....ummm, where do the schools in the US get their funding then?
Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"
- Thread starter Johnny Rico
- Start date
....ummm, where do the schools in the US get their funding then?
School funding does not come from the federal budget. It is provided by the budgets of the individual states.
Ah righto.
After watching "The Wire", I can't help but cringe whenever someone brings up test scores as a metric.
The drive to boost test scores can in some cases actually be damaging to the education of the child.
If you are a parent of a school-age child (like I am) then you know what a farcical piece of garbage the No Child Left Behind Act is, and how it hinders education.
The latest news on this ongoing saga:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/12/breaking-news-o.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/12/breaking-news-o.html
Code:
[B]Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget[/B]
By [URL="http://spaceref.net/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14&id=3"]Marc Boucher[/URL] on December 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget, Science Insider
"President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a
new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the Moon, asteroids,
and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president
chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program
Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden, according to official familiar with the discussion.
NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get
the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency's fleet of
robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft."
[B]Obama meeting with NASA chief yields few details so far[/B]
Orlando Sentinel
"Among the things Bolden told lawmakers and Congressional
staff was that the White House was now favoring a $1 billion
top line increase to NASA's budget in 2011. This would be far
better than the 5 percent cut that all agencies, including NASA,
were asked by the White House to prepare, but difficult to secure
given the deficit-cutting mindset in Congress now."Another article:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html
Code:
President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year
to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the
moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider
has learned. The president chose the new direction for
the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a
White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles
Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion.
NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both
to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the
agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.
The current NASA plan for human exploration is built
around the $3.5 billion Constellation program, which
would provide a way to get humans to the space
station and beyond. But its initial launcher, Ares 1,
has faced a string of cost and technical problems,
and it was excluded from several options for future
space flight put forth earlier this year by an outside
panel chaired by retired aerospace executive Norman
Augustine. Although that panel suggested a $3 billion
boost to NASA's $18.7-billion-a-year budget in order
to take a firm next step in human space flight, Obama's
support for a $1 billion bump next year represents a
major coup for the agency given the ballooning deficit
and the continuing recession. And NASA just won a
$1 billion boost from Congress for 2010 in a bill signed
by the president.
According to knowledgeable sources, the White House
is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better
spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be
ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European
countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work
on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving
the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies
would take over the job of getting supplies to the
international space station.“The decision is not going
to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White
House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns
about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace
jobs. But the decision, which has not yet been formally
announced, is sure to spark opposition from Senator
Richard Shelby (R-AL) and other members who fear
that any change to the current Constellation rocket
program will lead to mass layoffs in their states. Indeed,
Shelby inserted language into the final 2010 spending bill
for NASA requiring congressional approval before any
changes are made to Constellation.
Former U.S. President George W. Bush proposed
sending humans back to the moon in 2004. Since that
time, however, interest has grown in other destinations.
While the U.S. partners focus on lunar exploration, the
White House is more intrigued by missions to asteroids
and Phobos and Deimos as a precursor to a human
landing on the Red Planet in the distant future. That
option was given particular prominence by Augustine
panel members when they testified this fall before
congressional committees. To prepare for human visits,
NASA may order additional robotic missions to the martian
moons and asteroids in coming years.
The new program would jettison Ares 1. To appease
congressional critics like Shelby, the Administration hopes
to ensure that research and development work on the
new rocket would proceed without significant job losses
at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville, Alabama.
But Shelby appears to be preparing for battle. In a 14
December letter to NASA’s inspector general, he said that
several Augustine panel members were registered lobbyists
who took “direct advantage of their temporary roles on
the Commission to further their personal business.” He
asked the inspector general to conduct a thorough
investigation into the matter.
Augustine could not be reached for comment. The panel
did include the president of a company that stands to
gain from a recompetition of the new launcher, but none
of the committee members were registered lobbyists,
according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel. But there
were numerous staffers from industry backgrounds who
helped compile the Augustine report released in October.
Shelby’s press secretary, Jonathan Graffeo, did not
return calls requesting comment.
The report has kindled heated debate within Congress,
the aerospace industry, and the White House regarding
what direction the president should take. Obama chose
from several options presented to him by NASA, the Office
of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science
and Technology Policy. Those options included keeping
the budget flat and delaying a new launcher, building
a heavy-lift launcher with an additional $1 billion for the
agency, ramping up NASA’s annual budget by $3 billion
for an aggressive program, or abandoning space flight
altogether and reducing NASA’s budget. The president’s
decision to go with the second option is a major departure
from his 2010 budget plan, which called for a 5% increase
in 2010—the boost just approved by Congress—but then
remaining flat through 2014.
It's not clear when the new policy will be formally
announced. One White House source said that it
could come as early as next week, while another
hinted that it would wait until Obama’s State of the
Union address in late January. Another possibility is
that the decision would simply be part of the president's
2011 budget request to Congress on 1 February. Given
the White House's preoccupation with health care and
climate change, however, NASA officials and their industry
backers see the new policy as welcome proof that Obama
also cares about space flight.
Last edited:
Your statement here is arrogant, presumptive and flat-out WRONG. The tired and cliched allegation that people who cannot find work do not WANT to work just doesn't FLY in today's economy. While I'm certain there are some professional ne'er-do-wells among the ranks of the unemployed there are far MORE people, like yourself, who need to get with the program and respect the fact that TIMES change, situations change, conditions change and the blanket philosophies you contrived to justify your world views X-many years ago are getting frayed. Try paying ATTENTION to current events and evaluate accordingly rather than presuming your conclusions of the past will be permanently applicable into the present and future.
That said, I am among the ranks of the unemployed--or, more accurately, the UNDER-employed as I've been trying to start my own Chiropractic practice since last Spring. It's difficult, however, to start a business of ANY SORT w/o capital to build with and I HAVE been trying since I finished Grad-school in October of '08 to find work, first, in my field, then substantive work and finally ANY WORK at all, WITHOUT SUCCESS. For all the talk of people refusing to take jobs "beneath" them, the far more accurate truth is that Costco doesn't hire people with "Doctor" in front of their name to stack their shelves and McDonalds doesn't want them flipping their burgers. "We want someone who will stay with the job for a while," they keep saying. "We know that person isn't you, but thanks for applying". What's that, you say? "LIE" about my credentials? Tone them down so I don't look so "over-qualified". GREAT idea--EXCEPT for that gap in my resume for the last FIVE YEARS while I was in Chiropractic school. "Where have you been since you left your last job?" "UUUhhhhh . . . . jus' chillin'".
So your premise just doesn't work. I have 25 YEARS of "real-world" work experience, in various capacities--management, supervisory etc--in a variety of fields. I am well educated, with two BA's and I am a Doctor of Chiropractic (which is a graduate-level professional degree). I am clean and well-groomed, articulate and I have enough sense to show up to interviews wearing a tie and clean shoes. But in a year and a half I have been UNABLE to find, not just a well-paying job but ANY job.
And, NO, I'm NOT "expecting" the government to support me or give me a job nor IS the government helping me in ANY way. You see, since I haven't "worked" for pay in the last six and half years now (five years of school and a year and a half of looking for work) I'm not eligible for unemployment benefits of ANY sort. Without the help and support of my family and the very meager money I bring in my from anemic practice (which, again, suffers greatly from a lack of start-up funds and/or credit) I WOULD BE homeless. It is humbling and embarrassing that one of the reasons I choose to go BACK to school in my 40's was so I could help my parents financially in their retirement years, only to emerge and have to ask THEM to pay my mortgage for me each month.
Six days ago I sat with my family for Christmas and I had ONLY my company, thanks and good wishes to offer. I received gifts, yes, but I didn't enjoy it--because I had NO gifts to offer the people I love. Each package handed to me was like a little twist of the knife into my gut because of the BURDEN of I have become to my family, yet, for all the sacrifices they have made for me, they STILL had Christmas gifts for me. They meant well, but it hurt. I could only shrug and say, "you know my situation--maybe next year I can make it up to you"--hoping at the same time that there will BE a "next year" as my parents are entering their mid-70's and too many of my contemporaries are LOSING their mothers and fathers for me to be comfortable. Last Christmas was the SAME way and I only hope that next year, we're all here, healthy and happy and that I'll have MORE to offer than my company and my gratitude for my family bailing me out month after month.
I'm not expecting the government to "hand" me a job and I'm certainly not holding out from working. You are WRONG on so many levels with your interpretation and, seriously, you should sit down and do some real hard thinking about your static world views. The world is a dynamic and changing place and you need to pay ATTENTION to understand what's going on--not simply draw on cliched and worn out attitudes that probably weren't applicable in their prime.
I assume you're suggesting I was off topic. If so, how? The comment made was in context and connected to the overall discussion. Sorry if it gets a little too "real" for you but then again, hay, not everything is pie-in-the-sky abstract considerations. REAL people are hurting in this economy and some people, blind to the reasons why or who simply don't care, want to rationalize throwing money into the sky based on fundamentally erroneous thinking. You think that wrong-headed thinking should be permitted to go by unchallenged?
Overall, I agree with you except for going by way of Detroit and pounding out a whole novel. You would love my arguments in the thread about going to Mars and how I'm against it.
So which Chicago or Illinois company has an aerospace division? It would be nice to know who will build the Obamarocket.
From the tone of the articles, it sounds like Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy are being excluded along with Ares V.
From the tone of the articles, it sounds like Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy are being excluded along with Ares V.
*sigh*
The money gets spent here on Earth and generates limited-time jobs for a few highly technical-skilled people in over-priced industries and returns very little except mixed satisfaction for those seeking ARM-CHAIR GRAND ADVENTURE.
I'm not against spending money on such ventures but there is a TIME for such things. NOW is NOT such a time. No, I do NOT believe we should solve EVERY LAST PROBLEM here before we go there but there have BEEN better times to do it and there will again BE better times. There is NOTHING NEW on the Moon or Mars. They're not going to disappear, you know.
And, once again, too bad for you that you take exception to my use of personal examples to illustrate my perspective rather than the abstract of "people". But it hardly qualifies my perspective as a "rant".
1. the space shuttles will be retired within the next 18 months. IF Aries I and the Orion spacecraft are ready on time that will leave America about 4 long years without operational manned spacecraft. NASA having already flown the Aries Ix, any substitutes are certainly at a much earlier stage of development. The added time in development would add years to America's absence from space, probably beyond the three year extension to 2018.
2. For "rocket science" I don't think Aries I is very complicated. The first stage is basically a single solid propelant booster from the shuttle program with a fifth segment added. Those boosters have been reliable since the modulations prompted by the Challenger accident. They are similar to the boosters used by some of the launch vehicles used by America and other nations to launch satellites and scientific probes. There basically a pipe lined with a layer of solid propellant with a cap on one end and a hydraulicly steerable nozzle on the other end. Any substitute is going to need a steerable nozzle anyway, so I don't see how an effective substitute could be significantly simpler. A liquid fueled first stage would require the addition of complicated propellant pumps, plumbing and valves. The second stage of Aries I uses an updated version of the same liquid fueled motor used for the third stage of the 1960's vintage Saturn V.
3. Orion is basically an enlarged Apollo with solar panels substituting for the service module's fuel cells. That electrical modification is neccesitated by NASA's plans to dock an Orion at the ISS as a "life boat" for extended periods. Fuel cells require supplies of oxygen and hydrogen that are normally supplied in super cooled cryogenic form to avoid the weight of high pressure storage tanks. The long period aloft would result in those supplies boiling away. Test articles based on the Orion have already been used to verify the feasibility of the design. Those tests would have to be repeated if a substitute spacecraft is to be used.
4. Continued use of the Aries I and Orion would require the continued construction of new equipment (second stage, service module and capsule) for each flight with the accompanied expenditures for labor and materials. As usual those funds would be subsequently be spend in the terrestrial economy for industrial, commercial and family purchases.
2. For "rocket science" I don't think Aries I is very complicated. The first stage is basically a single solid propelant booster from the shuttle program with a fifth segment added. Those boosters have been reliable since the modulations prompted by the Challenger accident. They are similar to the boosters used by some of the launch vehicles used by America and other nations to launch satellites and scientific probes. There basically a pipe lined with a layer of solid propellant with a cap on one end and a hydraulicly steerable nozzle on the other end. Any substitute is going to need a steerable nozzle anyway, so I don't see how an effective substitute could be significantly simpler. A liquid fueled first stage would require the addition of complicated propellant pumps, plumbing and valves. The second stage of Aries I uses an updated version of the same liquid fueled motor used for the third stage of the 1960's vintage Saturn V.
3. Orion is basically an enlarged Apollo with solar panels substituting for the service module's fuel cells. That electrical modification is neccesitated by NASA's plans to dock an Orion at the ISS as a "life boat" for extended periods. Fuel cells require supplies of oxygen and hydrogen that are normally supplied in super cooled cryogenic form to avoid the weight of high pressure storage tanks. The long period aloft would result in those supplies boiling away. Test articles based on the Orion have already been used to verify the feasibility of the design. Those tests would have to be repeated if a substitute spacecraft is to be used.
4. Continued use of the Aries I and Orion would require the continued construction of new equipment (second stage, service module and capsule) for each flight with the accompanied expenditures for labor and materials. As usual those funds would be subsequently be spend in the terrestrial economy for industrial, commercial and family purchases.
Yeah, but all Ares-Ix was was a Shuttle SRB with a cock extender attached to it. No J2 motor, no fuelled upper stage, etc etc. Pretty much dog and pony show.
Ares-I has a long way to go as a launch vehicle, but it's the fast and dirty way to "next gen" (hahaha) manned flight since J-2's have been man rated for over 40 years, and SRBs over 20.
Ares-I has a long way to go as a launch vehicle, but it's the fast and dirty way to "next gen" (hahaha) manned flight since J-2's have been man rated for over 40 years, and SRBs over 20.
Hate to break it to you, but with nearly 7 billion people on the planet, technically everything that gets done is "arm chair adventure" to almost everyone else.
Why is now such a bad time? Is there a world war? a cold war? Major outbreak? Is the less than 1% of the U.S. budget spent on NASA going to make or break anything? There will never be a good time to do these types of things. You just have to make the time.
And yes, 6 paragraphs about your job history/issues with no comment on the subject of the original post does seem more like axe grinding and venting about your current situation more than any interest in the subject at hand.
