B.H.Obama destroys U.S. Space Program

[Lenny]

The Final Frontier: NASA in the Obamanation

It was a punch in the gut (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/21/the-final-frontier-nasa-in-the-obamanation/) to hear that Obama is literally destroying (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/21/the-final-frontier-nasa-in-the-obamanation/) the U.S. Space Program. NASA’s Constellation Program is being scrapped and the space shuttle retired. The next manned American spaceflight won’t lift off until some vague date in the 2020s. In the meantime, the transportation of American astronauts to the International Space Station will be outsourced to Russia and China.

Obama is voluntarily relinquishing the USA's leadership role in space exploration. Thousands of American workers – the cream of the high technology industry – will lose their jobs in NASA states like Florida, Alabama, and Texas.

But don’t worry: America’s Mulatto Premier has "promised" that we will land on Mars "sometime" in the 2030s – decades after he leaves office – years after any number of ticking timebombs (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/21/the-final-frontier-nasa-in-the-obamanation/) (Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security, uncontrolled Third World immigration) crash the federal budget and tank the U.S. economy. Under the stewardship of affirmative action appointments at NASA (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/21/the-final-frontier-nasa-in-the-obamanation/), the black and Hispanic scientific geniuses (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/21/the-final-frontier-nasa-in-the-obamanation/) of the future, currently graduating from America’s public schools, will take us there.

The last scheduled American shuttle launch is May 31, 2010. Mark your calenders. It will probably be the last time Americans travel to space on their own initiative.
Original Article (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/21/the-final-frontier-nasa-in-the-obamanation/)

[poiuytrewq0987]

If America had balls, Obama would be arrested on treason charges.

[Lenny]

Obama would be arrested on treason charges.http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3608/obamatrialflyer.jpg
http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/websiteImages/obamaTrial_flyer.jpg

:cool:

[Groenewolf]

What can be expected. It is not like most of his more natural supporters are capable of working for NASA. And are probably not getting warm feelings when seeing astronauts going up.

[Eldritch]

"The NASA is dying"

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01617/nasa_1617409c.jpg

Dreams of manned flights to Mars are over and the Space Shuttle needs to be killed off, says Jerry de Groot.

A few years ago, on a visit to the Kennedy Space Centre, I was surprised to see dozens of vultures perched on fences outside the museum. Apparently, they're permanent residents. Were I to return today, I suspect those vultures would look very different. What were once ugly birds are now potent symbols. Nasa is dying.

Doom has come in the form of President Barack Obama, who yesterday unveiled plans for a stripped-down space agency during a speech at the Kennedy Space Centre. The speech was more like a funeral oration than a new policy announcement, since the president's intentions have been made abundantly clear over the past two months. Nevertheless, while there was little surprise in what Obama said, the sense of betrayal felt in Florida was no less bitter.

Obama wants an agency suited to a time of fiscal restraint – one which delivers practical benefits at the lowest possible cost. It's an admirably logical approach. But Nasa has never been logical. Rocket dreams are fuelled by emotion, not practicality.

Ever since the early 1960s, the space debate has been torn asunder by two competing rationales. The first holds that what goes up there must benefit us down here. That means practical, low-cost initiatives in near space achieved by unmanned satellites. This rationale has yielded undeniable benefits: better weather forecasts, GPS, a communications revolution and Google Earth, not to mention surveillance devices.

The second rationale is more esoteric, but pretends to be otherwise. It is inspired by notions of man's ''need to discover'' – the assumption being that without frontiers to explore, we will descend into ''mediocrity'', as Neil Armstrong claimed this week. Nasa has always argued that the genuine frontiers are to be found in outer space and that man (not robots) must explore them. Aside from a brief, vicarious thrill of adventure, however, manned space spectaculars have brought few benefits to us stuck on Earth.

Since 1960, US presidents have tried to accommodate these two rationales when deciding how much money to give Nasa. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson favoured the esoteric over the practical. Thus, the budget for satellite research was cut drastically to fund Apollo – the otherwise pointless mission to kick lunar dust in Russian faces. After Armstong's ''giant leap'', the unsentimental Richard Nixon went for more practical benefits: a planned voyage to Mars was scrapped, with money diverted to ventures in near space.

Though each subsequent president announced, with considerable fanfare, a new and exciting space policy, they essentially continued what Nixon had started. That, in truth, has meant 40 years of fudge. Truly beneficial programmes in near space have suffered from underfunding, while the manned space programme has been given just enough money to survive, but not enough to achieve anything. The Space Shuttle is a hugely expensive, incredibly dangerous system whose only purpose has been to maintain the charade of manned space exploration.

Nasa, rather like an astronaut on a failed mission, is lost in space. After 50 years of concentrating on the complex, the agency is no longer very good at the simple stuff. When it comes to the basic task of putting satellites in orbit, the Russian and European space agencies offer cheaper and more reliable alternatives. Failure has not, however, encouraged humility. Nasa still enthusiastically promotes a mission to Mars, but offers in justification only a sense of adventure, a feeling of pride and a handful of rocks.

Obama has promised a radical overhaul of space policy. And pigs might fly. The president wants the private sector to take over where Nasa has failed, namely in providing a low-cost, near-space transportation system, as a replacement for the hapless Shuttle. That's a good idea, since it will transfer ventures that are potentially profitable to the sort of people best able to exploit them.

The president, however, hasn't the guts to pull the plug on the manned programme. Therefore, he has decided to fudge. Nasa will be given an additional $6 billion over the next five years to develop the technologies to take human beings to the Moon and beyond. Since a mission to Mars is conservatively costed at $500 billion, the money will pay for a few blueprints.

Obama's new version of the fudge can be easily explained. While most Americans have grown contemptuous of funding space spectaculars, the voters of Florida remain enthusiastic, for obvious reasons. Those who work in the space industry might talk passionately of man's need to explore, but what they really want is a wage packet. And, as recent elections have clearly demonstrated, no president can afford to annoy the Floridians.

I suspect the fudge will continue long after Obama retires. Landing on Mars will always be an event scheduled to occur 20 years from tomorrow. Nasa is dying, but death is not imminent. Those vultures will have to wait awhile before they can feed on the carrion of America's space fantasies.

Jerry de Groot is professor of history at the University of St Andrews

Link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7596661/Barack-Obama-fudge-leaves-Nasa-floating-in-space.html)

[Lenny]

Since a mission to Mars is conservatively costed at $500 billionThe cost of the Afghanistan war, that B.H.Obama is so enthusiastic to expand, is creeping towards $10-billion per month now. The amount of money that will be wasted in Afghanistan, by the illegal-alien Mulatto-In-Chief during his 4-year-reign, would then be $480-billion! With that sum of money, humans could set up shop on Mars. But B.H.Obama has other priorities: Pointless war in Afghanistan, welfare to favored races, Communist-Medicine, to say nothing of his $700-billion bank-bailout.

With sufficient ambition, we could easily have permanent-settlement on Mars by 2025, but not with clowns like "the Marxist Mulatto with no past (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15150)" at the wheel...

[Saruman]

Incredible, I was hoping the program would be revitalized. :mad::( But with high costs of wars and increasing welfare costs for 3rd world immigrants what can be expected, they are dragging a great nation down.:mad:

[poiuytrewq0987]

Incredible, I was hoping the program would be revitalized. :mad::( But with high costs of wars and increasing welfare costs for 3rd world immigrants what can be expected, they are dragging a great nation down.:mad:

Bammy has absolutely no ambition, so it did not surprise me one bit to see him shit over all the NASA.

[Cato]

He's defunding the forerunner of Starfleet! :grumpy: What a nimrod, the U.S. space program was once the pride and joy of the world, to say nothing of the country itself.

[Sol Invictus]

They'll continue it in secret. Besides what we see in SpaceFlight TV on Live Stream.

[Lenny]

What a nimrod, the U.S. space program was once the pride and joy of the world, to say nothing of the country itself.
"Obama’s gutting the space program is of deep racial-symbolic significance. NASA, at its best, represented a movement toward the Light, toward ultimate knowledge of ourselves and the universe. The socialist welfare-illfare state and its debt-financed group-entitlement bribe-offs are, by contrast, a descent into chaos and darkness."

http://www.toqonline.com/2010/04/the-final-frontier/#comment-7950

[Grumpy Cat]

Well the US is in a pile of debt right now...

[poiuytrewq0987]

Well the US is in a pile of debt right now...

I'm quite curious what the NASA could've accomplished if it had a budget similar to the US military. ;)

[Liffrea]

If humanity’s future in space is reliant on government…….then we might as well wind it down now and save our selves a lot of money and wasted time. Governments simply cannot fund human expansion into the Solar System.


Nasa still enthusiastically promotes a mission to Mars, but offers in justification only a sense of adventure, a feeling of pride and a handful of rocks.

Quite, space has to pay for itself pure and simple fact, humans are only motivated so far by wonder, they are motivated primarily by greed. Show private investors that there is something worth investing in other than a photo opportunity.

[Grumpy Cat]

I'm quite curious what the NASA could've accomplished if it had a budget similar to the US military. ;)

We'd probably be communicating with intelligent life on other planets if that was the case.

[poiuytrewq0987]

If humanity’s future in space is reliant on government…….then we might as well wind it down now and save our selves a lot of money and wasted time. Governments simply cannot fund human expansion into the Solar System.

Quite, space has to pay for itself pure and simple fact, humans are only motivated so far by wonder, they are motivated primarily by greed. Show private investors that there is something worth investing in other than a photo opportunity.

One thing that's for certain, and that's us becoming something alike to the Caldari State. :p

http://www.eveonline.com/races/caldari.asp

[Cato]

"Obama’s gutting the space program is of deep racial-symbolic significance. NASA, at its best, represented a movement toward the Light, toward ultimate knowledge of ourselves and the universe. The socialist welfare-illfare state and its debt-financed group-entitlement bribe-offs are, by contrast, a descent into chaos and darkness."

http://www.toqonline.com/2010/04/the-final-frontier/#comment-7950

The Hubble telescope was a move towards understanding "In the beginning..." Why should NASA be defunded? To pay for more welfare meals for sacks of shit that probably have no appreciation for what NASA represents- a step towards man's fulfilling his destiny as the imago dei? :grumpy:

[Groenewolf]

Show private investors that there is something worth investing in other than a photo opportunity.

Besides space-tourism, which Russia is already using to help raise money for their program, there is of course the option of asteroid-mining. So there is potential for profitable investments.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Groenewolf
there is of course the option of asteroid-mining.

Exactly so, probably the most feasible way for a Mars colony to get off the ground is as a way station for ships mining the asteroid belt, as well as exploiting resources on Mars itself.

[Eldritch]

We'd probably be communicating with intelligent life on other planets if that was the case.

Well, it was only yesterday that we were told by Stephen Hawking that that would be a bad idea. ;)

[I disagree btw]

[Lenny]

If humanity’s future in space is reliant on government
Going to space is expensive.

The U.S.-Government has funded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 7 years costing a net of over $1 trillion [$1,000,000,000,000], with no disruption in U.S. living standards at all, ala the rationing of 1942-1944 in the USA, or the terrible strain of 1862-1864 on the same (esp. on the Southern states). Total military spending from 2000-2010 equals over $7-trillion.

What private company on Earth could compete with that?

[Lenny]

Well, it was only yesterday that we were told by Stephen Hawking that that would be a bad idea. ;)

[I disagree btw]
You disagree with what? With the idea that we could be communicating with aliens by now if we'd spent more?

Or with S.Hawking's claim that it is a bad idea?


[Note: It is possible we already are interacting with them but that we don't know it. Was the Roswell incident really a weather-balloon? Who knows.]

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lenny
What private company on Earth could compete with that?

Purely in numbers. None.

But let’s look at some statistics.

The tope five corporations in 2007 earned $1.5 trillion, the top 100 $9.7 trillion, the top 250 $14.87 trillion compared to the US $13.74 and the EU $13.20 trillion.

In 2008 the 2000 largest companies had $27 trillion in annual sales and over $103 trillion in assets.

In 2008 out of the 166 entities earning in excess of $50 billion a year only 60 of these were states.

The point is private entities are fast outstripping states in wealth creation, not bad going really for a phenomenon that is only fifty or so years old, fifty years from now…..

Let’s also understand that a corporate board has more power in allocating resources than a state does and it’s not burdened by health care, education, infrastructure etc etc. Also the USA is increasingly going into debt to fund wars it cannot afford, not may companies, to my knowledge, have business plans that will see them in long term debt and possible bankruptcy down the line.

[Eldritch]

You disagree with what? With the idea that we could be communicating with aliens by now if we'd spent more?

Or with S.Hawking's claim that it is a bad idea?



Oh, I meant that I disagree with Prof. Hawking's suggestion that attempting to communicate with extraterrestial intelligences would be a bad idea. Sorry for being unclear about this.