know last year that 17 billion was about how much the President was proposing making Medicaid cuts and what about Medicare cuts 450 billion or so, thas a heck of a lot more than NASA. It's just unrealistic to say we spend too much money on NASA when we can come up with millions to build tunnels for turtles and homes for mice and study gas emissions from the back end of cows.
Nevermind, Navy. With that comment, you've also shown that you only read and acknowledge what suits the right-wing agenda. And by the way, the NASA program is NOT going to be cut in its entirety, or did you choose to ignore that linked facts I provided earlier on in this thread.
Maggie in all that I posted including John F. Kennedys comments about space , it was YOU who made the choice to see my postings as somehow meaning that NASA is going to be cut completely or in your words in its entirety. I was under the impression that we were talking about the Constellation program, and NASA's intention to return to the moon were we not? Further I was also led to believe by many on here yourself included that NASA's money in it's budget was better spent on projects here on earth your previous post comes to mind. The point of my post was to show you that NASAs budget is quite small compared to the programs that people are citing as reasons that need attention and as a justification for cutting the Constellation program. Now as for your contention on what you posted earlier in this thread, I addressed that issue with the two largest providers of private rockets to show you the fallacy in the reasoning behind the Presidents decision. As these companies have no where near the lifting capability of NASA or the ability to even put a human in orbit at the moment then that will leave a window that will need to be filled elsewhere when the Shuttle retires this year and that window will be filled by China, Russia, or perhaps France. One other thing you did not repsond too, there is a good reason for going to the moon and I find it interesting that you would advocate research on energy soilutions and yet choose to ignore the possiblity of perhaps one of the largest sources of energy and thats the moon.
The People don't want more spending on his Global Warming scam. There is already enough World-Wide Government spending on their Global Warming scam. Lets get to the Moon and Mars. If you're gonna spend our tax dollars on NASA then spend it on something the people want. We don't need more funds being diverted to studying Climate. NASA already has several programs doing this. This President just seems so arrogant at this point. He does not listen to the People.
