• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to End NASA Constellation Program

Maybe, but there's no guarantee that there will be useful technological spin-offs from this particular mission. It's not like "Ok guys, on this mission we're going to get X number of civilian spin-offs and other advancements." Sure they probably would make advancements in the space flight/moon landing programs because the Shuttles are on their last legs so they'd probably have to design new ships, but aside from that...

So you can't chart the spinoffs. So what?

It's far more than just a "mission." It's the end of all NASA manned space programs once the Shuttle is retired this year.

I suppose, though, trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain to my grandmother why this "Internet" thing is a big deal. She never used it, it was outside her experience, and whether or not it was there didn't affect her in any noticeable way. If the whole thing had been folded up, she'd have shrugged. Such is the same principle in play here.
 
So you can't chart the spinoffs. So what?

It's far more than just a "mission." It's the end of all NASA manned space programs once the Shuttle is retired this year.

Yeah, well it sucks but that's the price you pay for your countries' lack of fiscal conservatism.

I suppose, though, trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain to my grandmother why this "Internet" thing is a big deal. She never used it, it was outside her experience, and whether or not it was there didn't affect her in any noticeable way. If the whole thing had been folded up, she'd have shrugged. Such is the same principle in play here.

Yeah, and you know soo much more about it.
 
Yeah, well it sucks but that's the price you pay for your countries' lack of fiscal conservatism.

How's that, considering that no money is being saved here? That NASA's budget is being increased, not decreased? You're having a great deal of trouble comprehending that point. This has nothing, not one thing, to do with financial necessities. This is purely a policy decision by Obama.

But, you have your preferred narrative in mind, and you're sticking to it. That's been plainly obvious throughout.



Yeah, and you know soo much more about it.

Actually, it's pretty apparent that I do -- about the history of NASA, the benefits derived from it, the amount of money it's cost over the years . . . and more importantly to this particular point, what it's like to be a citizen of a space-pioneering country. :roll:
 
How's that, considering that no money is being saved here? That NASA's budget is being increased, not decreased? You're having a great deal of trouble comprehending that point. This has nothing, not one thing, to do with financial necessities. This is purely a policy decision by Obama.

But, you have your preferred narrative in mind, and you're sticking to it. That's been plainly obvious throughout.

I have pointed out in another post, that a manned Moon mission would likely greatly exceed NASAs current budget, especially if they have to design an entirely new generation of Shuttles. The other plan in the offing, further down the road was to send men to Mars; that's even more money.

Please don't play me for the fool, because I'm not one.
 
I have pointed out in another post, that a manned Moon mission would likely greatly exceed NASAs current budget

You made that claim, yes, but it was immediately countered (the cost of the mission was already figured into the budget), and that imaginary "extra cost" doesn't even matter, because the NASA budget is being increased. Not that you have any clue what it'll cost, what NASA's budget actually is, to make any determinations of how much it would "exceed" anything.

And this:

especially if they have to design an entirely new generation of Shuttles.

only shows the cluelessness with which you're conducting this train wreck of an argument. There is no plan, none at all, in this mission to "design an entirely new generation of Shuttles." It's not part of the spec, it's not part of the plan, it wouldn't make any sense given the mission parameters anyway, and this simply shows you know nothing about Project Constellation or any plans further along.

You have no idea what you're talking about, at all.

And before your next objection, Constellation/Ares is already designed, already largely built, and in the actual testing phases.


The other plan in the offing, further down the road was to send men to Mars; that's even more money.

That has nothing to do with now, nor this decision.


Please don't play me for the fool, because I'm not one.

I don't need to; you're demonstrating it well enough on your own.
 
Any review of the manned space exploration projects will reveal a massive amount of technology that transferred into our daily lives.

Obama is interested in promoting as has been suggested already his furtherance of the HOAX of Global Warming.

Obama knows almost nothing about anything that has to do with real progress and his poor education past his study of the Cloward and Piven Strategy, the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alensky, the guide lines of Hitler, and Marx is no existent.

If it doesn't promote his Progressive intentions it's not part of anything he wants.

When it comes to the things that would be good for American ans Americans Obama is a retard, and those who back and defend him are worse because they are led around by their noses like lad dogs who can't think for themselves.

If the present situation is not halted there will be a real revolution and not the evolution Obama and his ilk are striving for and it's not something I want to see.

NASA needs to be funded and pushed to do more with less and that would lead to innovation and great discoveries which has been the nature of man from the beginning of time.

If there were no exploration we might be hundreds of years behind where we are in technology, not just in science but in health care, something Obama knows nothing but lies about so far.

Records show that we are in a severe cooling trend and that CO2 levels are almost the same as they were 150 years ago. It has been revealed that many scientists have lied and have covered up facts that prove that global warming is a HOAX but Obama once again will continue his crusade as if none of it has come to light.

When faced with facts in opposition to your stance push harder, that's the Progressive way.

If you defend Obama you are going to learn the hard way that you too will pay a hefty price for your blind support of this Anti-American just as the rest of us.
 
You made that claim, yes, but it was immediately countered (the cost of the mission was already figured into the budget), and that imaginary "extra cost" doesn't even matter, because the NASA budget is being increased. Not that you have any clue what it'll cost, what NASA's budget actually is, to make any determinations of how much it would "exceed" anything.

Bull****; from the article:

NASA's budget, just over $18.7 billion this year, is still expected to rise again in 2011, reports Space.com, though by much less than the $1 billion increase NASA and its contractors have been privately anticipating since mid-December. A White House-appointed panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, urged these changes on the administration in December.

The panel also said a worthwhile manned space exploration program would require Obama to budget about $55 billion for human spaceflight over the next five years, some $11 billion more than he included in the 2011-2015 forecast he sent Congress last spring.
 
Bull****; from the article:

:roll:

Reading comprehension is obviously not strong with you.

Currently, NASA's budget is $18.7 billion, and increases are figured.

Multiply that by five (2011-2015), what do you get?

That's right -- $93 billion. Without increases.

Is $55 billion more than $93 billion? Does it "greatly exceed" it?

The article refers to what Obama's budget estimate for manned space flight programs was over those years, within the NASA budget, not in excess of it -- and it also refers to what some panel calls "worthwhile manned space flight," not just the Constellation program.

And even if you increased the initial estimate from 93 billion over five years to 104 billion over five years -- which you would not have to do; you can simply shift funds within the budget instead of adding to it (like what they're DOING!) -- you'd have $20.8 billion a year instead of $18.7 billion. That's not "greatly exceeding." :roll:

To say nothing of the fact that $55 billion, a mere $11 billion a year, for manned space flight is chickenfeed. Table scraps. A rounding error. Hardly a blip on hardly a blip. Hell, there's $350 billion in unused TARP funds sitting there that they don't want to give back, and they aren't spending it, so that takes care of the whole shebang almost seven times over.
 
Maybe, but there's no guarantee that there will be useful technological spin-offs from this particular mission. It's not like "Ok guys, on this mission we're going to get X number of civilian spin-offs and other advancements." Sure they probably would make advancements in the space flight/moon landing programs because the Shuttles are on their last legs so they'd probably have to design new ships, but aside from that...
Is that the way it was during the Mercury/Apollo series? You think they were counting the number of technology spin-offs? :roll:
 
Is that the way it was during the Mercury/Apollo series? You think they were counting the number of technology spin-offs? :roll:

No, I'm just saying, there's no guarantees of useful advancements for civilians.
 
To say nothing of the fact that $55 billion, a mere $11 billion a year, for manned space flight is chickenfeed. Table scraps. A rounding error. Hardly a blip on hardly a blip. Hell, there's $350 billion in unused TARP funds sitting there that they don't want to give back, and they aren't spending it, so that takes care of the whole shebang almost seven times over.

See, this is where America's whole problem with fiscal conservatism comes in. Tack on extra "chicken feed" as you put it, to a whole bunch of different programs (including Defence), add some pork spending, problems with entitlement programs and that adds up to a lot of chicken feed! That is how fiscal conservatism works, you have to find the savings wherever you can. I'm not saying Obama is a fiscal conservative, he's not enough of one for my tastes.

However, you're not really making a strong argument about why we should keep the Moon mission, your only points are symbolic nationalism, and a hope of technological advancement.
 
No, I'm just saying, there's no guarantees of useful advancements for civilians.

No guarantee, but if you look at the history of any scientific endeavor you will see the increase in knowledge benefiting civilians..... even the Manhattan project benefited civilians.

So tell me, how will spending all of that money that could benefit people on a religious hoax help anyone?
 
See, this is where America's whole problem with fiscal conservatism comes in. Tack on extra "chicken feed" as you put it, to a whole bunch of different programs (including Defence), add some pork spending, problems with entitlement programs and that adds up to a lot of chicken feed! That is how fiscal conservatism works, you have to find the savings wherever you can. I'm not saying Obama is a fiscal conservative, he's not enough of one for my tastes.

There's no savings. What is so difficult to understand about that? None. No savings. He's just spending the money on something else. And increasing it obscenely on lots of other stuff.

How many ways does it need to be shown to you?


However, you're not really making a strong argument about why we should keep the Moon mission, your only points are symbolic nationalism, and a hope of technological advancement.

Why we should keep the Moon mission?

Oh, no, there are lots of other reasons, too. Strategic reasons. Military reasons. Non-private technological reasons. The general advancement of mankind. All sorts of things.
 
I loathe Obama and don't really agree with anything he says, support or does (or tries to do).

But I agree that we should cut back/end altogether our space exploration for the time being.

I love space - I think it's fascinating and I *do* want exploration to continue. But I don't think right now is the time to be flooding money into it when there are other, more important things to focus on.

Unfortunately I know that the abstained money won't be redirected to other more important things - but it's a start.
 
There's no savings. What is so difficult to understand about that? None. No savings. He's just spending the money on something else. And increasing it obscenely on lots of other stuff.

How many ways does it need to be shown to you?

Apparently you don't understand how Obama's policy is a saved $11 Billion. And that's just the estimation, NASA would very likely go over-budget on a manned Moon mission. Even when Obama increases the NASA budget for climate change, it won't be as much as he would have to for a manned mission!

You even admitted that $11 billion would be more than Obama is spending now. And yet now you go back and say there aren't savings, and you call me a fool? Yeesh.
 
Last edited:
Nice. By ending Constellation, he's depriving us of any ability to send people into space at all after the Shuttle is retired this year. So, only Russia and China will be truly spacefaring nations.

And it's great timing, announcing this in the anniversary week of the three most tragic NASA accidents.
Cool --let them spend the bucks on exploration, and then just sell us what they find for cheap, like they do everything else. what's the problem with that?
 
There's no savings. What is so difficult to understand about that? None. No savings. He's just spending the money on something else. And increasing it obscenely on lots of other stuff.

How many ways does it need to be shown to you?




Why we should keep the Moon mission?

Oh, no, there are lots of other reasons, too. Strategic reasons. Military reasons. Non-private technological reasons. The general advancement of mankind. All sorts of things.

One of my favorite reasons to go to the Moon would be Solar power Satellites... all the materials to build them is there, all the power to build them is there, and once you have built the components there, it's 6 times easier to launch them into an Earth orbit.

But Barry wants to waste that money on his GW religion... who is really surprised?
 
Apparently you don't understand how Obama's policy is a saved $11 Billion. And that's just the estimation, NASA would very likely go over-budget on a manned Moon mission. Even when Obama increases the NASA budget for climate change, it won't be as much as he would have to for a manned mission!


That extra 11 billion over 5 years is an estimate for one guy's conception of entire manned program, not just a Moon mission. And it wouldn't have to be extra; it would just have be more -- if at ALL -- from within the NASA budget.

You are way out of your depth here, yapping about things about which you haven't the faintest clue. I suggest you read up on the history of NASA, what it's historically done, how it's been funded, and what exactly is all entailed in these budget proposals.

Or, just continue on with your fantasies about the costs of designing new Shuttle orbiters, etc. Whatever props up your preferred mental construct of the thing, I guess.


You even admitted that $11 billion would be more than Obama is spending now. And yet now you go back and say there aren't savings, and you call me a fool? Yeesh.

No, I said IF they actually spent that much more, above-budget -- which they wouldn't have to -- it would be pennies. If you do not understand the difference, I can't help you any further than that.
 
Nice. By ending Constellation, he's depriving us of any ability to send people into space at all after the Shuttle is retired this year. So, only Russia and China will be truly spacefaring nations.

And it's great timing, announcing this in the anniversary week of the three most tragic NASA accidents.

As a strong proponent of space exploration manned missions are a terrible waste of money not to mention how dangerous they are. Unmanned missions offer a bigger bang for your buck. We can go to more places and farther and concentrate more on collecting data vs. creating expensive live support systems.

Why go to a ball game you've already been to that might kill you vs. watching it remotely from all angles on a big screen along with lots of other ballgames. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
One of my favorite reasons to go to the Moon would be Solar power Satellites... all the materials to build them is there, all the power to build them is there, and once you have built the components there, it's 6 times easier to launch them into an Earth orbit.

But Barry wants to waste that money on his GW religion... who is really surprised?
the Moon is a much more hostile environment, than living on the bottom of the ocean, but with no fish.---How may satellites do we need anyhow?
 
As a strong proponent of space exploration manned missions are a terrible waste of money not to mention how dangerous they are. Unmanned missions offer a bigger bang for your buck. We can go to more places and farther and concentrate more on collecting data vs. creating expensive live support systems.

Why go to a ball game you've already been to that might kill you vs. watching it remotely from all angles on a big screen along with lots of other ballgames. :mrgreen:

I totally agree, robots are much more cost effective. A manned Moon mission would be mostly symbolic.
 
Cool --let them spend the bucks on exploration, and then just sell us what they find for cheap, like they do everything else. what's the problem with that?

Because I don't want my nation to end up like any of the ****hole nations in Europe.
 
Why go to a ball game you've already been to that might kill you vs. watching it remotely from all angles on a big screen along with lots of other ballgames. :mrgreen:

Ask any ball player.
 
As a strong proponent of space exploration manned missions are a terrible waste of money not to mention how dangerous they are. Unmanned missions offer a bigger bang for your buck. We can go to more places and farther and concentrate more on collecting data vs. creating expensive live support systems.

Why go to a ball game you've already been to that might kill you vs. watching it remotely from all angles on a big screen along with lots of other ballgames. :mrgreen:

If we're not sending MEN there, WE aren't going there.

There's a huge difference between watching Niagara Falls on NatGEO and being there on the Maid of the Mist. Humans on the spot see things the cameras don't.
 
I totally agree, robots are much more cost effective. A manned Moon mission would be mostly symbolic.

Apollo was mostly symbolic.

A sensible program intended to establish a permanent human presence would establish a permanent human presence.

Ain't nothing symbolic about building a waste treatment/recovery plant.
 
Back
Top Bottom