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.

 

NASA says it can't afford New Rocket & Spacecraft: (the day has finally come... wtf Obama?)

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

WASHINGTON – NASA this week told Congress it cannot afford to build a new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the retiring space shuttle program within the current budget approved by Congress.




Lawmakers from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation shot back that the plan is not optional and that the US space agency must find a way to devise a workable plan. "The production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It's the law," said a joint statement issued late Wednesday by Senators John Rockefeller, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Bill Nelson and David Vitter. "NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently -- and, it must be a priority."



NASA fears it does not have the adequate funds according to budgets outlined in the fiscal year 2011 and President Barack Obama's 2012 budget request. "None of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions, based upon existing cost models, historical data, and traditional acquisition approaches," said the NASA report. The US space agency said no structures identified so far have been able to meet three criteria set out by its administrator of developing a future exploration system that is "affordable, sustainable and realistic."

Source: www.newsmax.com...

Well, finally a line in the sand is made.... by NASA. Give us more money!!! Can't blame them. A lot of people in NASA must be truly disappointed by Obama and his gang.

So, NASA begins to slip even further down the slope of defeat- in relation to the rest of the Space community. I was just reading how Russia is doing FIFTY (50) space launches this year alone.

So, anyone want to say President Kennedy would NOT be spinning in his grave over this news.

What a shame but yet an accurate reflection of the current status of the USA, under Obama.

Hold on NASA. Just two years to go!
edit on 1/13/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/13/2011 by anon72 because: added photos




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
It may be due to another space program about to be brought out. GLOBAL space program = more money new crafts ect...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
maybe they can't afford new space craft cuz
funding sources are now being diverted to
the secret space program which you won't
hear about.

i mean really,
no need to fund 2 separate programs is there ???

dangit Oph !!
u beat me to it by 1 min


edit on 1/13/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I have many friends that work for nasa in New Orleans, and I'd hate for them to lose their job.

That being said I think its a waste of money, when we should be focused on more things close to home.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   


Lawmakers from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation


I wonder how you get Obama from this, and then decide to bash him. As if he's actually powerful enough to say that NASA needs to do things a certain way. Gotta blame someone, huh?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


lol



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
I have many friends that work for nasa in New Orleans, and I'd hate for them to lose their job.

u might want to relay the message
to start upgrading their resumes.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

we should be focused on more things close to home


Can't say that you're wrong, but I can't say that you're right either. It all depends on what we should consider home.

Our house?
Our neighbourhood?
Our city?
Our country?
Our planet?
Our solar system?

List goes on.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
I wonder how you get Obama from this, and then decide to bash him. As if he's actually powerful enough to say that NASA needs to do things a certain way. Gotta blame someone, huh?


poster has a valid point about Obama

Obama budget would cut NASA moon plan
www.reuters.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
First of all NASA is the front program for the hidden program and they already have space vehicles that are better and a whole lot faster than rockets



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
well to be quite honest, I love conspiracy theories
and find them in a lot of current events


But let me run something by ya.

Just by the off chance that we (secret program) had
developed another means of space travel (UFO, anti gravity),
would there even be a need for NASA Space Rockets
or the Shuttles anymore ???

think about it


have we perfected UFO Craft even to replace NASA ???



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
If you read the freaking links you just posted, you see he says to divert their energy. NASA is still up and running, and knowing what's on the moon at this very point isn't very important to us.

"focus instead on radically new space technologies."

"with an emphasis on science and less spent on space exploration."

We can't terraform planets yet, so Earth is still our only home.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Gnarly because: Gramma structra



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


Prove to me that we could not benifit from the Moon-here on earth. Why not start close? Prove to the people we can colonize the moon (Space 1999 baby,,, one of my favorites). Then use that as a staging/liftoff area?

Then we jump to the next target.

Obama couldn't focus on anything if he tried.... except gutting the USA and NASA.


And to the other discussion about the US having advanced tech etc. They better not. Meaning that why in the hell would we be risking the lives of some of our best talent by straping them to rockets if we have another means to exit Earth.

If the citizens discovered that we were wasting money and lives as a big cover-up... doom on them.
edit on 1/13/2011 by anon72 because: Boon... I believe you have left three post in one thread and therefore are required to F&S. lol (I am trying to get that to become automatic)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Who cares! The NASA program has been nothing great since the 70's! I mean come one, remember all the talk about us being adults someday and walking on the moon at the moon station? Fact: That never happened? What about exploration by man on mars? Fact: never happened

Oh, there would be a space station in which to live on, on the moon! Fact: never happened

Its a worth less program that has done nothing to better things for the american people, right here at home~

The NASA program was implemented because of the race to get nukes in space as an offensive advancement.
Fact: already done.

Therefore, a wasted program that has not better'd the people in anyway~



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Maybe President Obama should simply tell the factions in The Mid East whom the US is at 'war' with, that since you don't want the US presence in your nation(s) we will make a deal with you. We will remove all US military related personnel and equipment if you give us oil at $5.00 per barrel. Keep a very tight reign on the refineries making them powerless to control the price of refined products. Win/Win situation.
Billions of dollar saved from day one just stopping the 'war'. Billions saved on the purchase of crude oil. I'm no mathematician in any way, but I would think it likely to inject trillions of dollars back into the economy over the course of just a few years. That would allow for pumping funds in NASA's direction.
Sounds pretty far out there doesn't it?
Or does it?
edit on 13/1/2011 by Macuser because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by anon72
 


I have many friends that work for nasa in New Orleans, and I'd hate for them to lose their job.

That being said I think its a waste of money, when we should be focused on more things close to home.



Do you really not see the contradiction in you own post? Investing in space technology creates jobs here on Earth - even (and especially) in economically troubled areas such as New Orleans.

My favorite space-related trivia question is:

Q: In the 50 years of manned spaceflight, how much money has been spent in space?

A: None - It's all been spent here on Earth; and that investment has changed the world.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Gnarly
 


Prove to me that we could not benifit from the Moon-here on earth. Why not start close? Prove to the people we can colonize the moon (Space 1999 baby,,, one of my favorites). Then use that as a staging/liftoff area?

Then we jump to the next target.

Obama couldn't focus on anything if he tried.... except gutting the USA and NASA.


And to the other discussion about the US having advanced tech etc. They better not. Meaning that why in the hell would we be risking the lives of some of our best talent by straping them to rockets if we have another means to exit Earth.

If the citizens discovered that we were wasting money and lives as a big cover-up... doom on them.


We'll, one can't prove that we can or can't benefits from the moon. We can't just go up there and live. We need other technology to make sure our bodies are getting what they've always gotten. Certain amounts of oxygen and gravity and whatnot. Know how long it would take to make all that, using the old thrusters?

"“It is a somewhat risky proposition,” Dr. Logsdon said, “but we’ve been kind of stuck using the technologies we’ve developed in the ’50s and ’60s.”

To pay for the new technology development, the budget calls for a complete stop in NASA’s Constellation program, the rockets and spacecraft that NASA has been working on for the past four years to replace the space shuttles. "

From one of the articles, and NASA is saying they are stuck. This isn't saying that we will never go to the moon, but that we're becoming more efficient in how we do things concerning space, considering we're still using technology that's fifty years old. We're coming up with new and better ways to EXPLORE. Get it?

We have the ISS which is helping to research better ways of doing things concerning the moon and mars.

And to think Obama can actually come up with a budget like this? No, he had people come up with it for him, and he's just making the statement. Do you REALLY think he had time to think about this budget?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
If you look at the figures for NASA funding over the last 50 years you'll find its remained fairly constant at a small % of GDP with the exception of the Apollo years.

en.wikipedia.org...

The 'Obama is gutting NASA' train of thought doesn't stand scrutiny.

NASA has spent 35 years going nowhere fast. Regardless of who's in charge.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Like I said in a previous thread NASA needs to advance itself. It is getting foolish to hold on to the thought well that worked then so let's do it now kind of attitude. It has stinted the growth of their developments and projects. We do not need to go back to Apollo to get to the moon, we have advanced technologically speaking to the point that would be pointless. It is the problem of the old guard holding on to their thoughts that all new idea's have to be filtered through the old that is the major problem over there. As well as the thought we can't develop with our neighbors in space, Japan and Russia in particular. It is time to drop the shroud and say space is wide open to new idea's and step it up a notch.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join