• 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'

Alright then! We agree Obama has made the wrong decision, yes?

Yes. Don't be doing the happy dance, I told you I'm not that kind of liberal.
 
A goal to strengthen America's advantages in space, namely to build an advantage in deep space exploration could have been articulated as the overriding mission. The President could have said:

1. America will become the leader in manned exploration beyond the lower earth orbit.
2. To get there, the U.S. will need to develop reliable and safe technology.
3. A critical ingredient will be a suitable rocket.
4. That rocket will be completed and used for its first trip within a decade.
5. Successful attainment of that step will provide a foundation for further progress.

The goal would have been specific. There would have been focus on a pivotal early step. A specific deadline for the early outcome would have been established. It would be clear that the outcome marked a step along a longer journey.

The speech did not contain such clarity. There is little doubt that the President is committed to manned space exploration. But setting a goal for leadership is a bolder pronouncement than affirming a commitment to manned space exploration.

With respect to the rocket, he declared, "And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it." Although that is well-intended, it is far from a concrete commitment to success. After all, the troubled F-35 fighter jet has passed design and has been in the building phase for a number of years. To date, all the U.S. has to show for it is delays and cost-overruns.

A commitment to complete and launch the rocket would be much bolder. There would be the kind of sense of urgency that cannot exist under a more limited commitment to settle on a design and then to begin building the rocket.

In sum, the biggest issue concerns the lack of concrete outcomes. It is far easier to suggest that one will start a process than to pledge to complete it. There are abundant examples where an absence of commitments led to insufficient progress toward concrete outcomes. The rebuilding on the grounds of the World Trade Center offers another example. No commitments were made in terms of when the project would be completed. Today, almost a decade later, very little has been achieved except in the generation of a growing litany of excuses for the failures to date. Whether in the private sector or public sector, an emphasis on starting projects is far less effective in generating progress than an emphasis placed on concrete outcomes.

All of your points were in the speech, including the first step of landing on an asteroid, orbiting Mars, and landing on Mars by 2035.
 
Then you agree, that Obama has made a stupid, stupid move here?

He hasn't cut spending, he just transfered it from space exploration to climate research. Did you already tell me which one you think is more important? I don't think you did...

I think you are not qualified to accuse Obama of making a stupid move.
 
I think you are not qualified to accuse Obama of making a stupid move.

HAHAHA!!!

I most certainly am qualified to make such an accusation, my Obama-loving friend.

The man is a complete dunce. In my estimation, he's made a wrong decision about once every week since he's been in office.

Since I'm not under an Obama-trance, I'm in the unique position of being able to point out his idiocy. You should try it! It feels great to think for yourself!
 
Absolutely I would pay. In 2004, about 89 million Americans filed a tax return that had more than zero liability(1). That means each one of those Americans would only have to pay approximately $169 a person in order to pay for NASA's budget; I'd pay at least three times that amount if my tax burden wasn't already so large. That doesn't take into account revenues accrued from payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, customs and duties, and estate taxes.

As I said, NASA only accounts for a minuscule portion of our total budget outlays, but the point is moot, since Obama isn't even decreasing NASA's funding; he's just transferring it from space exploration to climate research. Which is more important to you?

(1) - The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
so, you won't......
 
HAHAHA!!!

I most certainly am qualified to make such an accusation, my Obama-loving friend.

The man is a complete dunce. In my estimation, he's made a wrong decision about once every week since he's been in office.

Since I'm not under an Obama-trance, I'm in the unique position of being able to point out his idiocy. You should try it! It feels great to think for yourself!

He is not a COMPLETE dunce....he doesn't measure up in that department, not nearly as much as GWB did....
 
He is not a COMPLETE dunce....he doesn't measure up in that department, not nearly as much as GWB did....

What does Bush have to do with anything!? Are you sure you're in the right thread?
 
What does Bush have to do with anything!? Are you sure you're in the right thread?

What does Obama have to do with NASA? Congress allots the funding.
If you can blame Obama using ignorant terms like Dunce, surely others can bash your trance like worship of your favorite presidents.
 
Absolutely I would pay. In 2004, about 89 million Americans filed a tax return that had more than zero liability(1). That means each one of those Americans would only have to pay approximately $169 a person in order to pay for NASA's budget; I'd pay at least three times that amount if my tax burden wasn't already so large.

That doesn't take into account revenues accrued from payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, customs and duties, and estate taxes.

As I said, NASA only accounts for a minuscule portion of our total budget outlays, but the point is moot, since Obama isn't even decreasing NASA's funding; he's just transferring it from space exploration to climate research. Which is more important to you?

