PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama aims to ax moon mission


Donger
01-27-2010, 09:10 AM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,6969808.story

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

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.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.

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

Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by the White House until the release of the budget.

But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget — possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.

They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said there would be an "attractive sum" of money — to be spent over several years — for private companies to make rockets to carry astronauts there.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program, NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from the space station.

Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.

Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.

In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations, some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed by the hobbyists.

Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a battle with Congress, Ares may survive.

"I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."

Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets, Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a fight.

The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

One administration official said the budget will send a message that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:12 AM
So what's the problem here Donger? You against what Obama chooses to spend money on as opposed to cutting ANY spending?

This is BIG govt conservativism is all! Good Lord, it's NO wonder this country is in trouble due to both parties we have. I say "Hallelujah!"
Meanwhile Virgin Galactic has introduced it's new spaceship. Rejoice!

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Donger
01-27-2010, 09:31 AM
So what's the problem here Donger? You against what Obama chooses to spend money on as opposed to cutting ANY spending?

This is BIG govt conservativism is all! Good Lord, it's NO wonder this country is in trouble due to both parties we have. I say "Hallelujah!"
Meanwhile Virgin Galactic has introduced it's new spaceship. Rejoice!

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

You are aware that Virgin's new spaceship can't even achieve orbit, right?

I've always stated that I don't mind government doing, and spending money on, things that I can't do for myself. The exploration of space is one of them.

Rain Man
01-27-2010, 09:35 AM
This is shortsighted.

There's spending (i.e., social welfare programs) and there's investing (i.e., science and discovery programs). The smart governments put their money in the latter.

InChiefsHell
01-27-2010, 09:39 AM
If you ain't got the money, you ain't got the money. Plain and simple. Yes, it would be neat-o to go to the moon again, but considering how screwed our kids and grandkids are already, I just don't see space exploration as a huge priority.

Now, if Barry would cut spending on more un-necessary shit that we do here on earth, that'd be greeeeat...

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:41 AM
You are aware that Virgin's new spaceship can't even achieve orbit, right?
Not yet. Baby steps. Da Vinci couldn't fly yet either. But we do now. Or have you not noticed such things? These things happen in progressions because gaps in science and technology have to come about in the interim. Has little to do with govt.

I've always stated that I don't mind government doing, and spending money on, things that I can't do for myself.
Just yourself? Then that includes a quite a LOT of things to spend on.

The exploration of space is one of them.
Actually, we'd be further along in the area because govt has barred entry.
This is just big govt mercantilism, something the British brought to America unfortunately. I believe in markets and trust govt less.....but then I thought that was conservativism and Republicanism.

Tell me, do you at least believe we need to cut some things for the time being at least? I'm guessin' your answer is "no."

I expect patteeu will be in here shortly now that I've posted to blast me about pragmatism.ROFL

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:41 AM
This is shortsighted.

There's spending (i.e., social welfare programs) and there's investing (i.e., science and discovery programs). The smart governments put their money in the latter.

Nope. It results in such things being done far more expensively with lots of waste and shoddiness. If it has to be subsidized—it's NOT NEEDED!

blaise
01-27-2010, 09:42 AM
All they have to do is tell him they want to put a flag with his Obama symbol up there.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 09:43 AM
See BEP...we can agree...

Place me firmly in the stop wasteful spending camp on this issue.

talastan
01-27-2010, 09:43 AM
I'm mixed on this issue myself. While I agree the government needs to cut the spending; I think their is a scientific and strategic advantage to another set of moon exploration missions. Now if the market is allowed to compensate and private space exploration can thrive then I'll feel a lot better about this decision. The point of the cost cutting is moot IMO though because the same article says he wants NASA to focus on climate change.

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.

I just don't want to be several years behind in R&D behind a refocused Russian space program, and a developing Chinese space program.

talastan
01-27-2010, 09:44 AM
All they have to do is tell him they want to put a flag with his Obama symbol up there.

ROFL Rep!!

KC native
01-27-2010, 09:48 AM
meh, I don't really care about losing the Moon mission so long as NASA still gets funded and gets to do their thing. I really thought the Moon mission was pointless since we've already been there.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:50 AM
Abolish NASA!
Come on conservatives put your money when your mouths are!!

wild1
01-27-2010, 09:54 AM
We could have gone to the moon how many times for the cost of the stimulus that created 0 jobs?

Cannibal
01-27-2010, 09:56 AM
Abolish NASA!
Come on conservatives put your money when your mouths are!!

You really do want us to be Somalia.

Donger
01-27-2010, 09:58 AM
Abolish NASA!
Come on conservatives put your money when your mouths are!!

:spock:

Well, of course you don't care about the exploration of space. You don't even seem to acknowledge that the rest of the world exists, let alone places beyond our world.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:04 AM
Why would the government run a space program any more effectively than they would run a social security program?

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:06 AM
Why would the government run a space program any more effectively than they would run a social security program?

Who is claiming that they would/do?

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:07 AM
This is shortsighted.

There's spending (i.e., social welfare programs) and there's investing (i.e., science and discovery programs). The smart governments put their money in the latter.
Exactly. Human space exploration pushes science to devlop new technologies and excites people into getting involved in sciences. But I guess people believe we should become a stagnant nation...

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:08 AM
Who is claiming that they would/do?

Oh. Well then.

Top shelf move. Step aside government, and let industry take over space exploration based on economics.

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:09 AM
meh, I don't really care about losing the Moon mission so long as NASA still gets funded and gets to do their thing. I really thought the Moon mission was pointless since we've already been there.
It isn't pointless if they actually build a base there. Sort of a stepping stone that is close to home to try things out before doing the same on Mar's or elsewhere.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:09 AM
Exactly. Human space exploration pushes science to devlop new technologies and excites people into getting involved in sciences. But I guess people believe we should become a stagnant nation...

I want us to be a thriving nation, which is why I applaud this move.

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:09 AM
Oh. Well then.

Top shelf move. Step aside government, and let industry take over space exploration based on economics.

And what if industry does not see the requisite profit motive at this time?

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:10 AM
Oh. Well then.

Top shelf move. Step aside government, and let industry take over space exploration based on economics.
Native American's agree with this 100%, Great Brittan and Spain, don't waste your money exploring. Lewis and Clark, just stay home!!!

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:12 AM
:spock:

Well, of course you don't care about the exploration of space. You don't even seem to acknowledge that the rest of the world exists, let alone places beyond our world.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5467/strawman.gifStrawman!

Actually, I do but I have more faith in individuals that it can happen without govt ENTIRELY! The way most of the major scientific breakthroughs and advances happened. You have more faith in govt which just crowds advances out. There are treaties that bar entry for private interests to use parts of space.

I mean heavens that's like saying, we'd have no airplanes if the govt didn't provide funds to develop flight. Yet the Wright brothers did it without that. Even the first woman flew without affirmative action.

Get with the ideas that made this country great, delivered us the greatest technological advancements ever. It's called freedom because it unleashes creativity. You, and the other Rs in here, are showing your true statist stripes.

Swing and a miss Donger!

Finding out who the rest of the NeoCons are now.

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:13 AM
I want us to be a thriving nation, which is why I applaud this move.
Sorry, but many of the tech's produced would push our economy forward.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:13 AM
Sorry, but many of the tech's produced would push our economy forward.

Whether they were being produced by government, or by, say, Virgin.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:15 AM
And what if industry does not see the requisite profit motive at this time?

Then what's the point of doing it at all? I mean, outside of national pride or some such.

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:16 AM
Actually, I do but I have more faith in individuals that it can happen without govt ENTIRELY! You have more faith in govt which just crowds advances out.
There are treaties that bar entry for private interests to use parts of space.

I mean heavens that's like saying, we'd have no airplanes if the govt didn't provide funds to develop flight. Yet the Wright brothers did it without that. Even the first woman flew without affirmative action.

Get with the ideas that made this country great, delivered us the greatest technological advancements ever. It's called freedom because it unleashes creativity. You, and the other Rs in here, are showing your true statist stripes.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up early aviation pioneers and comparing it to modern-day space flight.

KC native
01-27-2010, 10:16 AM
It isn't pointless if they actually build a base there. Sort of a stepping stone that is close to home to try things out before doing the same on Mar's or elsewhere.

I say go straight for Mars if that's the goal.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:16 AM
Sorry, but many of the tech's produced would push our economy forward.

Putting that money back in American's pockets would do more to drive the economy forward in the next decade than surveying the Moon.

Rain Man
01-27-2010, 10:18 AM
Nope. It results in such things being done far more expensively with lots of waste and shoddiness. If it has to be subsidized—it's NOT NEEDED!

So you're on record as opposing the Louisiana Purchase then?

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:18 AM
I'd rather see government build a high speed rail from California to New York than explore the moon or mars. Not that I want to see government do even that, but if the arguments are that we need to improve the economy, that would do a hell of a lot more to do that then sending a survey team to the moon.

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:19 AM
Whether they were being produced by government, or by, say, Virgin.

I take it you also aren't aware that Virgin's bird can't even achieve orbit, let alone departure?

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:20 AM
Then what's the point of doing it at all? I mean, outside of national pride or some such.

Advancement of knowledge? Scientific discovery? Perpetuation of our species?

Just little stuff.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:20 AM
I take it you also aren't aware that Virgin's bird can't even achieve orbit, let alone departure?

Currently, sure. What's the hurry? Is there a moon gold rush that I'm also not aware of?

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:20 AM
Sorry, but many of the tech's produced would push our economy forward.

Many of the techs produced happened without govt subsidization. This mostly occurred after WWII. The historical facts do not support your argument. We became a economic giant before this passing Europe in the late 19th century—a century of technological inventions not financed by taxpayers. And don't give me the internet as that was being simultaneously developed in the private sector but gets no credit. Or give me the Manhattan Project which was built by DuPont and nuclear fission was discovered by Leó Szilárd watching the traffic lights operate on the way to work. It was Szilárd and Einstein that had to push FDR on that who ignored them at first.

These things are not necessitated by govt subsidization. They happen and will happen anyway....if there is a demand for it. It's things that have no demand that the govt subsidizes which is why it is more often wasteful. And because it's not the money of individuals being used which narrows down what is more needed but they're less inclined to waste it.

If it has to be subsidized it's NOT needed. This is Republican pork!

Cannibal
01-27-2010, 10:22 AM
And what if industry does not see the requisite profit motive at this time?

What'll happen is they'll wait for the government to set everything up for them and pay for most of it and then they make the move. That's the way they operate. More socialism for corporations.

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:22 AM
Whether they were being produced by government, or by, say, Virgin.
I see this the same as I see many early explorer's, and exploration and colonization has always been an expensive venture financed by government's. If we were to actually build a base on the Moon, it would only be a short matter of time before industry would take advantage of it and maybe take over space travel.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:23 AM
Advancement of knowledge? Scientific discovery? Perpetuation of our species?

Just little stuff.

Tell me who funded that stuff prior to WWII. Please don't give me anything from the Olde World aka statist Europe. Newton made some of his important discoveries when he was not at Trinity College but home on the farm with gravity the result of a private bet.

Continue with the nonsense.

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:24 AM
Currently, sure. What's the hurry? Is there a moon gold rush that I'm also not aware of?

I'm well aware that some people are perfectly at ease with ignorance.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:27 AM
I see this the same as I see many early explorer's, and exploration and colonization has always been an expensive venture financed by government's. If we were to actually build a base on the Moon, it would only be a short matter of time before industry would take advantage of it and maybe take over space travel.
World exploration was but don't forget Columbus was rejected by many courts and states prior to Spain to support his voyage and theories.
The King and Queen of Spain wanted a chance to catch up with the power and influence of their Portuguese neighbor. Besides markets were not as developed then.

That's the Olde World—not America. American was the new game. The game of liberty and not needing to ask permission or get funds from a state but doing such things on one's own entirely if there was a market for it.

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:28 AM
Tell me who funded that stuff prior to WWII. Please don't give me anything from the Olde World aka statist Europe. Newton made some of his important discoveries when he was not at Trinity College but home on the farm with gravity the result of a private bet.

Continue with the nonsense.

Don't give you examples from the Old World? Why not?

Radar Chief
01-27-2010, 10:29 AM
I take it you also aren't aware that Virgin's bird can't even achieve orbit, let alone departure?

Yea but it looks really cool, and it’s called Galactic after all. Must be just as good as the shuttle. ;)

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:30 AM
Don't give you examples from the Old World? Why not?

Because there was less freedom there than here and we eventually passed them and frew faster economically than them due to that freedom—our greatest resource. Not that there weren't many private developments there at all. They were largely mercantilist economies.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:31 AM
I see this the same as I see many early explorer's, and exploration and colonization has always been an expensive venture financed by government's. If we were to actually build a base on the Moon, it would only be a short matter of time before industry would take advantage of it and maybe take over space travel.

Nope it can happen in reverse too.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:32 AM
Yea but it looks really cool, and it’s called Galactic after all. Must be just as good as the shuttle. ;)

It's better and it has flights paid for already. Have you seen the drawings and models for the space hotels that are in the works?

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 10:33 AM
I don't understand why you keep bringing up early aviation pioneers and comparing it to modern-day space flight.

Because the developmental process is the same. I mean Goddard was developing his rockets already on his own. The govt had to catch up to him. Even the Germans who tried stealing his ideas. Gotta go I'm late.

Donger
01-27-2010, 10:37 AM
Because the developmental process is the same. I mean Goddard was developing his rockets already on his own. The govt had to catch up to him. Even the Germans who tried stealing his ideas. Gotta go I'm late.

Right, and you have to acknowledge that there's a massive difference between launching a simple rocket up a few thousand feet and achieving escape velocity with a human crew.

Or, maybe you are unaware of the differences?

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 10:41 AM
I'm very supportive of the space program, but I dont' see much point to returning to the moon other than as a PR move for NASA. WE've been, it's rocky and dusty, and not very exciting. It's also expensive and dangerous. The risk/return ratio seems off-kilter to go back.

I'd rather put up some additional Hubble's, and do research on visiting (live or via robot) other palnets in the solar system, then go back to the barren wasteland that is the moon.

Maybe there's something on the moon that I'm not aware of. I'm certainly all ears if so.

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:42 AM
World exploration was but don't forget Columbus was rejected by many courts and states prior to Spain to support his voyage and theories.
The King and Queen of Spain wanted a chance to catch up with the power and influence of their Portuguese neighbor. Besides markets were not as developed then.

That's the Olde World—not America. American was the new game. The game of liberty and not needing to ask permission or get funds from a state but doing such things on one's own entirely if there was a market for it.
And yet we still paid Lewis and Clark... odd.

Of course I have yet to find the business model for preservation of the species...

Radar Chief
01-27-2010, 10:45 AM
It's better and it has flights paid for already. Have you seen the drawings and models for the space hotels that are in the works?

:bong: Has it achieved orbit yet?

morphius
01-27-2010, 10:51 AM
I'm very supportive of the space program, but I dont' see much point to returning to the moon other than as a PR move for NASA. WE've been, it's rocky and dusty, and not very exciting. It's also expensive and dangerous. The risk/return ratio seems off-kilter to go back.

I'd rather put up some additional Hubble's, and do research on visiting (live or via robot) other palnets in the solar system, then go back to the barren wasteland that is the moon.

Maybe there's something on the moon that I'm not aware of. I'm certainly all ears if so.
I don't believe that sending robot's really pushes the human spirit enough. Not to mention that in 5 years the rovers on Mar's have covered a grand total of 13 Miles COMBINED!

Taco John
01-27-2010, 11:04 AM
Advancement of knowledge? Scientific discovery? Perpetuation of our species?

Just little stuff.

Little indeed. All of these things can be done without wasting taxpayer dollars. I'm in favor of space exploration. Just not in the middle of a depression/recession - and preferably not in a wasteful way that minimizes capitalization. It's expensive to go to space. We should do all we can to eliminate waste.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 11:05 AM
Of course I have yet to find the business model for preservation of the species...

You've never heard of grocery stores? They sell food stuffs to people and as a result, they work to maintain and preserve our population numbers.

Radar Chief
01-27-2010, 11:08 AM
I'm in favor of space exploration. Just not in the middle of a depression/recession - and preferably not in a wasteful way that minimizes capitalization. It's expensive to go to space. We should do all we can to eliminate waste.

That’s where I’m at. I’m fine with putting space flights on hold during this recession. I would hope they don’t get completely canceled though.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 11:16 AM
And yet we still paid Lewis and Clark... odd.
Yes, as if a surveying expedition, originally for the Louisiana Territory fits the model. Granted they went further than that (Jefferson was a man of strong principles but didn't always follow them.)...but it still does not prove that others may not have gone further west as they had done earlier beyond the colonies even. Besides how did the Indians find their way out there or out east? But the white man would have never done it without govt? *scratches head* It was also a pittance compared to what you're recommending we spend money on with NASA.

Of course I have yet to find the business model for preservation of the species...
Naturally! Most statists arguments show a lack faith in some individual rising to such occasions because it's an unknown and they don't like the uncertainty and unpredictably preferring control. But such mavericks do arise and change the field often enough for progress to occur—even quite by accident at times such as Louis Pasteur's development of penicillin which allowed govts to take advantage of in the exact reverse pattern you claim never existed.

You assume much though since this is the same argument that RRs had to be subsidized despite shoddy workmanship and the FACT that private one also developed showing it could be done without subsidization. Those guys are just political entreprenuers. That's mercantilism and corporatism....what the socialists, progressives and left confuse with free-enterprise capitalism.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 11:25 AM
That’s where I’m at. I’m fine with putting space flights on hold during this recession. I would hope they don’t get completely canceled though.

At the very least that should be the Rs pov on this.

mlyonsd
01-27-2010, 11:33 AM
At the very least that should be the Rs pov on this.

To some degree. I would make sure however to spend at least as much money to keep me either just ahead or even with any other country exploring space.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 11:34 AM
To some degree. I would make sure however to spend at least as much money to keep me either just ahead or even with any other country exploring space.

China has the advantage now with all that cheap/slave labor. So forgit about it!

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 11:35 AM
I don't believe that sending robot's really pushes the human spirit enough. Not to mention that in 5 years the rovers on Mar's have covered a grand total of 13 Miles COMBINED!

Fine, then send the "human spirit" somewhere else.

We went to the moon FORTY years ago. I doubt it's changed much since. There's nothing to see or do there that's particularly worthwhile that I have heard about.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 11:35 AM
I could post a tome on all the discoveries and tech advances individually driven without govt subsidization ( and I've done a lot on this BB already on that). It would also take me all day and I can't do that.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 11:36 AM
Fine, then send the "human spirit" somewhere else.

We went to the moon FORTY years ago. I doubt it's changed much since. There's nothing to see or do there that's particularly worthwhile that I have heard about.

Nothing but a dusty ball of rock. BFD!! Wow! What an advance! As if we couldn't have that out anyway or for less than sending humans there did.

Donger
01-27-2010, 11:37 AM
Fine, then send the "human spirit" somewhere else.

We went to the moon FORTY years ago. I doubt it's changed much since. There's nothing to see or do there that's particularly worthwhile that I have heard about.

Well, we learned last September that there's significantly more water on the Moon that we knew about.

mlyonsd
01-27-2010, 11:38 AM
Fine, then send the "human spirit" somewhere else.

We went to the moon FORTY years ago. I doubt it's changed much since. There's nothing to see or do there that's particularly worthwhile that I have heard about.

The only thing I can think of is land based colonization because as we've seen on Survivor and Lost, you can't predict everything that is going to happen so practice is important.

I'd hate to get all the way out to Mar's and find out then someone forgot the can opener.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 11:39 AM
Well, we learned last September that there's significantly more water on the Moon that we knew about.
Wow what a game changer! Will that preserve the human race now?
If we run out of water there better be public transportation there to get some there. Or perhaps some entrepreneur will bottle moon water for us. ROFL
This gives new meaning to the word "moonbat!"

Taco John
01-27-2010, 11:41 AM
Donger, why do you see NASA as any more legit for government spending than a healthcare program?

Donger
01-27-2010, 11:42 AM
Wow what a game changer! Will that preserve the human race now?
If we run out of water there better be public transportation there to get some there. Or perhaps some entrepreneur will bottle moon water for us. ROFL
This gives new meaning to the word "moonbat!"

I was just answering Amno's question. It is a game changer, BTW. Without indigenous water, any remote colony is a non-starter.

Donger
01-27-2010, 11:43 AM
Donger, why do you see NASA as any more legit for government spending than a healthcare program?

Because I can provide my own healthcare. I can't fly to the Moon.

morphius
01-27-2010, 11:43 AM
Besides how did the Indians find their way out there or out east?

Via wars, being driven from the territory, and a search to survive tomorrow. None of that really fits space travel because it takes years of preparation to move into space. But I don't recommend the war and famine model, one is too costly and the other isn't much better.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 11:45 AM
Because I can provide my own healthcare. I can't fly to the Moon.

I can't slam dunk a basketball. Do I get a government program?

Donger
01-27-2010, 11:47 AM
I can't slam dunk a basketball. Do I get a government program?

No.

Rain Man
01-27-2010, 11:52 AM
Tell me who funded that stuff prior to WWII. Please don't give me anything from the Olde World aka statist Europe. Newton made some of his important discoveries when he was not at Trinity College but home on the farm with gravity the result of a private bet.

Continue with the nonsense.


Newton's sunk costs with the apple were quite a bit lower than those of a manned moon mission. It's a little harder for individuals to undertake massive projects than it was when they were trying to make antimony into gold.

Rain Man
01-27-2010, 11:54 AM
I can't slam dunk a basketball. Do I get a government program?


There's a league for you in Augusta.

Oh, wait. I guess not. Sorry about that.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 04:38 PM
Newton's sunk costs with the apple were quite a bit lower than those of a manned moon mission. It's a little harder for individuals to undertake massive projects than it was when they were trying to make antimony into gold.

Um, I was talking about those who make the major scientific breakthroughs. That's not always the expensive part. After that it's entrepreneurs that pull off the implementation where the huge costs may be. That latter part can be done by private interests by pooling funds. It just has to have a demand that can turn a profit to be willing to do that. That's why if it HAS TO BE subsidized it's not needed and why there is waste when things are subsidized. Profit is the motivator. It's a very simple thing.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 04:40 PM
Via wars, being driven from the territory, and a search to survive tomorrow. None of that really fits space travel because it takes years of preparation to move into space. But I don't recommend the war and famine model, one is too costly and the other isn't much better.
Do you think those UFO's that visit us are funded by some other planet's govt too? I think they're more advanced than us so it's probably not.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 04:42 PM
Because I can provide my own healthcare. I can't fly to the Moon.

You can perform your own heart surgery if needed?
Gee, I thought that the age of trade brought specialization.
I coulda saved $13,000 doing repairing my own meniscus tear!

Thig Lyfe
01-27-2010, 04:43 PM
But then how are we going to stick it to the Soviets?

FishingRod
01-27-2010, 04:55 PM
NASA is tiny a drop in the pork barrel. I think it is one of the better things the Government does. If this is part of an over all trend of actually downsizing our government and their spending, then by all means chop away. More likely is is just a disingenuous diversion to try and show : "hey look at us! we are cutting the space program because we are serious about taking care of what really matters". Shhh now send a few bucks to the National Endowment for the Arts. Were about out of rubber dicks to hang on the wall.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 04:56 PM
NASA is a beautiful thing. I'd only be in favor of an axe to the moon mission if it meant we were putting that money to a manned Mars mission.

Donger
01-27-2010, 05:08 PM
You can perform your own heart surgery if needed?
Gee, I thought that the age of trade brought specialization.
I coulda saved $13,000 doing repairing my own meniscus tear!

I could, yes. But I'd rather have a doctor who I pay for through the insurance I carry do it.

I could also try to fly to the Moon, but it's be a short trip.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:09 PM
NASA is tiny a drop in the pork barrel. I think it is one of the better things the Government does.
You like how it's so often so off it's original budgets that everything costs twice as much huh? Some of the things NASA does can be done cheaper by the private sector and has. Such as non manned flights.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:09 PM
I could, yes. But I'd rather have a doctor who I pay for through the insurance I carry do it.

I could also try to fly to the Moon, but it's be a short trip.

I've been there. Done that. Trust me you don't need NASA.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:11 PM
Plans are in development too! Here's a space hotel design from 1973. Just one version I've seen so far.

http://www.spacefuture.com/tourism/images/shimizu_hotel.jpg



http://www.spacefuture.com/tourism/hotels.shtml

Donger
01-27-2010, 05:13 PM
I've been there. Done that. Trust me you don't need NASA.

Pardon me, but how exactly are you going to get to the Moon without NASA?

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:14 PM
These guys are waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the bureaucrats!

http://www.luxurylaunches.com/entry_images/0408/03/space-hotel-room-launch1.jpg

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:15 PM
Pardon me, but how exactly are you going to get to the Moon without NASA?

I didn't say I was going to go. I said I've been there done that. Reading is essential.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:17 PM
Genesis II was successfully launched from the Kosmotras Space and Missile Complex near the town of Yasny on June 28, 2007. Like its predecessor, Genesis II is testing and validating the technologies necessary to construct and deploy a full-scale, crewed, commercial orbital space complex.


http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_II/

Donger
01-27-2010, 05:27 PM
I didn't say I was going to go. I said I've been there done that. Reading is essential.

You've been to the Moon?

Hydrae
01-27-2010, 06:22 PM
People, people, people.

First off, there is no change to the amount being spent by NASA it is just being redirected to climate change ( :rolleyes: ). If this was actually a cost saving measure then some of you would have a point but this change won't save us a penny, just put more money into GW crap.

Also, for those asking why we want to go to the moon have you never heard of Helium3?

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

Finally, BEP I agree with you in general in regards to private industry needing to be involved. I have felt that way for a very long time. That is the one thing I liked in the article. But what I am reading is still a matter of being subsidized by the government.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

Now that I should have ended about 1/2 this discussion, anyone have any other points?

Rain Man
01-27-2010, 06:32 PM
I want a space elevator. Give me a space elevator, someone.

tmax63
01-27-2010, 07:44 PM
Does anyone else besides me get nervous when they are talking about getting involved in climate change? Just what the global warming crowds needs is a more credible voice clammering how we gotta sacrifice our way of life to save the planet. Personally I think it's like fleas arguing over who's driving the dog but who's to say what kind of scientific research is gonna come out of a government agency? Probably the kind of studies and results that will keep the government funding rolling in regardless of what is actually happening.

Hydrae
01-28-2010, 08:57 AM
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.

I assume Obama is unaware of NOAA?

http://www.noaa.gov/

banyon
01-28-2010, 10:09 AM
Well, I think we see where the ultra-libertarian plutocratic theology rubber hits the road.

Leave it up to BEP and Taco and we'd still be gathered in huts trying to rub sticks together. "But what's the economic profit in trying to rub those sticks together? We already have our scavenged animal corpse market!"

BigMeatballDave
01-28-2010, 10:24 AM
I actually have little problem with this. I'm all for space exploration. I love it, in fact. I just believe that now is not a good time for this. We are soooo fucking far in debt. Economy is in the shitter. Do we really need to spend 100s of billions of dollars to send Americans to the Moon, when so many people are out of work?

BigMeatballDave
01-28-2010, 10:28 AM
People, people, people.

First off, there is no change to the amount being spent by NASA it is just being redirected to climate change ( :rolleyes: ). If this was actually a cost saving measure then some of you would have a point but this change won't save us a penny, just put more money into GW crap.

Also, for those asking why we want to go to the moon have you never heard of Helium3?

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

Finally, BEP I agree with you in general in regards to private industry needing to be involved. I have felt that way for a very long time. That is the one thing I liked in the article. But what I am reading is still a matter of being subsidized by the government.



Now that I should have ended about 1/2 this discussion, anyone have any other points?That just doesn't make any sense. Why scrap the program?

FishingRod
01-28-2010, 10:39 AM
You like how it's so often so off it's original budgets that everything costs twice as much huh? Some of the things NASA does can be done cheaper by the private sector and has. Such as non manned flights.

Of course NASA has problems. What I'm saying is that as far as government run programs go it is about 1/2 of 1 percent of the budget and some good science and technology actually comes from it. So if they are actually going to cut non essential spending across the board by all means include NASA in it. If they are just going to continue spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. This is a $5 tip given to the waitress at the waffle house in the middle of a two week drinking binge.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 01:54 PM
NASA is tiny a drop in the pork barrel. I think it is one of the better things the Government does. If this is part of an over all trend of actually downsizing our government and their spending, then by all means chop away. More likely is is just a disingenuous diversion to try and show : "hey look at us! we are cutting the space program because we are serious about taking care of what really matters". Shhh now send a few bucks to the National Endowment for the Arts. Were about out of rubber dicks to hang on the wall.

Good point. I'm OK with knocking space research down a few priority notches in a recession, but if you cut it completely, starting from scratch is a bitch. And before we cut research like this to the bone, we ought to be cutting government funding of all kinds of things that are far less dependent on momentum (and far less deserving of government funding in the first place) like the artistic display of rubber dicks and such.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 01:56 PM
Plans are in development too! Here's a space hotel design from 1973. Just one version I've seen so far.


I saw it in a picture once, almost 40 years agom so it's clearly about to become a reality. :rolleyes:

Halfcan
01-28-2010, 03:31 PM
You have starving children in america-that should be a higher priority.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 03:46 PM
You have starving children in america-that should be a higher priority.

No you don't. We may have hungry children in America and we may have poorly nourished children in America, but to the extent that any of them are starving it is because they (or their parents) aren't taking advantage of assistance that is already there for them not because we're spending too much money on rockets or artisticly presented rubber dicks.

FishingRod
01-28-2010, 03:49 PM
No you don't. We may have hungry children in America and we may have poorly nourished children in America, but to the extent that any of them are starving it is because they (or their parents) aren't taking advantage of assistance that is already there for them not because we're spending too much money on rockets or artisticly presented rubber dicks.

I can see the commercial Now...

" For just the price of three rubber dicks..." LMAO

banyon
02-24-2010, 02:39 PM
Noticed this after visiting the site from the main lounge thread

http://bloomenergy.com/about/company-history/

NASA™ Technology Comes to Earth
Bloom Energy can trace its roots to work performed at the University of Arizona as part of the NASA Mars space program. Dr. KR Sridhar and his team were charged with creating a technology that could sustain life on Mars. They built a device capable of producing air and fuel from electricity, and/or electricity from air and fuel.

They soon realized that their technology could have an even greater impact here on Earth.

In 2001, when their project ended, the team decided to continue their research and start a company. Originally called Ion America, Bloom Energy, was founded with the mission to make clean, reliable energy affordable for everyone on earth.

In 2002, John Doerr, and Kleiner Perkins became the first investors in the company. Kleiner Perkins was legendary for its early backing of other industry changing companies, like Google, Amazon.com, Netscape, and Genentech, but Bloom was its first clean tech investment. In fact, at that time, clean tech was not even really a word.

With financing in place, the team packed three U-hauls and headed to NASA Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley to set up shop. Over the next few years, the technology quickly developed from concept, to prototype, to product, as the major technological challenges were solved and the systems became more powerful, more efficient, more reliable, and more economical.

In early 2006 Bloom shipped its first 5kW field trial unit to the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. After two years of successful field trials in Tennessee, California, and Alaska, to validate the technology, the first commercial (100kW) products were shipped to Google in July 2008.

Since that time Bloom's Energy Servers have helped our customers generate millions of kWhs of electricity and eliminate millions of pounds of CO2 from the environment.

From humble beginnings on Mars, Bloom Energy is now changing the Earth for the better.

<embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=contentMain;contentBody&releaseURL=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf&videoId=50083943&partner=news&vert=News&si=254&autoPlayVid=false&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'>Watch CBS News Videos Online</a>

Inspector
02-24-2010, 03:33 PM
So....what question did he ax of the moon mission?

Radar Chief
02-24-2010, 03:36 PM
So....what question did he ax of the moon mission?

.

KC native
02-24-2010, 03:38 PM
Noticed this after visiting the site from the main lounge thread

http://bloomenergy.com/about/company-history/



Hehe, you should have started a thread about it here calling her out instead of dropping it in this thread.

MahiMike
02-24-2010, 05:45 PM
FINALLY! First thing he's done that makes sense. What a waste of time and money. Now, start closing down those 300+ military bases we've got around the world, end the stupid wars and bring everyone home.

petegz28
02-24-2010, 08:26 PM
FINALLY! First thing he's done that makes sense. What a waste of time and money. Now, start closing down those 300+ military bases we've got around the world, end the stupid wars and bring everyone home.

I disagree. Space exploration is a vital part of progressing our technologies.