Obama aims to ax moon mission

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Red Dawn must enjoy kicking up dust around here. I'm still waiting on the post where you prove that I support the Nazi party...
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
woolfe9999 said:
As clarification, I am not talking about increasing taxes to pay for more government spending, which is what you mean when you say moving money from the productive part to the less productive part. I am talking about a tax hike to pay off our creditors, while at the same time very large spending cuts. Bring spending down to the level of our current tax revenue, but increase taxes temporarily to pay off debt. This is not tax and spend. It is tax and cut. Whether tax and spend is a viable concept depends on what you think about government spending versus private sector spending, but that whole argument is moot right now. Once we balance our books, then we can decide how big we want government to be. What we can't have ever again is the cut and spend policies that got us here to begin with.

The issue of big government versus small government is more the ideological issue than the math issue, and I'm afraid that the two get conflated too often. You can have your books in order with big or small government, regardless of the merits or lack thereof of either approach. Or you may NOT have your books in order, in which case that needs to get fixed before anything else can really be addressed. Hell, we can't even fight this recession properly right now, whether the approach is tax cuts, spending, or some combination of the two. It's ridiculous.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Oh, I understood you. In fact that's the only way I would support a tax increase - if Congress first proved it was capable of cutting spending and balancing the budget. In that case, some cautious tax increases devoted purely to paying off the national debt would be worth doing. I would much rather have no taxes and fund the government from import tariffs - but that's another argument (and a pipe dream LOL.)
 
Praxis1452

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
Fritzo said:
You should read up on things you don't know about before posting stuff like this.

The moon is full of resources that we're probably going to be using for future power generation (namely helium3), as well as provide a station for deep space missions and astronomical research.
Click to expand...
Well, the future is not now. If it were profitable, people would be lining up to do so. The fact is that it's prohibitively expensive for the cost involved and thereby a waste of resources.
 
P

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,182
23
81
Yes, so the Obama administration is acting just like the rest of the Euro's who turned down Columbus in the 1400's...

I don't look forward to seeing this:
china-flag.gif


on humanity's first moon base.
 
R

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
This is lame...I want to see real Star Trek/Star Wars/Mass Effect in my life time!

Seriously though, in comparison to the other bloated spending in the government budget, couldn't some of that be cut to throw a bone to NASA? I mean, their budget is small potatoes compared to most programs...

Even JFK realized space exploration is a big deal.
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
RyanPaulShaffer said:
This is lame...I want to see real Star Trek/Star Wars/Mass Effect in my life time!

Seriously though, in comparison to the other bloated spending in the government budget, couldn't some of that be cut to throw a bone to NASA? I mean, their budget is small potatoes compared to most programs...

Even JFK realized space exploration is a big deal.
Click to expand...

The main reason JFK supported the moon landing project was politics.

It was the height of the cold war, the US was in the mood for defeting the evil of the human race communism, they believed (wrongly) there was a niuclear missile gap favoring the communists, and the Soviets were grabbing the headlines for space with the first man in orbit. JFK wanted to be the leader to say the US is greatest, and the challenge of the moon landing was a great way to do it. (Ironically, competing with the Soviets in many ways brought out the best in the US, including our strategic desire to prove how good we were on human rights).

There were other benefits - the technology was highly leveragable to other areas from military to commercial and strengthened our nation's strength in various sciences, and spurred the economy with government $.

Not all the same factors apply to going back today.

IMO, the loss of our prestige on this issue now is a sort of price tag for our bad policies, following our right wing ideologies that have shifted so much of our nation's resources to make the rich richer.

I'd like to see us get it again too - as part of a larger program that includes a return more to 60's tax rates, the slashing of corporate abuses, the regulation against too big to fail and other policies.

Those types of steps will make our nation once again able to be the leader for humankind - in space projects. As long as we squander our economy on the benefit of the rich, I don't expect that.

What did you mean 'even' JFK appreciated space, like Republicans are normally so much better?
 
nobodyknows

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
So instead of whining about the moon mission being canceled why doesn't someone list what we have to gain by sending humans there again?

Is it the first step in building a moon base to mine helium-3? Can we afford that or do they just want to go so we can have some more astronauts with bragging rights?

Sorry, but I see NO real purpose to go there again unless it is part of a longe range goal we want to accomplish. We've did it before with 1960's technology so doing it now should be a walk in the park, but why do it when our economy is in such shambles. Surely the money can be better spent elsewhere?
 
R

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Craig234 said:
IMO, the loss of our prestige on this issue now is a sort of price tag for our bad policies, following our right wing ideologies that have shifted so much of our nation's resources to make the rich richer.
Click to expand...

There you go again with partisan rhetoric. Good grief, if you could get over your blind hatred of everything Republican, you'd actually make some very good points.

As for the JFK comment, Obama has frequently been hailed as the new JFK and/or FDR, yes? It's pretty easy to see when you don't get so defensive and perceive that everything is an "evil Republican attack". :rolleyes:
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
RyanPaulShaffer said:
There you go again with partisan rhetoric. Good grief, if you could get over your blind hatred of everything Republican, you'd actually make some very good points.

As for the JFK comment, Obama has frequently been hailed as the new JFK and/or FDR, yes? It's pretty easy to see when you don't get so defensive and perceive that everything is an "evil Republican attack". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have informed opinions about the Republicans. They differ with yours ,however informed or uninformed. Learn to discuss those differences with false accusations of "partisan", wrong and offensive.

I will resist the temptation to say only that for emphasis and say I appreciate when you are not busy repeating that mistake, that I appreciate your more even handed comments.

Obama has been hailed as someone we HOPE to be the new JFK, we need to be the new FDR - but not so much that he is those things.

Interestingly, Obama studies JFK's decisions on Vietnam to decide his Afghanistan policy - liberals note that wasn't JFK's most outstanding solution (though there was good in it).

One reason I had higher hopes for Obama as having some JFK qualities is that the man closest to JFK not named Kennedy was Ted Sorensen, and he early on say JFK qualities in him.

I've been wondering how he feels after a year but haven't found any comments.
 
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,742
48,569
136
nobodyknows said:
Somebody call the whambulance.
Click to expand...

Just ignore the amnesia afflicted trolls, maybe they'll drift off back to la la land where trips to Mars are certain and privatized Social Security worked out just great.
 
Last edited:
P

ProgressiveAthe

Banned
Jan 2, 2010
105
0
0
So Obama has decided that:

No Return Moon Mission
No Mars Mission
No Man Space Flights EVER AGAIN From NASA

Obama has decided that space flight and research is pointless, and is going to kill man space travel as far as the government involvement is concerned. That really makes me mad, private sector is terrible at making advancements for space technologies, and I guarantee you that in 100 years the United States will lag behind even third world countries when it comes to space technology because of Obama decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html?hpw


RIP NASA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew1990

Andrew1990

Banned
Mar 8, 2008
2,153
0
0
Honestly, maybe it is time to close down Nasa and start up a totally new space program thing built from the ground up.

I am pretty sure Nasa uses a lot of older Infrastructure, so why not build something up to todays standards?



Anyway, Space is the future, there should be no questions about that.
 
brblx

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
you know it's 'manned,' right?

also, yes, we are totally going to lag third world countries when it comes to 'space technology.'

i hear ethiopia is launching a moon mission next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom