It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obama believes we should continue developing the next generation of space vehicles, and complete the international space station. While Obama would delay plans to return to moon and push on to mars, Obama would continue unmanned missions, and use NASA to monitor the forces and effects of climate change, support scientific research, and maintain surveillance to strengthen national security. Obama also believes we need to keep weapons out of space.
That is considerably different than what his original statement sounded like: rather than an additional five-year post-shuttle gap, this approach would appear to permit the continued development of a new launch vehicle and spacecraft (be it Ares/Orion or some alternative), but put on hold anything that would be used for lunar missions and beyond. That puts his approach closer to what Hillary Clinton proposed in October, although she did not endorse any specific delay in human lunar missions.
Originally posted by bigbert81
How outrageous (I would've said something else here, but I don't think the MODS would have liked it too much) is it that someone will change their vote from someone who wants to take funding from space and put it into education, to someone who wants to force garnished wages for healthcare onto people?
Please tell me this is a big joke. 'Forget education! I wanna learn more about space NOW!' Hmmm, sounds like something a child would say.
Though more than two-thirds of the planet is covered with water, only a small fraction'"around 0.3 percent'"is available for human use and reuse. And no more of this renewable fresh water is available today than existed at the dawn of human civilization.
World population, currently 6.5 billion, is growing by another 76 million people per year. According to the UN the world will add another 2.6 billion people by 2050. Rapid population growth has placed incredible stress on Earth's resources. Global demand for water has tripled since the 1950s, but the supply of fresh drinking water has been declining because of over-pumping and contamination. Half a billion people live in water-stressed or water-scarce countries, and by 2025 that number will grow to three billion. In the last 50 years, cropland has been reduced by 13% and pasture by 4%. June 2005 U.N. 014123
Originally posted by Shadow_Lord
What I would be asking is: Why did we destroy the blueprints and the vehicles for getting to the Moon?
From a government point of view; we were in a space race with the USSR. With that race going back and forth for years, what was the motive for destroying your means of getting back to the Moon?
That puts his [Barack Obama] approach closer to what Hillary Clinton proposed in October, although she did not endorse any specific delay in human lunar missions.
Hillary has my vote too. Her heathcare was impressive last time around, and she's a mother of a beautiful, articulate, intelligent young woman.
Obama believes we should continue developing the next generation of space vehicles, and complete the international space station. While Obama would delay plans to return to moon and push on to mars, Obama would continue unmanned missions, and use NASA to monitor the forces and effects of climate change, support scientific research, and maintain surveillance to strengthen national security. Obama also believes we need to keep weapons out of space.
I find it amazing, that the media are wanting this guy to win. How does he create change, other than hes black, his voting record is like hillarys, so what is the difference he will bring.
But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times.
Originally posted by bigbert81
C'mon and look at the bigger picture. And BTW, NOWHERE am I seeing that he's not a fan of space exploration. He simply wants to hold back 1 thing for 5 years so that we can use the money for things we NEED to use money on NOW.
Originally posted by thelibra
Does no one read anymore? Or do they just post based on the title of the thread alone?
Originally posted by Dagar
Well here's a thought... Why not stop invading countries, cut your military spending by a tiny fraction, and fund both?
Sorry, just thinking aloud
Originally posted by TheSonOfMan
Bush invaded iraq..NOT OBAMA..so get your crap straight man...He was against the war from the beginning. So dont try blaming people who had nothing to do with it. You clowns really want space exploration so badly..then go to college and become an astronuat or something...but until then please be quiet..and worry about your life and what you can do to make that better...before you go busting a guys chops for trying to look out for the MAJORITY'S intrest..geeeez
ALL HAIL NASA...oops i ment to say SATAN.