SPACE - Bush kind of got it - Obama truly visionary

[rdean]

Republicans howled when Obama shifted NASA direction from the "Bush" plan of landing on the moon, again, to research and development.

Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) called the proposal a "radical departure".
Is it ever a surprise when Republcians use the "radical" to describe anything this president does?
"It cancels all major existing human spaceflight programs ... and replaces all that with little more than a hope and a prayer that commercial providers will eventually pick up the slack," Vitter said.

IN FACT:

There was a six year gap between the last rocket based spaceflight and the first flight of the "winged" reusable space shuttle. (Space shuttle program started under Republican President Richard M. Nixon - much maligned and underrated president) So a "radical" shift at NASA is nothing new.

The 'new' NASA will look back at Earth - LiveScience- msnbc.com

WHAT IS OBAMA'S GOAL:

Shift space flight to the commercial sector. This has actually been a dream of Republcians in the past. Republican does it - good. Democrat does it - bad.

So how can space make money? Two obvious ways.

1. Tourism.

2. Development - a good example are "alloys".

Zero gravity crystal growth

TEXUS 47 carried a total of four experiments. An experiment by scientists from the University of Freiburg examined the growth of silicon crystals, a technologically important semiconductor. In normal Earth gravity, convection currents develop in the fluid in which the crystals grow. These currents are not present in zero gravity. This makes it possible to investigate the effects of other currents that do not depend on gravity. The researchers were therefore able to test new technical measures to influence these currents and the tests yielded information that will be of value in growing crystals on Earth.

The TRACE (Transparent Alloys for Columnar Equiaxed Solidification) materials science experiment, performed by the Aachen ACCESS research centre, investigated the processes and structures involved in the solidification of metallic alloys. This was done by investigating the behaviour of a mixture of organic substances that solidifies in a manner that is analogous to a liquid metal. The transparency of the organic ‘alloy’ made it possible to observe the solidification process directly. The experiment will yield data for improving industrial casting processes.

Zero gravity materials science and biology experiments | International Space Fellowship

--------------------------------------

And finally, NASA is pointing more of it's resources to understanding "Global Warming". Now Republcians call it a myth. Wouldn't they want to know once and for all?

Plus, the new Carbon Satellite could verify if other countries are "sticking to the treaty". If, say, China signs a deal for less emissions and then doesn't follow it, that becomes an unfair business advantage. Let's keep them honest.

********

Now, the White House has given the green light for a carbon copy to be flown, providing $170 million towards the effort in its proposed 2011 budget (pdf). "The good news in this budget is the president has decided that this is an important mission for both science and understanding our climate," NASA science chief Edward Weiler said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday. The replacement, called OCO-2, could fly as early as February 2013.

NASA satellite could pave way for policing CO2 emissions - space - 02 February 2010 - New Scientist

 

[Dr Gregg]

And low orbit flights across the world in 2 hours would be profitable. Problem still is stupid petroleum based energy source is too expensive.

I would go to outerspace in a hearbeat, or to the moon, if there were commercial flights (and I could afford it).

 

[slackjawed]

I am all for redirecting NASA towards those missions because that is both what has been recomended by our scientists, and all those missions appear valid.
I support science, and find it troubling when political agendas interfere with the study of science.
It is just too bad that large scale science missions have to be funded by governments, therefore they become political issues.
A mixture of politics and science conjures up shades of galileo and all that kind of stuff.
What rational person could be against the objective study of science?
(No, those senators and representitives have not proven themselves to be rational)

 

[rdean]

I am all for redirecting NASA towards those missions because that is both what has been recomended by our scientists, and all those missions appear valid.
I support science, and find it troubling when political agendas interfere with the study of science.
It is just too bad that large scale science missions have to be funded by governments, therefore they become political issues.
A mixture of politics and science conjures up shades of galileo and all that kind of stuff.
What rational person could be against the objective study of science?
(No, those senators and representitives have not proven themselves to be rational)

Even Obama has said some pretty dumb things when it comes to science. Don't ask me for an example, even though none comes to mind at the moment, I remember thinking "he can't be serious" more than once on some of his statements.

However, the good thing is that he leaves science to scientists. I have no problem with science being guided by ethics. Because you can make a two headed baby, should you? Of course not. As a problem, it may be interesting to solve, but morals say no and rightly so.

I always felt bad about Nixon. If he were just a little less paranoid, he would have been a great Republican president. Opening relations to China, keeping the USSR in check and starting the "space shuttle" program. The guy was really smart. At the same time, he was petty and that was his downfall. Unfortunately, he is only remembered for Watergate. Too bad Republicans today can't learn from his positives.

 

[eagleseven]

Obama thinks privatizing space is good?

Then why does he want to nationalize healthcare?

 

[Article 15]

Mars, bitches.

 

[goldcatt]

Mars, bitches.

Hell yeah!

I do have a problem with what Obama is doing with the space program. Reducing it to a few floating dual purpose labs and a mass transit system for the rich and famous, when we can and should be exploring the mysteries of the universe? Whatever happened to reaching for the stars? Some of you might say we can't afford it, but do you know how many private sector jobs were created by Gemini? Mercury? The Apollo program? And we have all that unspent stimulus money and all that repaid TARP money available to start...why not use it for something proven to work?

Mars, baby!

 

[eagleseven]

Mars, bitches.

NASA Budget:

1966 = 5.5% of Federal Budget

2010 = 0.52% of Federal Budget

TARP (Bank Bailout) = 24.1% of Federal Budget

Mars? At this rate? Not in our lifetime...

 

[rdean]

Mars, bitches.

NASA Budget:

1966 = 5.5% of Federal Budget

2010 = 0.52% of Federal Budget

TARP (Bank Bailout) = 24.1% of Federal Budget

Mars? At this rate? Not in our lifetime...

Tax cuts to the wealthy - 1.8 trillion. Cost of two wars? Who knows? They were never included in any Republican or presidential budget until the last year. What changed in the last year? Oh, that's right, a secretive president who isn't as transparent as the Republicans or the last president.

Hopefully, Obama will start bringing back science. Of course, after he takes care of two wars, the economy, health care and even the Katrina clean up.

If you are going to build a picture, build the entire picture.

 

[rdean]

Mars, bitches.

Hell yeah!

I do have a problem with what Obama is doing with the space program. Reducing it to a few floating dual purpose labs and a mass transit system for the rich and famous, when we can and should be exploring the mysteries of the universe? Whatever happened to reaching for the stars? Some of you might say we can't afford it, but do you know how many private sector jobs were created by Gemini? Mercury? The Apollo program? And we have all that unspent stimulus money and all that repaid TARP money available to start...why not use it for something proven to work?

Mars, baby!

Fortunately, that is exactly Obama's goal. Going back to the moon with twenty year old rockets for no clearly defined reason is NOT a step forward. Remember, the shuttles were developed starting with Nixon and there has been nothing new since.

We have to look at the space program as a "resource" that can help us go forward in science and technology. Spending all our money on moon trips using old technology is NOT the way.

Plus, do some investigation on zero gravity technology and you might be surprised.

 

[rdean]

Obama thinks privatizing space is good?

Then why does he want to nationalize healthcare?

So I just want to make sure I understand.

Health care companies made a 12 billion dollar profit last year and dropped 2.7 million Americans. The CEO of Cigna gave himself a 73 million dollar bonus. Rates went up by over 30%. The number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills.

Something needs to happen. Do you believe that or no? Insurance companies are just fine? Doing a great job? What about those 2.7 million? What about all the tens of millions of Americans who have no coverage? Should we just forget them? Why was nothing done during the last two terms?

Do Republicans really feel this way towards other Americans? Do they know a lot of those people hurting are Republicans?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Obama thinks privatizing space is good?

Then why does he want to nationalize healthcare?

Are you sying we should "Spacilize" health care?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Manned space flight to mars is DECADES off as much as I would LOVE to see us land on Mars it is NOT realistic, not by a LONG shot.

 

[goldcatt]

Mars, bitches.

Hell yeah!

I do have a problem with what Obama is doing with the space program. Reducing it to a few floating dual purpose labs and a mass transit system for the rich and famous, when we can and should be exploring the mysteries of the universe? Whatever happened to reaching for the stars? Some of you might say we can't afford it, but do you know how many private sector jobs were created by Gemini? Mercury? The Apollo program? And we have all that unspent stimulus money and all that repaid TARP money available to start...why not use it for something proven to work?

Mars, baby!

Fortunately, that is exactly Obama's goal. Going back to the moon with twenty year old rockets for no clearly defined reason is NOT a step forward. Remember, the shuttles were developed starting with Nixon and there has been nothing new since.

We have to look at the space program as a "resource" that can help us go forward in science and technology. Spending all our money on moon trips using old technology is NOT the way.

Plus, do some investigation on zero gravity technology and you might be surprised.

Canceling the Moon, cutting unmanned missions, and working on commercial low orbit flights with some dual use science labs is how we get to Mars?

This is a blueprint for two paths for the future: Commercialization of space, and militarization of space. There is nothing in this turning inward that prepares us for ever leaving low Earth orbit. And that is unacceptable.

Mars may be a long way off, but if we don't work toward it as a firm goal "a long way off" will be "never".

 

[Missourian]

 

[dilloduck]

I'll take the Bust for $100, Alex

 

[rdean]

Hell yeah!

I do have a problem with what Obama is doing with the space program. Reducing it to a few floating dual purpose labs and a mass transit system for the rich and famous, when we can and should be exploring the mysteries of the universe? Whatever happened to reaching for the stars? Some of you might say we can't afford it, but do you know how many private sector jobs were created by Gemini? Mercury? The Apollo program? And we have all that unspent stimulus money and all that repaid TARP money available to start...why not use it for something proven to work?

Mars, baby!

Fortunately, that is exactly Obama's goal. Going back to the moon with twenty year old rockets for no clearly defined reason is NOT a step forward. Remember, the shuttles were developed starting with Nixon and there has been nothing new since.

We have to look at the space program as a "resource" that can help us go forward in science and technology. Spending all our money on moon trips using old technology is NOT the way.

Plus, do some investigation on zero gravity technology and you might be surprised.

Canceling the Moon, cutting unmanned missions, and working on commercial low orbit flights with some dual use science labs is how we get to Mars?

This is a blueprint for two paths for the future: Commercialization of space, and militarization of space. There is nothing in this turning inward that prepares us for ever leaving low Earth orbit. And that is unacceptable.

Mars may be a long way off, but if we don't work toward it as a firm goal "a long way off" will be "never".

I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time, I'm wondering if you see the "big" picture.

As long as "NASA" goes it alone, the cost will be unsustainable. It's when we begin to exploit space as a "resource" and open it up to making money (the Republican mantra) that we will see innovation.

For instance. Alloys in low gravity. Imagine salad oil and vinegar. No matter how much you shake it, after two minutes, it separates. NOT in zero G. As long as they are in zero G, they will stay perfectly blended.

Now imagine taking two metals on earth that normally never combine because of gravity and creating an alloy that has high conductivity and low resistance or is especially strong and durable or resistant to chemicals. The metals can be melted, but as they solidify, gravity always causes them to separate at least some, and that could be enough to make it lose that quality.

Also, high end transistor silicon crystals are always purist when grown in zero G. We already know this.

And what is the potential or developing new drugs in zero G.

Imagine we put some big old factories up there and we need a way to get to them, do you think new rockets won't be developed? If we can find a profit up there, you will have companies throwing money to develop new rockets to make it happen.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll take the Bust for $100, Alex

That's just because you're a cheap bastard.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll take the Bust for $100, Alex

That's just because you're a cheap bastard.

I'm just starting with the easier categories and working my way up-----it's how the game is played...........What is 38 DD ?

 

[goldcatt]

I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time, I'm wondering if you see the "big" picture.

As long as "NASA" goes it alone, the cost will be unsustainable. It's when we begin to exploit space as a "resource" and open it up to making money (the Republican mantra) that we will see innovation.

For instance. Alloys in low gravity. Imagine salad oil and vinegar. No matter how much you shake it, after two minutes, it separates. NOT in zero G. As long as they are in zero G, they will stay perfectly blended.

Now imagine taking two metals on earth that normally never combine because of gravity and creating an alloy that has high conductivity and low resistance or is especially strong and durable or resistant to chemicals. The metals can be melted, but as they solidify, gravity always causes them to separate at least some, and that could be enough to make it lose that quality.

Also, high end transistor silicon crystals are always purist when grown in zero G. We already know this.

And what is the potential or developing new drugs in zero G.

Imagine we put some big old factories up there and we need a way to get to them, do you think new rockets won't be developed? If we can find a profit up there, you will have companies throwing money to develop new rockets to make it happen.

Sure. We'll get rockets designed to function only in low-Earth orbit, fueled by currently available chemical compounds, and manned by crews trained and equipped solely for short-haul space trucking. And at minimum half of those "factories" will be or harbor miltary installations.

You apparently have no concept of the difference between short haul low-Earth orbit flight and a Moon shot, let alone the engineering and technology required to solve the problems with interplanetary travel. Anyone who tells you this is the way to develop the space program for Mars is selling you beachfront property in Kansas.