Obama: "Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again." + McCain position

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Wow, how inspiring more billions of dollars spent on some useless government bureaucracy that produces nothing...

It's time to get rid of NASA...




NASA has a history of running expensive boondoggle programs, from the man on the moon program of the 1960's–mid-1970's (three men lost their lives early in that program), to the colossal, costly and deadly space shuttle program (13 or 14 astronauts have lost their lives and the shuttle cannot put satellites into orbit for less than the Europeans or the Chinese), to the wasted billions on the international space station, the soon to be shut-down Hubble telescope, and other failed satellite missions. In fact, NASA is essentially nothing more than a lobbying arm for the public funding of expensive science projects and subsidies to the aerospace industry.

NASA supporters will vigorously challenge the characterization of their programs as boondoggles, often piping up about all the wonderful spinoffs from various space programs that have occurred and the invaluable scientific data obtained from such projects. These supporters cite such inventions as the hand-held calculator, the miniaturization of electronic circuits, advances in medical techniques, telecommunications satellites, improved weather forecasting, and other examples.

Commercial Applications Depend on Private Demand But NASA technology, like any technology developed in government-funded research and development programs, is generally not useful to the private sector in bringing new goods and services to the consumer. Over the years, in response to prodding by members of Congress and various administrations, federal laboratories – those operated by the military and civilian arms of the government – have repeatedly been put under pressure to transfer technologies developed with public funds to the private sector. While a few examples of success exist, the general rule is that the private sector wants nothing to do with technologies developed in federal labs. And this is true for several reasons. The technologies – while sounding promising – are often not tailored to bringing specific goods and services to consumers. To make new technologies into new products attractive to consumers, private firms would probably have to spend additional funds on research and development – possibly huge amounts, and even then most firms prefer to use proprietary or patented techniques or technologies in order to earn a better profit. In other words, why use some technology available to every other business, unless you can couple it with some proprietary technique to give you an edge over the competition? And then there are historical examples of advanced technologies being developed and fielded by the private sector before the federal government, or anyone in a federal laboratory, even thought of them. For instance, anyone old enough to remember knows that the old AT&T – in its Bell Laboratory subsidiary – paid for the launch of the world’s first telecommunications satellite, Telstar, in 1962, and that proved to be such a commercial success that Ma Bell launched others like it. It was only many years later that the Defense Department decided it needed its own set of communications satellites for running a U.S. military deployed around the world. I would concede that government-developed rockets were used in launching Telstar, but that same scientific and engineering talent – had it not been monopolized by the government – might well have developed commercial launch vehicles to meet private sector demands at around the same time. In other words, commercial demand was the real spur to the development of useful and economical satellite launch vehicles.


Read the rest here:www.lewrockwell.com...



[edit on 13-8-2008 by Gateway]




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by ngchunter
 


You seem well versed in this topic.
My question might be stupid, but isn't the Orion a similar vehicle to ESA's Ariane?

Not really. Ariane 5 is an unmanned launcher, somewhat akin to the Ares V that NASA will hopefully be developing, but the Ares V has far more power and payload capacity. Ares V can put 188,000kg into low earth orbit versus Ariane 5's 21,000kg capacity (for the more powerful ECA variant that you linked to). Orion is the manned spacecraft itself that will launch atop the Ares I launch vehicle. I believe there was some talk of using the Ariane 5 to launch a manned variant of the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) called the CTV, and that would be analogous to the Orion, but as far as I know there are no serious plans to build the CTV. Here's a concept image of the CTV:
orbiter.mustard-fr.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Your sources are at least as old as January.

He apparently has "adjusted" his position to what it is today. Please don't jump on this fact, both candidates have done this on many issues.

Don't jump on the fact that he lied? Or suddenly decided to change his position?

I thought we were supposed to get angry at politicians for "flip-flopping." But I guess, none of that for the Obamessiah.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Your sources are at least as old as January.

He apparently has "adjusted" his position to what it is today. Please don't jump on this fact, both candidates have done this on many issues.

Don't jump on the fact that he lied? Or suddenly decided to change his position?

I thought we were supposed to get angry at politicians for "flip-flopping." But I guess, none of that for the Obamessiah.


Be angry if you feel you must.
But if that is your reaction to politicians flip flopping you must be angry all the time with ALL of them.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
*sigh*

And through the light comes the anger.

This thread was inteded to show how the candidates feel...and now we have to deal with the same crap over and over again.


OP: I thank you for your contribution.
It is refreshing to discuss other policies as space exploration - something not talked about too much any more these days as everyone seems to concern themselves with the mind-numb drubble that MSM chooses to shovel feed the masses

"the economy" is important, yes, but so is space exploration.


Barack Obama:

bama: "We need a real vision for space exploration. To help formulate this vision, I’m going to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system – a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector.

And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon and Mars, and beyond , let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again, make America stronger, and help grow the economy right here in brevard county and right here in Florida.

That’s what this election is all about. It’s about raising our sights, seizing this moment, and reclaiming our destiny in this country."


Source


It's pretty simple really.

Obama will tell you what he thinks about space exploration

His detractors will tell you what Rush Limbaugh thinks of Barack Obama's space exploration policies.









But I guess, none of that for the Obamessiah.


Maybe i should direct your attention to this thread

Intellectually stimulating discussion of this issue is most desired.

I would give you my thanks for giving it more of an effort.



[edit on 8/13/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


AW, I fear that you have posted yourself into a position that will always get under the skin of those who oppose your point of view. A mere sneeze will get a reaction from Obama haters. And I know and appreciate your reasons. Trying to balance the debate via the proportional hammer to their anti-hammer.
You're a stronger man than I to take on this responsibility.

OP: I hope there IS money to do the Great Things. We shall see.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
wrong post

[edit on 8/13/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


But they've got you all worked up.
It makes you instinctively snap at kind mellow people like myself.
Where has the Love gone?


[edit on 8/13/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Not to rain on anyone's parade, as I am for the advancement of science as much as anyone, but...I'm not to worried about NASA at this point. We have big problems and need gigantic cuts in spending, borrowing, and taxation. So I don't think expanding any program is a good idea until we get these other problems reigned in. Truth is, as it stands, we cannot realistically afford to expand NASA, so doing so at this point would be pretty foolish and naive in the face of the problems this country faces.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


To that i would whole-heartedly disagree.

There will always be a serious deficiency in money somewhere in any government.

To allow that to effect further progression of the country is not a good thing.

IE: If i read what you're saying correctly - we would have to put our entire country on stand-still until we can pay off every single debt we owe.

You forget one thing

Lots of people owe debts to us as well.

There's a big difference in paying off a debt and not paying at all.
Good debt vs bad debt

The united states "debt" is in the majority - Good debt.

Its being paid on, and doesnt necessarily have to be "paid off"

We owe someone money - but they dont midn - they're getting some at a time, but thye know one day - sometime, they'll have to call on us to help them. We will because we owe.

To allow that to hinder something as cornerstone to our species as space exploration would be a serious malfunction in a political decision making process



Just my 2 cents however.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


Priorities are a harsh mistress.

It's a sad state of affairs when we can't afford to do the things we did forty years ago.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Wow! That's the first time I've actually agreed with you 100%.
And also could not have said it better myself.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I agree. That's why I wish we had some candidates that would do more than talk about things that have no connection to the realities the US faces. Neither have displayed any understanding of the economy nor and understanding of the international challenges that the US faces. Both want to continue the current domestic policies, by and large, and internationally, one wants to continue the current policy, the other thinks we can all make friends. Neither have actually addressed HOW to tackle either of the most important issues facing the US. They just talk in empty phrases of bravado and daydreams. No wonder many have come to view them as empty suits representing the interests of corporations and hedge funds.

On a further note about Obama and NASA...little surprise. NASA is the leading US gov propaganda machine for the Global Warming Hoax, of which Obama is a key player for a number of corporations looking to rob the citizens of the US blind. I expect to see NASA's role in that hoax to be ramped up significantly should Obama be elected, much to the glee of, for example, his oilman friend who is looking to diversify his undrillable and spent acreage into wind farms. Government subsidies all around!



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Just a reality check -- Bill Clinton had promised support for the SSC and then did little to nothing to save in the Congress, and it was roughly a 10 billion dollar project (we spend about the same in Iraq in one month).

Don't count on ANYONE when they promise science funding.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If I have my facts right the government gave up on SETI because of Matthew McConaughey and now it is privately funded.

The whole thing is a mess. Please don't flame, it's an honest query. It looks to a lay person that the ESA have their ducks in a row. Do they?

[edit on 8/13/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Ok so SETI was/is funded by Paul Allen and Nathan Myrhvold, a couple of Microsofties.

I guess the upshot is that one of the most active tools searching for ET intelligent life is eager to disclose.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


SETI
needs drastically expanded. The telescope to replace hubble in (2010?)
will be a nice step in space exploration- but i dont see the purpose in destroying hubble

we need more hubbles
we need more seti's

we need more efforts to discover the mysteries of the universe.

When you expand your horizons, you leave behind your differences.

Can you imagine the unity of the planet under the notion that we FIND extra-terestrial life?

We could hate the martians, instead of each other


[edit on 8/13/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
*sigh*

And through the light comes the anger.

This thread was inteded to show how the candidates feel...and now we have to deal with the same crap over and over again.

So how does he actually feel? Obama today vs. Obama a few months ago... which one do we believe? What flavor's the kool-aid this month?


[edit on 13-8-2008 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Quite simple really

compare yesterday to today

whatever overlaps is what he really thinks.

Was your question rhetorical?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Not rhetorical, just mocking. I expect that out of politicians but to have such a turnaround is funny. I guess he was getting a lot of negative feedback for his NASA stance, I know it bothered me.





 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join