the funny part is some of you fucks actually get some sort of joy from losing this stuff and act like you are going to see some 'financial advantage' in your personal life from this. lol fuck. damnit money deficit. fuck you.

1/30/2010 11:16:34 AM

Who gives a fuck about the goddamn moon? We did that shit like 100 years ago.

1/30/2010 11:22:04 AM

Quote :

"let's shit-can a state of the art space shuttle fleet"

Are you daft!?!? That shit was obsolete before they finished building the damn thing. For the money we have wasted keeping the shuttles flying we could have colonies on the damn moon.

1/30/2010 11:27:53 AM

Actually... he is daft.

1/30/2010 11:52:21 AM

That's an underused word in modern vocabulary.

1/30/2010 12:02:57 PM

the Orion/Constellation program was everything the shuttle program should have been. cheap, reliable, safe taxi service to low earth orbit (with the use of the Ares I rocket) and a heavy lift option (Ares V) to transport heavy payloads to orbit with incredible efficiency.

If this system were built instead of the shuttle fleet, the ISS would have been constructed with fewer launches and much cheaper.

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2010 1:22:21 PM

Shuttle Payload: ~24,000 kg (to low earth orbit)
Ares V Payload: ~188,000 kg (to low earth orbit)

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2010 1:26:54 PM

Quote :

"the Orion/Constellation program was everything the shuttle program should have been. cheap, reliable, safe taxi service to low earth orbit (with the use of the Ares I rocket) and a heavy lift option (Ares V) to transport heavy payloads to orbit with incredible efficiency. If this system were built instead of the shuttle fleet, the ISS would have been constructed with fewer launches and much cheaper. [Edited on January 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]"

exactly. and THATS what obama is shit-canning here. space shuttle was long gone either-way.

he's just raping both the programs.

lol @ whoever said space shuttle was obselete. you fucking idiot hahahaaha. have fun on your ferry system from a russian capsule.. or better yet your 20 second 'ride' in the upper atmosphere from a private company in 35 years. lol

1/30/2010 1:34:50 PM

Quote :

"Shuttle Payload: ~24,000 kg (to low earth orbit) Ares V Payload: ~188,000 kg (to low earth orbit)"

do you see the size difference between space-shuttle and ares V ??

lol. this is a no brainer man.

1/30/2010 1:35:41 PM

Quote :

"n. cheap, reliable, safe taxi service to low earth orbit"

actually, the shuttle was re-usable, and that was a huge step. and actually Ares V wasn't just for low earth orbit... the other main goal of it was for breaking earth orbit all together.. aka moon/mars. but i'm sure for all the obama-ites in here they already knew that.



[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 1:43 PM. Reason : 3]

1/30/2010 1:41:17 PM

What the fuck are you even arguing? You keep posting pictures and vomiting random information and arbitrary references to Obama into the thread, but you've yet to make any type of assertion.

1/30/2010 1:54:29 PM

^ he's implying that the group of people that believe the earth is only 6000 years old know more about science than the evil, communist liberals.

1/30/2010 2:10:41 PM

from the article

Quote :

"Despite a fiscal freeze on most discretionary programs, NASA's budget will be increased by $6 billion over the next five years for a total of $100 billion."

also lets not forget the biggest achievements in nasa history happened under democratic administration and the two shuttle explosions happened under republican leadership
this inconvenient truth is just my 2 cents, or as i call it, loose change

1/30/2010 3:07:25 PM

pack_bryan

I'm not sure what your points are, but I'm all for the constellation program... full effort right now needs to be made to ensure it happens.

It is time to retire the space shuttles, but we have to have our own launch capabilities first.

Quote :

"and actually Ares V wasn't just for low earth orbit... the other main goal of it was for breaking earth orbit all together.. aka moon/mars."

no shit

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2010 3:33:59 PM

^^

1/30/2010 5:35:02 PM

yeah that statement puzzled me, too

pretty productive 7 months, that's for sure

--

on a side note, didn't Eisenhower create NASA?

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 5:55 PM. Reason : +]

1/30/2010 5:51:18 PM

when we landed on the moon the governor of texas was a democrat
besides it was JFK that got set the goal and funding for the moon trip, nixon just took credit for it

1/30/2010 8:03:30 PM

Are you guys REALLY arguing about which presidents love NASA more?

1/30/2010 8:11:41 PM

Thomas Jefferson totally had his dick all up in NASA

1/30/2010 8:27:05 PM

^^im just playing down to the competitions level

1/30/2010 8:42:27 PM

Quote :

"besides it was JFK that got set the goal and funding for the moon trip"

Every president says some crazy shit about putting man somewhere in space like that. JFK was just smart about it and got capped so we'd all look like dicks if we didn't make it happen afterwards.

1/30/2010 8:48:18 PM

moron when we bring up george soros or how obama has his dick 4 feet up your ass, we'll invite you back in for more discussion.

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM. Reason : 7]

1/30/2010 11:42:50 PM

How long did you spend touching yourself when you were coming up with the figure for Obama's dick?

1/31/2010 12:30:03 AM

Issued today:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

Quote :

"The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration..."

PS- I don't usually stray into the soap box but I just read through this thread and whoever said that the shuttle fleet is "state of the art" couldn't be further from the truth.

2/1/2010 11:58:27 AM

makes me

the US is abandoning human spaceflight in order to develop some sort of unproven private taxicab service to the ISS... how bold

2/1/2010 12:53:03 PM

Quote :

"whoever said that the shuttle fleet is "state of the art" couldn't be further from the truth."

2/1/2010 12:59:05 PM

no kidding. the shuttle fleet was designed over 30 years ago.

2/1/2010 2:18:01 PM

Obviously i'm a sucker, but this seems like a good explanation here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020101922.html

$100 billion to beef up old technology, or the same money spent at looking at new technologies and visiting an asteroid!

2/1/2010 5:20:25 PM

Tax the moon and pay for health care, free cars, and unions. (If obama said that, it would carry double digit support...sadly)

2/1/2010 5:33:49 PM

Orion etc was not old technology. Yes it drew upon experiences and technologies from Apollo and the Shuttle, but what was to be built would have been more than the sum of both Apollo and STS.

2/1/2010 6:08:44 PM

I understand why democrats might not like the NASA thing, but I don’t see how republicans can be against 6 billion a year to use towards choosing the best private lift apparatus to get to the space station.

2/1/2010 7:43:32 PM

NASA transcends Democrat/Republican issues for me.

2/1/2010 8:47:13 PM

^^ Because if we are getting rid of NASA, that means we are living in a libertarian paradise and most other programs have already been done away with. As such, on those grounds, NASA is not so special as to be the last standing Romanov.

2/1/2010 9:25:25 PM

How is NASA all of a sudden becoming a partisan issue????

It is not a democrat v republican topic.

Reagan did a good job at trashing NASA in the 80's as Obama is doing now. Either party could warp NASA's mission to accommodate their own priorities and platforms.

2/1/2010 11:39:48 PM

^^ NASA is far from being gotten rid of. Obama is INCREASING their budget, just cutting Constellation. It looks like their scope is being broadened, if anything: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/nasa-reboots-focuses-on-cheaper-sustainable-exploration.ars

It’s just the ratings-driven reactionary media has done shit-all into looking at the actual changes. It’s a good thing the nerd-focused media is doing a semblance of their job.

Quote :

"Last October, NASA received a committee report that called existing planning "unsustainable." The agency couldn't even budget the money to deorbit the International Space Station as planned in 2016—itself a waste of the construction costs—and the vehicles needed for its planned return to the moon wouldn't be ready by the 2030s... "if ever," in the committee's words. So today, NASA administrator Charles Bolden announced a new five-year budget plan that significantly changes the nation's spaceflight priorities. … Part of that commitment will involve a reprieve for the International Space Station. Instead of being deorbited in the middle of this decade, the ISS will be treated like a national laboratory, and used to pursue research on materials and long-term human habitation in space through at least 2020, with additional construction, including new infrastructure, planned beyond the end of the shuttle program. The budget also includes money for an extension of the shuttle through 2011, which will allow for the inevitable launch delays in its remaining five missions. "

I had no idea the ISS was set to be decommissioned in a few years. Considering it’s just gotten up and running, that seems absurd. I like that they are now planning on keeping it around, and hopefully expanding its role.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/nasa-reboots-focuses-on-cheaper-sustainable-exploration.ars

If you really want to know what’s going on

In the last thread we had on the Moon issue, i recall someone arguing that the goal was merely to get to the moon, there was no money budgeted by the Bush administration, or no goals set to create a space-based launch platform. It looks like NASA has a new mission of evaluating what it will take to create a space based launch platform, vs. just putting something else on the moon.

If we could have a mission to the moon to start building a moon base, that would be perfect. But we don’t really know what to build yet, which hopefully this new research can look into.

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 12:09 AM. Reason : ]

2/2/2010 12:04:58 AM

Quote :

"Because if we are getting rid of NASA"

your exaggeration skills would make glenn beck proud

Quote :

"I don’t see how republicans can be against 6 billion a year to use towards choosing the best private lift apparatus to get to the space station."

agreed. They are always fighting for less government and more free market driven innovation....except when its Obama that suggests it
I think they have just completely thrown out their ideals and beliefs and just wait for what obama will do then do the opposite

2/2/2010 1:13:27 AM

Quote :

"The moon plan, which NASA had already spent $9.1 billion on, was based on old technology and revisiting old places astronauts had already been, officials said. The previous NASA chief, in selling the old moon plan, had even called it "Apollo on steroids." The rockets were based on space shuttle boosters. "Simply put, we're putting the science back into the rocket science at NASA," White House science adviser John Holdren said at a budget briefing Monday. "

Saying it was based on old technology is like saying that current airplanes are based on old technology because we use wing designs. The Ares I solid rocket booster design is based on shuttle but is NOT the same. The various engines after staging are completely new. And whoever this White House science adviser is that claims to be putting the science back in rocket science obviously had no idea what the level research, analysis, design, engineering, and SCIENCE that was going into the Ares program.

2/2/2010 8:55:20 AM

Ares/Orion/Constellation was putting NASA back on the right track.

now we have some nebulous "oh we are going to do more rocket research" BS.

2/2/2010 9:59:53 AM

Quote :

"Obama will announce Monday that he wants to kill NASA's Ares I rocket program and funnel its money (along with another $6 billion) into private space travel. The goal is to “put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future,” an anonymous White House news cycle-shaper told the New York Times. This is a nice lift for some West Coast-based entrepreneurs like Amazon cofounder Jeff Bezos and PayPal cofounder Elon Musk, who have put big money into starting private space travel companies."

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-to-direct-6-billion-toward-private-space-flight-2010-1?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GreenSheet_Select_020210

2/2/2010 1:10:00 PM

^^yeah that's what I got from the linked article above as well.

2/2/2010 1:25:32 PM

I don't support funneling government money to private companies, but I sort of agree with the sentiment that we need to allow space travel innovation to occur in the private sector. If we get anywhere with space flight, it's going to be the result of competition and market forces, not because a politician somewhere throws some money at it. When more people begin to see a potential profit by developing new space technology, we can see the industry flourish like we see with IT.

2/2/2010 1:29:12 PM

Quote :

"Ares/Orion/Constellation was putting NASA back on the right track. now we have some nebulous "oh we are going to do more rocket research” BS. "

I think those were good programs, and i’d still like a harder date for looking at possibly building a moon base.

But the constellation program was going to the moon, just for the sake of it (which has been done…). There was no explicit budgeting or planning for beginning construction on a moonbase. Plus, the NASA guy was thinking that the private sector would have beat out NASA’s project anyway.

2/3/2010 1:07:20 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575042920971568684.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Quote :

"All of the brilliant past discoveries in astronomy for which NASA can take credit have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories, and there is much more to be done. By studying the polarization of cosmic microwave radiation, we may find evidence of gravitational waves emitted in the first fraction of a second of the big bang. By sending laser beams between teams of satellites, we should be able to detect gravitational waves directly from collisions between neutron stars and black holes. By correlating the distances and velocities of many galaxies, we should be able to explore the mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe. None of this involves astronauts. The cost of all these projects would be a few billion dollars—not cheap, but nothing like the hundred or so billion dollars for a manned return to the moon, or the many hundreds of billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars. "

2/4/2010 1:21:59 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ

2/4/2010 11:51:19 AM

^ That video is extremely misleading about what's being can canceled.

2/4/2010 11:56:26 AM

Billions of dollars for a space project is a lot, but when we're running trillion dollar deficits, it seems like a drop in the bucket.

2/4/2010 12:01:23 PM

Let's bag up 1/2 the air force as well. Just a big crazy "sky fleet". We can do it 100x cheaper on the ground anyways. I mean c'mon there is a recession.

2/4/2010 4:13:50 PM

I believe it's already been stated that the $6 billion addition to NASA's budget will primarily go towards private spaceflight. So just keep arguing your dumbass opinions.

2/4/2010 5:31:56 PM

^^when you have to resort to lying and exaggeration you know you've already lost

2/4/2010 5:56:35 PM

Woe is us! Without blowing billions sending men places for bragging rights, we've crushed the human spirit of exploration! If only there were lots of unexplored and unresearched places nearby! Like this:


or this:


But those places are boring! How will we wag our dicks at the Chinese?!

2/5/2010 10:33:07 AM