• 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!

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

The idea that we were cutting the space program because Obama was looking to siphon funds from other programs to finance his own policies is false.

This isn't about global warming either.

This is about what is best for the future of the space program. I think the general idea is that the NASA apparatus is too incompetent and political to carry on long term projects. We're trying to do Kennedy things with no Cold War; like trying to finish your essay when the due date is a month away.

Commercial companies have to struggle for their survival and for profit. NASA lacks that incentive.

Maybe you missed this the first time I posted it.....

NASA, the agency known for exploring space, will be spending a lot more time studying Earth in the next few years.

The Obama administration has proposed a budget for NASA that includes billions of dollars for satellites and other tools to help scientists investigate Earth-bound problems, especially climate change.

NASA Slated To Receive Billions To Study Earth : NPR

Proposed work assignments under NASA’s turnabout Fiscal 2011 budget request would spread the agency’s five-year, $6-billion total budget increase — and the new jobs that may go with it — across the agency’s 10 field centers.

NASA Plan Would Spread The Wealth | AVIATION WEEK

So, we are not cutting a luxury, we are increasing the budget, and adding a propaganda arm to perpetuate the fraud.
 
our space program has always been a manifestation of american EXCEPTIONALISM

thus, obama must cut it

didn't his own science czar, mr holdren, the man who co-wrote a textbook advocating forced abortions and sterilization to control population growth, just declare last week to a group of students at the american association for the advancement of science that "we cannot expect to be #1 forever?"

and that such slippage on the part of the greatest nation in the history of the world is "not purely bad?"

CNSNews.com - White House Science ?Czar? Tells Students: U.S. Can?t Expect to Be Number One in Science and Technology Forever

these guys in this white house actually believe this stuff, they're really that far out there

instead of demanding excellence and leadership from american endeavors, this white house BOWS to the leader of COMMUNIST CHINA

the juxtaposition of those 2 images, the sci-czar conceding and the obtuse obama bowing, says it all

so does the contrast between the BOW to HU and the infamous PHOTO of the DALAI LAMA having to step over onion rinds and banana peels to exit his white house interview

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

the sci-guy's text pretty clearly spelled it all out:



american EXCEPTIONALISM is seen as chauvinism

and must be DE-DEVELOPED

really, really weird

the most RADICAL leadership america has ever suffered

(thank goodness it's so incompetent)

"sigh"

That isn't how it is.

NASA has been using a fleet of shuttles for decades to perform space exploration; not moon, just exiting orbit and collecting data from space.

That shuttle fleet is about to be retired.

We were supposed to have a whole new line of technology on the horrizon to incorporate into our new fleet of shuttles.

That technology doesn't exist. NASA didn't develop it quickly enough.

So, our new fleet of shuttles will be based technological clones of our current fleet of shuttles; for all practical and dramatic purposes.

Obama didn't want to invest into shuttle clones.

He doesn't not want to have shuttles.

So, move shuttle-making to the private sector, and see if they can make any improvements on shuttle tech.

This frees up NASA to focus exclusively on new tech; to focus exclusively on better propulsion systems, for example, cut the Mars-time down to
 
Last edited:
Space is the future its the only place left to go, left to explore.

We live on an unexplored world. Biology is still practically in its infancy. We have documented only around 10% of the species of plants and animals on earth. There is still a lot to learn about our world.
 
NASA, the agency known for exploring space, will be spending a lot more time studying Earth in the next few years.

The Obama administration has proposed a budget for NASA that includes billions of dollars for satellites and other tools to help scientists investigate Earth-bound problems, especially climate change.

A comparatively small amount of their budget. So you are still wrong.

By the way, while I know you will never believe humans could ever do anything to change the Earth's climate in even the slightest way, no matter what, because it is physically impossible for a carbon-exhausting species of billions spanning the entire globe to induce any changes in their environment, but even if it was only theoretically possible, the government would actually have a responsibility to develop tech to better determine the nature and causality of such climate change.
 
Last edited:
We live on an unexplored world. Biology is still practically in its infancy. We have documented only around 10% of the species of plants and animals on earth. There is still a lot to learn about our world.

I would have to agree with you. Being a molecular biologist in training I can say we still know very little about the processes that go on in the cell or even about our own genetics. I have heard many scientists say that we understand outer space better than we understand the depths of the earth's oceans. I would think exploring the depths of the ocean's would be interesting, and what we find biologically could possibly help us out. They have found antibacterial chemicals in sponges, who knows what we may find in organisms or bacteria that live under that pressure and in that dark environment.
 
Armstrong is right. America surrendered the totem in particle physics research when the SSC was cancelled. This is yet another disappointing step backwards.

Thank God we can still designate $3 towards the Presidential Election Fund.
 
To be clear, NASA's problems have been present for decades. They've been talked about and alluded to on and off in the newspapers. They started appearing after the moon landing and became especially acute as the Cold War dwindled to a close. Internal power struggles among the bureaucracy and external interference from Congresses-Presidencies with conflicting interests have impeded engineering and technological development. Those power struggles and interference were facilitated by the fact there is no real urgency to do anything other than piddle-paddle around since we beat the Russians to the moon; the United States space program is fantastic relative to other nations, but that is the problem.

I'm not going to say NASA hasn't accomplished anything (although all their significant post-moon achievements have been in concert with the space programs of other nations), but the lack of improvements for this new shuttle fleet is a pretty devestating blow, although not an unexpected one. Observors kept hoping NASA would turn out a miracle advancement before the end, but here we are and we're looking at a massive, taxpayer financed project of shuttle clones. Seperately, the Constellation project hasn't made any progress, so unless we are expecting a miracle advancement that didn't happen with the shuttle clones, that's a dead end too.

Armstrong is right. America surrendered the totem in particle physics research when the SSC was cancelled. This is yet another disappointing step backwards.

Thank God we can still designate $3 towards the Presidential Election Fund.

America has problems, no doubt, but can we fix NASA so NASA can fix them?

I think that it was a good call. The United States can continue to explore space at our current level of success through the private sector. Intensively involving the private sector in a program formerly under the absolute control of the government might be a good call, it could lead to advancements and successes we have not seen since the moon landing.

Buzz Aldrin says so.
 
Last edited:
We wouldn't be broke if we fixed entitlements! Dammit, you're hard of hearing.

i might be deaf, but i do understand what "entitlement" means
you need to learn, too (courtesy of dictionary.com):
en·ti·tle·ment ...
1.the act of entitling.
2.the state of being entitled.
3.the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation.
notice that an obligation exists. a guaranty
now, begin a thread where you posit your ideas for meeting those obligations in a more economical way and i will join your discussion
but i will not further participate in derailing this thread
 
Last edited:
"sigh"

That isn't how it is.

sorry, but POLITICALLY, it's EXACTLY how it is

obama and his entire administration do NOT believe in american exceptionalism

instead, they do exactly as his sci-guy WROTE

they DE-DEVELOP

and they BOW
 
sorry, but POLITICALLY, it's EXACTLY how it is

obama and his entire administration do NOT believe in american exceptionalism

instead, they do exactly as his sci-guy WROTE

they DE-DEVELOP

and they BOW

Do you believe in grammar?
 
sorry, but POLITICALLY, it's EXACTLY how it is

obama and his entire administration do NOT believe in american exceptionalism

instead, they do exactly as his sci-guy WROTE

they DE-DEVELOP

and they BOW

You believe the government can develop shuttles better than the private sector?

Listen, drop your paritsanship for just one second, and listen to how it is.

In Kennedy's time, NASA was new and full of people eager to make use of new advances in applied physics and engineering and who had an enemy in the Russians. Office politics within NASA were minimal and nobody on Congress would have dared gotten in the way of Kennedy's vision, because that meant they were communists, communists who wanted the Russians to win the space race and drop nukes on the United States from orbit. Democrat or Republican, anybody who got in the way of Kennedy's statement, "We choose to go to the moon," was perceived by the parties and by the general public as personally responsible for allowing the Russians to get into space and have access to all its theoretical military applications. Hence, when Kennedy unveiled his vision, there was no effective opposition to developing the tech that would get us to the moon as fast as possible.

So we got to the moon, and the Russians, both their space program and their society, were beginning to feel the strain of prolonged mis-management. The mad rush was over and NASA became relaxed, but the space program remained fundamentally important enough to America's identity and self-esteem to keep funneling massive amounts of money into it. NASA didn't have the same drive, anymore, however, and the focus and determination that got us to the moon was replaced by office politics.

If somebody hadn't gotten the credit they felt they deserved or the promotion or salary raise in pre-Moon landing times, then they swallowed it because they had a military mentality; success against the Soviet Union was more important than personal career advancement, because they perceived the fate of American society depended on it. After the moon landing and the floundering of Russia, the pay checks became more important than the technological progress. There were no more threats to national security -- nothing that could imperil the families, friends, and communities of the people who worked at NASA - so duty to the country was forgotten.

This lead to rivalries and amnosities comparable to the chaos at Disney before and after the Golden Age of Animation. Together with the general lack of motivation, technological progress has been slow; present, but slow. Hence, in thirty years, we haven't gone back to the moon, and the moons of Mars remain a pipe dream. Nobody in Congress or the executive branch really got on NASA's ass on this because nobody cared about Kenndy-esque visions of space travel as such (they'd already served their purpose -- the Soviet Union was broken spiritually and materially), they just didn't want to be accused of not caring about space travel by not funding NASA.

Bush tried to fix this problem by instituting important new programs; aka, a Kennedy-esque vision of returning to the Moon, then Mars. The hope was new ambitious projects would rally NASA.

Five years and ten billions dollars later and there have been no advancements. The second moon landing date already had to be pushed forward by several years, a blow, and technological improvements that were supposed to be incorporated in our next generation shuttle fleet aren't finished. We're no closer to getting to the moon or Mars than we were when Bush announced his plan.

Since NASA seems chronically unable to deliver, Obama has decided two things.

The first is that various private companies will be the ones to make our next shuttle fleet. These will mostly be government subsidized, although entrepenuers and philanthropists will play some role, but more importantly, they will have to compete for the government subsidies; NASA only competes against itself, which means it is always tanking or undermining its own projects whenever an administrator unfavorable to those projects gets his position, which is alot and tends to revolve more around personal interest than actual appreciation or understanding of the projects. This means when one company is developing a shuttle, the other company will be trying to make a better shuttle; maybe one with vastly improved fuel efficiency. Since we need a new shuttle fleet anyway, we might as well outsource it to the private sector. It's not like they can do a worse job than NASA, and there is a greater probability curve they can do better.

The second is that, as far as developing new space technology goes, NASA will focus on individual parts and pieces. Rather than create a shuttle that can go to Mars, NASA will create a propulsion system that can go to Mars. THEN we can see about putting together a structure that can be propelled to Mars.

This is called the "flexible strategy."

People have two criticisms of Obama's plan:

One, people say Obama is falsely assuming the commercial sector can even create shuttles. They say the commercial sector can't create shuttles. I say, given the availability of technology, there is no reason they can't do at least as good a job as NASA as long as they get the money, which they will receive. And they will appreciate it more than NASA, which has an inflated sense of entitlement and importance from its decades-spanning monopoly on space tech development. Bottomline, a subsidized commercial sector can create shuttles.

Two, people say Obama's plan lacks a Kennedy-esque vision. I kind of feel this one in my heart, but my logic says that Obama's choice is right because we don't have an institution capable of executing a Kennedy-esque vision anymore. There are no laws we can make that will make NASA more efficient; penalizing them for slow development just make them panic and do worse, like workers with no job security.
 
Last edited:
good, thanks

but politics is played in sound bites

unfortunately, mom doesn't have time for your explanations

they won't fit into a headline

sadly, the BOWS and the ABNEGATIONS do

almost daily

sorry
 
You believe the government can develop shuttles better than the private sector?

...I say, given the availability of technology, there is no reason they can't do at least as good a job as NASA as long as they get the money, which they will receive. And they will appreciate it more than NASA, which has an inflated sense of entitlement and importance from its decades-spanning monopoly on space tech development. Bottomline, a subsidized commercial sector can create shuttles.

IMO, the outcome of such an alternative approach is ambiguous. It might work better, but it just as easily might not. The experience with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program provides a cautionary note with respect to such an approach whereby the government establishes performance requirements, funds the project as per the bids made by the private sector, and then leaves the development/production to the private sector.
 
IMO, the outcome of such an alternative approach is ambiguous. It might work better, but it just as easily might not. The experience with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program provides a cautionary note with respect to such an approach whereby the government establishes performance requirements, funds the project as per the bids made by the private sector, and then leaves the development/production to the private sector.

Its not a silver bullet. But it can't be any worse than NASA.
 
good, thanks

but politics is played in sound bites

unfortunately, mom doesn't have time for your explanations

they won't fit into a headline

sadly, the BOWS and the ABNEGATIONS do

almost daily

sorry

Morality Games gave an extremely intelligent and well-thought out post and this is what you can come up with? It's obvious that you have no background on the subject and are trying to cover that up with partisan one liners.

I doubt you care, but I'm embarrassed for you.
 
tell it to mr armstrong
 
It was only a matter of time before the space program was cancelled. Armstrong want his old triumphant NASA to return from the grave, but he is ignoring a problem called economic crisis.
 
the space program will never be cancelled

he's gonna catch hot hell for this tomorrow

watch for it

Obama headed to Florida in April to talk NASA - St. Petersburg Times

nationally, the issue plays poorly for our perplexed prez in that he is once more painted as participating in what the first man on the moon calls "our long downward slide to mediocrity"

remember how john holdren defined the objective---"de-develop"
 
the space program will never be cancelled

he's gonna catch hot hell for this tomorrow

watch for it

Obama headed to Florida in April to talk NASA - St. Petersburg Times

nationally, the issue plays poorly for our perplexed prez in that he is once more painted as participating in what the first man on the moon calls "our long downward slide to mediocrity"

remember how john holdren defined the objective---"de-develop"

Buzz Aldrin is a nobody, I guess.

Armstrong is making the classical mistake that passionate individuals often make. He believes the self-interested jockeying of the unfocused and unenergized NASA-collective is a shroud, a shroud hiding an endless pool of idealism comparable to his own. He thinks that NASA can somehow become what is was during the Kennedy Administration. I don't see how that can be unless China puts somebody on the moon, and tears down and pisses on our flag while they're at it. Even then, that will be a point of damaged national pride rather than threatened national security.
 
Last edited:
Buzz Aldrin thinks Obama's plan is good.

Indeed, it was a very strong endorsement.

“The President’s program will help us be in this endeavor for the long haul and will allow us to again push our boundaries to achieve new and challenging things beyond Earth. I believe that this is the right program at the right time, and I hope that NASA and our dedicated space community will embrace this new direction as much as I do. By so doing we can together continue to use space exploration to help drive prosperity and innovation right here on Earth.” — Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin
 
you're talking the merits of this issue, my friend

i'm talking politics

he's, as always, on the wrong side

for the reasons i've stated

he IS gonna catch hell for this tomorrow, you'll see

(he already is)

AND

it DOES play into his other-than view concerning what has always been, y'know, just a given

the assumption, the presumption, the OBJECTIVE that this nation is, has been and always will be EXCEPTIONAL

it's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE that that america-on-a-pedestal outlook is NOT our president's, nor his admin's

as EXHIBITED by this action
 
you're talking the merits of this issue, my friend

i'm talking politics

he's, as always, on the wrong side

for the reasons i've stated

he IS gonna catch hell for this tomorrow, you'll see

(he already is)

AND

it DOES play into his other-than view concerning what has always been, y'know, just a given

the assumption, the presumption, the OBJECTIVE that this nation is, has been and always will be EXCEPTIONAL

it's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE that that america-on-a-pedestal outlook is NOT our president's, nor his admin's

as EXHIBITED by this action

You forgot to mention de-develop.
 
OBAMA'S SCIENCE CZAR beat me to it

LOL!
 
it's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE that that america-on-a-pedestal outlook is NOT our president's, nor his admin's

as EXHIBITED by this action

The only inference one can draw from this action is that the president does not believe NASA is necessarily a good champion of American exceptionalism. He obviously doesn't feel commercial companies won't be.
 
Back
Top Bottom