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.

 

Sen. Rockefeller Tells Neil Armstrong: 'I Am a Substantial Skeptic of Human Spaceflight' and America

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Sen. Rockefeller Tells Neil Armstrong: 'I Am a Substantial Skeptic of Human Spaceflight' and America's Drive to Explore is Not All 'Glorious'


www.cnsnews.com

“I am not a huge, but I am a substantial, skeptic of human spaceflight,” Rockefeller told Armstrong, Cernan, and Norman R. Augustine, the chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

“We’re approximately the same generation, but that’s where I am,” Rockefeller said. “I cannot support going into space as an end in and of itself. I agree with the president that we need a measured, nationally, globally relevant and sustainable human space flight program--not one solely bound by place and time in space.”




Another video is available at the article source.

But this is simply ridiculous. Skeptic of Human Spaceflight, what does that even mean? Are we going to be abandoning trips to the ISS all together even aboard foreign countries space crafts.

Here we have ESA doing a 520day simulation for the Human Flight to Mars and we have Rockefeller talking down to the pioneers of the Space Exploration like they are little kids.

ESA Conducting Simulation for Human Space Flight to Mars

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


I am no fan of the man.. As I think as Globalists go, his family is one of the brutal groups..

But did he even say that he is not a big fan of Spaceflight?

Did he not say that he isn't a fan of Spaceflight unless its a globally coordinated effort? Meaning that only one country going it alone is a waste of time and resources..

Am I missing something here?


+10 more 
posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
When asked why he climbed Mt. Everest. Sir Edmund Hillary replied,
"Because it was there."

Screw you Mr. Rockefeller.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


I believe is he wanting to push the American Space program into obscurity. A lot of the breakthroughs were pioneered with the advent of space flights and future space programs.

Breakthroughs are not acceptable as America should not be a leader anymore. We have already had Obama say a few times that he is embarrassed that America still remains a world superpower. So NASA, regarded as the premier space programs should be cut off so that others can lead.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


Or else that he realizes that the day of the US being the only one capable of any serious spaceflight is over..

And that a globalized pooled effort would do more for sustainable spaceflight than one country going it alone..

I can't say I disagree..



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'd have no problem if it Spaceflight were to become an internationally funded operation. Bye NASA, hello UNASA or IASA. We'll supply the launchpads and control rooms and the rest of the world can fund it and have an equal presence of staff and astronauts.

A manned mission to mars with all countries of the world involved and watching would do alot to foster peace. Besides Mars, with an international budget and involvement, more could be imagined and done than ever before.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
As far as i understand he is against investing lots of money into manned missions ,especially such huge projects as Moon/Mars bases. I do not agree with him - i am sure that he is very worried because of that
, but it is normal power struggle between different interest groups. Previous US president pushed for different plans so Rockefeller's group is not the only one.
However if i read it wrong and it is about dropping investments in all sides of US space program - this is very very wrong and there is no reason for it. As Cernan answered to Rockefeller - space exploration investments drive economy of nation due to breakthrough technologies. It will be really end of US as global leader if it will "starve" NASA funds even more.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by ZeroKnowledge]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Well, the way I see it, if we don't head off into the cosmos as a single unified, global entity, how's the Rockefeller Cartel supposed to wring the endeavor for every penny it ends up being worth? How do they institute the galactic banking system if we're all just going up freely, independently doing what we want to do?

I think what he meant to say was:

"I'm a substantial skeptic of anything on which I can't levy the personal tax that I was born entitled to."

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Unit541]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
If we're not going to use anti-gravity/hyperspace technology... then forget human spaceflight. We can just rot on Earth.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by Larryman]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I do hope someone runs against Rockefeller when his term is up and tosses him out on his sorry butt.

He and his family are a sore on Americas behind.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Isn't he from the same "group" that has told the astronauts NOT TO REVEAL the Moon Hoax?..

OH that's right... cause HUMANS, Americans
, DID GO TO THE MOON!!!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dethduck
When asked why he climbed Mt. Everest. Sir Edmund Hillary replied,
"Because it was there."

Screw you Mr. Rockefeller.


Yeah and that was funded by millions of tax payer money? Your quote is more suited to the small companies who try to invent new and cheaper ways to go into space.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I can definitely say with confidence that Obama and all his supporters lack common sense.

If you'll look at his "space plan" here, you'd see that he's got astronauts going to an asteroid by the year 2525 and Mars by the year 2535.




By 2525, the president says that a new spacecraft will be ready for travel that can go beyond the moon. The United States will start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history.

“By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow,” he said.


It's very obvious that he doesn't know that Mars is closer to Earth than the asteroids in these quotes.

And about going back to the Moon?


“We’ve been there before,” Obama said. “There’s a lot more of space to explore.”


The reason for Bushs plan to return to the moon was to establish a permanent presence on the Moon that would act as a platform for further exploration of the Solar System.

Rockefeller and Obama are about as ignorant as any individual can get.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

It's very obvious that he doesn't know that Mars is closer to Earth than the asteroids in these quotes.



Are you sure he doesn't mean asteroids that come close by? The thing about those buggers is that they move around vs. mars which has a steady orbit.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


You have quoted a typo in your quotation. The year is 2025, not 2525. Just a point of information.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Intelearthling

It's very obvious that he doesn't know that Mars is closer to Earth than the asteroids in these quotes.



Are you sure he doesn't mean asteroids that come close by? The thing about those buggers is that they move around vs. mars which has a steady orbit.

You can aerobrake at Mars. You can't aerobrake using an asteroid. I'm not sure how all the numbers work out in the end; Mars does have a much more substantial gravity well of course, but you save at least a few km/sec delta V by using the atmosphere to your advantage, and there's plenty of resources on the surface you could use to augment your fuel supply for the return trip.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Just to play the Devil's advocate here, can not all this be accomplished with robotic exploration? With the budget crisis America faces, and as extremely expensive as manned space flight is, I say let them fund a manned space program with a special tax. You'll see how quickly citizens in manned space flight lose interest.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by frankensence
Just to play the Devil's advocate here, can not all this be accomplished with robotic exploration? With the budget crisis America faces, and as extremely expensive as manned space flight is, I say let them fund a manned space program with a special tax. You'll see how quickly citizens in manned space flight lose interest.


Keep thinking that way, pretty soon that same strategy you propose shall be applied to the internet, though I am sure it is already in the works. A tax for every site you visit and every email you send.

Oh yea, tax our way out the problem.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


You have quoted a typo in your quotation. The year is 2025, not 2525. Just a point of information.


My bad. No excuse for not proofreading and paying attention to detail. Thanks for the heads ups.



Originally posted by PsykoOpsAre you sure he doesn't mean asteroids that come close by? The thing about those buggers is that they move around vs. mars which has a steady orbit.


It really didn't dawn on me that he might have been talking about a near Earth astroid until you mentioned it. Now I know he's not informed about the complexity of such an endeaver. These asteroids have very high velocities that would require enormous amounts of fuel just to rendevous with one. On top of that, no gravity to pull the craft toward it. Reverse thrusting would consume vast amounts of fuel if we wanted to reach the object quickly.

Highly risky to say the least.

Oh. Here's something. Obama's asteroid goal: tougher, riskier than moon

The above link is quite interesting reading. Here's a couple of quotes.


Landing on an asteroid and giving it a well-timed nudge "would demonstrate once and for all that we're smarter than the dinosaurs and can avoid what they didn't," said White House science adviser John Holdren.


Or giving it a mis-calculated nudge would prove that we can become exstinct like the dinosaurs. I still don't get "demonstrate...we're smarter than the dinosaurs...". I assumed that was a given.



While Apollo 11 took eight days to go to the moon and back in 1969, a typical round-trip mission to a near-Earth asteroid would last about 200 days, Crawley said. That would demand new propulsion and life-support technology. And it would be riskier. Aborting a mission in an emergency would still leave people stuck in space for several weeks.





[edit on 18/5/10 by Intelearthling]




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join