backtop

Blog: Science Senators Obama, McCain Battle Over NASA Funding
Michael Barkoviak - August 20, 2008 7:42 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by GlassHouse69.. on Aug 28 at 12:21 PM
Obama and McCain both have a strong focus on Florida and the thousands of employees who are about to lose their jobs there

As Republican presidential hopeful John McCain (R, AZ) and Democrat Barack Obama (D, IL) trump across the nation trying to persuade Americans why they should get votes, Florida is again a battle state where both hopefuls are spending a lot of time and money.

During a stop at Florida's Space Coast on Monday, Sen. McCain said he will be the one able to make sure the United States is able to keep up in a growing space race with Russia, China and others.  

Furthermore, McCain also chastised Sen. Obama for changing positions on the funding difficulties facing NASA.  The NASA Constellation program, the U.S. space agency's plan for space travel after the shuttle is retired in 2010, would be temporarily delayed to pave the way for educational programs, Obama previously said.  But that idea was later dropped in favor of trying to find money for both programs by making cuts to other projects.

"I told my staff we're going to find an entirely different offset, because we've got to make sure that the money going into NASA for basic research and development continues to go there," Obama told a group of listeners at Brevard Community College.  "That has been a top priority for us."

Obama hopes to be able to get U.S. astronauts back to the lunar surface, along with expediting the development of the Orion space vehicle and finishing construction on the International Space Station (ISS).

McCain plans to make sure space exploration remains a top priority for the United States, ensure the Constellation program has proper funding, finish construction on the ISS, offer more money for aeronautics research, and to help invest in more Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems.

The Space Coast will likely lose thousands of jobs both within NASA and third party contractors once the current generation space shuttle is retired in 2010.   

Russia, China, India, Japan, Europe and others are currently involved in space exploration, with each program having varying levels of success.  China and Japan successfully launched competing lunar orbiters during 2007.  The growing Indian space program plans to launch a lunar orbiter before the end of 2008.  Russia, China, JAXA and the United States all have plans to go back to the moon, though each space nation has their sights set on visiting the Red Planet of Mars.

Both NASA and China plan to launch manned lunar missions with the possibility of a lunar base -- but NASA officials admit Chinese astronauts are more likely to return to the moon before anyone else.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Don't be naive
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 9:26:01 AM , Rating: 5
Anyone who thinks Obama will wholeheartedly back NASA is a fool. His "new opinion" is fueled by nothing more than a desire to get votes.




RE: Don't be naive
By ThatNewGuy on 8/20/2008 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 5
You've got to be kidding. I mean, NO politician would just say things that we want to hear in order to get votes!


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 9:34:36 AM , Rating: 4
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

Obama's new campaign strategy is pandering for votes. From NASA, to oil drilling, to abortion being above his pay grade...


RE: Don't be naive
By tallcool1 on 8/20/2008 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 5
Saw this article today: MCCAIN PULLS AHEAD 'BY 5 POINTS' http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1...
Your post reminded me of this funny reader comment on that page:
quote:
MICHELLE: Barack, you take out the trash.

BARACK: That's above my paygrade Sweetie.

LOL


RE: Don't be naive
By therealnickdanger on 8/20/2008 3:25:23 PM , Rating: 5
How dare you repost that trash here. That comment is so irresponsible. Obama doesn't create trash or waste anything. He recycles everything he touches by casting an Infinite Carbon Negativity spell. I hear he even farts ozone to overcome the effects of CFCs.


RE: Don't be naive
By lifeblood on 8/20/2008 9:42:23 AM , Rating: 3
And McCain is in total denial that America is running an unsustainable deficit. They are both politicians, both will say anything to get votes. One panders to the left, the other to the right.

No matter who gets elected, spending is going to have to be reduced and NASA is going to get cut like everyone else. The problem with these big projects like going back to the moon is that many smaller, arguably more worthwhile projects get cut in order to pay for the big "high visibility" mission.


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 9:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And McCain is in total denial that America is running an unsustainable deficit.

Isn't McCain calling for spending cuts and eliminating pork barrel spending? All while not taking more tax money to allow individuals more of their own expendable income?


RE: Don't be naive
By lifeblood on 8/20/2008 9:50:46 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know of too many presidential candidates who don't call for this. George W called for the same thing and look at the deficit he's racked up. And John McCain has brought home the bacon to his home state on a few occasions. Lies, damn lies, and political promise. They all say the same thing, few of them do it.


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 10:10:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't know of too many presidential candidates who don't call for this.

Obama has NOT called for decrease in spending, eliminating pork barrel spending, or keeping/decreasing current taxation. In fact, he's proposed billions in additional spending as well as tax increases.


RE: Don't be naive
By jabber on 8/20/2008 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Listen whoever gets in...NASA will get screwed.

It happens everytime.

When it boils down to hard choices..new school books or a new launch rocket project....its not hard to know which one will get funded and which one gets its budget slashed.

Shame but there you go. Life is not fair, thats how it is.


RE: Don't be naive
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 11:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
And that needs to change.


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
Wont catch me arguing with that :)


RE: Don't be naive
By Murst on 8/20/2008 4:30:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Obama has NOT called for decrease in spending, eliminating pork barrel spending, or keeping/decreasing current taxation. In fact, he's proposed billions in additional spending as well as tax increases.


That's partially correct. Obama has called for eliminating Bush's tax cuts for those individuals who makes over $250k per year, while keeping the tax cuts for everyone else.

McCain has called for eliminating tax cuts for everyone. He has also said that he wants to limit wasteful spending, but hasn't exactly pointed out what he is going to eliminate (in fact, he only points out things like this where he wants to increase spending, go figure).

CNN Money actually had a pretty interesting article comparing the fiscal policy of both Obama and McCain. The end result: Both policies lead to a huge deficit, although Obama's deficit is much smaller than McCains. Also, on average, people making less than $250k per year will not be affected under either McCain or Obama. However, people making over $250k per year will have to pay significantly more taxes under Obama's plan.


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 7:50:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
McCain has called for eliminating tax cuts for everyone.


You mean extending, not eliminate.

quote:
He has also said that he wants to limit wasteful spending, but hasn't exactly pointed out what he is going to eliminate (in fact, he only points out things like this where he wants to increase spending, go figure).


All ear marks, for one thing. He was against the Farm Bill this year, a massive pork-fest for farmers that tarnishes our credibility on global trade issues, which Obama voted for. He's also got a history of scrutinizing military deals, and says he wants to cut wasteful military spending. On his website, he also identifies Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as huge liabilities that must be paired down. More broadly, he wants a one year budget freeze while every program is analyzed, and either rationalized or terminated. Don't say that's too vague, as here in Orlando it's just what our mayor (a Dixiecrat) did, to great effect. Many government programs are born, serve their purpose, and then become immortal. It's amazing the number of times he found two or three supervisors over a single individual; government equivalent of a construction site with 3 guys watching and one guy digging. He also wants to limit annual spending growth to 2.4%, which presently would mean a real annual decline in spending (due to inflation).

So don't say he hasn't identified anything, and then say "go figure," unless you're up to date.

quote:
Both policies lead to a huge deficit, although Obama's deficit is much smaller than McCains.


Such projections require belief in estimates of what new taxes will raise in revenue. Recent tax hikes in states like Michigan (business taxes), Maryland (cigs) and Chicago (bottled water) prove that, amazingly enough, if you tax something you get less of it than initially expected.

quote:
Also, on average, people making less than $250k per year will not be affected under either McCain or Obama. However, people making over $250k per year will have to pay significantly more taxes under Obama's plan.


France is already way ahead of us here, or at least Sarkozy is, and we'd do well to learn from others mistakes. Sarkozy (and many French) have realized that those two groups do not live in isolation of each other, and punishing those who create jobs and build wealth has an adverse impact on those who are less motivated. Sarkozy said, I believe, "that the chief consequence of keeping a few from becoming rich has been to make everybody poor." (I don't have his book handy, so thats paraphrased but close to the original.)

Besides, if you look at income distribution studies over peoples lifetimes, you'll discover that virtually all people with a business or engineering 4 year degree make over 100k by the mid point of their careers, meaning that 250k/yr, depending on where you draw the "middle class" line, may actually snag a lot of common families.


RE: Don't be naive
By Murst on 8/21/2008 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean extending, not eliminate.

Yeah, sorry, silly mistake. (wish we could edit for stuff like that).

"All ear marks" is a very vague term. In fact, McCain himself is very contradictory on what he considers earmarks. I do like his plan to freeeze spending, however, we both know that the president has absolutely no power here. There's just no way to get congress to agree to this (unfortunately). Good idea though.

quote:
Such projections require belief in estimates of what new taxes will raise in revenue

That's just silly. We already know the effect of these tax cuts. Just look at today's economy: massive deficit, inflation, huge devaluation of the dollar, etc. You need to keep in mind that Obama doesn't want to raise taxes by a lot. In fact, his proposals are still below the level at which Clinton had taxes. However, he's just not willing to go as low as Bush has (and McCan wants to keep). These cuts haven't provided the boost that people were expecting.

quote:
France is already way ahead of us here, or at least Sarkozy

Umm.. no. Do you realize how much taxes they pay in France? No politician here would go that far.

Look, I'm a huge fan of lower taxes. However, I'm a bigger fan of a balanced budget. Both of these candidates fail on the balanced budget question. However, what McCain is proposing is worse than the current situation w/ Bush. At least Obama is attempting to lower the deficit.


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/22/2008 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
hat's just silly. We already know the effect of these tax cuts.


Woops, you're changing subjects, talking about economic effects. I pointed out the well known fact that raising taxes reduces the volume/value of the thing being taxed. Governments, including local, state, and national planners, have routinely failed to account for this in their estimates, and thus routinely over-estimate the revenue gain from any given tax increase. Not to say politicians are ignorant of this, they just want to make their plans sound better than they really are.

quote:
massive deficit, inflation, huge devaluation of the dollar, etc.


The deficit is a good point. The other two have no relation. Inflation is due to a global surge in oil prices and lax monetary policy, and so is the devaluation of the dollar. Indeed, the housing bubble is probably the result of lax policy at the tail end of the Greenspan years, plus a little tulip bulb syndrome among the masses. Obama can not wish away commodity prices, and I actually question his inflation credentials; Chris Dodd isn't holding two Fed governors chairs hostage just so an Obama White House can put in place an inflation hawk. He was holding 3 hostage, but the assault on the Fed's monetary independence became a little to blatant.

quote:
These cuts haven't provided the boost that people were expecting.


Several great years of growth without any of the benefit of productivity gains from IT that the 90s enjoyed, and great relative performance over the last 12 months during a global economic slowdown. I guess you didn't hear it on CNN, but several European countries would be envious of our economic strength at the moment. And if you want to play the "I don't believe in business cycles" card, I'd warn you to be careful as the last recession started propagating across the country under the Patron Saint of Democrats, Clinton's watch. By your logic.. Clinton tax levels don't work, and neither do Bush's.

quote:
Umm.. no. Do you realize how much taxes they pay in France? No politician here would go that far.


If he removes the cap on payroll taxes, as he has proposed, the top marginal bracket ends up effectively around 50%, which AFAIK is right around that of France (53%). Throw in state income taxes where applicable, and it looks even worse. Our only saving grace is lighter regulation at that point.

quote:
However, I'm a bigger fan of a balanced budget.


I like them too, but Obama has shown no inclination to tackle the multi-trillion dollar timebomb that dwarfs Iraq, tax cuts for the "rich," and everything else. That's Social Security and Medicare. He's got an idea for health care, but Social Security alone has the ability to wreck the budget within a couple decades if it's not brought under control. Pardon if I don't believe that the party whose primary constituency is the poor (Medicaid), retired (Social Security and Medicare), and socialists (all the above) will have the willpower to toss the will of its voters under the bus to do the right thing and trim benefits. Without trimming benefits or SS privatization, there is only one option: making France's tax rates look low by 2030 or 2040.

Europe's already ahead of us on that one too, by the way. They know they have to cut benefits, and have (very, very) slowly started setting about doing it.


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/22/2008 5:44:43 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, inflation was also due to the food-for-fuel corn ethanol blood trade. A little hard not to have that happen when 1/3 of a corp gets diverted from mouths to gas tanks. As recently as June, Obama still fully supported corn ethanol and its subsidies. In contrast...

“Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce” (Rohter, 6/23/08).

But hey, what's several billion dollars in pandering to lobbyists if it helps swing a farm state for Obama, right?


RE: Don't be naive
By Murst on 8/22/2008 6:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Woops, you're changing subjects, talking about economic effects

Its rather silly to talk about economic policy without considering the effects...
quote:
The deficit is a good point. The other two have no relation

A huge deficit most certainly has an effect on the value of currency. Sure, there's a ton of things that also factor in, but creating money out of thin air always has an impact on already existing currency.
quote:
and great relative performance over the last 12 months during a global economic slowdown. I guess you didn't hear it on CNN, but several European countries would be envious of our economic strength at the moment.

Exactly what countries are you comparing us to? The majority of European countries had a very healthy growth rate in the past 12 months. I'm assuming you're talking about Germany, Italy, and possibly England - and those countries are in the same situation we're in. Actually, if you don't go by the insane inflation metrics that are being used by the government (.8% last year? yeah right...), we've been in a recession for a while now.
quote:
He's got an idea for health care, but Social Security alone has the ability to wreck the budget within a couple decades if it's not brought under control

Health care is actually the huge issue. I think the deficit in health care funding is something on the magnitude of 5 or 6x that of social security. SS also has some hard decisions ahead, and we're most likely to push the retirement age by a few years and index it to life expectancy from that point. There's really no need to privatize it, although that certainly wouldn't be horrible either. However, it would be so difficult to privatize SS that I doubt it will ever happen.

In many cases, I agree with your general ideas. However, I just don't see that in either candidate, so I have to go w/ the one who actually has proposals that can help the economy (and have a shot of making it through congress).

I hope one day we'll have a conservative party that's actually conservative on fiscal policy and not on social values... and has a shot of getting majority in congress. But that's just dreaming...


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/23/2008 7:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A huge deficit most certainly has an effect on the value of currency. Sure, there's a ton of things that also factor in


In the middle of the recent dollar rally, I believe it was the CBO that released a report indicating next years deficit will be significantly larger than previously forecast. Dollar rallied continue unabated. Relative to GDP, our debt isn't yet "huge," but we're working on it. Differential interest rates and investment opportunities related to growth has been the prime driver lately it seems.

quote:
The majority of European countries had a very healthy growth rate in the past 12 months. I'm assuming you're talking about Germany, Italy, and possibly England - and those countries are in the same situation we're in.


Also Ireland and Spain. Denmark has officially declared itself in recession, and no, Germany isn't in the same situation we are in -- at least not in terms of housing. The old ax that Europe lags the US business cycle by roughly 6 months has held; virtually all economic indicators are sharply negative, and some are reporting negative growth (check the latest data, Germany and France both contracted in Q2). I skip the FT, but all the other financial papers, magazines, investment blogs etc I keep up on consider Europe's situation to be more dire than our own. Going back to the dollar, this is why I think it's had strength recently, our relative economic strength.

quote:
Actually, if you don't go by the insane inflation metrics that are being used by the government (.8% last year? yeah right...), we've been in a recession for a while now.


I'm not sure where .8% is from, but core inflation has been reported above 2% for a long time. The BLS actually has a PDF I came across using the old method you must be referring to, and it actually matches up with the present measurements pretty well.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiurs1978_2007.pdf

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SK4bsfqgbVI/...

Not saying north of 4% is good, just comparing old and new measurements to restore some faith in the current GDP deflators used that still show positive real GDP growth.

Inventory to sales ratio's are 1.23, job losses haven't approached the 250k/month rate one normally sees in a recession, and GDP its putting along on the back of strong exports even without the stimulus checks. Indeed, the NBER will probably retroactively declare a recession, but I bet they'll mark it as having started Q4 07 and ending Q1 08. It appears just-in-time manufacturing has paid a huge dividend.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ISRATI...

There's a line of thinking that says you can't really have a good old-fashioned big-unemployment recession with inventory levels like that.

quote:
I think the deficit in health care funding is something on the magnitude of 5 or 6x that of social security.


Hmm.. You're right about health care, I'm finding all sorts of different numbers, but Medicare looks to be at least twice as bad as Social Security as it currently stands. I just have a hard time trusting a candidate running as a populist to adapt anti-populist positions after getting in the door.

quote:
I hope one day we'll have a conservative party that's actually conservative on fiscal policy and not on social values...


I'll end on a sad note of strong agreement. What happened to Goldwater?! Oh, he died. Damn. :(


RE: Don't be naive
By smitty3268 on 8/20/2008 11:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's the point - he calling for anonymous spending cuts without ever specifying where they will come from. He says he can just immediately find billions of waste that will magically go away and give him the money to spend on all the new programs he is calling for. Which is pretty much exactly what every politician since the beginning of time has said. It never changes.


RE: Don't be naive
By RHiNoX on 8/22/08, Rating: 0
Why go to the moon?
By lifeblood on 8/20/2008 10:18:22 AM , Rating: 1
Although I hope it doesn't happen, I bet the media turns this into a big political race for the moon. We've been there and done that, nobody else has. The race was won back in '69. The Chinese have a very long way to go before they come anywhere near matching our accomplishments in space.

And I must mention we have not been resting on out laurels since then. Who else has the ultimate in RC cars rolling across Mars making discoveries? It's one thing to get there, it's quite another to get there and do something useful.




RE: Why go to the moon?
By jabber on 8/20/2008 11:42:18 AM , Rating: 1
"The Chinese have a very long way to go before they come anywhere near matching our accomplishments in space."

Hmmm wasnt this the US feeling towards the USSR back in the early 60's before Sputnik and Gagarin?

Folks are full of surprises, never underestimate them, especially those that put national pride before all else.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By lifeblood on 8/20/2008 1:22:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, but... Back in the 50's and 60's neither of us (US or USSR) had much time and experience in space. Now we both have done quite a bit. Today both the ESA and Russia are arguably our equals in manned space flight. However, while many countries (Japan, India, ESA, Russia, etc) have also done quite a bit in earth orbit with satellites, few have successfully ventured beyond that. Between the Mars rovers and other planetary probes we have much to be proud of. Again, this is based on actual past accomplishments. The Chinese, however, have no such history, either attempted or accomplished.

Having said all that, you are still right. When a country can afford it and feels it's national pride depends on it, they can come up with some surprises.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By jabber on 8/20/2008 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we'll have to see what crops up over the next ten years or so.

Interesting times ahead I reckon.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By lifeblood on 8/21/2008 9:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
I see by the rating on my previous two comments that somebody took issue with what I said. After re-reading it, it does sound like I am chest thumping and being an ugly American. However, I believe it is quite justified in this particular case. Our accomplishments in space compared to the rest of the world speak for themselves.

Yes, we in America do frequently take more credit than we deserve. We can even be overly arrogant and obnoxious. But we also are not the great satan and we have done much to make the world better. Sometimes we deserve to pat ourselves on the back.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By jabber on 8/21/2008 9:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
Dont worry I got rated down it appears by daring the opposite side.

Some folks just dont have the clarity of thought to think things through.

Not to worry.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 11:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
The real race is to Mars. The moon is a stepping stone. That's where we need to beat the Chinese to.

I fully support an active Moon base. Both as a strategic military outpost and as a launch point for a mission to Mars.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By Grast on 8/20/2008 12:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
FIT not to contradict your statement. However, Every article about MARS exploration that I have read is stating that MARS exploration is easiest with a direct shot. Basically, it will take more fuel to launch from the moon. While I would like to see a permemenant moon base in my lifetime, I believe the goal to return to the moon is political in nature.

Later...


RE: Why go to the moon?
By Verran on 8/20/2008 2:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real race is to Mars. The moon is a stepping stone. That's where we need to beat the Chinese to.

Why do we need to beat them there? Why do we need to beat anyone anywhere in space? The whole "race" aspect of exploration completely eludes me.

I think going to Mars is awesome and I fully support MORE money going to NASA, but do it for the betterment of technology and the human race, not to beat some other country there so you can puff out your chest.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By therealnickdanger on 8/20/2008 3:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Competition > cooperation. That's why.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 8:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do we need to beat them there? Why do we need to beat anyone anywhere in space? The whole "race" aspect of exploration completely eludes me.


nickdanger already pointed out one reason; competitive drive encourages things along far better than hippy cooperation does. Note how NASA has fallen in to obscurity once it lacked a competitor.

Beyond that, I think people are being naive assuming this is purely scientific. The dawn of an era where the moon has commercial resource value is rapidly approaching. Mars one day will as well. Like Russia or hate them, Russia has its eye on the future and both feet in the real world. Note how they're trying to lay claim to as much of the arctic area as they can; they want those energy resources. People that point to international treaty saying Antarctica and space belong to all and can't be claimed don't know history; those treaties are meaningless paper, and will become void the moment there is value in violating them.

We can either play the game and claim our piece of the future, or, sort of like Europe, take the high road, sit back, and let others reap the benefits.

I for one would rather my country reach out and grab its share of the pie; China will take theirs, as will Russia and Japan, if they can. So we won't get it all, but we'll get what we can, and if we're the dominant player on the Moon and Mars we get to set the rules. When the lunar surface becomes valuable, if America has a piece of the action, I benefit as a citizen.

One way to think of it might be colonizing the "New World." People then probably had your attitude; why? So a country can puff out its chest? Well, the North American chest-puffing exercise ultimately became the most powerful nation in history, and it started with a small number of people who had the vision to see the potential beyond their own shores.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 1:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
The real race is to the moon. It's a far more useful and strategic resource than Mars will ever be...at least for the next 500 years or so. Industrially, economically, and militarily, a permanent presence on the moon will be a huge benefit to whatever nation chooses to establish it.

Mars? Other than bragging rights and contributing a little to our knowledge of exogeology, it's essentially worthless.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By jabber on 8/21/2008 9:48:17 AM , Rating: 1
Folks dont seem to like my idea of in a few hundred years using the DEAD planet Mars as a dumping ground for waste from Earth.

Seems a better idea to shift it there then keep it here.

Unless we can somehow become totally waste neutral its going to be hard to deal with the waste output from say 12 billion+ humans.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By v3rt1g0 on 8/21/2008 3:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Even given the current pace of technology, and even in 300-500 years, I find it extremely hard to believe it will be more economical to lift trash into space, and push it all the way to Mars, versus simply dumping it into a deep hole in the ground, or even sinking the non-toxic stuff to the ocean floor.

There is still a heck of a lot that can be improved with product/food packaging, also. Even if the recycling methods were energy neutral, fully/easily recyclable products would become the norm if we ever truly ran into a situation where landfill space was dwindling.


RE: Why go to the moon?
By Amiga500 on 8/21/2008 9:04:05 AM , Rating: 3
I fully support an active Moon base. Both as a strategic military outpost and as a launch point for a mission to Mars.

Military? For what?


RE: Why go to the moon?
By Topweasel on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why go to the moon?
By Moohbear on 8/21/2008 1:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
On the Moon? Garrisoning troops on the Moon to dump them back on Earth? Spending gargantuan amounts of fuel to ferry troops (and lots of them) on the Moon, building accommodations and storing supplies on the Moon to dump soldiers back to Earth?

Yeah, right...


RE: Why go to the moon?
By wordsworm on 8/22/2008 11:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sending stuff from the Moon to the earth would be relatively inexpensive. While I agree it's a silly notion to send troops to the moon, setting up mining on the Moon would be well worth it. A simple maglev launch with containers made of materials found on the moon could make the whole process quite interesting. Of course, the most valuable resource is Helium 3. A completely mechanized mining, smelting, and manufacturing colony on the moon is what I envision happening in the next 50-100 years. Furthermore, defending the moon from attacks or 'unauthorized' landings would be supremely easy. A simple high powered laser would be needed to defend the interests of whatever nation set it up first.

The moon is definitely the next major milestone of technological advancement for man. Whether it comes from the US, Russia, China, India, or even Iran, is the question.


By mac2j on 8/23/2008 6:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
1) Competition drive innovation a bit faster than cooperation sometimes (certainly in procuring funding)

2) Cooperating with countries who list your country as their #1 security threat (i.e. Russia, China) can have abrupt and serious consequences .... see Georgian conflict and our reliance on Russian spacecraft between 2010-2013. Also, "cooperating" through 45,000 pages of tech transfer restrictions is often not useful.

3) Pure scientific discovery isn't the only reason to start visiting the moon and mars. In 50-100 years our planet is going to be mostly depleted of easily accessible stores of some natural resources critical for sustaining our way of life and progress.... some things as simple as basic minerals like Zinc.... lunar mining may not be sci-fi in 100 years.




lies
By GlassHouse69 on 8/28/2008 12:21:34 PM , Rating: 1
Barrack has even fooled the public that he is a Black American vs. wealthy mideastern, african and european traveler with a half tan.

a year ago they believed he was a Christian too.

people are just dumb and believe anything the moron says.

Barrack Hussein Obama is a fucking puppet.




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











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki