President Obama's "Space Experiment".

[Sallow]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

For destroying America's lead in space alone is reason enough for me to NEVER vote for Obama or even consider him. It's the one department within the entire government outside of defense that should be funded...Much of the advancement within satellite, computers, cell phones and gds as you said were derived from space exploration as you noted. Humanity must advance and we're at our best when we do!

We have been going backwards since 1970. It is sicking and sad to see this...Disgusting. We need to get out of the middle east and cut the defense budget a few hundred trillion-- so we can have a real space program.

 

[Sallow]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

For destroying America's lead in space alone is reason enough for me to NEVER vote for Obama or even consider him. It's the one department within the entire government outside of defense that should be funded...Much of the advancement within satellite, computers, cell phones and gds as you said were derived from space exploration as you noted. Humanity must advance and we're at our best when we do!

We have been going backwards since 1970. It is sicking and sad to see this...Disgusting. We need to get out of the middle east and cut the defense budget a few hundred trillion-- so we can have a real space program.

Most Republicans do not agree with you. In any case..President Obama cannot fund the program with executive orders. And putting out a challenge to private industry was a smart way to illustrate exactly what you point out. That the government needs to take the lead in space.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

For destroying America's lead in space alone is reason enough for me to NEVER vote for Obama or even consider him. It's the one department within the entire government outside of defense that should be funded...Much of the advancement within satellite, computers, cell phones and gds as you said were derived from space exploration as you noted. Humanity must advance and we're at our best when we do!

We have been going backwards since 1970. It is sicking and sad to see this...Disgusting. We need to get out of the middle east and cut the defense budget a few hundred trillion-- so we can have a real space program.

Most Republicans do not agree with you. In any case..President Obama cannot fund the program with executive orders. And putting out a challenge to private industry was a smart way to illustrate exactly what you point out. That the government needs to take the lead in space.

This we agree on...The resources of space are never ending,,,so theres a place for private corperations once the government puts us into space, but We got to get a foot hold in space...A foot hold on the moon and mars should be our first goals. Theres a 1,000,000,0000,000,000,000 times more resources off earth then on. For that alone and the fact that we don't want to stay on one planet for good reasons are good enough reasons.

Somethings the government needs to lead.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Space Experiment? Are you talking about that vast dark empty space between his two ears?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

For destroying America's lead in space alone is reason enough for me to NEVER vote for Obama or even consider him. It's the one department within the entire government outside of defense that should be funded...Much of the advancement within satellite, computers, cell phones and gds as you said were derived from space exploration as you noted. Humanity must advance and we're at our best when we do!

We have been going backwards since 1970. It is sicking and sad to see this...Disgusting. We need to get out of the middle east and cut the defense budget a few hundred trillion-- so we can have a real space program.

Most Republicans do not agree with you. In any case..President Obama cannot fund the program with executive orders. And putting out a challenge to private industry was a smart way to illustrate exactly what you point out. That the government needs to take the lead in space.

That is not why he did it. He gutted the program so he could shift money to pet projects. But you are right about one thing, a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle fail to understand the importance and need for a space program.

If the couple ventures for near space flight travel go well there is still some hope that someone in the private sector will grasp the potential of space flight and its reward.

 

[Sallow]

Space Experiment? Are you talking about that vast dark empty space between his two ears?

Okay..that was funny.

 

[Sallow]

For destroying America's lead in space alone is reason enough for me to NEVER vote for Obama or even consider him. It's the one department within the entire government outside of defense that should be funded...Much of the advancement within satellite, computers, cell phones and gds as you said were derived from space exploration as you noted. Humanity must advance and we're at our best when we do!

We have been going backwards since 1970. It is sicking and sad to see this...Disgusting. We need to get out of the middle east and cut the defense budget a few hundred trillion-- so we can have a real space program.

Most Republicans do not agree with you. In any case..President Obama cannot fund the program with executive orders. And putting out a challenge to private industry was a smart way to illustrate exactly what you point out. That the government needs to take the lead in space.

That is not why he did it. He gutted the program so he could shift money to pet projects. But you are right about one thing, a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle fail to understand the importance and need for a space program.

If the couple ventures for near space flight travel go well there is still some hope that someone in the private sector will grasp the potential of space flight and its reward.

They won't. There isn't a quick buck in it. Space is a risky and long term commitment.

 

[midcan5]

This is one area in which I have mixed concerns or even considerations. Going up into space gives us what exactly? Hubble was amazing and that seemed valuable, but sending people up there reminds me of when the rich went to the shore or the mountains to escape the heat and crowded city. Our bridges are falling down, our inner city schools are a wreak, our museums need work, and more than anything else our education system needs values. Space seems uninteresting. And when you get into particle physics there's no need to go up just look down.

As for private business doing anything, that was always a joke and a dream of libertarian types. All the great accomplishments of this country came from people and from government. Research in America has taken a back seat as money wants the stock to rise the hell with how. Consider Bell Labs as an example, today Bell labs is in China. JFK sent us to the moon and it was about the cold war and sputnik, time we all woke up to take care of the earth and the place we walk on.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

PS I do like my titanium bicycle, I read that was developed during the space program. Join us all in the value conflict. Healthy children or rocket ships.

 

[Sallow]

This is one area in which I have mixed concerns or even considerations. Going up into space gives us what exactly? Hubble was amazing and that seemed valuable, but sending people up there reminds me of when the rich went to the shore or the mountains to escape the heat and crowded city. Our bridges are falling down, our inner city schools are a wreak, our museums need work, and more than anything else our education system needs values. Space seems uninteresting. And when you get into particle physics there's no need to go up just look down.

As for private business doing anything, that was always a joke and a dream of libertarian types. All the great accomplishments of this country came from people and from government. research in America has taken a back seat as money wants the stock to rise the hell with how. Consider Bell Labs as an example, today Bell labs is in China. JFK sent us to the moon and it was about the cold war and sputnik, time we all woke up to taken care of the earth and place we walk on.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

PS I do like my titanium bicycle, I read that was developed during the space program. Join us all in the mental conflict. Healthy children or rocket ships.

I think we can have both..if we take invading other nations out of the equation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is one area in which I have mixed concerns or even considerations. Going up into space gives us what exactly? Hubble was amazing and that seemed valuable, but sending people up there reminds me of when the rich went to the shore or the mountains to escape the heat and crowded city. Our bridges are falling down, our inner city schools are a wreak, our museums need work, and more than anything else our education system needs values. Space seems uninteresting. And when you get into particle physics there's no need to go up just look down.

As for private business doing anything, that was always a joke and a dream of libertarian types. All the great accomplishments of this country came from people and from government. research in America has taken a back seat as money wants the stock to rise the hell with how. Consider Bell Labs as an example, today Bell labs is in China. JFK sent us to the moon and it was about the cold war and sputnik, time we all woke up to taken care of the earth and place we walk on.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

PS I do like my titanium bicycle, I read that was developed during the space program. Join us all in the mental conflict. Healthy children or rocket ships.

Well if we lead in space exploration and we get to Mars first we can get access to that free parking spot on Mars.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Considering two things
1# That outter space has god knows how many times more resources then the earth....You on the left talk about how we're using up our resources, but if that's so, then why not go after all that? You talk about bettering peoples lifes here on earth, but with the resources of space, we will have more for people...This will raise living standards for all as our wealth and our resources shot through the roof.
2# One Asteriod can wipe up humanity...If we have humans not just on earth, but on the moon and mars. Our chances improve. I heard we only have the budget to cover 5 percent of the sky for asteroids, so the odds aren't good.

 

[Sallow]

Considering two things
1# That outter space has god knows how many times more resources then the earth....You on the left talk about how we're using up our resources, but if that's so, then why not go after all that? You talk about bettering peoples lifes here on earth, but with the resources of space, we will have more for people...This will raise living standards for all as our wealth and our resources shot through the roof.
2# One Asteriod can wipe up humanity...If we have humans not just on earth, but on the moon and mars. Our chances improve. I heard we only have the budget to cover 5 percent of the sky for asteroids, so the odds aren't good.

