1 There are about 200 countries in the world. Is Obama's goal to make us the 100th greatest? Because that would be fair?

2

(I was first. Sorry. That wasn't fair.)

3 The issue isn't whether government should do things.  The issue is if the government should be doing things the private sector can do better.

This isn't one of them.

Obamao, you are a dope in yet another way.

4 It was one small step for man, but it's one giant fuck-up for Obama.

5
Meanwhile Obama what will Obama fund NASA for?

loose stools

6 Meanwhile Obama what will Obama fund NASA for? Climate change research.

Before they start that, how about researching how the "research for the last 20 years has been a pack of dangerous political lies.  When do the Congressional hearings start?

7 3 Simple Steps to Return NASA to Greatness:

1.  Give them haircuts
2.  Teach them to smoke cigarettes and drink coffee
3.  Make them use slide rules.

It's that freakin' simple.

.

8 The small government people are wrong here IMO.  Space supremacy is a national security imperative.  Do we want a smarter government space program?  Of course we do, but the government is the only entity with the vast sums of money to blow on the speculative ventures required to stay ahead.

9 I expect to see this story posted again in 5...4...3...

10 If you look at the history of NASA, you'd think we'd have whole colonies on the moon by now, and regularly go to Mars, after the advances that were made in the 60s.  Instead they got stuck with the 1970s-style orbiting bus known as the space shuttle, and yeah that's about it.

And now we just give up.  Great news.

11 I'm all for the government getting out of space exploration if it means we don't transport the community organizing grievance industry to other planets and moons.

12 They need Brian Dennehy back leading NASA again.  His leadship is what got us to the surface of the moon.

13 And just wait until China puts those giant frickin' lasers on the moon.  Thanks Obama.

14

I don't think we can get to Mars without going to the moon first.  Further, I certainly do not believe that we can be a leader in anything without being the leader in space.  You can't do any of that without heavy lift capability and while I admit that Ares was not the best route--there are literally hundreds of ideas that could be explored.  Hell, give a prize for the best one.

What we do not need is a NASA even more deeply compromised on the "climate change" front.  That makes me want to hurt small animals with a laser.

15

We really should do another moon landing, just because of how different it would look from the last one, as far as technology.

16 America is nothing special, just another country like Cameroon or Belize.
~ B. Hussein O.

17 Billions for ACORN, not one penny for...

...but you get the idea.

18

To paraphrase Sheila Jackson Lee, you go to space with the flag you have, not the one you want, and I prefer the one that was planted on Mars.

19

3 4 Simple Steps to Return NASA to Greatness:

1.  Give them haircuts
2.  Teach them to smoke cigarettes and drink coffee
3.  Make them use slide rules.

4.  Have astronauts that say "Fuckin' A" again

It's that freakin' simple.

FIFY

20 The Moon:  It's Shovel Ready!
-

21 He might as well rename NASA to something to do with the climate (change) anyway. Call it our climate office, they just launch space probes every once in awhile to support fraudulent research. My understanding about private sector space exploration has always been that its been highly regulated by the government, not that its not cost effective. I just have a hard time not picturing a private company going full bore once the reins are removed .

22

To the moon? Great in and of itself, but what about all the other benefits of the space program...

Velcro

Microwaves (perfected but admiitedly started with the invention of radar)

Who can forget Tang

And of course, Space Food Sticks!

23 Bring it! : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMEZuaguuCU

24 Glad The One ended the War On Science.

25 I think John Batchelor was the first to report on this on his radio program.  He was discussing this with insiders months ago.  They are really dejected.  But, maybe BO thinks the private sector will take this up.  Problem is, we need laws to protect ourselves from the private sector companies giving the information out to other "customers".  Our patent and trademark laws don't seem to work with chi na.

26 Guys, here is the deal.

Sending a giant rocket to toss a small bus worth of equipment and manpower into space is not unsustanable financially and not easily down-scalable for mass use.

The private sector is already coming up with cheaper, smaller delivery systems to put stuff into LEO (lower earth orbit), which is the perfect staging area for developing a space infastructure. NASA as it is now is more or less a giant jobs program. What it does in sending probes is great. Developing manned ships, not so much.

Keep the unmanned exploration and let the private sector handle the rest.

This sadly is probably the only correct thing Obama's admin. has done in 13 months. It is a short term loss for a long term gain (and we have gone years without a national space flight system before. There is a gap between Mercury and Gemini, a gap between Gemini and Apollo, and Apollo and the shuttle).

27

"That's one small step for  the socially deprived; one giant leap for redistribution of those bastards wealth."

-Astronaut Obama

28 And before anyone goes "but we need something!" NASA wasn't doing anything before Constellation was cut that was going to build a settlement on the moon. It was going to just be a bigger, more expensive Apollo mission.

29 Once we figure out a way to efficiently mine and transport lunar green cheese back to earth, the private sector will beat a path to the moon lickety split.  Our collective hunger for spicy hot moon nachos will ensure it.

30 And yes, regulation on the private sector space industry needs to go away. Nobody was around telling the Wright Bros they weren't allowed to fly (that I know of).

31 Things will get really interesting when Russia colonizes the moon.  Or China does.  It's like The Community Organizer just wants us to be a third rate nation.

32 Krauthammer is wrong. This is the only thing this administration has done semi-correctly (the additional funds for climate change research is bullshit). Constellation was a monumental clusterf*ck, spending billions upon billions in order to re-do Apollo maybe ... MAYBE ... by 2030.

Henry Spencer has a good overview on this. Lots of other  good stuff over on transterrestrial.com too.

33 o/t
Buzz Aldrin punching that guy never gets old.  I clicked over to youtube to see the comments, the first one was some guy asking, "If Buzz isn't lying why would he punch a guy for simply asking questions?" 

If you have to ask.....

34 I read an awesome Sci-Fi book called "the Truth Machine" once. The politics of it were screwy, but one part made an impression on me. The Government wanted a perfect "truth machine" and they decided to put it up for a bid. A one billion dollar bonus and a special 25-year patent for any private corporation that could provide a Truth Machine that was demonstrably 100% accurate (or could reliably diagnose someone who was mentally incapable of knowing "truth" if they were brain damaged). It started a race of innovation because there was a guarantee of profit and a monopoly on the technology that would provide breathing room while the company refined it before other people could start taking away market share.

This is really simplistic, but I hope you get the idea.

Something like this could be done, I think, with the space program, since liberals currently run the show. In the book, it passed with almost-universal approval because the lawmakers figured 1) It was free  2) They look pro-industry  and 3)  any pay-out would probably never happen in their political lifetime.


It's just a stupid fantasy, but I thought it was a cool idea.

35 I'm all for the government getting out of space exploration if it means we don't transport the community organizing grievance industry to other planets and moons.

I disagree--launching all the community organizers and grievance-study "academics" and poverty pimps to the moon, with a two-week oxygen supply just to be "fair", can only make things better on Earth.

36 Gaff,

There may have been a gap, NASA always had a goal.

With Obama, there's no goal, and a pedestrian vision, at best.

37 E    Everything this jackass touches turns into a disaster!

38 Things will get really interesting when Russia colonizes the moon.  Or China does.

Russia is doing nothing. China's space program is moving at a glacial pace.

39 We need a nation where our children dream of being community organizers, civil servants, and census takers, not astronauts.

40 Well, it was overly nationalistic for our astronauts to put the American flag on the moon.  Not to mention that it was racist to just have white guys on those missions.

We really should have had a left handed, herniated, bisexual Australian aborigine put the UN flag there instead. 

41 A manned mission to the moon, with 21st Century technology, is sure to be scientifically valuable. This Administration would gladly squander billions on worthless AGW schemes if they could, but they can't, so they're lashing out at real science.
The sooner this pack of hysterical scientific partisans and half-assed Luddites are swept out of Office, the better.

42 We need a nation where our children dream of being community organizers, civil servants, and census takers, not astronauts.

He did vow in his inaugural to return science to its "rightful place" down in the cellar next to Michelle's old maternity clothes.

43 #36

NASA has been too busy navalgazing for six years even after Bush told them what they should be doing.

44 Houston, we have a problem and it's spelled: O-B-A-M-A

45

(and we have gone years without a national space flight system before. There is a gap between Mercury and Gemini, a gap between Gemini and Apollo, and Apollo and the shuttle).

This is misleading.  The gaps between Mercury and Gemini and Gemini and Apollo were each less than two years for the manned flights.  Further, they were all part of the overall program for getting to the moon. 

The new strategy has no such coherence.  I can't even call it a strategy at all.  It cedes the exploration high ground and we may never recover from it.

46 Sending a giant rocket to toss a small bus worth of equipment and manpower into space is not unsustanable financially and not easily down-scalable for mass use.

The private sector is already coming up with cheaper, smaller delivery systems to put stuff into LEO (lower earth orbit), which is the perfect staging area for developing a space infastructure. NASA as it is now is more or less a giant jobs program. What it does in sending probes is great. Developing manned ships, not so much.

So the private sector has managed to figure out a way to manipulate gravity?  Who knew?  The giant rocket is needed to carry the (in scientific terms) boatload of fuel needed to accelerate the bus worth to escape velocity.  There's no getting around it.

47 On the upside, when liberals want to say things like, "If we can put a man on the Moon, we can surely give everyone free health care" we can point out that, uh, no we can't do either.

48 I also love the irony of the "pro-science" party tauting how they cut funding for the poster child of all that is "science". Love how the smart people make choices, those IQ points sure do serve them and us well/sarc

49

Russia is doing nothing. China's space program is moving at a glacial pace.

This is a variant of the "we don't need the F-22" argument. 

FAIL.

50 BREAKING:  Tang futures plummet.

51 NASA did provide me with one of my all-time favorite instances of schadenfreude, though.

I know a guy who used to be a contractor at NASA in Florida.  He voted for Oblahblah and so did most of his coworkers.  As of October, he's funemployed and so is the rest of the crew.

(Yeah, sometimes I'm evil but it's so much fun on occasion....)

52 Because there are cheaper ways then building lots of giant rockets. Like building smaller, reusable vehicles that go to LEO and refuel up there at fueling depots, then move on to whereever (the moon, or lagrange points, or higher orbit).

Building the infrastructure to facilitate this is what NASA should be doing, not building a giant one-use vehicle. Which we already did. In the 60s.

And if this is really about exploration, unmanned probes are cheaper and more effective to send every time at our current level of technology.

If this is about national prestige, then by all means waste billions of tax payer dollars on job programs for Texas, Florida, and Alabama.

53 Yeah, Michelle?  We don't want her back.    Bwahahahah!

54

This is a variant of the "we don't need the F-22" argument. 

FAIL.

No it's not. There's no national security risk associated with not developing Constellation.

FAIL yourself.

55 polynikes at February 12, 2010 04:40 PM (m2CN7)

haha yeah Flying cars would be a great first step if they could run on bacon fat.

56 Because there are cheaper ways then building lots of giant rockets. Like building smaller, reusable vehicles that go to LEO and refuel up there at fueling depots, then move on to whereever (the moon, or lagrange points, or higher orbit).

In order to get into orbit, you have to reach escape velocity.  In order to reach escape velocity, you have to have a giant rocket full of fuel.  There's no getting around it.

57 Two of the greatest technical achievements in US history.  The Panama Canal and NASA.
Carter pooched the Canal
Obama pooched the space program

My president is becoming more like Jimmy Carter every day.

58 Oh, and those giant rockets?  They're reusable.

59
Today the rockets, tomorrow the aircraft carriers and on and on until Barry's real goal:
Your Mossberg 590

60 3 5 Simple Steps to Return NASA to Greatness:

1.  Give them haircuts
2.  Teach them to smoke cigarettes and drink coffee
3.  Make them use slide rules.
4.  Have astronauts that say "Fuckin' A" again
5.  Have the ground control crew wear white short-sleeved shirts and skinny ties.

It's that freakin' simple.

FIFY

61

This is the worst of both worlds - we're still wasting oodles of cash on Mars (which I laughed at when H.W. then W discussed it, much less Don Bambi). We're not putting squat toward the Moon, which even though pie-in-the-sky is plausibly exploitable within the forseeable future.

In the short-term, even with regard to the Moon, put me in the space-travel Philistine category for now - I don't see how we can credibly support budget discipline and let the scientists write blank checks, no matter how cool the goal might be.   Krauthammer's right that no private space program is going to spring up to take NASA's place, but the economy trumps everything right now.  We'll have to do without for a few years.

We can't afford to (and shouldn't) spend tens of billions on NASA in the next 3-5 years, but it's not as if we'll be left in the Stone Age in that short of a time, especially given that Russia and China aren't flush with research dollars right now.  Sure, they can just spend money and tell their government-dependent populations to suck one, but they can't spend cash that isn't there, and they're hurting along with us right now.  In that many of their "innovations" are based on espionage anyway, some of their spies can go on sabbatical along with our xenobiologists until this shit blows over. 

If there was a tangible carrot to be had on the Moon, I'd be more supportive, but right now it's just a cool scientific thing to study, as Ace honestly admits.

62 We have a propulsion system that could get us to Mars and farther.We have known about it since the 50's.Look up Project ORION.

63 I'm with Gaff and Waterhouse. Manned space projects are bullshit. Kill NASA. And the DoE. DoEd, and DoAg.

64 62 The moon has nothing of much interest.It is,however,a great stepping stone to the rest of the solar system

65 I really don't call multi-billion dollar per-launch systems reusable. It is a cost of scale that moves at a snails pace. XCOR and other smaller rocket groups are doing launches on the scale of millions. Which would you prefer investing in?

66 It's not just about crazy, pie-in-the-sky, produces-no-benefits space exploration.  It's also about satellites.  Useful ones, like GPS.  I'm all for the gummint standing down, just as soon as the private sector can stand up.  It can't.

Unrelated: the GPS satellites move so fast, and require such precision, that the time dilation they experience is noticeable and must be compensated for.  That's cool.

67

No it's not. There's no national security risk associated with not developing Constellation.

FAIL yourself.

First, when techonological improvement or innovation are involved, justifying ANYTHING at a national policy level by what another country is not doing is a prescription for disaster.  Better techonology is just that...better.  It has all kinds of cascade effects.

Second, that techonological question is itself always a national security question.  Always.

Third, go read my post above--I'm not married to Ares or Constellation, but I am deeply concerned over the tone coming from the White House in this case and with the lack of a coherent direction.

 

68

62:  Lol - "as Drew honestly admits."  Soz Drew, you don't have that much back fur.  My bad.

69 FUBAR at February 12, 2010 04:47 PM (1fanL)

True, very true. The main problem of space flight is getting out of Earth's gravity well. Once you do that, 90% of the work is done, and you can go anywhere. The only problem is, we are currently using 30-40 year old technology for our launch vehicles.

70 #63 I can't look at work but isn't that the nuclear engine? They wont use it because they're scared of nukes.

71 Oh, and those giant rockets?  They're reusable.

Which ones?

And small rockets make it to orbit all the time. That's the whole point - the majority of the mass you need to carry IS fuel. But fuel is almost infinitely subdividable, which means if you do something smart like enable propellant depots and related technologies on orbit, which this plan is supposed to do, then you can get private companies to launch rockets with fuel to fill up the depots (enabling higher flight rates, which are THE KEY to getting costs down), and then NASA can concentrate on building its exploration hardware, spend more launch mass on that hardware, tank up at the propellant depot, and thus have a more capable, cheaper and useful exploration program than if the spent the billions upon billions doing nothing more than developing another TWO launchers. Two new launchers - for no good reason.

72 In the short-term, even with regard to the Moon, put me in the space-travel Philistine category for now - I don't see how we can credibly support budget discipline and let the scientists write blank checks, no matter how cool the goal might be.   Krauthammer's right that no private space program is going to spring up to take NASA's place, but the economy trumps everything right now.  We'll have to do without for a few years.

Damn, people, really?  The space program has already produced enough benefits, advances, new cool stuff to justify itself into the foreseeable future.

73 21 ...My understanding about private sector space exploration has always been that its been highly regulated by the government, not that its not cost effective.

I just have a hard time not picturing a private company going full bore once the reins are removed .

Posted by: Rodney at February 12, 2010 04:27 PM (XRIh6)

26 The private sector is already coming up with cheaper, smaller delivery systems to put stuff into LEO (lower earth orbit), which is the perfect staging area for developing a space infastructure. NASA as it is now is more or less a giant jobs program...

Posted by: Gaff at February 12, 2010 04:29 PM (jDWYv)

These two posts sum up the problem. "Everyone knows" (to use Obama's bullshit stylin') that the monumental cost of going to space has already been paid, to develop technology that is now within reach of private organizations. The new reality is that NASA has been turned into a "green" organization, and piercing the veil of space has become a task laden with environmental impact studies, fuel restrictions, transportation regulations, and even more regulations piled so deep that escaping Earth's gravity well is pathetically simple compared to escaping the gravid well of American Bureacracy.

The US Space Program needs to revert to a military uses program, and get the fzck out of the way of individuals trying to make a go with LEO tech, LEO transportation service (replacing long intercontinental air flight), mass handling equipment, etc. So what if the private sector has to resort to Wright-Brother-esque techniques? So what if capital is burned at a rate that rivals the days of the Internet Bubble? Just get the government out of the way.

I want my flying car!

74 In order to reach escape velocity, you have to have a giant rocket full of fuel.  There's no getting around it.

You and your unicorn just aren't wishing hard enough.

75 It's also about satellites.  Useful ones, like GPS.  I'm all for the gummint standing down, just as soon as the private sector can stand up.  It can't.

I think you're very confused. Satellites would NEVER have launched on Constellation's rockets. Satellites have and will continue to launch on Atlas, Delta, Space-X, Ariane etc. Just like they have for decades.

76 One of my physics professors is an astronomer, space junkie, and a HUGE Obama fan.  I wonder if he's figured out that the taste in his mouth isn't hope, and the burning in his ass isn't hemorrhoids.  Schadenfreude, baby!

77 So the private sector has managed to figure out a way to manipulate gravity?  Who knew?  The giant rocket is needed to carry the (in scientific terms) boatload of fuel needed to accelerate the bus worth to escape velocity.  There's no getting around it.
Posted by: FUBAR

I thought the tandem rocket plane by Scale Composites is supposed to use less fuel. No?

78

I don't see how we can credibly support budget discipline and let the scientists write blank checks,

The NASA budget is 18 billion.  Literally fiscal statistical noise at this point.

79 Which ones?

And small rockets make it to orbit all the time. That's the whole point - the majority of the mass you need to carry IS fuel. But fuel is almost infinitely subdividable, which means if you do something smart like enable propellant depots and related technologies on orbit, which this plan is supposed to do, then you can get private companies to launch rockets with fuel to fill up the depots (enabling higher flight rates, which are THE KEY to getting costs down), and then NASA can concentrate on building its exploration hardware, spend more launch mass on that hardware, tank up at the propellant depot, and thus have a more capable, cheaper and useful exploration program than if the spent the billions upon billions doing nothing more than developing another TWO launchers. Two new launchers - for no good reason.

Which ones aren't reusable, for crying out loud? 

If you get the fuel into space, you used a lot of fuel to get that fuel into space.  Doesn't matter what that pound of mass is, it takes the same amount of fuel to get it into space.

And once they're in space, they need almost no fuel.

80 Really, go back to the podcast of John Batchelor's site.  The discussions are fascinating.  Makes the average person excited about space again.  But, you worry about the impact of real life human beings.  Can't help but think about the PHD in Aerospace Engineering who went back to his school and attacked someone there with a sword.  Maybe the guy realized all of this was coming and couldn't take it emotionally.  A lot of jobs will be lost.  But, NASA was becoming  a black hole for tax dollars.

81 Look, the point is, NASA was not creating anything sustainable, they were creating another program to do Apollo again which would be good for maybe a few years and then never used again.

If we really are talking about the big picture here, we should expect better from NASA and our tax dollars.

82 I think you're very confused.

If I'm very confused, then Krauthammer is too:

By the end of this year, there will be no shuttle, no U.S. manned space program, no way for us to get into space.

83 I think this is a great idea, and you denialist Christian Creationists are all banned for disagreeing with me

84 Third, go read my post above--I'm not married to Ares or Constellation, but I am deeply concerned over the tone coming from the White House in this case and with the lack of a coherent direction.

I sort of agree with this.

I think the plan itself as drawn up is pretty good, IF it's followed. I have serious doubts whether the WH is keen on expending any political capital to keep it from being gutted.

But Constellation was going nowhere.

85 Krauthammer is a political commentator.

Yes, he is out of his element on this discussion except for the political ramifications.

86

If we really are talking about the big picture here, we should expect better from NASA and our tax dollars.

There is an enormous gulf between this and "screw it, let's count tree rings."

Fifteenth century China was poised to rule the world like Britain three centuries later.  They began to look inward and never truly recovered even to the present day.

87 Look, the point is, NASA was not creating anything sustainable

Not sure what you mean.  NASA has paid for itself many, many times over.  Many.

88 Continuing to make destinations the imperative to our space access policy is much akin to putting the cart before the horse.  The reason why we can't return to the Moon is because it is prohibitively expensive to do so.  The greatest percentage of expenses incurred to getting man and material into space occurs in the first 100 miles into low Earth orbit.  Once you are in orbit you are halfway to anywhere.  So, it would beg to reason that the FIRST step to making the United States a truly space faring nation would be to find tools and techniques that drastically reduce the cost of access to space.  The best way to do this is to foster competition among multiple manufacturers, increase flight rates to amortize the cost of launch vehicle development/ground infrastructure, and expand a viable space based infrastructure through the creation of on-orbit refueling depots.  The single largest contributor of weight to a launch vehicle heading to the Moon is simply the propellant.  By creating a working orbital refueling station you can instead contract out the delivery of propellant to 3rd party suppliers who can specialize in propellant delivery and reduce costs through multiple launches.  Then, that will allow the people interested in going back to the Moon (National Geographic perhaps) to focus on their trans-orbital spaceship and Lunar lander development and not have to spend enormous sums of money lofting simple propellant along with their exploration vehicle.  Nor, would they have to sacrifice weight and size of their exploration vehicle to accommodate the large tanks needed to hold enough propellant to last the entire trip and back.  For instance, if you wanted to drive from New York to Los Angeles and back would you cart along an enormous tank to provide the fuel needed to go there and back?  No, you depend on gas stations scattered throughout the nation to give you the flexibility to pick and choose almost any destination within North America if you want. 

As far as safety is concerned?  Well, look at Toyota and how they are having to deal with the recalls.  When they drop the ball and start producing products that are no longer deemed safe well, their bottom line suffers. They have every incentive to correct their mistakes and remedy the problem going into the future; otherwise, they risk going out of business.  The same would be true for a company choosing to carry people into space for profit.  NASA on the other hand, loses 2 orbiters and kills 14 astronauts, and they essentially get rewarded with a new gov't budget the next year.  So, they have no incentive to really be safe or cost effective for that matter.  I've read people who worked for NASA that will certainly testify to the fact that any notion of safety within the Ares launch vehicle is all smoke and mirrors.  In fact, they've run into performance issues with the vehicle which has forced NASA to actually remove a number of safety devices from the Orion capsule to save weight.

I don't think Conservatives realize the irony of their misplaced affection for NASA.  It is nothing more than a socialist space program that was created to beat out a Soviet style socialist space program.  In other words, we at the time couldn't figure out a way to beat the Russians in space during the 50's-60's so we just copied them -- can't beat them, join them.  As far as viewing our space dominance as some sort of national security imperative?  Well, if that is the case then hand it over to the Department of Defense.  I don't believe anywhere within the charter of NASA was it given the duty of providing and protecting our space-based national defense. 

Now we have an oppurtunity to finally make a robust and profoundly cheaper space industry modeled on the principles of free markets and private enterprise.  By insisting that we must specifically name a destination for space industry to head to reeks of Keynesian style economics to know end.  The fact of the matter is that every individual's reason for wanting to go to space is way to complex and chaotic for any one person of group to decide or understand.  Let free markets have a chance to expand and develop a competent, robust, and cost effective space industry.  NASA had their chance for the last 6 years attempting to develop a new launch vehicle to replace the Space Shuttle and what has that gotten us so far?  Nada!  So, what do we have to lose at this point?

89 This is a big blow for them since when he took office he called them and was all excited about space.  I remember abc radio reporting that they were thrilled to have a president so interested in space and NASA.

90 I thought the tandem rocket plane by Scale Composites is supposed to use less fuel. No?

Posted by: Iskandar at February 12, 2010 04:57 PM (/o58C)

Don't know it specifically, but the laws of physics are harsh and unyielding.

Krauthammer is a political commentator.

Yes, he is out of his element on this discussion except for the political ramifications.

Posted by: Gaff at February 12, 2010 05:04 PM (jDWYv)

Yeah, he's always popping off about things he doesn't know.  Makin' shit up and shit.

But if we'll still be able to reach LEO, then it's not quite as stupid and short-sighted as it would be.

91 and a Space Elevator would have been such a great jobs program. Oh well, NASA really needed a swift kick in the can - hopefully this wakes them up, gets them focused on providing the next Administration with a real plan.

92 Which ones aren't reusable, for crying out loud? 

Reusable rockets? Really? None of them are. Even the shuttle doesn't qualify, since the engines need work after every flight, the tiles need tons of work, the ET is lost.

And once they're in space, they need almost no fuel.

That is very wrong.

If I'm very confused, then Krauthammer is too:

I was responding to an assertion that we wouldn't be able to launch satellites anymore. That is a false assertion. Yes, MANNED flights would have to be on Soyuz until Space-X is ready.

93 But it seems to me that the guy who's out of his element is the one saying we don't have reusable rockets. 

94

Hefty Jo--markets do not solve everything.

Government does serve a purpose for big things--my two favorite examples are war and space.  NASA needs repair, not scrapping.

95 That will be a huge blow to TX, CA and FL as far as jobs go and to the whole field.

96 we don't have reusable rockets.

Name one. Just one.

97 That is very wrong.

I like naked assertions.  They're very believeable.   Once they're in space, they don't have to resist gravity.  No gravity means very tiny amounts of fuel.  I'm talking satellites, the space station, the shuttle.  Not missions to Mars.

I was responding to an assertion that we wouldn't be able to launch satellites anymore. That is a false assertion. Yes, MANNED flights would have to be on Soyuz until Space-X is ready.

Did you read the article?  That's exactly what Krauthammer was saying.  We have no way to get into space.

98 Wow there are four more posts up.  This place is machine like today.

99 "Did you read the article?  That's exactly what Krauthammer was saying.  We have no way to get into space.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 12, 2010 05:13 PM (1fanL)"

Yes, this is why Batchelor has been talking about this for months.  We will have to rely on the Russians to get to the space stations and his guest one night said "we might just leave the space station to them".  that caused Batchelor to nearly have a stroke.  And these are the same guys who are now encouraging the  chi nese to sell our bonds.

100 Circa,

I'm not advocating scrapping NASA.  They need to return to their NACA days of investing time and money into technologies that will mobilize private enterprise.  There are certainly segments of rocket technology and space vehicle design that would prove too risky and cost prohibitive for any private company to take on.  NASA should focus on these enabling technologies and work in concert with private New Space enterprise to make it a viable and expansive industry. 

101 That's exactly what Krauthammer was saying.  We have no way to get into space.

If he's saying this budget kills Delta and Atlas and Space-X, then he's WRONG.

102 Reusable rockets? Really? None of them are. Even the shuttle doesn't qualify, since the engines need work after every flight, the tiles need tons of work, the ET is lost.

Maybe we have a failure to communicate.  What happens to the rockets when they fall away from the shuttle?  Do they blow up?  Fall into the ocean, never to be seen again?

No.  They go get 'em, refurbish 'em, and use them again.  "Use them again," in this case, I'm calling the same as "reuseable."

103 Oh, and the shuttle?  Not a rocket.

104 I've also run into a lot of conservatives who hate all the spending at NASA, but I see at as a matter of National Security. It is two-fold. The first is usage rights. In a purely geopolitical function owning Mars instead of China is probably a good thing. Mining asteroids instead of China is a good thing. Scientific experimentation on the Moon instead of China is a good thing. The second big concern is a planet killer. Some form of disaster that will cause the extinction of human life on Earth is sure to occur. To ensure the survival of our species we need to colonize space. First our solar system, then our galaxy, then our universe, then other universes. Looking back at it from a geopolitical terms, wouldn't it be better if Western civilization and liberty spread outward instead of Communist China with its tyranny and genocide? We should fund space exploration as efficiently as possible until it becomes a viable market for free enterprise.

105 "Hefty Jo--markets do not solve everything."

Markets will solve space, or it won't be solved.

The event horizon between the black hole of bureacracy/environmental-regulation and achievable, space-based economics is one that government is incapable of penetrating.

Like an asymptotic curve, governments approach usefulness in economies, but never actually touch it or cross over it. Think of the colonization of America. The supposed "heavy lifting" there was already done long before Britain, France, and other countries committed serious resources. But the major expansions were fueled by individuals, who were largely unhampered by the Federal system.

Wars often leave behind useful things, such as bridges, power plants, etc. Those can be seen as providing useful infrastructure for growth, but the expense of placing them there is one no sane society would seek to pay on it's own. Think about how expensive it is for the US Army to build a water plant, then compare it to almost any private company.

NASA is like engaging space on a war footing. It's a slash and burn method, where simple improvements, as happened with airplanes and autos, are what win in the long run.

106 I like naked assertions.  They're very believeable.   Once they're in space, they don't have to resist gravity.  No gravity means very tiny amounts of fuel.

If you don't want to move around in orbit, yes.

If you want to move around on orbit, change inclinations, change orbits, or get out of LEO, then yes you need fuel. A lot of fuel. Apollo used something like 80 tons of fuel to get from parking orbit to the moon IIRC.

107 I would comment, but I don't think anyone would listen.

108 Oh, and the shuttle?  Not a rocket.

Sure it is. See those 3 engines at the back? Rocket engines. The "re-usable" boosters (which require A LOT of work to "re-use") are only part of what gets a shuttle into LEO.

109 Krauthammer is a political commentator.

Yes, he is out of his element on this discussion except for the political ramifications.
Posted by: Gaff

Incorrect. Krauthammer was also a board certified, practicing psychiatrist.

110 Lets par this down a bit.

Building a giant rocket that goes to one destination (the moon) that only allows the astronauts to remain for a few days before they have to meet their rendevous craft to return to Earth is pointless. We did that already to show up the Soviets. It is costly and no, the rocket used for this mission is not of the reusable type because most of the stages of it are destroyed in the process.

Building a giant rocket that puts a vehicle into space that can go to the moon and return to the Earth at the will of the crew and not at the whims of a Earth-assisted gravitational slingshot is worth doing. This is something new and much more cost-effective in the long term. Doing this requires us to put things into LEO or lunar orbit to refuel the craft in some way.

NASA was not doing the latter. Someone (government or private) at some point needs to do a version of the latter if we are ever going to expand into space, or for that matter make any attempt to travel beyond lunar orbit. Doing what we did in the 60s again but bigger is a waste of time and money.

111 I wonder what the crossover is between the "can't hit a bullet with a bullet" ninnies from a few years ago and the "moon missions are a waste of money " crowd from today?
About 90%?

Some things are worth spending public money on. Conservatives know that. That's why we're not idiot anarchists or grub farming communists. Space exploration is one of those things, particularly considering today's economic context.

112 I think people fall into two camps--they can either get behind the basic human imperative to explore, or they can't. It is very hard to build a value proposition one way or the other because there's an emotional or deep subconscious connection to the very idea of space exploration (or not). Interestingly, no one is (yet) debating the need to even go to LEO. That is, it's taken for granted that we need a space station, and that said station needs serviced. As for people, including Krauthammer, who disregard private companies' place in doing this, I believe they are oddly out of touch. At least one company--SpaceX--is far past the cartoon stage of design, and their website now boasts pictures of hardware almost ready to go.

113 Take away the international treaties about all of mankind sharing the outer resources and the private sector might really get moving on space exploration. 

Go, conquer Mars for God and Spain!  and send us 10% of the loot.

114 Yeah, the "waste of money" crowd must be a bunch of dummy dum dums.

115

The Buzz Aldrin video never gets old.

And I am a heretic here also.  Somethings you just need government to do.  The Soo Locks.  The Panama Canal.  Big, intensive, expensive works.  Government can do those - and the Moon and Mars are just that.

116 120

And I am a heretic here also.  Somethings you just need government to do.  The Soo Locks.  The Panama Canal.  Big, intensive, expensive works.  Government can do those - and the Moon and Mars are just that.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 12, 2010 06:19 PM (nlRuk)

Also Columbus' voyage.  Government funded

117 I wonder what the crossover is between the "can't hit a bullet with a bullet" ninnies from a few years ago and the "moon missions are a waste of money " crowd from today?
About 90%?

Count me among the 10%. And this is actually a perfect illustration. BMD is state-of-the-art, advancing high-tech, pushing the boundaries. All Constellation was going to do was repeat Apollo's feat. Except Apollo advanced the state-of-the-art and pushed the boundaries, even if the end result happened to be a dead end. Constellation was just going to spend a (ballooning) number billions to (maybe) send a few government employees to the moon, and repeat the job of ending up in a dead end, exploration-wise. If you think that's all a space program should be, a government jobs program, then I can understand how you might be upset. If you think that a space program should enable technologies which will encourage private human expansion into space, so that more, many more, than a select few government employees get to go to space to explore and exploit, then Constellation was never going to cut it, and the new program, provided it's followed, is a much better, more flexible, cost-effective, useful, and promising way to go.

118 It's not a matter of repeating Apollo, in any way shape or form. The Apollo program was a proof-of-concept technology demonstrator. All said and done, we visited the Moon, which has the surface area of the entire African continent, half a dozen times, for a handful of days. Claiming that "we've been to the Moon and therefore don't need to go back" is like saying that you've been to the departure gates at both Heathrow and Frankfurt, so therefore there is nothing more to see or do in Europe. As far as COTS goes, there is a point in future at which commercial is the way to go. That point might be the point at which they've actually, y'know, shown that they're capable of doing this. Thus far, we have from SpaceX a very small launcher and that's it. Nobody in the commercial sector has done a capsule at all, no re-entry, no life support - nada. And for all the carping about refueling and big rockets and reusablity, these are all good points, but miss the main point - NASA has no particular mission or mandate to actually USE any of these technologies to DO anything at all. What makes you believe that this particular agency - which has shown no lack of ability to drift aimlessly - will now be better focused and more conscientious now that they have absolutely no mandate, and no purpose?

119 Somethings you just need government to do.  The Soo Locks.  The Panama Canal.  Big, intensive, expensive works.  Government can do those - and the Moon and Mars are just that.

These are not very apt analogies. The Panama Canal and Soo Locks provided large long-term public benefit - lots of people and private businesses were able to use them and realize cost and safety savings.

The Constellation program was nothing like that. There would be no public utility, since all it would do was send a few people to the moon a year. Unlike a canal or locks, there was no way for private business or ordinary citizens to make any use of its "accomplishment".

The Christopher Columbus example helps illustrate this point. Yes,  his expedition was government-funded. But it was an expedition made with technology (and at prices) that private business could afford to emulate. If it took the resources of a government to sail the Atlantic, we'd all still be over in Europe, watching as 4 people a year boarded a giant ship to explore a small patch of North America.

That's where the new program makes more sense than Constellation (again, with the caveat that it actually be implemented as planned, which I have my doubts with a preening dipshit like Obama at the helm). The idea is not to go over the ground we've gone before. We know the US can send some government employees to the moon. Constellation would only have repeated what we already knew. Now the question is - what can NASA do to help develop technologies which lower the cost of getting to LEO and beyond, to help open it up to private exploitation.

120 What makes you believe that this particular agency - which has shown no lack of ability to drift aimlessly - will now be better focused and more conscientious now that they have absolutely no mandate, and no purpose?

I get that, but that's a management problem. I don't see how being laser-focused on a terrible goal is a better idea.

121

What a loser. We understand he suck Islamic cock, too. What a loser.

122 when/ if the world's economy collapses it won't matter anyway... Re: EU and US in the death throes and verging on bond sale failure... wait a few years. no harm can come of it and in the long run money saved. Right now we need to be thinking of nothing else except shrinking the federal government! If we don't do that we are fucked. I am a HUGE fan of space exploration and remember, well, where I was when Armstrong first set foot on the moon. We can and must carry on but at this time, in this place, it cannot happen unless we control the growth of spending on the federal level. It breaks my heart to say this but NASA   as it is now must be scaled back to the bare minimum.. Let the engineers go to work in the private space industry. Start over when we have an economy that is capable of sustaining it and a leader with the balls to see them do it right.

123 Just another great achievement of this unprecedented administration

124 where to start...?
-
I wept at the proposed loss of hope, the loss of dreams, the loss of exploration and seeking of truth, the loss of bright and magnificent goals for my children...
(where's the Hope... we see the Change)
-
I cheered at the Man that IS an American Hero, as he assailed the man that is the american left...
(is the Hope in our Past?)
-
I shall not go quietly into the left's good night.....
-
The Will is here, I still feel it... I know

-for Buzz-

125 NASA may be concentrating on global science but they just marched 1/3 of the global climate thermometers out back and shot them.
WattsUpWithThat.com.
The official thermometer count used for measuring worldwide temperatures just decreased from 1597 to 1113.

Has there been one useful result from having the space station?  When the myopic Hubble telescope went up, one could not go a week without NASA trumpeting some new result from the Hubble.  From the space station: Nada, nothing, zip.

126

Before we go all crazy over commercialization of space, let's take a look at someof the players.  The CEO of SpaceX is Elon Muck.  A quick look at OpenSecrets.org database shows us:

MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 X.COM 8/26/09 $5,000 DNC Services Corp (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CHAIRMAN 9/26/06 $5,000 Eureka PAC (R)
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 6/19/09 $2,400 Harman, Jane (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245   5/22/08 $2,300 Vitter, David (R)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX 9/17/07 $2,300 Polis, Jared (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX 9/17/07 $2,300 Polis, Jared (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 TESLA MOTORS/CHAIRMAN 9/20/07 $2,300 Boxer, Barbara (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 6/18/07 $2,300 Harman, Jane (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 6/29/07 $2,300 Pryor, Mark (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 6/29/07 $2,300 Pryor, Mark (D)
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 6/19/09 $2,200 Harman, Jane (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 10/18/06 $2,100 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CHAIRMAN/CEO 5/31/05 $2,000 Rohrabacher, Dana (R)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE X 6/25/04 $2,000 Mikulski, Barbara A (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE X/CEO 12/31/03 $2,000 Clark, Wesley (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CHAIRMAN/CEO 1/29/04 $2,000 Rohrabacher, Dana (R)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/EXECUTIVE 7/11/03 $2,000 Rohrabacher, Dana (R)
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 9/5/08 $2,000 Schiff, Adam (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE X/CEO 3/8/05 $2,000 Hastert, Dennis (R)
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X AND TESLA MOTORS/CEO 6/15/09 $1,700 Boxer, Barbara (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 2/22/08 $1,000 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 1/16/07 $1,000 Skelton, Ike (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 3/29/07 $1,000 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPAUX/CEO 11/30/07 $1,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX 7/9/04 $1,000 Smith, Gordon H (R)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX 9/30/04 $1,000 Boxer, Barbara (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE X/CEO 10/6/04 $1,000 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE X/CEO 9/30/05 $1,000 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE X/CEO 6/22/05 $1,000 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 TESLA MOTORS/CHAIRMAN 9/20/07 $700 Boxer, Barbara (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CHAIRMAN/CEO 6/30/04 $500 Senate Victory Fund (R)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 6/30/07 $250 Edwards, Chet (D)
MUSK, ELON
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 6/18/07 $200 Harman, Jane (D)
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077   8/28/08 $-2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MUSK, ELON MR
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES/CHAI 6/23/03 $2,000 Bush, George W (R)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO 9/22/05 $5,000 SecureUS (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 TESLA MOTORS/CEO 1/30/09 $5,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 8/21/09 $2,400 Reid, Harry (D)
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X/CEO 6/25/09 $2,400 Dorgan, Byron L (D)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO 2/19/08 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO 2/19/08 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE X/CEO 6/21/07 $2,300 Richardson, Bill (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES/CEO 9/26/07 $2,300 Nelson, Bill (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES/CEO 9/26/07 $2,300 Nelson, Bill (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE K/CEO 7/25/07 $2,300 Obama, Barack (D)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO 6/6/05 $2,100 Harman, Jane (D)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO 6/6/05 $2,100 Harman, Jane (D)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE X/CEO 3/25/04 $2,000 Kerry, John (D)
MUSK, ELON R
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE-X/OWNER 8/27/04 $2,000 King, Gary (D)
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X/CEO 6/25/09 $1,400 Dorgan, Byron L (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 2/28/09 $1,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X/CEO 2/23/09 $1,000 Dorgan, Byron L (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 5/31/07 $1,000 Sanchez, Loretta (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 3/19/07 $1,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 5/10/06 $1,000 Feinstein, Dianne (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX 2/23/05 $1,000 Feinstein, Dianne (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 6/30/06 $1,000 Stabenow, Debbie (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CEO 3/31/08 $500 Solis, Hilda L (D)
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/C.E.O. 8/8/07 $500 Reyes, Silvestre (D)
MUSK, ELON R MR
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO / CTO 3/17/08 $28,500 National Republican Congressional Cmte (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CEO / CTO 2/27/07 $25,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES/PRES 3/24/06 $25,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES/PRES 5/19/05 $25,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/C.E.O. / C.T.O. 3/28/09 $10,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES 4/7/04 $5,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE X/CEO 3/28/05 $2,000 Calvert, Ken (R)
MUSK, ELON R MR
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACE X/CEO 10/11/07 $2,000 Calvert, Ken (R)

 

Blue Origins is another firm that's recieved funding from NASA.  OpenSecrets.org database search on founder and CEO Jeff Bezos:

BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM/PRESIDENT/FOUNDER 6/19/09 $4,800 Murray, Patty (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM/PRESIDENT/FOUNDER 6/19/09 $2,400 Murray, Patty (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON 3/31/03 $1,000 Murray, Patty (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM 4/16/03 $1,000 Murray, Patty (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM 10/16/00 $1,000 Abraham, Spencer (R) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM INC 4/4/01 $1,000 Cantwell, Maria (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM INC 4/4/01 $1,000 Cantwell, Maria (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM/PRESIDENT/FOUNDER 6/19/09 $-2,400 Murray, Patty (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY MR
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM, INC./PRESIDENT & CEO 6/14/05 $2,100 Cantwell, Maria (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY MR
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM, INC./PRESIDENT & CEO 6/14/05 $2,100 Cantwell, Maria (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./CEO 11/15/05 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./FOUNDER & 11/10/06 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./CEO 11/18/08 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./FOUNDER & 3/12/07 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./CEO 10/29/03 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./CEO 12/2/04 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC 9/29/00 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./CEO 12/21/01 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS INC./CEO 12/27/02 $5,000 Amazon.com BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM 10/18/00 $1,000 Conyers, John Jr (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY P
SEATTLE,WA 98121 AMAZON.COM 1/18/98 $1,000 Leahy, Patrick J (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY P
SEATTLE,WA 98121 AMAZON.COM 1/18/98 $1,000 Leahy, Patrick J (D) BEZOS, JEFFREY P
BELLEVUE,WA 98009 AMAZON.COM 10/8/00 $1,000 Gorton, Slade (R)

127 If your goal is to have more Apollo-style stunts, go with NASA. If your goals is to colonize the Solar System, avoid NASA at all costs. The Federal Government is not the Nation. It is foolish to measure the greatness of the USA by tabulating all the cool stuff the Feds manage to do.

128

Obama is a FAIL - Bot

But on the other Hand, if China can do it, maybe its better someone do it for the earth. We are not. There is only one thing that stops us from doing anything.

Scumbag lawyers, mainly women, they have ruined the entire world, hand wringing and talking it to death

129 Before we all go crazy, why look at any of the players?

If the government would just get the fzck out of the way, new players could start in.  Who gives a shzt if some group is run by Soros, or some evil minion of his?

130

If the government would just get the fzck out of the way, new players could start in.  Who gives a shzt if some group is run by Soros, or some evil minion of his?

Umm, the government isn't getting out of the way.  It's funding these new start-ups.  It's always nice to know who's recieving those taxpayer dollars.

131 Folks, if you really want to know how we got into the expensive dead end of the State Department International Space Station and the Shuttle, find out one thing:

Who is Klaus Heiss?

132

As I said on my blog a couple weeks ago, Obama's cancelling of manned missions to mars shows his lack of vision.  He isn't a guy that dreams to boldly go where no man has gone before, but rather wants to just redo the tired dogmas of Marx and Engles.

Oh, and the cancelling of these programs put thousands of people out of jobs- people who were busy building things, and instead a couple professors are going to get grants to study global warming.  Thanks Nojoba.

133 The rocket engineers of today will say to you, "Do you really think we can't do better than that 1960s technology we have on the space shuttle???" They're very discouraged, and tired of being confined to just tweaking the old design.

And when the replacement design for Shuttle was chosen, and announced by Al-gore, they shook their heads and groaned: the "lifting body" looked remarkably like -- the Shuttle.

As for incentives to go to the moon, how about Helium 3?

134 The space program is an expression of our highest aspirations as a people, and a natural outgrowth of our greatest gift our freedom.
The leader of the United States of America is someone who should be a visionary and spokesman for the greatest nation of free peoples on the earth?
 What vision, what aspirations, did all these other Americans have? Louis and Clark,  Pike, Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Daniel Boone, John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, Davy Crockett, Neil Armstrong, Chuck Yeager, Amelia Earhart, Jedediah Smith, Sally Ride, John Glenn, Buzz Aldrin, John Young, Albert Cook, Francis Hall, and Robert Peary. Maybe they should have just stayed at home. After all how great was the cost to them and their country? What value did their efforts bring to our nation? Were they exceptions to the rule? Or is there a restless spirit stirred within a people whom are free?
Perhaps a field trip to Guernsey Wyoming would be in order. Walk up the path at that national monument and look at the ruts cut through solid rock by wagon wheels, and look out at the Oregon trail as it winds off into the distance.
Next go to the Smithsonian and look at the flying machine assembled by two bicycle shop mechanics from Ohio. Why did they risk their lives and their fortunes? Too far to explore you say? Why not go into your living room and look at the television an idea brought to life by an uneducated farmer and tinkerer named Philo Farnsworth.
   Inventors, adventurers, explorers, astronauts, scientists, intellectuals, engineers, craftsmen and trades  people, are the pride of our nation and salt of the earth.  These are the people needed to allow us to reach our national aspirations and explore space. Does  a free man not yearn to see past the toils of his daily existence in this world? Shall we now go off quietly into the darkness satisfied to have bread and breath?  John Muir once said, “ No right way is easy in this rough world we must risk our lives to save them” And so we too must take the challenges and the risks, and move past these earthly bonds, and wander the vastness of space, and explore other worlds, because we are free, free to reach our highest aspirations. We should never let anyone take that away.

135 Elon Muck is a kicker...

136 laptop battery
laptop ac adapter
hermes handbag

137 http://www.chinaamanda.com/wholesale-digital-gear-camera-bags_c317