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.

 

Barack Obama wants to delay mission to the Moon by at least 5 years!!!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jdposey
 


A good point. It's just I don't think that the US or its space program hardly qualifies for that remark -- in either regard.

Another point is that "earth" can be the soil of Mars or the frozen icy oceans of Europa. Context would count for much for a statement like that.




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Wow, this thread just woke me up like a cup of coffee. I can't believe the people on here.

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.

Anyway, because of how important it is, I thought I'd repeat an above post:



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.


PEOPLE, DON'T CHANGE YOUR VOTE OVER THIS! IT'S RIDICULOUS! What's better for the country, hmmm?

Let's sum this up, shall we? People want to change their vote because Barack Obama wants to delay for 5 years Lunar man missions so that we can use the money for things we need like education. WTF IS THE PROBLEM HERE?!?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Geez, I like the guy. I looked around... and I got some answers. I think I like his civilian space policy.

It'll need some extra time. All kinds of Orion/Constellation challenges coming... nothing new. For other threads...

If one follows it closely Russia has agreements with the USA for some time to come providing some capabilities in regard to ISS as backup for some private capability and Japan and ESA. Just the last big pieces to do... the 2010 "no fly' dictum is... slipping. Pressure city.

"If" the junior Senator from Illinios makes it to be the POTUSA? NASA could be a better place... much like the rest of what has gone before in the last 8 years. I have hope. The Moon can wait... even budget FY '09 by DD S. Dale has a significant intent to reemphasize the directions of NASA for what "could" loosely be interpreted as "environmental" reasons. Wink.

There was so much (and still is) great about NASA and other space programs but the "Vision-thing" looking forward after both STS incidents amongst so many other lesser difficulties makes one take stock and realize the great cost in blood and treasure. Perhaps a five year "peroid of assessment" by a Presidential panel is in order after the administration changes. Just the propellor heads and the Prezzy's advisors and a civvie oversight panel. Abolish NASA-IG.

This person as President "could" herald a new era in international co-operation in space. I don't "not" trust him. I like McCain too but some of his own party don't. Clinton? Which one? Does it make a diff? Same MIC status quo. The new guy isn't as corrupted as much yet. I hope. I don't think he'd cause my country any more trouble than the last guy anyway.

Happier news, 122 is working no issues at this time. The intent is to "minimize" rather than "maximize" tanking... should be fine. Fingers-crossed.

Weather at the Cape is 60% unfavorable for a nominal launch... they picked the unlucky weather guy from the 45th again for the broadcast.

When will NASA finally learn when Winters gives the post-FRR weather status... well, her record is very, very good. I know it isn't supposed to matter... I've watched... almost all of them. I associate her weather call with skill and that bit of "lady luck". Hope.

Tanking will tell whether it's fixed again.

Cheers,

Vic

[edit on 6-2-2008 by V Kaminski]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

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.


Exactly! And it's not even to learn, just to get kicks our of a real-life illustration of Star Trek. If we wanted to learn, same dollar would go three times as far if invested in advanced robotic missions. Paradoxically, this more safe and efficient approach would appeal to more educated people, in my humble opinion. And Obama wants to promote education... Let him have it, already!



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

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


World Population
2006: 6.5 billion
1967: 3.5 billion
1915: 1.8 billion
Source: U.S. Census Department October 2006

This is the only reason we should be pushing into space as fast as possible.
Because if we don't we might find it difficult to find a spot to live.. if it really taakes so long to set these things up we need to start yesterday.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
lol I laugh at this only because we know how little this has to do with anything...

Just because he won't publicly spend money on the moon mission, or space program does not mean it won't go on.

Seriously, the next big thing to come out regarding space exploration will probably have nothing to do with NASA.

We have so many black operations in the works that are so advanced and too far into there work to quit because of a NASA budget cut.

So as far as this hindering our space progress I'm not too worried...

BUT, what does worry me is that this mind set might make people turn a blind eye to space exploration...

Out of sight, out of mind?

Perhaps this is a diversion to make people back off looking to space as a possibility of the future.

However, I think that will change when we accidentally uncover some sort of hidden secret that starts the next order of the world...
maybe thats just me i dunno...
But even with this, I would rather see Obama in over Clinton...


jra

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

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?


They didn't. The blueprints still exist on microfilm. But blueprints alone don't tell you how to build something. Plus we wouldn't want to use them now. There have been many changes in the way we build and manufacture things and we have access to materials that didn't exist in the 60's. So it would just be better to start from the ground up.


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?


From a Governments point of view, going to the Moon costs a hell of a lot of money. Money that they could spend on other things that may benefit them more directly. They beat the USSR to the Moon and did it 6 times. That was enough for them and they canceled the remaining Apollo missions.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


Look, I agree that over-population is a BIG problem facing future generations, but look at what's going on here. Holding back lunar man missions for 5 yrs. so that we can have better education is a GOOD thing.

And to all those people who said 'space exploration is our future', you apparently failed to think about education.

Should we press space exploration? Absolutely. Would it be ok to delay 1 part of it for 5 years so that we can make our world better? 184% YES. Should someone change their vote to a 'Health Care Dictator' because they're impatient? ABSOLUTELY NOT

EDIT: Oh, and here is this sentence once more for anybody who's missed it twice already:



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.


[edit on 2/6/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


I read you loud and clear. Maybe he's got some kind of irrational fear of aliens or something.

Man, come on - it's not HIS country, it's OUR country.

No offense Barack, seriously - if this report is true, you can't just go waggling your ideals for YOUR likes and dislikes in the face of the American People. We have right and interests here too.

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 may have a dancing and singing girl, but *YAWN* that is SO PASSE. Everyone has those these days. Boooooooooooring.
Besides, it's stuff like that that makes ghettos thrive - thinking it's just abut wiggling your goodies about and keeping thin at any cost.

Let's talk Peace Corp girls instead. THAT has my interest.



Peace.

*GE*



[edit on 6-2-2008 by GENERAL EYES]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ufo reality
 


Ridiculous. Might as well be Eva Braun with your logic up there running instead of Hillary, as long as she's for space exploration.

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.

What a ludicrous way to make your decision on who to vote for.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GENERAL EYES
 


Ok, so I thought you were serious, then I read this:



Hillary has my vote too. Her heathcare was impressive last time around, and she's a mother of a beautiful, articulate, intelligent young woman.


So I'm going off the assumption that you ARE being sarcastic, correct?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
How are people still arguing about this as if it was an either/or choice?

I'll repeat:



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.


Please read the actual quote before continuing some inane argument about a falsely presented stance for a candidate. He's not saying "I'm going to kill NASA and give all their money to education". He's saying we got to improve our vehicles first, and learn more first using unmanned probes.

Does no one read anymore? Or do they just post based on the title of the thread alone?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Ahhh, and Andy, you almost squeaked right by me.



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.


Your post REEKS of someone not knowing what is going on. I mean come on. Have you researched your statement at all?

Here's something from the Washingtonpost.com:



But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

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.



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



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I think all of you need to stop hating on obama like this. Who cares if we dont go to the moon for another 5 years..man i wouldnt care if we didnt go back for 10 or 20 years seriously. Yoi didnt create the moon..GOD DID...so you dont have ANY rights to it. Plus there is so many things wrong with this world ,that we should be spending more time fixing the problems we have here. Space exploration is not mankinds destiny...havent you herd the saying NOTHING IS NEW UNDER THE SUN? meaning mankind has already been there and done that..we are just history repeating itself. Lay -off the man will you. Prolly some of you are just racists and dont want to see a man of color in the WHITE house...get over it. Forget hillary clinton...she says shes gonna clean up what bush did..no! she is just gonna pick up where he might leave off..thats all.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Does no one read anymore? Or do they just post based on the title of the thread alone?


I'll risk a one-liner. The above statement is important. The title misleads.

Vic



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

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



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.


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[Lets attack the topic NOT the members, please!]

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Finally someone who has some friggin sense. Thanks alot. We need more people like you to shut down these fools.

~TSOM~



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

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.


Let's see... you're categorizing my post as 'crap', calling me a clown, and basically telling me to shut up... did I leave anything out?


hmm... I'm sure someone around here said something about 'courtesy is mandatory' , or something?

Anyway, my post was slightly tongue in cheek, but the basic premise is (IMO) sound.

If the USA cut it's military spending, even just by a fraction, it could probably finance education, healthcare, rebuilding infrastructure, and space exploration.... and STILL have the most powerful military on the planet.

Just my opinion mind you... and not meant to cause offence to anyone.

Be at peace



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Dagar
 


Easier said than done, friend.

Believe you me, if I could stop the war, I would.

In fact, most people agree with that. The problem is within the gov't we currently have.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join