Those things..and given the population and resources on Earth..we may want to start thinking about "Terraforming" "Dead" planets. Mars seems like a natural choice.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Considering two things
1# That outter space has god knows how many times more resources then the earth....You on the left talk about how we're using up our resources, but if that's so, then why not go after all that? You talk about bettering peoples lifes here on earth, but with the resources of space, we will have more for people...This will raise living standards for all as our wealth and our resources shot through the roof.
2# One Asteriod can wipe up humanity...If we have humans not just on earth, but on the moon and mars. Our chances improve. I heard we only have the budget to cover 5 percent of the sky for asteroids, so the odds aren't good.

Those things..and given the population and resources on Earth..we may want to start thinking about "Terraforming" "Dead" planets. Mars seems like a natural choice.

Wouldn't Mars be a little on the cold side even during it "summer season"?

 

[Sallow]

Considering two things
1# That outter space has god knows how many times more resources then the earth....You on the left talk about how we're using up our resources, but if that's so, then why not go after all that? You talk about bettering peoples lifes here on earth, but with the resources of space, we will have more for people...This will raise living standards for all as our wealth and our resources shot through the roof.
2# One Asteriod can wipe up humanity...If we have humans not just on earth, but on the moon and mars. Our chances improve. I heard we only have the budget to cover 5 percent of the sky for asteroids, so the odds aren't good.

Those things..and given the population and resources on Earth..we may want to start thinking about "Terraforming" "Dead" planets. Mars seems like a natural choice.

Wouldn't Mars be a little on the cold side even during it "summer season"?

It has a very thin atmosphere. Temperature would change once a more "viable" atmosphere was established.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those things..and given the population and resources on Earth..we may want to start thinking about "Terraforming" "Dead" planets. Mars seems like a natural choice.

Wouldn't Mars be a little on the cold side even during it "summer season"?

It has a very thin atmosphere. Temperature would change once a more "viable" atmosphere was established.

That would take a lot of money to even make it a workable solution. Maybe we could use Mars as a jumping point closer to a earth class planets in one of the closer galaxies?

 

[Conservative]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

For the most part, I agree. However, there is a private company who will be testing it's transport system by docking with the ISS in a few months. If successful, we will not need the Russians quite as much for sending crew and supplies.

 

[occupied]

Has anyone mentioned that the shuttle fleet was going to either retire or blow up? They were never meant to last that long. Their retirement was delayed at least twice while contractors dragged their feet on a replacement and still are, it is an Apollo type capsule for Christ's sake. Blame it on Obama if you like but the reality is that the MIC was making too much money from the shuttle and had no interest in the less costly system planned to replace it, by the time the MIC is done we will have a system that costs more.

 

[editec]

NASA is a wonderful example of WPA style work.

I approve of it and think we ought to do more of this kind of thing than we do nation building.

We really do have enough money, we just spend it foolishly.

Much of the waste is pork, some of it is just midguided social spending.

 

[Sallow]

Initially I thought President Obama's "deconstruction" of the Space Program was wrong minded...but I could be wrong. Because he invited private industry to take up the challenge of exploiting space.

Several years later and what? Aside from a few "vanity" projects, private industry has done very little. And it's not that they do not profit from space exploration, indeed, government satellites have given rise to the cell phone industry and gps. There is plenty of tech available for private industry to grow on but they haven't. Why? ROI. It's a very risky venture..and the private sector loathes risk. They do not innovate. They build on what others have created. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are prime examples of this.

So, while other countries are now entering the 'space race' and America looks to the private sector to do "something"...we can watch and wait as the "captains of industry" do nothing. Because generally..if it's not a "sure thing" then the private sector wants nothing to do with it.

For the most part, I agree. However, there is a private company who will be testing it's transport system by docking with the ISS in a few months. If successful, we will not need the Russians quite as much for sending crew and supplies.

THAT..would be cool.