backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 92 comment(s) - last by MisterModder.. on Jun 24 at 11:27 AM

The moon is an important goal for NASA  (Source: NASA)
NASA will receive an additional $2.9 billion for research purposes

Members of the House of Representatives recently disobeyed the White House and gave NASA an additional $2.9 billion for its yearly budget.  The House approved $20.2 billion for the U.S. space agency for the fiscal year starting in October.

Two-thirds majority was needed, but the spending bill received an overwhelming 409-15 vote that helped send a "strong message" to the next president of the United States.  The voting breakdown was as follows:  228 Democrats and 181 Republicans voted yes, while 15 Republicans voted no.

White House officials have not responded to the news.

The additional money will allow NASA to launch one more manned shuttle mission before the space shuttle program is shut down in 2010.  Up to $1 billion in the NASA money also will be designated to help accelerate the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, both of which will replace the aging shuttle by 2015.

Until Orion is completed, NASA will pay an estimated $2.8 billion to the Russian space agency for its assistance in getting NASA astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS).

NASA still aims to launch a manned mission to the moon by 2020.  As more nations continue to receive funding required to launch ambitious space missions -- including Russia, China and Japan -- U.S. space officials previously were concerned that other nations will prosper while NASA falls behind.  

India and other nations also have developing space programs that are beginning to blossom due to accelerating technology fields and increased government support.

Late last year, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin admitted China will likely beat NASA and other nations back to the moon.

"Without additional funding for Orion, America risks abdicating its position as the world leader in science and technology to Russia, China and Japan," Rep. Nick Lampson (D, TX) said during the House meeting.   

A committee hearing is now scheduled for the Senate early next week, where the budget increase will be discussed.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
well...
By jay401 on 6/20/2008 10:09:32 AM , Rating: 5
"Late last year, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin admitted China will likely beat NASA and other nations back to the moon."

Well, you could put it that way, but it's a cheap manipulation for him to use the word "beat' when there's not actually a true race. The reality is it's taken the Chinese 40+ years to match what the US and USSR did back in the 60s. So they aren't technically "beating" either of us at anything, they're at best catching up.

An accomplishment for them when they do it, for sure, but note the difference: We've done it already. It's not like there's the same level of urgency on our part or the Soviets' part to go back to the moon because we've both already been there.

China has the urgency to get there simply to prove itself on the world scene as a scientific and space power. Good for them, but the use of the word "beat" is a cute play to try to stoke support for something of relatively little value for our space program in comparison to the many other initiatives (from Mars, to Hubble, to any of the plethora of other programs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_landing




RE: well...
By jay401 on 6/20/2008 10:14:58 AM , Rating: 5
...just realized it wasn't a quote by Griffin, but just the blogwriter's wording. i retract the use of "cute ploy" since I used that wording when i thought it was Griffin's words.


RE: well...
By Amiga500 on 6/20/2008 10:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
1. The Soviets did not go to the moon.

2. Now, the goal is to harvest He3 from the moon for use in future fusion reactors.

3. An additional goal is to use the moon as a staging post for missions into deeper space. A proper moon-base in other words.


RE: well...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 10:27:49 AM , Rating: 3
> "1. The Soviets did not go to the moon"

Actually they sent over a dozen missions to the moon, and actually conducted a soft landing there before we did. They just never sent people there.


RE: well...
By omnicronx on 6/20/2008 11:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
Its true, the Soviet Luna probe conducted the first controlled landing, and sent back the first pictures from surface level.


RE: well...
By lexluthermiester on 6/20/2008 12:12:58 PM , Rating: 1
The United States is the only nation on Earth to send actual people to the moon, so no, the Soviets did not go to the moon. Satellites and probes may have gotten there, but that in no way means that the nation sending them actually visited. The Soviets did get a man into space first, credit were credit is due, but we were the only ones to get to the moon, an entirely more challenging and intricate endeavor. The Soviets were not up to the task then. Russia is now if they wanted to focus on it, but we'll see if they will.


RE: well...
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/20/2008 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Actually they sent over a dozen missions to the moon, and actually conducted a soft landing there before we did. They just never sent people there.


well by your standards we can say "we have been beyond the outer perimeter of the solar system" just because we sent an unmanned probe there. Your snide remark fails.


RE: well...
By PhoenixKnight on 6/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By lco45 on 6/23/2008 5:35:23 AM , Rating: 4
It was dangerous work, and the Soviets had a better union.

Luke


RE: well...
By lexluthermiester on 6/20/2008 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
All excellent points, to which I would add;

4. Mining of various base metals and composite materials.

5. Large observation facilities for further understanding of the universe.

6. Manufacturing of materials which can only be made in the absences of a strong gravity well, as well as medical research.


RE: well...
By PrimarchLion on 6/20/2008 5:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Also good points, but composite materials aren't mined.

More:

7. Good test site for most Mars mission equipment.

8. Less fuel to launch payload from the moon due to lower gravity.


RE: well...
By Screwballl on 6/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: well...
By StupidMonkey on 6/20/2008 10:18:56 AM , Rating: 3
Even though that's true, its still nice to see us moving forward. We haven't exactly been progressing in space as quick as we've been progressing in technology. I would think that those things should be congruent.

Who cares if there is life in space? We should still be like little kids wanting to learn more and go to places we've never been before.


RE: well...
By omnicronx on 6/20/2008 11:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reality is it's taken the Chinese 40+ years to match what the US and USSR did back in the 60s.
Whats that, send 3 astronauts out into space receiving 2x4 times the yearly radiation you would receive in a week? Lets face it, the 60's was a different time, the US definitely put those astronauts at risk compared to any mission by any space agency today, including the US. In fact Nasa has not left the lower atmosphere since the apollo missions.

I am not downplaying what NASA has done, walking on the moon is one of mans greatest accomplishments, but In this day and age, no government agency is going to allow its astronauts to fly to the moon in a tin can, and as of today it seems China is further along at safely sending man back to the moon. Whether you like it or not.


RE: well...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2008 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 5
The Chinese are just willing to accept additional risks. In the NASA of today and the political climate, look what happened. A Space shuttle burned up and the crew was killed. It took over 2 years to get another one up in the air because of all the BS. Now look at the Apollo missions. The first test all 3 astronauts burned up instantly. Yet we threw a new one on the pad fixed the problems and attempted again only weeks later. It was a different time then. We had a goal, to get to the moon and put people there before the Soviets. Since then politicians don't have a pair of balls collectively to take that sort of risk for the sake of advancement. If someone dies in the NASA programs on your watch, its a political boondoggle and everyone wants answers under the guise of "protecting the safety of innocent lives".

Case in point, we have lost the willingness to take risks to achieve great things. China has not. Therefore they will be more likely to reach check points first.


RE: well...
By Parhel on 6/20/2008 11:58:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Chinese are just willing to accept additional risks.


The Chinese put lead paint on children's toys too. The Chinese (government, not people) just don't place the same value as we in the West do on human life and safety. I'm all for increasing funding on space exploration, but not at the expense of people's lives.


RE: well...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 12:01:47 PM , Rating: 5
> "I'm all for increasing funding on space exploration, but not at the expense of people's lives. "

Why not? The people who are actually risking their lives -- the astronaut corp themselves -- have long said they're willing to accept much higher risks, in exchange for a more aggressive exploration program.

There's just no way we're going to explore and eventually colonize space without killing a few people in the process. If we're not willing to take risk, we should just shut down the entire manned program now.


RE: well...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2008 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 5
Indeed, the people at risk are not complaining at all. It's the politicians that don't want to have to handle or explain that people die in the service of their country/planet to advance us into the future. It's just not something they want to do politically.


RE: well...
By JimmyC on 6/23/2008 12:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
Space monkeys...


RE: well...
By Parhel on 6/20/2008 12:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'll admit that I don't know much about the Chinese space program. And I'm not saying that no amount of risk is acceptable . . . only that we shouldn't look to the Chinese as the gold standard of how we should operate. In many other areas they are known to have much lower standards of safety than ours.

If we know now that an astronaut would endure a dangerous amount of radiation, we should take all steps to minimize that before we send people into space, even if that's very expensive to do. I say do it, but do it right.


RE: well...
By aKarma on 6/20/2008 1:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with this. These people are signing up to risk their lives for the benefit of humanity, a unique experience, or whatever reason. They are fully aware of the risks and many would be prepared to take them.

However, with a more complete scientific understanding than in the '60s, we can determine the risk were are submitting people to and often the management will have a hard time sending a mission off which they know has say a 1 in 20 chance of failure.

Disappointingly, the real limitation alongside politics is the cost. They are not per se worried about the loss of human life, the situation is little difference to war on a small scale, if unprovoked... It's the cost of the ship, training, investigation into why it happened, and compensation of family that really makes NASA/the government reluctant. AThe need to justify their decisions is probably a major factor.


RE: well...
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. On the first flight after Columbia incinerated, the astronauts were just like "We're ready to go. The team did an awesome job making sure everything's safe. The shuttle is ready."

If the people who are actually being put at risk say its acceptable, some politician who doesn't know a damn thing about the shuttle program shouldn't be able to override them.

The politician only cares about what negative press he might get should something go wrong. The astronaut actually cares about the mission and the goal.

Its not our jobs to tell them what is acceptable risk to them. It's their job to decide that for themselves. Yes, irregardless of the human loss, accidents are expensive too. But thats part of exploration. You take chances. And you can only do so much to verify things are correct and done well. If an accident happens, you find your past mistakes, fix them, and try again. You don't say "Well this happened so we'll just give up."


RE: well...
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 8:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points. People sign up for the military knowing they could be sent into a conflict, and that they may die. But they do it. Astronauts know they may die during a mission, but they deem the positives as being greater than the risk of dying. I for one would gladly go into space, knowing the risks.


RE: well...
By Silver2k7 on 6/23/2008 4:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well if we could get a spaceship that was more like an airplane, that you could actually land and refuel and go back again..

instead of these firework rockets they had back in the 1960's..


RE: well...
By kattanna on 6/20/2008 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The first test all 3 astronauts burned up instantly. Yet we threw a new one on the pad fixed the problems and attempted again only weeks later.


incorrect. the apollo 1 fire happened on jan 27, 1967. it wasnt until oct 11, 1968, almost 2 full years later, that apollo 7 was the next manned mission. Yes, there was more booster stage testing done.. but no manned test flights. big difference.


RE: well...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2008 1:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't even get an unmanned shuttle launch.


RE: well...
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 1:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
You vastly oversimplified what occurred during those almost two years of absence. They did do booster/launch tests, but they also essentially complete redesigned the Apollo command module, and changed many of its operating rules, in order to make it safer. The Apollo 1 fire also occurred during a test, not a launch, and they were still a fair bit away from an actual launch.

The truth is that, in any type of exploratory effort, you will likely have loss of life. Apollo 1 and Challenger were mores o due to negligence/haste and shouldn't have occurred (I'd say Columbia was more of a mixture of both some negligence, but also just a very unfortunate accident), but unfortunately that's the "human factor" of spaceflight. It sucks, and we should try to maximize safety, but there is always risk inherent to riding a massive rocket to space and working/living in space.


RE: well...
By kattanna on 6/20/2008 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You vastly oversimplified what occurred during those almost two years of absence


correct. it was my point to show that they didnt have another manned mission within the mere weeks like you implied.

quote:
The Apollo 1 fire also occurred during a test, not a launch, and they were still a fair bit away from an actual launch


and how much more so wrong is that. people dying during a "routine test" as it was thought of at the time? and apollo 204, later renamed apollo 1, was set to lift of on feb 21, 1967, a mere 25 days before the accident.

i post this info to show people that even nasa back then which was accused of having "go fever" still took almost 2 years to regain manned space flight when they had a life ending accident. but to counter that, if nasa and the country had the mentality it does now back then.. then when apollo 1 happened, it might have lest us still today not having reached the moon.


RE: well...
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 1:59:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
correct. it was my point to show that they didnt have another manned mission within the mere weeks like you implied.


It wasn't I who implied anything. I was simply responding to you.

quote:
and how much more so wrong is that. people dying during a "routine test" as it was thought of at the time? and apollo 204, later renamed apollo 1, was set to lift of on feb 21, 1967, a mere 25 days before the accident.


Correction, they wanted it to be ready to fly on Feb 21st, 1967, but it's actual launch window was simply within the first few months of 1967. If no problems developed, and there weren't any other factors contributing to a delay, that they had hoped the earliest it could take off was February 21st, but that was not a fixed, determined launch date.

And NASA did have "go fever", as many of the reasons that the fire occurred, were due to NASA not wanting to take the time to address many of the issues the astronauts and even the CM manufacturer (North American Aviation) had with it. After the accident, they essentially redesigned and heavily modified the Command Module, and that takes time. Even then, some felt it was still rushed forward, as NASA was on a set deadline to try and land on the moon.

Compare that to Challenger (where politics more than anything caused the delay, as while the O-ring was a major issue, it shouldn't have taken over 2 years to resolve), and Columbia (many of the ideas ultimately implemented after the disaster, had been suggested earlier, and it shouldn't have taken NASA nearly so long to get back to flight). Sure, all major incidents have taken time, but of them all, only the Apollo delay was entirely due to engineering/technical reasons, vs. political/etc. And to highlight NASA's "go attitude", where as Challenger/Columbia they took the time to try and determine what the actual cause itself was, with Apollo 1, they never even figured out what sparked the fire, only that the design contributed to causing the astronauts to die.


RE: well...
By lexluthermiester on 6/20/2008 12:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
to stoke support for something of relatively little value for our space program in comparison to the many other initiatives


I believe that going back to the moon is something very critical for us as a nation. The moon is going to be the staging ground for any manned mission to Mars or any of the other planets. It is a grand resource waiting to be tapped into and an outpost waiting to be used. Our closest neighbor in space is in fact going to be a treasure in the challenge of the future. It is very important that we go back to the moon and maintain a permanent presence there.


RE: well...
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a grand resource waiting to be tapped into


But then we'll cause global warming on the moon!!!!


RE: well...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2008 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 3
Yea, our Rovers are already doing it to Mars, when are we going to say enough is enough? Think of the rocks man!


RE: well...
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 3:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reality is it's taken the Chinese 40+ years to match what the US and USSR did back in the 60s.


I don't know about any of you, but in my life, I do not consider the accomplishments of my grandfather or father to be my own.

Thats fantastic that they went to the moon with so little technology. Good for them. Today though? We currently don't have the capacity. If the Chinese get there first, then the China of today really is beating the America of the 21st century.

In other words, we can't rest on past laurels. Thats a recipe for stagnation.


"Defies" Bush?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 5
I'm certainly no Bush fan, but this article goes overboard in trying to cast Bush as anti-NASA. The disagreement here is the level of funding for the current Shuttle program. Bush wants fewer flights, preferring to see NASA focus on the Shuttle replacement...a goal I personally agree with. As of right now, the Shuttle is flying pretty much for no other reason than to justify itself; these additional flights are going to give us no additional benefit.

Omitted from the article is the spending increases NASA has received under Bush, countering the deep cuts made during the Clinton Administration, and the fact that proposals by Bush to increase funding even further for manned Lunar and Mars missions were repeatedly shot down by Congress.




RE: "Defies" Bush?
By therealnickdanger on 6/20/2008 10:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you! I was just going to post about this - although in a much less diplomatic way! :P


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Chaser on 6/20/2008 11:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you Masher.

NASA has developed into a very expensive astronaut career prep school. The missions have become routine and boring to most of the general public while massive tax dollars continue to funnel into it to only to keep the machine and it's employees alive.

The space program used to be something that drew the awe from youth and the admiration of the country. Now it seems wide spread interest only happens when there is an accident. Today if a network even shows a NASA take off or landing I usually yawn and switch the channel.

I hope the private sector continues to try and get more involved and vested in space while NASA backs away from it except for research and planning towards a new mission(s) that will someday restore the interest and inspiration of the country.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By stryfe on 6/20/2008 1:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
Just because the public has a short attention span and is easily bored by repeated news about the same events doesn't mean they aren't important.

People, both civilian and military, die everyday in Iraq yet the public has become bored of hearing it on the news. So instead we get updates on the downward spiral of celebrities' personal lives that are completely without value. Fifty inocent people can lose their life in a bombing in Iraq yet what's the lead story on the evening news? Britney shaved her head! Or Michael Jackson is acting like a freak again!

NASA has been doing pleanty of valueable science in the last several years, it's not their fault the public doesn't find it exciting, it's the publics fault for losing site of what's important.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Noya on 6/20/2008 7:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
die everyday in Iraq yet the public has become bored of hearing it on the news


And you honestly think that's because the public would rather head about Britney Spears?

Get real, that's because our government doesn't want us to hear about the daily/weekly killings = protests and public dissent. And when you do hear about the 4,000+ troops who've died, do they even mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed?

Why do you think you never hear multiple view points on international stories (and it's not because the US is always right)? It's called propaganda.

I usually watch the 11pm local news (large metro area) and the first 5-10 minutes is actual NEWS, the other 65-85% is crap. They usually don't mention the war once unless someone from the surrounding hick towns was killed over there.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 8:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I usually watch the 11pm local news (large metro area) and the first 5-10 minutes is actual NEWS, the other 65-85% is crap. They usually don't mention the war once unless someone from the surrounding hick towns was killed over there.


Because clearly the local news is the only source of international news?

Sure, there are segments of the media which are more government-leaning/supportive, and tend to keep some of the war news, etc., down. But to say the government suppresses news related to Iraq is kinda more of a conspiracy theory if anything. You can easily go to the likes of CNN (TV or website), BBC, etc., and read up on all the news you can. If the government were to desire us not to hear about such things, they'd pull a China and sensor what we can access online.

The reality is, people do grow bored over hearing the same thing over and over again, because they essentially become desensitized to it, and just want to move on. Is it bad? Yes. But when Fox or CNN reports 18/7 on the Iraq war, you grow to want something else. It has nothing to do with the government controlling the media.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 9:02:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Get real, that's because our government doesn't want us to hear about the daily/weekly killings = protests and public dissent. And when you do hear about the 4,000+ troops who've died, do they even mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed?


I think your arrogance has lead you to believe just because people don't care means that they're not aware of the US death toll. No, the left-wing media won't let us forget about it.

As for the local news, like fluxion said.. Its.. the local news, dude. I watch the local news for.. guess what? Local news. What a concept!

quote:
surrounding hick towns


Glad to know you think our soldiers are ignorant hicks. Typical liberal.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By jeff834 on 6/20/2008 11:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
He didn't say ignorant at all and I don't believe he was implying the soldiers who give their lives in Iraq are hicks, I think that was a rip on local news more than anything else. I don't know you so I can't speak on your beliefs, but I would definitely say creating implications and adding words to suit one's own arguments is a very right wing thing to do, although I have known some liberals who would do the same. This is speaking from my own experiences of course, as I rarely think any of the left or right wing news sources available to us are completely legitimate.

The whole phrase "typical liberal" or "typical conservative" smacks of prejudice to me. Not every liberal or conservative thinks the same about every issue. You should probably reevaluate how you look at people and instead of grouping them together think about them as individuals.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Ringold on 6/21/2008 7:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, so I responded harsher than you would've. "Hicks" is a word never used in the english language in a positive way however. He clearly indicated a belief that anyone living not in a metro area was a "hick", which commonly means ignorant or socially backward. My only stretch of logic in that regards was that he assumes that soldiers who come from these hick towns, and then die, must also be hicks themselves. How is that at all a stretch?

And I'm sorry, but any tool that now tries to rewrite history to include McCain in things he didn't have any more knowledge of or role in then anyone else in the Senate simply because he is now the Presidential candidate, plus not being able at all to hide his obvious hate for the opposite side, qualifies in my book as a "typical liberal," though maybe I should clarify by restricting that to only the most fringe, moonbat portion of the left-wing.

If you want to say I was too harsh on him, that's one thing. I was. I know a lot of people in the military, and just 72 hours ago one of my best buds went on active duty, bound for Iraq, and I wont see him again until Feb or March when he gets some leave. So I can get twitchy when he makes an asshat remark that, I still afirm, appeared to call soldiers hicks. While I might back away from the tone, I'll stand by my criticisms. Now, if you want to defend the points he made, thats another.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By abraxas1 on 6/20/2008 12:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As of right now, the Shuttle is flying pretty much for no other reason than to justify itself;


Well there's that space station thingy that it's still hauling components up for.

After that though I say bring on the Ares V!


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Chaser on 6/20/2008 12:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
They just adverted a major crisis. The toilet was fixed.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 12:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. But at the same time I'm glad that this extra money will go to Congress. Personally I think NASA's budget should be in the range of $50-100 billion.

Nor should politicians be in control of it. Organizations should be allowed to take acceptable risks. People sometimes die or get injured. But we accomplish nothing if we're to afraid of "what if" theories.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By tallcool1 on 6/20/2008 12:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually read the AP article, it states that Bush wanted the money spent on new equipment needed to return a man to the moon, versus another Space Shuttle flight.

This DT writer of this article tries to spin it so it sounds like Bush does not want to spend money on NASA which is INCORRECT.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 4
Just as a semi-quick note:

Most of the "deep cuts" ( in reality, the largest cut was 500 million, large, but nothing compared to the $1 billion shortage NASA has faced each of the last 3-4 years due to Bush's desire to return to the moon, without providing proper funding) were made by a Republican-led Congress. Sure, Clinton was in power, and signed off on the spending bills, but Congress fully endorsed/supported them.

I don't think Bush is anti-NASA, just extremely idiotic. His 2004 declaration that NASA's priority should be returning to the moon, severely handicapped the agency. Within the span of about 6 months, they began cutting back on research grants, missions and such. Such potentially future-driving missions (in both the exploration abilities and technology development) such as the Terrestrial Planet Finder, JIMO and others were all canceled so that NASA could try to properly fund Project Constellation. Bush promised NASA a certain annual growth, and yet has never really delivered on that promise, as NASA, while seeing additional funding, is still quite a bit under the budget they need to support their major programs. As such, as the Shuttle gets top current priority, and then Constellation, robotic and educational outreach programs took the largest cut.

And honestly, I'm all for manned human exploration of other planets, but we shouldn't go back to the moon until we can seriously establish a permanent settlement there for research, etc., and the likely truth is that even in 2020 if we can land back on the moon, it'll simply be a quick "drop the flag and go home". We won't be ready for anything long-term on the moon, and we're likely even further from manned missions to Mars. We should be working with other nations, and making further manned exploration an international effort, but sadly, it's all about politics...


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 2:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well not that I'm against them, but which do you think we'll see more benefit from. A program to find terrestrial planets hundreds or thousands of light years away, or a program that can get us a manned colony on the moon?

We won't be ready for a manned colony on the moon until we've been there a few times. We are capable of setting up a colony on the moon, we just have to do the leg work first. But its entirely possible that manned space flight to another solar system is over 100 years away. Maybe never. Unless we plan to get there by freezing ourselves.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 8:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing wrong with stasis pods ;)

Honestly, if we went to the moon, and took advantage of it, it could do a lot of good. For decades, astronomers have dreamed of having a large telescope in the dark side of the moon, as it would provide a far clearer view than what is on earth. A moon based that's located reasonably close enough could allow such a telescope to become a reality.

My only concern, is once we built a base, would we properly and fully take advantage of it?


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 3:58:28 PM , Rating: 1
Just to correct your facts on TPF, it's been held hostage by NASA in order to get more funding routinely, but it hasn't to my knowledge been canceled.

Regarding Constellation and the other cuts.. Here's something for you to dwell on. Would you rather have something (Constellation) that has a shot of inspiring people to a sufficient degree to ensure NASA lives on in something of a healthy state, or would you prefer to play with your probes and rovers for another decade before the people finally say "What do we need pictures of rocks for? I want more welfare!" Not that the masses of people are right, mind you, its simply that the masses of people vote . As for cutting educational out reach programs, I'm surprised you bothered with that one. Talk about epic failure. NASA has possibly the most inept PR I've ever seen.

quote:
We won't be ready for anything long-term on the moon


Bigelow Aerospace disagrees. He has the proven technology in orbit, right now. He just lacks a means of getting people to it, and I'm not sure he could presently get it to the Moon. At least the technology exists, though.

Finally, I'll just say there are lot of people like me who, while they appreciate the science, prefer to see a bold human face out at the forefront, making history, and would much rather that being an American than a coalition of communist Chinese, socialist Europeans, or whatever else.

And just me personally, if NASA doesn't have a manned component, I don't see the need for America to pay for any of the science at all in that case. Let the Europeans do it. But thats just me.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just to correct your facts on TPF, it's been held hostage by NASA in order to get more funding routinely, but it hasn't to my knowledge been canceled.


TPF isn't a matter of being held hostage, it's a matter that it wasn't expected to launch for over a decade, and NASA needs funs now to support projects such as Constellation. Thus, they cut a number of long-term missions, to provide that funding. They've been hoping that with funding increases, the program could be re-established. So far, it hasn't been. Technically, you're right, it hasn't been canceled, just put on "indefinite suspension".

quote:
Regarding Constellation and the other cuts.. Here's something for you to dwell on. Would you rather have something (Constellation) that has a shot of inspiring people to a sufficient degree to ensure NASA lives on in something of a healthy state, or would you prefer to play with your probes and rovers for another decade before the people finally say "What do we need pictures of rocks for? I want more welfare!"


Tell me, besides the fact it's a human doing it, what could a robotic mission not do, that humans could? Currently, we don't even have a way to get to Mars for manned exploration, but rovers and robots can just fine, so they're doing the science. By the time we can lift a manned module off to Mars, just imagine the scope and size of a robotic mission, decked out with equipment, that could take the place of all the mass a manned mission takes up. I support manned exploration, but it has to make sense. Currently, Constellation is nothing more than a "Hey, let's go back to the moon!" idea. And public interest is short-lived typically. Will the first couple of landings possibly spike interest? Sure, but it'll quickly fade, and then people will complain about the costs of "unnecessary" moon landings. It happened with Apollo, it happened with the shuttle, and it'll happen with Constellation/Ares.

quote:
As for cutting educational out reach programs, I'm surprised you bothered with that one. Talk about epic failure. NASA has possibly the most inept PR I've ever seen.


This is the most ignorant thing I've read. NASA does a lot of public out reach. They've funded science channels for kids in school, research projects, scholarships, research grants, etc. As a kid I wanted to go to Space Camp, as did most kids I knew. They lacked the funding to establish a nationwide program of Space Camps. In college, I was involved in research with the NASA Space Grant initiative, a great experience that I'll cherish forever. And I know a lot of undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professors, who do research for NASA via grants, and quite a few who lost their grants due to Constellation. It's easy for those who don't know anyone impacted by decisions like Constellation, to write off NASA's educational programs. We were in the process of running regular NASA-sponsored grade and middle school events for students, when Constellation came down and funding was cut. Don't blame NASA for that.

quote:
Bigelow Aerospace disagrees. He has the proven technology in orbit, right now. He just lacks a means of getting people to it, and I'm not sure he could presently get it to the Moon. At least the technology exists, though.


Bigelow Aerospace has a number of interesting concepts and designs (as well as their Genesis test modules), but at least for the near future, their primary concern is microgravity-based habitability (given the lack of long-range lift vehicles though, that's obviously understandable). And I think they could potentially help with the creation of a "moon base". However, while inflatable habitats have shown to probably be more resilient to micro-meteorite impacts, the logistics of transporting them to the likes of the moon will be huge, given they'll still need solid materials for radiation shielding, etc.. My statement regarding moon readiness was more based upon the political, economical and logistical aspects of a moon mission. It'll be under heavy pressure to produce results faster than the ISS has, and if it doesn't, public and political support will quickly turn against it. Most Americans only can support something that benefits them somehow, without looking into the long-term consequences. That's why I said, we probably won't be ready.

quote:
Finally, I'll just say there are lot of people like me who, while they appreciate the science, prefer to see a bold human face out at the forefront, making history, and would much rather that being an American than a coalition of communist Chinese, socialist Europeans, or whatever else.


That's almost (if not already) a Xenophobic attitude towards exploration. "We can't let anyone besides an American do these things!". Given the number of page views that NASA's robotic missions tend to get upon landing successfuly, I'd say the public typically doesn't care whether it's a human face or a robotic craft. I do think manned exploration is essential, if not solely just due to human curiosity/desire for adventure. However, currently there's nothing a manned mission can do, that robotic missions can't. If anything, robotic missions are the better choice - they can do what we'd do, but for a far longer period of time, without the need for constant logistical re-supply.

And who cares what type of governments other countries have? Look at the tense political atmosphere between Russia and the US, and yet, look at how amicable and friendly Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts are. If we faced a global threat, say a large asteroid, the world would unite to try and solve its problems. We may have differences in many different ways, but we're all still human, and so if having many nations unite to explore space works to benefit all of us, I don't care that the person sitting next to an astronaut is a cosmonaut or taikonaut. Leave the exploration to science, and go satisfy your political distastes elsewhere.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 6:47:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "That's almost (if not already) a Xenophobic attitude towards exploration"

By that logic, anyone who wishes to see their country win Olympic gold is being xenophobic. Americans -- like anyone else -- wish to be proud of their country, and have it accomplish great things. Wanting the the first moon base or the first Mars landing isn't xenophobic; it's simple patriotic fervor.

> "Tell me, besides the fact it's a human doing it, what could a robotic mission not do, that humans could?"

You inadvertedly hit the nail on the head. What can a manned mission do that a robotic one cannot? It can put men into space, that's what! Technology is the application of science for humanity. Robots are fine for pure science, but the ultimate goal of the program is to make space visitable and eventually habitable for us humans.

Man can't stay on this planet forever. And, as Hawking put it, having "all your eggs in one basket" with every human in the universe in one single spot is far too risky for us to contemplate.

The start of that great step forward is, or should be, NASA's manned space program. Abandon it, and you abandon the very reason for being in space in the first place.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 8:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By that logic, anyone who wishes to see their country win Olympic gold is being xenophobic. Americans -- like anyone else -- wish to be proud of their country, and have it accomplish great things. Wanting the the first moon base or the first Mars landing isn't xenophobic; it's simple patriotic fervor.

Well, by your logic, everything should be a competition between countries. The Olympics is an athletic event, where each country is essentially a "team", and you root for your team. I think of it no different really than I do the NBA, MLB, NHL or NFL, where each person roots for their own team, typically (but not always) the home team.

Now, should we be happy that we are the ones driving progress? Sure. But, as a scientist, I ultimately don't care if one country discovers something before the other. Sure, I guess for bragging rights it's great, but ultimately, I don't care whether it's CERN or Fermilab that discovers the Higgs-Boson, whether it's ITER or another group that establishes feasible fusion energy. But if we can push our exploration into space further and faster and better by working side-by-side with other nations, why be against that? It makes absolutely no logical sense to be against cooperation.

quote:
You inadvertedly hit the nail on the head. What can a manned mission do that a robotic one cannot? It can put men into space, that's what! Technology is the application of science for humanity. Robots are fine for pure science, but the ultimate goal of the program is to make space visitable and eventually habitable for us humans.


No, the only real "goal" of exploration, is to expand our knowledge of the universe. Being able to expand outward and form colonies on other planets/moons/asteroids/plutoids/Trek-like Dyson Sphere's/etc is only a benefit of expanding our knowledge. Your yourself also "hit the nail on the head" by saying that Technology is an application of science for humanity, and that robots are great for pure science. Well, what most research scientists want is pure science. Now if that pure science helps us to colonize, that's great. But we want to understand why something works, not how it'll help man colonize the moon.

quote:
Man can't stay on this planet forever. And, as Hawking put it, having "all your eggs in one basket" with every human in the universe in one single spot is far too risky for us to contemplate.


I agree, and I'm fully supportive of colonization when we can do it in a safe and feasible manner.

quote:
The start of that great step forward is, or should be, NASA's manned space program. Abandon it, and you abandon the very reason for being in space in the first place.

I don't think anyone is advocating abandoning the manned space program. What I would like to see, is NASA provided with the funds it needs to both do its robotic research AND fun Constellation fully, as well as its other goals and such.

However, the "very reason" for being in space isn't because mans wants to fly around. It's to explore and understand. Manned missions can do that. Robotic missions can do it, and for longer. Does that mean man shouldn't? Of course not. I mentioned in an earlier post, that man has an inherent curiosity to understand via "hands on methods". However, given your logic, we should have manned missions as "the start" of our exploration, and everything else after. I'm sorry, I'd rather not wait 100+ years for mankind to obtain scientific data on the likes of Saturn, Pluto, the Kuiper Belt via manned missions.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 9:24:17 PM , Rating: 1
> "Well, by your logic, everything should be a competition between countries. "

Should be? I said no such thing. But wishing your country to accomplish great deeds -- even wishing them to do so before anyone else -- is not in any way, shape, or form "xenophobia".

It's not in the same ballpark, it's not the same league...it's not even the same sport.

> "But, as a scientist, I ultimately don't care if one country discovers something before the other"

But if you tell me that you don't care whether YOU discover something before anyone else, you're either lying or not a scientist yourself.

Most people cannot be astronauts. That doesn't stop them from vicarious identification with them.

> "Well, what most research scientists want is pure science"

Those who do that can foot the bill themselves.

In any case, you couldn't be more wrong. There are countless researchers who greatly desire a manned space program. In fact, the only ones who don't want one are the few who believe a manned program cuts into the budget of their own personal funding.

Hawking, Dyson, Sagan, Teller, Von Braun, Feynman, Watson, Van Allen, etc, etc, etc ... all were strong supporters of manned space flight.


RE: "Defies" Bush?
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 9:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, what most research scientists want is pure science.


I'll let Masher continue to respond if he wants, but the above illustrates irreconcilably different world views. I view all of science and technology to be mere tools for the expansion of mankind or the improvement of man kind. You view science as an end in itself. Second, my priorities are the following: My direct family, my friends, my nation, and then finally, if I have any damn left to give, other nations. Culturally similar and allied countries (UK, Australia, Ireland and Japan) first, all others last. Because science is an end in itself, you make no difference between the last two, your nation and others. Neither do I in pure science, I don't care if Fermilab finds the Higgs-Boson first, but I don't view manned exploration as a purely scientific endeavor.

At least, I don't see how they can be reconciled. I will say I understand and respect your position, but simply don't hold it as my own goal. If America can't benefit, and American's can't be the one at the forefront of manned exploration, I do not like the idea of my tax dollars being spent on it. Therefore, I agree probes, orbital telescopes, etc, are good, but only complimented with manned exploration coming on behind them.


spending
By Screwballl on 6/20/2008 11:17:17 AM , Rating: 1
and they wonder why we are in such deep debt...
Don't get me wrong I think it is great that they are deciding to increase the funding for space research... but the problem is that we have a previous GOP senate that passed tax cuts and lowered spending, then the current GOP president plus a Dem Senate... so the GOP is trying to be "conservative" and decrease spending, the majority Dem Senate is having a field day and going on a spending spree without also increasing taxes to pay for it all. No wonder everyone is bad talking the president.




RE: spending
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember that while Bush's approval rating is around 30%, Congress's is around 16%.

And we don't need to raise taxes. Doing so would only hurt middle class American's more and lower tax revenues as the wealthy do more to avoid paying them.


RE: spending
By Screwballl on 6/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: spending
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
Are you trying to say that Obama will definitely win? Because the way he's headed with going back on his word and stuff, he's going to alienate his entire voting base.

And the election isn't until November. By then people will start to get their massive energy bills due to heating oil costs. Of course Obama and the rest of the left will try to blame the oil companies as being at fault. Hopefully McCain and others will be able to fight off that ignorance and downright lie and put the blame where it belongs. On the backs of people like Obama who have fought to keep us dependent on foreign oil instead of allowing us to pump our own and be less dependent.


RE: spending
By Noya on 6/20/2008 7:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you trying to say that Obama will definitely win?


Are you saying he won't?

With a name like "camaro" we all know you're voting for the old white man with the retarded/scary smile.


RE: spending
By Jim28 on 6/20/2008 8:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
And I suppose you are voting for Obama?

Someone with no experiece with making any kind of government policy, and with zero knowledge of economics?
I would rather take the dumb old white man than the charismatic and personable (Yes I have met him, have you?)young black man who is barely smart enough to move rocks? Who tells me how I should live, what I should aspire to be, who wants to limit my freedem, who wants to tax me and my country to death, who wants to blindly imitate many social programs from European countries that have their own problems, who has no clue how to fix our energy problems(He may not even want to!), who FLIES his buddies up for a basket-ball game!

The hypocrisy of the man is simply astounding, and is much worse than the average policitcian, worse than Mccain, and even worse than Bush! I don't want to vote for him because of what he says he will do to the country. If you bring up all the mud that Clinton slung on him he is even worse, because in this case all of that mud was true.


RE: spending
By stryfe on 6/20/2008 2:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
And I'm sure the debt has nothing to do with the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $170 billion in 2007 alone. And that's on top of the $430 billion for the regular military spending for the year.


RE: spending
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 2:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
The debt has far more to do with the $9 trillion dollars we've spent on social security, medicaire, welfare, and other entitlement programs just in the past decade alone.


RE: spending
By lightfoot on 6/20/2008 5:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Don't confuse the poor boy with confusing terms like billion and trillion. Most people only see the number in front - thus $500 billion looks bigger than $9 trillion. I can't count the number of times I've heard people cry that congress wastes millions of dollars when they have no clue where trillions of dollars are going.

To put the numbers in perspective:
$65,610,000,000,000 Gross World Product
$13,840,000,000,000 US Annual GDP
$9,370,000,000,000 US National Debt
$2,730,000,000,000 Annual Federal Spending
$2,568,000,000,000 Annual Federal Income
$1,300,000,000,000 Annual Spending on welfare programs. (social security, medicare, medicaid)
$987,636,000,000 Annual US Spending on Crude Oil
$624,400,000,000 Annual Cost of Foreign Oil
$162,000,000,000 Federal Budget Deficit
$136,000,000,000 Annual War Spending (Iraq and Afghanistan combined)
$20,000,000,000 NASA Annual Budget
$8,200,000,000 Annual Cost of Earmarks

It is only by confusing billions with trillions that you could ever pay for fixing Social Security by eliminating earmarks and ending wars. The dollar amounts are orders of magnitude different.


RE: spending
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 10:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is only by confusing billions with trillions that you could ever pay for fixing Social Security by eliminating earmarks and ending wars. The dollar amounts are orders of magnitude different.


Yes. While the public frets about global warming that may or may not cause pain 100 - 200 years in the future, or about high oil prices, or about the war, I look at spending projections for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the next few decades. That is depressing data, and it's a conservative estimate as we seem to be heading towards more federal health care spending. Unlike global warming, which relies on exotic computer models, or war, which is unpredictable and fleeting, there is no way to presently avoid fiscal crisis hitting us like a brick by 2030-2050 except for big reforms, like privatizing Social Security. There's no will for it, though.

Think Al Qaeda is scary? Wait until millions of baby boomers are in nursing homes.


More than just funding for Orion
By Mclendo06 on 6/20/2008 12:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Without additional funding for Orion, America risks abdicating its position as the world leader in science and technology to Russia, China and Japan," Rep. Nick Lampson (D, TX) said during the House meeting.

The problem isn't just funding for NASA (although that is one issue and I'm glad to see that more money is heading that way). We need funding to encourage domestic students to get a higher education. Last I checked, there were more foreign students in my major university's engineering graduate programs than domestic students.

We are giving the world a higher education while most of our engineering students just get an aptly named BS degree and go on to become a cog in the gear of some big engineering company, not using anything they learned in school but instead doing a job that a reasonably motivated high school student could probably do just as well.




By lightfoot on 6/20/2008 5:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that it now takes a masters degree to get any job.

If you don't have a BS they assume you're illiterate. Such is the sorry state of public education in this country. A High School diploma no longer means that you are capable of reading, much less capable of basic math or science. It's simply the trophy you get for having played the game.


RE: More than just funding for Orion
By Ringold on 6/20/2008 10:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
You can throw unlimited sums of money at it, but so long as they can do much easier majors and still make enough coin to live a reasonable lifestyle, they're never going to switch in droves to more difficult engineering degrees.

Dropping all scholarships for liberal-arts majors and cutting back on those for business degrees, that would be a nice start, though.

But what to do about the fact that in a modern, post-industrial nation a large number of people can afford to "get by" without a high-earnings power degree.. I dont know that anything can be done about it. It's cultural. Kids arent hungry for success here. Parents can work to change that, but I don't know that the government can.


By Starcub on 6/22/2008 1:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
When I graduated with my BSEE (honors) I wanted a job with a company whose values I shared so I did alot of research on different companies and very few who seemed to care more about their employees than the bottom line. That's not good when you have nothing but a diploma to your name (and I was lucky I had no debt because my parents planned their finances well) and figure out that you're entering into a dog eat dog workplace.

Nevertheless I submitted a number of applications to various organizations and got very little in the way of interest in me. I felt funneled into a career path I didn't really want and was treated poorly by most of the companies I worked for. Bleh. I feel bad for parents more than I do for society itself, but they are part of it so....

If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably forego the hard work, live like a hermit, and maybe do charity abroad. Children growing up nowadays do so without good parentage and expect to enter this kind of a world. How do you change that kind of a culture? It can only die its own death I think. But we do a pretty good job of keeping other nations down, so there will always be a supply of 'hungry' people to draw from abroad.

BTW, NASA is one of the few places I would have loved to work at, twenty years ago anyway.


The good and the bad
By djc208 on 6/20/2008 10:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
First let me say: Good for our Government, even if it is just political posturing over who has the biggest "rockets" anything that improves funding to organizations like NASA can't be a bad thing.

Now just let me step on my soapbox and comment how the "disobeyed the president" thing is sad but true. Not to defend Bush's spending plans but it annoys me when both of our presidential candidates will make huge points on Bush's spending of money when the candidates and their peers in Congress ultimatly have more say in where the money goes. Truth is the same thing happens to every president and it will happen to whoever replaces Bush too. Hillary will be back in 4 or 8 years complaining about how poorly the previous/current president has handled the economy when she voted for/against the same bills.

Every year for the past 5 or 6 the "standard" government pay increase set by Bush has been lower than what is ultimatly approved by Congress. Now I can't complain from a personal standpoint, means more money to me. But ultimatly you the taxpayer foot the bill and even if it's only 0.5% that's still huge over the whole of the government.
End Soapbox rant.




It's all about...
By dijidiji on 6/20/2008 10:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
Disobeyed??
By Locutus465 on 6/20/2008 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does congress have to "obey" the president? Bad wording, extreamly bad wording... I am glad however that congress is finally getting it's act together and getting *something* done despite the current adminitration... Something I whole heartedly support as well. I hope that the bush administration see's this as a clear message for whatever time they have left... As if losing administration officials left right and center only to have them to write (or have ghost written and approved) scathing books about how that administration disfunctions wasn't enough...




House M.D.
By Newspapercrane on 6/20/2008 2:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why isn't the picture for this article of Dr. House?




Lame duck
By fstar1 on 6/20/2008 10:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Was there ever a bigger lame duck president than there is now? Disobeyed the white house. How funny.

Good riddance Bush. Hope you DIAF.




Misson to Mars
By seamonkey79 on 6/23/2008 3:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
That was an awesome movie.




Crash Bandicoot 2.
By MisterModder on 6/24/2008 11:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
"If we have no friends left on the surface, then we need to find...

an e n e m y . . ."




By SiliconAddict on 6/20/2008 6:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
$2.9 billion could have stopped a plane from going into a building.....wait that doesn't work anymore...shit

OK $2.9 billion could stop a WMD from coming into this country...wait that could still happen even with the funds...hmm

$2.9 billion could fund the war for another 5 months!...wait that strategy is falling apart.

well shit. OK let um have it....but the terrorists still won with this blow to Democracy!




Bush- you are ridiculous
By greylica on 6/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 10:51:10 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, NASA has received more than $130 billion dollars since Bush took office...and would have received more, had his proposals for manned Lunar and Mars missions been funded by Congress.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By joemoedee on 6/20/2008 10:55:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
To peace and Humanity, and for science: Why Nasa cannot have a mere U$ 3 Billion ?


One can argue that in order to have peace and humanity, you sometimes have to have war.

Also, I'm not quite sure how 3 Billion dollars to NASA = Peace and Humanity.

The anti-Bush sentiment is getting old. I didn't vote for him, nor do I agree with everything he's done while in office. However, it seems any media attention ever given to him is in a negative light. There are a lot of good things that he has accomplished, however if they even get reported, it's on the back page.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By 67STANG on 6/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2008 11:36:55 AM , Rating: 3
People like someone to blame. When it comes to the real blame (Congress) there is too many to pin any one of them down. The President on the other hand is 1 person with that title, it is very easy to pin everything on him regardless of his power or lack of power in that particular area.

People still think of the President like a King. Unfortunately the President is little more than a public face and a figure head. Congress, and government agencies do everything.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Donkey2008 on 6/20/2008 2:23:31 PM , Rating: 1
No, Bush really is an idiot. Other than the inheritance and captial gains tax cuts, he has been the most worthless president in over 100 years.

You are correct that the president is not a "king", but apparantly someone forgot to tell Bush that.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2008 3:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with the claim as a worthless president. I'm fairly confident that once the political opinions and cloud of media fog is cut away, historians will show that he was an average president that wasn't too much better or worse than most previous ones.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think history will mark him as someone loyal to his country, who helped calm a nation after the attacks of September 11, 2001, but who ultimately blindly followed the advice of certain highly influential individuals in making decisions that required more analysis and input.

That's my generic textbook statement :)


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/20/2008 6:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you would be the idiot if you believe all the false press hype about “how bad” this President is.
In reality no other president has had a more difficult time then this current one. The “driving us to socialism by telling us who to vote for press” hates Bush and everything he stands for...and so they support the I want to change everything person. Well lets take some basic facts and ask yourself what would you do?

1)You're telling a story to a group of 5 to 7 year olds, incomplete information comes in about builds being hit by airplanes. Something seems to be up. Do you....
a) act like foolish chicken little and scream the sky is failing and run out of the room leaving crying little kids? Or
b) Hear the information you being told, understand important things are happening, finish the SHORT story you are reading to the kids, wish them a great day smile to let them know they have nothing to fear and within 10 minutes of hear the news you are in transport on the move....It probably took 10 minutes to get the transport ready to move anyway...
2)Some 90% of reporters tells lie after lie about things you say and do...Do you:
a) Complain how everyone is so mean and unfair. Stop it, your not nice – one current guy running for office likes doing this a lot. or
b) Just smile back at them and say, “is that what you think happened?”
3)Be given information and advise from your office staff, members of congress, and whom ever else on current situation and secret information. Never lie to anyone about the information given to you, but ask congress to act upon it. They do. Later find out, can not prove or disprove the information that was given to you. Do you...
a) remind people you acted on information given to you, because it maybe wrong does not make you lair. or
b) Just understand, we do not always have all the information and sometimes that makes you look bad, which sucks but that's part of your job.
4) A large hurricane is being watched coming into your country for 3 or 4 days. It hits and causes damage. Do you:
a) Remind people that you called both the mayor of New Orleans and Governor Of Louisiana
3 or 4 times a day per day before the hurricane to tell them to evacuate and let me (the president) know, what the Fed Government can do to help with this process...of course to point this out to everyone would show just how bad a Governor and Mayor these two people in charge were....or
b) Just say, “I failed, I should have down more” - that's big balls to me, taking blame for an act of mother nature, even after sending a clear message of get out of there.
5)Now – Just give it time. The media will find a way to blame Bush for the floods in the Midwest. I would be very disappointed if Bush did not carry on with his unselfish act of accept full blame of yet another thing he did not have any way to control. I would not find fault in him not accepting...just disappointed because it would mean his character changed and maybe, just maybe the media would have gotten to him....however, I don't think they will win that battle.
These are just a few of the major things that everyone should know about....most President would see maybe 1 or 2 things of this level of issues, but for this president he seems to have 100's of them. His character has never changed through out. Always faces the problem head on, and never bends to any difficulties. He stand behind his actions. Whether you agree with his actions or not, you should respect the man behind this current office. God knows I don't want his job....However, for graduating from two different Ivy league school, I wish he had taken more “how to give a speech classes.”

I would add, the next President is going to have just as many troubles....Most of the time words will not get you out of these problems/going to take action and strong character. So ask yourself, who do you think would do a better job or handling these problems listed above?


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By PWNettle on 6/20/2008 6:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody who isn't a Clinton, Bush, or in any way related to either of those families.

"In reality no other president has had a more difficult time then this current one"

I would think that being president during a world war or depression would be considerably more difficult.

Bush is more of a puppet than a president so yeah, calling him a poor president is probably incorrect.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/20/2008 6:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
"In reality no other president has had a more difficult time then this current one"

I would think that being president during a world war or depression would be considerably more difficult.

You would think. But those were easier times to work out. Congress, the media, and the public were all on the same page. Do what's best for your country, neighbor, then yourself. Today is all about....me, me, me and screw my neighbor they are not me. The press still had reporters – you know people who reported stories and not created hyped up stories to express their opinion. Congress still fought over little things, but the big things they work together – economy (public work programs, hover dam, social security started). Both sides put the USA first, Citizens second, themselves third (or tried to give that image).


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 6:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
The easiest way to rebut the inane statement that "Bush is the worst president ever" is simply to ask whoever makes it to name five accomplishments of President Clinton. Or three. Or one, for that matter.


RE: Bush- you are ridiculous
By Fluxion on 6/20/2008 8:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
What's with the drooling love for Bush?

Bush is far from being the worst President (to name just a few I'd suggest as worse, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Warren Harding...)