78 replies to this topic

[Bart]

Someone like Obama who forces their will against the majoirty of the will of the people. Most people are not willing to accept this new so called "health care reform"

Obama knows what he's doing, the average American citizen (or any citizen in the world) does not.

[Devon]

Than tell me, how long can a current President continue to blame the last President? 2 years, 4 years, 8 years, 28 years?

Don't we still blame Hoover at least partially for not doing anything to help the economy during the Depression?




Honestly, if we were in this much debt and NASA hadn't had funding and Obama restored it, conservatives would still be yelling and waving their hands against him. You would be saying the program is practically useless at this point in time, and that we should be cutting deficit spending wherever possible.

Cut the funding. Cut the debt. By all means restore it when our economy is back on track, but until then, give it to programs that actually need it.

[Pasidon]

Not to mention the fact he would cut the funding on important projects that have been worked on since a Nazi plotted it in a bunker in Munich when he himself didn't even investigate the reasoning of the project. Some Congressmen slapped the 'funding cut' order on his desk and Obama signs it within the hour. Not much time to investigate congressional wording in that order.

Someone like Obama who forces their will against the majoirty of the will of the people. Most people are not willing to accept this new so called "health care reform"

Obama knows what he's doing, the average American citizen (or any citizen in the world) does not.

Well I would agree, but people call Bush a dullard and he had more approval ratings / good decisions than the guy in his chair now. It's only fair. Then again, Bush's public image was deducted by the average American citizen (or any citizen in the world). Justice has no place in a sea of idiots.

[Vortigern]

At one point Bush had high approval ratings, sure, but by the end of his tenure he was the lowest-rated President in history. And what good decisions did he make? Lowering taxes for the rich? Declaring war on an abstract concept? Invading a country with large supplies of oil and pretending it was for noble reasons? Not invading countries in worse breach of human rights because they had no oil reserves? (I admit, that was a good call.)

Back to the point of this whole damn thread, there is absolutely no reason why NASA needs shitloads of funding. What have they achieved in recent years? Nothing. As Pasidon inadvertently pointed out, they've deduced how to make slightly better rocket launches. Why didn't they just hire Arthur C. Clarke and make it all that much more fun?

Justice has no place in a sea of idiots.

Then why do you have courts in America?

Burn!

[Allathar]

Honestly, if we were in this much debt and NASA hadn't had funding and Obama restored it, conservatives would still be yelling and waving their hands against him. You would be saying the program is practically useless at this point in time, and that we should be cutting deficit spending wherever possible.

Cut the funding. Cut the debt. By all means restore it when our economy is back on track, but until then, give it to programs that actually need it.

Cut the debt, completely agreed. But why cut in a relatively small, domestic terrain, while at the same time spending billions and billions of dollars on trying to prevent the climate from changing (seriously, why doesn’t anyone realize how fucking ridiculous this is?!), giving billons of dollars worth aid to some crappy third world countries who will forever remain crappy (not to mention corrupt as hell), while at the same time ruining the economy with raising taxes for the wealthy people, the same wealthy people on which the nation depends for their investments to make the economy stable again?

Also, we can’t blame Bush for the economic crisis. Mr Clinton and the democrats were the real reason of the economic crisis, with their ‘houses and mortgages for the poor’ plan. As any democrat, mr Clinton thought everyone deserved a house… Even the ones who couldn’t afford the rent on their mortgages. Speculative banking simply failed to foresee that, because what sane bank would grant a mortgage to some poor gangsta’s who couldn’t even afford the rent? Well, no bank would do that, but mr Clinton insisted… And we all know what came after that. The democrats simply lit a bomb and waited for it to blow up, which it eventually did under the Bush administration.

[duke_Qa]

So starting two expensive wars is not as bad as giving people houses? I can't say Bush was the start of this economic decline, but he certainly had a chance at reducing the problems we see now.

All in all Obama got one of the toughest Presidencies seen the last hundred years. And it is not looking like the opposition is willing to get off their high horse to help out, "Revelling in their audacious apathy" as an article in the Times Online put it. Playing the fiddle while Rome burns, not giving a damn because it's not "their president". The great advantages of a two-party system readily apparent.

Hopefully Obama's reductions will be able to help out enough that the US can get back on track as fast as possible, even with the speedbumps coming up all the time.

[Ash]

Starting two expensive wars is a nobler cause than giving forty-six million people a safe healthcare option.

[Devon]

Honestly, if we were in this much debt and NASA hadn't had funding and Obama restored it, conservatives would still be yelling and waving their hands against him. You would be saying the program is practically useless at this point in time, and that we should be cutting deficit spending wherever possible.

Cut the funding. Cut the debt. By all means restore it when our economy is back on track, but until then, give it to programs that actually need it.

Cut the debt, completely agreed. But why cut in a relatively small, domestic terrain, while at the same time spending billions and billions of dollars on trying to prevent the climate from changing (seriously, why doesn’t anyone realize how fucking ridiculous this is?!), giving billons of dollars worth aid to some crappy third world countries who will forever remain crappy (not to mention corrupt as hell), while at the same time ruining the economy with raising taxes for the wealthy people, the same wealthy people on which the nation depends for their investments to make the economy stable again?

Also, we can’t blame Bush for the economic crisis. Mr Clinton and the democrats were the real reason of the economic crisis, with their ‘houses and mortgages for the poor’ plan. As any democrat, mr Clinton thought everyone deserved a house… Even the ones who couldn’t afford the rent on their mortgages. Speculative banking simply failed to foresee that, because what sane bank would grant a mortgage to some poor gangsta’s who couldn’t even afford the rent? Well, no bank would do that, but mr Clinton insisted… And we all know what came after that. The democrats simply lit a bomb and waited for it to blow up, which it eventually did under the Bush administration.

I'm not saying he shouldn't cut other things as well, but there's no reason for him not to cut NASA, which is what this topic is about.

Also, last I checked we had 8 years of a pretty good economy and low debt under Clinton. I'm really not convinced any of this was the fault of his policies.

[duke_Qa]

Yes, but no attempts were made to stop the banks from stretching themselves thin. The economic philosophy that caused this recession has been around since the 70-80s, and with a bit more intervention could have been reduced or averted. Alas, it works well when it works well, nobody wants to fix something that's not broken.

I imagine that NASA is not going to be shut down because of this reduction. If this is just hurting the moon expeditions I don't see the problem, as mentioned earlier, its a chest-beating gesture to go to the moon.

[Pasidon]

Beyond the whole debt thing and the fact going to the moon seems pointless, Obama acted prematurely and he thought people would turn from that fact because of the semi-flawed justification, and as demonstrated here, they have. He gets a cold fortune from Congress saying what this whole moon trip is for and he just flicks his ashes at it just because he can. And for sake... there are less important things in the political paycheck pyramid that are far more pointless and far more expensive than this project. Dare I mention that basted Indian Reparation crap...

At one point Bush had high approval ratings, sure, but by the end of his tenure he was the lowest-rated President in history.

I hate that. Bush was rated lower than William Harrison... the man who died 31 days after his inaugural address... not to mention he was sick for 30 of those days and dead for one, so he didn't do anything.

Justice has no place in a sea of idiots.

Then why do you have courts in America?

Burn!

No need to make jokes about jokes... We know...

[Hostile]

When America's space shuttle program ends in September, the U.S. will be completely dependent on Russian rockets for launching men and women into space -- and bringing them back. But what will happen to America's astronauts if relations between the U.S. and Russia sour?

Until American companies come to market with commercial rockets and launch vehicles to replace the shuttle, the only nation ever to put a man on the Moon[/font] won't even be able to put a man into orbit. And that, experts tell FoxNews.com, has the potential to be a "tragic mistake," one that could hold America's astronauts in orbit hostage to the whims of the Kremlin.

"The U.S. has surrendered its advantage in space, conceding the high ground to others who are probably our enemies," said Jane Orient, a science policy expert and professor at the University of Arizona. "We are apparently leaving seven astronauts in space as hostages. Their loss would be a tragedy, but only a small part of the total disaster. It would symbolize the lack of respect that America has for its pioneers."

Former rocket scientist Shannah B. Godfrey is equally outspoken in her criticism and concerns, noting the need for constant training and condition to remain prepared for a crisis in space.

"Remember a few years ago when china 'accidentally' hit a satellite in space?" she asked, adding that "they were subtly sending us a message that they could cripple us instantly by taking out our satellites."



Watch NASA[/font] Shuttle Discovery's mission, from lift-off to the space station and back.





With NASA confirming the end of its Constellation program, the space agency will rely on others for travel. Here are the leading companies and their current generation space taxi systems.



" Think of the intelligence data that would be lost: GPS capabilities, cell phones, many other communications, etc. We may need to send people up in a hurry to replace, repair, and man satellites and other stations, too. I can’t fathom why we would put ourselves in such a vulnerable position."

NASA scoffs at concerns that Russia could strand American astronauts in space.

"There are always Soyuz spacecraft[/font] docked to the station, providing enough crew seats for a return to Earth," said NASA spokesman John Yembrick.

And some scientists agree that these fears are misplaced. Dr. Howard C. Hayden, an emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, believes there will be "no problem" in serving the International Space Station. "I can't imagine that the Russians would avoid a rescue mission simply because relations had soured," Hayden told FoxNews.com. "That would bring very loud international condemnation. They'd go out of their way to establish their moral high ground."

But others are less confident; they worry about problems that may result from relying too much upon others.

"The looming, multi-year gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability is a major embarrassment that represents a failure of U.S. leadership," John Lindner, a professor of physics and astronomy[/font] at The College of Wooster in Ohio, told FoxNews.com.

The Obama administration's decision to end the space shuttle program is causing great concern among politicians on both side of the aisle as well. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., has said that reliance on the Russians could last even longer than NASA anticipates, since replacements for the aging spacecraft are far from ready. It's a situation he finds "unacceptable."

"The administration's ill-conceived proposal to rely on commercial rockets that are unproven and untested for human transport to space ensures that our astronauts will likely be hitching a ride with the Russians for the indefinite future," Shelby said. "That outcome is unacceptable when we already have a sound plan in progress with Constellation."

And Florida lawmakers including democrats Bill Nelson and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas have raised their concerns as well.

"The President made a mistake" in canceling the shuttle program, Nelson said recently.

In his 2011 budget request, President Obama announced that NASA would cancel its Constellation shuttle replacement program and encourage private companies -- including SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp., and others -- to develop spacecraft to carry astronauts to low-Earth orbit.

That would free NASA to focus on other missions, such as monitoring climate change.

"The re-tasking of NASA as a climate monitoring agency in the stimulus bill, with a vast increase in its budget but a diminution in its role in the exploration of space, is a strategic error of heroic proportions," Lord Christopher Monckton, a former special adviser for science to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told FoxNews.com. Monckton is well known as an skeptic of global warming[/font].

Realizing the shift in space power, Russia's space agency this week convinced NASA to sign a fresh contract for taxi service to space: $55.8 million per astronaut to fly into space on Soyuz capsules in 2013 and 2014. NASA currently pays less than half as much -- $26.3 million per astronaut -- when it hitches a ride aboard Russian spacecraft.

"The contract modification covers crew return and rescue capabilities aboard the Soyuz spacecraft," Yembrick said.

Since no American firm currently has a vehicle capable of regular access to space, NASA does not really know when it will be master of its destiny again -- and that doesn't sit well with some members of Congress, who have made it illegal to end the Constellation program without congressional approval.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and others have proposed extending the shuttle's life beyond the last three flights scheduled this year. Hutchison wants the shuttle extended two years while NASA develops a new heavy-lift rocket replacement.

Other experts worry that the administration's plan will not actually encourage U.S. commercial space development, as a transition period is required for it to succeed.

"The problem with the new administration's plan comes into focus with this very issue," says Michael Carroll, author of the book, "The Seventh Landing: Going Back to the Moon, This Time to Stay."

"Without shuttles, we have absolutely no access to the ISS without Russia. It is fine to encourage private sector involvement in space transportation, and I believe that is the way to go in the future. But there must be a transition."

Lord Monckton believes the Obama plan will be harmful to U.S. defense interests as well, since the U.S. launch capability is now quite limited. "The administration's change of policy in space was calculated to do maximal damage to the defense interests of the U.S., and without even yielding a financial saving," Monckton told FoxNews.com.



http://www.foxnews.c...ellation-soyuz/

[Pasidon]

So... Obama constructs our healthcare around communist ideology and now he's giving our space program to Russia... did someone say Russian sleeper cell? If not, I will.

[Puppeteer]

Has someone told them that the Cold War is over?
Pasidon it's quite clear that you have no idea what communism means, so stop bouncing it around to add weight to your arguments.

[duke_Qa]

In a Armageddon emergency I bet they got a few spaceships ready for Bruce and the gang, just in case

As mentioned, if Russia suddenly refused to help some astronauts stuck in space, they'd get hell for it. If the Chinese started knocking down American satelites, they'd be asking for a war they wouldn't want.

So what if America has to use other peoples rockets for 5-10 years. Once they've gotten new and safer rockets themselves it will be they that hire out their rockets to people afraid of getting blown apart in an old one.

[Pasidon]

You have a point in saying all responsibility goes to the Russians now. It's all on their plate now, but the down side is that they get all the benefits from space exploration before the rest of us do. Don't want to hex them or anything, but screwing up isn't in their best interest now. Or defecting again... but what are the chances of that.

And we don't need to use rockets anymore... we didn't say anything about dropping our unmanned space program. We've got a robotic probe system waiting to beat the Russians to Mars. Unless Obama cuts that too...

so stop bouncing it around to add weight to your arguments.

No.

[Allathar]

So... Obama constructs our healthcare around communist ideology and now he's giving our space program to Russia... did someone say Russian sleeper cell? If not, I will.

Well, it was only a matter of time 'til his communist programming took over. Before you know it he'll have shot Robert Gates to make room for the Soviet invasion.

Cookiee for the one who gets the reference.

[Pasidon]

Shooting your own secretary of defense to allow Russians to attack? For all we know, Gates is in on it too. But I dunno... Russia seems all innocent now, but just like confederates here, there are still shards of the red army lurking around and waiting for a crack at corrupting America.

[duke_Qa]

shards of the red army lurking around and waiting for a crack at corrupting America.

That's basically what the leaders of Germany said when the Reichstag got burned in 1933*. If the cure does more damage than the disease, what's the point trying to fix it.

[Hostile]

This was a good thread, yeah i necro'ed it and I have nothing to add to it besides the fact that it was good reading and I wonder how the people who are still here feel about their opinions 3 years later.