backtop

Science Job Losses Concern NASA Administrator
Michael Barkoviak - February 9, 2010 3:19 PM
Print 37 comment(s) - last by libs0n.. on Feb 11 at 1:24 AM
NASA is concerned about job losses in Florida, Texas and other locations

Some NASA space officials have showed concern in the direction of the U.S. space agency, as President Barack Obama prepares to begin outsourcing even more of NASA's missions to private contractors.

Space officials will plead to Congress to try and save up to 1,000 jobs in Washington.  There is concern if Obama's new budget is approved, even more jobs could be lost in the future.  NASA wants to keep part of the Constellation program active, which could help save some of the proposed 1,000 jobs that will be lost.

President Obama's 2011 budget has killed any realistic hope the U.S. space agency will be able to return to the moon in the next 10 years.

"We are departing  from the model of the past, in which the government funded all of human space activities," said Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator, during an interview.  "This represents the entrance of the entrepreneurial mindset into a field that is poised for rapid growth and new jobs.  And NASA will be driving  competition, opening new markers and access to space, and catalyzing the potential of American industry.  This is a good investment for America."

Both NASA and the Russian space program face similar dilemmas of upgrading aging space technology while losing precious funds.  The NASA Constellation space program is currently running behind schedule, and the U.S. Government has already invested more than $9 billion to help keep the project alive longer.

More recently, shuttle Endeavour partook in NASA's last nighttime shuttle launch, and the crew will work on the International Space Station (ISS) during the two-week mission.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Outrageous
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 4
Say what you want, but Obama's pick for NASA Administrator, Bolden, is a person almost laughably unqualified to hold the position.

It used to be that a NASA administrator was someone with a Ph.D in Physics, Aerospace Engineering, or some related science...as well as having deep experience with managing a large organization. Then we began to settle for someone who had one or the other.

Now Obama has picked someone with neither qualification...just so he can say he was the first to appoint an African American to head NASA.




RE: Outrageous
By cmdrdredd on 2/9/2010 4:38:21 PM , Rating: 5
What you have said is 100% true. However, we've been trying to argue that Obama is not qualified for president either. When he isn't qualified for his position how do we really expect him to pick qualified people to head different positions?


RE: Outrageous
By FITCamaro on 2/9/2010 4:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
Obama and Democrats in general don't give two sh*ts about NASA. They view it as taking money away from social programs. We're spending $196 million an hour until September 30th for the stimulus but we can't spend a few billion on things like NASA or F22s. One of which helps push new technology and drive exploration while giving the nation a clear, set goal for space. The other which is needed to help replace a rapidly aging fleet of aircraft.

Plus most people who work at NASA won't vote for him so he doesn't give a crap about the jobs there. Now if they were part of some big labor union, then he'd care.


RE: Outrageous
By cmdrdredd on 2/9/2010 5:00:04 PM , Rating: 4
FIT, I applaud your enthusiasm but you're using generalizations here. The Democrats, specifically John F. Kennedy after whom the space center is named, put a challenge forth to get a man on the moon. It's not a Democratic ideal nor is it a Republican ideal to make manned space travel and exploration a reality. It's not even an American ideal because the Russians were just as adamant about it as we were except we put more money into it than they could and developed technology faster. It's simple human nature to want to explore, to wonder, and to want to understand the things around us and the unknown. The problem is today the liberal agenda doesn't agree with this point of view because the cost of the programs will take away from other programs they promised top check writers would be pushed first. Heck, I bet even a few Conservative leaders got big checks from some group and feel that diverting money from NASA will allow them to push in their little Pork projects to help their campaign contributors.

The problem is not limited to one party or the next. It's simply a failure of us as an American people to keep the dream alive and we've taken NASA for granted after all these years. There is so much more we can do in space, but we might not see it because we have lost the desire and drive to push ourselves to explore and take a risk. I hope that some day soon we find that which we once had, the drive to push ourselves to something more.


RE: Outrageous
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/2010 5:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Democrats, specifically John F. Kennedy after whom the space center is named, put a challenge forth to get a man on the moon.


