Obama Planning to Scrap Shuttle Replacement, Says NASA

[SUBMAN1]

Well, I expected disappointments from his administration, but nothing like this. NASA needs a new vehicle. The Chinese are already planning on building their moon base, as is India planing on going there, and Russia.

I feel we will turn into a welfare state, shrivel up, and die. I'm sure most Europeans want this, but not most Americans.

-S

http://images.dailytech.com/frontpage/fp__ares.jpg

President-elect's transition team planning (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#) to use decades-old military rockets instead, say insiders.

President-Elect Obama's transition team is planning to scrap NASA's Ares program, the successor to the Space Shuttle, say NASA advisors (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3868153/Barack-Obama-under-fire-from-Nasa-over-plans-to-slash-budget.html). The transition team is demanding deep cuts from the agency, and is investigating whether old military rockets such as the Delta IV and Atlas V could be used in place of Ares.

NASA plans a permanent moon base by 2020, followed by a manned mission to Mars; plans which the agency says require Ares.

The Space Shuttle is due to make its last flight in 2010. Without a replacement, NASA may be without a manned space capability entirely, for the first time since the 1960s, a gap that NASA says would destroy the U.S.'s primacy in space technology (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#).

Prior news reports have hinted at a great deal of tension (http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Denies+Rift+Between+Space+Agency+and+Presiden tElect+Obama/article13675.htm) between Obama's team and NASA, a report that NASA Administrator Michael Griffon has denied.

On the campaign trail, Obama blew both hot and cold on plans for NASA's budget. In the NASA-friendly states of Texas and Florida, he promised to expand NASA's budget by more than 10%. In other states, however, he promised cuts and delays to the agency, in order to help fund his education (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#) policies.

Lori Garver, a space policy advisor for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, was selected by Obama to lead the NASA review transition team. Despite being criticized for her lack of an engineering or scientific background, Garver has been called a favorite to be the next NASA Administrator.

Ares program manager (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#) Steve Cook says that, with Ares due for its first test flight next summer, halting the program now would be an expensive mistake. "We would be really stepping backwards" by opting for a different launch platform (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#).

Space Historian Andrew Chaikin said that, "Obama's first priority for NASA should be to get the Shuttle's replacement on track".http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Planning+to+Scrap+Shuttle+Replacement+Says+N ASA/article13750.htm
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9893_ares_wide.jpg
An artist's conception of Nasa's Ares Rocket

[breadcatcher101]

It would be a shame if this happens. NASA's budget is but a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions we throw away on welfare programs that simply haven't worked throughout the years.

[Stealth Hunter]

Things have changed with our country. What's more important: NASA's budget or the United States' economy? In these times of hardship and financial troubles, sacrifices are going to have to be made. If we have to scrap a few expensive programs related to research that can wait in order to help the country, then so be it.

[Aramike]

Things have changed with our country. What's more important: NASA's budget or the United States' economy? In these times of hardship and financial troubles, sacrifices are going to have to be made. If we have to scrap a few expensive programs related to research that can wait in order to help the country, then so be it.I don't see how technologically handicapping ourselves helps.

Sure, we get a little more money to throw around. Frankly, however, I believe that throwing money around is what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Stealth Hunter]

Things have changed with our country. What's more important: NASA's budget or the United States' economy? In these times of hardship and financial troubles, sacrifices are going to have to be made. If we have to scrap a few expensive programs related to research that can wait in order to help the country, then so be it.I don't see how technologically handicapping ourselves helps.

Sure, we get a little more money to throw around. Frankly, however, I believe that throwing money around is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Why is it so important to, at this very moment, pour millions of dollars into NASA's research? It can wait. Right now, we should be using that money to rebuild the country.

[Aramike]

Things have changed with our country. What's more important: NASA's budget or the United States' economy? In these times of hardship and financial troubles, sacrifices are going to have to be made. If we have to scrap a few expensive programs related to research that can wait in order to help the country, then so be it.I don't see how technologically handicapping ourselves helps.

Sure, we get a little more money to throw around. Frankly, however, I believe that throwing money around is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Why is it so important to, at this very moment, pour millions of dollars into NASA's research? It can wait. Right now, we should be using that money to rebuild the country.Well, first I have to ask what you mean by "rebuilding the country".

Secondly, one must recognize that we are in a fiat currency system. If you take away NASA's funding you would be losing the immense resources it has in favor of dollars that don't represent any resources whatsoever.

[Stealth Hunter]

Things have changed with our country. What's more important: NASA's budget or the United States' economy? In these times of hardship and financial troubles, sacrifices are going to have to be made. If we have to scrap a few expensive programs related to research that can wait in order to help the country, then so be it.I don't see how technologically handicapping ourselves helps.

Sure, we get a little more money to throw around. Frankly, however, I believe that throwing money around is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Why is it so important to, at this very moment, pour millions of dollars into NASA's research? It can wait. Right now, we should be using that money to rebuild the country.Well, first I have to ask what you mean by "rebuilding the country".

Our economy is a mess. Cutting some of NASA's budget and projects would allow us to save money, and thus begin cleaning up our ecnomic state.

Secondly, one must recognize that we are in a fiat currency system. If you take away NASA's funding you would be losing the immense resources it has in favor of dollars that don't represent any resources whatsoever.

It's not like you're taking all of their funding away, just some of it, and cut a few expensive projects here and there. NASA will still be alive and well, just with reduced fund to work with. BUT they can still work.

[NealT]

Sure...lets scrap NASA in it's entirety. Then, what to do with the money.

I know...let's throw it to the wolves who are benefiting from a wrecked economy that they helped wreck in the first place?

I know of a couple of companies that need some corporate jets...

I know of at least one more company that hasn't thrown it's executives a big party in at least a week.

Someone is out at least 52 Billion because they got caught scamming people...

We can put that money into banks! They know what to do with it.

Ya think?

Who needs Tang, Fuel Cell technology, or any other of that cr@p anyway...

:know:

[Bewolf]

I am a huge spporter of spaceflight R&D. Indeed I consider space vital to humankinds survival, given the current rate we waste ressources. Earthbound ressources are limited, after all, so we do not have a choice but begin mining and drilling in the slar system sooner or alter. If humanity does not kill itself in the meantime, we do not have a choice, period.

Spaceflight thus is majorly important. But to uphold it, you need a stable and functioning economy, else there is not much money available to build upon that research. The basics have to fit, and the US lacks these basics atm. Postponing space programs to rebuild the economy makes a lot of sense to me. After all what good is a new transport vehicle if the economy lacks the money to make use of it?

Btw, if you take all the money spend on war, you'd be able to triple both NASA and Spaceflight programs funing without cuts to anything else.

[SUBMAN1]

To the clueless - There is a reason America continues to lead the world, and that is its technical prowess. This is the #1 reason. If you cut that, then you bring us inline with mediocre. Then we can talk about a crappy economy because there will be nothing left to sustain it.

-S

[lesrae]

I often have this sort of chat with a mate in the pub, he's yet to convince me of any direct benefits we've realised from space flight, other than space flight tech, one-upmanship on lesser countries and teflon. I'm always open to education if any of you guys can help!

[SUBMAN1]

I often have this sort of chat with a mate in the pub, he's yet to convince me of any direct benefits we've realised from space flight, other than space flight tech, one-upmanship on lesser countries and teflon. I'm always open to education if any of you guys can help! A whole slew of things have been learned.

One example and one I would consider the biggest - communication.

-S

PS. America wouldn't exist with your logic.

[SUBMAN1]

How has manned spaceflight impacted your life here on Earth? Notice this does not include processors designed in 0 G environments, solar panel research, or any of the space lab type data, none of it. This is strictly a list of devices that impact your daily life here on Earth:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930072922_1993072922.pdf

-S

PS. This list is only from 1987. Much more in the last 20 years.

[SUBMAN1]

I can think of 1000 things that wouldn't exist without manned spaceflight.

Some more examples:

GPS

Hubble Space Telescope

Water Purification in its current form

Fly-by-wire technology

I can go on all day.

-S

[breadcatcher101]

I used to have the numbers but NASA's budget is so low compared to other programs if it were completely shut down the money saved wouldn't even be noticed. Much better to fund it and have a leading edge in technology than to regress to a country that lacks any scientific resources.

[subchaser12]

You all don't even take Christmas off from bitching about Obama? That's kinda creepy.

:huh:

[lesrae]

@subman1

I'm not sure what you mean about my logic - I just don't know if the cost of space flight etc has been recouped through the advancements.

You're right enough though, comms, GPS etc wouldn't be what they are without it - no argument there - I just wonder if research and advancement for it's own sake is worth it, or should we be spending the money putting things here on earth right before we go reaching too far.

Sometimes I just see the space race as just that, a very expensive game of one-upmanship.

[Aramike]

You all don't even take Christmas off from bitching about Obama? That's kinda creepy.

:huh:I thought this discussion was about the merits of NASA.

[AntEater]

The Obama administration apparently wants to turn NASA away from prestigious missions like Mars or Moon to basic research like space probes, space telescopes and such.
More for Astrophysics, less for engineers.
As much as I would want to see men on the moon again or on Mars, if you don't have the money, you don't do it.
And apart from Moon/Mars missions, NASA only needs a manned spaceship for the ISS.
The russians can do personel transfer to ISS, in future even ESA might do it, so a US crew transfer vehicle is really a redundancy.
Apparently they try to outsource cargo flights to the ISS to private launch firms, a disaster in the making, IMHO.

[Zachstar]

Subman you have no idea of the background behind any NASA decision.

Ares is going to be a failure. If it does not shake itself apart on the first flight. The mods will be so severe it will cost more to fly it than the shuttle.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman you have no idea of the background behind any NASA decision.

Ares is going to be a failure. If it does not shake itself apart on the first flight. The mods will be so severe it will cost more to fly it than the shuttle.

This is just dumb - ignored.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

@subman1

I'm not sure what you mean about my logic - I just don't know if the cost of space flight etc has been recouped through the advancements.

You're right enough though, comms, GPS etc wouldn't be what they are without it - no argument there - I just wonder if research and advancement for it's own sake is worth it, or should we be spending the money putting things here on earth right before we go reaching too far.

Sometimes I just see the space race as just that, a very expensive game of one-upmanship.Even one of the products above recouped ever last dollar invested.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I used to have the numbers but NASA's budget is so low compared to other programs if it were completely shut down the money saved wouldn't even be noticed. Much better to fund it and have a leading edge in technology than to regress to a country that lacks any scientific resources.About the best post in this entire thread. Their funding is already tiny as compared to any other program the US has.

-S

[Zachstar]

Subman you have no idea of the background behind any NASA decision.

Ares is going to be a failure. If it does not shake itself apart on the first flight. The mods will be so severe it will cost more to fly it than the shuttle.
This is just dumb - ignored.

-S

Glad you think you have spent the countless hours over the years looking at everything from the early ideas to what it is today.

But I guess that gets in the way of the "YAY new angle to attack the next president!"

[baggygreen]

I'm devastated.

ignore the fact that scifi has used the theme for decades, but it is in space our future must lay.

Our population continues to grow, and without resorting to draconian measures, it wil keep growing for the forseeable future. Where can we send people? to space. How will we continue to learn about it without nasa continuing to develop new tech? Does anyone really expect the chinese to share their knowledge about space if they beome the leading space exploration nation in 20 or 30 years?? I sure dont.

One day the earth won't support humans. where will we go? Setting up fledgling bases on the moon and on mars are imho imperative to our ultimate survival.

[Zachstar]

This is nothing about NASA developing new tech.

All Ares is these days is trying to figure out how to fix the next dumbass issue due to having to use a SRB as a first stage when military rockets have more payload.

The Delta IV heavy EASILY beats the current performance of this pork beast.

As for going to the stars. That will never happen with low ISP rockets and I mean never. To have a noticeable impact of population reduction you have to move over 100 million a year. Which means you have to have 747 sized spacecraft that are able to not only go to orbit but to the colony or mars or whatever.

Best guess is 50 years to do that (The main problems being engine tech and life support) IF things get much more serious.

NASA is done as far as advancing tech. The people inventing small steps like small fuel cells. Microwave thrusters, thin film solar.. etc... are the ones advancing tech and they are doing it faster than red tape Nasa could dream of.

[baggygreen]

I dunno zach.

From what i've read, ares is looking good. Ultimately we just won't know until its tested.

I'll always try look for a positive though. If funding is cut, it might force nasa to look at streamlining spending, I understand they waste a LOT of money. So from that perspective, it needs a lot of work and this cut could be the start of a more efficient nasa.

As for the newer tech, i was under the impression JPL had their hands in on most of it, even including the solar sails? I'll happily stand corrected, but I thought they were heavily involved there.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Subman you have no idea of the background behind any NASA decision.

Ares is going to be a failure. If it does not shake itself apart on the first flight. The mods will be so severe it will cost more to fly it than the shuttle.
This is just dumb - ignored.

-S

http://www.space.com/news/080118-nasa-new-rocket-shake.html

Really? NASA Itself called the vibration problem "in the red zone" of engineering dangers.

PD

[August]

The shaking issue doesn't seem to be all that difficult a technical hurdle.

NASA officials hope to have a plan for fixing the design as early as March, and they do not expect it to delay the goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. "I hope no one was so ill-informed as to believe that we would be able to develop a system to replace the shuttle without facing any challenges in doing so,'' NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in a statement to The Associated Press. "NASA has an excellent track record of resolving technical challenges. We're confident we'll solve this one as well.''

[baggygreen]

So how easy would it be to put an orion capsule onto a Delta rocket? Any iddeas?

[PeriscopeDepth]

The shaking issue doesn't seem to be all that difficult a technical hurdle.

NASA officials hope to have a plan for fixing the design as early as March, and they do not expect it to delay the goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. "I hope no one was so ill-informed as to believe that we would be able to develop a system to replace the shuttle without facing any challenges in doing so,'' NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in a statement to The Associated Press. "NASA has an excellent track record of resolving technical challenges. We're confident we'll solve this one as well.''
Of course the NASA chief says they can solve it. But they haven't come out and said they've solved it yet, and launch is slated for summer. And even if they do fix it enough for the program to go forward, my worry is the same "normalization of risk" on NASA's management that has cost this country just over a dozen of it bravest, highly educated citizens. Not to mention two of the most expensive vehicles we've built.

So how easy would it be to put an orion capsule onto a Delta rocket? Any iddeas?
Obama's team is wondering the same thing I'm sure. However, that would probably be just an LEO deal until something else is figured out.

PD

[JALU3]

OK, first thing is first, budget.
2008 = 17.318 Billion USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget)
2008 total federal budget = 2900 Billion USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008)
Therefore NASA is about 0.6% of the total Federal Budget in 2008.

Governments don't fix the economy directly, however, they create the policies and the provide the infastructure which hinder or assist economic growth or decline.

After the space shuttle is retired in 2010, the US has contracted with Russia to provide access to space for manned missions. However, given the ever changing international relations climate, I would not count on these garuntees. Furthermore, although not immediate, new technologies that are funding through NASA, whether directly made or created to assist future missions, lead to the benifit of the overall country.
Granted, non-manned space missions are far more cost effective, same can be said about UAVs over manned aircraft. However, that being said, the question is does the US want to have its own manned space program. It's a yes or no answer. You either invest in the vehicles that allow you to do so, and the technologies that go into creating and advancing them, or you don't.
If your answer is yes, you support manned space missions under the US Ensign, than you support continued funding of manned missions by NASA.
If you don't, you stop funding.
And that is not even getting into international prestige, future space colonization and/or mining, or any of those other things.

For instance the UK decided that it did not want to expend funds for operations outside Europe and its immediate area, therefore it decided to withdraw from East of the Suez. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez) This was a concious policy decision. One does not just stumble to this decision, it is well thought out, and well planned.

[Zachstar]

So how easy would it be to put an orion capsule onto a Delta rocket? Any iddeas?

The Delta IV heavy has enough payload to put Orion into Orbit and was the prime candidate before ATK shoehorned in "Safe Simple Soon" BS

It has to be manrated but it gains a benefit from that rating because it will receive regen RS-68s meaning a smoother ride and more payload.

Will this mean a delay? Yes but atleast it gives Ares V a shot.

[Zachstar]

OK, first thing is first, budget.
2008 = 17.318 Billion USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget)
2008 total federal budget = 2900 Billion USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008)
Therefore NASA is about 0.6% of the total Federal Budget in 2008.

Governments don't fix the economy directly, however, they create the policies and the provide the infastructure which hinder or assist economic growth or decline.

After the space shuttle is retired in 2010, the US has contracted with Russia to provide access to space for manned missions. However, given the ever changing international relations climate, I would not count on these garuntees. Furthermore, although not immediate, new technologies that are funding through NASA, whether directly made or created to assist future missions, lead to the benifit of the overall country.
Granted, non-manned space missions are far more cost effective, same can be said about UAVs over manned aircraft. However, that being said, the question is does the US want to have its own manned space program. It's a yes or no answer. You either invest in the vehicles that allow you to do so, and the technologies that go into creating and advancing them, or you don't.
If your answer is yes, you support manned space missions under the US Ensign, than you support continued funding of manned missions by NASA.
If you don't, you stop funding.
And that is not even getting into international prestige, future space colonization and/or mining, or any of those other things.

For instance the UK decided that it did not want to expend funds for operations outside Europe and its immediate area, therefore it decided to withdraw from East of the Suez. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez) This was a concious policy decision. One does not just stumble to this decision, it is well thought out, and well planned.

#1 NASA is not 100 percent depending on the Russians or anyone else.

#2 COTS is looking good and if money is willing to be invested (500M-2B) SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft can be manrated.

[Hylander_1314]

How about this then, for every product we have today that was a direct result of NASA developement and testing, that is used by the general public, ie GPS devices, 1% of the money made per unit is paid to NASA for their budget. This would probably generate even more than government funding.

That would be enough incentive to develope even more in the future.

[Aramike]

How about this then, for every product we have today that was a direct result of NASA developement and testing, that is used by the general public, ie GPS devices, 1% of the money made per unit is paid to NASA for their budget. This would probably generate even more than government funding.

That would be enough incentive to develope even more in the future.That's actually not a bad idea...

[Skybird]

If you have 10.x trillion in debts, plan to make another 2-3 trillion debts over the next 4 years, you are not in a position to afford everything you want anymore. I recommend to cut defence spendings by 10% and use the 60+ billion you have won that way to finance stuff in the fields of NASA, and public education and modernizing certain industrial branches of business as well.

[SteamWake]

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.


Sigh where has that spirit gone?

The entire speech here http://www.hbci.com/~tgort/jfk_rice.htm

[Aramike]

If you have 10.x trillion in debts, plan to make another 2-3 trillion debts over the next 4 years, you are not in a position to afford everything you want anymore. I recommend to cut defence spendings by 10% and use the 60+ billion you have won that way to finance stuff in the fields of NASA, and public education and modernizing certain industrial branches of business as well.I don't understand why people have this urge to constantly cut defense spending. I realize that it is a large chunk of the federal budget, but the military is far more judicious in how it uses the money than the government-at-large.

Frankly, we should be looking at cutting wasteful spending at all levels. We should be looking at the effectiveness of every dollar spend in every part of the budget, then decide where to make our cuts. I mean, seriously ... does anyone know how much money is spent just COLLECTING TAXES??? What about the billions in social programs that don't seem to work? There's a mentality in this country that to fix a problem, all that is needed is to throw more money at it. There is no accountability in the government's bureaucracy. Seriously, how often do you hear of a bureaucrat losing their job for not being effective? Hardly ever. Add that to the fact that so many of our programs are wasteful and ineffective, it's no wonder we have no money.

The military is such an easy target for budget cuts, but it's not the right place to start.

[Skybird]

And I don't understand why Americans have this urge to constantly defend defence spendings - even when they are on record highs, and are bigger than ever during the cold war, and make up for the spending of the 17 or 18 next greatest spending nations alltogether. You have stellar debts - so stop spending for things that are not of immediate need, start saving, start paying back your debts - and stop wanting things you cannot pay for anymore, no matter whether they have "Army", "Navy", "Air Force" or "Nasa" printed on them. And this: since your nation has the most inferior social system in the whole civilised world, too high wellfare spendings hardly can be your problem. ;) Not only is it a disgrace to demand them being cut even more - there is also not much to get.

[Aramike]

And I don't understand why Americans have this urge to constantly defend defence spendings - even when they are on record highs, and are bigger than ever during the cold war, and make up for the spending of the 17 or 18 next greatest spending nations alltogether. You have stellar debts - so stop spending for things that are not of immediate need, start saving, start paying back your debts - and stop wanting things you cannot pay for anymore, no matter whether they have "Army", "Navy", "Air Force" or "Nasa" printed on them. And this: since your nation has the most inferior social system in the whole civilised world, too high wellfare spendings hardly can be your problem. ;) Not only is it a disgrace to demand them being cut even more - there is also not much to get.Again, I have no problems with examining federal spendings. I do have a problem with the knee-jerk reaction of singling out defense spending.

