Obama Wants To Cut Constellation

[ErnestM]

You couldn't make this stuff up:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-no-mo...

Basically wants to refocus NASA on "earth sciences" and "climate change"

Unbelievable.

Hopefully the Congressional types will save it.

[Targarama]

Whether good or bad, NASA is a huge money pit. The sooner all nations get together and share the costs of space exploration the better. Meanwhile, looking at the big picture, this is probably a sensible idea given the lack of pocket money floating around at the moment.

Edit here: I didn't mention, but I do NOT want to see the money wasted on climate change guff. I'm referring to general cutback in space missions.

Edited by Targarama on Wednesday 27th January 14:11

[Swilly]

NASA may be a huge money-pit but what Obama is intending to do is akin to Henry Ford deciding to put on hold development of the metal horse he had in his shed....

.... only on a much bigger scale of impact.

I reckon most of man's activities have absolutely no bearing, no 'real' benefit, no purpose in mankind's development.

The development of ways to expand including space boundaries is right in there as fundamental to mankinds development.

[YAD061]

I don't see this as all bad. I think it's pretty clear that we need to develop new technologies for space exploration and he hasn't given up on that, getting the private sector involved has worked more successfuly than most thought possible thanks to Mr Rutan. IMO heavy lift rockets are akin to a flathead V8 technology wise

[Don]

Targarama said:

Whether good or bad, NASA is a huge money pit. The sooner all nations get together and share the costs of space exploration the better. Meanwhile, looking at the big picture, this is probably a sensible idea given the lack of pocket money floating around at the moment.

Whilst sharing the cost sounds good one of the benefits of having your own Space Agency is that you are not beholden to other countries that might disagree with you.

There is a requirement for just one Global Positioning System for example - and yet shortly there will be three.

[Don]

YAD061 said:

IMO heavy lift rockets are akin to a flathead V8 technology wise

Yet they are reliable. The Russians have a very effective space capability partly through the pursuit of reliability in a reproducible rocket design.

[ErnestM]

NASA wants about $5billion annually

I am sure there is some non-essential garbage that can be cut for that. Certain foreign aid numbers immediately spring to mind.

Also - my biggest issue is retasking NASA as a "climate change" agency.

I can see Americans all over the continent telling their kids.. "Sorry, you actually can't be an astronaut when you grow up. We don't need them. However, the rich, rewarding, exciting and multifaceted life of a global warming scientist becons..."

Incredible. The sooner this man steps off the world stage, the better.

Edited to add:

OK - Found the money for him. Here it is:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_HI...

Florida needs high speed rail about as much as Obama needs another teleprompter. $8billion would support NASA for at least two years and be, arguably, more of a benefit.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 14:19

[zac510]

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

[Fittster]

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Yep. NASA is luxury that can't really be afforded.

[YAD061]

Don said:

YAD061 said:

IMO heavy lift rockets are akin to a flathead V8 technology wise

Yet they are reliable. The Russians have a very effective space capability partly through the pursuit of reliability in a reproducible rocket design.

Yes but for limited distances, even Mars is a stretch for us at the moment. If the moon is a factor in any deep space travel then bring on the heavy lifters.

[ErnestM]

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Of the $798BILLION in "stimulus money" authorized by Congress to be spent in January of 2009, over $500billion has STILL not been spent. I think the US can afford $3-$5 billion a YEAR to get this program done. Of course, I would advocate some sort of fiscal guidance.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States public debt to GDP ratio is about 40%, whereas the UK is closer to 70%.

The US isn't quite broke yet, but the chequebook needs to be put back in the drawer for non-essentials.

I, personally, don't view NASA as a non-essential.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 15:00

[Eric Mc]

Frank Borman called NASA "the Nation's Insurance policy".

[nonegreen]

Fittster said:

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Yep. NASA is luxury that can't really be afforded.

There are a lot of things to be cut before NASA. The sooner this plonker gets assasinated the better.

[Muntu]

[FourWheelDrift]

"No Bucks, no Buck Rogers"

[Marquis_Rex]

ErnestM said:

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Of the $798BILLION in "stimulus money" authorized by Congress to be spent in January of 2009, over $500billion has STILL not been spent. I think the US can afford $3-$5 billion a YEAR to get this program done. Of course, I would advocate some sort of fiscal guidance.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States public debt to GDP ratio is about 40%, whereas the UK is closer to 70%.

The US isn't quite broke yet, but the chequebook needs to be put back in the drawer for non-essentials.

I, personally, don't view NASA as a non-essential.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 15:00

x 798 billion!

Insidious idiot BHO

[Fittster]

Marquis_Rex said:

ErnestM said:

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Of the $798BILLION in "stimulus money" authorized by Congress to be spent in January of 2009, over $500billion has STILL not been spent. I think the US can afford $3-$5 billion a YEAR to get this program done. Of course, I would advocate some sort of fiscal guidance.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States public debt to GDP ratio is about 40%, whereas the UK is closer to 70%.

The US isn't quite broke yet, but the chequebook needs to be put back in the drawer for non-essentials.

I, personally, don't view NASA as a non-essential.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 15:00

x 798 billion!

Insidious idiot BHO

I think some people need to type deficit and debt into google before getting excited by the idea of spaceman.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Fittster said:

Marquis_Rex said:

ErnestM said:

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Of the $798BILLION in "stimulus money" authorized by Congress to be spent in January of 2009, over $500billion has STILL not been spent. I think the US can afford $3-$5 billion a YEAR to get this program done. Of course, I would advocate some sort of fiscal guidance.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States public debt to GDP ratio is about 40%, whereas the UK is closer to 70%.

The US isn't quite broke yet, but the chequebook needs to be put back in the drawer for non-essentials.

I, personally, don't view NASA as a non-essential.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 15:00

x 798 billion!

Insidious idiot BHO

I think some people need to type deficit and debt into google before getting excited by the idea of spaceman.

Oh bullst, even if America goes bankrupt tis a minor inconvenience compared to the inevitable planetary death we face in a few million years - the space program is the 100% most important priority for a state, or it ought to be.

[s2art]

Fittster said:

Marquis_Rex said:

ErnestM said:

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Of the $798BILLION in "stimulus money" authorized by Congress to be spent in January of 2009, over $500billion has STILL not been spent. I think the US can afford $3-$5 billion a YEAR to get this program done. Of course, I would advocate some sort of fiscal guidance.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States public debt to GDP ratio is about 40%, whereas the UK is closer to 70%.

The US isn't quite broke yet, but the chequebook needs to be put back in the drawer for non-essentials.

I, personally, don't view NASA as a non-essential.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 15:00

x 798 billion!

Insidious idiot BHO

I think some people need to type deficit and debt into google before getting excited by the idea of spaceman.

As against untold billions wasted on 'green' projects?

[Marquis_Rex]

s2art said:

Fittster said:

Marquis_Rex said:

ErnestM said:

zac510 said:

USA are as broke as the UK aren't they?

Of the $798BILLION in "stimulus money" authorized by Congress to be spent in January of 2009, over $500billion has STILL not been spent. I think the US can afford $3-$5 billion a YEAR to get this program done. Of course, I would advocate some sort of fiscal guidance.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States public debt to GDP ratio is about 40%, whereas the UK is closer to 70%.

The US isn't quite broke yet, but the chequebook needs to be put back in the drawer for non-essentials.

I, personally, don't view NASA as a non-essential.

Edited by ErnestM on Wednesday 27th January 15:00

x 798 billion!

Insidious idiot BHO

I think some people need to type deficit and debt into google before getting excited by the idea of spaceman.

As against untold billions wasted on 'green' projects?

Well said s2art- I think our overzealous capitalist friend Fittster should be reminded about the fictitious fantasy of global warming.