That might as well have been centuries ago. John F Kennedy would have as much in common with the modern Democratic party as oil and water. Were he alive today I have no doubt he would be ashamed of what's become of the "peoples party".


RE: Outrageous
By cmdrdredd on 2/9/2010 11:30:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That might as well have been centuries ago. John F Kennedy would have as much in common with the modern Democratic party as oil and water. Were he alive today I have no doubt he would be ashamed of what's become of the "peoples party".


Ever hear of Charlton Heston? He was hardcore Democrat for many years, then he saw the party he loved and supported drop from what they once were and he changed parties. He had quite a lot to say on the subject when asked.

I don't doubt that it's different today. You're missing my point. NASA and exploration as well as scientific study is not a partisan ideal in any way. It's used as such today because the politicians exploit it for monetary gain.


RE: Outrageous
By Suntan on 2/10/2010 12:42:00 PM , Rating: 3
I still disagree with using “Kennedy was a democrat” as any yard stick on this measure.

The reality is that Kennedy would make most republicans today look awfully liberal. The fact that the democratic party (and the republican party) has shifted so far to the left *is* one of the reasons why NASA has floundered. Back then, a Democratic president was cheered on for actually challenging the country to do something that was by all accounts impossible.

Now, democratic politicians (I’m looking squarely at you Nancy Pelosi) are cheered on for acknowledging that people’s problems are not their fault and that they should feel justified in wanting someone else to fix them. Something like NASA has no chance to succeed in this environment. Regardless of the political motives behind the candidates.

-Suntan


RE: Outrageous
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/2010 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 3
I agree but you don't understand Obama's plans for NASA. He wants to turn them away from space exploration and rebuild them into an environmental studies arm of the federal government. In that light, picking Bolden makes sense.

Of course Bolden, like every other person Obama has appointed, is ill suited for any task.


RE: Outrageous
By Richardito on 2/10/2010 11:22:05 AM , Rating: 2
Your opinion is deeply flawed and has a hint of racism. Unfortunately I see a lot of people like you giving their useless opinions everywhere. Do you think that Bush made better appointments? What about "Brownie" that used to head FEMA or the non-scientist that used to run the EPA? The way the economy is it makes no sense pumping $ into going to the Moon or Mars. What they should spend it in are new satellites, orbital missile systems and cyberspace because those are the future conflict zones.


RE: Outrageous
By Ammohunt on 2/10/2010 3:25:41 PM , Rating: 3
can't call a spade a spade becasue its RACISM! Oh noes! every white person that says anything negative about a non-white is a racist. I think its obvious that incompetence has no racial boundries.


RE: Outrageous
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Your opinion is deeply flawed and has a hint of racism."

Actually, your post is the one heavily shaded with racism.

Bush's pick to run NASA had a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering, an MBA, and six other degrees. Previously, he had also run the Space department at the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins, and became Associate Administrator for all NASA before Bush picked him. He had designed satellites, and been a professor at 6 different Universities.

Obama's pick to run NASA was an ex pilot with one undergrad degree. Previously, he had directed a visitor's center at NASA.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that this man was the best Obama could find? Or that he was picked for ANY other reason than a blatant affirmative-action program?

It is you that are spreading racism here. Can you seriously say with a straight face that this pick was made on any sort of colorblind basis?

I didn't think so.


RE: Outrageous
By libs0n on 2/10/2010 11:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
This is so bullshit.

1. Charlie Bolden is a Marine General and a former NASA astronaut who participated in 4 Shuttle missions, two as Commander. He was a commander of a Marine wing, and only a select few have the kind of knowledgeable NASA background he does. Go read a bio.

2. Obama wasn't the driving force behind his nomination; Senator Bill Nelson from Florida was: Nelson was on a Shuttle mission with Bolden and the two are old friends. The dude Obama initially wanted as NASA head was an Air Force general who advised him on his campaign, and he was white, but Nelson managed to advocate for Bolden quite effectively. The race thing is all in your head.

3. The previous admin was a book smart fool who's Ares rockets were on the course of derailing NASA with their enormous price tag and lag time until becoming operational, and were largely pork for the established Shuttle contractors, namely ATK the SRB manufacturer, and also a powergrab by one of the NASA centers. They would have consumed tens of billions and would not have landed men on the moon until after the 2030s if ever. Good Riddance.

4. Bolden's NASA is finally on the right track, pursuing R+D to make future exploration missions affordable within NASA's budget and stimulating commercial spaceflight, while extending the ISS which the previous book smart fool would have put into the ocean in 2016 to pay for his rockets. The popular conception is wrong: Constellation was junk and Obama/Bolden are the best thing that could have happened to NASA and the prospects of future exploration and manned spaceflight.

You're nothing but an Obama hater and your NASA analysis reflects this. Obama and Bolden have put NASA on a proper footing, after the previous admin mucked it up big time. That losers like yourself have to stew for the next few years is icing on the cake of a better NASA.


RE: Outrageous
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 12:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
"He was a commander of a Marine wing"

Sounds like a good pick for a job commanding Marines. then. Running NASA? That takes someone with an solid background in hard science or engineering. Experience running a large organization would be nice too. Bolden has neither of these.

"Senator Bill Nelson from Florida was: Nelson was on a Shuttle mission with Bolden and the two are old friends"

Smells like nepotism to me. Bolden got the job because of a personal relationship, and you're trying to convince us he's qualified?

"The race thing is all in your head..."

Uh-huh. That's why the original White House annoucement, and every news story covering it, was quick to proclaim Bolden as "the first black NASA Administrator!" Just a coincidence, right?

"You're nothing but an Obama hater and your NASA analysis reflects this"

Considering I've already made several posts in SUPPORT of Obama's recommendation to privatize NASA's lifting role, I'd say your analysis of me is as epically incorrect as yours of Bolden.

"Bolden's NASA is finally on the right track, pursuing R+D to make future exploration missions..."

Considering Bolden himself had nothing whatsoever to do with the Augstine recommendations (those were made by people who actually DO have knowledge of Aerospace technology), and so far has done nothing concrete to actually implement them, your point is rather moot. Simply responding "yes sir!" when told to do something is not a strong qualification for anyone above the level of Sergeant.


RE: Outrageous
By libs0n on 2/11/2010 1:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
According to his wiki, he has a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical science and a Masters of Science in systems management. I disagree that that should be a mandatory requirement though; NASA has plenty of engineers and scientists to consult and some of the better admins have had mainly only management experience. His extensive military command experience would be applicable to other management roles. He also appears to have held various responsibilities at NASA when he was an astronaut there. I'll quote wiki:

His technical assignments included: Astronaut Office Safety Officer; Technical Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations; Special Assistant to the Director of the Johnson Space Center; Astronaut Office Liaison to the Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance Directorates of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Kennedy Space Center; Chief of the Safety Division at JSC; Lead Astronaut for Vehicle Test and Checkout at the Kennedy Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator, NASA Headquarters.

Again, you seem not have even read a basic bio of the guy. He is the first black NASA admin, and that would obviously be something to remark about around the time he was nominated, but he clearly has the type of background to be the admin. As someone who observed the Griffin trainwreck over the years, he's a remarkable improvement over who he replaced.

Augustine was just a review panel and actually making a forward plan for all of NASA under advisement of that and the President's wishes is the purview of NASA admin. Bolden is going to be the one managing NASA while these policies you like and he supports are formed and will be putting them into action over the years ahead. "Nothing Concrete": It's a five year budget plan that his admin put together that was only just announced last week. You like the direction NASA will be taking under him, so what's your problem exactly?


New Nasa Budget
By lorq on 2/9/2010 7:36:33 PM , Rating: 4
Too much talk on this thread about "Obama" and "the Democrats," not enough about the particulars of whether the new NASA proposal is a good idea or not. I mean, if you hate Obama that much for accepting the Augustine Commission's recommendations, then you must hate Buzz Aldrin and Sally Ride with an equal passion, right...?

As for me, I applaud the new NASA budget. I think it is intelligent, reasonable, and forward-thinking. However, the primary reason for my enthusiasm is not the outsourcing of manned low Earth orbit operations to commercial firms, though I feel it is a reasonable move and worth experimenting with to see if it is viable. Much more importantly than that, shifting NASA's priorities away from unproductive re-plays of Apollo and toward longer-term research and development, robotic exploration programs, and a heavy-lift vehicle, will make an enormous positive difference for the future of American space exploration -- manned and unmanned. The perceived “lack of a goal” in the budget, at least as understood in Apollo-like terms, is one of its great *virtues*. The administration has done a great service to America with this shifting of priorities.

In my opinion, the new plan sets us up for manned missions to Mars far better than Constellation was doing. Mars and the moon have utterly different environments; the problems of surviving there are completely different. “Practicing” on the moon would be a waste of time and money; much more efficient simply to send unmanned, self-monitoring bases directly to Mars and seeing how they do. (This is one meaning of the “robotic precursor missions” mentioned in the Obama budget.) The real challenges to a Mars mission are during transit, with the long-term exposure to zero gravity and high radiation. Learning more about long-term exposure would be better served by extending the life of the ISS (which Obama's budget does). Mitigating the effects of this exposure would be better served by developing faster spacecraft (which Obama's budget also does).

A lot of the negative rhetoric I read about this budget seems to take the approach that “it's a moon shot or nothing” -- as though we needed a moon shot to justify developing and building a heavy lift vehicle. But we don’t. If we want to put stuff up there – people, robotic probes, satellites, space stations, moon landers, Mars missions – we need to develop a heavy lift vehicle, no matter what. Obama's budget does that – without yoking it unnecessarily to the whole developmental infrastructure, timetable, and budget of a (pointless) moon mission, moon lander, moon life support systems, and so on.

But then, there's an awful lot of “all or nothing” talk in general being used to describe the budget. Like, the Obama administration *hates* the space program, the budget plan is *all* spin, commercial LEO flight will *never* work, canceling Constellation means the *end* of NASA, no moon shot means *no* progress in American manned space travel, no moon shot means the Chinese *get* the moon. This kind of thinking does not clarify the situation.

For instance, I personally am not wildly excited by the prospect of commercial outsourcing of low-earth-orbit launches to commercial firms. But I don’t see the point in calling it the Apocalypse. Again, I feel it is an interesting idea and worth experimenting with to see if it is viable. If it turns out not to be, it'll be much easier to shift to something else than it will be if everything is yoked to a giant supertanker of a program that takes decades to turn around – as the space shuttle has been, and as Constellation was already turning out to be.

That’s the dark underside of a “goal”-oriented manned space program. Over the last 30 years, NASA’s near-term goals themselves (keeping the space shuttle flying, taking forever to build the ISS and then ditching it almost immediately, sticking a few astronauts on the moon – again) have *interfered* with the more distant goal of getting humans into space on a long-term, even permanent, basis. In light of this, declaring an even more difficult, drawn out, and expensive goal, with an outcome exactly as limited as that of Apollo and Constellation (sticking a few astronauts on Mars), and then orienting the entire NASA budget around it, would be criminally stupid.

It is a damned good thing for American manned space travel that Constellation was canceled. Seeing Americans saunter around on the moon does not automatically mean the space program is headed in the right direction. It can mean that it is headed in the wrong direction, and while the Constellation program was still around, that's exactly what it did mean. Turning away from Constellation, and from Constellation-like mission structures, is not turning *away* from manned space travel, it’s turning *toward* it.

I think the Obama budget is a blast of fresh air, a big dose of sanity after 30 years of foolishness. If Congress can keep its mitts off it, it bodes very well for the future of American manned space travel.




RE: New Nasa Budget
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 9:01:02 PM , Rating: 3
Buzz Aldrin wasn't on the Augustine Commission.

Much more seriously, the porpose and potential of a return to the moon goes far beyond simply "practicing" for a trip to Mars. The planned lunar mission was going to be permanent lunar presence, which could eventually be expanded indefinitely.

For benefit to humanity, the moon is the most valuable destination in the solar system. I can't stress this point enough.

Other than PR value and some benefit to planetary geology research, Mars is worthless. The moon is entirely different though. The problem with Mars is that's its too much like the Earth...some really cold, dry, inhospitable parts of the Earth. We have millions of unused square miles of land in Antarctica that are roughly as habitable as Mars...why go looking for more?

What's better about the moon? First of all, its much closer. That means far cheaper to travel to and from...and speed-of-light delays don't prohibit direct voice communication with Earth, something that's effectively impossible on Mars.

Luna has a much shallower gravity well; that and its lack of atmosphere means a cheap railgun could launch products and resources from the moon directly to Earth.

It has unlimited amounts of hard vacuum (priceless for many industrial uses), solar power that is unfiltered by atmosphere or inclement weather and, in the right spot, available 24 hours a day.

Surviving on the moon is actually easier than on Mars, despite the Martian "atmosphere". The vacuum means heat loss is less than would be experienced on Mars, and the lack of wind means panels, structures, and other equipment doesn't suffer from dust problems. If something is clean and clear of dusty when you install it, it STAYS clean...pretty much forever.

In short, with the right plan, in 60 years the moon could be a major industrial center, producing metals, minerals, and manufactured products direct for shipment to Earth. Mars? It will be nothing but possibly a tiny research station for the next several centuries, if not forever.


RE: New Nasa Budget
By cmdrdredd on 2/9/2010 11:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
porkpie got it right, the previous poster failed.

/end


RE: New Nasa Budget
By whiskerwill on 2/10/2010 1:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. If you want to just watch on TV a few astronauts in space, vote for a Mars mission. But if you want to go yourself one day (or your children, if you're not young), vote for a Moon base.


RE: New Nasa Budget
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:08:32 PM , Rating: 1
"Buzz Aldrin wasn't on the Augustine Commission."

He endorsed the budget proposal. I'm pretty sure that's what the poster was getting at.

"Much more seriously, the porpose and potential of a return to the moon goes far beyond simply "practicing" for a trip to Mars. The planned lunar mission was going to be permanent lunar presence, which could eventually be expanded indefinitely.

All of this is moot. Constellation wouldn't have even made it to the moon without another 50 billion dollars. And by some estimates not for another 20 years at that. In a perfect world the NASA budget would have been much higher and we wouldn't have to worry about such things, but you have to face facts. At the rate it was going the moon base was just a dream. We would be lucky if we got just one flags and footsteps mission out of it.
As such you have to ask if the limited budget can be put to better use, and doing research is a good use of money.

"Other than PR value and some benefit to planetary geology research, Mars is worthless."

Try biology. But you're very narrow minded anyway. I don't see anyone saying that we're even going to mars. I do see them saying that they want to develop better propulsion systems. The benefit of that if they succeed is far greater then another apollo mission to the moon. It means we eventually extend further into the solar system then just the moon. It may not have the immediate payoff in the short term but has massive payoff in the longterm.

"the lack of wind means panels, structures, and other equipment doesn't suffer from dust problems."

The wind also blows dust away too you know. And the moon has plenty of very corrosive dust that you still have to deal with.

"In short, with the right plan, in 60 years the moon could be a major industrial center, producing metals, minerals, and manufactured products direct for shipment to Earth. Mars? It will be nothing but possibly a tiny research station for the next several centuries, if not forever."

For ANYTHING to happen at a reasonable cost, in a reasonable amount of time what we need is better technology. As such investing in technology is the best thing we can do with limited budgets and resources. This is technology that your mythical moon base can't exist without either. If money was no object we wouldn't be having this conversation since we could do everything.


RE: New Nasa Budget
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 12:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Constellation wouldn't have even made it to the moon without another 50 billion dollars. And by some estimates not for another 20 years "

And under the new budget, NASA will spend close to five HUNDRED billion over the next 20 years, and we still won't get a moon base out of it. Or a mission to Mars.

I was never a big fan of Constellation's "blast from the past" philosophy. But I'm even less of a fan of giving a government agency a large paycheck without firm goals associated with it. You're right, you don't hear Obama saying we're going to the moon. Or to Mars. Where then?

Funding new technology is a grand goal. But that development needs careful direction..and NASA is now gloriously clueless about where its going. If you're talking manned spaceflight beyond NEO, the only "advanced propulsion system" that has any real promise is nuclear. Somehow I don't see Obama (or Bolden) empowering NASA to restart its 1970s-era development of nuclear rockets, as wonderful as that idea would be. Ion propulsion is excellent for robotic missions, but that only goes so far.

Some parts of the budget proposal are indeed good, particularly the privatization of basic lift capability. But without a clear goal, our manned exploration program is going to go exectly where Obama has said it will...nowhere at all.


one way.. or the other please
By kattanna on 2/9/2010 4:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
if it kills the constellation program, do away with it and its jobs, but dont make a zombie out of it just to keep jobs.




RE: one way.. or the other please
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 4:18:56 PM , Rating: 3
And thus we see why Bolden is a poor pick for the position. Instead of worrying about what NASA can or cannot accomplish goal-wise, he seems to consider it as little more than an employment agency, with its most important function to just provide paychecks to NASA personnel.

Though he's hardly alone in this respect...Griffin wasn't much better in this regard either.


RE: one way.. or the other please
By grebe925 on 2/10/2010 4:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
The space program under NASA has become one big pork-barrel project, except for the useful science that JPL is doing with it's deep space probes and which you denigrate as valueless w.r.t Mars. We need goal oriented manned missions and the only ones so far have been Mercury (to put an American into earth orbit), Gemini (to test out mechanisms needed for a moon-landing like rendezvous) and, of course Apollo which had a clear-cut goal of landing a man on the moon BEFORE THE RUSSIANS did. As Frank Borman said in an interview (and I paraphrase) "The goal of Apollo was not to land on the moon, but to beat the Russians to it". One can't emphasize that enough. The Space Shuttle boondoggle was promised as all things to everyone (routine access to space, ability to lob large military cargo into orbit, space repair etc). In the end it fulfilled only a fraction of it's promise at an enormous cost in both lives and money. Let's not even go near the Constellation program which is like a NASA greatest hits album peddled on a midnight show to sell a few more CDs.

Obama is right in dismantling it and directing energies towards, amongst other things, a private heavy lift capability. If enough thought and enough talent is put into it, the manned space program will emerge stronger than ever and have a firmer footing than other countries that are doing it for "prestige".


We still need an upper stage rocket engine!!
By toppguy on 2/9/2010 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
The constellation program included vehicles (rockets) and an upper stage engine. One that can be started in outer space (a vacuum) The J-2X engine is the only engine NASA has that can do that. It’s part of the program being cut. Why would you stop the final development (about 1 more year to hot fire testing) of the only engine of its kind available to NASA and then start a new engine development program in the private sector that will take years to fruition? We have lots of options when it comes to rockets, but only one upper stage engine, the kind that gets you out into outer space.




By TerranMagistrate on 2/9/2010 5:31:50 PM , Rating: 1
Well, such destructive decisions as this cancellation certainly aren't out of character for the Obama administration. Hence the F-22 program also.

But hey, it all makes sense when we realize that Obama has a deeply rooted hatred for (white) affluent America. His old buddy Reverend Wright said it best with his "God damn America" hate-filled tirade. This is the true Obama.


RE: We still need an upper stage rocket engine!!
By grebe925 on 2/10/2010 4:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
NASA already had a rocket engine four decades ago that could be restarted in space. It was called the J-2 and was used on the Apollo third stage (the J-2X is based on that). So it's not doing something revolutionary. In fact, NASA mandarins deliberately destroyed anything and everything to do with Apollo when that program ended to make way for their shiny new baby called the Space Shuttle. As Von Braun put it "Apollo was like building a railroad all the way to the West and ripping it up after trials".


By JediJeb on 2/10/2010 4:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
If they are serious about getting comercial firms to take over the LEO business then NASA should turn over all the plans and research on the J-2 and J-2X to these firms so they can have a head start. Give them all the data from Mercury through the Shuttle and Constellation too. Let the commercial guys go at it from their point of view with all the information NASA had and a few billion dollars and I bet you will see some significant advances in a short time.


another funny day
By gescom on 2/10/2010 9:32:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's called Capitalism. Aren't you Americans happy? No? Always smiling?




RE: another funny day
By Suntan on 2/10/2010 12:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this did make me a little happier.

Everytime I read someone out there bashing America, I just think to myself, “There’s a sad chap out there that hates the fact that America is better than the place he lives…”

Brings a smile to me face. Thanks.

-Suntan


RE: another funny day
By gescom on 2/10/2010 5:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're Welcome :). Cheers from a "Third Wolrd Country" = everything outside USA border.


Job Losses Concern NASA Administrator
By lightfoot on 2/9/2010 3:44:36 PM , Rating: 1
It's just too bad job losses don't concern President Obama.




By Breathless on 2/9/2010 3:49:27 PM , Rating: 4
or destroying America... oh well.


Awesome News
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:19:03 PM , Rating: 1
I always love it when I hear a govt agency is losing jobs.

I think it's one of the smartest things that Obama has done to date. My only problem with all of this is I doubt I will see any of the savings put to could use like tax rebates.




RE: Awesome News
By lightfoot on 2/10/2010 12:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just wait until you see the job losses in the House and Senate next winter - you'll love that.


RE: Awesome News
By FITCamaro on 2/10/2010 11:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
You realize the government is planning to hire over 600,000 people in the next 4 years right?

This is a drop in the bucket. And you're getting rid of engineers. Not useless bureaucrats. Engineers actually create something for the money you pay them. You get something tangible. Other than a piece of paper saying we need to regulate this, steal money from these people, give more money to these people, etc.


NASA's
By SteveAndrew on 2/10/2010 9:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
budget is actually being increased, but this brings up an interesting conflict between rhetoric and reality. You can either be for government programs, and thus understandably disappointed when funding is reduced, or against government spending and thus happy when spending is reduced -- assuming consistency is valued anyway. But what I see here and elsewhere are some conservative leaning readers, who belong to a party that advocates reductions in government spending, blaming Obama not only for what they perceive as reductions in a government program, but critical of a decision to utilize capitalism to get more rocket bang for the buck. Well, which is it guys and gals? Do you favor privatization and reductions in government spending or not? Because if you're a big deficit hawk and free enterprise champion, take this example and multiply the job losses and anxiety by about one-thousand to get a bead on what real, broad-based spending reductions and policy changes favoring private enterprise will look like.




RE: NASA's
By lightfoot on 2/10/2010 12:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Snore... Wake me up when Obama makes significant cuts to any bloated government program.

Cutting NASA's budget while ignoring Social Security and Medicare is totally disingenious. This is coming from the same asdministration that spent Trillions of dollars while making a big deal out of saving a mere $100 Million.

Obama's motivation for attacking NASA's budget has more to do with earning political points for being "fiscally conservative" with out actually having to be one.

In inflation adjusted dollars, the Apollo program cost the US about $145 Billion dollars. To put that in perspective Obama has already spent more than ten times that amount in his first year in office. What exactly do we have to show for all that? Is it really ten times more valuable than the Apollo Program? In 1966 NASA's budget made up 5.5% of the federal budget. Today it is less than 1%.

Don't pretend that Obama is being fiscally responsible. He's cutting investment in our nations future so that he can redistribute wealth and buy votes. What he is doing has no value and he's funding it by taking money from programs that do. Obama's only goal is to increase spending in 99% of the budget, but get credit for cutting the budget by attacking a mere 1% of it.

I would have much preferred to see NASA's budget tripled than see people being paid to buy new cars and houses that they can't afford.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki