Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[Squiggy]

And it's not a recent decision. It was decided in the early 70s to stop going back to the moon.

Do you remember when Apollo 19 landed? Of course you don't. Because it was canceled because it was too expensive.

[Alpha_Geek]

Obama cancelled 18 and 19??? It's obvious that he dosen't know Jack Schmidt!








...and no, ASTM does not count, that was a "Thank you" gift to Deke.

[Doran]

sojourner wrote:

---

No, if you read the thread, you would know that the Augustine Commission reported that at current levels there is not enough money with the current plan NASA is using. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE by Obama on providing addition funds, changing the goal, or changing the plan to achieve that goal. Please stop spreading FUD.(Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)

I'm not spreading FUD, but trying to stimulate interest and action. I'm free to post what I post unless the moderator says otherwise... have a nice day.

[sojourner]

Doran wrote:

---

I'm not spreading FUD, but trying to stimulate interest and action. I'm free to post what I post unless the moderator says otherwise... have a nice day.

The problem is that you are misrepresenting the facts. If you want to post your opinion, then please state that in your post. Otherwise, please provide some kind of proof of your statements.

[Doran]

I'm over this Sojourner, let's move on. We're both probably disrupting the thread and I extend my apologies for that.

[ProtoAvatar]

Finnegan wrote:

---

I think that China will catch up to, then surpass, the West when it comes to manned space exploration. This actually might be a good thing, as it could spur a new "space race", with China this time, not the old USSR.

I do find it odd that the US could go to the moon, several times, using 1950's/1960's technology, and then has never gone back. It's like Columbus discovering the new world--and then Europe never returning because of the cost of building some big new boats. Not exactly the same thing, but you get my point.

I know it's a matter of political will, and the desire to spend huge sums of money on space research, but come on--it should still be a matter of national pride that the US gets back to the moon with a manned presence.

As you said, the Moon/America analogy is quite inexact. It would be acceptable if America would be a lifeless desert, with few usable resources.

And national pride only goes so far - it stops short of several billion dollars in expenses (when there's no mortal enemy to humiliate).

About the development of new technologies or about relieving the population pressure/assuring humanity's continued survival - all these are long-term objectives.
Humanity was never too good at long-term thinking. And this goes double for someone who stays in power for only 4 years.

[Alpha_Geek]

Maybe the new administration should nationalize the space program!

Oh,... wait...

Nevermind.

[Allyn Gibson]

Finnegan wrote:

---

I do find it odd that the US could go to the moon, several times, using 1950's/1960's technology, and then has never gone back. It's like Columbus discovering the new world--and then Europe never returning because of the cost of building some big new boats. Not exactly the same thing, but you get my point.

Perhaps the better comparison should be made to Leif Eriksson and the Viking expeditions to Vinland, rather than Columbus.

[Squiggy]

Cough.

WASHINGTON — The White House has asked congressional appropriators to restore $670 million cut from NASA’s nearly $4 billion budget request for human space exploration in a version of the 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill the House passed in June, according to congressional and administration sources.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/whit...t-funding.html

[Alpha Romeo]

Screamy wrote:

---

Cough.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/whit...t-funding.html

Excellent. Which means funding for Ares?

[John Picard]

The budgets for the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut in half, with those slashed funds being sent straight to NASA. If any type of government spending is a waste it's those two Agencies.

[darkwing_duck1]

John Picard wrote:

---

The budgets for the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut in half, with those slashed funds being sent straight to NASA. If any type of government spending is a waste it's those two Agencies.

By all means, let us cut funding for agencies that provide education for our children and energy to run our society in favor of MORE pretty pictures of Earth and of idiots bouncing around in micro-g and more useless rocks...

You ARE a fool!

[Middle Earther]

Education is, essentially a state controlled function. So, cutting the Dept. of Ed. budget doesn't necessarily mean a cut to schools.

[Data Holmes]

darkwing_duck1 wrote:

---

By all means, let us cut funding for agencies that provide education for our children and energy to run our society in favor of MORE pretty pictures of Earth and of idiots bouncing around in micro-g and more useless rocks...

You ARE a fool!

Midnight Howler wrote:

---

Education is, essentially a state controlled function. So, cutting the Dept. of Ed. budget doesn't necessarily mean a cut to schools.

It's like reading a raisin brain box... two scoops of fruit.

[John Picard]

darkwing_duck1 wrote:

---

By all means, let us cut funding for agencies that provide education for our children and energy to run our society in favor of MORE pretty pictures of Earth and of idiots bouncing around in micro-g and more useless rocks...

You ARE a fool!

Quick question -- Why was the Department of Energy created, and when?

To date, please tell me how many people it employs. Also, please tell me if the DOE has solved the issue it was created to resolve. (FYI - The Department of Energy does NOT supply energy).

If the Department of Education is so successful, why do test scores in the US continue to rank so low out of industrialized nations.

It is best you rethink your statement as to who the actual "fool" is.