With president obama rexent privatization of NASA flights, NASA as we once knew it is likely finally dead: no more missions to the moon or mars controlled by nasa dreams anymore. Who is to blame for the once glorious NASA now being left homeless on the streets? The president? Previous presidents, many including me felt is all when wrong with nixons canceling the moon program, but looking into it I feel the real calprit is congress: in all the attempts to restart NASA glory days by Reagan, Bush I & II, budget cuts by congress were the reasons for their demise. Here is the chart the displays the problem: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Even Nixon's axing of the moon programs was not his fault, rather he was responding the the budget reality that further moon flights were infeasible with the budget congress would allow. Obama is like responding with equal realism.
That linked image is telling. (Telling you not to hotlink to the author's page, that is.) NASA's former glory is likely not gone forever. Just as Kennedy started it as a political stunt, so some future politician in better times will do the same thing.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That better? Yeah but unless the congress goes along with it, its not going anywhere.
Huh? NASA was "formed" in 1958 and before that "existed" as NACA, which dates back to 1915. Kennedy didn't have much to do with it.
My apologies, I should have been more clear, Kennedy started the heyday of NASA--the Moon missions--as a political stunt. Another stunt, like the landing of a manned mission on Mars will have its political day at some point in the future.
Jesus Christ, did I hurt your feelings by pointing out that your link was to a "don't hotlink to my stuff" graphic?
There are many on the Left that feel that we shouldn't "waste" money on space until every problem on earth is solved. I suspect Obama is one of those. He's trying to basically kill NASA, leaving it with no mission but studying global warming. As if I didn't already have enough reasons to hate the guy. Now he does this.
Ok, but I'm pretty sure that half the population is not under the poverty line, so what's your point?
well according to a link from kmguru 46% live under the poverty line. and the point is having that many means the economy is bad and their are more important things to do.
He's just privatizing it. That's good, right? Finally getting the government incompetence and bureaucracy out of the space travel business, so we can really get something done? Climate stuff will still be in the hands of the NOAA, so no change there, and you guys can still link to NASA for sideline stuff you can misrepresent in thread titles, so no change there.
I have not heard Obama make the "no mission save global warming" claim. In fact, not everyone at NASA seems all that upset: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14321339 The new budget allocates (amongst other monies): $7.8 billion over its 5 years to research technologies designed to make space flight more cost effective, like orbital refueling, $3 billion for robotic scouting missions as a precursor to human spaceflight to the Moon, Mars, Phobos and Deimos, $3 billion for reseach into new launch systems, $15 billion to upgrade the international space station, $9 billion for astrophysics, $8 billion for planetary sciences $5 billion for R&D into other space-related technology, and sure, $10 billion for climate change research. That doesn't seem to be climate change only, it's about 10% of what the budget allocates to them over the next five years.
The poverty line in America provides a level of income, wealth and health that would make the Sun King blink.
NASA's budget still has quite a bit in it for human spaceflight. While a human mission to the Moon might be off the table for the short term, sending humans beyond Earth orbit is not off the table. Not even that much. The 2011-2015 budget has $10.3 billion for all of Earth sciences; NASA does a lot more than global warming research with its Earth sciences budget. That said, most of the $1.8 billion increase in the 2011-2014 Earth sciences budget will go toward global warming research. Obama's proposed budget for 2011-2015 is here: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_ Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf
Cutting the space program is the first thing that Obama has done that I approve of. Should the Egyptians have built the great Pyramids if it impoverished their people? Sure the great pyramid project probably added to technology but at what cost. What is more valuable having the Great pyramids as a monument and a source of pride for future Egyptians or letting the Egyptians who lived at that time have a higher standard of living. Sending a man to the moon was inspiring but that feeling can never be reclaimed. Even putting a man on Mars won't be able to match the excitement of putting a man on the moon. Feeding Christians to the lions in Rome was certainly an exciting show, but that does not mean it was worth doing. Scientists and fans of science may be more capable of detached logic than the majority of humans are but that does not mean that scientists and fans of science are not swayed by their irrational romance with science. There are opportunities for science all over the place and not just in space. Why should science fans be so fixated on space? There are opportunities for terrorism all over the place. Why should terrorists be so fixated on Airliners? Science fans are stuck in a mental rut when they fixate on space and terror fans are stuck in a mental rut when they fixate on airliners. Public money spent on science should have the maximum return on investment for the public. My own personal bias is to help the future generations. I don't see helping men colonize space to be as productive a use of public money as helping men stabilize the Earth economically, environmentally and politically. Glaciers are melting. Coral reefs are dying. People are having babies who's future generation of babies won't be able to feed themselves. Nuclear war is inevitable if something is not changed. Regardless whether man or the sun is responsible for global warming little or no preparations are being made for rising sea levels. Little or no public money is being spent to prepare cheaper food sources for the poor to compensate for the likeliness of rising food prices due to increased population and an increased middle class determined to eat more meat which must be fed food that people could have eaten to grow the meat. How can space be a priority for public spending? It's sort of funny that I advocate for ending the space program because my father made his living on the space program and was a sort of important person within the space program. But damn, funding the space program at this time would just be irrational, short sighted, selfish and wasteful.
One problem with privatizing is the risk/reward of research and experiments, governments are immune to this. With the high cost of space travel, even a very wealthy investor, will still have to put all his eggs in one basket of research and one flaw or failure could put a private co. out of business. There are much easier, cheaper methods of making a profit.
