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 'Poorly Advised' on Space: Armstrong

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

The first man to walk on the moon has criticized the administration for abandoning plans to return to the moon.



Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, said that President Barack Obama is "poorly advised" on space matters, renewing criticism of a plan to abandon a project to return astronauts to the moon.

Appearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Armstrong said the Obama plan to end the Constellation program and cut other space efforts appeared to be made without input from NASA or the president's science adviser.

Continued at link

Source

I wonder if there is an agenda here with Obama or I wonder if it's from inside intel as related to other conspiracies. I have my feelings about Obama and for the most part they relate to him being nothing more than a puppet. But those are my opinions.

Do you agree with Neil?




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Well if " we " don't go back to the moon you can bet your life other nations WILL . Then the U.S government will have to answer to its public just why they let the ball drop .



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The country is broke. Who should pay for a superfluous space program? If Neil wants it this bad, let him foot the bill. In fact, I submit that if US citizens want a space program, create a new tax just to pay for it. We'll see how popular a space program would be then.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


There are many other wasteful programs that yes could be cut but the space program is not one of them . For every dollar spent on space R&D is spent in and on the American public creating a vast amount of jobs , the kind of jobs that is so badly needed right now.

These jobs then in turn create a many many other jobs that directly benefit the American public .



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


I tend to agree with you but not just the jobs, the technology, the exploration, the glory of it all. I've always been obsessed with space and everything "out there" and who knows, maybe one day we'll find something life altering and be glad we kept to it.

At least that's what I'm hoping for.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Crossfate
 


Agreed my friend


2nd __________



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

For every dollar spent on space R&D is spent in and on the American public creating a vast amount of jobs , the kind of jobs that is so badly needed right now.


See, that's the argument I don't buy, why should Nasa jobs be more sacrosanct than any other government job? In fact, Nasa has become a monstrous bureaucracy. I do agree that there are many government programs that can go on the block first, but Nasa shouldn't be a sacred cow.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


The money spent on space R&D goes to many companies not just NASA . NASA contracts out the work .



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


Whats to say that NASA going broke isnt the plan? Therefore theres no one to blame? Makes disclosure a whole lot easier.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I'd also argue that more technology has trickled down from the military than from Nasa, even the internet was a military project. I often hear Nasa defenders claiming that computer tech wouldn't be where it is without Nasa but even that is a fallacy, computers would have progressed without just as quickly without Nasa.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


Sorry I just have to ask , what is meant by that blanket term " disclosure " ?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


You have a point and props to you


Having said that , lest we forget that NASA was an arm of the military in the early years and still to this day is a valued asset of the military , in one fashion or another .



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
One of the few things I like about Obama. let the private industry be allowed to do space exploration and not another hollywood flick.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Maybe Neil saw something on the Moon. :X



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by frankensence
 


There are many other wasteful programs that yes could be cut but the space program is not one of them . For every dollar spent on space R&D is spent in and on the American public creating a vast amount of jobs , the kind of jobs that is so badly needed right now.

These jobs then in turn create a many many other jobs that directly benefit the American public .


Exactly. But it's not just about the direct jobs created by the space program -- it's about a cultural shift in education and how technology is viewed.

The people who were instrumental in the explosion of technology in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s were mostly people who decided to become engineers and scientists BECAUSE of the Apollo program -- it literally sparked their interest and imagination. Advanced math and science in schools suddenly became more popular among masses of students -- not just "reading, writing, and arithmetic". I mean, how many high-school kids took Physics and Calculus before the 1960s? Hardly any. After the 1960s, it seems that most kids on the "college track" in high school were taking those courses.

Those kids of college-age in the 1960s saw the limitless potential of technology and decided they wanted to be a part of shaping that technology in the future. Those people who were awed by the Apollo program in the 1960s and 1970s were the same ones who led the technological revolution of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

However, those people are now retiring and there is no large group of equally-motivated people to take their place. This country needs another Apollo-like program (one that eventually gets us to Mars, even if it's the Moon first) to fuel that motivation among soon-to-be college age kids.

By trying to do things "methodically and cost-effectively", NASA has lost all of its luster -- it is no longer an "inspiration for young minds". NASA needs the same PR people it had in the 1960s, because I think our technological explosion in the late part of the last century was due to the awe-inspiring impression people had of NASA and NASA's aspirations to do seemingly impossible things.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Isn't the point that the program has been re-focused on to a longer term path? Why is this not a good thing? There seems a lot of negativity.

From a UK perspective it seems odd that a nation that normally goes nuts for privatisation (USA) wants the government to be running a low earth orbit bus service. This is what NASA has been doing in the manned space flight arena for 25 years. Private companies are involved but they make lots of low risk money supporting the bureaucracy. They are not incentivised to improve anything.

The private companies should be providing the service, like an airline. That way they are incentivised to make things better and to share the risk. After all you don't fly to europe on Federal Government Airways, for good reason. Even us brits got out of that business :-)

Leave NASA to develop the tech and prove the new concepts on orbit. Solar Sails, VASMIR, In orbit fission reactor systems etc etc.

Going to the moon again with chemical rockets was pointless. That tech is taking us nowhere in the long run.

If i'm missing the point somehow let me know.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
Isn't the point that the program has been re-focused on to a longer term path? Why is this not a good thing? There seems a lot of negativity.

From a UK perspective it seems odd that a nation that normally goes nuts for privatisation (USA) wants the government to be running a low earth orbit bus service. This is what NASA has been doing in the manned space flight arena for 25 years. Private companies are involved but they make lots of low risk money supporting the bureaucracy. They are not incentivised to improve anything.

The private companies should be providing the service, like an airline. That way they are incentivised to make things better and to share the risk. After all you don't fly to europe on Federal Government Airways, for good reason. Even us brits got out of that business :-)

Leave NASA to develop the tech and prove the new concepts on orbit. Solar Sails, VASMIR, In orbit fission reactor systems etc etc.

Going to the moon again with chemical rockets was pointless. That tech is taking us nowhere in the long run.

If i'm missing the point somehow let me know.



Pretty much, everyone knows that using the kind of rockets the worlds space programs have been using aren't good for much other than going to the moon, and the moon isn't very ambitious at this stage is it.

Surely that billions and billions of dollars is better spent on R&D to produce tech that would not only get us further into space but also it would obviously benefit the world aswell, in terms of more efficient energy sources and whatever other technological advances they could make.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I find it funny whenever other Nations are going to go attempt to go back to the moon. Then all of a sudden NASA cares about wanting to go back before anybody else. Why all of a sudden care?

hmmmm....



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join