How do you feel about Obama ending the Space Shuttle Program?

*Grown To Be Wild*

*Grown To Be Wild*

Member
How do you feel about Obama ending the Space Shuttle Program?
​
Harrison Schmitt's credentials as a space policy analyst include several days of walking on the moon. The Apollo 17 astronaut, who is also a former U.S. senator, is aghast at what President Obama is doing to the space program.

"It's bad for the country," Schmitt said. "This administration really does not believe in American exceptionalism."

Schmitt's harsh words are part of a furious blowback to the administration's new strategy for NASA. The administration has decided to kill NASA's Constellation program, crafted during the Bush administration with an ambitious goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Obama's 2011 budget request would nix Constellation's rocket and crew capsule, funnel billions of dollars to new spaceflight technologies, and outsource to commercial firms the task of ferrying astronauts to low-Earth orbit.

Ending NASA's shuttle program will cause layoffs of over 3,000-4,000 NASA employees and 5,000-10,000 layoffs from different companies who are working on the shuttle program and other manned space craft programs. :wall:

​
:bigjoint:OVERGROW THE GOVERMENT:bigjoint:
 
jeffchr

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
*Grown To Be Wild* said:
How do you feel about Obama ending the Space Shuttle Program?​


Harrison Schmitt's credentials as a space policy analyst include several days of walking on the moon. The Apollo 17 astronaut, who is also a former U.S. senator, is aghast at what President Obama is doing to the space program.

"It's bad for the country," Schmitt said. "This administration really does not believe in American exceptionalism."

Schmitt's harsh words are part of a furious blowback to the administration's new strategy for NASA. The administration has decided to kill NASA's Constellation program, crafted during the Bush administration with an ambitious goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Obama's 2011 budget request would nix Constellation's rocket and crew capsule, funnel billions of dollars to new spaceflight technologies, and outsource to commercial firms the task of ferrying astronauts to low-Earth orbit.

Ending NASA's shuttle program will cause layoffs of over 3,000-4,000 NASA employees and 5,000-10,000 layoffs from different companies who are working on the shuttle program and other manned space craft programs. :wall:

:bigjoint:OVERGROW THE GOVERMENT:bigjoint:
Click to expand...
do you have any clue how old the shuttle program is?

NASA has been predicting the demise of the shuttle program since it's inception.

trying to blame the demise on obama is totally obscure. you and the article you quote are dumb.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
i completely support ending the space shuttle program...

NASA has a plan to replace it, it was just not well thought out, in terms of there being a few years in between. this was known a looong time ago that the shuttle was going to end, in fact, it was supposed to end before, these last few flights were tacked on in recent years....

the US government has to do something with NASA, for some reason they haven't been able to produce the same innovations in technology it used to.

the space shuttle is old. it's the same as driving a 1980's sedan. you might be able t put an ipod dock and cd player on it, but it's still a car from the 1980's. at some point, it needs an update if you want to maintain your prestige as the most advanced space program on earth.....
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
In fairness, Obama did not end the Shuttle program. That decision was made long ago. In fact, if I remember correctly, the program was extended past the original end date at least once.

I've never approved of the Shuttle as our primary space vehicle. It's essentially a space bus. Good for commuting to the Hubble and the ISS, but that's about it.

The Apollo Program should not have been canceled. Nixon pulled the plug on it before its mission was completed.

NASA, with Obama's blessing, is canceling the Constellation Program.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Maybe I should throw away that crusty jar of "TANG" that's been sitting in the back of the pantry for the last 40 years?


Space travel is interesting, but I find it hard to justify paying for it thru involuntary extortion. There's also a pretty sizable debt. in this country, something has to be cut.... and besides if "we" spend all that money on space travel how will we have enough left over to kill all the brown people? <sarcasm>

Nasa - Privitize it and sell shares.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Maybe I should throw away that crusty jar of "TANG" that's been sitting in the back of the pantry for the last 40 years?


Space travel is interesting, but I find it hard to justify paying for it thru involuntary extortion. There's also a pretty sizable debt. in this country, something has to be cut.... and besides if "we" spend all that money on space travel how will we have enough left over to kill all the brown people? <sarcasm>

Nasa - Privitize it and sell shares.
Click to expand...
Actually Rob, I believe NASA is Constitutional.

Exploration is ridiculously expensive, not to mention risky, and may not show gains for decades. Exploration opens the road for business and commerce.

The Constitution grants the Federal government the authority 'to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.' Although it includes a driect reference to patents and copyrights, I believe an argument could be made that NASA fits into that clause. I could be wrong and if so, we should fold NASA into the existing military program.

The military space program is definitely Constitutional.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Johnny, I know you're a fan of space exploration. So am I. How it's funded is my concern, but I won't subject you to a rant, you're too good of a guy.

Those who want to use the constitution to justify "bad" laws can often find it in the interstate commerce clause. That's what gives them authority to regulate weed. If they can stretch that clause, I wouldn't be surprised if they can stretch others.

I'm not so sure "promoting science" is the same as funding it though. Be careful when you look to the constitution to justify something you like. ''They" use this too, often to our detriment. The really scary one is "the general welfare" language in the constitution. That opens the door to all kinds of monkey business.

So what do I do with the tang? lol :bigjoint:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Johnny, I know you're a fan of space exploration. So am I. How it's funded is my concern, but I won't subject you to a rant, you're too good of a guy.

Those who want to use the constitution to justify "bad" laws can often find it in the interstate commerce clause. That's what gives them authority to regulate weed. If they can stretch that clause, I wouldn't be surprised if they can stretch others.

I'm not so sure "promoting science" is the same as funding it though. Be careful when you look to the constitution to justify something you like. ''They" use this too, often to our detriment. The really scary one is "the general welfare" language in the constitution. That opens the door to all kinds of monkey business.

So what do I do with the tang? lol :bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words, Rob.

And I agree that parts of the Constitution have been interpreted beyond its original scope. The 'Promote the General Welfare' statement in the Preamble gets abused more than I would care to think about.

Which is exactly why I left open the possibility I could be wrong in my interpretation. If so, fold NASA into the military space program.

Viola! Constitutional.

Exploration almost always has a military/national security component; either at the front end or the back end. Or both.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Rob Roy said:
Yes it was interesting. Around the 23 minute mark, "ass, gas or grass, no one rides for free" ...classic. It also raises the possibility of private funded space travel.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
There you go, private funded space travel. Sounds like the plan. Problem is, there is not that much profit to expense ratio, that's why the private sector will never engage seriously in it. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for a bunch of engineers sitting around planning travel to space. Those same engineers could be planning how to make this planet a better place. Untill we can to live on this planet without destroying it, I doubt the wisdom of traveling to other planets to destroy them as well. We live in a throw-away environment. The amount of trash accumulating in landfills is amazing. Most everything we possess, will one day be in some landfill and covered up so no-one can see it, but it will still be there. How long does it take for most manufactured goods to decay? Glass? Metal? Plastic? I'd say a long, long time. Clean up this planet and let the engineers develop sustainable behaviour here on earth, that is the real job for engineers. Space travel is pie in the sky bullshit, created by hollywood. Let's take care of mother earth first. BTW, they must invent gravity/anti gravity drive to do any serious space travel. When they can use the gravity of the planets and stars to move around space, then we can think seriously about space travel
 
meowmix

meowmix

Active Member
I kind of just assumed thats what ending the space shuttle program meant. Go black, not discontinued, just secret and probably re-scoped.. Ya know, in the 50s and 60s maybe we needed NASA to get to space. Now I almost would rather see NASA end and see one/some of the many NASA lovers, like Elon Musk, and transportation giants like Virgin start working on private sector projects concerning space exploration/travel whatev. Of course it'd cost less, advance quicker and probably just all around be superior to anything any government can produce.

Johnnyorganic said:
Thanks for the kind words, Rob.

And I agree that parts of the Constitution have been interpreted beyond its original scope. The 'Promote the General Welfare' statement in the Preamble get abused more than I would care to think about.

Which is exactly why I left open the possibility I could be wrong in my interpretation. If so, fold NASA into the military space program.

Viola! Constitutional.

Exploration almost always has a military/national security component; either at the front end or the back end. Or both.
Click to expand...
 
meowmix

meowmix

Active Member
That depends on profits and costs of course. Everything is speculative but...

Trump Tower, Super yachts, million dollar cars.

Visiting space? What is more exclusive than that?!

I think there is a market, even right now.

medicineman said:
There you go, private funded space travel. Sounds like the plan. Problem is, there is not that much profit to expense ratio, that's why the private sector will never engage seriously in it. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for a bunch of engineers sitting around planning travel to space. Those same engineers could be planning how to make this planet a better place. Untill we can to live on this planet without destroying it, I doubt the wisdom of traveling to other planets to destroy them as well. We live in a throw-away environment. The amount of trash accumulating in landfills is amazing. Most everything we possess, will one day be in some landfill and covered up so no-one can see it, but it will still be there. How long does it take for most manufactured goods to decay? Glass? Metal? Plastic? I'd say a long, long time. Clean up this planet and let the engineers develop sustainable behaviour here on earth, that is the real job for engineers. Space travel is pie in the sky bullshit, created by hollywood. Let's take care of mother earth first. BTW, they must invent gravity/anti gravity drive to do any serious space travel. When they can use the gravity of the planets and stars to move around space, then we can think seriously about space travel
Click to expand...
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
meowmix said:
That depends on profits and costs of course. Everything is speculative but...

Trump Tower, Super yachts, million dollar cars.

Visiting space? What is more exclusive than that?!

I think there is a market, even right now.
Click to expand...
There are some people that think so also, but they basically are talking about taking a drive into below orbit and back, not exactly space exploration.
 
meowmix

meowmix

Active Member
For now. I think once there is some competition rather than gov monopoloy, they'll do a lot more, quicker. If they are the only American groups heading in to space, they could make shitloads of profits off further exploration and the documentation of it.




medicineman said:
There are some people that think so also, but they basically are talking about taking a drive into below orbit and back, not exactly space exploration.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top