backtop


Print 231 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 19 at 1:07 PM


An artist's conception of Nasa's Ares Rocket
President-elect's transition team planning to use decades-old military rockets instead, say insiders.

President-Elect Obama's transition team is planning to scrap NASA's Ares program, the successor to the Space Shuttle, say NASA advisors.  The transition team is demanding deep cuts from the agency, and is investigating whether old military rockets such as the Delta IV and Atlas V could be used in place of Ares.

NASA plans a permanent moon base by 2020, followed by a manned mission to Mars; plans which the agency says require Ares.

The Space Shuttle is due to make its last flight in 2010. Without a replacement, NASA may be without a manned space capability entirely, for the first time since the 1960s, a gap that NASA says would destroy the U.S.'s primacy in space technology.

Prior news reports have hinted at a great deal of tension between Obama's team and NASA, a report that NASA Administrator Michael Griffon has denied.

On the campaign trail, Obama blew both hot and cold on plans for NASA's budget. In the NASA-friendly states of Texas and Florida, he promised to expand NASA's budget by more than 10%. In other states, however, he promised cuts and delays to the agency, in order to help fund his education policies.

Lori Garver, a space policy advisor for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, was selected by Obama to lead the NASA review transition team. Despite being criticized for her lack of an engineering or scientific background, Garver has been called a favorite to be the next NASA Administrator.

Ares program manager Steve Cook says that, with Ares due for its first test flight next summer, halting the program now would be an expensive mistake. "We would be really stepping backwards" by opting for a different launch platform.

Space Historian Andrew Chaikin said that, "Obama's first priority for NASA should be to get the Shuttle's replacement on track".



Comments     Threshold


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

Military?
By martinrichards23 on 12/22/2008 10:29:59 AM , Rating: 4
The savings made would be a drop in the ocean compared to military spending.

If cuts have to be made don't do it to NASA.




RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 10:58:47 AM , Rating: 4
I agree, however don't cut the military either.


RE: Military?
By kattanna on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By greenchasch on 12/22/2008 11:06:24 AM , Rating: 5
I'm afraid of Russia, China, Iran, or someone else attacking some of our allies in the next 10 years, yeah.

In case you missed it, Russia created a pretext then ran all over Georgia just last year, and China has been planning an invasion of Taiwan for a long time now.

Oh, and Iran is busy building nukes. But it promises it won't ever use them except in defense. :p


RE: Military?
By Spivonious on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 3
> "China is definitely not a stupid country."

Germany was definitely not a stupid country, yet it attacked all its own trading partners, and began wars that decimated its economy and infrastructure beyond belief.

> "The world is a lot different from 50 years ago"

If you mean that to imply we're now too smart to engage in widespread, destructive warfare, I fear you're sadly mistaken. In fact, I'd lay money that we'll see our first full-scale war between nuclear-armed opponents in less than 25 years.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:17:05 PM , Rating: 5
> "What on earth makes you think that there is going to be a major (WWII scale) war within the next 25 years? "

That's not what I said. I said there was going to be a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed opponents within that period. The possibility of it escalating into a global conflict is far smaller.

Still, the notion that we've somehow "outgrown" world wars entirely is rather sophomoric, don't you think?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:11:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"The notion of a world war, at this point in time, is far fetched.
After the poison gases and trench warfare of the "Great War", most observers said the same thing. Then, WW2 came along.

> "just in case some Iranian guy figures out how to fire an ICBM from the ass of a camel..."

Cute, but Iran is already developing a missile with a 6,000 km range:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JP...


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "So since you didn't actually answer or respond in any meaningful way..."

How did I not? You claim global war is now "unthinkable". I demonstrated that such claims have been widespread -- and very wrong-- before.

After poison gas rolled across Europe in the Great War, observers widely said world wars were now "too destructive" to fight. Yet soon after, another occurred, with both sides simply maintaining their gentleman's agreement to not use their most destructive weapons. The idea that it can't possible happen again is, I fear, sorely misguided.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 4
> "What about that statement rubs you the wrong way, friend?"

I'm always rubbed wrongly when people fail to learn from history. It's the fault of modern-day historians, in my opinion: most classes fail to adequately present the lessons of history in proper context.

> "Don't you think that a thermonuclear device is kinda sorta maybe just a little bit different? "

Not in the least. A machine gun or mustard gas shell can kill you just as dead as a nuclear weapon. And we can build enough of any of them to kill the entire world population a hundred times over.

In fact, in the long run, I'd say that H-bombs are less of a threat than biological weapons, especially now that anti-missile technology has improved so much.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By ViroMan on 12/22/2008 7:00:39 PM , Rating: 3
That fighting with masher on a ANY point is just STUPID. j/k
no really, don't fight each other over a news story... jeez.


RE: Military?
By gus6464 on 12/23/2008 4:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
But when are we going to get Mobile Suits? :D


RE: Military?
By Oregonian2 on 12/23/2008 2:50:04 PM , Rating: 4
So you're saying that just because history shows people will have great wars with tremendous killing on massive scales (percentage of the existing populations of the time) and have done so continuously for as long as history record go back -- that "we" haven't seen the light and won't stop doing that because we're so much smarter now despite even having places like Chicago be corruption free and sing shangrala all together now with great glee? Goodness gracious!


RE: Military?
By phxfreddy on 12/24/2008 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Correct phrase is not "I FEEL" ...replace that with ....."HISTORY SHOWS"


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
chemical weapons are a good analogy to go on with regard to nuclear weapons... both are meant to kill large numbers of people indescriminantlty, both were the pinacle of weapons technology at the time of their development, and both are things that would only be used in a total war.

Saddam Hussien used gas to kill hundreds of thousands of people just like the atomic bomb was used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Whats the difference?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 2:02:29 PM , Rating: 5
> "...the inevitable starvation, disease, and misery of a 20 year long nuclear winter."

Err, the psuedo-science behind nuclear-winter was pretty much debunked long ago. In any case, the notion that two nuclear-capable warring states must automatically exchange nuclear fire is fallacious. WW2 was fought without chemical weapons, though nations could have easily deployed them.

Finally, anti-ballistic missile defenses are invalidating the entire concept of nuclear missiles.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:00:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
your telling me that if the US, Russia, France, and the UK exhausted even 10% of their nuclear arsenal, that there wouldn't be a nuclear winter?
Exactly so. Nuclear winter was political policy masquerading as science. I remind you that Carl Sagan-- the man who popularized nuclear winter-- predicted similar effects from the Kuwaiti oil fires, with the massive amounts of soot released causing widespread regional climate change. Yet nothing of the sort ocurred.

Quite a few prominent physicists have called out nuclear winter, including names as esteemed as from Dyson and Feynman. NCAR (the National Center For Atmospheric Research) said of it:
quote:
"...on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability."


RE: Military?
By arazok on 12/22/2008 4:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would add that during the cold war, both the US and USSR detonated thousands of bombs simply to test them. The US detonated 331 atsmopheric tests alone.

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

People have this perception that nukes are some earth ending device. The people in charge of using them have no such illusions, and would not hesitate to use them if they felt it was in their best interests to do so.


RE: Military?
By Marduke on 12/22/2008 4:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
But those tests were mostly smaller than what is in the arsenal, and scattered over 18 years. Imagine the difference with hundreds of times that many happening over a period of 18 minutes!!


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 6:04:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'm calling shenanigans.

If a couple of hundred modern warheads were detonated (1 warhead being ~100 megaton),
Whoa, whoa. Modern strategic nuclear weapons are *not* 100 MT devices. That's the size of the largest weapon ever built, the "Tsar Bomba" the Soviets created as a demonstration.

The typical warhead is a boosted-fission device in the 300KT range (i.e. 0.3% of 100MT).

quote:
The billions of Curies of newly formed I-125 and I-131 alone...
Whups again. I-125 isn't a fission daughter. I-131 is...but its quite easy to guard against-- a few iodine pills will generally prevent thyroid cancer, and its not normally a deadly cancer anyway. If you want to sound alarm bells, you should bring up something like strontium or cesium.

As for the level of fallout, several hundred-- or indeed several thousand-- of such devices would not "poison every living thing on the planet". That was indeed the entire point of the nuclear winter scenario -- it was an attempt to convince people that nuclear war was unsurvivable, even though the fallout was manageable.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 6:45:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "I'm not a nuclear engineer, but wasn't Tsar Bomba 1950's tech?"

Yes, but nuclear weapons engineering since then has focused on reducing size, critical mass requirements, increased reliability, and other areas. For technical reasons I won't go into here, yields of 100MT+ are very wasteful. That was the rationale behind the development of MIRVs -- a lot of smaller nukes are much more destructive than one massive one.

Even in the 1950s, we had the capability to build weapons much larger than 100MT. Unlike a fission bomb, there's no theoretical limit on H-bomb yields. There's just no point to making ones that large.

> "So, basically, you're saying that a large scale nuclear war isn't anything to worry about then? "

Surely you can grasp a scenario somewhere between "nothing to worry about" and "everyone on the planet will die". A full-scale exchange with the US and Russian arsenals would kill many tens of millions from fallout alone. But sterilize the entire planet? Not even close.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Mustard gas killed tens of thousands of people in the trences of WWI with only relatively primitive delivery systems like artilery shells and bi-planes. Poison gas killed hundreds of thousands of people in the provicial regions of Iraq when saddam decided to go genocidal on his own people.

What do you think it could do with modern bombers that can carry hundreds of tons of the stuff? What do you think it could do when we have newer compounds like VX gas which is fatal in quantities barely able to cover lincoln's eye on a penny? Put the two together, 10 B-52's drop 400 tons of VX gas over any region and everything for hundreds of miles withers and dies as the most poisonous cloud of gas in history gets blown around by the prevailing winds. The devistation is absolutely comparable to that of a nuclear detonation.


RE: Military?
By Dark Legion on 12/22/2008 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely India and Pakistan. There's a much bigger conflict between them than most people think.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What on earth makes you think that there is going to be a major (WWII scale) war within the next 25 years? You do realize that this isn't 1955 don't you?


Has it ever occured to you that American miliatry superiority is the reason there has been no major conflicts since 1955? This last half century of peace is the exception to the rule. Things like the atom/hydrogen bomb, ICBM's, and nuclear powered supercarriers are what keep the peace. They are there so you don't have to use them. Take them away and the fighting will start again.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
And I never once advocated dismantling our nuclear arsenal, for the very reason you described.

I am arguing that there will never be another ground war even 1/10 the scale of WWII, and it would be prudent of the US to reflect that sentiment in its military budget.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:26:54 PM , Rating: 3
You cannot cut military spending by 70% as you are advocating without large reductions in military hardware. A nuclear arsenal is useless without proper delivery systems. Things like 2 Billion dollar stealth bombers, 3 billion dollar ballistic missle submarines, and 4 billion dollar aircraft carriers are essential to the viablity of our nuclear deterrent.

If we simply mothball our current hardware and reduce man power then the entire system will fall into disarray like what happened to the soviet military after the USSR colapsed, most of their arsenal is rusting away and even if it were functional it is all obsolete.

To maintain our super-power status it will cost a lot of money. As a percentage of GDP the US really doesn't spend that much more than many european countries its just that our economy is so much larger that it allows us more freedom to maintian a much larger more technologically advanced military.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:35:37 PM , Rating: 1
Let there be DRASTIC reductions in hardware then. If there is not an unnecessarily large ground force, you won't need too many tanks, APC's, bullets, armor, (payroll, hazard pay, insurance, medical care...)

By all means, keep spending the money to keep our nuclear arsenal fully functioning and up to date (including bombers, ICBM's, research facilities, Hangars, Silo's, etc.)

As is, the US military is a inefficiently ran money pit, and most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?


The only reason such tactics are effective is because we tie the hands of the men driving the tanks with rules of engagement that said 12 year old does not abide by.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
So....... you're saying that wars (or "conflicts") are fought much differently than they used to be? You're saying that traditional hardware and tactics aren't that useful in a modern battlefield?


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
you're saying that wars (or "conflicts") are fought much differently than they used to be?


60 years ago we went into a war to kill as many people on the other side as possible and break their will to fight and it was over when they surrenderd. Now we go into a war and try to kill as few people as possible so we don't make them mad at us. That is a job for a police force, a military is there to break things and kill people not patrol the streets of major cities waiting to get shot at so they can respond.

quote:
You're saying that traditional hardware and tactics aren't that useful in a modern battlefield?


I'm saying that traditional tactics with modern hardware would be far more effective than what we are doing now.


RE: Military?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2008 11:57:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
60 years ago we went into a war to kill as many people on the other side as possible and break their will to fight and it was over when they surrenderd. Now we go into a war and try to kill as few people as possible so we don't make them mad at us. That is a job for a police force, a military is there to break things and kill people not patrol the streets of major cities waiting to get shot at so they can respond.


Yes the " Total War " doctrine. But sadly that doesn't apply in Iraq because..

1. We're not fighting a uniformed army with clear logistical assets and supply lines.

2. Terrorist live among civilians purposely as human shields to discourage counter attack.

quote:
I'm saying that traditional tactics with modern hardware would be far more effective than what we are doing now.


Like what ? Carpet bombing cities ?

The surge worked. The fighting is over. When is the last time there was even a major battle fought in Iraq ? We're pretty much down to a moping up / police action.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2008 10:44:02 AM , Rating: 3
What has been done over there is a half-ass, I'm not saying the troops haven't done a good job, what I'm saying is that the entire thing is being ran by a bunch of politicians. If we're going to go to war then fine, go to war, but spending 5+ years over there dinking around trying not to cause any damage is just stupid.


RE: Military?
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 3:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
You misunderstand. When we first came here, we did go to war. We mowed right through Iraq's military in record time. Shock and awe, all that.

The error was in the foolish management of affairs after that. Rumsfeld was an idiot, and disbanded the Iraqi Army, sending tens of thousands of trained fighters home with no job. Then, along come the terrorists with money, and we've got us an insurgency. However, since we were trying to rebuild the country so we could leave, we didn't want to blow it up, or needlessly kill people, as that would have just fueled the insurgency and further hampered our efforts to leave.

Since Dumbsfeld was forced to resign, things have actually been run with some sort of thought and intelligence, and now the insurgency is pretty much over.

The only pockets of fighting left are mostly Al Qaeda types. Actual Iraqis are tired of the bloodshed and just want to live in peace and prosperity for the most part.


RE: Military?
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 1:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?
Wow, thats the most ignorant statement I've seen in a while. What good are tanks? Do you think shaped charges weren't around in WW2? Tanks may not be much help in jungle warfare, but they rule in the desert. Do you think it was an accident that we destroyed the entire Iraq Army, while US soldiers were safer doing it than if they had been back home in Chicago?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:03:16 PM , Rating: 1
Excellent. Our Tank Calvary saved the day and won the war!!!

This is truly good news! When did this happen? All of our soldiers are going to be home any minute now eh?

Silly me, all of this time I was thinking that they were engaged in unconventional warfare and function predominately as a security force.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you should read up on the war with an unbiased eye. Separate the actual war from your security/police action. The forces, requirements, and goals are not very similar.

I'm guessing you never served.

Oh, and what do tanks have to do with religiously significant hills anyway? For the slow student.. Calvary was a hill. Cavalry is a fast moving, hard hitting military force.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:49:05 PM , Rating: 3
The operation(s) in Iraq were a tremendous military success. Nobody is going to argue that. The US has the most potent military and is the fiercest fighting force the world has ever known.

Policing a newly conquered nation, on the other hand, has proven to be quite difficult, yes?


RE: Military?
By rcc on 1/19/2009 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
We may have problems with semantics here.

We'll call it liberated, not conquered. And despite the conspiracy theorists, the US has no desire to be there any longer than necessary. Necessary is of course a variable target. It varies from yesterday to once they are stable.

However, that was my point. The military action is very different than the police action.


RE: Military?
By rhodydog on 12/22/2008 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
"As is, the US military is a inefficiently ran money pit, and most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?"

Your paragraph about a 12 year boy taking out a 2 billion dollar tank made my day. You've convinced me, cut the military budget by 70% and hand 30% of the savings to NASA. Although anecdotal, I've worked on one military related project and it was indeed a waste of money, nothing came of it.


RE: Military?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2008 2:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As is, the US military is a inefficiently ran money pit, and most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?


Was that a serious question ?

The Abrams main battle tank was designed to combat Russian MBT's back in the cold war. It is not a gorilla warfare vehicle. This does not mean, however, that its outlived its usefulness.

Its been said time and time again that this is a new kind or war and we ARE adapting to it. Things don't happen overnight.


RE: Military?
By Dark Legion on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Military?
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 4:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
We need a gorilla warfare vehicle badly...without one there's a chance those damn dirty apes might take over!


RE: Military?
By Dark Legion on 12/22/2008 3:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
Or by Iron Man ;)


RE: Military?
By Noliving on 12/23/2008 5:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the point of building a $200 bomb if I can take him out with my bare hands or take him it with a knife or an axe or a bow and arrow?


RE: Military?
By Yaron on 12/25/2008 5:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
sgw2n5,

I'm sorry man, but it is clear to me as an ex-infantry soldier that you know nothing about war and armed conflict.
Really, I am not patronizing here - it's the truth.

The only thing that holds territory are boots on the ground. And I mean BOOTS. And boots need tanks, attack gunships, jets and ships. And you need to control territory in order to win. It will never change - EVER.
Even if technology advances and combat platforms change.

You cannot win ANY kind of war without conventional forces and plenty of them.

The irony of what you are saying is that if the only viable military solution you have is nuclear weapons, than the result you will have is certain nuclear war, and this is game over.

Nevertheless, I can attest personally, that what you say about military spending is true. Too often, it is unchecked, disgracefully wasteful, stupid and short sighted. We do need to - ALWAYS - check, double check and balance our military spending and reform what needs to be reformed.

Furthermore, militaries and generals throughout history make the same old mistake: they prepare themselves and their armies to the PREVIOUS war, not the next one. When they don't do this mistake, you have amazing victories such as the one won by the US in the first Gulf War, or the one won by Israel in the Six day war. If this is what you are trying to say, than you are spot on. We must adapt.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
If you take away our ability to response "in kind" or "appropriately", you limit us to the nuclear option.

Which is a bit like spanking the baby with an axe, isn't it?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 1
Who said anything about taking away our capability?

Scaling down our capability to an appropriate yet affordable level would be much more sense don't you think?


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 3
You did. You wanted to cut 70%, but leave the nukes intact. That pretty much guts the conventional forces, don't you think?

Even without the war(s)/actions in progres our conventional forces are not excessive. With them our forces are stretched very thin. Go down to your local military base and talk to the families about current deployment schedules.


RE: Military?
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 3:03:01 PM , Rating: 4
Our spending on the military, relative to the size of our economy, is actually close to the lowest it's been since WWII. (The chart only goes to 1962, but spending in 1945-1962 was actually higher than what's on the chart.)

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetCh...


RE: Military?
By tastyratz on 12/24/2008 9:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I believe we should cut our military spending but far less drastically than 70%. While it is lower on average right now we also have other needs as a country to tend to.

Right now the actual fiscal budget for 2007 military spending was 19.4% of the total. I have a chart too:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_about_b...

It is my belief that we could reduce that by just a few percent and reallocate some of that money to areas where we need it during the recession. We need to take care of our own right now much more so than we need it in the military. Don't kill the military but you have to admit we could certainly trim some fat.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:06:20 PM , Rating: 3
So, what in your mind does 1955 have to do with WWII scale wars?

As for the rest of your rant.... in my opinion you are out of your frikkin' tree.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
context. Learn it, live it, love it.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 3
Accuracy, learn it, live it, love it. It'll rock your world.

WWII ended in 1945. You are out of context.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely correct, WWII ended in 1945, good for you, you obviously attended a middle school at some point.

When referring to context, I meant the prevailing societal fear people held in the 50's, that people were generally uneasy to scared shitless of a possible full scale ware with the USSR. People expected a full scale war to happen at some point.

That type of thinking isn't the norm anymore, and we are unlikely to see any conflict near the enormity of WWII. All I'm saying is that our military budget should reflect this, especially when that money could be better spent elsewhere.


RE: Military?
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 3:07:16 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry to repost, but I'm going down the posts and realized this is more relevant here. The size of our military budget *does* reflect the end of the cold war. It's come down 50% since before the Berlin Wall fell, and is less than half what it was in the '50s and '60s.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetCh...


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 3:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The size of our military budget *does* reflect the end of the cold war. It's come down 50% since before the Berlin Wall fell, and is less than half what it was in the '50s and '60s.


What he said, more or less.


RE: Military?
By Expunge on 12/22/2008 3:08:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
by sgw2n5 on December 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Military funding is ridiculously excessive. The US spends more on its military than every other nation in the world combined. We should not be expected to be the world's police force, and it is bankrupting us. We should cut our military by 70%, re-distribute 40% of the savings into WPA like programs, and the other 30% to NASA.


Seriously.. where the hell do you come up with this crap? Is this taught to you, or is it some wild ass guess of yours? Because either way you or the people who you hear spouting this crap are IDIOTS.

First our miltary budget while a significant portion of our total budget is not bankrupting us. Medicare and Social Security is what is bankrupting the U.S., along with the inept socialistic Democratic congress.

Cut the budget of the military by 70%.. you are either a child or tree hugger. Because even the peace nics know that is a receipe for disaster. The world is dangerous, now more than ever with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And you want to cut funding to the military???

NASA funding is about 1/2 of 1 percent of the total US budget.(17.8B out of a 2.9T budget) While social security, medicare, medicaid, and other mandatory programs total
1.78 TRILLION

Linkage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal...

$608 billion - Social Security
$386 billion - Medicare
$209 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion - Interest on National Debt

-------------------------------------

$481.4 billion - Department of Defense

Seriously dude, move out of podunkville and get a real education on world events and policies.

If the government needs to do anything it needs to reign in the mandatory programs and start paying down our debt. 261B buys a whole lot of programs, but instead it is going to pay interest on 10+ tril of debt!

P.S. I normally dont use Wiki as a stat source, but I don't have time to really dig for some good links


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
So because I am in favor of cutting the Military budget, you automatically assume that I would NOT be in favor of heavily gutting wasteful entitlement programs?

Damn fine logic sir. Damn fine.

quote:
Cut the budget of the military by 70%.. you are either a child or tree hugger. Because even the peace nics know that is a receipe for disaster. The world is dangerous, now more than ever with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And you want to cut funding to the military???

Ah yes, everyone is out to get us. I forgot that all of those evil countries keep trying to invade us, what, like every other year or so? What the hell was I thinking, going on about having a bloated military and whatnot.


RE: Military?
By Spuke on 12/22/2008 5:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the hell was I thinking, going on about having a bloated military and whatnot.
Reason number 637,593,296 why debates are useless and idiotic. No one EVER changes their mind because of something said in a debate. The only thing that gets accomplished is a rise in blood pressure and a reinforcement of whatever "beliefs" you had before the debate. Why bother.


RE: Military?
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Depends if some one is honest and open minded or too stupid and prideful to change their mind. I guess that guy thinks the rest of the world plays nice and we are the only ones with a military?


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By whiskerwill on 12/22/2008 11:39:27 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, so many wrong statements, where to begin? Let's start with social security. If by "solvent" you mean fully-funded, its not even close. Our commitments to SS (the amount we've promised to pay) are trillions of dollars more than expected payments will be over the next 30 years. SS only works because (so far) the population and economy expanded faster than benefits. But the baby boomers are going to break the program. Either we cut benefits or we raise taxes. No other options.

Now, on to Medicare and Medicaid. Yeah, they have Copays. Do you think that means no one else pays the rest? My grandmother buys a drug thats $600/month. She pays $30. Who you think pays the rest, smart guy?

quote:
if we're gonna spend so much funking money in the government, let's at least spend it on AMERICANS.
I'd rather spend my tax dollars paying AMERICAN scientists, engineers, soldiers, and intelligence analysts to protect us and develop new technology than I would paying lazy American bums to not work.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2008 5:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/25/2008 2:00:32 AM , Rating: 1
It would be impossible to "fully-fund" a program with no end or horizon date. It would require infinite dollars. So let's be honest. SS would only start pulling on the bonds that are in its accounts in 2019...it has been solvent for over 60 years. And here's a solution to your problem---IMMIGRATION.

"I'd rather spend my tax dollars paying AMERICAN scientists, engineers, soldiers, and intelligence analysts to protect us and develop new technology"

How are they protecting us when grants go to Tulsa, OK over NYC? I mean, read the freaking news (except that obviously has a liberal bias---good thing I'm no liberal) the government is drowning in defense budget handouts. My dad was paid for three years to plan out housing structures in Iraq that were never built---he never developed new tech. He only did that when he worked for a not for profit.

"paying lazy American bums to not work."

Better than paying lazy Iraqi bums not to drill the joints of their sectarian enemies though

I mean honestly, you think there is more bang for the buck in DEFENSE contracting (the most NOTORIOUSLY wasteful welfare program in the world, ask anyone who has worked in an aquisition program)?


RE: Military?
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 4:55:31 AM , Rating: 4
psst...SS would be fully solvent with no apparent end in sight if the pols didn't take (steal) from the SS trust fund and use it in the general budget. But they just can't stand seeing that money sitting there when it could be spent buying favors and pork.


RE: Military?
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 4:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
Where did a good chunk of that $10T of debt come from?


RE: Military?
By Cincybeck on 12/25/2008 1:24:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We should cut our military by 70%, re-distribute 40% of the savings into WPA like programs, and the other 30% to NASA.


So you're telling me you want to cut 70% of military personnel, add them to the already substantial amount of jobless. Then provide 40% of that to a program that was closed down by Congress in 1943? Sounds great.

I'm no economics experts, but the reason the WPA was closed by congress was that WWII provided enough jobs where the WPA was no longer needed. We've been at war for the past 7 years and the economy just keeps getting worse, with more jobs lost every day.

The way I see it, it's been getting worse ever since 2001 when China was accepted to the WTO, In big part to Bill Clinton push to getting China accepted.

"The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs."

oh and

"Since China entered the WTO in 2001, job losses increased to an average of 353,000 per year—more than the total employment in greater Akron, Ohio."

I could copy and paste the whole article. Why don't you just read it for yourself.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp188


RE: Military?
By Azzr34l on 12/22/2008 4:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
I beg to differ on your Germany analysis. Nazi Germany was entirely controlled by one person; Hitler was a man driven by hate, greed and presumptuous false entitlement. He may have been a rather adept orator and able to swing manufacturing and Germany's economy into apparent positive growth (which was not truly the case, the economic bubble he built was not sustainable and had very negative forecasts), but his personal state of mind was his undoing.

Megalomaniacal dictator = stupid State decisions.


RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 5:35:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nazi Germany was entirely controlled by one person;
Not at all. Hitler's power base, through the 1930s and early 40s, at least, was extraordinarily broad and deep; he was a populist candidate, with widespread support among the people, especially the lower classes.

Gleichschaltung was certainly a factor, but blaming Pan-Germanic sentiment and the entire Third Reich all on one person is sadly mistaken.


RE: Military?
By michael67 on 12/23/2008 1:16:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Germany was definitely not a stupid country, yet it attacked all its own trading partners, and began wars that decimated its economy and infrastructure beyond belief.


Hi Michael, i would say read up on your history

Both WO-I and II had there seed in economics

WO-I: Germany had a economy that they wanted to expand as they ware doing very well, Britannia as a sea trading nation had most of the trading partners and dint wane share them whit Germany
So Germany started more aggressive trading, and so this friction between UK and Germany gave rise to the beginning of WO-I

WO-II: the surrender treaty Germany had to sing, desavating Germany's economics, and layed the seed for extreme solution as "National socialism" a extreme cross between communism and capitalism.

imho is "National socialisme" one of the best economic systems there is (of course without the racist and aggressive parts), only also very dangerous as it need strict rules and also there is a big danger of corruption.
So i don't know if humanity can be trusted again whit a system like that, but fact is no-ware in history has a country risen from total bankruptcy to almost ruling the hole world

China has a system that now a days look the most of Germany's "National socialisme" and as you can see China is doing well on the world marked, so a state organized economic can for shore work descent, to bad only for the chinese they don't have nicer leaders


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 11:50:43 AM , Rating: 5
I hate to tell you but when "the entire world" goes after some country the break down of who is there doing something is often like this:

US: 200,000 troops on the ground + air superiority + maintaining resupply lines via ocean with massive naval presence + Funding the whole damn thing.

UK: 10,000 troops on the ground + a couple destroyers

Germany: 5000 troops on the ground

France: 2000 troops on the ground

Austrailia: 150 troops passing out MRE's to refugees

New York: 500 journalists trying to sway public opinion against the efforts of their own countrymen fighting a war.


RE: Military?
By Spivonious on 12/22/2008 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Veteran?


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
navy brat


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
That is indeed the breakdown for "conflicts" the US champions, if not outright sires. Try not to think about a real war in GWB coalition of the willing terms.

So your telling me that if Germany (once again) got a wild hair up its collective ass and decided to invade France (who will no doubt promptly and courteously surrender), that every capable country in the world wouldn't assist in a retaliatory effort against the aggressor country?


RE: Military?
By Marduke on 12/22/2008 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 5
Well, just recently Russia got a wild hair up their ass and invaded Georgia, and every capable country in the world promptly and courteously surrendered.


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Military?
By whiskerwill on 12/22/2008 11:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and after Georgia you'll say Ukraine just asked for it, and then Latvia, then Poland, and then Russia is right back running a Soviet empire again.

Smart. Real smart.


RE: Military?
By Bubbacub on 12/24/2008 12:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
but seriously, if you look at the post 1991 agreements that georgia pissed all over so it could push people of russian origin out of south ossetia you will agree that it was pretty outrageous.

the russian move was fairly similar to the protection that we offered to kosovans in 1999 (thought the serbs were being far nastier SOB's than the georgians in this case).

this is why we shouldn't be offering NATO or EU membership to crackpot quasi-democracies - they will just cause trouble. Give them 50 years to figure out if they want democracy or a dictatorship then we will know how to deal with them


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/25/2008 1:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
You have to be on crack. If you think Georgia-Russia is black and white, well, you need to learn a thing or two about the world...

Why should my tax dollars go to propping up authoritarian states? It is EXACTLY this that got us Al Queda and the mullahs in Iran


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sure every country may "assist in a retalitory effort" but the side that wins will be the side we choose... we should keep it that way.


RE: Military?
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 3:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
We had to beg and plead with our NATO allies to get them to do something about the genocide in Bosnia, and that was right in their backyard.


RE: Military?
By Yaron on 12/25/2008 5:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
:) LOL, so true...


RE: Military?
By DrKlahn on 12/23/2008 1:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If China attacks one of our allies, their economy disappears. China is definitely not a stupid country.


How so? Walk into any store in the U.S. and imagine the shelves without anything made in China. Also look closely on who we owe money to. The U.S. continues to let it's manufacturing evaporate as it becomes more of a consumer nation. Cutting off Chinese trade would be a disaster and isn't really feasible for the U.S. So my opinion is that China could invade Taiwan and has themselves in a position where the U.S. could do little more than make diplomatic noises.

quote:
If Iran attacks one of our allies, the entire world would be on them so fast, it wouldn't matter how big our army was.


Look no further than Israels recent conflicts. The Western media offered little support and open condemnation of Israel. Iran is smart enough to play the media and I think incoming U.S. President would try diplomacy far to long while Iran did it's best to wipe Israel out (their stated goal on many occasions). The bitterness Americans have towards the current conflict in the Middle East would almost insure our inaction. It's sad to think Israel would not be able to count on the U.S., but I really have no faith that we would back them with more than words.


RE: Military?
By phxfreddy on 12/22/2008 4:22:49 PM , Rating: 4
Typical democrats. Talk a big story on everything. Then when in office cut everything related to development of a better future. Support union thugs / wall street cronies / welfare recipients.


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Military?
By vladio on 12/23/2008 11:19:51 AM , Rating: 1
How about..smart NASA engineers MUST help GM and Ford engineers to make smarter American cars, ...and only after that we can talk about Moon, Mars and All else?!


RE: Military?
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:07:48 PM , Rating: 4
How about they already are. Where do you think those fancy hybrid car batteries came from? Fuel cells? Lighter materials allowing lower weight and better fuel efficiency? The LIDAR sensors that can allow a car to be autonomous (drive itself)? The software programs used to design the car itself?


RE: Military?
By Major HooHaa on 12/30/2008 9:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
When the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, then they found it had a flaw in its main mirror and so its pictures were blurred and unfocused. They sorted that during a repair mission. As we approach the 4th servicing\upgrading mission for Hubble, I would like to ask the question...

"Could any of those servicing missions have been carried out by astronauts, using a rocket as transport?"


No love for NASA these days
By Bateluer on 12/22/2008 10:26:39 AM , Rating: 5
Sad too, when the space program should be at the top of our budgetary priorities after defense.




RE: No love for NASA these days
By d33pblue on 12/22/2008 10:31:25 AM , Rating: 4
I'll probably get flamed for it here, but I believe that reviving the economy, improving education, and improving the public health system should be a higher priority than our Space Program.

In terms of benefit per dollar, I think that our money is better spent on other things right now. I'm not saying dont fund NASA at all, but while the rest of the country is taking a pay cut in some way or another, I dont think they should be immune.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By whirabomber on 12/22/2008 10:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well a boon for Obama would to gamble on the Ares actually being on time and working plus having some space object that is media bait to send the first mission. Politicians love shiny media bait when there are bad things on going.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By MatthiasF on 12/22/2008 10:41:34 AM , Rating: 5
Government should do what we as individuals cannot.

We can improve our children's education and provide ourselves health care. There is no reason for the government to waste money on something that's our responsibility and within our control.

Spending massive amounts of money on public projects to revive the economy can include NASA as it did in the 1950s and 60s. It shouldn't take a back seat.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By cscpianoman on 12/22/2008 11:32:37 AM , Rating: 5
Couldn't agree more. If Obama is trying to create jobs, why not expand NASA so they can hire more? Sure it benefits two states, Texas and Florida, but doesn't his energy ideas benefit some states more than others? It seems silly to me to cut a program that is such a prominent object in other country's minds.

You can almost use NASA as a belweather of what is happening in the economy/politics. If the economy is good NASA does great with new funding and cool projects, if the economy goes sour they are one of the first to get axed.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Chadder007 on 12/22/2008 11:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing.
Using decades old rockets won't put anyone back to work building anything. If they go with the plan for making new ones that puts some people back to work at least creating all of the parts and labor that go into building them.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By theapparition on 12/22/2008 12:37:05 PM , Rating: 4
It benefits a lot more than two states. I'd wager that over 20 states have some part, component, or services required to support the current shuttle program.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Marduke on 12/22/2008 12:39:48 PM , Rating: 3
It's actually all 50 states.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2008 1:42:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It seems silly to me to cut a program that is such a prominent object in other country's minds.


Thats because you don't understand that the Shuttle represents everything Obama hates about America.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
April 2009: As the end of the Ares program was formally announced, Michelle Obama said it was "the second time she's ever been proud of her country".


RE: No love for NASA these days
By deeznuts on 12/22/2008 1:49:53 PM , Rating: 5
Its not that Obama hates it, its just that for every dollar spent on NASA, is one less dollar Obama can spend on his pet welfare projects.

He plans to spend spend spend and then worry about the budget later ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/20/ob...


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Mav77 on 12/22/2008 3:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Obama has a Space Fact Sheet online.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_S...

It talks about plans to speed up delivery of the Shuttle's successor. This doesn't sound like cancelling the program to me.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By whiskerwill on 12/22/2008 3:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This doesn't sound like cancelling the program to me.

It does if his plan to "speed up delivery" is simply to use ancient military rockets in place of developing Ares.

But we'll just have to wait and see. I doubt anything concrete is planned. Obama's gonna float the balloon out for a public opinion check first, I'm sure.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Ringold on 12/22/2008 3:46:04 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a secret I'm going to let you in on. Politicians.. change positions! Sometimes by the hour.

He completely flip-flopped on trade. He has shifted away from the hard left on taxes. The "windfall profit" tax idea no longer appears on his tax plan pdf, despite being touted on the stump. By election day, his plans for Iraq looked remarkably similar to McCains own plans for Iraq.

NASA policy may not be the first time Obama has promised one thing and done another. 4 years to go, I'd settle in and get used to it. It's already become a game with me, trying to figure out what the real Barack Obama really wants/plans to do.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 11:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hard to tax windfall profits without the oil prices needed for windfall profits.

And how is it similar. I mean, yeah I guess, if 2010 and 2013 were the same year.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2008 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
The "windfall profits" thing was retarded anyway. Anyone that believed that by increasing operating expenses for a corportation it would lower the market price of their products was an idiot.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Yawgm0th on 12/22/2008 12:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
We can engage in space exploration, too. Private companies and and individuals have proven they can do this. Adequately providing health care and education for all Americans has been clearly proven as something that private citizens and corporations cannot sufficiently do or at least will not. The level of education in this country (and in other countries today) was criminally low prior to compulsory, government run schools. The health care system prior to heavy government intervention and regulation was similarly inadequate.

Despite that, I do think NASA is important and is a valuable use of government funds. I really think cutting NASA funding should be a last resort for the Obama administration, but if it comes down to it, revitalizing the economy and our education system are more important.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Ringold on 12/22/2008 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Adequately providing health care and education for all Americans has been clearly proven as something that private citizens and corporations cannot sufficiently do or at least will not. The level of education in this country (and in other countries today) was criminally low prior to compulsory, government run schools.


How much emphasis do you place on "government run?" If its much emphasis at all, like most American liberals, you're 20-40 years behind the times in what other countries have learned and attempted to build upon. In education, some US states and many other countries have accepted that privately owned charter schools can often do a better job for less money than government schools, or at the very least can provide competition that can improve outcomes for everybody. (Virtually everybody but us has figured out more spending is not the main solution to any education problem) As for health care, I for one still think the Swiss model would be optimal. The government can successfully create frameworks within which private markets can work, but run things, like you said in your post? Ha.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 10:52:51 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm not saying dont fund NASA at all, but while the rest of the country is taking a pay cut in some way or another, I dont think they should be immune.
Basically what is happening here is the equivalent of to you and the rest of America losing your job, it is not taking a paycut. Stopping the Aries program will be the end of NASA, and would not merely be the small 'pay cut' you are trying to make it out to be.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 10:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
I should have said I do agree with your post, but in no way or form do I think this should be taken out on NASA in such a way. Perhaps the government should have thought of the peoples healthcare and education before they went to war in Iraq, and spent hundreds if not thousands more money yearly than the entire NASA budget.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By PhoenixKnight on 12/22/2008 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Perhaps the government should have thought of the peoples healthcare and education before they went to war in Iraq, and spent hundreds if not thousands more money bi-monthly than the entire NASA budget.


There. Fixed it for you.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 5
And we spend more monthly on Social Security and welfare than we do all year on the Iraq War. Does that mean we should cancel social security?


RE: No love for NASA these days
By bobsmith1492 on 12/22/2008 1:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
Indeed so... ;)


RE: No love for NASA these days
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 2:36:55 PM , Rating: 3
Mandatory spending != Discretionary spending

My point here is the Annual budget for NASA is 17 billion.
SS and welfare spending aside, The US's War on Terror costs its taxpayers 8.5 times more yearly than all of NASA's budget.

For the entire 2008 Discretionary spending budget of 1114 billion (or 1.1 trillion dollars), 56% of spending accounted for the Department of Defense, and The Global War on Terror. Education and Health and Human services came in third and fourth with a mere 5% of the budget each.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you can put it in a different bucket does not negate the cost.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 2:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't change the fact that we spend far more on Social Security, Medicare, and Education then we do on the DOD and NASA.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Ringold on 12/22/2008 3:55:11 PM , Rating: 3
Mandatory? Will the hand of god reach out of the sky and smite the nation if we cut back on some SSI benefits? Tweak a little welfare?

"Mandatory" belies a frame of mind more than any reality. Nothing any of us do is truly mandatory.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 10:55:38 AM , Rating: 5
Throwing money at the public school system and subsidizing health care are not going to help push the boundaries of science without which neither would be possible. The technologies NASA will need to develop in order to establish a permanent base on the moon and later mars will have applications and benifits that go beyond putting a few foot prints on distant rocks in space and very likely will improve the standard of living for all people for generations to come.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By samoya22 on 12/22/2008 11:23:35 AM , Rating: 1
How?


RE: No love for NASA these days
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 11:43:29 AM , Rating: 5
Just look at history:

GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - Computer-based scheduling system that uses artificial intelligence to manage thousands of overlapping activities involved in launch preparations of NASA's Space Shuttles. The NASA technology was licensed to a new company which developed commercial applications that provide real-time planning and optimization of manufacturing operations, integrated supply chains, and customer orders.uu

ENRICHED BABY FOOD - A microalgae-based, vegetable-like oil called Formulaid developed from NASA-sponsored research on long duration space travel, contains two essential fatty acids found in human milk but not in most baby formulas, believed to be important for infants' mental and visual development.

WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM - NASA-developed municipal-size water treatment system for developing nations, called the Regenerable Biocide Delivery Unit, uses iodine rather than chlorine to kill bacteria.

SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots.

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

FIREMAN'S AIR TANKS - Lighter-weight firefighter's air tanks have been developed. New back-pack system weighs only 20 lbs. for 30 minute air supply, 13 lbs. less than conventional firefighting tanks. They are pressurized at 4,500 psia (twice current tanks). A warning device tells the fireman when he or she is running out of air.

STUDLESS WINTER TIRES - Viking Lander parachute shroud material is adapted and used to manufacture radial tires, increasing the tire material's chainlike molecular structure to five times the strength of steel should increase tread life by 10,000 miles.

many more can be found here:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:49:02 AM , Rating: 5
Beat me to it. The lack of understanding how much NASA has done, and continues to do in the modern world astounds me.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By kyp275 on 12/22/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 4
the sad fact is that lack of understanding seems to be rather prevalent throughout the general public


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing I think people often miss is that NASA is a magnet for our best and brightest. Welfare and public education caters to the middle and bottom of our social classes. NASA acts as a beacon and inspiration to the top. A *lot* of people I know decided to work in science or engineering fields because of things they've seen NASA do.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By phaxmohdem on 12/22/2008 1:15:58 PM , Rating: 1
But can they play Crysis?


RE: No love for NASA these days
By rudolphna on 12/22/2008 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Screw you, and screw crysis. I think everyone is tired of hearing about 'can it play crysis?' Ugh.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By phaxmohdem on 12/22/2008 1:36:59 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, such hostility. Everyone has to get a little troll out of their system from time to time. I apologize for the use of a tired meme. But seriously. Screw you too ;)


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Ringold on 12/22/2008 4:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm slightly biased, but your post is the "iWin" post of this entire discussion.

Of equal interest to me is a more recent case, Bigelow Aerospace. Their inflatable space station modules? Technology abandoned by NASA. So while NASA could be pioneering new frontiers, Louis and Clark style, or Captain Cook style, etc, NASA would be leaving behind it a string of technology, experienced personnel who could switch to the private sector and operational knowledge that the private sector can then take and make profitable. That sort of activity will have much more long term benefit then probably 90% of whatever this trillion dollar "stimulus" will end up being.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By MrPoletski on 12/22/2008 11:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it is a shame, but a neccessary one.

One wonders if cuts can be made elsewhere rather than to ares though because it's kind of important to NASA.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By Sunrise089 on 12/22/2008 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 4
The President can do very little to revive the economy. At best, various "stimulus" plans and bailouts are a transfer from either one segment of the population to another or a transfer (or a tax) from future generations to the present one.

The President can do very little to improve education. Most education funding and control comes from local sources. Bush's No Child Left Behind program was an attempt to increase the federal role in education and was widely criticized by those who think education is an important policy issue. Furthermore the connection between funding and education performance globally is suspect.

The President can do little to improve the public health system. He can however do a great deal to make it much worse.

One thing the President can do however is fund space research...and in fact for long-term projects with minimal market demand but great positive externalities the government may not even do a particularly poor job. I'd rather them spend $$$ on NASA and do a fair job than further erode fiscal responsibility, throw money at a broken education system, or socialize medicine.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By hduser on 12/22/2008 12:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
If Ares is to fly next summer, it's really too far along to put the brakes on. Not only do you lose all the money already invested, it'd be a giant step backwards to try to save a few bucks. While I know there are more pressing matters in the country, they should let Ares fly.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By BZDTemp on 12/22/2008 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 3
If you think about it the effort to make new stuff for NASA could be used as a tool to boost education, public health and so on.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By randomly on 12/22/2008 1:11:01 PM , Rating: 5
I think the article title is extremely misleading. It is not a statement of fact but very poorly supported speculation.

There is no clear evidence yet that Obama is planning to scrape shuttle replacement, nor use EELVs to replace ARES, nor go with DIRECT, or extend the shuttle lifespan, or any other option.

Stating that 'Obama is planning to scrap the shuttle replacement' is irresponsible journalism. Please provide some concrete evidence that this decision has been made.

The story is merely speculation based off the questionnaire sent to NASA by Obama's transition team some time ago. They asked many question, like how much would an extra 2 Billion accelerate ARES development, what would the cost be to cancel ARES, and everything in between. The transition team is searching for information on all the possible options so they will eventually be able to make well informed decisions on the future of NASA.

It's much too early in the discovery process for any decisions to have been made. Unfortunately reporters need stories and they often can't wait for real information to come out.

BTW Lori Garver has stated that she does NOT want the NASA administrator job.


RE: No love for NASA these days
By goz314 on 12/22/2008 1:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, a reality check has been brought to this discussion. I definitely agree that the title and general intent of this article is premature at best and misleading at worst. Most people who actually read newspapers these days know that there have been no decisions made whatsoever that would imply that the Constellation program is going to be cancelled by the incomming Congress or administration. Saying that the sky is falling before anything happens is just paranoia.

Even so, I somehow doubt the author is paranoid about this issue. Rather he is just taking the opportunity to stir the pot.


By Cobra Commander on 12/22/2008 3:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
What's sad about it - the shuttle project has been a total cluster**** from its inception. Learn up on it because it's been a crock.


Hmmm...
By DEVGRU on 12/22/2008 10:30:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Lori Garver, a space policy advisor for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, was selected by Obama to lead the NASA review transition team. Despite being criticized for her lack of an engineering or scientific background, Garver has been called a favorite to be the next NASA Administrator.


Gee, someone completely unqualified, with no experience for the position is instead appointed to said position - just like the president-elect. I weep for the future.




RE: Hmmm...
By neihrick1 on 12/22/2008 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
ya, i cant believe people didn't see it coming. i feel sick


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm...
By greenchasch on 12/22/2008 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It is better than having another warmonger in office
I always find it funny that idiots like this don't realize that Clinton started many more armed conflicts than Bush did, complete with wonderful examples of competence like bombing the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, or an aspirin factory in Sudan.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but can you (also as an idiot yourself) realize that Bush has cost more American lives than Clinton has, in the 8 years as President.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 1:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
How many US military personnel lost their lives in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia & etc. from 92-00, compared to Iraq & Afghanistan from 01-current?


RE: Hmmm...
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 1:42:00 PM , Rating: 3
How many innocent civilians died in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Serbia, from US bombing raids, because Clinton refused to commit ground troops and ordered bomber pilots to fly way too high because he didn't want the political fallout of US troop deaths?


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 1:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Who killed more innocent civilians in their 8 years as President because of them authorizing military action/combat, Clinton or Bush? How long did we bomb Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Serbia, & etc., compared to what is it now 7 years for Afghanistan & 5+ years for Iraq?


RE: Hmmm...
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 2:13:49 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, I guess you don't realize Clinton left troops in Bosnia for almost ten years. Bush brought them home after Clinton left office.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 2:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, peacekeeping troops. I worked with someone years ago, who was part of that peacekeeping force, IFOR. But was there any combat operations in Bosnia, any bombing raids, or anything that lasted for years that continued on during those 10 years, compared to what has happened in Afghanistan (7+ years of UN/USA troop deaths, civilian deaths & etc.) & Iraq (5+ years of UN/USA troop deaths, civilian deaths & etc.).


RE: Hmmm...
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 3:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
The fact remains that Clinton ordered many more military actions than Bush did. Just because he "saved American lives" by preventing the military from ever properly fighting any of those conflicts is a strike against him, not for him. It led to tens of thousands of unneccesary civilian deaths and idiocy like our bombing the embassies of friendly nations.

And why bring Afghanistan into it? Did you forget that the Taliban DID attack us and kill several thousand Americans? Are you saying we should have simply ignored that?


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 3:19:25 PM , Rating: 3
Read further down the line.. Here is my post from other comment, to answer part of your question....

Afghanistan was one thing. There was proof real proof/evidence that the terrorists were there. But there was no proof or evidence about Iraq. And Bush said it himself just recently (off the record after the interview was over with), that there was no terrorists in Iraq when we went in. But they are there now. Hmmm.. I wonder why?????


RE: Hmmm...
By whiskerwill on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm...
By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 11:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
Only because he actually declared them openly.

I mean, Bush simply lies or ignores any requests for information. I'm sure we've had operations in Somalia, Eritrea for 2, and many others we'll find out about in around 50 years. Not to mention, NATO or the UN approved most of these actions, giving them the AIR of legitimacy. Iraq? Not at all.

"It led to tens of thousands of unneccesary civilian deaths and idiocy like our bombing the embassies of friendly nations."

China is a friendly nation? I live here, and you better doubt it...neutral trade partner at best

"Did you forget that the Taliban DID attack us and kill several thousand Americans?"

No, no they didn't. AL Queda and the Taliban are not the same thing. Allied, but so were Japan and Germany


RE: Hmmm...
By jimbojimbo on 12/22/2008 4:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why does everybody make it seem like all we did in Iraq was kill civillians? We've SAVED more civillian lives out there than we killed and most of the it's been because of accidents. Does anybody know how many civilians we wound up casevacing to medical facilities because they simply walked up to US troops?

Yes, there are a lot of civillian deaths but those are all due to the sectarian killing that's been going on... going on for hundreds of years mind you.


RE: Hmmm...
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are we counting the suicides, etc from lost jobs/industries from Clinton's policies with China?


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
What about the suicides of military personnel & murder-suicides of their spouses & children, when those soldiers come back from Afghanistan & Iraq, because they phyiscially, mentally, emotionally messed up and do not want to go back? So they see no other way out.


RE: Hmmm...
By rcc on 12/22/2008 3:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
That should already be factored into your body count.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 3:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.. I did not factor them in. Because those were not actual in the field combat related deaths or civilian deaths from combat operations in the area, but were unwarranted senseless deaths after the fact.

Just like the poster I was replying back too, who was taking into account, "Are we counting the suicides, etc from lost jobs/industries from Clinton's policies with China?" More unwarranted senseless deaths. But to me those deaths are more related to the companies who decided to move their manufacturing & etc., to other countries for cheaper labor, less environmental restrictions, & etc., to increase their profits, not because of Clinton's policies.


RE: Hmmm...
By jimbojimbo on 12/22/2008 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 1
This is all media propaganda. There have been just as many suicide attemps before then. If you're listening just to the media hype, you're just a little mouse. Besides, suicide attempts are just that, attempts to call attention to oneself.

Considering the amount of men/women in the Marines I've seen a whole lot more women on suicide watch than men.


RE: Hmmm...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He would have most likely died in office and pass the highest office in the country to his VP pick.

In 4 years when the next election is up and Mccain is still alive and kicking, I will remind you of the stupidity of that remark.

quote:
trying to be the world's police force

If we aren't trying to do it, people scream and cry on the international stage why the USA isn't coming to their aid. Next time there is a major disaster, etc... over seas let's just stay home and tell them to live with it. I'm all for it.

quote:
America and we as Americans are not liked in the majority of the rest the world.

So what? I'm really looking for the major problem here. I know this line is touted all over the place, but realistically the only time international opinion with the USA is positive is when we do whatever they want, and ask for nothing in return.

quote:
That is why many have rejoiced in other countries when we as Americans elected yes a black man

They rejoiced because he has "political wimp" written all over him. It's not a stretch to see that Obama is far more receptive to international influence than Bush was or Mccain is.

As for your last paragraph I agree 100%.


RE: Hmmm...
By neihrick1 on 12/22/2008 12:14:52 PM , Rating: 5
thank you. people calling the iraq war illegitimate and saying we lied about nukes being there. how quick they forget the U.N. inspectors called for access to areas saddam denied them. and then when we have to go in to check when foreign inspectors deemed he may have wmd's, we're the bad guys. and they were also against removing saddam from power who was notorious for having people in dungeons being tortured as well as genocide against border tribes.

all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing


RE: Hmmm...
By greenchasch on 12/22/2008 12:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
they were also against removing saddam from power who was notorious for having people in dungeons being tortured as well as genocide against border tribes.
Don't forget they're still blaming us for not acting against the genocide in Rwanda or not acting fast enough against the genocide in Kosovo.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 2:34:08 PM , Rating: 3
In 4 years when the next election is up and Mccain is still alive and kicking, I will remind you of the stupidity of that remark.

Yes, McCain will probably will live for the next 4 + years since he does not have the stress, pressure, responsibility, the weight of the world on his shoulders & etc., as he would have if he was President for next 4 years.

So what? I'm really looking for the major problem here. I know this line is touted all over the place, but realistically the only time international opinion with the USA is positive is when we do whatever they want, and ask for nothing in return.

To me that is an ignorant & arrogant view. Of not caring or respecting what others think about us. Having that attitude is what has caused the US to be attacked in the first place... Because we did not care on how others viewed the US and not showing respect for others opinions, lives, cultures, & etc.

If we aren't trying to do it, people scream and cry on the international stage why the USA isn't coming to their aid. Next time there is a major disaster, etc... over seas let's just stay home and tell them to live with it. I'm all for it.

Well, we caused that in the first place. If we did not keep on stepping in to solve others' problems, we would not have that issue today. When you have a child, yes that child will cry to get what it wants & etc. But eventually that child has to be taught encouraged to explore, to walk it's own path, to be independent on it's own. To solve problems on it's own, without help.

They rejoiced because he has "political wimp" written all over him. It's not a stretch to see that Obama is far more receptive to international influence than Bush was or Mccain is.

I really do not know how to comment on your "political wimp" comment. But is it better to be known as a mad man, warmonger, civil/liberty rights eroding & wiretapping without cause or evidence on general population in the name of protecting the country & citizens for the greater good. It reminds me of a book I read in HS, was it 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. I can not remember now, that was so long ago.

Afghanistan was one thing. There was proof real proof/evidence that the terrorists were there. But there was no proof or evidence about Iraq. And Bush said it himself just recently (off the record after the interview was over with), that there was no terrorists in Iraq when we went in. But they are there now. Hmmm.. I wonder why?????


RE: Hmmm...
By neihrick1 on 12/22/2008 3:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
ok, say all that bush did never happened. say we never went in to the middle east, with the taliban still in power and al-qaeda still having there bases where they train terrorists. say we never had gone to iraq and removed hussein. say we called 9/11 a whoopsy, what then?

sunshine and rainbows for everyone i suppose.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 3:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.. There will always be conflict. Because humans as a species can not tolerate each other, aspects of each of the religions can not tolerate each other (each believes they are the one true religion, all others are heretics, infidels & etc. so must be converted or killed), personality conflicts since everyone is different from each other, & etc. It is not just all Bush or Clinton. It is everyone, from actions and decisions made many years ago (before either Bush - father & son, Clinton & etc.), that keep on compounding on each other until one thing acts as the catalyst. If you take a piece of metal and bend it back and forth consistently, it will eventually fracture and break. Which action caused it to do that, the forward or backward force or was it the combination of both over time?


RE: Hmmm...
By neihrick1 on 12/22/2008 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
you're calling bush a warmonger though, so what do you suggest. that we pull out, and things will stabilize on their own?

we're damned if we do, and damned if we dont.

i'm fine with that


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 4:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are right. "we're damned if we do, and damned if we dont."

We are committed now, so we can not pull out now and let things be. If we pull out there will be a power vacuum, a power struggle on who will be top dog the Alpha male in the region. Which could lead to future problems for US or the world, possible prophecy (Nuclear War started by a Middle Eastern country).

What I am suggesting is that, there was no reason for us to go into Iraq in the first place. Not like there was for Afghanistan. I admit there was reason, proof, evidence & etc., to go into Afghanistan. But what was there for Iraq? Yes we entered Iraq on the WMD decoy, which we found out later that there was none in Iraq. But the most possible scenario about the WMD is that they were shipped & hidden in another country, Syria or Iran anyone.

Bush commented that there were no terrorists there before we entered into Iraq, but they are there now. They are there because of US & the old Iraqi regime not in power. And if we leave now, they will be one of the power players fighting for control along with Iran, Syria, anyone from the old Iraqi regime/military or tribal faction & etc. So since we committed ourselves to this, we are going to have to stay for the time being until the government can protect itself from internal/external conflicts.

Sometimes don't you kick yourself for a decision you made or doing something or saying something, and then you realize that what you did or said was wrong. Even though you thought that it was the best decision at the time and you thought that you had all available intel (or in some cases not all available intel because it was being withheld by others). I know I have.


RE: Hmmm...
By werepossum on 12/22/2008 6:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by bmheiar on December 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM
SNIP
What I am suggesting is that, there was no reason for us to go into Iraq in the first place. Not like there was for Afghanistan. I admit there was reason, proof, evidence & etc., to go into Afghanistan. But what was there for Iraq? Yes we entered Iraq on the WMD decoy, which we found out later that there was none in Iraq. But the most possible scenario about the WMD is that they were shipped & hidden in another country, Syria or Iran anyone.

Bush commented that there were no terrorists there before we entered into Iraq, but they are there now. They are there because of US & the old Iraqi regime not in power. And if we leave now, they will be one of the power players fighting for control along with Iran, Syria, anyone from the old Iraqi regime/military or tribal faction & etc. So since we committed ourselves to this, we are going to have to stay for the time being until the government can protect itself from internal/external conflicts.

Sometimes don't you kick yourself for a decision you made or doing something or saying something, and then you realize that what you did or said was wrong. Even though you thought that it was the best decision at the time and you thought that you had all available intel (or in some cases not all available intel because it was being withheld by others). I know I have.

Three things. First, the '91 Gulf War did not end in '91; an armistice was signed. Hussein (the Iraqi mass-murderer, not the President-elect) consistently violated that agreement and trumpeted his actions across the Muslim world. This war is the continuation of the first, and necessary if the US is to be taken seriously and not, as bin Laden said many times, as a paper tiger unable to take casualties.

Second, there were WMDs recovered in Iraq, even though the media tries hard to downplay it. (I was greatly amused each time CNN and even Fox reported that a stash of chemical shells had been found, then solemnly intoned "This does not mean that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction".) We found all the WMDs we KNEW Iraq had except the anthrax. What we didn't find were the stocks of WMDs we THOUGHT Iraq had manufactured since '91, based on intercepts and defectors. My guess is they never existed, that Hussein (the Iraqi mass-murderer, not the President-elect) spread those stories specifically to protect himself against coup attempts and the defectors made up stories that would make us remove Hussein so that the defectors could then safely return home. We don't know what was shipped to Syria and Russia and what might be buried in the desert, but I'm guessing that those stocks of WMDs were never manufactured.

Third, there were terrorists in Iraq between '91 and '2003, and ties between them and Hussein (the Iraqi mass-murderer, not the President-elect.) They weren't there in great numbers because Hussein knew they wanted him toppled, too, just after Israel and the USA. Hussein (the Iraqi mass-murderer, not the President-elect) used the terrorists to boost his support in the Muslim and especially Arab world by doing such things as financially supporting them, giving them safe havens and training bases, and paying the families of suicide bombers.


RE: Hmmm...
By bmheiar on 12/22/2008 7:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you keep on saying, "Hussein (the Iraqi mass-murderer, not the President-elect.)"

Hussein is not the President-elect first name or last name, it is basically representing his middle name. He is not referred too as Hussein Obama or Barack Hussein, compare to Saddam Hussein.

So are you hinting at something or are you implying that you believe he is a Muslim because he had a Muslim father and was given a Muslim name. That means nothing. A name does not make a person or represent a person, their actions do.

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

"It is often seen as a sign of a non-religious Muslim parent , who names a child the exact name, in the exact order as the parent. This can be seen in the naming of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama. Until the death of his father President-elect Obama carried the designation of "Jr." This is a rare, to almost nonexistent, occurrence in the Muslim culture and is instead a frequent Western convention."

He goes to church as in a Christian church, not a temple, not a mosque, or whatever. He is Christian. Are you one of those misguided Americans, so afraid of anything closely related to Muslim/Islam, because we were attacked by Muslim terrorists and since he does not have a Christian name? Not all Muslims are bad or terrorists. Just like not all Catholic priests are child molesters.


RE: Hmmm...
By goz314 on 12/22/2008 1:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do some research before you post.

Lori Garver is currently the President of Capital Space, LLC. For the past 25 years, Garver has been a leader in the aerospace community, working in senior roles in the non-profit, government and commercial sectors, including serving as executive director of the National Space Society and as a Vice President of DFI International. In addition, Garver previously served as NASA’s Associate Administrator of Policy.

I would hardly call that unqualified.


RE: Hmmm...
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 2:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't seem to be a very big company. Google brings up almost nothing on it, mostly citations of her as President.

Ever since Challenger, when managers interested in PR overrode the objections of engineers who recognized the dangers of launching in cold weather, we've tried to make sure NASA's directors were engineers or scientists, not suits. This job is not like picking school textbooks, or deciding who qualifies for welfare. You screw up, people die. Past directors and managers from political or media relations backgrounds tended to lose sight of that, which is why since then we've tried to put people with "grunt work" experience into those positions.

I've been mostly satisfied with Obama's cabinet choices so far. But this one smells like Bush's appointment of Brown to head FEMA - pure political influence.


RE: Hmmm...
By whiskerwill on 12/22/2008 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Capital Space" is Garver's one-man (woman) consulting firm. Its sole business is giving policy advice to politicians. Yeah, I call that unqualified.

And your quote about Garver "being a leader in the aerospace community" for 25 years was taken right from Obama's website.


Lame.
By cochy on 12/22/2008 11:01:33 AM , Rating: 5
How sad.

quote:
On the campaign trail, Obama blew both hot and cold on plans for NASA's budget. In the NASA-friendly states of Texas and Florida, he promised to expand NASA's budget by more than 10%. In other states, however, he promised cuts and delays to the agency, in order to help fund his education policies.


Ugh, two faced. Same old, same old. No "change" here, don't know what you're looking at.




RE: Lame.
By grenableu on 12/22/2008 11:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
Lol we both posted that a minute apart.


RE: Lame.
By FITCamaro on 12/22/2008 11:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
If this surprised anyone, you're probably an idiot who voted for Obama.

The Cocoa area is screwed.


RE: Lame.
By PhoenixKnight on 12/22/2008 11:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Um, hasn't every single president in, at least recent history, if not the entire history of our country, and possibly every leader of every other democratic/republic country that has ever existed, blatantly lied and fallen back on their promises and engaged in two-faced pandering?


RE: Lame.
By greenchasch on 12/22/2008 11:43:12 AM , Rating: 3
Say what you want about Bush, but he never went to one state and promised something, then went to another state and said the exact opposite.

Obama did that hundreds of times. Like going to a coal-mining state and saying he was all for coal, then going to SF and saying he was going to shut down the coal industry.


RE: Lame.
By maven81 on 12/22/2008 7:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a uniter not a divider ring a bell? Is this a joke?


RE: Lame.
By Ringold on 12/22/2008 4:38:31 PM , Rating: 3
Well, Barry Goldwater went to Tampa and told a crowd of senior citizens that Social Security did "violence to the constitution" and he would endeavor tirelessly to scrap it. Goldwater was crushed.

McCain went to Michigan early on and told them free trade works, their jobs were gone and were never coming back, and it was time they learned new skills. McCain got snubbed.

Ron Paul says a few things that are inconvenient to hear, but are true or have become true. (I once disagreed, but we have recently started planning to debase our currency at warp speed) Ron Paul has his supporters, but the populace at large laughed at him.

There are politicians who try to take principled stands, but voters do not reward such people when they get in to the voting booth.


RE: Lame.
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 5:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
Or does the media not reward them with positive coverage and implied blessings?


Sickening
By grenableu on 12/22/2008 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the campaign trail, Obama blew both hot and cold on plans for NASA's budget. In the NASA-friendly states of Texas and Florida, he promised to expand NASA's budget by more than 10%. In other states, however, he promised cuts
And his boot-licking media friends never called him on this fraud? Gee, what a surprise.




RE: Sickening
By freshmint on 12/22/2008 11:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
Is there a source for this?


RE: Sickening
By Griswold on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sickening
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:54:55 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry to disappoint you. Aug 3, 2008, in Florida:

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/06/the-politi...

I don't have the date he promised Texans an increase in NASA funding, but if you click through the link in the above article, you'll see the same report by another media source.


RE: Sickening
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 1:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes I think Masher sets up things like this just so he can smack people down who think he's pulling facts out of his a**. :)


RE: Sickening
By apopkafl on 12/23/2008 1:02:46 PM , Rating: 1
If Masher was setting someone up he should make more than half of his point. Where are the links to the proposed cuts?


RE: Sickening
By tdawg on 12/22/2008 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because it surely wasn't happening on the other side of the campaign trail.

Really, this is the problem with the Primary system. We gain nothing by having presidential candidates come to each important state and tell the people exactly what they want to hear. We can't really learn anything about a presidential candidate in this way, except how well he/she panders to our point of view.

We should really just let however many candidates run for president and have the general election in July or August, with a run-off election of the top two vote getters in November, if nobody receives more than 50% of the vote.


RE: Sickening
By Spivonious on 12/22/2008 11:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think the primary should be nationwide. Just because New Hampshire liked McCain doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Ron Paul got almost 10% of the vote in PA's primary, with Huckabee (who wasn't even on the ballot) getting almost 20% iirc.

I also think that campaigning should be constrained to the calendar year that they election is taking place in. Most of the candidates for this past election starting campaigning as soon as Bush got re-elected in 2004. It's ridiculous.

Also, interesting point, the Constitution spells out that Pres and Vice Pres are two separate elections. So in theory I should be able to have voted for Barack and Palin.

The whole government has drifted so far from the founder's intentions that it's time to just start over from scratch.


RE: Sickening
By FITCamaro on 12/22/2008 7:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also think that campaigning should be constrained to the calendar year that they election is taking place in


Word. Hillary started campaigning in 2005. Obama in 06.


incorrect
By kattanna on 12/22/2008 10:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NASA may be without a manned space capability entirely, for the first time since the 1960s


between apollo and the shuttle many many years passed without us being able to get into space

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter12.html




RE: incorrect
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
Our manned spaceflight capability didn't end with project Apollo. Our last Skylab mission ended in 1974, and we flew a joint mission with the Soviets in 1975. The capability to fly additional missions, had any been scheduled, certainly persisted a few additional years beyond that.

The space shuttle was flying test missions in atmosphere by 1977, and in space itself by 1981.


RE: incorrect
By kattanna on 12/22/2008 11:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
yes, but after the joint mission in 1975, was nasa not retrofitting the existing apollo launch infrastructure to handle the new shuttle platform instead? thereby making any more apollo hardware flights near to impossible?


RE: incorrect
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
LC-39 was closed down then, yes...but I don't believe the permanent tower required for the shuttle was installed for several years, so in theory they could have been reopened any time before that with minimal delay.


RE: incorrect
By goz314 on 12/22/2008 12:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
...Which between 1975 and 1981, when there were no US manned space flights, was a gap of 6 years . -End of statement.

The gap we are looking at with Ares is similar, and the capability to send astronauts to ISS will still be there in the interim via Russia and their tried and true Soyuz program. Having a gap in the United States' ability to send astronauts into LEO on it's own accord is much less a problem than people think.

-Which leads me to my next point. Why can't we just outsource the launch capability to Russia for an additional few years beyond those already scoped? Aside for some of the arguments against doing so, it will certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper to us, the taxpayers.

In the meantime, the Ares program launch vehicles can be redesigned to be what they should be. http://www.directlauncher.com/

The Ares 1 is already replete with cost overruns and unfavorable design problems due to the fact that it was mainly conceived as a way to keep legacy STS staff, contractors, and facilities on board. Now, this is not a problem by itself. If fact, re-use should be encouraged to save cost and time. But despite all the claims of re-use from STS, ATK, the booster manufacturer, had to more or less completely re-design and certify the SRB section that is the main lifting stage for Ares. Low and behold, when they did so the numbers came back showing that the booster stage was going to be underpowered from an ISP standpoint and the initial thrust was too high at launch –think bottle rocket.

As a result, the service module of Orion is being undersized by Lockheed to save on weight, and the entire launch vehicle stack needs to be re-inforced to compensate for a pogo problem that the high initial thrust induces in the vehicle at launch. The end result is a system that won't be able to complete many of the original design goals set by NASA at the outset of the program. Ares 1 won't be able to do an Apollo 8 style mission to the moon -a critical step in proving out the hardware outside the bounds of LEO. It also won't be able to carry more than a pittance of cargo to ISS on each mission. One could argue that the planned follow on heavy lift vehicle, Ares V, is currently being revised to make up for some of these deficiencies -But at what cost and on what prolonged timeline?

Finally, the whole land based landing system is seriously being considered for redaction due to the added weight. If this feature is removed, then it will truly be a throwback to the days of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, requiring a very expensive fleet of Naval ships to act as the recovery force after the Orion capsule returns to Earth. Even that is predicated on them working some pretty serious bugs out of the main parachute system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVl6lCr1vCo

So, if no changes are made to Ares, NASA is heading down the path of receiving and supporting a launch vehicle, command/service module combination that can only do 1 thing: shuttle 4-6 astronauts to and from the ISS. Furthermore, the end cost to the taxpayers for each launch won't be appreciably less than STS. NASA and the American people will be left with an initial system that is both less capable than the Space Shuttle and costs the same. Boy, that’s a great deal huh?


This is very revealing of Obama
By FPP on 12/22/2008 12:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
He is prepared to hammer a wooden stake into this program.
All of those previous rockets have been examined as candidates and either lack manned upgrade capability or payload issues, etc.

The other revealing point here is this: Obama does not count the monies already spent as being wasted if this program is terminated.

The silver lining here is that private lauch iniatives can now look at the Gov't as a real customer like Spacex. Spacex corp. must be doing a dance right now.




RE: This is very revealing of Obama
By werepossum on 12/22/2008 1:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by FPP on December 22, 2008 at 12:39 PM
SNIP
The silver lining here is that private launch initiatives can now look at the Gov't as a real customer like Spacex. Spacex corp. must be doing a dance right now.


That might be true except the President-elect is a man with only disdain for the private sector and capitalism. I'd judge him much more likely to outsource this to Russia or China, who share his feelings about wealth redistribution and the USA as currently configured.

On the positive side, since sea levels have already started to recede (I'm taking the Messiah at his word here), the unused launch facilities will be available for centuries as a shrine to that brief time when America had space capability.

As for fixing education - how much education do we need to sell each other Chinese-made goods?


RE: This is very revealing of Obama
By maven81 on 12/22/2008 7:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd judge him much more likely to outsource this to Russia or China


Because that's what "creating more jobs in America" is all about?! Next time you pull stuff out of you know where, try to disguise it a bit harder.


RE: This is very revealing of Obama
By FPP on 12/24/2008 11:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but NASA just gave Spacex a 1.6 billion dollar contract for 12 trips to ISS over the next 4 years and another to a second US corporation. (see space.com for details)

This being the case, we might be on the threashold of commercializing space, a far more exciting phenomena than anything else NASA, or the other nations, has going in manned flight.


RE: This is very revealing of Obama
By FPP on 12/25/2008 6:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be happy to wait for him to undo those contracts before I make a judgement, and sea levels have nothing to do with this article.

Between Orbital Sciences, Spacex and another outfit, I'Space, a revolution is coming in manned spaceflight. In ten years, you'll be able to buy a ride to orbit. Even at 7 million, there will be people who will pay. When this happens, private efforts will self fund.

Besides, Ares is allegedly not schedulled to fly until 2014, and I have a hunch NASA will want access to a station they paid 20 billion to build.


Obama messiah
By ggordonliddy on 12/22/2008 8:45:56 PM , Rating: 3
It's Obama so all will be perfect. In fact you better bow down and worship him now.




RE: Obama messiah
By FPP on 12/25/2008 11:27:24 AM , Rating: 3
This is another glaring example of Obama's inexperience. Bush did exactly the correct thing, building a shuttle replacement that is safer, cheaper to fly and more flexible in terms of interplanetary capability. It showed foresight, vision and intelligence, but the left is determined to purge anything done by Bush and this is no exception.


RE: Obama messiah
By HinderedHindsight on 12/27/2008 3:05:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It showed foresight, vision and intelligence,


So, you think it shows forsight to fund NASA as is, sacrificing short term economic recovery for dubious long term gains that will in no way benefit us now? Our financial resources are already stretched thin, what if another Katrina happens, or yet another industry needs to be bailed out in the next two to four years? How can maintaining the current funding level of NASA help?


RE: Obama messiah
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:08:23 PM , Rating: 3
Short-term thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place. Thinking long-term is always the better solution, my friend.


Obama and space
By billg1745 on 12/22/2008 11:29:14 AM , Rating: 1
This is the kind of bad decision one would expect from the most inexperienced incoming president ever.




RE: Obama and space
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 11:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
Obama: A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, A teacher of constitutional law at the university level, and a state senator.

Bush: Graduated Yale on daddys pocketbook with a C average, owned the Texas rangers!, and was the governor of Texas. And don't forget, a master of the the white (and I'm not talking about snow)

While I completely disagree with slashing NASA's funding, this Obama inexperience BS is getting old. If you don't like his policies, don't vote for him, but pulling out the inexperience card is just becoming childish.


RE: Obama and space
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 11:58:36 AM , Rating: 4
you mean a guest speaker on the topic of the constitution who believes it to be a flawed document of "negative liberties" since it only says what the government cannot do to the people and who spent more time campaigning for president as a senator then he actually did working?


RE: Obama and space
By FPP on 12/24/2008 11:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not that any of that has a single thing to do with the space program.

The shuttle needed a replacement. Bush, perhaps not a great thinker, is, nonetheless a clear thinker and proceeded to do the hard work of generating a replacement that was long overdue.

The design was a practical, flexible, solution with tons of growth built in. It uses the most reliable technology avalable at a fraction of the cost of any other solution. Make no mistake: They wish to cancel Ares, not Orion. NHow screwed up is that?

Now comes Barak, who, after the governement spends all the design money, and is testing hardware, decides, for whatever reason to terminate the program wasting all of the investment. The lady he's got ramrodding this mess has no engineering backround and no sicentific backround. She is a political tool, and what is wrong with government today.

This would be fine, if we had decided to not have a manned program, but now he wants to spend more retrofitting old boosters(?)Follow the money. Thisa will cost more money, with an outcome less certain.

This smacks of the old line aerospace corporations getting to someone in Obama's camp and making it happen. After watching the Governor of Illinois and Obama's old friends like Rezko, one has to wonder.


Fear not, chubby neighbors to the south.
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/26/2008 2:43:56 AM , Rating: 3
Don't worry my American compatriots, when President Token Black ...err Osama Hussein Obama as you call him... has finished destroying NASA, your military, and your life savings, the Magnificent And Wholly Roaming Empire Of Soviet Canuckistan will swoop south with our great army of magical walruses and mooses to liberate you, and you can be our serfs.




By HinderedHindsight on 12/27/2008 2:56:23 AM , Rating: 1
I can't help but feel the envy of partisanship in your voice. The destruction of life savings and military has already occurred long before Obama took office. Or perhaps you did not notice the economy floundering all around you, which has diminished the long term value of the savings that you're worried about; never mind the fact that people who have invested in stocks or their homes have seen huge sums literally disappear.

You also must not have noticed the fact that by the accounts of many in the top ranks of the military, our military has been stretched too thin to be truly effective.

The fact that NASA may not get funds to continue expending its program is a forgone conclusion that has very little to do with Obama himself; it has to do with the fact that there are more important short term goals, and a crashing economy combined with a government which had no qualms about spending or bailing out has put a stopper on available funds. Any missions that NASA may launch will have dubious short term gains. No one doubts the long term gains, but the truth is, our space program is already far ahead of many other nations, and even if it were not, no achievable accomplishment NASA can make in four years is worth the sacrifice of a lengthened economic recovery and funding other, more immediate and necessary investments in the country.

And where is the free market in all of this- isn't it part of our national ideology to not fund endeavors, but rather let business interests motivate our social progress? If there's accomplishments and progress to be made in the short term in space, you know there would be businesses seeking to own that progress.

You may not like Obama, but the policies he enacts in the next four years will unfortunately be a result of the policies enacted in the last eight, rather than him actually wanting to cut funding to programs like NASA. But you'd rather play blame the Democrat, completely ignoring the fact that the last Democrat in office left things (comparatively) in much better shape than the Republican who is currently leaving office.


By FPP on 12/27/2008 11:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
Not buying it. Obama campaigned on changes that will benefit the citizenry and trying to, already, blame any failures this man may have on Bush will not fly. He will be measured by his actions.

The fact is, Ares is a clear headed approach that should have been done 30 years ago, but it took a clear thinking president to initiate it. Every preident before him greenlighted the shuttle year after year, perpetuating this, and ISS as our space program.

No sir, Bush correctly put a wooden stake though the Shuttle and now Obama, in his infinitely inexperienced wisdom, feels undoing this, as it is in the hardware stage, has merit. He is, sir, going to be measured by his actions, whether you like it, or not.


By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you'd rather play blame the Democrat, completely ignoring the fact that the last Democrat in office left things (comparatively) in much better shape than the Republican who is currently leaving office.
Bush certainly lacked the spine to retract Clinton's idiotic policy of letting Fannie Mac make trillions of dollars of sub-prime mortgage loans. Bush also didn't have the courage to force the Democratic majority in Congress to regulate Fannie Mac properly, after they shot down two different bills that Republicans sponsored.

Had Bush been a better president, you're right. This wouldn't have happened. He tried to play nicely with the Democrats, and now we're all paying for it.


I could care less.
By samoya22 on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: I could care less.
By Marduke on 12/22/2008 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 3
--Says an idiot complaining on a computer made possible by NASA technology and research.


RE: I could care less.
By kyp275 on 12/22/2008 12:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
I thought about writing up some childish comments in response to yours, but then I decided it's better not to sink to your level.

If you're short-sighted and ignorant enough to not realize the worth of NASA and space exploration, not only to the US but humanity as a whole, then I honestly feel sorry for you.


Without NASA...
By tjr508 on 12/22/2008 3:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
How are we going to continue to develop technology like that foam mattress as seen on TV?




RE: Without NASA...