Neil Armstrong: Obama Hurting Space Effort

[mrjarrell]

Looks like Armstrong and 2 other Apollo commanders are taking Obama to task for abandoning manned space travel. While I would love to see NASA replaced by private space interests (sans government interference) I don't have any grave issues with a continuing manned space program. Obama, and his ilk, have long been space haters. They'd prefer the money was reallocated to welfare programs for their corporate buddies and low income democrat voters.

via Politico

Former astronaut Neil Armstrong has issued a strongly worded rebuke of President Barack Obama, criticizing the president for proposed revisions to the U.S.' space program.

Armstrong, along with astronauts James Lovell and Eugene Cernan, called the proposal “devastating” in a letter obtained by NBC News. Read below for the full text:

"The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years," the letter begins."Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration. ...

"When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

"Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

Read the rest of the letter at Politico

 

[Indiana Feller]

We don't have to go to outer space to find big problems we aren't dealing with. I am not sire there are not better ways to spend our money right now. That being said I don't think big O will find 1 of them.

 

[T-rav]

We don't have to go to outer space to find big problems we aren't dealing with. I am not sire there are not better ways to spend our money right now. That being said I don't think big O will find 1 of them.

NASA has brought us some awesome stuff! They should stick around maybe the private sector will take over. All the cool stuff they have came up with being .gov ran imagine what the private sector could do!

 

[kedie]

We will now be paying the country we worked so hard to beat to the moon to take our astronauts into space. The same country that has supplied weapons, aircraft, and armor to our enemies for decades. Sad.

 

[Captain Bligh]

Repetitive pattern here. Whenever Congress or POTUS talks about cutting NASA funds, NASA sends a charismatic astronaut front-man to make its plea. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it is what it is. Has been done before and will be done again. We'll see how this one works out.

 

[The Meach]

NASA is one of the few agencies that I want to remain funded.

publicly funded exploration is a must for cultures to grow. I view it as if Spain hadn't funded so many explorers during the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries the "New World" wouldn't have been settled well into the late 17 early 18 hundreds.

Now think how far America could go if we were to invest in extra terrestrial colonization efforts?

we have the tech to do it now. right now. all we need is the will. with the amount of money we blew on the stimulus bill we could have built a 2000 man habitat and low gravity launch station on the moon. This would give private industry incentive to begin taking intrest in what is up there. Most noticeably MASSIVE deposits of helium-3.

And With the money we are gonna blow on heath care we could begin colonization of mars.

Think about it. with the money we are blew on welfare programs and payoffs to bankers we could have set up a 51st state on another ****ING planet.

 

[caddywhompus]

Think about it. with the money we are blew on welfare programs and payoffs to bankers we could have set up a 51st state on another ****ING planet.

Or maybe tried fixing the 50 struggling states we currently have....

 

[rambone]

Or maybe tried fixing the 50 struggling states we currently have....

I'm not sure anything the Federal Government could do would be good for struggling states. Bailouts prolong the problem.

 

[Indiana Feller]

I agree space exploration has brought some great developments. I think privatizing it is the best answer as gov seems to have trouble managing anything. I believe we are in for huge problems financially and space is not the biggest issue right now.

 

[1943Izzy]

Buz disagrees with Armstrong .

 

[irishfan]

I am guessing that if you pole all the astronauts you will get people to come down on both sides of the issue. It is dumb to pay the Russians to take us into space but going to the moon again is ridiculous as well. Personally, I feel NASA should stay funded by our government but some private industry involvement would be a good idea as well.

 

[leftsock]

NASA's massive 2009 budget of $17.782 billion dollars is 0.845% of the total federal income, or we can say that it was about 0.505% of what was actually spent.

On a side note, the federal government spent about $1,503 billion dollars more than it brought in.

NASA Budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mrjarrell]

Actually, irish going to and settling the moon is a matter of self defence. The Earth sits at the bottom of a gravity well and someone on the Moon just has to have the ability to loft large objects down the well to do massive damage. Holding the high ground is a matter of self preservation. Do you want China settling the Moon? Because it sure looks like they or India are likely to be the ones to do it. I could, and do, hope that private enterprise fills and expands on the program but the government strangles them at every corner.

 

[Fletch]

Actually, irish going to and settling the moon is a matter of self defence. The Earth sits at the bottom of a gravity well and someone on the Moon just has to have the ability to loft large objects down the well to do massive damage.

The moon is a harsh mistress, after all.

Holding the high ground is a matter of self preservation. Do you want China settling the Moon? Because it sure looks like they or India are likely to be the ones to do it. I could, and do, hope that private enterprise fills and expands on the program but the government strangles them at every corner.

I would prefer to see government out of space entirely; defund NASA and turn the whole thing over to folks like Burt Rutan.

 

[leftsock]

NASA has estimated that the Constellation program would cost over $97 billion (in 2008 dollars) through 2020...

Constellation program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat...

"It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

Well, we shouldn't really make strategic business/financial plans based on sunk costs.

$97 Billion estimate - about $10billion spent, lets say $17 billion, would leave $80 billion waiting to be spent through 2020 to complete this project.

With $80 billion, at the current per-seat price, we could buy 1,600 rides on Russian rockets through 2020.

 

[irishfan]

Actually, irish going to and settling the moon is a matter of self defence. The Earth sits at the bottom of a gravity well and someone on the Moon just has to have the ability to loft large objects down the well to do massive damage. Holding the high ground is a matter of self preservation. Do you want China settling the Moon? Because it sure looks like they or India are likely to be the ones to do it. I could, and do, hope that private enterprise fills and expands on the program but the government strangles them at every corner.

Don't we have the ability to fire nukes right back at the moon? If they wanted to target something here from the moon we could fire back in kind. Also, there has been a policy of no weapons in space by all sides so I am not worried about somebody settling the moon when any installation there can be wiped out easily.

 

[Fletch]

Don't we have the ability to fire nukes right back at the moon? If they wanted to target something here from the moon we could fire back in kind. Also, there has been a policy of no weapons in space by all sides so I am not worried about somebody settling the moon when any installation there can be wiped out easily.

Relying on a "policy of no weapons in space" doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Weapons in space are coming. No two ways about it.

And while it is technically feasible to "fire nukes at the moon", it's a fair bit more difficult than you're making it out to be.

 

[irishfan]

Relying on a "policy of no weapons in space" doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Weapons in space are coming. No two ways about it.

And while it is technically feasible to "fire nukes at the moon", it's a fair bit more difficult than you're making it out to be.

My point is that if they introduce them first then we can in kind. Why spend billions on the moon when you can launch an ICBM missile at a target there from here in the US. Also, satelites can easily be armed with missiles. There is no way to build a large expansive setup on the moon like you can here without someone noticing it very quickly. I just don't see the point on wasting money on something that can easily be defeated without building on the moon.

 

[Fletch]

My point is that if they introduce them first then we can in kind. Why spend billions on the moon when you can launch an ICBM missile at a target there from here in the US. Also, satelites can easily be armed with missiles. There is no way to build a large expansive setup on the moon like you can here without someone noticing it very quickly. I just don't see the point on wasting money on something that can easily be defeated without building on the moon.

You're ignoring the potential for first strike capability, and the fact that the solar system is full of kinetic weapons waiting to be used; they're far simpler than nukes, and just as devastating, if not more so. It's not even necessary to build on the moon to use them. Anyone in space has a massive tactical and strategic advantage over anyone on Earth, an advantage that cannot and will not be ignored by those who want to push others around.

 

[Expat]

You're ignoring the potential for first strike capability, and the fact that the solar system is full of kinetic weapons waiting to be used; they're far simpler than nukes, and just as devastating, if not more so. It's not even necessary to build on the moon to use them. Anyone in space has a massive tactical and strategic advantage over anyone on Earth, an advantage that cannot and will not be ignored by those who want to push others around.

Your arguments keep countering your desire to get out of space exploration on a gubmint level