backtop

Print 102 comment(s) - last by SPOOFE.. on Mar 9 at 2:25 PM
The U.S. space agency continues to struggle as President Obama receives even harsher criticism

President Obama continues to receive criticism regarding the White House's proposal to give third-party contractors even more control of future U.S. manned missions.

Obama faces critics from both parties, and still doesn't have very much support for how he has handled the struggling U.S. space agency.  The next-generation Orion space platform will not be finished and could be scrapped completely in favor of a new method to transport astronauts into orbit.

This is an even bigger problem now that the current space shuttle fleet is expected to retire soon.  NASA will have to rely on the Russians to transport food, supplies and NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).

"After years of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting, the President's plan will unveil an ambitious plan for NASA that sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration," said the White House in a recent press statement.

Until Obama confirms his plans for NASA, it's likely new rocket technology and outsourced spaceships will be used for future missions.  A leading reason for criticism is the sheer number of job losses expected within NASA and its current partners -- Florida and Texas representatives have also been vocal.  

The U.S. space agency doesn't want to help lead to even more American job loss, but is running out of options.  Obama must deal with political pressure, potential for thousands of additional job losses, and mounting criticism from Americans who want to see a real outline.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By StraightCashHomey on 3/8/2010 8:23:06 AM , Rating: 3
Wouldn't that be more efficient?




By Suntan on 3/8/2010 9:47:15 AM , Rating: 5
Ah yes, so that today’s “innovative 3rd party” that people like you praise for their efficiency and cutting edge capability can turn into tomorrow’s “government contractor” that people like you berate for living off the government tit while providing nothing of use…

NASA is a government agency, whether their mandate is to farm out *all* work or bring more directly in house is of less concern than giving it a clear agenda that is well understood by the public and then funding it responsibly so that it can achieve that agenda. This is something that has been lacking for some time and something that Mr. Change-we-can-believe-in has, yet again, acted just like all the others about.

I don’t care if “NASA” engineers build it, or “Lockheed” engineers build it, or even if some startup company’s engineers build it, I just want to see America allocating less money into putting deadbeats into houses they can’t afford, and more money and development effort into sending humans into space.

-Suntan


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 10:04:18 AM , Rating: 5
People *need* shelter, people don’t *need* oversized homes.

Sorry, I’ve seen entirely too many people get money for housing they don’t *need* to fall into the strawman argument that you are trying to build here.

And quite honestly, yes I would rather spend money on sending people into space as I’ve personally experienced the benefits to society that come as offshoots of large technical programs such as these. They far outweigh spending endless dollars just so irresponsible people can stay in the oversized house they bought when times were really good (but never saved money to prepare for lean times.)

It is I who think you have your priorities off.

-Suntan


By quiksilvr on 3/8/2010 5:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that NASA needs some form of funding, but as an aerospace engineer, I am well aware of the glaring inefficiencies that plague the company.
1) They have very poor communication and social skills, making projects take much longer and much more tedious, therefore costing us, the taxpayers, more money.
2) They are seriously overpaid for the jobs that they are doing, something that is very common in federally funded jobs.
3) They are simply spread way too thin amongst numerous projects. Instead of having dozens of projects being funded, why not have just the major ones that matter:
a. Orion & Ares
b. ISS
c. JPL (Hubble replacement)
Migrate the other smaller projects to these main programs, get results from these programs and THEN branch out.

Government money isn't just towards housing, it can be towards the things that have lasting effects on our society:
1) A complete education system overhall. This will change everything. Decent, relevant and USEFUL education will decrease crime and will give voters the know how when to vote on more competent people in office. People will be able to work together to fix the flaws in their community (poor infrastructure, mediocre to poor community programs) and will actually work to improve these programs. It will also make the younger generation realize to plan ahead (lean times as you put it).
2) Funding for jobs and supplies needed in the community, such as:
a. Waste and recycling management.
b. Green construction (energy efficient street lights, roads and safety)
c. A clean nuclear energy program.
d. More rigorous driving programs and tests to cut down on accidents on the roads.

There are many many MANY areas where government funding can really help, and not just on handouts to the irresponsible masses.


By Suntan on 3/9/2010 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
I am all for an overhaul of NASA to trim down government obesity. But I don’t see that being discussed. Further, I think one of the main catalysts to get NASA out of its long in-grown funk is none other than to give it clear goals and real challenges.

As for your other notions of what the *federal* government should be spending our money on. I respectfully disagree. Spending/overhauls for education is just a euphemism for time and money wasted. As the husband, son and son-in-law of school teachers, I’ve seen more than enough to know that there is no dollar figure that can be put on “what it takes” to make all the Tom, Dick and Sally’s smart little people. There is no amount of money that can be added to the education system to make up for what is now missing in the homes. The task makes landing on Mars look akin to walking over to the printer down the hall. On top of this, education should remain at the state and local level, it should not be actively interfered with at the federal level.

The rest you mention (with the exception of nukes) are all local issues that should be handled at the local level, not the federal level. I have no problem with the nuclear, but in all honesty all we really need from the federal government is a real guarantee that companies will not be held up from building them. If the government made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that today’s advanced nuclear plants would be allowed to be built, private funding would be available for the projects. Relatively little fed money is needed for development of research, that has already been done… Over in Europe.

-Suntan


By kattanna on 3/8/2010 10:54:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
You'd rather have us going to space than taking care of people in need?


while there ARE those who are truly in need, there are also far more who are just plain lazy and dont feel the need to do anything for themselves.

one of the biggest "achievements" of programs like welfare and such, is that it has in effect enslaved millions who are now completely dependent on the government. with little to no will of their own. and who will always vote for those who vote to keep the "support" going. if you catch my meaning.


By xxsk8er101xx on 3/8/2010 11:11:18 AM , Rating: 3
They need to set a requirement for welfare that you need to look for work.

I think it is necessary to help those in need while in troubled times. There are things that happen that is out of your control.

regardless you can fund NASA and help people. It's not like a country can only do one thing at a time.


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 5
"They need to set a requirement for welfare that you need to look for work."

Impossible to enforce. A welfare recipient can just show up at a job interview unkempt, in filthy clothes and a surly attitude. Who would hire them? But they're technically still looking for work.

What they need to do is require any able-bodied person on welfare to be doing make-work like picking up trash on the side of highways and such.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Impossible to enforce.

Ridiculous. Numerous states have a "welfare to work" program and it's worked beautifully, both in stimulating local economies as well as getting people off welfare. California does NOT have such a program; California also has a third of the nation's welfare cases. Coincidence?


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
"Numerous states have a "welfare to work" program and it's worked beautifully..."

Oh really?

quote:
Welfare-to-work was a social program of the United States government that ended on September 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare-to-work


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that was one of the "welfare to work" programs, actually called Welfare-to-work. I put the phrase in quotes and low-caps for a reason (California actually does have a program that it also calls "Welfare-to-work", but it's actual enactment fails to actually encourage welfare recipients to get work). Numerous WtW plans are currently in operation 'cross the country, all the way down to the city level.


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:05:29 PM , Rating: 3
Nationally, the level of participation on all work programs by welfare recipients is just under 30%. Meaning that fully 70% of welfare recipients are refusing to get even a part time job while on welfare.

If you define that as "working beautifully", then I agree with you.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nationally, the numbers are skewed because of California (one third of all cases in the country, remember?).


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 1:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What they need to do is require any able-bodied person on welfare to be doing make-work like picking up trash on the side of highways and such.


While I agree with this, it would never happen. The backlash, from the enablers, against any politian that even suggested it as a hypothetical scenario would be swift and brutal.

A less extreme option would be to just make working attractive to the individuals that aren’t complete lazy SOBs (you’ll never get the truly lazy to go get a job, most likely not even in the face of starvation.) I believe there is a range of individuals that, although they would work if it improved their situation, find that it isn’t worth the effort because there is no incentive to do it.

A co-worker was telling me the other day of an assignment that his 12 yr old daughter was doing in school about economics and budgeting. She came to her dad (my coworker) with a confused look and said, “Dad, if I’m a single mother with 2 children, the welfare program as it is laid out for our state (Minnesota) says I can make $100 more a month by not working at all than I can if I have a full time minimal wage job...”

Her question to her dad was one of ethics, but my question is, why is it an either/or scenario? Why is it that the system is set up to actually discourage minimum wage workers from working *at all?* Doesn’t it make sense that even for the extreme low wage workers, that they should be encouraged to work even if they can not make enough money to fully support themselves from that work?

The system basically just acknowledges that these people should give up and just accept that they are helpless. It’s the pretty standard liberal policy, “You can’t do for yourself, so we plan to do it for you.”

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
"you’ll never get the truly lazy to go get a job, most likely not even in the face of starvation."

Try not eating for four days and say that.

I actually did that once as an experiment. The second and third days are actually easier the first, but by day four you'll literally boil a leather sh.oe and eat it if you have to.

(ps. to DT staff. Why does the word 'sh.oe' (without the period) cause the comment system to freak out?)


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but for the bottom of societies barrel, they will just go out and steal prior to getting a job. They will likely never get close to actually starving.

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 2:08:51 PM , Rating: 4
Historically speaking, whenever people have been given the choice between work and starvation, the vast majority of them choose to work. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of the population chosen to spend their life in enforced idleness....thanks to the modern welfare state.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 2:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Historically speaking, whenever people have been given the choice between work and starvation, the vast majority of them choose to work.

It takes work to steal. The problem is not in people "working", it's "working at a job that will generate tax revenue and provide the worker with a reliable, sustainable income for an extended period of time".


By rika13 on 3/8/2010 6:19:24 PM , Rating: 1
foolish

1. Many of the people on welfare have small children, usually multiple small children, that need to be taken care of. Due to various overzealous laws that require licensing and therefore prevent friends or relatives from taking care of the kids, child care costs make work unaffordable.

2. Having people on welfare actually seeking work is destructive, the unemployment rate is ridiculously high, with that many people suddenly needing work, it will obliterate wages for unskilled labor, and training them for skilled labor would do the same, which would destroy any motivation for obtaining skills.


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 6:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
" Due to various overzealous laws that require licensing and therefore prevent friends or relatives from taking care of the kids..."

Lol, what? There is no US law that prevents "friends or relatives" from taking care of your children. There are regulations on operating a for-profit daycare...but that's a different matter entirely.

Furthermore, you miss the point entirely. The vast majority of women on welfare have had additional children while on welfare. If you can't afford to take care of yourself, why are you having more children in the first place?

"the unemployment rate is ridiculously high, with that many people suddenly needing work, it will obliterate wages "

This is even worse than your last statement. Every person who works draws a paycheck. In spending that paycheck they generate demand for additional goods and services -- which creates new jobs.

By your logic, we should drive unemployment as high as possible, just to reduce the worker pool and increase wages.


By JediJeb on 3/9/2010 12:26:56 PM , Rating: 3
"Furthermore, you miss the point entirely. The vast majority of women on welfare have had additional children while on welfare. If you can't afford to take care of yourself, why are you having more children in the first place?"

This is 100% because of lack of personal responsibility!

The government today, schools, media, ect, all spout that you are entitled to have what you want when you want it, whether or not you actually deserve it or work for it. For kids, they don't even keep score in Tee Ball games because " losing would hurt them emotionally". That is total rubbish, I learned many of my most important lessons from losing, not from winning. A vast majority of kids these days think they should succeed in everything, and when they don't they do not know how to handle it. Why do we have things like school shootings? Because we have kids that have never been told "no" or never failed because they were protected their entire childhood or never were faced with someone teasing them, then when something finally happens like someone calling them ugly, or a girl turns them down when they ask them out, or they fail an test, the freak out because they have never been taught how to handle it.

The government won't have personal responsibility taught in the schools because then you would have a new generation who might actually think for themselves, and that would undermine the power and authority of the government. Also if students are taught how government works and are encouraged to get involved in it actively through out their lives, then politicians can not get away with the scams they use to stay in power. Life has been to easy in the advanced countries, think about it, how many people in the US or EU are going to go vote when people are threatening to kill you? I know in the US you can't even get people to vote when it is a sunny day and no worries, heck if it rains voter turnout drops 30%. The majority of people today have exactly the attitude that the government want them to have. Just turn all your responsibilities over to the government and go about your business, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


By LordanSS on 3/8/2010 12:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is not the US but...

Over an year ago, one of our senate members did an interview for a high-circulating news magazine here in Brazil (kinda like your Newsweek).

He was complaining that a massive amount of people in his State who were on federal government welfare programs did not want to work, because they thought what the government provided them was good enough .

There are gazillions of welfare programs here, where the government straight up gives cash for citizens that "qualify". And I'm not even including free health care nor schools into the bunch, as they exist too.

I feel for you guys. So much money wasted... hope you never get to the levels we have here though. =/


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:22:24 PM , Rating: 5
Of course welfare recipients don't want to work. There isn't a fast food restaurant within 25 miles of me that isn't always hiring. Not like they couldn't find a job if they wanted one.

It used to be welfare meant "we'll keep you from starving". Now it means your own private air-conditioned home, cable tv, and a dozen unwarranted luxuries. My wife (a teacher) continually tells me about the children who come to school from "zero income families", who still somehow manage to all have iPods, iPhones, and designer clothes.


By randomly on 3/8/2010 11:35:20 AM , Rating: 4
It's not obvious at first glance, but funding things like NASA and sending people off into space DOES help you take care of people in need.

Putting money into things like NASA and Education may not directly help people in need, but it nourishes and grows the economic engine that generates the wealth and taxes that do allow you to help people.

NASA's funding only accounts for 0.5% of the national budget. If you were to divert all of that to social programs it would almost be unnoticeable. Yet that 0.5% of the budget has an incredible impact on attracting highly talented people into the science and engineering fields, including talented foreigners. That US strength in science and technology is one of the primary reasons why our economy is so large and generates the revenues that allow us to fund the social programs we do fund.

You can't feed your seed grain to the hungry or next year everybody will starve.


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree, you're only looking at one tiny aspect of it. NASA's primary value isn't just as a make-work employment agencies for high-paid professionals, its primary value is the technology spinoffs it generates.

Or used to be, at least. The manned space program in the 60s and 70s gave us literally thousands of innovations in a hundred different fields. Offhand, I'd have trouble thinking of ANY its given us in the last decade or two.

Time to let the private sector have a whack at it, imo.


By randomly on 3/8/2010 3:14:43 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, one aspect of many. My focus was to address a very common concern expressed by the poster that spending money on space is a lower priority than taking care of people in need. The positive long term effect on the nations economy of money spent on NASA is not immediately obvious to most people. That it cannot be easily quantified is probably why support for NASA in the general population post Apollo 11 has always been rather weak.

I don't believe that NASA's primary value is as a make-work employment agency for high-paid professionals, nor did I say that. I don't believe it's primary value is the technology spinoffs it generates either, although that's a commonly quoted reasoning because it's at least somewhat measurable and documented.
I think it's primary value comes from much more intangible things like creating a fascination with science and technology in people, particularly students of all ages. The fact that it draws talented people into science and technology careers. It creates an industrial and educational focal point for advanced technologies in the US that draws people from around the world, many of whom stay. It unbinds people's imaginations, inspires them with dreams to chase. Those kinds of intangible motivations are what fuels the rapid advancement of science and technology that creates the wealth and standard of living we enjoy.

These intangibles are very hard to measure and quantify but I still feel they have the most important effect on our society.

A country's people have to imagine and dream of things before they can ever become a reality. Without dreams and imagination it's like ancient Egypt, thousands of years of civilization with almost no advancements and no change. Because nobody imagined things could be any different.

I'm all for the private sector taking over access to LEO. It's about time. But NASA needs an HLV for BEO missions and throwing away all the infrastructure we already have and then starting from scratch in 10 years seems like a recipe for going nowhere.


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 3:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
This mindset pleases me. I wish more had it.

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 4:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
"A country's people have to imagine and dream of things before they can ever become a reality. Without dreams and imagination it's like ancient Egypt, thousands of years of civilization with almost no advancements and no change"

Or Imperial China. Or the Roman Empire, shortly before its fall. There is no stasis in life...the minute a society stops looking forward, it begins to fall backwards.

But space is more than just dreams and goals. Ultimately, its the solution to all our problems here on earth. Just look what its already given us. Low-earth orbiting satellites have not just transformed the world through better communication, but saved millions of lives through improved weather and storm forecasting.

We can't even begin to imagine everything a well-funded space program will give us. Moving our heavy industry into orbit alone would not only dramatically boost the standard of living for billions of people, but nearly eliminate pollution here on earth.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 5:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ultimately, its the solution to all our problems here on earth.

Exactly. Apathy about space is akin to apathy about the future of the species beyond one's own pathetically short life span. You and I and everyone else here may likely be dead or dying just as the groundwork being laid now (and in the past sixty years) is coming to fruition.


By StraightCashHomey on 3/8/2010 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Whoah, wtf are you talking about? I asked a simple question because I honestly did not know the answer to, and I wanted to hear opinions on both sides.

What kind of "people like you" do you think I am?


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 12:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I asked a simple question because I honestly did not know the answer to, and I wanted to hear opinions on both sides.


If that is the case, then disregard the first and third paragraph of my original post. Your answer is paragraph 2.

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:18:13 PM , Rating: 3
" today’s “innovative 3rd party” that people like you praise for their efficiency and cutting edge capability can turn into tomorrow’s “government contractor” "

While government contractors are hardly the most efficient private firms, they're still an order of magnitude better than your average government bureaucracy.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 1:25:02 PM , Rating: 3
I think the problem is people just plain don't believe Obama on this, what with his massive expansion of government with very little eye towards efficiency. They have reason to be skeptical; he's looking to cut a budget (good) with the promise of replacing it with some vaguely defined "better" option (bad). It's the promise that has people on edge. No amount of efficiency can come from poor leadership and no set goals or direction.


By randomly on 3/8/2010 9:48:09 AM , Rating: 5
The complaints are not against using commercial human launch capabilities, but the abandonment of any NASA lift capability and the total reliance on the currently unproven commercial firms. With the pressing need for human and cargo upmass to the ISS to be able to use our $100 Billion station there is concern about the risk that commercial firms won't be able to deliver human lift capability in a timely manner. The ISS is at stake and there is not enough faith in the commercial firms.

I agree with Obama that the Constellation program (Ares I/V) is financially untenable and needs to be cancelled. Mike Griffin and the safety at any cost attitude immediately after the loss of Columbia saddled NASA with the 1.5 Launch architecture that turned hugely expensive after the original SSME based designs proved unworkable. The spiraling costs and program delays weren't helped by Bush and Congress who failed to provide the money needed to execute the ambitious plan they had given NASA and so we ended up with our current crisis.

Although canceling Constellation is the right thing to do Obama doesn't replace it with any HLV at all. This puts all our eggs in the commercial basket. With no HLV it means we won't be going anywhere outside of Low Earth Orbit for a long time. It also means all the expensive shuttle related infrastructure and technical expertise will be lost. I think this is a mistake.
I'd prefer the option of pursuing a shuttle derived HLV such as the DIRECT Jupiter. This would be much cheaper than Constellation but still give us a large fairing 100mt lift capacity suitable for any future BEO missions, retain a large portion of the technical expertise, and leverage most of the existing shuttle related construction and handling infrastructure. It would have the quickest time to operational capability of any solution since it's using already existing engines and most of the production infrastructure is already in place. It's also a backup of commercial solutions for LEO access.

There is no commercial customers for an HLV, only NASA. It should be what NASA is building and leave the LEO stuff to commercial.

The other major problem I have with the Obama plan is no mission goal and no timetable. If we don't know where we are going we will never get there. Probably the most important aspect of NASA is as a source of national prestige, pride, and inspiration. Even tribes in the middle of Africa have heard of NASA. It's a source of wonder and a source of dreams. Great people need to dream great dreams, and then make them come true.


By tallcool1 on 3/8/2010 12:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Obama complete opposite of JFK.
No direction vs Inspiring a nation (behind the space program)


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 1:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also means all the expensive shuttle related infrastructure and technical expertise will be lost.

This. Sometimes it's better to spend money to maintain an ability than to risk having to spend even more money (and time) re-acquiring that ability later.

I have to wonder, though: What's the feasibility of spinning off some of NASA's brainiest and brightest into a private entity? Some sort of program to trickle the talent into select firms? Simply dumping all these skilled and brilliant people is surely right up there at the height of stupidity, but if that talent can be maintained...


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 2:07:59 PM , Rating: 3
Having worked with, and been friends with, a couple of engineers at NASA, I can tell you that those types of people don’t tend to fit in very well in a corporate environment. They just don’t work very well in a system that is focused on how good the numbers are for the following quarter, etc.

For this reason, there will always be a need for funding of research at the government level. The days of Xerox’s PARC are dead and gone.

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T Bell Labs was undoubtedly the exemplar of corporate funded pure research, having developed everything from the transistor to the CCD camera to Unix and the C and C++ programming languages.

But more to the point...what great innovations has the manned NASA program given us in the past 20 years? They've become a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, doing little more than justifying shuttle launches at a half-billion a pop, on missions that do little more than "test the effects of microgravity on seed germination" and the like.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 2:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what great innovations has the manned NASA program given us in the past 20 years

They found out that old people on Earth are still old in space.

The biggest benefit is it's keeping the skills and knowledge necessary for future manned exploration up-to-date; but other than that, it's not nearly as cost-effective as robotic probes and such per "unit" of knowledge gleaned.


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 3:11:11 PM , Rating: 3
A little googling:

Here is a pdf with some info. The first 2 pages provide some anecdotal information about continued spinoffs that have come from manned space flight. (The last 3 pages are a bit over the top and I don’t really agree with them.)

http://www.spaceexplorationday.us/pdf/space-spinof...

Here is also a good listing of advancements that continue to come from NASA:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

While I do agree that the “output” of NASAs usefulness has diminished recently compared to the advances since its inception, and that many advances can still be uncovered with a purely robotic space policy, I believe that manned space exploration is good for our country and the human race overall. I do agree that what NASA is today and what NASA should strive to get back to are two different things. However, I do not think any changes that Obama might have for it are a step in the right direction.

When reviewing all the projects that the feds spend my money on, I can safely say that NASA can be moved up in front of *most* all of them.

I’d like to have my son be able to go into space if he really wants to do that, and I’d like for my grandkids to be able to live in space if they really want to do that. I don’t see either of these happening when people like Obama and Nancy Pelosi spend all my money towards keeping irresponsible people living in overly large houses just because they originally found a bank that was irresponsible enough to offer them a loan they couldn’t afford in the first place.

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
The only claimed spinoffs that appear to come from the last 15-20 years appear to be rather ludicrous and/or far-fetched. Example:

quote:
WINDOWS VISUAL NEWS READER (Win Vn) - Software program developed to support payload technical documentation at Kennedy Space Center, allowing the exchange of technical information among a large group of users. WinVn is an enabling technology product that provides countless people with Internet access
Others that actually do have some benefit such as the "memory short stack" look like mere minor extensions of initiatives already begun much earlier in the private sector.

"When reviewing all the projects that the feds spend my money on, I can safely say that NASA can be moved up in front of *most* all of them."

I'd agree with that also. The real question is, though-- would we be better off giving a large chunk of NASA's budget to private spaceflight firms? I think the answer is probably yes.


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The real question is, though-- would we be better off giving a large chunk of NASA's budget to private spaceflight firms?


As I said initially, I don’t care if NASA subcontracts systems and entire spacecraft or projects to other entities. Heck the whole notion of saying that “we should allow 3rd parties” to do this or that is just more political double talk. NASA is an administration. It “administers” projects. They pretty much get all their stuff from “3rd parties” anyway (Delta rockets aren’t “made by NASA” they are made by a joint venture between Lockheed and Boeing.)

At what point is it considered a “NASA” project or a 3rd party project? If it is a government project that has something to do with space, NASA is going to be involved in some form or another. I don’t see Obama and Biden sitting in an office and personally signing contracts with rocketships-r-us anytime soon (although I can picture Biden sitting in his office swinging a toy rocketship around in the air all day and saying “pew!” “pew!” “pew!”)

For the president to say that he wants “3rd parties” to be involved is disingenuous. They already are. What he really needs to do is stop pussyfooting around with the political double-speak, man-up and just come out and say, “This is what NASA needs to achieve in the next 5 and 10 years and I want to see a realistic budget proposal for approval on my desk in 6 months.”

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
"At what point is it considered a “NASA” project or a 3rd party project? "

The Space Shuttle is launched by a small army of NASA workers, from a NASA facility. While large parts of it are built and maintained by private contractors, they do so under micromanagement by NASA officials. That's a government project.

A private launch is where NASA puts out a bid saying, "we want X kg launched into orbit at a cost of Y dollars per kg", and a private firm works out the details.


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 4:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, NASA has been working on these kind’s of “hands off” launches prior to Obama’s administration. In the end, NASA is still administering it, they are just taking a much less involved roll. I see nothing wrong with this and this is not what I having been arguing against.

My beef is with the neutering of the overall American manned space program wrapped around the flag of “we’ll let the private sector fill in the cracks” lip-flapping.

-Suntan


By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2010 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What he really needs to do is stop pussyfooting around with the political double-speak, man-up and just come out and say,


He's a radical leftist socialist. He can't come out and be honest, because then everyone would see him as he truly is.

When Obama "clarifies" something, it means he's clarifying which lie he's going with this particular week.


By randomly on 3/8/2010 4:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Bush and previous presidents were no different. It's not an ideology thing it's just standard operating (marketing) procedure for all political leaders.

People just point this out about leaders they don't like, and ignore it in leaders they do like.


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 4:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People just point this out about leaders they don't like, and ignore it in leaders they do like.


The big issue here is that Obama’s *entire* campaign was to claim that he *was* different. He certainly didn’t campaign saying that he was qualified, or that he had prior experiences that would prepare him to deal with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, China, the economy, health care, social security, bipartisanship in congress, etc. etc. etc. All he really campaigned on was “I’m not like all the other guys.” Therefore, I do see it as a legitimate beef when people point out that he is like all the others. It’s the only thing he had going for him!

That said, relatively speaking (for a politician anyway) I do think McCain spoke more forthrightly about topics, and didn’t sugar coat the reality with hollow half-truths that could never be delivered even in the best scenarios. At least in the initial part of the campaign, before polling showed that the American people clearly preferred good sounding lies that could never be made to a candidate that actually spoke some form of truth. At this point, unfortunately, McCain then began throwing out the lies too, only he just wasn’t as good at it as Mr. Change-you-can-believe-in.

-Suntan


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 4:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
On the contrary, Bush certainly was better in this respect. He didn't do things like telling West Virginia voters he would boost clean coal, then turn around and fly to SF and tell voters there he would shut down the coal industry. He didn't promise to shut down Guantanamo upon taking office, then forget the moment he got elected. He didn't promise to end the war in Afghanistan, then boost troop levels there.

He didn't promise to be 'the most transparent administration in history', then break new records for not giving press conferences and holding secret conferences. He didn't promise health care reform would be fully debated in public -- then bar everyone but Washington insiders from the meetings. He didn't promise to create a "contractor lobbying database" to show special interest in Washington.

He didn't promise to eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50K a year. He didn't promise to allow importation of cheaper drugs from Canada into the US. He didn't promise to lower the estate "death tax" and exempt the first 3.5M of it. He didn't promise tax-free withdrawals from 401Ks. He didn't promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act...then immediately renege. He didn't promise to raise payrates for teachers and principals, and to require all schools to be accredited.

Obama did.


By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 5:18:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Bush and previous presidents were no different.

Bush didn't run on "Change And Hope".


By Spazmodian on 3/8/2010 1:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree with Obama that the Constellation program (Ares I/V) is financially untenable and needs to be cancelled.


quote:
I'd prefer the option of pursuing a shuttle derived HLV such as the DIRECT Jupiter.


So you want to cancel the Shuttle derived Ares V and start the Shuttle derived Jupiter? The only real difference in either of the rockets is in engine selection. Granted both have suggested use of SSMEs or RS-68s at one point in time or another.

Ares I wasn't a good idea, Ares V is perfectly fine.

Ares I should have been a man-rated Delta IV heavy or Atlas V heavy.


By randomly on 3/8/2010 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
There is a huge cost difference between Ares V and a more directly shuttle derived HLV like Jupiter.

Ares V requires design and qualification of new 5.5 segment solid rocket boosters with new fuel and new core geometry. Jupiter uses existing shuttle SRBs.

Ares V needs a new 10m core diameter requiring new manufacturing facility. Jupiter uses the same 8.4m core as the current shuttle external tank and can use the existing manufacturing facility at Michoud.

Ares V is so heavy it may exceed the capacity of the crawler and crawler-way requiring the replacement of both at the cost of some billions.

Internal NASA analysis indicates that the six RS-68 engines and two SRBs on the Ares V create a base heating environment so severe that the ablatively cooled RS-68 engines will fail. This requires developing a regeneratively cooled version of the RS-68 which is essentially a whole new engine design. Jupiter uses already existing man-rated regeneratively cooled SSME engines.

Ares V requires the development of the new J2-X upperstage engine. Engine developments cost billions and take many years. Jupiter uses already existing RL-10 engines for the upperstage (although Jupiter can be launched with no upperstage at all if 70 mt to LEO is sufficient and no EDS is required)

Ares V is an enormous and very expensive 180 metric ton to LEO vehicle. This was required with the old 1.5 launch architecture (an Ares I + Ares V) where it had to lift everything but the crew. This is no longer needed if you change to a 2 launch architecture and two 100 mt capacity Jupiters give you more total lift capacity than the original Ares I + Ares V combination.

The Augustine commissions conclusion was that even with adequate funding Ares V wouldn't be ready till 2028.

Jupiter is tens of billions of dollars cheaper to develop than Ares V, and cheaper to operate. We need to take maximum advantage of stuff we've already developed and paid for.

You can call it Ares IV or Ares V lite or whatever but if you stick to an 8.4 m core, SSME engines, 4 or 5 segment SRBs, and RL-10 engines on the upperstage you get the most bang for the buck.


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 4:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Ares V is so heavy it may exceed the capacity of the crawler and crawler-way requiring the replacement of both at the cost of some billions."

To me, this is a perfect example of why NASA should be replaced by private industry. A quote of "billions" for a new crawler, and 5 miles of road to drive it on? Come on now. A German firm built a larger, much faster tracked vehicle (though with lower weight capacity) for about 1% of that cost. I refuse to believe they couldn't get a private bid for a system capable of transporting Ares for more than $100M or so.


By randomly on 3/8/2010 8:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if we think of it as 5 miles of foundation strong enough to support a skyscraper all built on swamp muck then maybe it won't seem quite so overpriced.

NASA wouldn't build it themselves, they did put it out to private bid. I believe the over $2 Billion price tag is for 2 crawlers and a crawler-way that can handle 15 million kgs. Maybe they come with full tanks of gas.

My preference would be to just use what we already have.

I'm curious, what German built tracked vehicle are you referring to?


By porkpie on 3/8/2010 8:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
At $100,000 per foot , it still seems massively overpriced.

I had to dig a bit to find the story I read awhile back about the German tracked vehicle. It's the Bagger 288, which can be seen in this rather frightening photo:

http://www.lakata.org/arch/bagger288.jpg


By Ammohunt on 3/8/2010 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 1
Sure private evil corporations that Obama and the democrats can tax out of existence. Its a Win Win either way for Obama.


By cmdrdredd on 3/8/2010 4:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
The downside is they can charge whatever they want and the government will pay up or not have a space program. It's OUR money, tax payer money, going to private businesses. Let's see who's names are scribbled in the payroll of these companies too because I bet more than a couple of the president's friends are getting kickbacks.


By Suntan on 3/8/2010 4:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but on the flip side, this administration has shown that it has absolutely no problem turning (Soviet Russia-style) on big corporations that are filled with its buddies and completely altering the terms of a contract it has already signed if the administration gets the feeling that the general public is catching on to the piss-poor deal it made in the first place.

-Suntan


He can't win...
By Ytsejamer1 on 3/8/2010 9:55:10 AM , Rating: 3
Man...this guy can't catch a break anywhere. If he wants to push to fund something, it's excessive waste and more debt, if he wants to implement a service such as health care, it's a socialist agenda (with more debt), when he wants to reign in costs on something, it's making America less secure, and when now with this NASA thing, it's people asking to spend more money OR ELSE (not to mention a socialist plot to send money to Russian countries).

Personally I think NASA funding should go through...any funding that pushes us forward scientifically will be worth the time, effort, and money. By going to the moon, we were able to plant seeds for industries such as software, computers, and who knows how many other. It drove the US forward as well as employed thousands, and hundreds of thousands in future years.




RE: He can't win...
By pequin06 on 3/8/2010 10:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Boy, you would think you were talking about Republicans.
They could never do anything right.


RE: He can't win...
By Suntan on 3/8/2010 10:42:30 AM , Rating: 3
Well, that is because *fundamentally* his priorities do not mesh with a lot of other American’s priorities.

I’ll only speak for myself (although I know I am not alone) when I say that my view of the federal government’s role is (in no particular order)

- Protect the citizens from external and internal criminal behavior
- Represent the citizen’s views on matters of international exchange with other nations
- “Referee” (as in, enforce fairness without getting actively involved) internal markets and social activities such that capitalism can work for the overall benefit of the society
- Unbiasedly and responsibly fund pure science research and other areas of research & development that may offer benefits to society in the long term, but does not offer direct, immediate, monetary incentive for commercial companies such that there is no commercial market for private/public companies to be interested in paying for it.

He “can’t catch a brake” from me because he continually comes down on the wrong side of these ideals.

-Suntan


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:28:56 PM , Rating: 4
Except for Reagan, you mean.

Clinton actually wasn't too bad either...he was so busy with "other matters" that the federal branch actually wound up with a very laissez-faire attitude during his reign.


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: He can't win...
By Suntan on 3/8/2010 1:59:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How many blatant abuses of power did we have under his administration?


How many?

List them if you would.

-Suntan


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 2:26:19 PM , Rating: 4
"I'll give you a freebie: IRAN-CONTRA."

You mean the secret attempt to free US hostages in Iran? Gosh, what a travesty eh?

And, since Reagan knew nothing of it anyway, what on earth leads you call that an abuse of presidential power?


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: He can't win...
By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 3:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did I ever claim it was an abuse of presidential power?

You presented it as an example of proof of abuse of Presidential power, which was the subject of contention.


RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Not to mention the fact that it facilitated the growth of the US crack-cocaine epidemic"

I read it on Wikipedia, Ma, it must be true!


RE: He can't win...
By Suntan on 3/8/2010 2:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
As if age means anything on the internet, yes I was alive. Young, but alive. Further, on the whole I do think Reagan did a very good job at the helm. Certainly better than any that followed him, and quite a few that came before him.

Would all of his actions that he made back then be considered as ideal notions to solve today’s problems? No. But then, I would think if he were in charge today he would make different choices to today’s problems.

As for the Iran-Contra, again you are looking at decisions made 20+ years ago and passing judgment based on the ramifications some two decades later. If this occurred today (weapons trading with Iran) the sitting president would likely be impeached on the spot, however at the time Iran was not the 800lb gorilla in the opposing corner (that title went to the vodka drinkers to the North of them.) The man was trying to improve relations with Iran while also trying to rescue American hostages. Further, it was not even clear Reagan had involvement in setting it up. However, what I do personally remember from that time was when Reagan went on TV and accepted responsibility for the actions that happened on his watch. Which is quite different than most double-talking politicians.

In any case, if the Iran Contra issue is the only one you can come up with (and judging by your rather snarky and combative rebuttal insinuating that *I* should research *your* unfounded claims, I’m guessing it is) that’s a pretty good record considering everything else he accomplished during his administration.

quote:
After that you're on your own.


No. On this topic, it would appear that you are the one on your own.

-Suntan


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:27:04 PM , Rating: 3
"O am under no obligation to provide you with stats, links, talking points, or anything else. "

Translation: "I can't do it, but I'll pretend otherwise in the hopes no one will notice"

" I'm pretty sure you're well aware of the controversies surrounding the Reagan administration"

Controversy != Abuse of Presidential Power.

"I don't put up with elitism and condescension from people in RL, so why should I put up with it here?"

You're not only "putting up with it", you're enabling it...by posting blatant mistruths, failing to back them up with even the hint of a fact or logical argument-- then blaming others for your own failings.


RE: He can't win...
By Suntan on 3/8/2010 3:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Look dude. The way discussions and debates work is that you pose your initial opinion and then you support it with facts and opinions about why you think these facts are relevant to your initial opinion.

You don’t have a conversation by posting an opinion and then telling everyone that disagrees with you that they are just a bunch of elitists (by the way, thinking that Reagan was a good president is not really the definition of “elitist.”)

Anyway, think whatever you want. It is interesting though that you have spent more space repeatedly explaining why you think you don’t have to support your argument than you did actually posing your argument. But I guess you don’t think you have to explain that to an “elitist” like me either.

I am genuinely curious to know what other actions that Reagan took during his administration you would consider an abuse of his presidential powers. Or more specifically, what actions you think he took that contradict my initial list of the federal government’s role in my life. But if you would rather just spend a few more posts telling an “elitist” like me to STFU, so be it.

Have a good one brother.

-Suntan


RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 2:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
"No, I meant Reagan too"

Then you either didn't read Suntan's original post, or you're woefully ignorant of history. In 8 short years, Reagan nearly doubled federal R&D spending:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/fedfunds/pubs/dht42/...

His laissez-faire economic philosophy ended the dismal recession of the Carter years,and began the single longest peacetime economic expansion in US history. And his foreign policy revitalized our pride in our nation, and helped bring about the fall of Soviet communism and the enormous human rights violations it entailed.


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
" In the future, please refrain from posting cherry-picked links"

If you don't like my facts, present ones of your own. Your ad hominem snide remarks simply show that you have an excess of emotion, and a shortage of reasoning ability.


RE: He can't win...
By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 3:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't need a link to another page full of statistics. Been there, done that.

You assert as such, but your posts indicate otherwise.


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 3:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
" I'm under no obligation to kowtow to you or anyone else on this site."

Of course not. But a convincing argument consists of facts and logic....not simply acting like a 3 year old having a tantrum. You might try the former sometime.

In the interim, you're free to continue embarrassing yourself.


RE: He can't win...
By SPOOFE on 3/9/2010 2:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm under no obligation to kowtow to you or anyone else on this site.

It's very telling of your character that you would feel like you're "kotowing" to someone by supporting your assertions. Let me guess: Asperger's?


RE: He can't win...
By Suntan on 3/8/2010 1:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
What I am most disappointed with is the average American voter… …That they bought into it. That “This Time” it would be different. That “This Guy” was Change we can believe in.

The idea that they were mad with Bush’s wars and his fiscal policies. So they would “teach the Republicans a lesson” by voting them out of office and bringing in someone that, on the campaign trail, promised them he would change those things quickly. Out of curiosity, of the two main things that people were the most upset about (war and economy) was I the only one that noticed Obama’s administration kept Bush’s Federal Reserve chairman *and* Bush’s Secretary of Defense?

Suckers.

-Suntan


RE: He can't win...
By HandOfDeath on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: He can't win...
By Suntan on 3/8/2010 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
That’s too bad.

As with Bush before him, I was not thrilled with everything McCain brought to the table. However, I was firmly of the opinion that he was the “lesser of two evils” in the running. As we couldn’t just vote to leave the slot open, I would have rather had him.

As for Palin, I didn’t really learn too much about her, as they trotted her out pretty much at the last moment. But I can say with 100% absolute confidence, that there is no scenario under the sun that I can think of (political or otherwise) where I would choose Biden before her.

-Suntan


RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 2:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
" As we couldn’t just vote to leave the slot open, I would have rather had him."

Oh man...what a wonderful option that would be though, wouldn't it? I bet we'd be down to 20 members in Congress, if the people had an option like that.


RE: He can't win...
By WW102 on 3/8/2010 3:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
Kinda like a multiple choice Test
A. Obama
B. McCain
C. Clinton
D. None of the Above


RE: He can't win...
By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think the vote should be changed to a simple "Yes/No" for every candidate, as opposed to a single vote divvied up between ten or twelve guys. It would never happen, because it would shatter the two-party system (what good is spending tens - if not hundreds - of millions of dollars tarnishing the reputation of one guy if ten others have the same chance?).


RE: He can't win...
By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 3:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
In the last couple Bush years, I recall one poll that suggested 80% of Americans would replace everyone in Congress if they could. Sure, a poll is a poll, but that figure jives with the absurdly low Congress approval ratings that made Bush seem like the popular kid on the block.


RE: He can't win...
By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 1:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when he wants to reign in costs on something, it's making America less secure, and when now with this NASA thing, it's people asking to spend more money OR ELSE

Oh yeah, he raises spending by almost a trillion right out the door, and we're supposed to praise him for wanting to cut a couple billion? You're insane. Spending cuts are supposed to actually help solve the low revenue problem. He's making token cuts that A: do nothing to help, B: will likely hurt, and C: displays a complete lack of respect and understanding of one of the greatest resources our nation has, an extensive history of space travel and engineering and operations experience.


RE: He can't win...
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Oh yeah, he raises spending by almost a trillion right out the door, and we're supposed to praise him for wanting to cut a couple billion? "

You FOOL. Don't you realize two billion in savings more than outweighs one trillion in spending? Two is bigger than one !

I'm late for my ACORN meeting, or I'd hang around to educate you further.


RE: He can't win...
By cruisin3style on 3/8/2010 3:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Two is bigger than one !


Funny, that must have been what George W. Bush said before invading Iraq


Again
By knutjb on 3/8/2010 8:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't ever remember any President who needed to clarify himself so often. Wasn't he supposed to be the best communicator ever or did his teleprompter let him down again?




RE: Again
By pequin06 on 3/8/2010 9:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
He has to clarify which blue state will get the business.


RE: Again
By Indianapolis on 3/8/2010 10:05:17 AM , Rating: 4
I love it when Obama says "Let me be clear", because it lets you know he's about to lie.


RE: Again
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/8/2010 11:12:48 AM , Rating: 3
sad but true

signed moderate democrat


RE: Again
By Alexvrb on 3/8/2010 10:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
I found his new budget plans for NASA!

http://dumpalink.com/videos/Robot-Chicken-Monkeys-...


By Indianapolis on 3/8/2010 10:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
So we outsource our rocket technology, and nationalize our medical system? Just how much cocaine did this guy use?




By SPOOFE on 3/8/2010 1:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'd party with Dubya OR Obama. They probably get primo stuff.


By mmatis on 3/8/2010 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Suckin' nagger duck, eh?


By pequin06 on 3/8/2010 3:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
So you were there to witness the "vacuum nostrils" or are you getting that info from a website that hands out tin foil hats and says 9/11 was an inside job?


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











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