Obama policy: Kill Aerospace

[gumbo (Premo)]

Originally Posted by wintersprings

"Besides, if you want to save money, cut social security. Its not like i'll see a dime I am paying in. "

but but its a nice Ponzi scheme, born to failure, a Dem dream

Don't worry same sex marriage will kill that off soon enough.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by drmatsci

I am no fan of Bush, but here, I'll prove I am no fan of Obama either.
Since aerospace is a huge field down here in Somd, maybe this will offer some impact.

This has actually been out there since last year, but no one seems to talk about it. There are more details, such as he stated he wasn't going to cancel the Ares I but to 'delay' the moon and mars capability.

I suspect he was talking out of his butt for a large number of reasons, but for starters, you don't 'delay' or pause large contracts like this one. The contractor is going to sit for 5 years and pay its employees. Also, like many aerospace contracts, this one has a ton of employees spread through several battleground states. I find it difficult to believe congress / senators of those states would let this roll. But where has the press been?

That's just one example of stupidity.

This MIGHT put a face on it only if there are sufficient aerospace votes in SOMD to counter the meme votes in Mob Town and P.G. County.

[ImnoMensa]

He plans another early education plan? I admit I have no idea what that means, but we have pre K and Kindergarten now before kids hit the 1st grade. It hasnt done a thing to give kids a better education. Just lets the parents dump them off on the public school system a little sooner.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by gumbo

Is the cure for cancer on Mars?
Is there a cheaper alternative for fuel on Mars?
Is the answer to global warming on Mars?
Can we suck all of our pollutants from Earth and send it to Mars?

How do you know unless you explore?

There are so many things we could cut out of the budget - foreign aid and domestic welfare are just two, but there are a ton of other items that could be eliminated or reduced. I do not think space exploration should be one of them. And I also don't agree with cutting the military.

Democrats always want to spend money on the dumbest damn things, and scrimp on the more long-lasting investments.

[drmatsci]

Is the cure for cancer on Mars?
Is there a cheaper alternative for fuel on Mars?
Is the answer to global warming on Mars?
Can we suck all of our pollutants from Earth and send it to Mars?

Actually, from what I have watched and read, the moon MAY have one of the best sources of fusion fuel available. So if the moon has fuel we could use for fusion (not fision!) then who is to say what Mars might have. I believe its Helium 3 that has been deposited by solar winds over a long, long time (but earth blocks those from getting down here).

So, just maybe, there are some of those things on the moon and beyond.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by gumbo

Is the cure for cancer on Mars?
Is there a cheaper alternative for fuel on Mars?
Is the answer to global warming on Mars?
Can we suck all of our pollutants from Earth and send it to Mars?

I'm surprised at you. The benefits of space spinoff technology have been proven countless times. Off the top of my head, I'd name MRI's, ultra-sound machines, flat panel TV's, portable coolers, smoke detectors, compact discs, database management systems, PC's, pollution control devices, earthquake detection - space exploration ushered in the modern technological era. Without the space program, we'd easily still be living in 50's era technology.

The conventional wisdom has been that we get 7 dollars back for every dollar put into the space program. It's currently running about 17 billion dollars a year - about 0.6% of the federal budget or about 1/28 the cost of the war. A pittance.

Gutting it to fund a pre-school program strikes me as first rate stupid.

[glhs837]

Just a point about spending on research and exploration. A lot of things we take for granted now were born through research into things that were pointed to as a waste of money at the time. Going places we havent been, or doing things we havet done, those things lead to asking questions that need answers. Materials research alone has made huge strides.

Now, about space in general being a waste, heres how it works.

1. Can we agree the planet has limited resources?

2. Even if we wipe half the global population out, down to 3 billion, eventually those resources will run out, correct?

3. Even if we cut back to a subsitance level and agragarian economy for most of those three billion, we still need resources.

3. So, for the long term survival of the human race, can we agree that we will need new resouces at some point? If, of course, you dont think the human race can/should survive, end yourself now, you pessimist:)

4. So, we need more resources, and they are NOT here. Where shall they come from? Space. No other choice. Sure would be nice to move power generation, and other messy industries into space, where any waste can be safely incinerated for the low cost of dropping it into the sun, solar energy is free for the taking.

Think beyond youself, and even your kids, what about your grandkids? Do you want them to grow up in a world where its tooth and nail struggle all over the planet for dwindling resources? Because if we dont continue to lay the orbital groundwork now, the resources we need to build it wont be there.

[ImnoMensa]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I'm surprised at you. The benefits of space spinoff technology have been proven countless times. Off the top of my head, I'd name MRI's, ultra-sound machines, flat panel TV's, portable coolers, smoke detectors, compact discs, database management systems, PC's, pollution control devices, earthquake detection - space exploration ushered in the modern technological era. Without the space program, we'd easily still be living in 50's era technology.

The conventional wisdom has been that we get 7 dollars back for every dollar put into the space program. It's currently running about 17 billion dollars a year - about 0.6% of the federal budget or about 1/28 the cost of the war. A pittance.

Gutting it to fund a pre-school program strikes me as first rate stupid.

You forgot Nomex gear and the air packs Firefighters use.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

You forgot Nomex gear and the air packs Firefighters use.

I was just extemporizing. A quick Google would yield hundreds more.

It's just that when you embark to intensely resolve a set of complex problems towards a goal (nuclear bomb) you find yourself unintentionally discovering other technology (nuclear power).

[Pushrod]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

NASA's Constellation Program is about putting a man on Mars.

Given the current economic conditions, I'd say delaying the program 5 years is only prudent...
We're talking about a 70 million mile voyage; at $4/gal for gasoline, that rocketship is gonna cost us taxpayers a fortune!!!

I hope your being sarcastic. Rocket fuel doesn't use petroleum products.