Paul Ryan Talks Space Exploration, Accuses Obama of 'Dismantling' the Program

obvious Child · Sep 23, 2012

Paul Ryan Talks Space Exploration, Accuses Obama of 'Dismantling' the Program - Yahoo! News

I'm sorry. WHAT THE FLYING **** Paul Ryan?

You just attacked Obama on his putting the private sector in the lead in taxing supplies and people into space. Before, when we were using the Shuttle, not only did it cost us $450 MILLION per launch, it also was effectively a Socialist program. The government literally owned and controlled the means of production. Ending the Shuttle Program (as Bush did) gets the government out of a literal socialist program and puts the focus on the private sector.

This apparently is awful to Representative Ryan.

Obama should be fired because he's a Socialist and he should be fired when he gets rid of Socialism? Does the GOP even think about what it says these days or it is just "We can hit Obama on this, let's just say it!" Mantra running through their tiny little brains?

Hiring the Russians in the short term for taxi services saves the American taxpayer BILLIONS. Apparently that's BAD to Representative Ryan.

And apparently cutting money from NASA but leaving it with a relatively large budget is "dismantling it." I wonder how Ryan views the programs he cuts to almost nothing as. Total annihilation? Vaporization?

How anyone can respect or even think Ryan has any credibility anymore is beyond me.

Rokkitsci · Sep 23, 2012

You are so right - everyone knows that the original intent for founding NASA was to extend our outreach to the Muslim world to show them how grateful we are for their lending us the use of their name for algebra. How those evil GOPers (and JFK, etc) managed to shoehorn into this grand scheme diversion of funds to put a man on the moon and build a space station shows just how covert these GOP operatives can be = and right under our noses too!!!!

They practically ignored our outreach to Muslims during all those years when we were developing the technology that completely fuels our current economy. This is UNACCEPTABLE!!! Finally, Obama came along to dismantle all that wasted effort and renew our outreach mission.:vomit:
Next - he can then attack our socialist military establishment and recoup all those funds to put our healthcare system into the hands of the government and we can expand our stranglehold on energy production and we can ---- wait, were we attacking 'socialism' or not? :unsure13:
Who needs a freaking manned space program anyway? We can let the Russkies and Chinese do it. Maybe they will even let us ride along a few times. Who needs the new technologies that will necessarily develop from these efforts? Maybe they will let us be their cheap labor force someday while they play with the fruits of their development.

There are a LOT of things we can spend that money on NOW - like further entrenching the irresponsible element of our own society so they will be even more dedicated to the DEM party for their very existence. We need to spend that money on BUYING MORE VOTES for the DEMs - THAT is what our country was established to do - stifle progress in raising hopes and dreams while raising the next crop of unthinking, indolent, layabouts that can be counted on for easy votes by promising them more of 'that rich guys' money.

Rokkitsci · Sep 23, 2012

I just noticed your sig quote and checked your profile.

What is it with people like you who won't identify their political leaning?

'other' <== WTH?? is 'socialist' not far left enough? or 'very liberal'??

And you claim to be from some utopia called "land of the anti-stupid" yet your sig quote and this post is not only anti-factual, but completely stupid in a moronic sort of way.

What is it with you folks? Can you not see that you are accusing others of traits that you so blatently display by your own words?

Gonzo Rodeo · Sep 23, 2012

obvious Child said:
You just attacked Obama on his putting the private sector in the lead in taxing supplies and people into space.

The private sector is not in the lead. There is currently one private sector company, and they have no manned capability as of yet. Instead of spending our money in our economy to send astronauts to the ISS, we are sending our money to Russia.

By the way, does anyone know why the Russians are able to send shuttles up cheaper than we were?

Lord Tammerlain · Sep 23, 2012

Gonzo Rodeo said:
The private sector is not in the lead. There is currently one private sector company, and they have no manned capability as of yet. Instead of spending our money in our economy to send astronauts to the ISS, we are sending our money to Russia.

By the way, does anyone know why the Russians are able to send shuttles up cheaper than we were?

The dont send shuttles

They use rockets and the Soyuz space craft. Far simpler and less costly method then the shuttle

Gonzo Rodeo · Sep 23, 2012

Lord Tammerlain said:
The dont send shuttles

They use rockets and the Soyuz space craft. Far simpler and less costly method then the shuttle

Ding ding ding.

I suppose that was a bit of a trick question. But yes, the Russians developed a more efficient way to get people into space. That was essentially my point.

We have stopped innovating.

The Dragon modules from SpaceX look very promising for the future, and as an added bonus, they are a US company. But why did we have to go the cheaper Russian route in the interim? Why did we not seek a solution to the problem ourselves? Why are we not the cutting-edge leaders in the space industry anymore?

I don't think you'll find even the most hawkish, conservative, small-government person would agree that the military would be better handled with private equity; nor do I think the space frontier falls into that category for most, either. The two categories of government spending that have yielded the most life-changing technology in our history have been military research and space research... and a great deal of space research has defense applications/motivations.

obvious Child · Sep 23, 2012

Gonzo Rodeo said:
The private sector is not in the lead. There is currently one private sector company, and they have no manned capability as of yet. Instead of spending our money in our economy to send astronauts to the ISS, we are sending our money to Russia.

So you'd rather spend $450 million of taxpayer dollars than less then half of that?

Furthermore, the cost of shipping non-living material to the ISS is far cheaper via the private sector then it is by shuttle.

By the way, does anyone know why the Russians are able to send shuttles up cheaper than we were?

Because Soyuz rockets are old and cheap.

We have stopped innovating.

What do you call the mini sized rover on Mars then? No longer running a taxi service does not mean that we have stopped innovating.

Paul Ryan says it doesn't exist since the "government doesn't produce anything."

The Dragon modules from SpaceX look very promising for the future, and as an added bonus, they are a US company. But why did we have to go the cheaper Russian route in the interim? Why did we not seek a solution to the problem ourselves? Why are we not the cutting-edge leaders in the space industry anymore?

Actually we pay Boeing and a Japanese company to deliver supplies to the ISS. I believe Dragon actually delivered supplies this year as well.

Why do we pay the Russians? Because it's exorbitantly cheaper. Savings Taxpayer dollars is BAD if a Democrat is doing it. Paul Ryan is so completely full of **** how anyone with a functioning brain considers him of any value is beyond me. And we ARE seeking a solution ourselves. It's called Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. Getting the private sector to fulfill the taxi service so that NASA can focus on research.

Why do people think that all NASA does is run a taxi service? The shuttle is little more than a taxi service. And it is not the core of what NASA does.

I don't think you'll find even the most hawkish, conservative, small-government person would agree that the military would be better handled with private equity

You clearly did not account for Dick Cheney.

eace

nor do I think the space frontier falls into that category for most, either. The two categories of government spending that have yielded the most life-changing technology in our history have been military research and space research... and a great deal of space research has defense applications/motivations.

How does getting out of a taxi service change this? You do realize NASA does more than run a taxi service?

obvious Child · Sep 23, 2012

Rokkitsci said:
I just noticed your sig quote and checked your profile.

What is it with people like you who won't identify their political leaning?

'other' <== WTH?? is 'socialist' not far left enough? or 'very liberal'??

And you claim to be from some utopia called "land of the anti-stupid" yet your sig quote and this post is not only anti-factual, but completely stupid in a moronic sort of way.

What is it with you folks? Can you not see that you are accusing others of traits that you so blatently display by your own words?

I'm sorry, I only deal with people who discuss things in reality. The Republican defense bill gave the Presidency the right to detain indefinitely without charge anyone on essentially undefined terms. The ACA forces people to take responsibility for their own costs. Nothing in my said is not factual nor moronic. And McConnell called the ACA the worst piece of modern legislation. Therefore, he believes that locking up people without charge forever is not as bad as ending freeloading healthcare leeches.

Your other post is a complete waste of space not worth of even being mentioned.

Lord Tammerlain · Sep 23, 2012

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Ding ding ding.

I suppose that was a bit of a trick question. But yes, the Russians developed a more efficient way to get people into space. That was essentially my point.

We have stopped innovating.

The Dragon modules from SpaceX look very promising for the future, and as an added bonus, they are a US company. But why did we have to go the cheaper Russian route in the interim? Why did we not seek a solution to the problem ourselves? Why are we not the cutting-edge leaders in the space industry anymore?

I don't think you'll find even the most hawkish, conservative, small-government person would agree that the military would be better handled with private equity; nor do I think the space frontier falls into that category for most, either. The two categories of government spending that have yielded the most life-changing technology in our history have been military research and space research... and a great deal of space research has defense applications/motivations.

The Russian technology dates from a time before the space shuttle was developed. As for the US, getting to space is not inovative and can be done by private enterprise, as obvious Child has pointed out. Nasa should not develop a new means to get to space, but should focus on getting to other planets. The competition from private enterprise will ensure lower costs, and be more inovative then Nasa would be provided their is a market for their product, and getting things into space is now a large market

Your Star · Sep 23, 2012

I actually agree with Ryan on this issue, it's a shame that we do not have our own space craft to send people up in space, that we aren't actively working on a trip to Mars, and that we do not spend nearly enough money on the space program. The entire 08 Bailout costs us more than we have ever spent on NASA.

The only thing I would criticize Ryan on here is that his messaging is highly inconsistent, and he just seems to be wanting to attack Obama on anything.

Objective Voice · Sep 23, 2012

First off, Paul Ryan's accusation is yet another form of convuluting the issue.

NASA was effectively "gutted" under GWB, but by saying that President Obama has "presided over a dismantling of the space program over the last four years," though correct (since he is President) leds people to believe that he and only he is to blame for reduced spending on or promotion of the nation's space program. Now, I agree with him here...:

"We are near the space coast, I think it's important that we have a space program that has a clear space mission, a space program that we know where we are heading in the future, and a space program that is the unequivocal leader on the planet in space travel and space research,"

...but in today's economic climate I wonder exactly where Ryan plans to get the money to pay for such endeavours considering all the talk about a bloated federal budget and out of control federal spending?

I understand that NASA has been one of the greatest economic engines of the last 40 years this country has ever seen, but let's be real here. We cannot afford to keep paying for an expensive shuttle program. To that, just as Russia piggy-backed on our space shuttle flights, we're going to have to use their space program in the interim until we can figure out ways to revamp our space program. Right now, Paul Ryan's doing nothing more than what Newt Gingrich did right before he threw in the towel on his presidential bid - pandering to Floridians - only Newt was more right about the broader benefits of privatizing the space program than Ryan happens to be.

Your Star · Sep 23, 2012

Objective Voice said:
...but in today's economic climate I wonder exactly where Ryan plans to get the money to pay for such endeavours considering all the talk about a bloated federal budget and out of control federal spending?

I understand that NASA has been one of the greatest economic engines of the last 40 years this country has ever seen, but let's be real here. We cannot afford to keep paying for an expensive shuttle program. To that, just as Russia piggy-backed on our space shuttle flights, we're going to have to use their space program in the interim until we can figure out ways to revamp our space program. Right now, Paul Ryan's doing nothing more than what Newt Gingrich did right before he threw in the towel on his presidential bid - pandering to Floridians - only Newt was more right about the broader benefits of privatizing the space program than Ryan happens to be.

This is wrong, we have the money, NASA's budget is only 1/10 of a penny, the entire running budget of NASA over more than half a century was smaller than the 08 bailouts. We have the money, it's really not about a lack of money, but a lack of ambition.

Stewart · Sep 23, 2012

Your Star said:
I actually agree with Ryan on this issue, it's a shame that we do not have our own space craft to send people up in space, that we aren't actively working on a trip to Mars, and that we do not spend nearly enough money on the space program. The entire 08 Bailout costs us more than we have ever spent on NASA.

The only thing I would criticize Ryan on here is that his messaging is highly inconsistent, and he just seems to be wanting to attack Obama on anything.

You know, it shouldn't really matter that much about relying on Russian technology to get to the ISS, Soyuz is a much better as a Taxi service than Shuttle was. Shuttle is like a Mack Truck, Soyuz is like a Four Door sedan. The shuttle was good for getting parts into space and installing them, but as a long duration escape pod/taxi (which is what Soyuz is for the ISS) it was incredibly poor. And don't let the fact that Soyuz was first launched in the 1960s fool you. It is a very safe and efficient spacecraft, a design which has been regularly modernized. Let's not forget that the shuttle had a lot of dead weight, a riskier re-entry method and no launch escape system in flight.

Ryan is partially right, Obama has cancelled Constellation, a program that the administration charged was behind schedule, over budget and underfunded. However the new program that NASA has come up with, the Space Launch System ( a very shiny rocket, in it's final configuration, the most powerful ever launched) is no better. This in part due to the nature of the current congress where partisan fighting as it highest. More than funding, NASA lacks a direction. We may have a shiny rocket, but where to send it? There is no Kennedy style selecting of a target and striving to reach it. It Really is a joke.

cpwill · Sep 23, 2012

obvious Child said:
Paul Ryan Talks Space Exploration, Accuses Obama of 'Dismantling' the Program - Yahoo! News

I'm sorry. WHAT THE FLYING **** Paul Ryan?

that was my reaction as well. what fail.

Muddy Creek · Sep 23, 2012

obvious Child said:
Paul Ryan Talks Space Exploration, Accuses Obama of 'Dismantling' the Program - Yahoo! News

I'm sorry. WHAT THE FLYING **** Paul Ryan?

You just attacked Obama on his putting the private sector in the lead in taxing supplies and people into space. Before, when we were using the Shuttle, not only did it cost us $450 MILLION per launch, it also was effectively a Socialist program. The government literally owned and controlled the means of production. Ending the Shuttle Program (as Bush did) gets the government out of a literal socialist program and puts the focus on the private sector.

This apparently is awful to Representative Ryan.

Obama should be fired because he's a Socialist and he should be fired when he gets rid of Socialism? Does the GOP even think about what it says these days or it is just "We can hit Obama on this, let's just say it!" Mantra running through their tiny little brains?

Hiring the Russians in the short term for taxi services saves the American taxpayer BILLIONS. Apparently that's BAD to Representative Ryan.

And apparently cutting money from NASA but leaving it with a relatively large budget is "dismantling it." I wonder how Ryan views the programs he cuts to almost nothing as. Total annihilation? Vaporization?

How anyone can respect or even think Ryan has any credibility anymore is beyond me.

Very few people do have respect for him anymore.

He's flip flopped almost as much as Romney.

Muddy Creek · Sep 23, 2012

Your Star said:
This is wrong, we have the money, NASA's budget is only 1/10 of a penny, the entire running budget of NASA over more than half a century was smaller than the 08 bailouts. We have the money, it's really not about a lack of money, but a lack of ambition.

Ambition? How so?

cpwill · Sep 23, 2012

Well, he's trying to be a good VP candidate for the nominee. But they shouldn't be doing this to him

.

Stewart · Sep 23, 2012

Objective Voice said:
To that, just as Russia piggy-backed on our space shuttle flights, we're going to have to use their space program in the interim until we can figure out ways to revamp our space program. Right now, Paul Ryan's doing nothing more than what Newt Gingrich did right before he threw in the towel on his presidential bid - pandering to Floridians - only Newt was more right about the broader benefits of privatizing the space program than Ryan happens to be.

Really NASA isn't concerning itself much with a return to LEO, it's Commercial Crew Development is helping private companies to develop man rated, LEO capable spacecraft. NASA is instead focusing on beyond LEO for space exploration. The moon is a natural choice, however without a lander, it's out. An asteroid (like 1036) is possible, because the delta v requirements for escape are very low and thus won't require a lander, only some style of Manoeuvring Unit worn on the back. But really, landing on an asteroid doesn't do much for us.

Stewart · Sep 23, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
Ambition? How so?

Umm, well there are plans for a shiny rocket, but no plans to send it anywhere.

Fisher · Sep 23, 2012

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Ding ding ding.

I suppose that was a bit of a trick question. But yes, the Russians developed a more efficient way to get people into space. That was essentially my point.

We have stopped innovating.

The Dragon modules from SpaceX look very promising for the future, and as an added bonus, they are a US company. But why did we have to go the cheaper Russian route in the interim? Why did we not seek a solution to the problem ourselves? Why are we not the cutting-edge leaders in the space industry anymore?

I don't think you'll find even the most hawkish, conservative, small-government person would agree that the military would be better handled with private equity; nor do I think the space frontier falls into that category for most, either. The two categories of government spending that have yielded the most life-changing technology in our history have been military research and space research... and a great deal of space research has defense applications/motivations.

Technically, Russia stopped innovating. They developed a rocket that worked and still works. The story of their part of the space station is interesting to me. The US designs and designs and plans and committees things to death. Russia just worked at it until it worked (well sort of) and didn't bother keeping any plans or records that drove NASA nuts.

We still have plenty of rockets--they just happen to have ICBM warheads attached to them.

Dwight · Sep 24, 2012

Gonzo Rodeo said:
The private sector is not in the lead. There is currently one private sector company, and they have no manned capability as of yet. Instead of spending our money in our economy to send astronauts to the ISS, we are sending our money to Russia.

That would be "in the lead" as in "here, we are going to give you the opportunity to lead the way in figuring out that thing" rather than "here, we are going to do it all for you, hand it over to you, and let you do victory laps riding off only our work".

With the basic research trail blazed, a display of willingness from private enterprise to take up the torch, and other goals & projects to move onto (Mars!) this seems to be a reasonable time for an earnest shift towards private enterprise. *shrug* That the Russians and others are able to provide a stop-gap solution is a convenience that ices the cake IMO.

Wiseone · Sep 24, 2012

Gonzo Rodeo said:
The private sector is not in the lead. There is currently one private sector company, and they have no manned capability as of yet. Instead of spending our money in our economy to send astronauts to the ISS, we are sending our money to Russia.

By the way, does anyone know why the Russians are able to send shuttles up cheaper than we were?

Just to clarify your question, the Soyuz space craft that the Russian's use is personnel only it has no room for cargo like the space shuttle. The Soyuz may be cheaper but its also far less capable than the US Shuttle. Of course often times the US shuttle is not used to transport any cargo at all, and with the International Space Station complete the major purpose of the cargo area in the shuttle no longer exists, perhaps we've overcome whatever limitations on just blasting cargo into space on a rocket or perhaps not I don't know I'm not a rocket scientist.

Just wanted to point out the greater utility of the US shuttle, take that information how you want.

Hatuey · Sep 24, 2012

Rokkitsci said:
You are so right - everyone knows that the original intent for founding NASA was to extend our outreach to the Muslim world to show them how grateful we are for their lending us the use of their name for algebra. How those evil GOPers (and JFK, etc) managed to shoehorn into this grand scheme diversion of funds to put a man on the moon and build a space station shows just how covert these GOP operatives can be = and right under our noses too!!!!
They practically ignored our outreach to Muslims during all those years when we were developing the technology that completely fuels our current economy. This is UNACCEPTABLE!!! Finally, Obama came along to dismantle all that wasted effort and renew our outreach mission.:vomit:
Next - he can then attack our socialist military establishment and recoup all those funds to put our healthcare system into the hands of the government and we can expand our stranglehold on energy production and we can ---- wait, were we attacking 'socialism' or not? :unsure13:
Who needs a freaking manned space program anyway? We can let the Russkies and Chinese do it. Maybe they will even let us ride along a few times. Who needs the new technologies that will necessarily develop from these efforts? Maybe they will let us be their cheap labor force someday while they play with the fruits of their development.

There are a LOT of things we can spend that money on NOW - like further entrenching the irresponsible element of our own society so they will be even more dedicated to the DEM party for their very existence. We need to spend that money on BUYING MORE VOTES for the DEMs - THAT is what our country was established to do - stifle progress in raising hopes and dreams while raising the next crop of unthinking, indolent, layabouts that can be counted on for easy votes by promising them more of 'that rich guys' money.

What the flying ****? Is there a glitch in the matrix or something? Anybody else try to read this?

Gonzo Rodeo · Sep 24, 2012

Just a few more...

obvious Child · Sep 29, 2012

cpwill said:
Well, he's trying to be a good VP candidate for the nominee. But they shouldn't be doing this to him .

Ryan should STFU at this point. Every time he opens his mouth he reputation goes down.

His idiotic "strength" comment is truly mind blogging. We occupied two Middle Eastern nations at once and saw record terrorist attacks. His idiotic line of thinking if we show strength they won't test us is mind blogging wrong. Ryan really needs to simply stop talking.

Paul Ryan Talks Space Exploration, Accuses Obama of 'Dismantling' the Program

Equal Opportunity Hater

Well-known member

Well-known member

better late than pregnant

better late than pregnant

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Rage More!

Rage More!

Cammunist

Cammunist

Cammunist

Well-known member

Rule of Two

better late than pregnant

Equal Opportunity Hater