posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:05 PM
If you'll excuse the pun, I think a more 'down-to-earth' explanation is the reasoning behind this decision. I believe it has nothing to with
excessive radiation beyond low Earth orbit, or supposed 'fake landings' back in the 60's and 70's, but all about a combination of money and
ambition... or rather, a complete lack of it.
If Obama suddenly decided to pump untold billions into the space program, he would be crucified by people concerned about the ongoing effects of the
recession. The questions about healthcare or education spending would mount up and mount up, and cause massive problems for his overall popularity
among voters. Ask yourself this question; do you think more people care about a select few people planting a flag on the Moon and everyone feeling
good about it for a while, or freeing up much needed funds in other areas? I'm no statistician (nor expert on US politics), but if you are going to
anger 10,000 people or 10 million, I know which way I would go if I had the same decision to make.
It's disappointing that there is an apparent lack of ambition surrounding the space program, however if the shackles are taken off then private
industry could push us a giant quantum leap into the future. If it will create jobs and push the boundaries further, privatisation of the space
industry is the only logical step forward. NASA is the well known, public face of space, but is stuck in the 50's both technologically speaking and
in terms of ambition. Well funded, privately run organisations that are properly set up could end up doing things that NASA would only dream of. If
anything, it's an opportunity to do something new, exciting, and with an outcome that could benefit everyone. So Star Trek isn't around the corner
just yet, but if we approach this with an open mind it might just happen a little bit quicker.