SPACE - Bush kind of got it - Obama truly visionary

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama thinks privatizing space is good?

Then why does he want to nationalize healthcare?

Post of the Week!!

 

[Charles Stucker]

Obama's plan is Half a good plan, ask the poeple at NASA.

 

[rdean]

The 6% of scientists that are Republican aren't going to waste their meager talents at "NASA". They have ID to study.

I'll explain this very slowly and carefully so even you can understand, rdean.

What you're proposing is that the US Government, through NASA, bleed billions of dlollars and years of valuable time into developing and perfecting low-orbit space flight, orbital labs (ISS, anyone?) and orbiting manufacturing facilities for commercial applications. Applications, I might add, which do nothing to advance technology necessary for use in Solar System exploration.

Then, after spending the time and money on these ventures, we are to turn them over to private entities so they can build burger bars in space. Oh yeah, and use all that low overhead of an orbital factory to make things like prescription drugs and silicon crystals. Since of course we all know transportation expenses and the exorbitant salaries space workers would no doubt demand would lead to an affordable, competitive, profitable alternative to what is on the market today.

A small handful of private companies are at the stage where they can launch a satellite. A very few others are already working on experimental low-orbit commuter planes. We should just take all the R&D out of their hands, spend the money from the US Treasury, THEN turn it back over to them to make their profits while we turn our attention and billions more to Mars.

I'm all for spending the money on the space program, but why do it twice and privatize any returns - assuming private concerns would even be capable and interested in taking it over when and if the time finally comes? If they are and somehow do make a profit, what on Earth or out of it will be an incentive to them to pour the money into any new technologies when these things can all be serviced by the old?

Never mind the perennial internal feud over the balance between scientific, commercial and military uses for NASA. The military uses of NASA are operated out of a different, hidden part of the budget and are of course classified, nobody in the general public knows the full extent of what is being done, when or how. It may be little, it may be a lot. But this blueprint going forward makes it very easy for the military to get a permanent foothold in orbit. And militarizing space is a whole other topic, but the short answer is it's a very, very bad idea.

rdean, I can't believe you of all people are advocating privatizing and militarizing space simply because it came from this Administration. Another Apollo is what we need now, for the jobs it creates as well as the science it generates. Mars!

The problem here is that you are explaining something from another planet. The idea is to take us out of low orbit space flight, not entrench us in it.

What do those at NASA say? Doesn't their opinion mean anything?

 

[rdean]

Obama's plan is Half a good plan, ask the poeple at NASA.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the link you posted. Could you re-post it please?

 

[rdean]

Obama thinks privatizing space is good?

Then why does he want to nationalize healthcare?

Post of the Week!!

If that post were true, it would be a good one.

 

[goldcatt]

The problem here is that you are explaining something from another planet. The idea is to take us out of low orbit space flight, not entrench us in it.

What do those at NASA say? Doesn't their opinion mean anything?

Then where is the current funding to develop technologies suitable for interplanetary travel? Where is the commitment to a Moon shot or interplanetary manned or even unmanned flight program?

And if you know anything about the politics of the space program, you know NASA says pretty much what it's told to say. Go with the program or lose funding almost completely, especially in a bad economy. Survive and adapt. When instead they should be pouring their stimulus into a tried and true method of creating good private sector jobs with the added benefit of the science and the intangibles.

Want to keep our schoolkids uninterested in math and science and turning out ten times the number of MBA's we could ever possibly use? Tell them selling space plane tickets is more important than walking on Mars. That oughta do it.

We need another JFK. Hell at this point I'd even take a Nixon.

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

Tarp, that was Bush. Stimulas was Obama.

 

[del]

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...

Tarp, that was Bush. Stimulas was Obama.

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush

it's all buuuuuuuuuuuuuush's fault.

 

[rdean]

The problem here is that you are explaining something from another planet. The idea is to take us out of low orbit space flight, not entrench us in it.

What do those at NASA say? Doesn't their opinion mean anything?

Then where is the current funding to develop technologies suitable for interplanetary travel? Where is the commitment to a Moon shot or interplanetary manned or even unmanned flight program?

And if you know anything about the politics of the space program, you know NASA says pretty much what it's told to say. Go with the program or lose funding almost completely, especially in a bad economy. Survive and adapt. When instead they should be pouring their stimulus into a tried and true method of creating good private sector jobs with the added benefit of the science and the intangibles.

Want to keep our schoolkids uninterested in math and science and turning out ten times the number of MBA's we could ever possibly use? Tell them selling space plane tickets is more important than walking on Mars. That oughta do it.

We need another JFK. Hell at this point I'd even take a Nixon.

Just so I understand. Funds for NASA are limited. It costs billions to go to the moon and back, something we have already done many times. Instead of using that money for development, you want to spend billions to go to the moon, again using the same technology we have now.

So, what do we get out of doing the same thing over and over again and doing nothing new? If we can develop new methods of propulsion, the first place we'll go to is the moon.

 

[Bred]

The space shuttles are nearly out of service aren't they?

 

[slackjawed]

The space shuttles are nearly out of service aren't they?

It appears to be the case. Perhaps we can pick one up at a government surplus auction for pennies on the dollar and go into business.

The local HS here applied for a space suit, still waiting to here if they will get it.

NASA put out a notice a few months back to schools for such items to be given away to schools to put on display.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Do you mean we could have gone to Mars for what it cost to go to Iraq?

 

[rdean]

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.

Do you mean we could have gone to Mars for what it cost to go to Iraq?

We could have, but instead, we wanted to make a "friend" in the Middle East. How well did that work out?

 

[rdean]

The problem here is that you are explaining something from another planet. The idea is to take us out of low orbit space flight, not entrench us in it.

What do those at NASA say? Doesn't their opinion mean anything?

Then where is the current funding to develop technologies suitable for interplanetary travel? Where is the commitment to a Moon shot or interplanetary manned or even unmanned flight program?

And if you know anything about the politics of the space program, you know NASA says pretty much what it's told to say. Go with the program or lose funding almost completely, especially in a bad economy. Survive and adapt. When instead they should be pouring their stimulus into a tried and true method of creating good private sector jobs with the added benefit of the science and the intangibles.

Want to keep our schoolkids uninterested in math and science and turning out ten times the number of MBA's we could ever possibly use? Tell them selling space plane tickets is more important than walking on Mars. That oughta do it.

We need another JFK. Hell at this point I'd even take a Nixon.

It hasn't stopped.

Discovering water on the moon.

Finding out what Comets are made of.

Robots on Mars.

Robot Excursions to the outer planets.

Fixing the Hubble.

New Space Telescope.

It's all still going on. But newspapers would rather report that Republicans call Obama names.