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.

 

Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

Yes, American astronauts have to catch a Russian cab.
They can't drive themselves. That's the point. He didn't say Americans won't be in space. He said there will not be American access to space.

edit on 9/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


This is a catastrophic strategy!

What if russians decide do not allow to americans the journey in their taxi?

This is a catastrophic strategy!




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman

We need to replace NASA, with a National 'Hyperspace' Agency. Which uses field-antigravity to launch & land, and f-t-l to travel.



edit on 9/23/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)


Probably they might be doing it, as way back in Nasa houston they used to have a mimic of a space flight for visitors
to experience in an auditorium , whicg featured ' hyper space penetration '



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
The most "embarrassing" part of this whole dilemma is that we're in this position to begin with.

IMO, the issue isn't the dollar amount per trip. The issue is that we're relying on other countries for our own manned space program and it didn't have to be this way!

The Apollo program stood for American ingenuity and innovation in the spirit of exploration and discovery. The idea was that we could do it ourselves and "do it right". It wasn't just about putting men on the moon before Russia. It captured the hearts and minds of the world because it was something that everyone could relate to - The spirit of exploration and discovery.

What has happened within NASA over the past decade or two has flipped that entire concept on its head.

What we've now seen over the last decade is millions, perhaps billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on various unmanned missions only for many of them to be cancelled later due to annual cuts in NASA's fiscal budget. Sure, an argument can be made that we saved money by making those cuts but does anyone really know how much became wasted as result? (Not just monetarily).

The cutting of the constellation program wasn't an entire waste since alot of that technology will still be used in future manned missions. But having to rely on the support and technology of other countries for your own manned space program is absolutely pathetic.

The big reason NASA never developed a successor to the space shuttle program was money. NASA just didn't have the money to not only conduct unmanned science missions but pay for an aging space shuttle program at the same time (not to mention the ISS). However, one would think that going ahead with the space shuttle program many years ago NASA would've already been planning on manned missions back to the Moon and Mars and how to develop said technology instead of waiting until the 11th hour.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Armstrong that NASA being in this situation is embarrassing!

Not just because of how we got here but because this new direction for NASA closes the book on the old spirit of NASA that existed during those old Apollo days. We've been missing it ever since and we could use a little bit of that magic right about now! It was the idea that not only did NASA push the boundaries but it did things that brought the entire world together.

Those days aren't necessarily long gone but the old NASA certainly is. Now, people like Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin probably see the government reshuffling the space program and they see NASA and the country fumbling the football instead of seeing what NASA is truly capable of like they once did.

Maybe it's just because I'm now in my thirties but I feel the exact same way.

-ChriS



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Regardless of age sir, any one who has an interest in space, travel within it, and the mysteries of the deeper cosmos, knows the name Armstrong, and has an almost mythic respect for the man. When a giant of history such as he, speaks his mind he must be heeded.

Although increased co-operation between Russia and the US on space travel can, in my humble opinion, be a great asset to the worlds progress toward its space aims, it is important that alongside any collaborative efforts,
each nation who can contribute vehicular support for LEO and deeper space operations, be capable of launching its own dedicated vessels.

The fact is, that regardless of the baboon like chest beating, and the question of being a "leader" in space (which is an idiocy in my opinion) which comes with most support for bringing the shuttle out of retirement, the idea of any nation deliberately REDUCING its space travel capabilities is a complete stupidity. When one has an asset, one supports that asset. When that asset is directly linked to a nations independant ability to launch its own spacecraft, and advance its understanding of the universe by travel and expirience ... well , at that point I would say its beyond important that such assets are retained.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi



"We will have no AMERICAN access to, and return from, low Earth orbit and the International Space Station for an unpredictable length of time in the future," Armstrong told the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.


If that's true, what about this from last year?

"NASA Signs New $335 Million Deal to Fly Astronauts on Russian Spaceships


See bold/capital text for more information.


edit on 24-9-2011 by Observer99 because: edit



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Larryman

We need to replace NASA, with a National 'Hyperspace' Agency. Which uses field-antigravity to launch & land, and f-t-l to travel.



edit on 9/23/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)


Probably they might be doing it, as way back in Nasa houston they used to have a mimic of a space flight for visitors
to experience in an auditorium , whicg featured ' hyper space penetration '


I guess hyperspace flight doesn't burn enough rocket fuel to interest NASA, beyond that auditorium simulation. But I am supprised that NASA ever applied that much of their funding to an advanced f-t-l propulsion concept. I'll bet it cost a few hundred dollars to develop it.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhynouk
They should create the federation like star trek,all the best scientists from all countries working together to get further in space.


They are according to Karl Wolf




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Storm in a teacup.

Yes, its a little embarrassing in the interim, but only until Space-x has the dragon capsule man rated. To say nothing of the other competitors.

The government should have got out of the low earth orbit access business decades ago and challenged NASA to do something at the limits of human and technological capability.

The problem with NASA is not lack of funding its lack of direction leading to bloat and diffusion of the funds. Unfortunately theres no solution to that in sight. I used to think that mankind still had the spirit to pioneer and explore but sadly it doesn't. The vast majority doesn't really care beyond reality tv, screwing and eating burgers.

In that environment US space policy is a vehicle for the transmission of pork to constituents only.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I doubt the U.S will be left behind. in fact I think they are waaay ahead than most believe. For all we know the airforce or military may have picked up were Nasa left off years ago. NASA imo is a is just the public side show. The real deal is hidden either in area 51 or somewhere underground in the U.S. For all we know, those "Ufo" sightings may well be the U.S playing with advanced technologies.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Thats Russian access, not American access....



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
So, it turns out, only military access to space is what counts. The military is "WE"?
What is in the military interest, it is in "OUR" interest?
We sure are going space fascist police martial dummies

The military decides where "OUR' money will go.
Like for that 380mil superhyper 10 mach toy which crashed recently. "WE" don't even know what it was, but sure as hell WEre taxed to finance it.
Et cetera, et cetera...

The fact is, America has a space program, but it is not public anymore.





posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
After world war II, a lot of guys used the GI bill to go to college and get degrees in engineering and science. People actually used to read books and think instead of playing video games and watching idiotic TV shows and movies. So when the 1960s arrived, the United states had a surplus of scientists and engineers. That was a big part in us getting to the moon. We had a real edge in educated, smart people.Now, college is becoming reachable only by the wealthy, most kids have little or no interest in anything other than their PS 3 and texting each other. Most of the engineers at NASA now are arrogant kids of the wealthy who think they know everything and will not admit they could be wrong, which is not conducive to group thinking. The generation that built the moon rockets and the shuttle is mostly gone. That generation was born in the great depression, fought a world war, and placed a high value on education and excellence. What we have now is a generation of over entitled, spoiled illiterate brats whose only knowledge of the world comes from movies and the internet (sorry but that IS the truth). Most people don't make the effort to be smart anymore. Hardship breeds character, and we have been a nation largely without real hardship until only recently. Maybe in 20 years you will start to see people with the kind of drive and character it takes to run a space program again.
edit on 24-9-2011 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
SpaceX and ULA will be ready to launch humans into space in a few years. The gap will be shorter than the transition between Apollo and Shuttle programs. I honestly dont see where does this negativistic attitude come from.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Its easy to see where it comes from. The proper way to conduct advancement is with unceasing , relentless progress in a forward direction, without gaps in output or input, and without any stoppage in what has become routine, having once been stuff of legend.

Here however, we have a stoppage , a complete HALT to independant space exploration by the USA, a current world leader in space. That should not be happening.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Some people want to "reach for the stars" - not just Earth orbit, and the nearest dead rocks.

And some new advanced technology would be useful to our economy too.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I agree with him that we should rather focus on the Moon than asteroids or Mars.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


I dont think such FTL technology exists or will be invented in the near future. If its even possible.

reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Its better to stop, even go backwards a bit, if the path we have taken proves to not be optimal. NASA made a right decision by stopping the shuttle program, it should have been stopped 10 years ago.

The SLS program may be another waste considering now we have even better alternative (commercial heavy lift evolved from current launchers), but its still far better than continuting in the same paradigm that failed to deliver cost effective space access for for 30 years. At least new direction finally includes COTS, CCDev and fuel depots.


I simly dont understand the negative attitude, human spaceflights future now seems brighter than ever before.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
To Maxmars,

Um, you do realize we never went to moon right? You do realize all the moon landings were fake right?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

Yes, American astronauts have to catch a Russian cab.
They can't drive themselves. That's the point. He didn't say Americans won't be in space. He said there will not be American access to space.

edit on 9/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


You're arguing semantics, Americans have already paid for their access to space, that's what the article states. No it's not on "their" shuttles, but they still are getting out there.

Regardless, it's all just smoke and mirrors for the public to drink up and absorb. I've seen the kind of technology that already exists, as in TR-3B types, if NASA is ignoring or denying that stuff exists, then they are straight up liars as far as we should be concerned.


Maybe TR-3B cannot get to LEO.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Does it really matter when we all know the moon landing was a hoax anyway?




new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join