President-Elect Obama and NASA

We need to have a military that can defend our borders, which i am not sure we have at this time and leave the rest of the world to it self.

He can't even fomr a sentenance.

You are wasting your time arguing with an illiterate half wit.
He can't even fomr a sentenance.

What we seem to be discussing here is governments ability to finance exploration. They are the only organization with the ability to do so. I hope and believe that government will finance exploration in spite of the idiot politicians. Perhaps we will eventually educate the public so they will elect politicians who truly have the good of the public in mind. More blowing in the wind!!! We are doing things that were deemed impossible 100 years ago why not even more changes in the next 100 years. Our main problem is the inability too look into the future and hope for change. Like it or not big business is one of the things that are holding us back. They invest a dollar and than squeeze it untill it returns 2 dollars. Good for business but most times not so good for the public.

Report: Obama Budget to Scrub Moon Mission

Posted by Sean Alfano

(NASA)Instead of blasting off to the moon, NASA's hopes for a manned mission there have been blasted to pieces, sources in the White House, Congress and NASA tell the Orlando Sentinel.

They tell the paper that the president's budget, which will be released next week, will not allocate the money needed to fund the Constellation program that aimed to return humans to the moon by 2020.

"We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," one administration official told the paper.

Money instead will go toward NASA's development of a "heavy-lift" rocket that will allow humans and robots the chance to explore Earth's orbit, though the Sentinel reports that concept is still decades away from being a reality.

The sources add that the government will also invest money into private companies developing rockets and capsules that could serve as "space taxis" for astronauts headed to the International Space Station.

President Obama is likely to ask Congress for a spending freeze of up to three years on certain domestic programs during his State of the Union speech Wednesday. Administration officials say the freeze should not effect the 2010 NASA budget and may actually receive a boost of $200 to $300 million.

The current NASA budget is close to $19 billion, the Sentinel reports.

The budget, according to one administration official quoted, will tell Congress that NASA won't be able to design programs just to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.

Everyone wants to go back to the moon, but no one is stepping up with tax dollars. It's always "cut all that waste and there will be plenty of money."

This is actually a smart idea, as going to the moon is dumb. Exploiting Near-Earth Orbits and the asteroid belt should be the primary and exclusive mission of our space agency at this time.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is actually a smart idea, as going to the moon is dumb. Exploiting Near-Earth Orbits and the asteroid belt should be the primary and exclusive mission of our space agency at this time.

Cycloptichorn

We've been sending men exclusively into orbit for a long, long time. When do you envision beginning the work of settling space? 10 years? 50? Never?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is actually a smart idea, as going to the moon is dumb. Exploiting Near-Earth Orbits and the asteroid belt should be the primary and exclusive mission of our space agency at this time.

Cycloptichorn

We've been sending men exclusively into orbit for a long, long time. When do you envision beginning the work of settling space? 10 years? 50? Never?

I expect it to begin right now. Or, at least, it should.

However, this is not inconsistent with my recommendations. Settling space is a far more useful short-term goal then settling the Moon. A moon settlement will have practically zero industrial or commercial benefit at this time due to the distance from the Earth and the cost involved in getting there. On the other hand, establishing colonies in space stations in NEO's is far more productive and would assist our goal of increasing human utilization of space to a far greater extent than our current amount.

Cycloptichorn

Well, they are shunting money towards the BDB (big dumb boosters) that we would need to get NEO facilities started, but I haven't seen any concerted push in that direction either.

So the situation is obviously not ideal; but cutting the moon mission is no big deal either.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, they are shunting money towards the BDB (big dumb boosters) that we would need to get NEO facilities started, but I haven't seen any concerted push in that direction either.

So the situation is obviously not ideal; but cutting the moon mission is no big deal either.

Cycloptichorn

It would be no big deal if he is thinking of building colonies in NEO, of which there is apparently no indication. It would be no big deal if it were cut and another destination for settlement substituted, e.g. Mars. But it is a big deal if it is being cut because he is just another politician who isn't interested in putting the human race into space, because he cannot see how it will help get him re-elected. In order for it to be no big deal, there would have to be a substitute plan for putting man farther into space than Earth orbit.

It doesn't help if the president is opposed to it. And so we flounder around in orbit for another few years until someone forward-looking gets into the job.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, they are shunting money towards the BDB (big dumb boosters) that we would need to get NEO facilities started, but I haven't seen any concerted push in that direction either.

So the situation is obviously not ideal; but cutting the moon mission is no big deal either.

Cycloptichorn

It would be no big deal if he is thinking of building colonies in NEO, of which there is apparently no indication. It would be no big deal if it were cut and another destination for settlement substituted, e.g. Mars. But it is a big deal if it is being cut because he is just another politician who isn't interested in putting the human race into space, because he cannot see how it will help get him re-elected. In order for it to be no big deal, there would have to be a substitute plan for putting man farther into space than Earth orbit.

Sure, I agree. Priorities are not where they should be, re: space exploration.

However, there is this persistent Debt and Recession thing that, if I remember correctly, YOUR political party keeps hammering him over. On a daily basis. You can't bitch about the guy cutting programs while constantly supporting those who are calling for him to cut programs.

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

It doesn't help if the president is opposed to it. And so we flounder around in orbit for another few years until someone forward-looking gets into the job.

In today's environment, if a President says he wants to go to space and will raise taxes to do it, he's going to get hammered. I suppose if you had a passionate enough figure, you could sell it, but let's look at the two parties we have. A Republican is not going to advocate for the taxes required to fund a real program, even if he pays lip service to the concept (see Bush). A Democrat is not going to support space exploration when other programs closer to home are going unfunded (see Obama). As a result, the US will not lead future space exploration. Maybe India, China, S. Korea or Japan will have the combination of will and willingness to sacrifice to get there.

This is very disappointing. We landed on the Moon in 1969, and now we cannot even do what our ancestors could do with space technology.