(1) - The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

Since climate change is set to wreak devestation on agriculture, research is necessary to develop possible coping strategies.
 
What does Obama have to do with NASA? Congress allots the funding.
If you can blame Obama using ignorant terms like Dunce, surely others can bash your trance like worship of your favorite presidents.

Your powers of perception are astounding! Truly!

What does Obama have to do with NASA? Aside from the fact that Democrats control the current agenda, and Obama happens to be a Democrat and the President of the United States? Nothing, I suppose.

And how the hell do you know who my favorite Presidents are? Really, I'd like an answer to that question. Are you psychic, perhaps?
 
Since climate change is set to wreak devestation on agriculture, research is necessary to develop possible coping strategies.

Until I see actual proof that "climate change" will "wreak devestation" on anything, let alone agriculture, I will maintain the utter absurdity of Obama's agenda.

Climate change research!? Hilarious...
 
so you like Tang that much?

Wow. Another person who has burried their head in the sand, and simply refuses to acknowledge facts. I provided a nearly comprehensive list of all the technological spin-off that NASA's space program has given us, and you pretend that tang is the pinnacle of their achievements. How unbelievably dishonest of you, sir. Do you have no shame?

I'll just give you the top twenty, that way your brain won't be overloaded with information this time...

http://ipp.nasa.gov/pdf/spinoff_top_20a.pdf

Read it!!! Maybe some of those pesky facts will sink in this time.
 
I'll support ending the space program if people can admit the following things weren't worth the investment:

A water filtration system providing safe, affordable drinking water throughout the world is the result of work done by Marshall Space Flight Center engineers who are creating the Regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support System, a complex system of devices intended to sustain the astronauts living on the International Space Station. The devices, available through Water Security Corporation Inc., of Sparks, Nevada, make use of the available resources by turning wastewater from respiration, sweat, and urine into drinkable water.

A Mars Exploration Rover prototype robot and an autonomous stair-climbing robot created at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have been further developed into commercial tactical reconnaissance robots that are being used in Afghanistan and Iraq to help U.S. troops clear caves and bunkers, search buildings, cross live antipersonnel mine fields, and deal with the dangers posed by improvised explosive devices. Several systems have been damaged or completely destroyed in seeking out improvised explosive devices in Iraq, but have been credited with saving lives in doing so. The commercial offspring, known as the PackBot Tactical Mobile Robot, is manufactured by iRobot Inc., of Burlington, Massachusetts.

Military and civil technology, Batman!? That's right, Robin...military and civil technology.

I wonder if Americans even look to the stars anymore. Boring slouches...
 
so, you won't......

Haha!!! Yes, ignore the bulk of my argument and pretend you've made a brilliant point.

This absurd standard of "you must support all spending cuts if you've ever advocated any spending cuts" is certainly ridiculous.

If you think it's "necessary" to have bloated SS entitlements, woefully inefficient Medicare, and other such nonsense, then you damn-well better think NASA's space exploration programs are "necessary". They are a pillar of the information age.
 
Until I see actual proof that "climate change" will "wreak devestation" on anything, let alone agriculture, I will maintain the utter absurdity of Obama's agenda.

Climate change research!? Hilarious...

Florida tomatoes.

Fortunately policy is not contingent on your notions of absurdity.
 
Last edited:
While we're having NASA do climate-change research, perhaps we should ask the Department of Agriculture to do a study on urban sprawl. :roll:


NASA needs to be doing space travel. That's what it is for.
 
While we're having NASA do climate-change research, perhaps we should ask the Department of Agriculture to do a study on urban sprawl. :roll:


NASA needs to be doing space travel. That's what it is for.

which federal organization would you have instead perform the satellite based telemetry to monitor climate change?
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know when our resident Obama-lovers are going to address the fact that NASA's budget hasn't even decreased, which would make their concerns about the budget perplexing, since it does nothing to address that fact.

Obama is increasing NASA's funding. He's just transferring the funding from space exploration to climate change. I suppose you liberals think research on climate change is more important than space exploration? C'mon! Tell me what you think, you damned rascals!

Where does it say that? And please dont give me a link to some quacky partisan sight.
 
If I recall the whole point of going to the moon in the first place was a space race to beat the USSR in putting the first man on the moon. That was over 40 years ago and with less technology than what is in a cell phone. Today the US partners with Russia in space.

So I'm more inclined to agree with Buzz Aldrin on this and think NASA should be looking more at Mars with robot technology and to let the private sector compete in the space technology to help bring down costs. Let it be one giant leap for private enterprise.....

Buzz Aldrin vs. Neil Armstrong
Buzz Aldrin vs. Neil Armstrong - First Read - msnbc.com
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom