backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by jlips6.. on Dec 18 at 6:03 PM

NASA says there is no rift between itself and the Obama transition team, although tensions are indeed high

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin recently stated there is no tension between his NASA administration and President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.  Obama's team is looking to collect information about the possibility of possibly grounding NASA's next moon mission, according to an article published in the Orlando Sentinel.

In the Orlando Sentinel article, Griffin described as not cooperating with Obama's team, and continues to obstruct their effort to learn where the U.S. space agency currently stands.  Furthermore, Griffin reportedly dismissed Lori Garver, the Obama transition team's space leader, saying Garver is "unqualified" to analyze and assess the NASA rocket program.

Griffin said the article is "simply wrong," and said NASA will continue to work with the new administration.

"This report, largely supported by anonymous sources and hearsay, is simply wrong," Griffin told NASA employees in an e-mail after the Orlando Sentinel article was published.

"There is no natural tension," space historian John Logsdon told the Houston Chronicle.  "The transition team is asking questions that are on everyone's mind.  The NASA administrator is saying, 'Trust me.  You don't need to ask these questions.'  The transition team can't accept that response."  

Griffin is not coaching NASA employees on what to say to the investigators, and he urges "full and free cooperation with the transition team," according to a NASA spokesperson.

Tensions will remain high as the U.S. space program moves into an unknown future, when the current generation of space shuttles will be retired.  NASA will then have to rely on Russian spacecraft to get supplies and astronauts to the ISS, which has caused political tension among U.S. politicians weary of giving money to Russia, especially after its attack on Georgia.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Lord 666 on 12/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Dreifort on 12/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By omnicronx on 12/15/2008 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 5
Ok we get it, Obama is a communist/socialist/satan.. blah blah blah..


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By B3an on 12/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By qdemn7 on 12/15/2008 10:19:44 AM , Rating: 5
Contrary to what many of you Euros think or feel (emphasis there on the FEELing), we do not desire or live for your approval. Furthermore, many of us here don't give a flying flip what you think of America or Americans.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 6:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's pretty obvious to most Europeans that many Americans 'don't give a flying flip what [they] think of America or Americans'.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Spivonious on 12/15/2008 10:51:24 AM , Rating: 1
You do know that "Nazi" is a nickname for the national socialist party, right?


By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 1:25:46 PM , Rating: 4
But Nazi Germany was a fascist country and by no means a socialist one.

Many countries and political groups like to employ formal names that aren't accurate. Take the Holy Roman Empire. It was neither holy nor roman nor an empire. What was it? Oh, right... Germany.

Anyway, don't make me call Godwin's Law on you.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 7:01:48 PM , Rating: 1
And just because 'socialist' is in the name doesn't make it one. National Socialism is a brand of right-wing-influenced fascism. It specifically derided communism and socialism.

It's like the 'Republic' of Uzbekistan. Not big on Republican government....


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm next to the last person to defend Bush, but to call him a Nazi, redneck, or religious betrays an ignorance on your part that would be comparable to, well, Bush himself.

Aside from some egregious misuse of executive power, he is hardly a fascist. I don't think one could make the argument that he's a racists, or that he uses scapegoats. One of his first responses to 9/11 was to call for tolerance of Muslims. For all his follies, give him credit where credit is due.

Don't think he's a redneck or religious, either. He's a phony. Take even a peek at his biographical data and you'll see he's just trying to be likable to his constituents -- rednecks and religious people.


By jlips6 on 12/15/2008 6:03:36 PM , Rating: 3
actually, I think he is genuinely religious. That's not much of a compliment though, in my book.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Dreifort on 12/15/2008 11:05:46 AM , Rating: 4
wow. liberal media calls George W. Bush more names than an expectant mother can think of. They bash Bush for 8 years.

I don't even call Obama a name, I just question his judgment on civil issues and you associate me with the same mind(less)set as those who hated Bush?

please.

I still want an answer as to how Obama plans to fund his $700 trillion of new programs he so desperately wants to introduce into the government of my country. If he's looking for some of that money by killing NASA, then so be it - but I enjoy the freedom to comment that some of the programs being touted by liberals and Obama alike are frivolous compared to the scientific benefit and national security benefit of an organization as NASA.

Free things for those ill-afforded benefits no one. Not even those without money - because it teaches being lazy pays you. At least NASA offers jobs, research, scientific growth - and most important the arm to fulfill mankind's greatest need. The need to explore.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By grenableu on 12/15/2008 11:15:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I still want an answer as to how Obama plans to fund his $700 trillion of new programs
Taxes! And More Taxes! Squeeze 'em dry! Money is far too good for the common man. The guv'mint knows better how to spend your money than you do!


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By loveserveace on 12/15/2008 11:40:41 AM , Rating: 5
National Debt:
2000 - $5.7t
2008 - $10.6t + $5.4t (fannie/freddie) = $16t

2000 - $126b govt surplus
2008 - $750b govt debt
... partially as a result of a 59% surge in government spending and inequitable tax cuts. largest debt in history, btw.

This tax-and-spend demonization of Dems just won't wash. Tax... perhaps. Spend... not so much. Take a look in the mirror conservatives. You can't possibly think the last 8 years have been brightening that shining beacon on the hill.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By omnicronx on 12/15/2008 11:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
All of that debt is Obamas fault too, I even heard he is responsible for the Kennedy Assassination, the Columbia Shuttle disaster, Vietnam, and that he is Vladdy Putins estranged half brother whose master plan is to spread communism around the globe!


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Lord 666 on 12/15/2008 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
But watch Obama and his cabinent be implicated with the Blagojevich scandal.

While we are talking about transparency or his clear lack of it, why are his Columbia years so secretive?

Was in Costco over the weekend when I picked up an Obama book in the kids section. The book was very thin when it came to page count as it clearly reflects Obama's true experience. Due to the lack of certain details, I read out loud the pages that should have been included; Obama the Drug User and Obama the Tobacco Supporter. The people around me were chuckling as our Costco is not in Obama country.

For Christmas, going to get my father an Obama calendar since he voted for him. Never saw a president-elect calendar before. Just don't understand the <BOLD>BLIND FAITH</BOLD> everyone has in someone who is not even our president yet?

Let's have a meeting of the minds once his first 100 days pass and then we can have something to really talk about.


By Dreifort on 12/15/2008 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 3
if we get that far with Obama. The liberal media (well some of them) are already questioning Obama's ties with Blagojevich.

And BREAKING news from AP last week. They released a story that exposes - GET THIS - Obama has dubious relations ships with some guy named Ayers..a Rev Wright guy who preaches hate, and a few other questionable ppl. Including some friend of Blagojevish named Resko. I never knew!

Wow, nice to see AP on top of their research and stories. Just proves they never even vetted Obama during his campaign. Lost among the flashing lights I guess.


By mrkun on 12/15/2008 8:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
The $5.4 trillion for Fannie/Freddie is deceptive. The government is effectively insuring the companies for that much; this is the not the same thing as actually paying out that amount. Both companies currently have positive net worth and most loans are paying on time.

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


By BansheeX on 12/15/2008 9:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not defending Bush here as a Libertarian who thinks he was an intensely socialist and spendthrift president, only discrediting Democrats who think they're that much better.

Total national debt under Clinton NEVER decreased a single year. The so called surplus in his second term was only one part of the debt, which was negated by the second part which kept increasing.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Now, you might still come away with the conclusion that Clinton did something good, but not so fast. In 1995, the Boskin Commission was charged by the Senate to search for bias in the CPI (the official government report card on the effects of the inflation they create on consumer prices). In other words, they wanted to better hide price increases from inflationary spending. With food, homes, and energy already excluded, they came up with a bunch of subjective adjustments, one of which negated price increases by assuming quality improvements.

Obligatory welfare payouts, including SS, are adjusted for the CPI annually. By manipulating the CPI to further understate the effects of inflation, government revenue increased by underpaying on welfare payouts. That's basically how Clinton inadvertently got a surplus in one category for a few years. This all came crashing down, of course, when the massive inflation went into tech stocks and collapsed, then filtered into homes courtesy of Greenspan under Bush. All the while, the CPI continued to report miniscule increases in consumer prices, making people oblivious to the asset bubbles blowing up in their faces.

As if that wasn't bad enough, most people have no idea that this was possible, that a trust fund is non-existent, and that Social Security operates today like an enormous, enormous ponzi scheme that makes Maddof's look like cupcakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-NqdmEDq4


By Moishe on 12/16/2008 10:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you're saying.

There is just one main part of your assertion that is wrong.
quote:
Take a look in the mirror conservatives .


Bush is not a conservative and he doesn't have full support of conservatives. While he may be more to the "right" than people like Obama, he is far more to the center than a conservative would be.

Of course, we have to be fair and admit that the numbers you speak of are not primarily Bush's numbers either. This is a government thing consisting of Dems, Repubs, AND the administration. One man (Bush) cannot be held responsible for spending. That being said, he certainly does spend a lot, and I'm not defending him for that.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
TAX THE EVIL OIL COMPANIES!!!....oh wait no he dropped that.....

TAX THE RICH!....oh you say they're pulling their money out of investments so we can't tax them?.......hmmm.....

TAX BUSINESSES!....oh they're leaving too eh?....no one investing here cause we tried to tax the rich......

Tax the middle class? Ok they're still here but are unemployed. Hmmmm.........

Borrow money?...Yeah that works.... oh we'll worry about paying it back later.


By jlips6 on 12/15/2008 6:10:40 PM , Rating: 3
been hearing a lot about this by word of mouth, but I would very much like to see an article or two stating exactly what he's been planning on withholding taxes from.

I also heard that he changed his "you'll only be taxed more if you're over $250,000 a year" to you'll only be taxed more if you're over $100,000 a year".


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Tsuwamono on 12/15/2008 12:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
First. Where are these "Liberal" media sources? Only thing i can find would be www.liberal.ca . You know Liberal is another word for tolerant right?

Second. You're dumb. Government programs don't make you lazy. Thats like saying if you get a grant or loan or whatever for your school that your going to never go. You sir need to get out of your country once in a while and learn about other cultures and other ways of doing things.

There are many ways of doing things and nothing is absolute. I know several people who have had to go on welfare and now probably make twice what you make because Welfare did not make them lazy.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me of a major news network (other than Fox) that is not completely in the tank for Obama. You can't because there isn't one.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By jlips6 on 12/15/2008 6:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
(I think we discarded Faux Noose as a real news source awhile ago.)


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By soundgarden on 12/16/2008 1:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
This "faux" news channel you are referring to is currently rated #1 for cable news. Don't ask me for how long they have been rated #1, because it might hurt.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Frallan on 12/16/2008 6:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
^Then something is wrong with the definition of Cable - beacuse Faux News aint News.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Dreifort on 12/16/08, Rating: 0
By Dreifort on 12/16/2008 1:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
sorry...it wasn't a bomb but an attempt to bomb the airport.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By jlips6 on 12/16/2008 3:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
the attempt on the airport was unrelated to the car "bombs". It was not even in the same country. It was unlikely that these cars mentioned would have bombs. The cars didn't have bombs. The jokes, were validated. On the contrary, this makes Faux noose seem paranoid.

The nitro-glycerin in water bottle's incident would be a much better example of terrorism in Britain, instead of a false alarm. This is just contradicting your point with your evidence.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Dreifort on 12/17/2008 8:24:15 AM , Rating: 2
so how is being aware and having a news channel tell you to be aware (only to have a car bomb attempt just hours later at an airport just a few hundred miles away) being paranoid?

I would rather have someone tell me that I should be on alert than have some idiot joke about something and tell me its nothing to worry about.

Name one show on Fox News that uses stick puppets or simulated stick puppets to show the news? Even Red Eye doesn't stoop to such levels. But Olberman did - he's a poor excuse for a "news" anchor.


By jlips6 on 12/18/2008 6:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
heheh. stick puppets.

Sorry, but I thought believing that there are plots to bomb everything when there aren't is being paranoid. my bad.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 1:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First. Where are these "Liberal" media sources? Only thing i can find would be www.liberal.ca . You know Liberal is another word for tolerant right?
Liberal is the adjective form of "liberty." Liberal means "free" in this sense.

Describing people as "liberal" over hundreds of years of American politics turned it into a noun and changed its meaning. It is now roughly synonymous with "progressive," which is actually seeing a comeback as the correct term as of late.

If any political groups can be accurately described as liberal, its centrist Democrats and Libertarians. But connotation and the vernacular trump denotation, so his usage of the term isn't wholly inaccurate.

quote:
Government programs don't make you lazy. Thats like saying if you get a grant or loan or whatever for your school that your going to never go.

While I don't disagree with your point as a whole, government assistance can and often does make people less inclined to accomplish things for themselves. If I can enjoy housing, food, clothing, and reasonable quality of life, what is my incentive to get a job?

Fortunately, very few welfare programs provide this much disincentive, making arguments against them contrary to fact in many, if not most cases.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 7:19:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If any political groups can be accurately described as liberal, its centrist Democrats and Libertarians

On social policy and civil liberties, I'd concur.

But Democrats are hardly liberal on trade. They're very protectionist.

Nor are their fiscal policies liberal - they seem to be the party of dwindling debt (as a percentage of GDP) for the past 65 years, while Republicans are more profligate. As for tax policy, I guess Democrats are conservative, since liberal would be the one that leaves you free to keep your money? Or would they be liberal, because 'progressive' taxation taxes each according to their ability to pay?

I'm not sure what you can say about monetary policy - that seems at least partially divorced from political parties, where both the major parties have been "Greenspanians" for the past 20 years.

Ironically, in these fields of government policy, the path that should be called 'conservative' is called 'liberal' because it has the political support of Democrats. I guess that gets back to your comment on the vernacular.


By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 11:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Democrats are hardly liberal on trade. They're very protectionist.

No, I stand by my statement. Centrist and center-left Democrats typically differ from the party base in that their fiscal and trade preferences are more towards freedom -- lower taxes, fewer tariffs. They are less liberal than a hardcore libertarian, but still have relatively liberal economic policies compared with both major parties.

quote:
As for tax policy, I guess Democrats are conservative, since liberal would be the one that leaves you free to keep your money?

Actually, this is where the connotations are wrong again. The opposite of liberal in this sense would be authoritarian. Base Democrats tend to be more economically authoritarian but socially liberal, while base Republicans are the opposite (barring Libertarians and Centrists too stubborn to realize they aren't really Republicans). The former policies are considered to be progressive (in favor of change), whilst the latter are conservative (in favor of maintaining the status quo).

A liberal economic policy would be conservative, since America has always had a relatively low-tax, free-choice economy.

So it's not that Democrats are economically conservative, it's that Republicans (in rhetoric, though often not practice) are economically liberal. (To avoid confusion, it should be noted that I am still referring to the denotational sense of "liberal")

Of course these are all sweeping generalizations when it comes to the parties. You are very right about the last couple of decades. Regardless of their face statements, de facto economic policy of high-level officials from both parties has become decidedly indistinguishable on a political scale. Either an administration is fiscally responsible, or fiscally irresponsible. Anyone who thinks they're going to get their ideological* economic policies of choice because they pick a certain party is kidding themselves. Most Democrats are going to go center-left, Clinton/Blair "Third Way," while most Republicans will govern with reluctant, but definite center-right policies. There are few differences between the two ideologies in practice. The only other option is fiscal irresponsibility, which is possible on either side of the spectrum and was unfortunately adhered to rather strictly by Bush 2.

*Disclaimer: I don't think ideology should have anything to do with economic policy. Liberal, conservative, progressive, whatever. Different policies work for different places and different times.


By Ringold on 12/16/2008 2:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government programs don't make you lazy. ... You sir need to get out of your country once in a while and learn about other cultures and other ways of doing things.


Economists have looked around the globe, particularly at Europe, which is why I'm aware of no group of economists, be they liberal or conservative, who would agree with you. And thats just referring to labor market participants. The impact on lessening competitive forces within industries with government largesse has been established long before even Adam Smith.

In fact, I'd have to double check, but I think even Plato or Xenophon would call BS on your post. Assuming, of course, they were still around...

So, while you have others look in to how other cultures do things, maybe you should read up on the findings of other professions.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wow. liberal media calls George W. Bush more names than an expectant mother can think of. They bash Bush for 8 years.

They turned out to be right. The majority of the media tends to be on the side of fact and the truth. That puts them at odds with W. Does that make the media "liberal" or somehow leftist?

quote:
I don't even call Obama a name, I just question his judgment on civil issues and you associate me with the same mind(less)set as those who hated Bush?

You were rated down and rebuked because you display an ignorance of Obama's plans and positions -- possibly planted in your head by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. You might as well have called him a Muslim. Obama is not a communist nor a socialist, and has proposed no plans to make everything free. Having nationalized (read: not free for most) health care =! communism.

Obama has already admitted he probably cannot raise taxes for two years, and that many of his proposed programs cannot come to fruition until the recession is gone.

I've seen no indication whatsoever that Obama has plans to can NASA. Considering making cuts on programs that are over budget or of little scientific benefit (preferably both) isn't anti-science; it's fiscal responsibility.

Any political reaction to this article is preemptive at best.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 3:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The majority of the media tends to be on the side of fact and the truth.


Apparently you and I have different meanings for the words "fact" and "truth".

I guess if blatant lies so that a presidential candidate will get elected are now "facts" and "truthful" then yes the media is on the side of "fact" and "truth".

Or for spreading blatant lies about how a successful military campaign is failing then yes they are truthful.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 11:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess if blatant lies so that a presidential candidate will get elected are now "facts" and "truthful" then yes the media is on the side of "fact" and "truth".

You mean like the many that were perpetrated by Fox News? Outside of Fox News, I didn't see too many blatant lies being clearly spread by the media. Different publications have different levels of bias, but Fox News had (has) very few anchors who weren't spreading blatant lies or faux controversies about Obama.

Conversely, I saw a distinct lack of coverage on McCain's very sketchy political and personal past. Even MSNBC wouldn't touch it. Why, because Fox News anchors would scream "he's a war hero, you can't say that." When Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign came short of calling Obama a terrorist, I didn't see any media-driven defense of Obama.

I saw most of the TV and print media giving near-equal treatment of both candidates. Certainly, MSNBC gave only token resistance to Obama, but ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN all varied based on what anchor or show was on.

Face it: Obama ran a better campaign on a more popular platform. There was no media bias propping him up. Kerry and Gore didn't win from this mythical vast left-wing conspiracy, so how come Obama has now?

It's convenient to blame the media and say that it's all lies and propaganda, but remember, this is the same media that gave President Bush token resistant for about seven years of the numerous utter failures of his administration. Only after his popularity dove did the media -- or the Congress -- give him resistance.

So much for blatant lies to elect Obama.

quote:
Or for spreading blatant lies about how a successful military campaign is failing then yes they are truthful.

There seems to be this myth, once again most likely perpetuated by the far right, that mainstream media has given unfair coverage to the Iraq war. "They only focus on the bad, not the good" they say. I have seen numerous stories on CBS, NBC, CNN and read some in several publications that do tell of the progress made in Iraq, or stories of our soldiers' heroic feats. However, more has been focused on the death and destruction of the last five years. The sectarian violence, civil unrest, and overall instability has been a major media focus.

I ask you: Is this bias, or good journalism? You can whine all you want, but it's not made up. Hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq. Short-term and long-term political stability are shaky, by all accounts. Our administrative failures have certainly worsened what was already going to be a tough insurgency.

Should the media ignore this and only focus on our victories? I've not seen any Fox News stories (and yes, I do try to get the Fox News perspective pretty regularly) that tell of success not reported by the other major networks or by print and online news. I have noticed a decided lack of negative war coverage on Fox.

Regardless of what brand of TV or other news media you prefer, I will say unequivocally that one thing drives them more than any bias: ratings.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By Ringold on 12/16/2008 2:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
The Economist reported on a study recently that found that not only are media outlets biased, they are biased to profit-maximizing degrees based on the political affiliations of their readership/area/etc. In other words, in Republican areas, they skewed right. In liberal areas, they skewed left. In both cases, the skew was to sufficient degree that, more or less, they maximized the number of people who would watch or read them. This is to be expected; people want to read news that doesn't upset their preconceived ideas. The media wants to make money first and foremost, so they're perfectly happy to tailor their news to make the masses happy. Therefore perfectly reasonable to expect we would end up within a large nation news sources which are very easily identified as liberal (most TV news, but not all) and conservative (most, but not all, radio, and Fox).

But if you can't see the blatant bias of even MSNBC, then you're beyond help.


By Dreifort on 12/16/2008 9:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
in 2005:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is...

Imagine that, Fox news scores right in the middle covering BOTH sides... and that was 3 YEARS AGO!

in 2008:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/11/liberal-...
http://www.timesgazette.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&S...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10...

Imagine that...Fox again in the middle. oh, wait...they actually gave MORE favorable news with Obama than they did with McCain.

I find it quite amusing how everyone claims FOX is a terrible news channel when in actuality.... they are the only fair network.


RE: Maybe NASA needs to apply for welfare
By jlips6 on 12/16/2008 7:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Obama had the support of the mass media. no doubt. he was endorsed by the NY Times, and favorably covered on more than just T.V.
whether or not this signifigantly affected the outcome of the election is debatable.


By Dreifort on 12/17/2008 8:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
if they could get away with it, the media outlets would award themselves a new "Excellence in influencing Politics" award to each other.


By gregpet on 12/17/2008 3:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
By grenableu on 12/15/2008 11:13:37 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you got rated down. The plain and simple fact is Obama IS cutting NASA's budget to scrape up a few extra bucks for his welfare programs.

Anyone who doesn't realize just how much Obama has already committed to bulk up welfare and social service spending is someone who never looked at his pre-election website.


possibility of possibly
By omnicronx on 12/15/2008 9:52:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obama's team is looking to collect information about the possibility of possibly grounding
Don't need to say it twice..




RE: possibility of possibly
By Lord 666 on 12/15/2008 10:35:24 AM , Rating: 5
Obama needs to get some shoes thrown at him if his administration grounds NASA.


RE: possibility of possibly
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 12:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
Haha!

I saw that this weekend. Was a bit disappointed in the Secret Service. If they can't respond to a guy throwing a shoe how are they going to respond to someone with a gun?


RE: possibility of possibly
By Gzus666 on 12/15/2008 12:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
Give them a break, they are used to things moving super fast like a bullet. Dealing with something moving under the sound barrier is just too hard when you are used to moving that fast.


RE: possibility of possibly
By Samus on 12/15/2008 6:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
Only the Bush administration would warrant the need for special 'shoe protection training' in the secret service.


RE: possibility of possibly
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 11:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't really make sense but okay.


RE: possibility of possibly
By Lord 666 on 12/15/2008 12:42:31 PM , Rating: 3
Even funnier would have been Bush catching the shoes and throwing them back belting the ungrateful bastard. Had he tried that with Saddam, the journalist would have been shot onstage instantly or ground up in a wood chiper. Hell, try that stunt in the US and some prosecutor would charge the person with "assult with a deadly weapon."

Bush responded extremely professional/presidential and even self-mocking about receving gestures with less than five fingers. What would Obama do (WWOD bracelets anyone?) in that situation?

