# Obama aims to ax the moon mission



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 27, 2010)

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/...0,2770904.story

BOO!!!

And what will the moon mission be replaced with?



> In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects - *principally, researching and monitoring climate change *- and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.


As if we don't have enough of that already.



> "We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one administration official.


Oh, yeah. Just let the Chinese get the jump on all the Helium-3 about the time they develop fusion reactors (hopefully).

What a far sighted bunch. I hope congress keeps the Moon mission alive.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jan 27, 2010)

Maybe it's total pork, but I support the space program intiatives. I think there are valuable things to be learned from it.

There's already enough climate change crap going on to appease the tree fuckers.


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 27, 2010)

VTEnviro said:


> Maybe it's total pork, but I support the space program intiatives. I think there are valuable things to be learned from it.
> There's already enough climate change crap going on to appease the tree fuckers.


Are there only tree of them? I thought it was more.


----------



## Wolverine (Jan 27, 2010)

Forget about:







[SIZE=12pt]This is what will inspire America's next generation of scientists:[/SIZE]


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 27, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Forget about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm soooo stealing that. Good one!


----------



## MGX (Jan 27, 2010)

NASA may be total pork, but space kicks ass so I'm OK with it.

Who wants to explore asteroids? Spinning chunks of iron through space isn't exciting at all. Exploring Mars would be sweet however.


----------



## ElCid03 (Jan 27, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Forget about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MGX (Jan 27, 2010)

Many don't know it but the Japanese committed atrocities just as the Germans during WWII. However the Japanese atrocities were more sadistic and cruel,but in exchange for the medical information derived from their torture and abuse of the Chinese we ( USA ) turned a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence of the war crimes.

Virtually no one gives a crap about the Chinese killed by the Japanese, nor the gypsies, homosexuals and political prisoners (Communists) killed by the Nazis. Everyone only remembers the Jews that were slain and forgets everyone else who lost their lives.

So in short, war crimes can be forgiven if you commit them to attain some useful end such as medicine or rocket science.


----------



## cement (Jan 27, 2010)

> In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — *principally, researching and monitoring climate change* — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.


 uke:


----------



## Dleg (Jan 27, 2010)

I would agree to anything reducing lavish spending at this point... but please don't re-direct NASA to climate change. What a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 28, 2010)

When I worked in air-to-air missiles, my supervisor told me he started his gov career at NASA under von Braun. He said the guy was pretty sharp. Turns out the SS thing was a prerequisite to do what he wanted (rocket research) and he realized he got in bed with the devil too late.

I guess it goes back to the 'iI was just following orders' lines the nazis gave at Nuremburg.

I read von Braun's autobiography, and it was pretty interesting.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jan 28, 2010)

^Nazi apologist.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 28, 2010)

FLBuff PE said:


> ^Nazi apologist.


Papers, please.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jan 28, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> FLBuff PE said:
> 
> 
> > ^Nazi apologist.
> ...


Papers? We don't need no stinkin' papers!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 28, 2010)

You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 30, 2010)

Dumb ass, I mean Obama, is just trying to look a little more like a conservative before the nov 2010 elections.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 1, 2010)

Well, it is done. Constellation has been cancelled. Looks like the shuttle will do the final flyouts, and then be retired. the last shuttle flight will probably be this year, but maybe next due to holdups.

So, after that, NASA will rely on the Russians for manned space flight and will have to depend on the Air Force and maybe commercial interests for satellite launches.

Pretty sad, IMO.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Feb 1, 2010)

Road Guy said:


> Dumb ass, I mean Obama, is just trying to look a little more like a conservative before the nov 2010 elections.


Road Guy is Un-American


----------



## MGX (Feb 1, 2010)

Why does Road Guy hate America?


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 1, 2010)

Because America sucks lately?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 2, 2010)

Are we entering a Carter-ish era of malaise?


----------



## chaosiscash (Feb 2, 2010)

^^ I don't know if I'd go that far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01...r-weapons-work/


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 2, 2010)

> Message from the Administrator:2011 NASA Budget Request Reflects Commitment to Innovation and Exploration
> 
> Today the President confirmed his commitment to space exploration and the
> 
> ...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 2, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/0...on-obama-budget



> The announcement of an end to immediate ambitions for an American to again reach the moon, on the seventh anniversary of the Columbia space shuttle disaster, sets the stage for a furious battle in Congress over US manned space exploration.
> Politicians from Florida, Texas and Alabama, three states that have lost thousands of jobs in the space industry from this year's planned retirement of the ageing shuttle fleet, promised a fight to keep the moon programme, Constellation, alive.
> 
> "They are replacing lost shuttle jobs too slowly, risking US leadership in space to China and Russia, and relying too heavily on unproven companies," said Bill Nelson, a Democratic Senator for Florida and former astronaut who flew one mission in 1986.
> ...


----------



## Wolverine (Feb 2, 2010)

chaosiscash said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01...r-weapons-work/





> "NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino said more money is needed because the U.S. needs the best nuclear weapons facilities, scientists and engineers, even as it moves toward eventual disarmament."


Rant on: ldman:

It's so hard for me to take these clowns seriously. "..._even as it moves toward eventual disarmament._"??? Who do they think they're fooling? China? Russia? North Korea? Or just Peace-Through-Submission-Americans who like to hear that kind of stuff at the end of any statement involving nuclear weapons (kind of like *"Brought to you by Carl's Jr!")? *We have no intention of disarming, certainly not while rogue nations are trying to super-arm themselves - not that we even NEED nukes to deal with those threats militarily, just that there's no way we're disarming in the face of growing nuclear threats (unless we have something better).

Ooh, I just thought of the ultimate weapon to replace nuclear weapons: Al Gore clones! We could threaten to send our enemies a Gore to jack their nation all over the place. The only downside is that this could lead to a counter-Gore-attack and maybe even a Gore Gap if we don't have enough Gores to sink our enemies. We could always fire off a few Carters though.


----------



## chaosiscash (Feb 2, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Or just Peace-Through-Submission-Americans who like to hear that kind of stuff at the end of any statement involving nuclear weapons


Of course thats why they say it. Nobody WANTS nuclear weapons, but most (not all, but a lot) people recognize some sort of need at this point. But it makes everyone feel better so they say it.

My point is just that while cutting the space program sucks, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call Obama Carter-esqe quite yet, because a larger budget for the NWC is definately not a Carter-type move.


----------



## Dleg (Feb 2, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> The only downside is that this could lead to a counter-Gore-attack and maybe even a Gore Gap if we don't have enough Gores to sink our enemies. We could always fire off a few Carters though.


LOL!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 9, 2010)

Boy, I saw this one coming....

Russia wants to charge more for rides to space



> Russia, which is set to hold a monopoly on flights to the international space station (ISS), wants to charge more for rides on its Soyuz rocket, the space agency head said Tuesday.


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_w...report_999.html


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 9, 2010)

I watched Michelle Obama on tv this am, she was getting interviewed about her husbands job, they talked a little about the NASA deal, she actually said her husband was "_staying the course_"

thousand points of light, must be prudent! My God he is George H. Bush !!!!!!!!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Apollo astronauts Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan weigh in on this...



> The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years," the letter begins."Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration. ...
> When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.
> 
> Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.
> ...


http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1004...ting_space.html


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 14, 2010)

I think if you couple that article with this article "We can't be #1 forever" it makes perfect sense. I can't wait for the de-development of the United States.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

THAT was a depressing article. What a wonderful attitude for someone in his position to take.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 14, 2010)

^^ I'm sure the Obamabots will come on here defending that crap. I'd love to hear the rationalization for why we should just accept mediocrity.


----------



## Supe (Apr 14, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> ^^ I'm sure the Obamabots will come on here defending that crap. I'd love to hear the rationalization for why we should just accept mediocrity.



Well, we settled for a sub-mediocre President, why not everything else?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Apparently, the letter I posted was edited for length. The entire letter can be read here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate and ask the question: Why do WE (the US) have to have a top of the line space program and why does the government have to pay for it? In todays global economy and market, there are emerging companies who are showing a commercial interest in space exploration and the existing technology is being shared between so many different entities (companies, countries) that the US is not losing as much as everyone seems to be leading on. Sure, the technology may be developed in India, China, Russia, etc, but companies and other countries across the world are seeing the overall benefits of the technology.

I look at it in a similar way to highway construction. The general contractor (the US) may not have the equipment to do one particular thing (like a crane or a concrete pump truck), so they contract out to someone who does have that equipment. I say if these other entities want to pay to develop this technology, let them. Then we can use our tax dollars to cover some of our other programs we can't afford.

I know the US has historically been working under the mindset that "we want to be the first and the best at everything", but sometimes IMO it's better to let others do the work for you. It reminds me of a saying I heard a while back: Truly wise people have smart people working for them.


----------



## Supe (Apr 14, 2010)

At what point do those subcontractors become big enough and good enough that they put the general contractor out of business?


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Supe said:


> At what point do those subcontractors become big enough and good enough that they put the general contractor out of business?


Every general contractor that I know that has stayed in business has done so by cutting aspects of their business where they are losing money, and by adjusting their business plan as the markets change (sometimes very quickly). Just because this general contractor was the top of the line many years ago at this one type of work, doesn't mean it should hold onto that type of work if it's not profitable anymore (and if the work can be done by a sub for cheaper).

Yes you run the risk of seeing your subs growing to the point they are as big or bigger than you are, but it doesn't mean you stop working together. Just because they're bigger doesn't mean you can't still manage them...


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 14, 2010)

I don't have a problem with the US cutting funding to NASA. I have a problem with the US government becoming complacent that we will no longer be global leaders in science and industry.

As most of you know, my libertarian beliefs require me to question the need for a space program at all, other than for issues of national defense. I also question the need for a science and technology czar and the role that person plays in making us a leader/loser in the area of science and technology on the world stage.

I tend to think that if the government were to GTF out of the way, the entrepreneureal spirits, ambitions, and profit motives of individual citizens/industries would propel us much farther than having some nimrod bureaucrat in Washington flinging billions upon billions of dollars at countless ineffective/inefficient programs.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> Ok, I'll play devil's advocate and ask the question: Why do WE (the US) have to have a top of the line space program and why does the government have to pay for it?


Why have it? The spinoffs from the space program are all around you. We benefitted as a society far more than we paid in. ROI for the space program was incredible. It can be again.

As for the gov paying for it, right now they are the only group with the resources and knowledge to pull it off. Sure there are some private ventures nibbling at the edge, but so far none come close to being able to throw the knowledge and expertise the US government can.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Why have it? The spinoffs from the space program are all around you. We benefitted as a society far more than we paid in. ROI for the space program was incredible. It can be again.
> As for the gov paying for it, right now they are the only group with the resources and knowledge to pull it off. Sure there are some private ventures nibbling at the edge, but so far none come close to being able to throw the knowledge and expertise the US government can.


Those are the only two arguments that I have ever heard for keeping the space program (well, the only 2 that make sense. The pissing match with Russia, and faux-Patriotism based on our space exploration prowess being the other, more BS argument). The thing that the first argument doesn't take into account is that the same advancements in science and technology would have taken place if the space program were privately funded. The government funding the space race did not magically make more stuff be invented as a side effect.

The second argument is the one that angers me. The government is not the only entity with the resources and knowledge to pull it off...they are just the only entity that can "afford" to piss away resources with no clear profit motivation. The private sector space industry is a small, niche industry precisely because they cannot compete with the government that has no profit motive. There are private firms that launch satellites into space, but they charge more than NASA to do it because they are not subsidized by the American people. If NASA would get the F out of the way, the private firms would expand in size and number, and the competition would likely drive the cost down to below what NASA charges now.


----------



## Master slacker (Apr 14, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> I think if you couple that article with this article "We can't be #1 forever" it makes perfect sense. I can't wait for the de-development of the United States.


That is one sad, depressing article that sums up the cluelessness and the non-chalant attitude of this administration. This asshat wants to make us worse off in order to help the "developing" nations?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> The thing that the first argument doesn't take into account is that the same advancements in science and technology would have taken place if the space program were privately funded.


No it wouldn't have. What would have been the driver for this? Without the interest in manned spaceflight from the government, none of the developments would have happened, or would have happened decades later than they did.



> The second argument is the one that angers me. The government is not the only entity with the resources and knowledge to pull it off.


Really? Name one company that has successfully landed a man on the moon.

Name one company that has successfully launched and manned a space station.

Name one company that has sent spacecraft to other planets.

There are none. There may be down the road, but until then, the gov is the only show in town.


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia? Even private industry? I agree with Wil's post about the government and their lack of profit interest. The only one who profits with a massive spender like that are the vendors (most of which are overseas anyways).

Do future advancements in science and industry go away if the space program doesn't have a "Made in USA " stamp? I'm too lazy to look it up, but how much of the current US space program is supplied by foreign-made products and technology already?

"Russian components, American components, all made in Taiwan!!" - Russian Cosmonaut in Armegeddon... (Sorry, couldn't help it).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that the first argument doesn't take into account is that the same advancements in science and technology would have taken place if the space program were privately funded.
> ...


Name one reason for a company to land a man on the moon, man a space station, or send spacecraft to other planets. There is no good reason to do any of those things except for scientist to get their jollies off. So what if we can get shit to grow in low-earth orbit? So what if there is life on other planets?

There is a commercial need to have satellites in orbit (for communications and mapping), therefore there is a commercial market for that. There seems to be growing interest in space tourism, so there is a commercial market growing around that interest. Unless there is a compelling need for something, the market will not provide a product or service for it. So, essentially, the government is funding space programs that answer questions that aren't being asked by the market. There are curious scientists, but until those scientist can come up with a good reason for their research, they should be left unfunded.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia?


Well, it comes back to 'are you willing to take a back seat to those countries?' I'm not.

I'd rather my taxes go to space exploration than numerous things the gov spends money on. Much better return for the amount of money spent.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Well, it comes back to 'are you willing to take a back seat to those countries?' I'm not.





wilheldp_PE said:


> The pissing match with Russia, and faux-Patriotism based on our space exploration prowess being the other, more BS argument.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it comes back to 'are you willing to take a back seat to those countries?' I'm not.
> ...


Looks like you are willing to take a backseat. I'll remember this the next time you post anything about America going downhill.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Looks like you are willing to take a backseat. I'll remember this the next time you post anything about America going downhill.


Right-o.


----------



## benbo (Apr 14, 2010)

Separate manned spaceflight from un-manned (satellites).

I'll admit that the prime motivation behind manned space flight is just the cool, pride aspect of it. I like it, and would have voted to support it. I'm not going to argue it from a financial value point of view - although I'm sure a lot af technological advancement came from the space program (and a good deal of my dad's income from the 1960s). That may have developed anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, the main initial motivator of satellite development was not communication per-se, but earth observation. Namely spying. It was started by our Army and by the Russians. THere is no obvious private sector profit motive in spying, unless a gvt is paying you for it (although something tells me somebody will stretch things to show how this would have worked). And although ATT launched Telstar shortly after Sputnik, I doubt the long-term financial motivation would have been enough to get them to do it without being able to use government launch vehicles and government/defense industry technology. It would have happened, but I believe it would have been delayed. Of course, like "jobs created or saved" there is no way to know for sure.


----------



## jmbeck (Apr 14, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Name one reason for a company to land a man on the moon, man a space station, or send spacecraft to other planets. There is no good reason to do any of those things except for scientist to get their jollies off. So what if we can get shit to grow in low-earth orbit? So what if there is life on other planets?


Once again, the spinoffs from the space program.

"Oh, they'd have happened anyway." No, no they wouldn't have. More items than you realize are because we had the greatest consortium of minds working on solutions. This wasn't one person developing these items. These were teams brought together for a special purpose.

Besides, where is the profit in a system that can sterilize water to IV grade that can fit in a suitcase? NASA just finished developing it, because it would be needed for long term space exploration. Oh, and it will probably help a lot of our troops when needed.

NASA is the pinnacle of United States ingenuity. As was stated at the beginning of this thread, the "Space Race" drove many to choose science and engineering as a career.

Besides, the portable electric cooler (the kind you plug into a car outlet) and the Sports Bra were all spinoffs of the space program. Can't we all agree that if NASA is helping us to protect beer and boobs, it's worth whatever money it needs?


----------



## benbo (Apr 14, 2010)

Deleted. Look's like it was already discussed. No need to beat the horse.


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Also deleted...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 14, 2010)

jmbeck said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > Name one reason for a company to land a man on the moon, man a space station, or send spacecraft to other planets. There is no good reason to do any of those things except for scientist to get their jollies off. So what if we can get shit to grow in low-earth orbit? So what if there is life on other planets?
> ...



:appl: :appl: :appl:


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Government is not a person or an entity...it is a collection of people. So the people that invented the sports bra, electric cooler, and water sterilizer would have had the capability to invent those things if they weren't employed/funded with money collected by the government. You are correct that things may have been delayed if it weren't for the space program, but implying that we'd all still be beating rocks together if not for the ever benevolent government is asinine (yes, I realize that is a straw man...no need to point it out).


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 14, 2010)

A quick google search indicated that we have spent roughly $1,000,000,000,000 on NASA (in 2010 dollars) since its inception. I would like to think that the private sector could have invented a sports bra, a portable beer cooler, and a water sterilizer for somewhere south of $1 trillion. I can't verify the $1 trillion dollar number. My only point being, I don't think you can make the argument that we have received $1 trillion in value from the space program. Yes, it's "cool" that a man walked on the moon, but other than some moon dust sitting in the Smithsonian and winning the pissing contest with the USSR, what value did it provide?


----------



## jmbeck (Apr 14, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Government is not a person or an entity...it is a collection of people. So the people that invented the sports bra, electric cooler, and water sterilizer would have had the capability to invent those things if they weren't employed/funded with money collected by the government. You are correct that things may have been delayed if it weren't for the space program, but implying that we'd all still be beating rocks together if not for the ever benevolent government is asinine (yes, I realize that is a straw man...no need to point it out).


Would the problems/solutions have been identified as early? How many lives were saved?

The NASA technoligies as applicable to the average person certainly weren't forethought. Yes, we'd eventually identify problems and find solutions. But space exploration allowed us solutions to problems we hadn't yet identified. Our country's industry and military are better because of NASA.

Sure, NASA does a whole lot of stuff just to see if they can. All pioneers do things just to see if they can.

The private sector will only do things if there is money to be made in it.


----------



## Wolverine (Apr 14, 2010)

Multiple Quotes:



Dexman PE said:


> My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia? Even private industry? I agree with Wil's post about the government and their lack of profit interest. The only one who profits with a massive spender like that are the vendors (most of which are overseas anyways).


For the sake of argument, I would propose replacing "Space Program" with Microsoft, Boeing, or Coca-Cola and test if it makes sense to let other countries develop those industries (I throw in Coke because of it's market cap and significance to the economy and also because I can't think of another major product off the top of my head that I would prefer developed in the U.S.... but granting my point, maybe somebody else can give other good examples of things we want to keep in house.)




Chucktown PE said:


> A quick google search indicated that we have spent roughly $1,000,000,000,000 on NASA (in 2010 dollars) since its inception.


 If I count the zeroes correctly, that's exactly one Brazillian dollars. Who wouldn't be willing to give up a Brazillian for a ride on the Space Shuttle?

But what I really want to know is, getting back to the topic of the thread, what question does the president aims to ax the moon mission?

(ba-dump-bummp, chssh) (sorry, it's Freaknik weekend in the Atl) (is okay to ax me to stop)


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > A quick google search indicated that we have spent roughly $1,000,000,000,000 on NASA (in 2010 dollars) since its inception.
> ...


No, that's $1 trillion (remember, numbers go hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, trillions)


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Multiple Quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But Microsoft, Boeing, &amp; coke are private corporations and not 100% funded by the US government... This just reinforces wil's point of letting the private industry develop these things...


----------



## benbo (Apr 14, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> Wolverine said:
> 
> 
> > Chucktown PE said:
> ...


Just a trillion? Then what the heck is everybody worried about? We gave almost that much to some bankers in just one year.


----------



## jmbeck (Apr 14, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> But Microsoft, Boeing, &amp; coke are private corporations and not 100% funded by the US government... This just reinforces wil's point of letting the private industry develop these things...


You can take Boeing out, because if it wasn't for the military contracts (and heavy involvement in Mercury through Apollo), they would have been out long ago.

Also, NASA hasn't ever had a "Vista" or "New Coke".


----------



## Dexman PE (Apr 14, 2010)

jmbeck said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > But Microsoft, Boeing, &amp; coke are private corporations and not 100% funded by the US government... This just reinforces wil's point of letting the private industry develop these things...
> ...


But I do remember a Mars rover that went splat because of someones inablity to convert units...


----------



## jmbeck (Apr 14, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> But I do remember a Mars rover that went splat because of someones inablity to convert units...


Touche'

And with that, I resort to the "...because it makes us the baddest, awesomest, ass-kickingest nation on the planet. God Bless America! And if you say otherwise, I can't help you, Pinko."


----------



## benbo (Apr 14, 2010)

NASA has a pretty good track record when you consider the remarkable things they do. Given the problems at Toyota I'm not sure they would have done better. A lot of the problems came in recent years when they tried to do things on the cheap.

Obviously a lot of NASA work was done by private contractors. When we talk about government we are talking about government as the developer and producer and government as the customer. There may be a lot of customers for Atom bombs and ICBMs, but I don't think we want to sell them to just anybody on the free market.

And yes, government is just a collection of people like a corporation or other business entity. The main difference is in how the entity decides what to produce or purchase, and how the entity finances it. Most private enterprise is funded proactively and voluntarily by investors who look to be paid back by customers. Investors can vote out the governing body of the corporation, but in general they make their desires known by withdrawing investment. Customers do likewise by not purchasing products or services.

But some things will just take too long for people to make up their mind to fund. I submit we would have been in big trouble if we waited for private industry to come up with a profit motive to develop nuclear weapons while Germany and Russia were working on theirs. That's why we elect representatives to make these decisions, and yes, coercively take our money in taxes. The way we express our pleasure or displeasure at their decisions is also to some extent by by investing (buying or not buying treasuries), but more directly by voting them in or out of office and working or contributing money to that end.


----------



## MGX (Apr 14, 2010)

jmbeck said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > But Microsoft, Boeing, &amp; coke are private corporations and not 100% funded by the US government... This just reinforces wil's point of letting the private industry develop these things...
> ...


No, but they did have the Challenger which was incomparable.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 14, 2010)

benbo said:


> but more directly by voting them in or out of office and working or contributing money to that end.


Easy for you to say...you can probably find a politician that comes close to representing your views that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected. I can't fix what I perceive to be the problem with government by voting.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 15, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> jmbeck said:
> 
> 
> > Dexman PE said:
> ...


Yeah, Goldin and his frikken, Better, Faster Cheaper. That program, along with a couple others, were so damn understaffed that they actually had NO ONE in the mission control center for some shifts. After they lost a couple, three probes, the ditched that motto (Known internally as Big F**kin' Clusterf**k), and started running the agency properly.



wilheldp_PE said:


> Easy for you to say...you can probably find a politician that comes close to representing your views that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected. I can't fix what I perceive to be the problem with government by voting.


That's very sadly true. And I'll add to it that decent people won't putup with the BS with running for office.

Back to the topic, I think government does need to undertake programs that the private industry is either too small or unwilling to undertake on their own. The atom bomb and the space program are two examples, but the TVA and Hoover dam were pretty important as well.

I think we screwed up by killing our domestic supercollider. We could fund a lot more pure science stuff, too, IMO.


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 15, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I think we screwed up by killing our domestic supercollider. We could fund a lot more pure science stuff, too, IMO.


And the Clinch River Breeder Reactor in the 70's.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 15, 2010)

Didn't Carter s-can that one?


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 15, 2010)

Yep.


----------



## benbo (Apr 15, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> benbo said:
> 
> 
> > but more directly by voting them in or out of office and working or contributing money to that end.
> ...


Aside from armed insurrection, I don't know of any other way to change our government. Of course you can run for office yourself, quit your job and dedicate yourself to this goal, etc.

Since that's not practical, there are libertarian candidates every election, and I suspect there will be Tea Party candidates this next election. You can work for them and donate money.

I suspect complaining about it on EB.com is not very effective.

Note: Unrelated tangent follows. This has nothing to do with Wils comments.

That's what bugs me most about people like birthers, etc. Okay, assume someone has incontrovertible proof that the President was born in Kenya or some such place. Okay. Now what? Exactly what is the mechanism for removing him from office? THe only constitutional method is impeachment. There is no "Constitution cop" who is going to come down and force him out. I guarantee you, even after Marbury and Madison, the Supreme Court would not try such a thing. THat's why everything is political, and everything depends on elections.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 15, 2010)

benbo said:


> Aside from armed insurrection, I don't know of any other way to change our government. Of course you can run for office yourself, quit your job and dedicate yourself to this goal, etc.


Exactly. Did you read my Quiet Angry thread a while back? There are lots of people who disagree with most or all of what government does and stands for these days, but it is absolutely impossible to change from within the system. There was supposed to be a mechanism for the government to be "reset" by the people when it no longer represented their wants and needs (it's in the Declaration of Independence, but not lined out in the Constitution). Electing a politician to go in and change the way things are run in Washington is an oxymoron. You can always count on people to do what is in their best interest, and when a politician's only employer is the government, you can't expect them to try to bring the government down from within.


----------



## benbo (Apr 15, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> benbo said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from armed insurrection, I don't know of any other way to change our government. Of course you can run for office yourself, quit your job and dedicate yourself to this goal, etc.
> ...


I didn't read that thread. But if what you write here is the case, I guess you're just screwed.

I don't feel screwed myself. I'm pretty happy with my life. And although I don't like a lot of things that are going on, I'm not that worried in reality


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 6, 2010)

Wow! Wonderful news from NASA!



> NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.


Great! Give up the moon, and improve relations with the Muslims with a space program that barely exists anymore. Bravo!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05...ations-muslims/

And, because of the moon mission's cancellation, 60% of the on-site contractors at MSFC are boing laid off. Combine that with the census workers being laid off and the jobs numbers won't be looking so rosy.


----------



## Master slacker (Jul 6, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> And, because of the moon mission's cancellation, 60% of the on-site contractors at MSFC are boing laid off. Combine that with the census workers being laid off and the jobs numbers won't be looking so rosy.


You're not looking at the big picture, Capt. The recent stimulus packages have "created or saved ( :laugh: ) " three million jobs. Now where would we be if it weren't for those expendatures?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2010)

NASA logo makeovers: New Arabic Sensitivity Administration


----------



## Supe (Jul 7, 2010)

Unless we plan on shooting Taliban captives into space, this is the most asinine thing I've heard of in quite some time. I think I'm going to start printing out articles to send in with my taxes, stating "please don't put my tax dollars towards this."


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2010)

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/cern...kt+(NASA+Watch)



> Appearing on Fox News, Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan just called on Charlie Bolden to resign. In essence Cernan said that if Bolden believes in what he was directed to say that he should resign and if he does not believe in this then he should also resign


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 8, 2010)

> From a Nexis search a few moments ago:
> Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.
> 
> Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.
> ...




Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...l#ixzz0t79vaV6h


----------



## MGX (Jul 8, 2010)

Remember the concept is 'separation of church and state' not 'separation of mosque and state'.


----------



## Road Guy (Jul 8, 2010)

November 2010


----------



## Master slacker (Jul 8, 2010)

It all ends in 2012... so... I'm just looking forward to that.


----------



## MGX (Jul 8, 2010)

Isn't it odd that there is a 'Muslim World' but no 'Atheist World' (sounds like a theme park) or 'Hindu World' (also sounds like a theme park) ? Much less that the other 'worlds' don't seem to need the States to 'make them feel better about themselves'?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 13, 2010)

> White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden must have misspoken when he told Al Jazeera last month that one of his top priorities is to reach out to Muslim countries.
> "That was not his task and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said.
> 
> Bolden, though, said last month in the interview that* it was President Obama who gave him that task*. He made a similar claim in February.
> ...


So, is Gibbes lying, or does he have no idea what's going on? This is such a disaster. Really it is.

Still, no one but FOX is even bothering to report on this fiasco.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12...each-task-nasa/


----------



## Dleg (Jul 13, 2010)

Huh? I just did a search on the Washington Post website and turned up 5 articles on the subject, using the keywords "NASA" and "Muslim".

Here's the most recent:

White House criticizes NASA chief for making remarks on Muslim outreach

(you have to sign up for an account to access the article, but it's free)

"95% of all statistics on the internet are made up" - Dleg Institute of Internet Statistics


----------



## frazil (Jul 13, 2010)

fixed it



Dleg said:


> "95% of all statistics on the internet are made up by Fox News" - Dleg Institute of Internet Statistics


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 14, 2010)

Dleg said:


> Huh? I just did a search on the Washington Post website and turned up 5 articles on the subject, using the keywords "NASA" and "Muslim".


My bad. I meant none of the networks.


----------



## Dexman PE (Jul 30, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## Wolverine (Jul 31, 2010)

Wow. Good speaker. I opened it with skepticism and got inspired.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2011)

Well, a freind at NASA sent me pictures, and another on the Cape confirmed it. Looks like Obama can't get rid of all vestiges of the space program fast enough. They are taking down a shuttle launch pad, cutting it up with torches.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Jul 7, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Well, a freind at NASA sent me pictures, and another on the Cape confirmed it. Looks like Obama can't get rid of all vestiges of the space program fast enough. They are taking down a shuttle launch pad, cutting it up with torches.


That is sad. There is still one more shuttle mission to the space station though right?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2011)

Yup.


----------



## Road Guy (Jul 7, 2011)

I assume they are going to bring everyone home from the space station on this trip?

when our scout troop went to space camp a few years ago the plan was long ago to abandon the shuttle and go back to the Titan style rockets and capsule method, is Obama cutting all that away as well?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2011)

Road Guy said:


> I assume they are going to bring everyone home from the space station on this trip?


Anyone going up or coming down after this last mission is hitching a ride with the rooskies.



> when our scout troop went to space camp a few years ago the plan was long ago to abandon the shuttle and go back to the Titan style rockets and capsule method, is Obama cutting all that away as well?


Nope. Obama cancelled it, and the team has already been disbanded. The US has no space program. Yea.


----------



## roadwreck (Jul 7, 2011)

They are still going to be launching things into space, they just aren't going to be launching the space shuttle into space.

I know they have plans to launch satellites into space later this summer (a family member works for NASA). I don't know when they plan to launch a manned spacecraft again though.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2011)

You're right. The US no longer has a manned space program. Some private companies are working on it, but from what I'm hearing, they are further away from being manned flight certified than Constellation was.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 7, 2011)

A very sad situation!!! I love space and all that is related to it...I wanted to be an astronaut as a kid, but when you get down to it a manned space program in our current financial situation is not an appropriate use of tax money. Maybe this will allow private entities to move into its place.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 8, 2011)

Oddly enough, the Air Force handles a lot of the satellite launches at the Cape.


----------



## Exception Collection (Jul 8, 2011)

I'd like to see us reach Mars or the Belt sometime in my lifetime. I don't really care much about a mission to the moon, except as a possible launch point for a Mars mission - It might be easier to put people and things into orbit or to a base on the Moon before sending them to Mars, just because of the effort involved in each undertaking for a Mars trip - send 10 shuttles to the Moon, then assemble everything and send it to Mars.

There pretty much has to be usable material out there. Iron, Uranium... pretty much everything that can be dug from the ground except fossil fuels. And in the belt, not much digging would be required.

(Why yes, I did grow up reading Pohl, Pournelle, Heinlein, and Asimov why do you ask?)


----------



## MGX (Jul 9, 2011)

I had a thought to create a mining operation on the moon. Heavier, fissionable elements are on the surface of the moon, so we could load up on the far side of the moon, ship the fissionable product back home and dump our waste on the next return trip. Cheap energy and we keep a nice view (also we keep the moon in orbit around the Earth longer due to slightly diminishing its mass).


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 15, 2011)

So what's up with this?

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=151513

I know NASA let the contractors working on Constellation go, as well as a bunch of civil service folks. So is this real or vaporware?

I do like the overall design better than Constellation. This looks like a great heavy lifter. I hope they pull it off.


----------



## Road Guy (Sep 15, 2011)

they had a similar model of this at Space Camp Huntsville a few years ago and said something along this line is what they are moving too..

reading the article is says how Nasa will just have to "get by with less" yeah right, I dont think thats something they have ever cared about in terms of NASA.. Money that is...


----------



## Supe (Sep 15, 2011)

Dead link. Guess the :Chris: axed that already, too.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 15, 2011)

Supe said:


> Dead link. Guess the :Chris: axed that already, too.


Fixed the link.

What was truly odd about the dead link was that they had multiple stories, and now they are all gone off the home page. I fully expect the fixed link to be yanked soon.


----------



## Master slacker (Sep 15, 2011)

Say it with me, folks! "Saturn V! Saturn V! Saturn V!"


----------



## humner (Sep 15, 2011)

MGX said:


> I had a thought to create a mining operation on the moon. Heavier, fissionable elements are on the surface of the moon, so we could load up on the far side of the moon, ship the fissionable product back home and dump our waste on the next return trip. Cheap energy and we keep a nice view (also we keep the moon in orbit around the Earth longer due to slightly diminishing its mass).


Space 1999! Bring it baby!


----------



## roadwreck (Sep 15, 2011)

MGX said:


> I had a thought to create a mining operation on the moon. Heavier, fissionable elements are on the surface of the moon, so we could load up on the far side of the moon, ship the fissionable product back home and dump our waste on the next return trip. Cheap energy and we keep a nice view (also we keep the moon in orbit around the Earth longer due to slightly diminishing its mass).


Who knows, maybe they are looking into that. I went down to watch the launch of these satellites last week.

http://science.nasa.gov/missions/grail/


----------



## Wolverine (Sep 15, 2011)

humner said:


> MGX said:
> 
> 
> > I had a thought to create a mining operation on the moon. Heavier, fissionable elements are on the surface of the moon, so we could load up on the far side of the moon, ship the fissionable product back home and dump our waste on the next return trip. Cheap energy and we keep a nice view (also we keep the moon in orbit around the Earth longer due to slightly diminishing its mass).
> ...


It's all fun and games until the spent nuclear fuel depot on the far side blows and knocks you out of orbit.

"WHEEE!! I haven't had so much fun since I burned Grandmas wig!"


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 19, 2011)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/about...r/index_prt.htm



> NASA has selected the design of a new Space Launch System that will take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before, create high-quality jobs here at home, and provide the cornerstone for America's future human space exploration efforts.


----------