As for "too-high welfare spendings", you are hardly qualified to make that statement unless you've examined the spending itself. There is case after case after case of corruption and downright inefficiency DOCUMENTED in our public welfare programs. Before we start randomly cutting spending in areas simply because people from certain political views don't like them, we should first examine where that money would be going, how it would be spent, and dollar-for-dollar how efficient those programs are. There's no point in throwing billions at something when millions will do.

[Zachstar]

How about this then, for every product we have today that was a direct result of NASA developement and testing, that is used by the general public, ie GPS devices, 1% of the money made per unit is paid to NASA for their budget. This would probably generate even more than government funding.

That would be enough incentive to develope even more in the future.

Lawsuit nightmare for one.

And two NASA is a dinosaur. The tech advances are coming from the private sector at speeds several times faster than NASA could dream of.

GPS was designed to give a commander the ability to quickly check he was in rough position on the battlefield and help roughly aim bombs. Private tech developments refined that into a revolution for Air navigation, Road navigation (Saving god knows how many barrels of oil) etc...

The tech that will allow 100+M people to colonize space per year will never come from NASA. No matter how much money you dump in. They are coming from the labs that are trying to solve earth problems which have applications far beyond powering a town or shielding a CPU from radiation or storing lots of energy in a car.

[subchaser12]

I don't understand why people have this urge to constantly cut defense spending.

What about the billions in social programs that don't seem to work?

Social programs do work, they prevent the whole country from looking like the LA riots after the Rodney King acquital. Welfare just pays off the impending implosion of the nations poor. If they don't get some government cheese they will just burn down the cities all over the country.

The military doesn't work. They haven't won a war since World War 2 and even then they were only on the winning side and didn't take on German all by itself. Of course in America you would think we were the only country in World War 2 fighting the Japanese and German's and that it all went down yesterday. Korea was a draw, Vietnam was a beatdown, the failed Iranian hostage rescue, the Somalia disaster (untrained starved illiterate Africans beat down American Specil Ops and drug their corpses through the streets on national TV). Iraq has been a total screwup. Afghanistan is a waste of time.

Let's face it, the military is very expensive and just screws up everything it's tasked with completely. The American military is like Al Bundy from married with children, they just sit on the couch talking about their "touchdown pass" way back in WW2. If you really want something to fail and just embarass America, just call up the US military.

They need to stop calling it the defense department, that's dishonest. It's really the offense department. We haven't fought a war for defense since World Wat 2.

[Zachstar]

Let me ask proponents of NASA getting tons of money this..

Where was NASA when the nation was warming up to the idea of electric cars in the 90s but needed a new battery? Why sending up a PR shuttle mission of course!

Matter of fact one of the few worthwhile shuttle missions pre 107 was the SRTM mission where we get the heightmap data from to this day.

NASA is only good for gathering raw public domain data. Landsat, SRTM, ISS, probes, etc... The only time they make something is when some mission requires it and then it takes years to get off the ground because unlike the 60s NASA cant just accept that a probe failed.

Do I believe that NASA is a worthwhile investment? Why yes! But not as much as the decades before. They simply arent the tech leaders they used to be.

[subchaser12]

And this: since your nation has the most inferior social system in the whole civilised world, too high wellfare spendings hardly can be your problem. ;) Not only is it a disgrace to demand them being cut even more - there is also not much to get.

The right wing always blames the welfare recipients for all the nations ills. It doesn't matter what the issue, the right always has the nations poor to blame and shake their fists at.

The real problem is the military. We can't go on spending the way we do on defense. Now that the petro dollars is going out the window (the real reason we invaded Iraq, Saddam was going to sell oil in Euros) we won't be able to afford 10+ aircraft carrier fleets and all the other multimillion dollars toys.

If we don't stop these pointless wars we can't win anyway we will go bankrupt the same as Russia. We just can't keep doing it anymore. Other nations are bailing on the US and they won't continue to fund our mindless consumption, why should they? The world doesn't need the US like is used to.

[Zachstar]

Of course we can keep doing it.

It is called tech advancement.

Solar tech is getting better every few months.

[Aramike]

I won't even bother with the rest of what subchaser12 wrote until he clears up the inaccuracies, including this glaring one: The military doesn't work.Hmm, I wonder why Kosovo is building a statue of Bill Clinton and naming a street after President Bush...

[SUBMAN1]

And I don't understand why Americans have this urge to constantly defend defence spendings - even when they are on record highs, and are bigger than ever during the cold war, and make up for the spending of the 17 or 18 next greatest spending nations alltogether.
This is because your puny ass country can't take care of itself anymore and we have to help you do it. Once we could rely on you to catch our back.

-S

[Skybird]

I won't even bother with the rest of what subchaser12 wrote until he clears up the inaccuracies, including this glaring one: The military doesn't work.Hmm, I wonder why Kosovo is building a statue of Bill Clinton and naming a street after President Bush...
Kosovo has turned out to be a nightmare of corruption and organised crime for the EU. More than half of the eu aid money directed to Koso9vo has just disappeared. To hell with Kosovo, it was the wrong side we allied with from the beginning on. as one NATO general said: "We bobmed the wrong side". We should have bombed the Albanian camp and the UCK instead. Now they have made a milita commander and mafia boss their president of Kosovo. Great going there. and it seems we repeat very much the same mistake by assisting Georgia now.

[Aramike]

I won't even bother with the rest of what subchaser12 wrote until he clears up the inaccuracies, including this glaring one: The military doesn't work.Hmm, I wonder why Kosovo is building a statue of Bill Clinton and naming a street after President Bush...
Kosovo has turned out to be a nightmare of corruption and organised crime for the EU. More than half of the eu aid money directed to Koso9vo has just disappeared. To hell with Kosovo, it was the wrong side we allied with from the beginning on. as one NATO general said: "We bobmed the wrong side". We should have bombed the Albanian camp and the UCK instead. Now they have made a milita commander and mafia boss their president of Kosovo. Great going there. and it seems we repeat very much the same mistake by assisting Georgia now.The argument wasn't about the social rebuilding of a nation. It was about the effectiveness of the US military.

Quite frankly, the US military was extraodinarily effective in its war in Iraq as well, at least when the objectives were military in nature. I don't fault the military for its failures in the rebuilding process, as "rebuilding" is hardly what any military is designed to do.

[SUBMAN1]

The argument wasn't about the social rebuilding of a nation. It was about the effectiveness of the US military.

Quite frankly, the US military was extraodinarily effective in its war in Iraq as well, at least when the objectives were military in nature. I don't fault the military for its failures in the rebuilding process, as "rebuilding" is hardly what any military is designed to do.Just so you know what you are dealing with, SB may sound leftists, but if you analyze his posts, that is just what it seems. He is definitely heavy on the German Nationalist agenda, but what is quite off is that a lot of his rhetoric sounds suspiciously like that out of Germany era 1933.

The short answer is, no matter how much good the US does, it will always be labeled as bad, so dont' waste too much time on it. The US is not liked by many in this forum.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

[AntEater]

How did you come from NASA to Kosovo to Skybird being zeh very evil?
:damn:

[PeriscopeDepth]

How did you come from NASA to Kosovo to Skybird being zeh very evil?
:damn: I'm wondering what happened too.

PD

[AntEater]

Seriously, the Ares program does not sound like the optimum solution to me.
Traditionally, Americans tend to revolutionary development instead of evolutionary development.
The russians still use basically the same rocket that brought Gagarin into Space, with 50 years of improvements.
The US in the meantime developed at least 4 seperate launch systems.
Now with tighter budgets, NASA suddenly jumped on the evolutionary bandwagon.
I'm not the proverbial rocket scientist, but constructing a Saturn like launcher rocket out of the components of the Space shuttle sounds like turning a Mini Cooper into an SUV.
You can do it, but you will have to redesign basically everything in order to do it right.
Even the russians, with all their proven Protons, did not try to redesign Proton as the launcher of Buran but instead developed the whole new Energija booster.
I think the US might be much better off with designing just a brand new booster rocket optimized for the mission with all the advantages of modern age designs and materials, not kitbash something out of 1970s technology.
Problem is, "off the shelf" solutions sell better, but mostly turn out to be more expensive in the end.

[Skybird]

Again, I have no problems with examining federal spendings. I do have a problem with the knee-jerk reaction of singling out defense spending.

That is becasue you think nothing is wrong if such insane ammounts of money get wasted for the military, and maybe consider the cause to be beyond doubt. Outside america, you won't many people agreeing with you, not even amongst those who are closer to you than anyone else: the europeans. A budget in excess of 600 billion is a first class candiate to be checked for why it is so high. even more so in the face of your high state debts, your very ill state finances, and the corrupt system of mutual lobbying between military, politics and the defence industry. Your defence budget is as high as that of the next 17 or 18 spenders alltogether, and is higher than it ever was during all the cold war with the Soviet union trying to deliver an arms race to you - and you ask why one wants to examine defence spendings first...? Whom do you want to distract with your scpeticism here - me, or yourself?

As for "too-high welfare spendings", you are hardly qualified to make that statement unless you've examined the spending itself.
I said you have the most inferior social wellfare system of all civilised nations in the West, and I stick to that. Maybe it is money lost to corrpution and lobbying, nevertheless your wellfare standards are worst of all Western nations. you also pay twice as much for health, but your health caring standards is not better than ours, and certainly not twice as good than ours over here. I wonder if the massive lobbying of the industry has somethign to do with it. But when one points at that direction, and suggest better monitoring of procedures and structures, immediately the yellingregarding "no state-run economy!", "defend liberalism!" and "free business!" is to be heared. The spendings for a corrput industry will not be questioned. cutting the spendings for directly adressing social programs and direct access to ther situation of the weak - that is what it usually runs down to. Always kick towards the bottom of the food chain.

You country is by numbers effectively bankrupt, which also makes you extremely vulnerable. Your debts are insane, and you live on tick and by the good will of all others. Check your stupidly high defence budgets first. 651 billions (plus black budgets...) just for war and military toys and weapons simply is beyond all reason and logic - it is megalomania, and a sign for very strong militarism.

For comparison: during the Reagan era, the defence budget saw it's highest cold war value ever: 471billion in year-2006-worth dollars. the mean spending over the four decades of the cold war, was around 298.5 billion (in 2006-dollars).

and do not even think about trying the old argument of defence spendings expressed as percentages of the GDP, and that by that the defence budget is falling. Said Cristopher Hellman, working for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation : "Comparing (the defense budget) to GDP is a measure of the program's burden on the U.S. economy. Spending levels are a (measure of a) program's burden on the American taxpayer. It's a fallacious argument. Tying our level of spending to defense to the number of cheeseburgers consumed by Americans is not a good way to measure our strategic requirement. What if gross domestic product decreases?
If you are going to decide what is an appropriate defense budget based GDP, what happens if the economy tanks? Are you going to cut it in half? They only want to tie it to GDP when GDP is going up, not when it's going down. The GDP argument is the last refuge of scoundrels."

[SUBMAN1]

Point proven.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I should also point out here that our inferior social welfare programs are the result of us believing in the individual, not the government. You have no people helping people over there. The state will do that for you so why should you care? It is no wonder the strength of Europe is failing. You no longer care for the person next door. Its not your problem.

And our militarism has kept peace in Europe since 1945. Best money we ever spent. Sadly now, I think a good war over there to shake things up may be in your best interest.

Unlike Germany GDP is a good indicator because it also shows the measure of the individual as a producer of wealth as opposed to the taker of wealth which is found in German society.

-S

[Aramike]

That is becasue you think nothing is wrong if such insane ammounts of money get wasted for the military, and maybe consider the cause to be beyond doubt....Your argument can be summed up in, "you spend A LOT therefore it's bad".

Not once did I say that I'm flat-out against a reduction in military spending. I'm saying that we need to look far closer at what money goes where, and not try to take the easy way out and just say, "hey, the military gets a lot of money. Let's take it from them".I said you have the most inferior social wellfare system of all civilised nations in the West, and I stick to that. I think that's extremely arguable but it's also beyond my point so I'll stay within my scope.

My point is, simply put, not to throw good money after bad. There is nothing to be gained from a reduction in military spending if that reduction is to pay for wasteful spending in another sector. I'll say it again - there's no point in just throwing money at a problem intending on the money alone to fix it.

As for whether or not our military is too large, I'd love to debate that sometime. Subman1, while clearly being a bit inflammatory, wasn't too far off of the mark when he alluded to other nations relying on our military. NATO alone requires the US military resources to be quite extensive. Add to that the fact that the ability for the US to project power worldwide is far more costly than it would be for most European nations, from a geographical standpoint.

[Zachstar]

And I don't understand why Americans have this urge to constantly defend defence spendings - even when they are on record highs, and are bigger than ever during the cold war, and make up for the spending of the 17 or 18 next greatest spending nations alltogether.
This is because your puny ass country can't take care of itself anymore and we have to help you do it. Once we could rely on you to catch our back.

-S

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.

[Zachstar]

I should also point out here that our inferior social welfare programs are the result of us believing in the individual, not the government. You have no people helping people over there. The state will do that for you so why should you care? It is no wonder the strength of Europe is failing. You no longer care for the person next door. Its not your problem.

And our militarism has kept peace in Europe since 1945. Best money we ever spent. Sadly now, I think a good war over there to shake things up may be in your best interest.

Unlike Germany GDP is a good indicator because it also shows the measure of the individual as a producer of wealth as opposed to the taker of wealth which is found in German society.

-S
Yes a good war to kill lots of innocents eh Subman? Why don't you go join the armed forces right now so you can get your share of lead? Or DU since you seem to think it is harmless.

[Stealth Hunter]

I used to have the numbers but NASA's budget is so low compared to other programs if it were completely shut down the money saved wouldn't even be noticed. Much better to fund it and have a leading edge in technology than to regress to a country that lacks any scientific resources.About the best post in this entire thread. Their funding is already tiny as compared to any other program the US has.

-S

You know Bush severely cut NASA's budget back in 2003, right? Thanks to that decision, we didn't send probes to Ganymede or Europa, Jupiter's moons, or Pluto...

And before you ask, I do have a citation:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/04/nasa.budget/index.html

At least then we had the money to send probes out to neighboring planets.:shifty:

[SUBMAN1]

You know Bush severely cut NASA's budget back in 2003, right? Thanks to that decision, we didn't send probes to Ganymede or Europa, Jupiter's moons, or Pluto...

And before you ask, I do have a citation:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/04/nasa.budget/index.html

At least then we had the money to send probes out to neighboring planets.:shifty:
Both parties have had a detrimental effect on NASA, but none so as compared to Nixon (who was a repub by the way), so don't get me started. Cutting a couple probes as Bush did is in no way as bad as cutting out next launch vehicle. This is 100x worse!!!!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.I'm sorry, I can't hold a candle to you, such as your post above. You are the master of flamebait.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

You know Bush severely cut NASA's budget back in 2003, right? Thanks to that decision, we didn't send probes to Ganymede or Europa, Jupiter's moons, or Pluto...

And before you ask, I do have a citation:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/04/nasa.budget/index.html

At least then we had the money to send probes out to neighboring planets.:shifty:

Both parties have had a detrimental effect on NASA, but non so as compared to Nixon (who was a repub by the way), so don't get me started. Cutting a couple probes as Bush did is in no way as bad as cutting out next launch vehicle. This is 100x worse!!!!

-S

Bush cut funding for the entire deep space program in 2003. The repercussions of that are likely to be felt for a long time. We're probably not to have a program up and running for a trip to Pluto any time soon. As I said, at least then we had the money available to head to Io and Ganymede and Europa.

Now we're so badly in debt we need to muster all the money we can to pay it off. But I must agree that the Chinese will have a field day with their space program. Not only is their competition weakened, but they're also the ones who will be receiving money from our debt.

[Zachstar]

You know Bush severely cut NASA's budget back in 2003, right? Thanks to that decision, we didn't send probes to Ganymede or Europa, Jupiter's moons, or Pluto...

And before you ask, I do have a citation:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/04/nasa.budget/index.html

At least then we had the money to send probes out to neighboring planets.:shifty:
Both parties have had a detrimental effect on NASA, but none so as compared to Nixon (who was a repub by the way), so don't get me started. Cutting a couple probes as Bush did is in no way as bad as cutting out next launch vehicle. This is 100x worse!!!!

-S

Again Subman you have no idea what is going on.

It is not 100x worse. 100x worse is having AT BEST 2 moon flights per year that are SEVERELY reduced because they have to alter Orion even more to fit on the ever diminishing payload of Ares 1.

Obama is not going to kill the Ares program BTW he has not the balls to do that. He will move Orion to Delta IV and start work on Ares V. ATK will bitch and moan and that will be the story for 2009 as far as NASA goes.

In the meantime in labs across the nation. The real deal in scientists will be starting work on the tech that will enable us to colonize space. NOT NASA.

[Zachstar]

You know Bush severely cut NASA's budget back in 2003, right? Thanks to that decision, we didn't send probes to Ganymede or Europa, Jupiter's moons, or Pluto...

And before you ask, I do have a citation:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/04/nasa.budget/index.html

At least then we had the money to send probes out to neighboring planets.:shifty:
Both parties have had a detrimental effect on NASA, but non so as compared to Nixon (who was a repub by the way), so don't get me started. Cutting a couple probes as Bush did is in no way as bad as cutting out next launch vehicle. This is 100x worse!!!!

-S
Bush cut funding for the entire deep space program in 2003. The repercussions of that are likely to be felt for a long time. We're probably not to have a program up and running for a trip to Pluto any time soon. As I said, at least then we had the money available to head to Io and Ganymede and Europa.

Now we're so badly in debt we need to muster all the money we can to pay it off. But I must agree that the Chinese will have a field day with their space program. Not only is their competition weakened, but they're also the ones who will be receiving money from our debt.

This "OH NOES CHINA WILL BEAT US!!!111" has got to stop.

Their Manned space program is beyond SLOW. Their next manned launch MAY be in 2010. They will be lucky if they can make it to the moon in 2030 much less 2020.

[subchaser12]

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.

Don't bother, it's a right wing forum. Not a lot of cool liberals play world war 2 games. I come here because listening to right wingers is amusing, it's like walking thru a political museum. I'm like "whoa! people actually think that, and they aren't joking?" haha

[SUBMAN1]

Bush cut funding for the entire deep space program in 2003. The repercussions of that are likely to be felt for a long time. We're probably not to have a program up and running for a trip to Pluto any time soon. As I said, at least then we had the money available to head to Io and Ganymede and Europa.

Now we're so badly in debt we need to muster all the money we can to pay it off. But I must agree that the Chinese will have a field day with their space program. Not only is their competition weakened, but they're also the ones who will be receiving money from our debt.Yes he did. Problem is, he cut it in favor of the very program Obama is set to squash. He did a tit for tat. Problem is, Obama is planning making Tat never happen. So whats left if this is the case? You want to ride a Delta? They blow up from time to time at a frequency much greater than any manned program. The loss is considered acceptable. Well, no loss in this regard when it comes to men is considered acceptable, and no Delta can push the cargo required to the moon or any other astral body for that matter.

The program is dead, as is all programs that were cut to make way to make it happen.

Your deep space probes will have died in vain.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.
Don't bother, it's a right wing forum. Not a lot of cool liberals play world war 2 games. I come here because listening to right wingers is amusing, it's like walking thru a political museum. I'm like "whoa! people actually think that, and they aren't joking?" haha

Sorry if I still care about Americas future.

-S

[subchaser12]

This "OH NOES CHINA WILL BEAT US!!!111" has got to stop.



Why ignore reality? They are the next superpower. America is going the way of Britian. We have been on our way to "has been" status, but Bush accelerated the process about 50 years. Other countries do not have to wait for us to crumple for them to take over. This is just American arrogance as usual thinking we allow the other planet to draw breath. How do you expect to beat China's capitalist/communist hybrid economy? They have the best of both worlds. The labor is taking the best (or worst) communism has to offer and putting a capitalist icing on it.

[subchaser12]

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.
Don't bother, it's a right wing forum. Not a lot of cool liberals play world war 2 games. I come here because listening to right wingers is amusing, it's like walking thru a political museum. I'm like "whoa! people actually think that, and they aren't joking?" haha

Sorry if I still care about Americas future.

-S

I love the implications that the liberals don't?

How big is your bank account? That is the only thing that will dictate how much you can really "care" about America.

[SUBMAN1]

Why ignore reality? They are the next superpower. America is going the way of Britian. We have been on our way to "has been" status, but Bush accelerated the process about 50 years. How do you expect to beat China's capitalist/communist hybrid economy. They have the best of both worlds. The labor is taking the best (or worst) communism has to offer and putting a capitalist icing on it.

Hahahahaha!

You forgot reality. Taken from another thread:

The Chinese live better than us? That’s insulting. No, not to us - to the poor Chinese! With their industrial slaves, toxic red seas, multicolored air, ethnic warfare, human trafficking, forced population relocations, birth fines, and dam collapses, Thomas Friedman gives them an A+ on the Super Sci-Fi Cellular Network Global Connectivity Scale and calls it a day.

You have just lost all credibility in my mind.

-S

[subchaser12]

Hmm, I wonder why Kosovo is building a statue of Bill Clinton and naming a street after President Bush...

Because they are the little red headed retarded step children of Europe like Georgia and Poland. They are tugging at America's pant leg repeatedly asking "can I be your friend Mr., please, can I, can I be your best friend?"

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm, I wonder why Kosovo is building a statue of Bill Clinton and naming a street after President Bush...
Because they are the little red headed retarded step children of Europe like Georgia and Poland. They are tugging at America's pant legging repeatedly asking "can I be your friend Mr., please, can I, can I be your best friend?"

No, because some people still have a brain and know whats good for them. A friend of us means freedom. Not some Socialistic anarchy.

-S

[subchaser12]

Why ignore reality? They are the next superpower. America is going the way of Britian. We have been on our way to "has been" status, but Bush accelerated the process about 50 years. How do you expect to beat China's capitalist/communist hybrid economy. They have the best of both worlds. The labor is taking the best (or worst) communism has to offer and putting a capitalist icing on it.

Hahahahaha!

You forgot reality. Taken from another thread:

The Chinese live better than us? That’s insulting. No, not to us - to the poor Chinese! With their industrial slaves, toxic red seas, multicolored air, ethnic warfare, human trafficking, forced population relocations, birth fines, and dam collapses, Thomas Friedman gives them an A+ on the Super Sci-Fi Cellular Network Global Connectivity Scale and calls it a day.

You have just lost all credibility in my mind.

-S

No liberals have credibility in your mind so that isn't saying much.

I didn't say the first thing about China's quality of life not being bad, I don't disagree that it sucks beyond all measure. Definition of a super power is not defied by the quality of life of it's subjects. If that were the standard Sweden and Switzerland as well as France etc. would all be called superpowers. They aren't.

[subchaser12]

Not some Socialistic anarchy.

-S

I wonder if your views on socialism will change when you spend your dying days in some state run nursing home that a sewer rat would not take a dump in. Be careful bashing socialism, you really think the big right wing establishments you cheerlead for daily will be there to help you?

[Aramike]

Not some Socialistic anarchy.

-S

I wonder if your views on socialism will change when you spend your dying days in some state run nursing home that a sewer rat would not take a dump in. Be careful bashing socialism, you really think the big right wing establishments you cheerlead for daily will be there to help you?Is this before or after the Kermit the Frog government coup?

[Zachstar]

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.
Don't bother, it's a right wing forum. Not a lot of cool liberals play world war 2 games. I come here because listening to right wingers is amusing, it's like walking thru a political museum. I'm like "whoa! people actually think that, and they aren't joking?" haha

It is a right wing forum as most sim forums are. However, when the admins gave a damn. It atleast was interesting.

The funny thing is. When one particular poster supposedly "Drives away" the left with his conspiricy theories about Al Gore or DU or whatever. how will he have fun? It will be an echo chamber.

[Stealth Hunter]

You know Bush severely cut NASA's budget back in 2003, right? Thanks to that decision, we didn't send probes to Ganymede or Europa, Jupiter's moons, or Pluto...

And before you ask, I do have a citation:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/04/nasa.budget/index.html

At least then we had the money to send probes out to neighboring planets.:shifty:
Both parties have had a detrimental effect on NASA, but non so as compared to Nixon (who was a repub by the way), so don't get me started. Cutting a couple probes as Bush did is in no way as bad as cutting out next launch vehicle. This is 100x worse!!!!

-S
Bush cut funding for the entire deep space program in 2003. The repercussions of that are likely to be felt for a long time. We're probably not to have a program up and running for a trip to Pluto any time soon. As I said, at least then we had the money available to head to Io and Ganymede and Europa.

Now we're so badly in debt we need to muster all the money we can to pay it off. But I must agree that the Chinese will have a field day with their space program. Not only is their competition weakened, but they're also the ones who will be receiving money from our debt.

This "OH NOES CHINA WILL BEAT US!!!111" has got to stop.

Their Manned space program is beyond SLOW. Their next manned launch MAY be in 2010. They will be lucky if they can make it to the moon in 2030 much less 2020.

Who is to say that Russia won't help them though.

China is indeed the next superpower. However, I'm not "OH NOES"ing about anything. I could care less if China takes the stage and beats the United States.

[Stealth Hunter]

Bush cut funding for the entire deep space program in 2003. The repercussions of that are likely to be felt for a long time. We're probably not to have a program up and running for a trip to Pluto any time soon. As I said, at least then we had the money available to head to Io and Ganymede and Europa.

Now we're so badly in debt we need to muster all the money we can to pay it off. But I must agree that the Chinese will have a field day with their space program. Not only is their competition weakened, but they're also the ones who will be receiving money from our debt.Yes he did. Problem is, he cut it in favor of the very program Obama is set to squash.

Obama isn't going to squash NASA as a whole; he's just shutting down a few programs that can be resumed in a few years.

He did a tit for tat. Problem is, Obama is planning making Tat never happen. So whats left if this is the case?

And that's exactly the problem with your argument: Obama is not going to shut all of NASA down. He's going to shut down a few programs and projects for the moment, and they can be resumed later.

You want to ride a Delta? They blow up from time to time at a frequency much greater than any manned program.

Once again, why can't they wait? Jesus people, have a little patience. What's more important: your program or the economy?

The loss is considered acceptable. Well, no loss in this regard when it comes to men is considered acceptable, and no Delta can push the cargo required to the moon or any other astral body for that matter.

NASA does not have to send men into space at this very moment. As I said, they can have a little patience and wait until things pick up.

The program is dead, as is all programs that were cut to make way to make it happen.

The program is postponed, not dead. Do you really think NASA won't bring this back up again in a few years?

Your deep space probes will have died in vain.

*sigh*

[Skybird]

And I don't understand why Americans have this urge to constantly defend defence spendings - even when they are on record highs, and are bigger than ever during the cold war, and make up for the spending of the 17 or 18 next greatest spending nations alltogether.
This is because your puny ass country can't take care of itself anymore and we have to help you do it. Once we could rely on you to catch our back.

-S

I reported this but as usual the admins could care less when Subman litters topics with flamebait.
He just proves his moron standards. If you do not expect more from him, he cannot disappoint you. ;)

[Zachstar]

No but I expect more from Subsim management. I expect it is some kind of "We get more hits if people come to fight this thing" Kind of deal but I think it will only serve to alienate conversation here.

This forum gets littered with conspiracy theories and flamebait on a daily basis. While interesting topics get knocked down and move so far off topic it is silly.

[Zachstar]

Bush cut funding for the entire deep space program in 2003. The repercussions of that are likely to be felt for a long time. We're probably not to have a program up and running for a trip to Pluto any time soon. As I said, at least then we had the money available to head to Io and Ganymede and Europa.

Now we're so badly in debt we need to muster all the money we can to pay it off. But I must agree that the Chinese will have a field day with their space program. Not only is their competition weakened, but they're also the ones who will be receiving money from our debt.Yes he did. Problem is, he cut it in favor of the very program Obama is set to squash. He did a tit for tat. Problem is, Obama is planning making Tat never happen. So whats left if this is the case? You want to ride a Delta? They blow up from time to time at a frequency much greater than any manned program. The loss is considered acceptable. Well, no loss in this regard when it comes to men is considered acceptable, and no Delta can push the cargo required to the moon or any other astral body for that matter.

The program is dead, as is all programs that were cut to make way to make it happen.

Your deep space probes will have died in vain.

-S
Subman it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You base your claims on media that has PROVEN itself TIME AND TIME again! To be ignorant on basic facts when it comes to space.

Get this into your thick skull subman. Delta IV is a MILITARY rocket! It is not designed for manned flight but much more precious cargo. And yes I said precious because Titan IV failures before have turned billion (Yes I said BILLION) dollar spy systems into scrap metal!

As for failures. No delta IV has exploded. ONE had an engine out failure that led to a wide orbit but nothing blew up.

A few Delta 2s failed but only one blew up in the way you describe. Most of the RARE failures happened with the upper stage crapping out. And they are NOT launching on Delta 2.

And Delta IV needs not push any cargo to the moon. That is Ares IV's job. If you are going to attack Obama you need to get your basic facts right.

The moon plan involves 2 rockets. Has been since day ONE. A smaller rocket to put the capsule and service module up. And a BIG rocket to put up the LEM and push stage.

The only change now is the smaller rocket will be a Delta IV. Cheaper and more cargo and safer. This has nothing to do with the Ares V.

[Zachstar]

BTW just to prove they have no plans on launching the push stage on a Delta.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ssme-ares-v-undergoes-evaluation-potential-switch/

They are thinking about going back to the SSME. This will mean they will gain even MORE mission ability!

[Frame57]

Not some Socialistic anarchy.

-S

I wonder if your views on socialism will change when you spend your dying days in some state run nursing home that a sewer rat would not take a dump in. Be careful bashing socialism, you really think the big right wing establishments you cheerlead for daily will be there to help you?For those of who served honorably, there is a program for Vets if they do not have insurance to have a nursing home. Besides who wants to die that way? Die on your feet with your boots on...

[Takeda Shingen]

No but I expect more from Subsim management. Kind of deal but I think it will only serve to alienate conversation here.

This forum gets littered with conspiracy theories and flamebait on a daily basis. While interesting topics get knocked down and move so far off topic it is silly.
Zachstar, this forum exists so that the 'interesting' topics, as you so label them, do not disrupt the forums where the real purpose of SubSim.com is discussed. Also, the real volume of readership occurs when things like the release of SH IV, or a new GWX expansion occur, as becomes evident by the number of visitors on the main forum page. Also evident by even a superflous examination of the page is the truth that, at any given time, the Silent Hunter forums have roughly twice the readership of the General Topics forum. Subman1 has ranted every day for at least the past two years. You would think that these statistics would be reversed if his posts lead to increased readership.


Besides, if you really want them to stop, you should refrain from replying to them.

[Oberon]

No but I expect more from Subsim management. Kind of deal but I think it will only serve to alienate conversation here.

This forum gets littered with conspiracy theories and flamebait on a daily basis. While interesting topics get knocked down and move so far off topic it is silly.
Zachstar, this forum exists so that the 'interesting' topics, as you so label them, do not disrupt the forums where the real purpose of SubSim.com is discussed. Also, the real volume of readership occurs when things like the release of SH IV, or a new GWX expansion occur, as becomes evident by the number of visitors on the main forum page. Also evident by even a superflous examination of the page is the truth that, at any given time, the Silent Hunter forums have roughly twice the readership of the General Topics forum. Subman1 has ranted every day for at least the past two years. You would think that these statistics would be reversed if his posts lead to increased readership.


Besides, if you really want them to stop, you should refrain from replying to them.

That's fair dos Tak, but didn't we have a 'Bash Obama' and 'Bash Bush' threads created specifically for these sorts of discussions? I know it'd be hard to merge every Obama and Bush thread from the past three months into it, it's just something that perhaps should be stickied or something so that we can have a section of the GT forum set aside for it.
To be honest, it all reminds me a little of the 'Ban Islam' threads which cropped up earlier this year which resulted in The Avon Lady being brigged and then leaving.
Although, I think it would be beneficial for everyone to have a bit of a time-out, some of the personal remarks from both quarters have been drawing it a bit close lately. I appreiciate the job you guys have done and are doing, it's only the favourite two, politics and religion that seem to conspire to rob people of their faculties these days... :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

I'd have to say this thread is of its own. It isn't about bashing Obama. The issue is about NASA and it's programs, and you know it.

-S

[Oberon]

I'd have to say this thread is of its own. It isn't about bashing Obama. The issue is about NASA and it's programs, and you know it.

-S


This I concede, however perhaps its title could be worded just a little more neutrally, such as 'Shuttle Replacement to be scrapped?"?

It is, of course, in the lap of the mods :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

I'd have to say this thread is of its own. It isn't about bashing Obama. The issue is about NASA and it's programs, and you know it.

-S

This I concede, however perhaps its title could be worded just a little more neutrally, such as 'Shuttle Replacement to be scrapped?"?

It is, of course, in the lap of the mods :lol:

I hear ya, but that's the title of the linked article, which is why it is worded as such.

-S

[Oberon]

I'd have to say this thread is of its own. It isn't about bashing Obama. The issue is about NASA and it's programs, and you know it.

-S

This I concede, however perhaps its title could be worded just a little more neutrally, such as 'Shuttle Replacement to be scrapped?"?

It is, of course, in the lap of the mods :lol:

I hear ya, but that's the title of the linked article, which is why it is worded as such.

-S

:doh: So it is...my bad. :oops:

A case of RTFM methinks :lol:

Too much of that going around these days without me adding to it. :damn:

[Zachstar]

I'd have to say this thread is of its own. It isn't about bashing Obama. The issue is about NASA and it's programs, and you know it.

-S

Bull Subman. It was a chance to use Misinfo against Obama and a chance to tout the right to us once again.

If it was about NASA you would know that Delta IV is better you would know Ares 1 threatens Ares V. But either you do not or you don't care.

[SUBMAN1]

I'd have to say this thread is of its own. It isn't about bashing Obama. The issue is about NASA and it's programs, and you know it.

-S
Bull Subman. It was a chance to use Misinfo against Obama and a chance to tout the right to us once again.

If it was about NASA you would know that Delta IV is better you would know Ares 1 threatens Ares V. But either you do not or you don't care.You underestimate me once again. Keep it up.

-S