• 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'

not if you look at it, not in isolation, but in the totality of who this guy really is
 
An article in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal touches on the implications of space-related investment and it also notes that competitors are forging ahead aggressively with their own space programs. The newspaper reports:

Losing the lead in space has national-security and industrial consequences. Such industries as shipping, airlines and oil exploration depend on orbiting satellites to gather and send essential data. TV signals, cell phones, ATMs, some credit card machines and many Internet connections rely on space technology. Recent estimates peg global civilian and military spending on space and space-related technologies at more than $260 billion annually...

The importance of space has drawn the European Union and more countries into the race. Russia, China, India and Brazil all have, or are determined to create, robust space programs. By 2016, China aims to develop and test a heavy-lift booster capable of blasting five tons of cargo into orbit—a timetable far more ambitious than anything on NASA's drawing board.


While the details of the new U.S. strategy have not yet been fully disclosed, it will be important to see whether the U.S. has not only an overriding big picture goal, but an aggressive one. It will be equally important to see whether the U.S. is committed to investing the resources into achieving that goal and whether it describes a rigorous assessment mechanism so as to meet its space-related objectives in a timely and economical fashion e.g., to avoid an F-35 program-type debacle. The absence of an aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism would indicate that the U.S., to be blunt, is essentially committing itself to little more than "marching in place" and harvesting its present capabilities, until it works out a renewed mission/purpose/commitment to space-related investment/research in the future.

In the meantime, other states interested in developing or expanding their space-related technologies and capabilities won't be standing idly by. China is pursuing increasingly bold objectives with respect to its young space program. Some excerpts from a recent Space.com piece:

China is planning to launch three spacecraft between 2011 and 2016 to form the basis of a manned space station, the director of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) said Wednesday...

To supply this orbiting laboratory, China is developing a cargo-carrying spacecraft that will hold no less than 5.5 tons (5,000 kg), Wenbao said. That's about twice as much cargo capacity as Russia's Progress unmanned spacecraft, which currently services the International Space Station (ISS), and a little less than the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), which also flies to the ISS.


To be sure, China is currently covering ground that has already been covered to a large extent by the U.S. and Russia. But down the road, especially if the U.S. adopts what amounts to a tentative or, worse, minimalist posture on space, China could begin breaking new ground, at least vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, if it is able to translate its competitive advantages in various manufacturing sectors into similar edges in space-related technologies/capabilities, China could also position itself to receive higher returns per currency unit of investment into its space program.

In the end, were China or some other nation to develop a qualitative edge in space-related technologies/capabilities, the historic experience with disruptive technologies that reach such a stage, indicates that it would be very difficult for those who lose their edge to regain it. Given the looming fiscal imbalances that lie ahead for the U.S., the U.S. could be in an even worse position to try to regain its competitive edge in space-related technologies/capabilities should it lose it, not to mention the invariable spin-offs/other benefits that arise from those technologies/capabilities.

At present, the U.S. retains an edge in space-related technologies/capabilities. However, that advantage is eroding. Whether the new program will represent a positive commitment to retaining/strengthening U.S. advantages or the continuation of drift that leads to foregone opportunities remains to be seen. The presence or absence of a clear and aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism will provide insight into the new U.S. posture.
 
An article in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal touches on the implications of space-related investment and it also notes that competitors are forging ahead aggressively with their own space programs. The newspaper reports:

Losing the lead in space has national-security and industrial consequences. Such industries as shipping, airlines and oil exploration depend on orbiting satellites to gather and send essential data. TV signals, cell phones, ATMs, some credit card machines and many Internet connections rely on space technology. Recent estimates peg global civilian and military spending on space and space-related technologies at more than $260 billion annually...

The importance of space has drawn the European Union and more countries into the race. Russia, China, India and Brazil all have, or are determined to create, robust space programs. By 2016, China aims to develop and test a heavy-lift booster capable of blasting five tons of cargo into orbit—a timetable far more ambitious than anything on NASA's drawing board.


While the details of the new U.S. strategy have not yet been fully disclosed, it will be important to see whether the U.S. has not only an overriding big picture goal, but an aggressive one. It will be equally important to see whether the U.S. is committed to investing the resources into achieving that goal and whether it describes a rigorous assessment mechanism so as to meet its space-related objectives in a timely and economical fashion e.g., to avoid an F-35 program-type debacle. The absence of an aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism would indicate that the U.S., to be blunt, is essentially committing itself to little more than "marching in place" and harvesting its present capabilities, until it works out a renewed mission/purpose/commitment to space-related investment/research in the future.

In the meantime, other states interested in developing or expanding their space-related technologies and capabilities won't be standing idly by. China is pursuing increasingly bold objectives with respect to its young space program. Some excerpts from a recent Space.com piece:

China is planning to launch three spacecraft between 2011 and 2016 to form the basis of a manned space station, the director of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) said Wednesday...

To supply this orbiting laboratory, China is developing a cargo-carrying spacecraft that will hold no less than 5.5 tons (5,000 kg), Wenbao said. That's about twice as much cargo capacity as Russia's Progress unmanned spacecraft, which currently services the International Space Station (ISS), and a little less than the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), which also flies to the ISS.


To be sure, China is currently covering ground that has already been covered to a large extent by the U.S. and Russia. But down the road, especially if the U.S. adopts what amounts to a tentative or, worse, minimalist posture on space, China could begin breaking new ground, at least vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, if it is able to translate its competitive advantages in various manufacturing sectors into similar edges in space-related technologies/capabilities, China could also position itself to receive higher returns per currency unit of investment into its space program.

In the end, were China or some other nation to develop a qualitative edge in space-related technologies/capabilities, the historic experience with disruptive technologies that reach such a stage, indicates that it would be very difficult for those who lose their edge to regain it. Given the looming fiscal imbalances that lie ahead for the U.S., the U.S. could be in an even worse position to try to regain its competitive edge in space-related technologies/capabilities should it lose it, not to mention the invariable spin-offs/other benefits that arise from those technologies/capabilities.

At present, the U.S. retains an edge in space-related technologies/capabilities. However, that advantage is eroding. Whether the new program will represent a positive commitment to retaining/strengthening U.S. advantages or the continuation of drift that leads to foregone opportunities remains to be seen. The presence or absence of a clear and aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism will provide insight into the new U.S. posture.

now explain for us what technological edge will be lost to us, which advancement would have otherwise been afforded by pursuing the constellation program

this lunar landing was a solution in search of a problem
 
now explain for us what technological edge will be lost to us, which advancement would have otherwise been afforded by pursuing the constellation program

this lunar landing was a solution in search of a problem

heavy lift, manned flight, long-term space habitation...
 
You have to keep doing them to maintain an edge.



and he advocates heavy lift, manned flight and long-term space habitation. These things are not spelled out in the President's plan.

you missed his point - that he support's the president's decision to move forward and not go over ground plowed 40 years ago

while i personally do not agree with the need for the manned project to mars, as Aldrin advocates, at least there is a vision ... a purpose to be achieved. you have offered nothing similar to revisit the moon. now, if the vision was to accomplish moon mining for He3 as a long term energy source, i could find that compelling. but that potential project has been discarded as an intended effort within the past year
 
you missed his point - that he support's the president's decision to move forward and not go over ground plowed 40 years ago

while i personally do not agree with the need for the manned project to mars, as Aldrin advocates, at least there is a vision ... a purpose to be achieved. you have offered nothing similar to revisit the moon. now, if the vision was to accomplish moon mining for He3 as a long term energy source, i could find that compelling. but that potential project has been discarded as an intended effort within the past year

My reason to build a moon base is to have a cheap place to have humans go recover from the effects of zero-G. Cheap in the sense that it takes 1/4 the lift capability to get out of the gravity well, back to zero-G. I also like mining operations for materials and gases. That will come.
 
Link


Looks like the big gun has taken aim at Obama. Obama is a moron.
excuse me.....if obama decided to spend big on our space program you'd bitching about that. and really, who gives a **** if we go back to the moon? i'd rather we find a cure for cancer.
 
Build a base on the moon. It will help us stage access to earth orbit and to exploration of the solar system beyond the moon.

If you want to increase funding to the Department of the Interior, you should have thought that through before passing another entitlement.

I believe all of our satellites are fairly close to the earth, while the moon is a bit further out. How will a base on the moon help us to have access to earth orbit?
 
See what happens with unbounded entitlements? Their share of the federal budget grows and grows and puts pressure on the cancellation of other programs. This is only going to get worse. NASA's budget is not outrageous and the benefits of establishing a moon base are significant. But because we are in a budget crunch we have cut it.

Entitlements make up 60% of our budget people. It is insane. Thanks a hell of a lot, FDR.
what benefits are significant?
 
That's right, I didn't want the Obamacare plan so I assumed we could use that money for this. I hope none of you are using any technology that came from the moon program.
silly rabbit......this would be where private industry comes in, wouldn't it? if there's a market, someone will build it.
 
