Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 349

Thread: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelzie View Post
    Which is why I'm not a libertarian anymore. Like so many things in life, the economy works best with a blend of socialist and capitalist features.
    Yeah, but watch out for who is deciding the right blend. Enter corporate donors, special interests, and corrupt politicians.

    The problem with yanking entitlements is we've encouraged a large amount of elderly Americans to think of them as, if not entirely, at least a large chunk of their retirement. It's a little cruel to pull the rug out from under their feet at this point. I am not entirely opposed to telling the younger generations they're on their own, but then what do we do when people don't save for old age? Let them starve on the street?
    Social Security: the least of our entitlement worries. It is frustrating that those who can afford retirement on their own are collecting SS. I would cut them out first of all. The rest have had promises and they count on it. My parents count on it so they can take a long trip every year to somewhere interesting. Before FDR we didn't have it. How did we care for our elders then? They lived with us. We need to go back to that model and have families care for the elderly.

    Medicare/Medicaid: This is a tough one and evidently the more costly and growing of the entitlements. Since we are talking socialism, lemme briefly tell you my solution. At the state/local level (where-ever the optimal savings for administration and staffing occurs) we create Co-ops, so they are not government run. We fund the co-ops with state and local taxes. Taxes will go up. The co-ops provide medical care for the old, the sick (pre-existing conditions) and the poor. Medicare and Medicaid are closed down. The co-ops will hire their own staff (admin, nurses, doctors) and buy their own facilities (clinics, urgent care, pharmacies, hospitals). Costs are contained based on the employment and facility ownership. They can serve X number of people in T amount of time. The latest drugs are not always used to save money. No choice of doctors in this system. You may be able to buy supplementals for the latest drugs and doctor choice.

    I don't know. I'm saving for an early retirement. On one hand I don't see how it's my problem is someone else doesn't. But on the other hand there are a lot of practical problems.
    I am screwed on retirement.

    But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit.
    Yeah, like Crippler said, why are you hating on the sciences?

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Link


    Looks like the big gun has taken aim at Obama. Obama is a moron.
    Obama wants our country to have the first man on mars. We have already been to the moon, remember? Been there, done that.

    Talk about right wing sophistry.

  3. #263
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    05-19-10 @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    496

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelzie View Post
    Well. As long as you continue being respectful, you can come to the after party.
    Pass. I think I'll just drink to JFK's newly dead legacy instead.

    You're confusing me with the market. I personally am a pinko-commie, liberal, hippy Democrat. I am all for taxing the crap out of you to pay for programs you don't want. Though I used to be a Libertarian, so it's pretty easy to bat for the other team.
    That's swell. So, which innovations are you willing to go without? Just checking...

    If these innovations were important enough, the private sector would have come up with them eventually.
    Time is a precious resource.

    It is widely accepted that pollution is a market failure. Or do you only care about certain market failures?
    CO2 is not pollution.

    You're partially right. Republicans/conservatives are supposed to believe in the free market. Unfortunately, the current representation of conservatives seems to only believe in the free market when it suits big business or their own wallets. A shame really.
    Look, I was prompted to choose a "lean" so I picked "slightly conservative". Don't read too much into it...

    Either way, I'm pretty sure that most sensible Republicans and conservatives understand the limitations of the free market. There are certain things it is ill equipped to handle; the military, police protection, courts, manned space exploration, etc.

    That is not a market failure. That is how the market is supposed to work. You obviously know about economic theory, so I'm not going to explain the laws of supply and demand to you.
    No need to explain. I minored in economics and finance and have my MBA.

    Suffice it to say, if the market refuses to produce something, it is not a failure.

    That item is just not in demand.
    Market failure is an inefficient allocation of goods and services. I consider space exploration essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States, as do many others, which would suggest there is "demand" for it, and since the market cannot efficiently allocate goods and services to that end, I, along with others, would consider it a market failure. You can disagree with whether or not it's truly "essential", but that is another argument entirely.

    That item is just not in demand. I've seen no evidence yet to support your belief that the space program is so necessary we need to force the public to pay for it.
    You're the one who asserted your opinion as fact (space exploration is a "luxury", isn't essential). I, on the other hand, merely offered my humble opinion. If you want to discuss the necessity of the space program with me, then do so without the arrogant presumption that your opinion is the only valid one...majesty.

    Okay, I can see how you're still chafing from the liberal comment. Seeing as how I'm a liberal, you can't possibly think that I meant it as an insult. Like if you told me I'm truely a conservative at heart, I wouldn't be all "ew, blech." I'd take it in the spirit it was given. You should try it. It's much more fulfilling to the ego to decide to be complimented. For example, you just called me childish. I'll take that to mean I am caref ree and easy to get along with.
    It's kind of hard to be chafed when you're drinking a beer on your porch.

    Oh and accounting major with a minor in finance. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's incorrect information.
    Maybe you can use some of that financial expertise to turn manned space exploration into a profitable venture.

    I'm sure we can too, that's why I'm invested in both. There's that finance background. Economic ties are much harder to sever than military, but that's a different thread.
    I think you missed the point. Space is literally the "final frontier". Eventually, it will be heavily weaponized and subject to intense militarization. I'm of the opinion that the United States should be on the forefront of such efforts, as opposed to some other, less ethical country.

    That humans act selfishly is the basis for the free market theory of economics. You still haven't really responded to my question. Why do you think we should ignore the free market's decision that a space program does not have enough demand to turn a profit, and instead rely on the government forcing tax dollars to pay for it.
    Because I'm of the opinion that manned space exploration is essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States of America.

    I would also like you to admit you support a socialist program.
    I'm sorry, I must have missed the revolutionary overthrow of our government by the proletariat. Perhaps I was asleep...

  4. #264
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    05-19-10 @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    496

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelzie View Post
    But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit.
    NASA's entire budget in FY 2009 only accounted for approximately 1% of the deficit, and half a percent of the entire Federal budget. Your concern over the deficit is, forgive me, laughable.

    Never mind that Obama didn't even decrease NASA's budget; he just shifted the funding from space exploration to climate research. I'm sure you consider that "essential".

  5. #265
    Student Rachel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Facebook
    Last Seen
    03-15-12 @ 07:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    160

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Personally, when it comes to science and technology, I tend to listen to the experts:

    when you have Gene Cernan, Neil Armstrong, and Jim Lovell, and a whole bunch of NASA scientists telling you that Constellation is an important program and that cancelling it will be devastating, I'll take their word over that of some Washington bozos any day.

    Armstrong and other astronauts expressed concerns over the past few days that scrapping the moon program would have deep consequences in terms of America's standing in the world. They wrote an open letter to Obama voicing their concerns.

    Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell, who signed the letter with Armstrong, told Fox News he believes Obama's plan is "short-sighted."

    "We're going to be a third-rate nation. China and Russia are going to be premier," he said.

    FOXNews.com - Obama Details Revised NASA Vision
    Hey, even Obama said so, before he was elected:


    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ&feature=related"]YouTube- Save Constellation[/nomedia]

    Last edited by Rachel; 04-15-10 at 08:03 PM.

  6. #266
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,991

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by Rachel View Post
    Personally, when it comes to science and technology, I tend to listen to the experts:

    when you have Gene Cernan, Neal Armstrong, and Jim Lovell, and a whole bunch of NASA scientists telling you that Constellation is an important program and that cancelling it will be devastating, I'll take their word over that of some Washington bozos any day.



    Hey, even Obama said so, before he was elected:


    YouTube- Save Constellation

    but you won't heed the concerns of Buzz Aldrin ... only the other astronauts

    so, please tell us what the benefit of continuing the constellation program would be
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ĎHey I was wrong.' I donít know that Iíll ever admit that, but Iíll find some kind of an excuse. ~ tRump
    seldom right but never in doubt

  7. #267
    Student Rachel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Facebook
    Last Seen
    03-15-12 @ 07:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    160

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    but you won't heed the concerns of Buzz Aldrin ... only the other astronauts

    so, please tell us what the benefit of continuing the constellation program would be

    I think Buzz Aldrin made some valid points. I just don't see why killing the only actual rocket that works and sitting around and waiting for someone else to invent a better rocket in some unknown point in the future is a more logical way to go about sending people to space.

    It doesn't make sense to me, that's all. And I really think this video explains the benefits of continuing the Constellation program a lot better than I can:

    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ&feature=related"]YouTube- Save Constellation[/nomedia]


  8. #268
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Today, President Obama unveiled his new strategy for the U.S. space program In his remarks, President Obama declared:

    We start by increasing NASA’s budget by $6 billion over the next five years…

    And we will extend the life of the International Space Station likely by more than five years, while actually using it for its intended purpose: conducting advanced research that can help improve the daily lives of people here on Earth, as well as testing and improving upon our capabilities in space…

    …we will build on the good work already done on the Orion crew capsule. I’ve directed Charlie Bolden to immediately begin developing a rescue vehicle using this technology, so we are not forced to rely on foreign providers if it becomes necessary to quickly bring our people home from the International Space Station. And this Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions…

    Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket” -- a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space. In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models; we want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what we can do when we get there. And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it…

    And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. So we’ll start -- we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.


    What one received was a hodge-podge of initiatives but no unifying big goal. Instead of a bold commitment to be achieved within a decade, one received an expression of belief that the U.S. could send humans in orbit around Mars a quarter century from now and land there afterward.

    The contrast between the mission President Kennedy advanced and that laid out by President Obama could not be sharper. Perhaps it was the challenging geopolitical environment and strengthening Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union that created an opportunity for bold leadership that President Kennedy seized.

    At the time of President Kennedy’s notable speech of 1961 in which he committed the nation to landing a man on the moon, the U.S. was still reeling from the Soviets having taken the early lead in exploring the frontier of space with their 1957 Sputnik mission.

    This time around, the U.S. is not confronted with a similarly urgent challenge. It remains the leader in a broad range of space technologies and capabilities. The U.S. has been drifting for more than a decade, even as a slowly growing number of nations embarked on their own space programs. During that decade of drift, the qualitative U.S. edge has been eroding. Yet, perhaps because the pace of erosion in the U.S. edge has been slow and progress to date among the other nations has consisted largely of their covering ground already forged by the U.S., the relative decline in the U.S. position has been beyond the detection of the nation’s policy makers. As a result, even as the White House has changed hands, there remained strong continuity in a policy paralysis that has been nourished by a strong bias toward complacency, not to mention pain of the recent severe recession. In that context, the nation’s leaders seemingly have succumbed to the temptation to try to market the ordinary as boldness.

    When President Kennedy committed the nation to landing on the moon, his speech demonstrated the hallmarks of genuine leadership. He offered a concise goal. He fit that goal into the larger national and human narrative. He set a specific deadline. He noted the enormity of the challenge and pledged that the nation would do what it took to succeed. Kennedy declared:

    I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there...

    Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.


    In terms of financial resources, the $531 million President Kennedy committed for FY 1962 was the equivalent of $3.8 billion in a single year in today’s money. The $7 billion to $9 billion for the following five years was the equivalent of $50.95 billion to $65.51 billion in today’s money. That was an aggressive statement that President Kennedy was serious about achieving the goal he set forth. In other words, as far as the President was concerned, failure was not an option for the United States.

    The new approach unveiled earlier today was no “leap.” Instead, it was strikingly minimalist in nature. And that characteristic is quite troubling. The new approach won’t fire the national imagination and it, more than likely, won’t lead to a man's walking on Mars, even a quarter-century from now. Worse, it sends a troubling signal to the world about a potentially growing lack of American vitality.

    Ultimately, a nation that limits its horizons, narrows its vision, and is largely content with maintaining or slowly expanding an existing position, is a nation that is destined to lose its leadership. It is states that expand their horizons, greatly enlarge their visions, and are restless with the present and hungry to pursue and shape their own futures that get ahead.

    The President need not have renewed the Constellation Program if he felt there were better alternatives. No single project is indispensable. But his choosing to take a course that is far from bold and worse, one with no overarching purpose is not a commitment to continued leadership in space. It may well be closer to the kind of “half way” commitment that President Kennedy suggested would not be worth pursuing.

    If the U.S. is so weary that it must reduce its horizons, temper its dreams, and forego the prospect of pushing the frontiers of progress, it truly is a sad day. Hopefully, NASA will be able to make the most of the very limited mandate it has been given.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 04-15-10 at 09:58 PM.

  9. #269
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 08:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    I don't see how committing to build the hardware to take us to the outer planets is "tempering the dream". Bush's programs would not get us to Mars and would not set the stage for the habitat and propulsion systems necessary to take the next big step. Getting to the moon was easy, what Obama is doing is the first step to the stars.

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    05-19-10 @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    496

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Poor JFK. Probably rolling in his grave...

    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g25G1M4EXrQ"]YouTube- We Choose to go to the Moon[/nomedia]

Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •