1 Armstrong is being such a fool.  If he looked had Obama's record, he'd know the downhill slide doesn't' take that long.

2
"A Long Downhill Slide to Mediocrity"
Well yeah, that's the objective.  We become a 3rd world shit hole.

3

Armstrong doesn't really seem to be the type to go out and make comments either.  His involvement definitely seems newsworthy to me.

Side note, I'm about 30 minutes away from his hometown.

4 Maybe NASA ought to propose building an "Obama" orbiter or something, the narcissist would probably go for that.

5 Canceling Constellation could lead to thousands of layoffs at some of America's biggest aerospace contractors, including Lockheed Martin, the Boeing Co. and ATK.

I thought Obama promised to save jobs? Oh, wait...

6 Armstrong is a racist!

7 Thanks again FiftyTwo Percenters. You fucking fucks.

8 God one Rum!

9 Hell, compared to what Uncle Barry has in store for us I'd take mediocrity.

10 I've heard that Constellation is a horrible system so it's being cancelled is a good thing. Also, there is such a thing as private enterprise. More than one company is working on orbital launch systems - if the govt. isn't sucking the air of the industry there's more room for them to work on it.

11 Armstrong is a racist!
Posted by: wherestherum

First white man on the moon.

12 Armstrong doesn't really seem to be the type to go out and make comments either.  His involvement definitely seems newsworthy to me.

My dad's company is affiliated with NASA. He was in Houston this year for meetings at Johnson. Needless to say, the people working there were not happy to hear about these programs being cancelled.

My dad also says most people don't realize that NASA's budget is a teeny tiny portion of the entire gov't's budget, but people think it's a HUGE slice. And of course, most people don't realize how much technological innovation comes from the space program.

13 Jim Lovell signed? Heh. Tom Hanks is weeping tonight.

14
First white man on the moon.

All the proof you need, right there.

15 Expect Armstrong (and astronauts in general) to lose hero status in: Ten... Nine... Eight... Seven... Six...

16 BTW, I'm no space expert. I'm just parroting what I hear over here.... http://www.transterrestrial.com/ where space experts DO seem to hang out and pontificate.

17 WTF. The Federal Government is not the USA. Americans and American companies should be colonizing the Solar System, not the Feds. The USA has been screwing this whole thing up for 50 years and ironically a frakking Commie fixes the problem.

18

Well, obviously, Jim Lovell's signature on this letter means absolutely nothing!  He's probably one of those racist teabaggers, for crying out loud!  I support President Obama and all his endeavors.  Obama is sooo cool, and smart, and calm and fabulous, and my opinion trumps Lovell's any day.  After all, I played him in "Apollo 13" which came out in 1995.  Lovell hasn't been in that spaceship since 1970.  My NASA experience is a lot more current than his, plus I'm a really great actor so of course I'm going to carry a lot more weight!  I have gravitas damn it!  I don't think Lovell could have pulled off ""Saving Private Ryan either! 

19

I also always wondered if that comment said by him in that HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon" was true.  They were at a house before they're launching and John Glenn running for Senate was brought up.  Armstrong being another Ohioan asked if he would vote for Glenn for president.  The line was "That depends, who's running for King."

Always sounded to me like Armstrong was conservative in nature, and I hoped it was true.

20 10 I've heard that Constellation is a horrible system so it's being cancelled is a good thing.

Also, there is such a thing as private enterprise. More than one company is working on orbital launch systems - if the govt. isn't sucking the air of the industry there's more room for them to work on it.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at April 13, 2010 09:40 PM (OCBRv)

Uhhh... can I call you names now?

Yeah, I think we should just wait for Microsoft to put a man on the moon, again. Can you possibly explain why ANY private company would invest in manned space flight? If so, how come NONE have done it yet? I mean ZERO, anywhere in the world.

21 Fucking white men taking their white lander named after a white god to a place with a kind of ashy-gray-white surface to walk around in their white suits and lay a plaque from a white president all so we can ride around in white shuttles. I'll show them.

22
I was walking home from the bayou just now and realized I could see Venus, Mars, and Saturn tonight.   Pretty neat seeing the lined up on the ecliptic like that.

23 Didn't you guys get the memo?  All the kewl dudez don't think that space science is worth it at all. 

This infamous article in Slate summed it all up:  http://www.slate.com/id/2237387/

Besides, let's get to the real problem with the space program.  There's very little opportunity for SEIU/Acorn types at NASA.  How the hell can Organizing Against America spread the wealth to their homies if they are required to know things like science and math just to get a low level job?  That discriminates against dumb people.  Can't have that.

And don't even go there about how it sets us apart from other nations.  I mean, damn....we're not any better than anyone else, so where do we get off being proud of this racist/sexist/homophobic society just because we went to the moon?

24

I'm starting to think Obama may not be the best thing for our country.

25 Also, there is such a thing as private enterprise. More than one company is working on orbital launch systems - if the govt. isn't sucking the air of the industry there's more room for them to work on it.

Absolute nonsense.  There are two things I favor government doing:  War and space.  And if you are deluded enough to think this administration's "strategy" somehow favors private enterprise, then you are...well, deluded.

Fix NASA, don't kill it and hand the high ground to the Russians and the Chinese all in one swoop.

P.S.:  Armstrong speaking out is the equivalent of a public relations nuclear weapon.  That guy does not seek the limelight.  At all.

26 The USA has been screwing this whole thing up for 50 years and ironically a frakking Commie fixes the problem.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 09:43 PM (fTJLU)

Bullshit, can you show me one business model that makes sense for putting a man on the moon? Tell me how you make a profit with that?

Space like the military is one place we need the government. There is no money to be made in space, businesses aren't going to do it unless you're planning on our space program consisting of putting billionares in orbit for a day or so, so they can say they did it.

27
War and space.

And don't think for a second the two can be separated. 

28 Wonder why there are no colonies in the Solar System? Government programs like effing NASA will never produce them. People will colonize the Solar System in stages, starting with tourism. What will drive it? Capitalism. Get the frakking NASA meme out of your skulls.

29 Old white guys, do you think Obama cares.  Hell, they are probably Christians too.

I met Armstrong once up at AIL/Eaton in Deer Park, NY - he was on the board - we can only hope our current conflict develop a generation of leaders like him and his.

30 And don't think for a second the two can be separated. 

Amen.

31 IF IT WASN'T FOR NASA, WE WOULDN'T HAS NO TANG!

32
People will colonize the Solar System in stages, starting with tourism. What will drive it?

Capitalism.

De.  Lud.  Ed.

33

Private Enterprise will take this over, in 2013, with an R in the CIC Seat.

It is economic timing.

By 2015, we will begin strip mining the moon.

Fusion Energy by 2018.

Private Enterprise Rocks

34 Wonder why there are no colonies in the Solar System?

Government programs like effing NASA will never produce them.

People will colonize the Solar System in stages, starting with tourism. What will drive it?

Capitalism.

Get the frakking NASA meme out of your skulls.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 09:51 PM (fTJLU)

Do you have anymore of what your smoking there?

35 All about canceling the gains that Reagan made.

36 27
War and space.

And don't think for a second the two can be separated. 

Posted by: Dang Straights at April 13, 2010 09:50 PM (67pfW)

Correct.

37 robtr, Of course there is no business model to put a man on the Moon. But, people will go to the Moon when a Space Economy starts. Tourism is the starting point. First rides, then stays, then longer stays, and so on. Plus, the SS Economy won't be based on sending physical objects to Earth. The investors on Earth only need information. Just like you can make money in America buy buying stock in a company in france that sells a product only to customers in Botswana.

38 Exactly Dang. 

Eman your wrong for now, maybe in 50 years - but not now.

39
Correct.

Yes.  I too find their lack of faith... disturbing.

40

What does he mean "long downhill slide to mediocrity?"

We've bypassed "mediocrity" and went straight to "shitty." We'll soon be reduced to hitching rides with the Russkies to get to the ISS which, BTW, is slated to be deorbited into the Pacific in 2015.

Might as well close the Kenndedy Space Center, the area will be nice as a nature preserve.

41 28 Wonder why there are no colonies in the Solar System?

Government programs like effing NASA will never produce them.

People will colonize the Solar System in stages, starting with tourism. What will drive it?

Capitalism.

Get the frakking NASA meme out of your skulls.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 09:51 PM (fTJLU)

PUNCH UP, INTO SPACE!

Adjusted 2010 dollars for the Apollo program: $150,000,000,000

OK, what private company is going to step up to the plate for that one?

42 I'm not confident that privatization will save the space program. The ROI for this kind of stuff is far too high for any private organization to do more than dabble in it, and even if it weren't the feds would simply regulate them out of business.

You don't compete with the government.

43 Yes, let's have more meaningless stunts and spider-fucking in low-Earth orbit. What a bunch of Commies. Yes, Capitalism can take a tiny thing and grow it into something that encompasses the World.

44 Just like you can make money in America buy buying stock in a company in france that sells a product only to customers in Botswana.

Yes, until the Russians and/or Chinese build a fence around Botswana because everyone thinks capitalism is the answer for everything and then the commies drink your milkshake.  They drink it up.

45 Just like you can make money in America buy buying stock in a company in france that sells a product only to customers in Botswana.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 09:56 PM (fTJLU)

You convinced me eman, I am going to talk to my banker tomorrow about opening a space motel, maybe on the moon!

46 (ROI is too LOW, I mean.)

47

See buddy what you have to look forward to?

At least I won't feel so lonely here.

48 Companies don't invest in stunts like Apollo. "You can't invent the airplane, there aren't any airports yet."

49

Ob+maobucks were invented to BUY mediocrity!!!!

Don't get all wee weed up.

50 and if private enterprise we ready to start mining the moon, how quickly do you think Obama's EPA would be all over their ass.  There was a great series of sci-fi books by M Snodgrass on the extension of Federal power into space - would make a good TV show/movie.

51 So, in 1955, it would have been only GW, Jeb & Neil. Marvin wasn't born until the following year, then Doro in '59.

_{Their sister Robin Bush died in '53.}

52 robtr, I'm talking about what can work (Capitalism) and what can never work (NASA).

53 Wrong thread. Too many tabs--oops!

54 Private enterprise won't save the space program either. Manned space exploration is dead for the time being. Putting satellites into orbit is where the money is at and is probably where it will stay for at least 50 years.

55 Does anyone seriously think that Salazar and the UN would allow a US company to start mining the fucking moon? srsly?

56 "You can't invent the airplane, there aren't any airports yet."

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 10:00 PM (fTJLU)

eman, they didn't need airports when they invented the plane. They used the beach.

57 14
First white man on the moon.

All the proof you need, right there.

Posted by: Dang Straights at April 13, 2010 09:42 PM (67pfW)

Guess who I want to be the first Kenyan on the moon. Guess how he's getting home.

You can do it B+rry!

 

58 Why continue an obvious failure? NASA has failed.

59 I'm talking about what can work (Capitalism) and what can never work (NASA).

The crew of Apollo 11 probably has a different opinion.  As stated int he letter we are discussing.

60
Salazar and the UN would allow a US company to start mining the fucking moon? srsly?

Real Americans say "FUCK salazar and the rest of the mutts at the UN."  But they are few and far between, these days.

61 robtr, you are not getting it. Things that seem silly can grow into things that are perfectly sensible and quite valuable.

62

What do Cernan, Lovell and Armstrong have in common?

They're Eagle Scouts.

The Eagle Scouts have a secret base on the moon. You didn't hear it from me.

The government space program was doomed the first time a crotchety old man yelled, "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we..."

Those in charge of doing all the things that come after that have been undermining the space program ever since.

 

63 Apollo was a stunt. It led to a few more stunts and then stagnation and scattered disasters.

64 P.S.:  Armstrong speaking out is the equivalent of a public relations nuclear weapon.  That guy does not seek the limelight.  At all.

This

War and space.

And don't think for a second the two can be separated. 

And this.

Armstrong is an extremely classy guy who has been wrongly branded as "reticent" and "a recluse."  No, he's just an engineer who doesn't gobble up each opportunity coming his way and he keeps is mouth shut about politics, as he's savvy enough to know that he represents so much more than... well, himself.  I don't know that he's EVER spoken out on ANYTHING political outside of serving on the Challenger investigation board, and even that was limited to the structure and practices of NASA.

The Right Stuff indulged in its share of fantasy, but what it got right was that the space race was a stand-in for the Cold War.  And if libs think that the collapse of the USSR was the end of people cowering from the US due to our superiority in space, they are (once again) fucking wrong.

65 I already *hearted* Neil Armstrong.  This just increases that. 

66

If we had President Michelle Bachmann* in 2013, we would strip mine the moon: "Mine Here. Mine Now."

(*or insert any other worthwhile anti-liberal name)

67 l bet if Obama's ancestors lived on the moon, it would be in the budget....

68  robtr, I'm talking about what can work (Capitalism) and what can never work (NASA).

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 10:02 PM (fTJLU)

I don't see it, I do see alot of capitalist companies that are going to be hurt by this move by the government though. You are aware that private industry built all the space stuff aren't you?

69
Is there fuck-all on the moon worth mining?  What is there is water, as we're finding out, which means we develop deep-space vehicles there instead of inside the earth's gravity well.

70 Gonna have to go private sector on this batch. time to run off to Lockheed and the flats testing grounds

71 eman - what has nasa failed at?

They have solved many of the scientific issues associated with manned space flight, reached engineering breakeven to use a metaphor from another discipline.  But, we are nowhere near commercial breakeven.

NASA needs to get out of the light/near-earth orbit satellite business, but other than the military - who can provide heavy lift. NASA was formed to get the military out of the civilian space business, looks like they are giving it back so they can spend billions on global warming.

72 Moon mining..... Look Up Helium-3

73 Yes, robtr, I know that. But, they built those things within the boundaries of the wrong system, the wrong model. We are stuck here on Earth because of NASA, not in spite of it.

74 Wow, Bastiat has an appropriate quote for this thread. Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. > 26 ... Space like the military is one place we need the government. There is no money to be made in space, businesses aren't going to do it ... Posted by: robtr There's a TON of money to be made in space and money IS being made in space RIGHT NOW. Mainly communication sats. There'll be other ways to make money later on.

75 OK, confused again. From 01-08, all we heard was how "anti-science" Booooosh was, and how PRO SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!11ELEVENTY!!!! the Dems were. Now they go and cut the evil Boooooosh/neocon's plan to drill for oil on the moon, and they are the "pro scientific" party?

76 NASA -- the one top-down, Five Year Plan Socialist program that Conservatives love. If we'd used the NASA model for the trans-continental railroads, we'd still be somewhere in Nevada and Utah with a gap in the middle. (And tearing up the tracks after every train was "launched.") NASA shouldn't be in the space trucking business, which is what it's been doing for the last 30 years. It should be developing and promoting hardware and systems and then letting private, capitalist enterprises run them. It has had 30 years to do something more than going around in circles, and done nothing with that time. Instead it's become a pork-laden make-work system for Florida, Alabama and Texas.

77 Have at it morons. It's free for the taking - what's left of it, that is.
NASA's spinoffs. Spinoff is NASA's annual premier publication featuring successfully commercialized NASA technology. For more than 40 years, the NASA Innovative Partnerships Program has facilitated the transfer of NASA technology to the private sector, benefiting global competition and the economy.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

78

Is there fuck-all on the moon worth mining? 

No.

What is there is water, as we're finding out, which means we develop deep-space vehicles there instead of inside the earth's gravity well.

Not for the next hundred years, at least. Probably longer.

79 71, NASA has failed at getting the human race into Space. It has merely managed a few stunts that led to where we are today. The technological successes of NASA are not the issue. Government programs, no matter how well-intended and how well-staffed, can not do what Capitalism can do.

80 Obama wants us to be 2nd or 3rd rate in EVERYTHING.People need to wake up and understand we elected a saboteur.

81

A small article in PM, that focuses on, yeap. Neil Armstrong.

A sample of soil from the rim of Camelot crater slid from my scoop into a Teflon bag to begin its trip to Earth with the crew of Apollo 17. Little did I know at the time, on Dec. 13, 1972, that sample 75501, along with samples from Apollo 11 and other missions, would provide the best reason to return to the moon in the 21st century. That realization would come 13 years later. In 1985, young engineers at the University of Wisconsin discovered that lunar soil contained significant quantities of a remarkable form of helium. Known as helium-3, it is a lightweight isotope of the familiar gas that fills birthday balloons.

Small quantities of helium-3 previously discovered on Earth intrigued the scientific community. The unique atomic structure of helium-3 promised to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in conventional nuclear reactors. Extracting helium-3 from the moon and returning it to Earth would, of course, be difficult, but the potential rewards would be staggering for those who embarked upon this venture. Helium-3 could help free the United States--and the world--from dependence on fossil fuels.

 

82 Real Americans say "FUCK salazar and the rest of the mutts at the UN."  But they are few and far between, these days.

Posted by: Dang Straights at April 13, 2010 10:05 PM (67pfW)

yep, sad but true.

83

Ding, robtr. Most spacey stuff was made by small machine shop jobbers, who usually made car or gun parts. Many of them didn't survive the scale-back when Apollo shut down. Many others got fat & happy with modernized WWII tools, work methods and management techniques, figuring that if this work was worth so much, the good old days were here to stay--and got tromped when the high-tech developed for the space program took over their quaint and lovable industry.

The small-shop industrial structure it took to support the 60's programs (or WWII, for that matter) does not exist anymore, nor do the people to man it. Precision machine work is now farmed out to continents that don't have a problem with a little pollution, workplace danger, hazard exposure, or pay.

84 Mainly communication sats. There'll be other ways to make money later on.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at April 13, 2010 10:11 PM (OCBRv)

Wonder where all that money came from to develop the technology to put the first sattelite into space? Here is a clue, it wasn't Wall Street.

85 Yeah, I think we should just wait for Microsoft to put a man on the moon, again. Can you possibly explain why ANY private company would invest in manned space flight? If so, how come NONE have done it yet? I mean ZERO, anywhere in the world.

This is correct.  There really is no justification for putting people in space with current technology.  It simply costs too much, and there's nothing practical you can do with people in space that you couldn't do with machines.  Sure, you can send people up to fuck in zero-G.  But so what?  That might be worth a couple hundred grand, but not fifteen billion.

What NASA should be doing (should have done 30 years ago) is concentrated on developing technologies that will make the per-kg cost to LEO much smaller than it is.  That, after all, was the original justification for the space shuttle (and what a failure it was).

If they can get the cost down to a tenth or so of what it costs today, then sending people up might actually be worthwhile.  Until then, it just isn't, and we shouldn't be doing it.

86

What are the Ruskies and Chinamen giving Obama in return for abandoning the Space?

He's Chicago to the core, what is the pay-off?

87 Ref private enterprise and big, expensive projects. When the industrial revolution was kicking in, canals were a very big deal. (this was before railroads) Every transport canal in britain was built by private enterprise except for the last one - a govt. project.* Canals are pretty expensive. But they got built and (mostly ) were profitable. Except for that last one. Over budget, behind schedule and a financial disaster. Private enterprise can build BIG EXPENSIVE things - if they're allowed to. *I'm going by memory here based on a documentary series about the industrial revolution in Britain. I could have remembered it wrong.

88 NASA did do much good in jump-starting the tech side of this, but notice how after that it stalled. Why? Because NASA isn't private enterprise. Also, note how private companies have produced successful flights at a tiny fraction of what NASA would spend to do the same thing. Why? Because they had to do it cheaper. You guys sound like IBM Mainframe geeks laughing at Jobs and Gates back in the Seventies.

89 You want a permanent colony and infrastructure on the moon - develop a military mission:

1.  SDI base with nuc reactor to power an array of MW lasers to bounce off of mirrors for global coverage
2.  Rebase the Minutemen and a shitload of Smart Crowbars -- save North Dakota
3.  Base to assemble and store spare intel, comm, GPS, and SDI satellites to launch from the easy end of the gravity well -- might be cheaper in the long run then launches if the carbon taxes kick in.

Just a few ideas before the Jamesons kicks in.

90 Well, if you look at it from the perspective that a "long downhill slide to mediocrity" is actually Obama's goal, then this move makes perfect sense!

91 Canals, NYC Subways, the PC revolution all had one thing when they started -- customers.  Who needs to go to space?

92 Where NASA began to slide downhill was when it became a bloated bureaucracy.  The brain drain of the Apollo dismantlement was a crime.  Its lean and mean days were its best-- Gemini took us from a single man in orbit to rendezvous in eighteen months, with launches happening about every 5-6 weeks or so, some within days of each other.  Today's NASA couldn't do that-- it misses the excellent management of von Braun, it bows too much to red tape and environmental crap, and its PR continues to coast on the wow factor of big things making big noises. 

A NASA is an excellent military, technological, PR, human capital, and business investment... just not this NASA.

93

Flawless diamonds could be discovered just laying around on the surface of the moon and the costs involved in bringing them back would still be insanely prohibitive.

That's why all this sci-fi Popular Mechanics bullshit (no offense, Analyst) is completely useless in the real world.

Trust me, I've been a huge fan of space exploration since I was 10 years old and I would like nothing more than to see someone set foot on Mars but the reality of the situation is that we can't reliably put a human 200 miles into the sky much less put together a mining operation on the moon.

94

76 Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 13, 2010 10:12 PM (GUxTi)

I agree, partly.

In the beginning, the risk was too great in the space systems, and there was no established profitable product in space.

For the Rails, they already had a reliable Engine (thanks British etal ) and established commodities (thanks explorers)

The risks of the travel are much lower now, and there are a few profitable commodities. It is time for private enterprise to take over, but with Obama's anti-business policies chopping away, there are fewer people willing to stick a neck out now.

95 91, As I said, starts with tourists. First folks are satisfied with quick rides. Then they want to stay longer. Hotels. Support staff. Get an asteroid, build more hotels. Pretty soon you are grabbing asteroids just to live and work on them. A Solar System economy only needs a jump start from Earth, then it can disconnect. There are actually more resources in orbit than down here. This, of course, will take decades.

96 I have top advisers in my administration, top advisers, to give advice on how much suckage is appropriate for America now. They say we can't always be good at math and science, and that's good enough for me. If my advisers are comfortable with dumping NASA -- a white man's endeavor by the way -- I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Armstrong, Cernan, or Lovell.

97 Private enterprise spends BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars on off-shore oil platforms. I think they can swing the financing on orbital launch systems if they had to.

98 Canals are pretty expensive. But they got built and (mostly ) were profitable. Except for that last one. Over budget, behind schedule and a financial disaster.

Private enterprise can build BIG EXPENSIVE things - if they're allowed to.

Yes, but there's a clear payoff to that kind of venture.  People will pay you to be allowed to ship your goods through your canal.  Eventually you'll recoup your construction costs and be making money.

If you could build a rocket freighter and convince people to pay you enough to move freight to LEO such that you recoup development costs and make profit, people would have done it already.  But the trend is actually in the wrong direction - because of advances in communications technology and the amount of fiber that's already been laid between continents, there's not a lot of demand for non-military, non-broadcast satellites any more.

99

Isn't one of the head fred, stuffed shirt nasa doods a Global Warming Activist?

Destroy, from the inside.

100 The SS economy is not designed around what can be sent down to Earth. It keeps 99.9% of it's mass off-Earth.

101 Analyst - you get a Helium-3 fusion reactor to commercial breakeven; and I will have a moon mining operation running before you can get a permit to begin construction.

102 Conservatives who choose to pick on NASA as a "waste of money" have an agenda.  Compared to EVERY OTHER FUCKING GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket.  How about railing against those first, lowering the deficit, and then worrying about the little money spent on space exploration?

NASA has not been a "failure" as some would like to say.  Has it been badly managed?  Definitely.  But the idea that random commercial companies are going to take the initiative to do things that are positive for our country are naive.

Not speaking out against patriotism or free enterprise, but they don't necessarily work together in a situation like this...

103 Behold the power of the Federal worker. Today I saw how teachers from Maine to McAllen fought in the streets for their jobs. It was enough to make a Greek government worker weep with tears of joy. Now we see the knuckle under to the slide rule welfare kings and queens of NASA and conservatives jump for joy. There is zero/zilch/nada/no, I repeat no hope.

104 prolix, you have it backwards. Making a buck in Space is far more patriotic than planting a flag on the Moon. We forgot the business of America is business.

105
He's Chicago to the core, what is the pay-off?

They pinky-swear promised to eat him last.

106

Private enterprise spends BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars on off-shore oil platforms. I think they can swing the financing on orbital launch systems if they had to.

If it was worth a buck, they would already be in the space bidness.

They're not.

107 NASA has not been a "failure" as some would like to say.  Has it been badly managed?  Definitely.

Actually NASA has had quite a bit of success over the years, with projects like Hubble, Cassini, and the Mars rovers.  They even got a scramjet working a few years back.

But in the early 1970s the manned space program became the Monster that Ate the Budget.  The stuff I listed above was all done on a relative shoestring.

I'm not against having NASA or against having a space program.  I'm against a manned space program, because it's a big waste of money.

108 99

Isn't one of the head fred, stuffed shirt nasa doods a Global Warming Activist?

Destroy, from the inside.

Posted by: Woolie at April 13, 2010 10:32 PM (nQj7E)

Hansen.  He's a pathetic shit bag.  Whined and cried about being silenced by the Bush administration.. to every media outlet under the sun.  Constantly getting quoted by them on everything global warming.  Damn Bush for not letting him speak out.  The guy is definitely scum and needs to go.  I think he'll eventually be busted for his swindle job on global warming.

109 If it was worth a buck, they would already be in the space bidness. They're not. Posted by: ErikW Why would oil companies invest in space enterprises? Do pharmaceutical companies invest in making better lawnmowers? No. But, I bet John Deere does.

110 "A Long Downhill Slide to Mediocrity" We can only hope it's long...

111 Canceling Constellation could lead to thousands of layoffs at some of America's biggest aerospace contractors, including Lockheed Martin, the Boeing Co. and ATK.

I thought Obama promised to save jobs? Oh, wait...

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 13, 2010 09:38 PM (yfJ6g)

I used to do contract work for Lockheed/Martin doing military payroll stuff for DFAS in Cleveland and heard recently that all those L/M people had been swallowed up by the Feds.  That reeks of a payoff to Kucinich, who'd been bitching about that setup for a long time.  I'm not saying that was his payoff for his healthcare vote, since that probably happened before the little cocksucker pocketed his 30 pieces of silver.  But that sawed-off fuck hates the private sector.

112

NASA needs to get the fuck out of Global Warming psudo-science and then they can concentrate on manned space flight.  Although we don't have the stomach for it anymore.  Dateline did a piece on Apollo 13 and all Matt Lauer could ask Jim Lovell is why they didn't concentrate on the possibility of death in space.  Lovell should have said ...Listen pussy, we were going to make it home any way we could...

Also why is NASA planning on abandoning the ISS after 2015? 

I guess free cell phones for the "poor" are more important.

113 I can't stand reading all your stupid comments.  Go look up Bigelow Aerospace and how they actually put a privately funded and built fucking space station prototype up in space.  Go read about how Fucking John Carmak who wrote Doom is running a fucking private space company and is also planning manned flights.  GO read about how Elon Musk of PayPal has a fucking manned space capsule that will compete with the fucking butt-plug that is NASA's Orion space junk.  Go read about how Jeff Bezos who started and runs Amazon.com wants to build space colonies.

You fucking skanky twats should read up and  shut the fuck up.

114

Why would oil companies invest in space enterprises?

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 10:51 PM (fTJLU)

I don't know, ask Comrade Arthur. The point I was making is that if there was money to be made in human space exploration, Burt Rutan would already be filling our skies with spacecraft. He's not. Space simply isn't profitable.

 

115 em-bare-assed. someguy?

116 No, I'm not that cocksucking someguy.  I've been following this shit for my whole life, and I hate it that here, of all places, there are chimps pissing in each others' mouths on this topic.

117 Burt Rutan would already be filling our skies with spacecraft. He's not. Space simply isn't profitable. Posted by: ErikW Google what he is doing. These are start-up enterprises. Most will fail. That is natural. But, the idea is right.

118 It really is amazing to see folks insist that something can't be done because NASA couldn't do it and Exxon doesn't want to do it.

119

My thought on this, is thus;

If a Global Warming Activist has any pull whatsoever on a gov funded activity, that gov funded activity should be desolved. un-funded.

120 119 It really is amazing to see folks insist that something can't be done that private industry must do what it never has done before because NASA couldn't do did it and Exxon doesn't want to not one company has made the slightest move to do it.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 11:13 PM (fTJLU)

FIFY

121 120

My thought on this, is thus;

If a Global Warming Activist has any pull whatsoever on a gov funded activity, that gov funded activity should be desolved. un-funded.

Posted by: Woolie at April 13, 2010 11:21 PM (nQj7E)

Purges are cheaper, quicker, and way more easy. How much did 'night of the long-knives' cost? Sandwiches and beer for the after party.

122

Let's see:

Manned space exploration.

or

Some braying welfare queen gets an extra carton of smokes and a jug of Cisco.

Yep, I know which one I would pick.

123 Jim, you leprous paedophile. Private companies are doing it.

124 Dack, you want to outsource that manned exploration to private US companies.  You don't want socialist manned space exploration, do you?  Are you a leftist plant?

125

Google what he is doing. These are start-up enterprises. Most will fail. That is natural. But, the idea is right.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 11:09 PM (fTJLU)

Yes but the idea isn't worth a shit if there isn't a practical means for profitable development. Nobody is lining up to make the trip into space.

126

Yeah... I dunno bout this one.

While I certainly do not trust the people in charge to screw in a lightbulb, there are a large portion of government employees bitching about this. They're not known for innovation.

Yeah, they want to go to the moon. I'd like to go to the moon too. They're sad because now they can't go. Aww. So sad.

But WHY THE FUCK go to the moon? What the hell is on the moon? Then what? Go to the moon again? For another 840429 gajillion dollars?

What was it, 50 billion to go to the moon? WHY? When we're in a damn recession and 30 trillion in debt? We've been to the moon. It's a barren rock. There's no future there.

Creating a new industry, creating economic motive for people to go into space,  opening up access to it, there is at least a hope for the future of space exploration.

127 And you cannot discount the private sector. You get them up there making money off space tourism and they'll run rings around NASA in terms of getting costs down and developing new tech.

128 ErikW, you sex change poster child, look at the pre-paid customer list that Virgin Galactic already has.  Please don't have kids.

129

Barry's spent enough money to put a welfare queen on Mars.

Hey, maybe we could send all the welfare queens to Mars...and then leave them there forever.

130 OK, what private company is going to step up to the plate for that one? Microsoft Moon Tours.

131 It really is amazing to see folks insist that something can't be done that private industry must do what it never has done before because NASA couldn't do did it and Exxon doesn't want to not one company has made the slightest move to do it. Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 11:13 PM (fTJLU) FIFY Posted by: Jim in San Diego Yes but the idea isn't worth a shit if there isn't a practical means for profitable development. Nobody is lining up to make the trip into space. Posted by: ErikW You kids have some reading to do.

132

You kids have some reading to do.

Educate me, eman. What am I missing?

133 124 Jim, you leprous paedophile. Private companies are doing it.

Posted by: Embarrassed at April 13, 2010 11:27 PM (dfJqQ)

I LOVE YOU MAN!

Seriously, what private companies are putting people in orbit?

134

Compared to EVERY OTHER FUCKING GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket.  How about railing against those first, lowering the deficit, and then worrying about the little money spent on space exploration?

1) Done and done.

2) Where is the "Lower the deficit" lever? Point me to it and I shall yank it.

You can't pick and choose. Conservatives who circle the wagons around NASA, as much as I might like it, are just being hypocritical when their pet ox gets gored. It is, as cool as it is, an unjustifiable waste of tax money.

135 Neil Armstrong on Obama's NASA Plans: "A Long Downhill Slide to Mediocrity"
A feature, not a bug. I can't have Americans bragging by asking other countries if they've ever landed a man on the moon. It makes Muslim countries who invented math feel bad that we didn't give them all the credit

136

When it comes down to it, I would rather some of my tax money go to Space Exploration, and not health care for all.

I bet there are more waves no one has imagined yet.

137

NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket

0.08 percent of the Federal Budget, BTW.

138 ErikW, Google it, dude. Bigelow Space is a good start. Spaceship One and Spaceship Two. Jim in SD, As said before these are start ups. You are smarter than this, man. No one is arguing that these tourist flights are happening now or that there will be a Burger King on the Moon next year. We are talking about taking a whole new approach, an approach that has worked well on Earth: Free Enterprise.

139 140, Irrelevant. NASA itself is the problem. A "National Space Program" itself is the problem.

140 My NASA experience is a lot more current than his, plus I'm a really great actor so of course I'm going to carry a lot more weight!  I have gravitas damn it!  I don't think Lovell could have pulled off ""Saving Private Ryan either!  Posted by: Tom Hanks at April 13, 2010 09:45 PM

Look punk, I was in the far reaches of the galaxy killing any alien that looked sideways at me and fucking their women next to their dead bodies when you were playing with GI Joes

141 It is, as cool as it is, an unjustifiable waste of tax money.

Posted by: Entropy at April 13, 2010 11:40 PM (eL+YD)

Cool is it's own justification, but spin-offs from NASA's Apollo program are creating tons of wealth to this day. So, I think they should do more of it. Besides, I still do not see any private companies making viable and realistic plans with hard departure dates. General science has always been a 'pig in a poke' with tangible benefits apparent only after you have spent the money. Besides, I'd rather spend the money on another moon shot rather than indulge some communists fantasizes about educating inner city ghetto rats.

142

When it comes down to it, I would rather some of my tax money go to Space Exploration, and not health care for all.

When it comes down to it, that is fundementally an argument that government should make everyone else pay for whatever I want rather than whatever you want.

They only difference between space loitering (let's not call another man on the moon exploration) and free health care, is one of personal preferance.

If we cannot make it profitable, if we cannot find an actual good reason for going out there (by which I mean any reason better than the justification of SETI - ie. giving nerds wet dreams) then we just shouldn't be out there.

Bunch a damn Dr. Robert Stadlers, all of ya.

143

Google it, dude.

Bigelow Space is a good start.

Spaceship One and Spaceship Two.

I'm familiar with them, dude. I'll repeat myself again: Nobody is booking flights into space. No demand, no supply. No supply, no profit.

It ain't happening bro.

144 "inner city ghetto rats." Classy.

145 147, Spaceship Two is still in the testing stage. Let's revisit this later when flights either do or do not begin.

146 Jim in SD, As said before these are start ups. You are smarter than this, man. No one is arguing that these tourist flights are happening now or that there will be a Burger King on the Moon next year. We are talking about taking a whole new approach, an approach that has worked well on Earth: Free Enterprise.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 11:47 PM (fTJLU)

You are so wrong; just ask Gabe and Drew.

OK, without space tourism and Burger Kings on the Moon (which I must admit sounds pretty neat), what business plan is there to make money on/in space? It ain't there as far as I can see. I would LOVE to be wrong on this one, but I don't see it and relying on the private sector to do it will set the science of space travel back a few hundred years, because as of now, it's a fiscal looser.

147 148 "inner city ghetto rats."

Classy.

Posted by: eman at April 13, 2010 11:53 PM (fTJLU)

They are accorded the respect they earn.

148 The plan for the tourist companies is they sell rides into Space. Each ride is brief and costly, but unique. I figure the population of riders will divide into three groups. One will never do it again, one will be neutral, and the third will want to go up again and again asap. Later, the third group will spawn another group that wants to stay longer. And on and on it will go. The companies building the spaceships are smart enough to charge enough to make a profit. If not, we should email them some advice.

149 151, Not all residents of the inner cities are ghetto rats.

150

You can't pick and choose. Conservatives who circle the wagons around NASA The military, as much as I might like it, are just being hypocritical when their pet ox gets gored. It is, as cool as it is, an unjustifiable waste of tax money.

Posted by: Entropy at April 13, 2010 11:40 PM (eL+YD)

FTFY just to demonstrate a bit of the idiocy of your statement.  Because its true that conservatives do want to defund the government except for the military.  And we do raise a stink when its the military.  And so now you're shocked that there's one other program conservatives see as beneficial and shouldn't be defunded and we can't pick and choose.

151

entropy.

then why should

i feel good.

?

152

Spaceship Two is still in the testing stage. Let's revisit this later when flights either do or do not begin.

Okay. Give me a holler when I can get my astronaut wings for 20 bucks.

153 Saying we've seen all there is to see on the Moon is like visiting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati and saying you've seen America.  Apollo's landing sites were almost all along the Moon's equator.  You can agree or disagree that we need to go back, or that manned exploration is necessory, or that it should be a government project or no, but in no way has the Moon been fully explored.

154

Spaceship Two is still in the testing stage. Let's revisit this later when flights either do or do not begin.

If they do not begin at x time, they will begin at y time.

Sooner or later we'll find a profit out there, or else we won't go.

That is why I like the new NASA direction - I've said for a long what NASA ought to be concentrating on as priority #1 is finding a USE, a justifiable reason to go out there. Start mining asteroids or something. Build a Sizzler.

I want to get us out there. I want private space flight going on. I know if it does happen, it will be way way way more succesful then the government program because, well... duh.

But you can't just keep making other people pay for your fancy forever. Especially when 40 years ago we went to the moon and today, 40 years of government program later, we're struggling to go to .... the moon.

We've de-veloped space flight all right. It didn't cost 50 billion dollars the first time we did it!

I appreciate the contribution NASA has made to that 'general science' area that needed to be pioneered to get the human race into space. But this is a do or die issue. That is why I say there is no future in a NASA mission to the moon. It leads no where. It's treading water. So we go to the moon again.... then what? It leads to nothing.

I'm for space flight too. This is at least a shot at ensuring a future for it.

I know you agree with me about that, I'm just saying - if this attempt to launch private entities into space doesn't work, then we must try another attempt. We can't go back to more 30 years odd moon trips and such.

155 NASA has been beneficial in some ways and harmful in others. NASA showed us people could travel in space and at the same time halted progress by making and keeping space travel a function of government. We all got suckered into thinking what NASA was and what NASA was doing was what was supposed to be. We substituted pride in stunts for pride in lasting accomplishments. Now we are stuck with abandoned used vehicles on the Moon, aging astronauts, two lost shuttles, and begging the Russians for a cab ride, all because we forgot we are Americans and not Soviets.

156 This isn't about capsules, little spacecraft, 20min joyrides for bored billionaires - it is all about lift, heavy lift.  What Obama is really doing is limiting our ability to put heavy stuff into orbit. 

The heavy stuff is the interesting stuff, the military stuff, and manned flight.  The military will have their own lift - everything else is going to have to pay Putin's rate and be subject to his scrutiny.   Maybe some wild-eyed venture capitalist has a better way of doing it, but no one to date has even talked about taking heavy loads to high orbits outside of science fiction novels.

157 153 151,

Not all residents of the inner cities are ghetto rats.

Posted by: eman at April 14, 2010 12:03 AM (fTJLU)

And not all social workers in the inner-city are communists. So what. Are you trying to make a bigger point?

158

FTFY just to demonstrate a bit of the idiocy of your statement.  Because its true that conservatives do want to defund the government except for the military.

Sorry, no dice.

We can definetly cut down on some of those bases abroad.

And while Iraq and Afghanistan were noble projects, I'm not sure they were stricly necessary and nation building is not a cost-effective project. We could have nuked them for cheaper.

159

Besides, the constitution spells out defense of the nation.

It don't say nuttin bout no rocketships.

Was that in an emmanation of a penumbra, or a penumbra of an emmanation?

160 161, Yes, your remark served no useful purpose.

161 160, After wasting billions on a useless space station built using heavy lifting rockets, NASA is encouraging a switch to Bigelow Space's inflatable space station modules. Light, cheap, easy to use, and they hook together. Wow, what a cool idea. Plus, they have already been put into orbit, and they work.

162

Maybe some wild-eyed venture capitalist has a better way of doing it, but no one to date has even talked about taking heavy loads to high orbits outside of science fiction novels.

That's because the risk is too high. The private sector would never operate under the extreme conditions that NASA exists in. Take Challenger and Columbia.

163 "A Long Downhill Slide to Mediocrity"

As long as Obie's in charge, it won't be just the space program traveling this route.

164 164 161,

Yes, your remark served no useful purpose.

Posted by: eman at April 14, 2010 12:23 AM (fTJLU)

I'll stack it up against anything you said here tonight because your arguments doesn't go beyond bumper stick sloganeering and SciFi wishful thinking.

There is no incentive for the private sector manned space flight. If you care about saving money then kill some social programs that do not work and spend all that money on space exploration. When the government has worked out the kinks the private sector will happen all on its own. Until then you are living in fantasy land.

165

In a few years when the Chinese are sitting in their secure base on the moon threatening to drop hypersonic, Oprah-sized  moon rocks on us, we will wish we had a nuclear arsenal to deter them.

 

The nation that controls space controls the Earth.

 

Space remained peaceful because a peaceful nation ruled it.

 

 

166 Maybe NASA ought to propose building an "Obama" orbiter or something, the narcissist would probably go for that.

It would need to be a giant mirror reflecting his image back down on us.

167 Pshaw. Why should we send people out west. Sure, there's some wealth to be made but the cost of that lewis an Clark expedition. We've got all we need here in NY and PN. No govt support for westward expansion. Manifest destiny? A joke.

168 Spaceship Two is still in the testing stage. Let's revisit this later when flights either do or do not begin.

Spaceshiptwo is suborbital.  It's has less than a tenth of the thrust it needs to get to orbit and couldn't survive reentry.  The project has no development path to an orbital spacecraft.

It's 1950s technology.  It will never be good for anything other than suborbital joyrides.

169 In a few years when the Chinese are sitting in their secure base on the moon threatening to drop hypersonic, Oprah-sized moon rocks on us, we will wish we had a nuclear arsenal to deter them.

We have a nuclear arsenal and will continue to have a nuclear arsenal more than adequate for the destruction of China.

The nation that controls space controls the Earth.

A manned space program adds nothing to that capability.

170 Zirconia blank can worldwild ship and supply dental zirconia in the china.

171 When the US decided to "cooperate" with the USSR/Russia in building the international space station, the writing was on the wall. (btw, same point applies to our Commander in Chief and Defense Secretary dropping our superior air craft for the internationally cooperatively constructed and globally purchased lesser yet "more efficient" design--efficient in cost UNTIL put to use against superior Russian air craft. been through this argument here this past year already)

Obama The Illegitimate "contingency" POTUS defines cooperation as forfeit of all we have for no rights, only submission to authoritarians.

If Obama proves willing to submit, as our potus, he or his handlers actually think the rest of us will actually follow him over the cliff.

Not so.

172 Maybe NASA ought to propose building an "Obama" orbiter or something, the narcissist would probably go for that.

"It would need to be a giant mirror reflecting his image back down on us."


/Obadick is satisfied to transpose his 'hole' emblem where Batman's was. That's as far up as the illegitimate brain dead moron can imagine space goes, only as far as his stupid naked eye can see.

Obama is as ugly dumb as the Medieval corrupted Catholic clergy who tortured knowledge and science in their failed attempt to maintain their monopoly on power and prevent the Renaissance. Obama and the Socialist "change they believe in" is to revert back into the feudal order with themselves as lords over the world's population of serfs. Plenty of goods for the top of the pyramid scheme, nothing for the slaves. Obama's problem is that he somehow fantasizes as if his wishes were reality. It was bad enough when GWB looked into Putin's eyes with trust. Obama is playing the dog rolling over, exposing his tummy in complete, vulnerable submission to the leader of the pack who is only the leader because Obama forfeits the US rights and interests as inconsequential "in the grand scheme of things" that only Ivy League elitists can appreciate.

173

Constellation was the wrong way to go. It was essentially a single use vehicle to put men on the moon. The rockets would have been extremely expensive to make do to low production rates.

The only way to make space travel viable is to lower the cost of entry. The only way to lower the cost of entry with current technology is with manufacturing production line efficiencies and flexible uses. This mean lots of smaller rockets instead of fewer large rockets. Smaller rockets that can be used to launch men, SATs, supplies or anything else.

These rockets already exist in the Atlas and Delta platforms, Ariane, and the Space X Falcon developments. In fact, IIRC, Lockheed proposed a much less expensive alternative to the Constellation program by launching several modules into orbit, assemble them and use them for the moon program. NASA shot that idea down as too dangerous, but I think the real problem was that it didn't require a large NASA workforce to develop.

Finally, thought I think the moon should be a goal, the real next goal is interplanetary travel and Constellation would have been a dead end street in that regards. Everything that is to be developed to get us to the moon should be usable for getting us to other celestial bodies. "Apollo on steroid" wasn't it.

174

NASA began its downhill slide when some idiot (or group of idiots) decided that their main mission should be "Earth science". This put radical environmenatlists in charge of a program that used to be about expanding man's reach into space and made it into some pussified, granola-chewing waste of tax dollars.

Obama's knows almost as much about America's space program as he does the Constitution, which isn't much. His insane zeal for power means that any program that doesn't directly control the people is a waste.

He'll gladly pay the Russians 50M per astronaut to get to the Space Station. Why pay them instead of Americans?

175

VOLVO

11711074、20976003、20514654、20430751、3825133、477556、478736、466634、21018746

20405830、3840033、20405827、3827643、3825778、477556

Perkins

OD19596、CH10931、CH10930、26561117、2654408、2654403、996-452、996-453、996-454

26561117、2654403

FLEETGUARD

WF2071、LF9001、LF3000、LF667、FS1280、FF185、LF3349、LF777、LF670、FS1212

FS1000、FF5052、AF947、AF935、AF905

DETROIT

23518667

CATERPILLAR

20976003、1R-1808、1R-0756、1R0739、1R0735、1R0726、1R0756、1R0716、1R0713

1466695、1421339、1421404、1328875、1262081、174089、6L4714、4N0015、1R0755、1R0753、1R0751、1R0749、1R0741

176 porno
ninanýlmaz seyler bunla..sex sikiþ

177 thanks for that space article