This makes me so sad. :( Looks like my dream of seeing someone walk on Mars in my lifetime are...not so much.Still. I can't blame the guy. He's got people ramming budget-savings down his throat, and that IS a project that seems to have been given a LOT of money with not much to show for it.Maybe in ten years or so, when the wars are over, heh... :/
BOB, I'm sorry, but this is not that bad of news.The private sector has had some incredible advances in the las 10 year. They put a plane in space from scratch with 0.5Bn, NASA did nothing new with 9bn, get it?If you ever wanted to go to space, you better hope the private sector gets more money (you can only fly NASA if you are a militar officer after the chalenger fuck up).Well, that's my 2 cents, anyway.
Apparently Buzz Aldrin thinks this was the right move:http://buzzaldrin.com/statement-from-buzz-aldrin-a-new-direction-in-space/
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFBarack Obama just trolled us all.
who cares about space, when there are people on earth that need jobs and money and less unemployment. I can see your a very proud American(me being Canadian), but let this go brother.
"The private sector has had some incredible advances in the las 10 year."Oh, yes. Spectacular. Now First-Contact can be made by the Twitter-voted winner of Fox's "Who Wants To Go To Space?," traveling aboard the USS Cool Ranch Doritos. You can see my excitement."who cares about space, when there are people on earth that need jobs and money and less unemployment."I do, for one.There have always been, and will always be, poor people. Sucks but there it is. If we put off every great scientific, technological or exploratory breakthrough until we'd "fixed" poverty, we never would've left the caves.
Hate to state the obvious, Bob (who am I kidding) but going to the moon is not a technological advancement, we've already been there (well not be specifically). Now Mars, that's where I want to put my money; I would love to hang out with the blue naked guy. We must look forward, Bob, never look back! We can't waste money on the moon, when there's a chance that we can find and enslave life on Mars. Where's your sense of adventure, true believer?
I both agree and disagree with Bob:Why waste the already invested money, when the "new guys" will adopt a new approach, by closing the programme. On the other hand, trying new ways of delivering crew beyong LEO could be a sound idea... if someone deliver the goods.
Returning to the moon and - now that we've finally found WATER there - setting up a permanent lunar base of operations WOULD be a huge advancement, both in technology and in our ability to extend ourselves offworld. It's assinine to be essentially abandoning the FUTURE to focus on short-term stuff in the PRESENT.
The Mocha Messiah has pissed away 1.2 trillion on the so-called "Stimulus" but can't afford NASA?C'mon.NASA's new mission is to look at Earth for "Climate Change."What a joke.
After reading the full article, I think this actually probably is a good idea. The idea of orbital refueling would save millions and following the retirement of the space shuttle, research into new reusable spacecraft are going to be necessary.And even if private corporations design and manufacture the rocket technology, NASA will still be the agency purchasing and using it, so the odds on a reality show contestant getting aboard (at least for a while) are slim.If anything, I think this shows greater commitment to the space program because it's more far-sighted. Forget about spending billions for a moon trip. Let's invest that money in technology that can be utilized for multiple trips.
You know the problem with NASA? The European Space Agency manages to send more satellites into space with one third of the NASA budget and one ninth of its staff, and the EU is about to double said budget. Considering how the NASA works nowadays, by the time it will manage to send back a man on the Moon, France will have started the colonization of Mars.That's too bad, because I'm all for big and expensive space programs, and the fact that money is misused by the NASA today does not means that it will be the case forever, but hey...And I agree that a permanent base on the moon would be a huge advencement for the exploration of space, but it may be that this job should be done by Europeans.***"NASA's new mission is to look at Earth for "Climate Change."They already looked for it, and found it, over 45 years ago. But they still need to monitor the process
Almost anything Obama does is f*cking retarded. I laughed my ass off when I read the first comment. Obama doesn't give a sh*t how much money he burns away. He would rather waste trillions of dollars pretending to save jobs that spend money on things that actually matter (ex: space explortion)Where do you get your news Bob? This doesn't surprise me. Obama stopped government funding for NASA about 4 months ago. Read the Drudge report
eh, he said he wants to build a high speed rail (partially anyways), that's way better than lunar stuff and nasa. I'm a physicist, and yeah, stuff like this should be my shit. But I've never liked space exploration.Still dont know if the high speed rail is really gonna do it. Ours is probably gonna not be as good as China's, because Republicans dont like to spend money... ever... except on wars...
Well, as much as that pisses me off, i have to say that we should focus on a main problem right now than one that would be good for the future. If the US wants to spend it on fixing the economy, lets do that. However, yes; i am very pissed off by this, but i understand where it is coming from.
Post a Comment