Armstrong, Cernan Testify Against Obama Space Plan 411
MarkWhittington submitted a story about the first man to walk on the moon testifying yesterday that President Barack Obama's plans to revamp the human space program would cede America's longtime leadership in space to other nations.
Buzz Aldrin (Score:2, Informative)
Buzz Aldrin disagrees.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
ASTRONAUT FIGHT! (Score:5, Informative)
Buzz Aldrin disagrees
Neil Armstrong Vs. Buzz Aldrin Over Obama's Space Plans
CBSNews URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002451-503544.html [cbsnews.com]
Who do you think would win in a fight, Buzz Ald(I won't even finish the question)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Obama didn't kill NASA, he killed Ares which from what I've seen, wasn't going very well. It's sad that 40 years after we got to the moon the first time, we haven't made much progress in developing a good vehicle to return. Not that the moon is really where we should be going at this point. The asteroids and Mars are better targets due to their long term potential to fuel space based industry and such. NASA needs to go a different direction than it was if we are to have any progress. NASA should be focusing on operations farther out from Earth like Mars, the asteroids etc not a taxi service to LEO.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
He's not killing NASA, he's increased their budget by quite a bit.
He's only killing NASA's next shuttle plan (and the plan to go to Mars), something they had been working on since their current one began falling apart and proving to be obsolete. FTFA:
Neil Armstrong has renewed his criticism of Barack Obama's space vision, insisting that the president's decision to scrap Constellation and head off to Mars was "poorly advised".
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Of all the things that Obama is doing, am I the only one who feels that him killing NASA really struck a nerve? It's literally the only thing he's done that made my blood boil.
'Killing NASA'? You know what makes my blood boil over this is people who act like they know what they're talking about. Obama has not 'killed NASA' - he's increased their budget. One thing he HAS done is killed a ridiculous program started by Bush. While I'm not a big fan of Obama's support for NASA in general, Constellation was a badly-planned program from the get-go. It's unfortunate that Ares was kept, but that would've been a political nightmare due to the number of lost jobs.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Of all the things that Obama is doing, am I the only one who feels that him killing NASA really struck a nerve? It's literally the only thing he's done that made my blood boil.
He's not killing NASA. Far from it, in fact. From TFA:
Obama just wants to terminate one particular project that he feels is going nowhere and has become a money sink. You may disagree with his decision but it's still not "killing NASA."
Killing NASA? I think not. (Score:5, Informative)
The new plan is the best chance NASA has had in a long time to get back on its feet and stop languishing in LEO. Developing the higher technology needed to go beyond LEO and the moon is what NASA should be concentrating on. Let commercial companies deliver stuff to ISS and LEO.
(One a side note, it seems to me that almost everyone who hates Obama's plan forgets that there would have been just as long, if not longer, gap in US human spaceflight ability WITH constellation. We're not exactly losing a whole lot by giving commercial companies time to produce their human ferrying ability, as opposed to giving NASA time to work on Ares-1)
With NASA buying rides at a few tens of millions each vs. billion+ per launch [wikipedia.org] there will be a lot more money for accomplishing things besides putting stuff into orbit on a rocket with a NASA logo on it.
So I'm all for the new plan. My biggest worry is that congress will screw up the whole thing trying to protect their pork.
Re:First man to walk on the moon* (Score:3, Informative)
If someone landed on the moon and found no evidence, it would mean that either
a) they were looking in the wrong spot or
b) somebody beat them to it without anyone knowing and stole the evidence that has already been seen by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and other countries' observations, or
c) something even weirder happened to the landing sites, possibly involving aliens, wormholes, and time paradoxes.
Seriously. The idea that there is no direct evidence of the moon landings and we can't be sure they happened until more people land on it is re-tard-ed.
Re:NASA needs to go (Score:4, Informative)
Good point. My apologies to Mr. Gagarin.
Re:Who cares about old racists? (Score:3, Informative)
The GP was a troll, crafting a fake "liberal" outrage in order to evoke precisely your emotional response. Congratulations, you and the person who modded you insightful bought it hook, line and sinker. You need to stop watching Fox News because this administration has not once called anyone who disagrees with it a racist. Some people have actually said a lot of the criticism of the adminstration is racist in origin, but I can't see how you seem to think it's fair to criticize the adminstration for something other people said. The only person I can recall that called anybody a racist is Glenn Beck [msn.com].
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Ronald Reagan - you mean that guy who raised the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion? [wikipedia.org]
Re:So... (Score:1, Informative)
....and for our 3 trillion dollars we avoided a nuclear confrontation with the USSR and still managed to win a war with them that had been playing out for the last 50 years.
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Re:NASA needs to go (Score:2, Informative)
Wow, none of the items in your list are practical, profitable or useful.
Space based power? Really? How about no? [wordpress.com] You can just use those deserts we have lying around on Earth.
Zero G industries? Are you nuts? What would you put in space? What could possibly be worth the 12000$ a pound to get up there? For that money, you can use advanced computer modelling to achieve the same effects you want, on Earth. That's what we do. That's why we've never, ever stopped a project anywhere on Earth because of a lack of zero-G (you *do* know that in orbit, G pretty much still equals 9.8m/s^2, right?) produced materials. There's simply no such project.
Low grav hospitals? That's so deluded and crazy I'm reeling. I know you Space Nutters are barely coherent, but that's a new one. Yeah, there's just so many problems with gravity in hospitals! Stupid tools and liquids falling on the ground! Have you read Neuromancer lately and thought it was a documentary? Are you insane? Astronauts are pretty much the most fit and trained people on Earth to go up in their tins cans, and you want to send sick people? Did your parents send you out to play without a helmet?
Satellite based internet? Are you on CRACK!? What advantage could you possibly get from an expensive, laggy and equipment-hungry technology when spinning hair-thin glass (on Earth, not in space! Imagine that!) gets you cheap, fast and affordable fiber optics right here?
You are INSANE. Dangerously deluded, out of touch and resistant to reality and facts, I dub thee Space Nutter extraordinaire!
Now go back to your Gerard K O'Neill posters and your Krafft Ehricke Worship Society meetings. I got stuff to do on Earth. You know, "reality"?