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

[Johnny Rico]

This just in...

Obama's Space Plan just axed NASA's plan to return to the moon.

Well, so much for the Messiah reaching for the stars.

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

 

[Captain Kirk]

That article says that it would cost 3 billion per year beyond the current NASA budget.

So, the amount of money the government spent to give to people to get them to throw away perfectly good cars and buy a new car that they don't need and probably can't afford would have funded the project for another year.

Just that one useless program, let alone the trillions spent to dismantle the health care system or to bail out Wall Street.

But a hundred billion or so to go to the moon and on to Mars? Hell no, we can't afford that. What, are you nuts?

I was expecting this as sure as the sun coming up in the morning, but it still makes me angry.

 

[sojourner]

The title is misleading on this article. Obama has said no such thing. The Augustine commission (panel referred to in article) has made 7 different recommendations on how to proceed with NASA's future. Only 2 of those axe returning to the moon. OBama has made no decision yet. He may choose one of the recommendations or come up with an entirely new plan.

The actual significant part of the Augustine Commission report is that all 7 recommendations have the Ares/Constellation program being axed and alternative launching systems being found.

 

[Tharsis]

Ok, so this is not happening yet? I was just about to reply with a remark about how little the NASA budget actually accounts for our total federal budget. I am sick of people saying that science needs to be cut to pay for more government bloat. Oh, and in the future please title your forum posts accurately!

 

[sojourner]

Oh, and what was released today was a Summary report, not the full report. The full report was given to Obama a few weeks ago.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Ok, so this is not happening yet? I was just about to reply with a remark about how little the NASA budget actually accounts for our total federal budget. I am sick of people saying that science needs to be cut to pay for more government bloat. Oh, and in the future please title your forum posts accurately!

Um, it was...what part of verbatum do you not understand?

 

[Squiggy]

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

No one who actually knows what's going on. Bush told NASA to to back to the moon but didn't give them any more money to do so. So NASA not only has to complete it's mission to finish the ISS but also operate the shuttle fleet AND develop the next generation spacecraft with the same amount of money.

But next time you want to start a thread like this, man up and bring it to another board in here and let me really school ya.

 

[Arrqh]

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

The US landed people on the Moon during Bush's administration? Wow, I sure missed that! Further, your thread title is most certainly not verbatim as you replaced the word "panel" with the word "plan". Unless the article itself changed since you posted this thread. Did it?

 

[David cgc]

Just that one useless program, let alone the trillions spent to dismantle the health care system or to bail out Wall Street.

But a hundred billion or so to go to the moon and on to Mars? Hell no, we can't afford that. What, are you nuts?

Well, if you'll be happy to be unemployed thanks to a crapped up economy so long as someone else gets to go to Mars, that's your prerogative.

 

[Arrqh]

Just that one useless program, let alone the trillions spent to dismantle the health care system or to bail out Wall Street.

But a hundred billion or so to go to the moon and on to Mars? Hell no, we can't afford that. What, are you nuts?

Well, if you'll be happy to be unemployed thanks to a crapped up economy so long as someone else gets to go to Mars, that's your prerogative.

That's not really a fair comparison. Something like, what $3 trillion has been spent on boosting the economy so far? NASA's current budget of $17.2 billion is 0.57% compared to that. And further, it's not like sending people to the Moon involves putting money into a box and shipping it off to space... all that money is spent, mostly domestically, and would feed back into the economy like any other government program... and, most importantly, create jobs.

As government programs go, NASA is small potatoes and it has been for decades.

 

[Middle Earther]

I honestly want to know why we need to go to the moon again. I am saying that wanting to know what real benefits we could conceivably achieve with more moon missions at this point in time.

Anyone care to chime in on this?

 

[Deks]

Well, if you'll be happy to be unemployed thanks to a crapped up economy so long as someone else gets to go to Mars, that's your prerogative.

You do realize that we still have people living on the streets who are jobless, homeless and whatnot with the government doing likely nothing to help these people back into society for one thing.
In UK for example, you have a catch 22 situation where such people cannot even get out of their predicament until the government changes rules.

Furthermore ... just how much of the taxpayers money has the government spent on projects that never amounted to anything or actually made the transition to new technologies that would completely change our way of living?

Just look how wealthy people in power are and how much politicians make compared the 'average joe'.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Ok, so this is not happening yet? I was just about to reply with a remark about how little the NASA budget actually accounts for our total federal budget. I am sick of people saying that science needs to be cut to pay for more government bloat. Oh, and in the future please title your forum posts accurately!

If you were familiar with Johnny Rico, you would have never expected factual accuracy from him, especially about politics. (Hint: look at his signature.)

 

[T'Girl]

Well, if you'll be happy to be unemployed thanks to a crapped up economy so long as someone else gets to go to Mars, that's your prerogative.

You do realize that we still have people living on the streets who are jobless, homeless and whatnot with the government doing likely nothing to help these people back into society for one thing.

And they'll stay on the the street as long as they think goverenment going to hand them a job.

But okay, if you want gov. increasing employment . the apollo moon program, at it's max, was employing hundreds of thousands of americans. Directly and indirectly, thru contractors, areospace companys, and yes thru trickle down to the support community.

Obama made it very clear during last years camplain that NASA's budget was most likely to be reduced during his first year.

That's his space plan. And it's not waiting for the release of a report. the report is unimportant.

Bush never had NASA on his front burner. But he commissioned the design and construction of the Ares system. Obama has no concrete plan to replace the shuttles. and the plan for the International Space Station is now to be "DE-ORBIT" it in the tear 2015.

 

[Squiggy]

I honestly want to know why we need to go to the moon again. I am saying that wanting to know what real benefits we could conceivably achieve with more moon missions at this point in time.

Anyone care to chime in on this?

Launching and fueling pad to Mars. And it would give me something cool to cover at work.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And they'll stay on the the street as long as they think goverenment [sic] going to hand them a job.

I deal with quite a few unemployed and more than a few homeless folks.

None of them "think government is going to hand them a job," although many would like a little more help of some kind. For the most part this POV is a smug fiction entertained by the unafflicted and comfortable - though I'm sure you can repeat or at least link (ah, the wonders of the Internet) to an anecdote of some kind that "proves" me wrong.

 

[26138]

I honestly want to know why we need to go to the moon again. I am saying that wanting to know what real benefits we could conceivably achieve with more moon missions at this point in time.

Anyone care to chime in on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff

 

[sojourner]

None of them "think government is going to hand them a job," although many would like a little more help of some kind. For the most part this POV is a smug fiction entertained by the unafflicted and comfortable - though I'm sure you can repeat or at least link (ah, the wonders of the Internet) to an anecdote of some kind that "proves" me wrong.

True enough, but space program dollars are still spent on earth.

 

[Marc]

Bush never had NASA on his front burner. But he commissioned the design and construction of the Ares system. Obama has no concrete plan to replace the shuttles. and the plan for the International Space Station is now to "DE-ORBIT" it in the tear 2015.

Familiar with the concept of "busy work"? It's when you do work that makes you look like you're achieving something hen you're just spinning your wheels. By setting tasks for NASA but not giving them the actual money to achieve anything is a prime example of busy work.

Secondly Ares is intended as a replacement for the shuttle so why should Obama set NASA the goal of designing the replacement - they've already got the thing on the drawing board.

Finally as pointed out in another thread, that design work Bush got NASA to do is turning in a total cluster fuck.

 

[Middle Earther]

I honestly want to know why we need to go to the moon again. I am saying that wanting to know what real benefits we could conceivably achieve with more moon missions at this point in time.

Anyone care to chime in on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff

I agree that there have been a lot of spinoff from NASA, but why, specifically, the moon? Don't we get a lot of this benefit from the space station/shuttle program?