That's right, I didn't want the Obamacare plan so I assumed we could use that money for this. I hope none of you are using any technology that came from the moon program.
just tang.
 
All of you doubting the benefits of the space program have no idea the variety of advances and products produced by the space program, do you?

That list was created by the NASA public relations department....
 
I believe all of our satellites are fairly close to the earth, while the moon is a bit further out. How will a base on the moon help us to have access to earth orbit?

We can have a permanently manned base on the moon, without the severity of zero-G, that would only need 1/4 (or less - 1/6, not sure) of the lift capability to get to earth orbit.
 
what benefits are significant?

heavy lift, manned flight, long-term habitation of space and the moon, research platform for industries on the moon, way station to mars and earth orbit maintenance...
 
To me, going to the moon, at this point in time, is akin to taking a round the world trip on your credit card right before you declare bankruptcy.

I have seen that up close, a relative spending a lot of money knowing full well that soon he would be filing bankruptcy.
 
What would you have them do? They are especially trained for the space program.

Only a very few, like astronauts....
The rest have knowledge and skills that could be used to help solve our energy problems....
 
We can have a permanently manned base on the moon, without the severity of zero-G, that would only need 1/4 (or less - 1/6, not sure) of the lift capability to get to earth orbit.

So you would drive your car from San Diego to Chicago to stage mateials and fuel for a trip to Los Angeles?
 
Let me do a slight parody of certain of our posters...

"OH NO, Obama spends too much money."

"OH NO, Obama cut spending on a program I like."

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. If you think spending is a problem, then spending cuts should be praised. If you think we cannot cut spending on this or that program, you bitching about spending is phony.

I think its important to have government spending, but the point of the government is to look out for the welfare of its people. And I don't see how the government thinks its beneficial to feed & clothe & provide healthcare to people who don't deserve it. Why do they deserve it? Because they are lazy and they don't want to work but want to live a good life? I'm sorry to say but you deserve what you earn and those people taking welfare payments are a giant prick on the backs of taxpayers. They don't need the living standard they have now and really it isn't so hard to feed yourself and family there are so many items that cost a dollar or less that a family of five can live off of without government assistance. This whole country was founded on the individual success with a responsible government. But now people don't want to work because they know the government will give them more money for not working than if they worked a minimum paid job. Does that make sense? That you earn more money for not working than you do working?
Also the NASA budget is 17.6B dollars and that makes up less than half a percentage point of what the Federal government spends. Back when we were doing Apollo 11 and stuff NASAs budget was 25B(adjusted for inflation) a year and that made up 2.5% of what the federal government spent. You see the federal government never gave much money to NASA in the first place, if we currently gave NASA 2.5% of what the Feds spend then I am sure we already would have intersteller travel or at least it would have been possible to travel to the moon as a vacation site. Cutting NASAs budget won't do anything in balancing the budget, its only going to set things far back for our achievements. And another thing if you think Obama is a good president then why isn't he transparent and whatever happened to Gitmo? The guy sucks and knowing the American people who voted for Bush twice, the people will vote for Obama twice and it will be a very big mistake.
 
Last edited:
Only a very few, like astronauts....
The rest have knowledge and skills that could be used to help solve our energy problems....

Not just the astronauts, who have training to operate in space. There is also all the engineers who build systems for space - systems that the astronauts can use in space, thrust systems for getting to space, re-entry systems for returning from space. Now some of these experts would have jobs in an unmanned program, but certainly not all of them.

If it was profitable to go to space, I would be all over private industry doing so. Unfortunately, the only things profitable about space is tourism and satellite launch.
 
So you would drive your car from San Diego to Chicago to stage mateials and fuel for a trip to Los Angeles?

Wrong analogy. You must not understand Newton's Laws.
 
Antibiotics, most cancer drugs, oil, natural gas, coal, virtually all building materials, everything you eat, everything needed for life itself is brought to you by the organisms living on the surface of this planet and the resources that are either on its surface or no more than a few miles into its crust.....this versus velcro, tang, and teflon. ;)

The 3 items you mention had no input from NASA....just in case someone got the wrong idea about them...:mrgreen:
 
Personally I think scientific achievement and exploration are things always worth funding. There is never going to be a point where we can say "Ok, we've solved ALL the problems on Earth, now we can move onto exploration and related scientific advancement."

Humans have a manifest destiny to explore and populate space, and America should be at the forefront of that endeavor.

and we should bankrupt the nation to achieve it?
 
Back
Top Bottom