It does show there was a clear lack of security at that news conference, especially outside of the Green Zone. Anyone with a pen or zip gun could have knocked off GWB.


By grebe925 on 12/15/2008 10:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
Remember when NASA sold the Shuttle as being able to routinely access space (and chucked out all the proven Apollo/Saturn hardware in the process). Turned out to be a dud. History is not on NASA's side.




Darn
By pauldovi on 12/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Darn
By Dreifort on 12/15/2008 9:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
you'd have nutballs like Virgin's Richard Branson turning space into disney land.

but far greater problem would be the private sector's disregard for national security. our private sector wouldn't hesitate to give access to US satellites to customer's who walk in wearing T-shirts that say in bold letters "Death to America...and I want to hack into your satellites".


RE: Darn
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 10:05:29 AM , Rating: 1
Then you're one of the dumbest Floridian engineering students in the state. Do you know how many institutions and businesses are there because of the space program?

Where I went to school (Florida Tech) was founded to train engineers for the space program. And I even had the privilege of working out at NASA for a summer.

And as a future engineer you're pretty stupid in supporting Obama since a) you'll be a tax payer(one of those rich people who's wealth needs to be spread around) and b) you'll probably be unemployed. If his tax plan goes in to tax businesses even more, you think anyone is going to be hiring?

Look on a site like Dice.com even now. Most of the positions available are senior positions or those requiring a few years experience.


RE: Darn
By omnicronx on 12/15/2008 10:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look on a site like Dice.com even now. Most of the positions available are senior positions or those requiring a few years experience.
I suppose this is Obamas fault too FT?


RE: Darn
By Dreifort on 12/15/2008 10:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
no. actually it's frodo's fault.


RE: Darn
By acer905 on 12/15/2008 10:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
Just ignore him, he's probably a civil engineering student (as evident by his constant belief that a parallel hybrid is better than series)


RE: Darn
By theapparition on 12/15/2008 12:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, that's him.

Engineering student, huh? Sounds like he majoring in Petroleum Transfer Engineering to me.....


RE: Darn
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 1:18:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
a) you'll be a tax payer
...
quote:
b) you'll probably be unemployed.


Want to explain that one?


RE: Darn
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 2:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Touche. Fine, IF you're employed you'll be a tax payer.


RE: Darn
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 3:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IF you're employed you'll be a tax payer.

Does that really need saying? ;)

Shall I clarify your position as the following:
"Since you are an engineer there is a significant chance you will be making more than $250,000/year and as such will be affected if and when Obama follows through on his plan to increase taxes for high-income taxpayers."


RE: Darn
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 3:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know where the hell you work to where you think you'll be making more than $250,000 a year out of college. And it's not going to just be people making $250,000 a year who are affected. Regardless of what the media told you. Repealing the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase. No matter how you try to spin it. My taxes personally will be going up by 4-5% and I don't make anywhere near $250,000. It's just a matter of when. Obama can repeal the tax cuts early on or he can just let them expire in 2011.


RE: Darn
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 7:26:11 PM , Rating: 1
If the plan were to repeal the entire Bush tax cut. Wasn't Obama's plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts only for the wealthiest Americans, those making over $250,000? And didn't he (or maybe his aides) say recently that they were reconsidering even that measure, given the current state of the economy?


RE: Darn
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2008 11:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly wouldn't expect to make $250,000 out of college. But six years down the road is another story.

However, what makes you think Obama's plan is to repeal the Bush tax cuts? He has explicitly stated that he has no intention to do that, and hopes to cut taxes further for middle-class income families. It's simply inaccurate to say he plans to raise taxes on everyone. OP would certainly not see a tax raise for four years, if not more.


RE: Darn
By Ringold on 12/16/2008 2:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
Unless he plans to extend them, taking no action at all means that in a couple years the tax cuts automatically sunset. The recent gossip has been that instead of his campaign promise to repeal them quickly, he would instead let them sunset.

Of course, you're right on the other point, he doesn't plan to raise taxes on "everyone."


RE: Darn
By HeavyB on 12/16/2008 10:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I certainly wouldn't expect to make $250,000 out of college. But six years down the road is another story.


I love how out of touch with reality some people are. Its great to think big I guess.


RE: Darn
By jlips6 on 12/16/2008 7:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
actually... your taxes will increase if you make more than $100,000 dollars a year, and doubtless we will see rises in small other taxes and tariffs that will be passed through congress committees dedicated to snapping up every spare penny they can.


RE: Darn
By randomly on 12/15/2008 10:52:05 AM , Rating: 5
If you lost NASA you would lose all the space telescopes, probes, rovers, etc. There is no economic incentive for such things to entice the private sector. There is almost zero economic incentive to leave Low earth orbit.

I also can't fathom your conclusion that NASA has a monopoly on space exploration. How does NASA prevent or hinder private space exploration in any way?

In regards to the article I'm skeptical of the Orlando Sentinel. They are hostile to Griffin, and seem motivated to create or exaggerate controversy on the subject probably for increased readership. Somebody who was seated 20 feet away at the event where Griffin and Garver had what the Sentinel reported as a heated argument with raised voices saw and heard nothing of that. Perhaps some of it true, perhaps little.

It's disturbing that many journalists are no longer in the news business but in the entertainment business. The stories they write and the often deceptive way they write them to hype them up are motivated by attracting readers and not reporting news accurately. Regardless of the reality of the situation between NASA and Obama's transition team they know what's going on between them and will work it out.

Personally I don't like Griffin's ARES rocket program, I'd prefer man rating the EELV vehicles we already have to close the gap or if we want to include moon and mars capability something like the DIRECT 2.0 approach. They are less expensive, less developmental risk, retain a large portion of the current trained workforce and facilities, would close the no-fly gap sooner, and are just more sustainable on a fixed NASA budget.

ARES I and V have drifted too far from the initial concept of a shuttle derived launch system. They have almost no parts in common with the shuttle technology anymore. You have to develop two different rockets to do the job instead of just one like with DIRECT, and each requires it's own separate support infrastructure.

It seems the ARES I / V architecture came about as a response to the two shuttle losses. ARES I on paper was the most reliable crew launch vehicle they could come up with. However it's changed a lot since that initial evaluation. New unproven bigger SRB first stage with new fuel, new core. New upper stage engine. Performance was not as good as they hoped so they had to cut weight out of the Orion capsule including redundant systems for safety... etc. Thrust oscillation problems that could shake the crew to death required more fixes and more reduced performance.

So the Ares I can only lift the crew into orbit, to do a lunar mission you have to have another single huge launch vehicle lift everything else at once, thus the monster ARES V.
It's all too expensive to design, build, fly, and takes too long to get working so it's sucking the life out of all the other NASA projects.All because on paper it's the most safe approach, which in reality may not be true. EELVs and DIRECT could certainly be safe enough, and with the extra lift capacity and other factors might even be safer. I would like to see NASA kept alive and moving forward efficiently. Under our current economic situation the ARES program is just too expensive and unsustainable budget wise.


RE: Darn
By Ratinator on 12/15/2008 10:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
Private = space for profit.
NASA = Space for science

No thank you to Private.


RE: Darn
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 7:32:08 PM , Rating: 1
What about TANG, Astronaut Ice Cream, &c? You know, 'science for profit'. Erm.... those are joke examples, but you know what I mean - investing in research and development to make money. There have been lots of "space age" technologies that have come out of NASA, and there's no reason to believe further tech couldn't come out of either private or a public research into space. There's no doubt private companies would have to do major research before they'd be ready to do anything in space and actually make a profit (except communications satellites and the like).


RE: Darn
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 11:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's really really stupid.

The first private space flights are going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than the Space Shuttle. Why don't you Google that please?


RE: Darn
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 11:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Darn
By jlips6 on 12/16/2008 7:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
I approve.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki