-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
Another Perspective
Space Is Lost
Is Obama euthanizing the space program?
Any long-term future for the U.S. in space has suddenly become a great deal less assured, despite the fact space flight has been paying massive dividends for decades. President Obama, to the joy of some rivals and enemies of the U.S. Space program, has produced a future of fudge for it, which upon examination looks as if it is no future at all. Apparently, according to the president, the U.S. is not going back to the moon because it’s already been there, but it’s going somewhere else. Where exactly is a moot point:
Obama has been reported as saying:
Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned, but I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite.
Like so many of Obama’s speeches, it sounds good at first, with something in it for everyone. Except that at a second look, there doesn’t seem to be anything in it for anyone, least of all the space-program. It sounds less like a program for exploring space than for putting off space exploration as jam tomorrow and, literally, pie in the sky. It also seems to fit uncomfortably well with to use old-fashioned language, a turning away from the concept to manifest destiny, which surfaces in Obama’s thoughts and actions at times.
Neil Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 program commanders James Lovell and Eugene Cernan have released a letter saying that while some of Mr. Obama’s NASA budget proposals have merit, the decision to cancel the Constellation program, the Ares 1 and Ares V rockets and the Orion spacecraft is devastating.
American astronauts could now only reach low earth orbit and the International Space Station by hitching a ride on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft at a price of more than $50 million per seat, the letter said.
It continued:
For the United States, the leading space-faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature.…
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.
Britain provides a historic example. Socialist Prime Minister Harold Wilson (who once promised: “We are restating our socialism in terms of the scientific revolution … the Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for … outdated methods.”) and left-wing Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath between them killed off a successful and inexpensive British space program in the 1970s with its own rockets and satellites (and which, if proceeded with, would have been a financial Golconda). There was never the money or, more importantly, the will and inspiration, to start it again. It drifted off into the realms of “one day…”, becoming ever more remote. A tiny British space agency has only just been restarted and its future seems vague and uncertain (this in a country which each year spends enough on gambling to finance the U.S. Space program).
Establishing a proper base on the moon would be a huge and challenging undertaking. Establishing a base somewhere else — Mars or the asteroids — would be many times more difficult, expensive, and dangerous. This is not to say it couldn’t, or shouldn’t, be done eventually — it certainly should and inevitably someone is going to do it eventually — but to bypass the moon, a case of running before one can walk, is simply bizarre. If the U.S.’s goal really is “for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time,” the moon is the obvious place to learn how to do it.
Obama’s reported reason for abandoning the moon project — “We’ve been there before” — if taken seriously, and U.S. presidential policy pronouncements are meant to be taken seriously — is simply horrifying in its myopia, ignorance and philistinism. It is as if 16th-century Spain refused any further funding for exploring the Americas on the grounds that Columbus had already reached it (“But one day we’ll go to the North Pole”).
Twelve men have landed on the moon and stayed for a few hours, the last more than 40 years ago. They brought back some rock samples. This was important but in terms of advancing science did not even scratch the surface of what could be done.
The Chinese, it seems, appreciate the potential scientific and possibly military value of the moon. They have launched four manned rockets, the last carrying two men, and it is reasonable to guess that they are aiming at a permanent moon-base. India, Europe, and of course Russia are all pushing into space, while the U.S. throws away its lead.
In fact, the moon is a ready-made space station. Its low gravity means large spacecraft can be assembled there relatively easily for longer voyages. As a major bonus large quantities of water have recently been found there — a heavy and incompressible substance difficult to transport into space: you can’t save weight or space in a space-ship’s stores by carrying compressed or dehydrated water. The mere fact of working in vacuum might well establish a whole set of new industries and technologies. It is simply impossible to know what benefits and innovations a moon-base would bring, but it is safe to say that, like the space program itself, they would be substantial.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/space-is-lost
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Curtis| 4.26.10 @ 7:22AM
Some may say the space program and NASA is a vital and necessary program in desperate need of our governments full support.
Some may say its' an inefficient and wasteful program that needs to be halted until the current economic crisis is averted and our nations' finances stabilized.
Either way, the president has shown his usual vacuity in failing to stand one way or the other.
What do we wind up with? A slightly smaller waste of funds, with no promise of any future gain whatsoever.
We gain nothing from keeping NASA in a coma, feeding it dollars and jell-o. Either bring it to life, or let it die.
Dan Hirsch| 4.26.10 @ 10:08AM
That the US be rendered incapable of manned space flight means we are giving up the high ground. Last century, wars and peace were won by those who held the high ground, i.e. air power. This century it will be those who control space. If we cannot even launch a manned vehicle to maintain our GPS satellites, our communications satellites, our observation satellites, our weather satellites, what will we do when they start mysteriously failing. Ask the Russians for a ride so we can get a looksee?
Obama's gutting the manned space program is as ill-advised a policy as I can imagine. It will destroy our security, our technological edge, and ultimately our society.
Remember the UK is seriously considering monitoring speeders using realtime satellites that will read their license plates and issue tickets by mail.
Imagine fighting a battle with opponents with that capability when you don't have it. They could just target vehicles with ground-based weapons with satellite based spotting.
Prepare to lose the next war, America. Fortunately, it'll be a short war. Actually after Obama care locks in, and the financial industry is controlled by DC, we'll hardly notice the difference.
Don't tread on me.
L. Ross| 4.26.10 @ 11:26AM
Dan, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to be a little more skepitcal about what you might read or hear.
The UK is not seriously considering monitoring speeders using satellites to read license plates. The UK is not near the equator, so geosynchronous satellites are out. Now we have low earth orbiting satellites which whizz by overhead. (Go out on a clear night right after sunset. You will likely see several satellites go past.) A satellite rapidly orbiting the earth, looking down at a low angle (so it can see the license plate, can't see that from straight above) through the common clouds and rain of Britain, it's just plain nonsense.
Additionally, we never used the space shuttle to repair GPS, communication, and weather satellites. They are above the reach of the space shuttle. We just launch new ones on our Delta and Atlas rockets.
Quit trying to get your astronautical engineering knowledge from popular movies. Actually read a book about astronautical engineering, orbits and the like. You will learn a lot and write better posts.
Dan Hirsch| 4.26.10 @ 2:38PM
Genius:
Look here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....space.html
You might try reading something besides the Daily Kos.
As to my technological underpinning, I think my engineering degree, my advanced business degree with statistics and linear programming courses, the continuing education courses I take are a little more than your watching the New York Times owned Discovery Channel.
You, sir, are a useful idiot.
You did not even breathe a thought about the militarization of space. Which will inevitably happen.
Dunce.
Don't tread on me.
L. Ross| 4.27.10 @ 7:43PM
Dan, as an US Air Force officer of 25 years, and an Air Force Academy grad, I will put my conservative bonafides and education against yours any day of the week. I don't believe a word of this article you posted, for all the reasons I listed. Stay cool, though.
L. Ross| 4.27.10 @ 7:51PM
Dan, Dan, Dan,
What re we going to do with you. if you understood the 1st rule of internet surfing, you would have gone here, http://pipstechnology.com/news.....ts/PSS5060 SpeedSpike-1108.pdf
where you wol have discovered the system you referenced uses GPS time signals only. Better luck next time. Take of the tinfoil hat.
Alan Brooks| 4.26.10 @ 10:28AM
Reportedly, the turf disputes at NASA are bad.
Star Wars is playing in Houston.
Alan Brooks| 4.26.10 @ 10:34AM
What I resent is your blaming Obama for the ills of bureacracy, when what went wrong in the last decade wasn't always pinned on Bush.
Presidents are merely figureheads and--ultimately-- scapegoats.
Naturally, that is partisanship; but if you are not going to play fair, then don't expect the opposition to.
JimH| 4.26.10 @ 8:01AM
From a national security stand point you want to control the top of the gravity well. We need to be on the Moon if for no other reason.
Mike M| 4.26.10 @ 8:22AM
What could be a better plan for Obama? A now (or soon to be) unused Kennedy Space center dedicated as a wildlife refuge, with hundreds of GS- workers doing nothing but watching porn online all day long.
Melvin| 4.26.10 @ 8:34AM
No longer will millions of children gaze into the heavens with amazement of a Saturn rocket being launched into space.
Thousands of scientists and engineers will be lost to other countries who value their knowledge and some countries with not so peacefully purposes.
Obama would rather pay an illegal alien or domestic to become a parasite of the state than pay a scientist or engineer a space vehicle to explore the universe.
Space travel and exploration will get us off this planet, the parasite will consume this planet.
L. Ross| 4.26.10 @ 11:29AM
Melvin, I agree with a great deal of your post, but we haven't launched the mighty Saturn V into space since the days of Skylab, decades ago. Sadly, what we have had since then is the most lethal, incapable launch vehicle of the modern age.
JimH| 4.26.10 @ 11:40AM
Sadly, if true, we seem to have also mis-laid the plans for the Saturn V
Melvin| 4.26.10 @ 2:33PM
The Saturn's made the earth shake didn't they?
1FreeMan| 4.26.10 @ 8:45AM
The NASA budget is one-half of one percent of the national budget. Thats 0.01% !!
The NASA budget has been shrinking for decades and still these brilliant scientists have put hundreds of shuttle flights into space, repaired the hubble... TWICE, and continued to explore the solar system.
The spin-off technology is immesurable. Obama spends billions bailing out his cronies in the labor unions but chops NASA up like cabbage? The moon is a stepping stone to Mars; everyone knows that except the "smart" Predsident.
Vote this bum out. November seems so far away!
Smart| 4.26.10 @ 9:50AM
"The NASA budget is one-half of one percent of the national budget. Thats 0.01% !!"
Right. The president is dumb, you're the genius. You wingnuts are ridiculous. Be quiet and stop embarrassing yourselves.
Dan Hirsch| 4.26.10 @ 10:12AM
Hey, "Smart." Everyone knows you're smart, because of your name.
Bad mathematics aside; there is no excuse for Obama destroying our ability to defend ourselves from the high ground that is space.
If Obama's as smart as you, that explains a lot.
About both of you.
Don't tread on me.
1FreeMan| 4.26.10 @ 3:57PM
Sorry, slipped a number. Should be .5 Sheesh, such forgiving people. Either way it is an embarrasment that the "zero" wants NASA shut down.
L. Ross| 4.26.10 @ 11:33AM
1FreeMan:
Dude, there have been FIVE Hubble repair missions, starting in 1993. Each one has vastly improved the capabilities of the scope. It is now running much better than ever before.
1FreeMan| 4.26.10 @ 3:47PM
Yup, two repair jobs and three upgrades.
Dan Hirsch| 4.26.10 @ 4:17PM
Math errors are just mistakes, not wrong-headedness. I wasn't slammin' you, 1FreeMan; I was agreeing with your point.
Speaking of math errors, wasn't the original problem with the Hubble that some design engineer with the mirror contractor blew the metric-Imperial conversion, thinking that there were 36" in a meter, not 39.37?
I might be a little less patient with that math error than some others....
Heywood| 4.26.10 @ 5:29PM
The original problem with the mirror was that they didn't have a way to test it in a zero G condition. http://www.history.com/shows/m.....ers-hubble
Bush was for space exploration--so Obama is against it.
A. C. Santore| 4.26.10 @ 8:57AM
"Myopia, ignorance and philistinism," you say.
You are too kind, Mr. Colebatch! Too kind, but I'll spare you a long list of other descriptive terms for the Proto-dictator and his programs.
Even the combined imaginations of everyone reading that article cannot complete such a list.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 4.26.10 @ 9:02AM
One of my earliest memories when I was a very young kid, was Nixon talking to the astronauts on the last Moon landing. I remember going outside and looking at the Moon afterwards, and I swear, that I could see something up there (it probably was a bird?). So the money we "waste" on NASA, is money worth wasting, in comparison to all the other silly crap we waste our money on. The Moon belongs to the United States of America, we claimed it (back in 1969), we've got our Flag's up there (hell we even played golf up there). We beat the Commies to get there, just to prove to the World, that we're better than them (and we are). And now we're going to sit back, and watch a new generation of Commies go back there and take all the glory, that belongs to us? No way, I say!! Some things are worth the investment, and NASA, is an investment in our history (plus, it's cool!!).
Cris Worth| 4.26.10 @ 9:45AM
The U.S. space program peaked in July 1969 when there was focus with a goal in mind. NASA needs a complete overhaul with short term goals leading to a long term goal...manned mission to Mars.
Pingback| 4.26.10 @ 10:13AM
More On The Demise of Manned Spaceflight « Songs of Space & Nuclear War links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nommin| 4.26.10 @ 10:40AM
The shuttle has always been a colossal white elephant. In the 70's, NASA spoke of making a profit using the shuttle. Instead every launch costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
NASA has Orbital Sciences and Space-X (private companies) developing far more economical and practical means to take astronauts into orbit. So capsules aren't as cool as a 50 ton glider - maybe if the shuttle hadn't devoured so much money, the alternatives would already be in service.
Representatives in Florida, Utah and Louisiana are howling about losing big money programs when the shuttle ends and the work goes to - wait for it - private companies.
The supposed follow-on to the shuttle - the Ares rockets - were intended in large part to keep work flowing to the districts doing shuttle work. The Ares launch vehicles were generally considered by industry people an awful kludge of components, well over budget and far behind schedule. Another white elephant in the making.
So, that gravy train is being put to rest, 38 years after the shuttle program began.
Maybe we don't have a clear goal to rally around - "The Moon or bust!" - but in my opinion, we've turned a big corner in making access to space easier. Yes, the manned launching gap in the near future does stink.
L. Ross| 4.26.10 @ 11:39AM
Well put, Nommin.
The Ares rocket was going to be the only Solid Rocket that is man rated in the history of the world. Cobbling together the worst of the space shuttle for our next launch vehicle was a simply awful idea.
I think it is also terrible that Obama hasn't come up with a real proposal other than cancellation, because as the article said, once we loose this capability, we will most likely never get it back.
JP| 4.26.10 @ 11:02AM
The only thing a person hears from NASA these days comes from its Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and its nortorious chief Dr Hansen. Global Warming is about it -forget about manned space travel. Besides, NASA (as well as defense) will have to fight for scrapes left over from HHS (Medicare, Medicaid) and Social Security. Next fiscal year Medicaid alone will spend more than the DOD. And that's saying something with 2 "hot" combat operations going on in East Asia.
We are certainly becoming more and more like our Euro friends. In Europe, the most important political jobs are not defense or the Foreign Secretary, but the Directorship of thier entitlement state(s). For future aspiring US pols, serving at HHS or Medicare (or Fannie Mae) will hold more prestige than Sec of Defense, CIA, FBI, or Sec of State. NASA is on the way out, other than to warn of us of our impending doom due to greenhouse gases.
MikeN| 4.26.10 @ 11:10AM
NASA is a waste of money. What is it's total budget. Do you feel they spend the money wisely?
Al Adab| 4.26.10 @ 11:21AM
Should the nation that took mankind into space and delivered the moon retreat and watch as the future of humanity in the universe speaks Chineese?
In the 1400's the Ming dynasty retreated from exploration of the globe. Is America repeating that error in favor of China?
uncle curmudgeon| 4.26.10 @ 12:21PM
Unfortunately, and as with most every other issue, this one is about the President. By achievement BHO is an E-lister at best. As an egomaniac he's off the charts. If space exploration goes away he can be larger than the nation he loathes. And what could be more important than that (you racist)?
uncle curmudgeon| 4.26.10 @ 12:21PM
Unfortunately, and as with most every other issue, this one is about the President. By achievement BHO is an E-lister at best. As an egomaniac he's off the charts. If space exploration goes away he can be larger than the nation he loathes. And what could be more important than that (you racist)?
Northern Rebel| 4.26.10 @ 12:42PM
Alan Brooks:
I don't blame Maobama for the ills of government; I blame assholes like you that voted for this treasonous piece of shit, then attempt to make us think you are anything but Anti-American.
You actually think we pay attention to your words, which camoflague your kind's attempt to turn us into Europe. We only respond to your inanities, for our own entetainment.
We all know you are a naive fool at best, and an evil bastard, at worst.
If you actually want to be taken seriously, you should be posting on Mother Jones, with the rest of your socialist-communist misfit friends.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.26.10 @ 12:49PM
If humans are destroying the planet like we're being told we are, shouldn't we be trying to explore for other worlds to inhabit? Shouldn't the smartest man ever to teach "community organizing" be more aware of what we should be trying to achieve with human space flight and not with plans to re-distribute everyone's wealth?
Whew, did those people who voted for this disgraceful piece of human excrement (Obama), inflict upon the hard working tax payers a cruel penalty that will take an unnecessary and wasted amount of time to clean-up...
Dan Phillips| 4.26.10 @ 12:52PM
NASA is a good test of how serious supposed "conservatives" really are. Are they really serious about constitutionally limited government, or are they just looking for another issue to criticize Obama about? Do they only want to cut programs they don't like, but keep funding the ones they do like?
While a person could make a constitutional argument for a military component of a space program, space exploration for space exploration's sake is clearly not an authorized (enumerated) function of the federal government. If insurance mandates are unconstitutional on enumerated power grounds, then so is NASA. You can't be a selective constitutionalist.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.26.10 @ 1:13PM
Dan I implore you to WIKI (NASA Budget). Read it, it won't take long, just the first couple of paragraphs. Read the extrapolated budget figures between 1958 and 2009, those are low #'s for the return on expense. Imagine the wasted $'s on ObamaCare and stimulus that could be simply used to help extinguish the deficit.
Criticize Obama for bending the health care cost curve "UP", it's too easy, a requirement and you along with his sycophants should be driving that train, he duped you, but YOU just haven't figured it out yet...
Dan Phillips| 4.26.10 @ 2:19PM
"those are low #'s for the return on expense"
It doesn't matter. What matters is that the expenses are not authorized by the Constitution. So when the Feds spend money on NASA (other than legitimate defense uses) they are acting lawlessly and without authorization. If you think the Feds should spend taxpayer dollars to explore space then amend the Constitution to authorize it.
"you along with his sycophants should be driving that train"
Are you suggesting that I am an Obama sycophant? I am arguing for strictly following the Constitution and limiting the Feds to their clearly defined enumerate powers. Does that sound like a liberal Democrat to you?
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.26.10 @ 3:06PM
Following the constitution to a fault, since when? Imaginary, wishful thinking or otherwise. What are the justifications for ObamaCare? To drive the country into bankruptcy? Is that constitutional? Give me space exploration sanctioned by clear thinking congressional representatives, as opposed to healthcare, stimulus, proposed cap-n-tax, comprehensive immigration amnesty pushed by a bunch of constitution shredding, muddled thinking pseudo reps and senators any day.
Yes it sounds like an Obama bum knuzzling sycophant to me. To accuse Obama's opponents of simply looking for the next thing to oppose him on, without taking into consideration the crap he's already done and proposing to do to America, then saying the space program is somehow an expenditure too far. Yes, it sounds sycophantic and supportive to me...
Dan Phillips| 4.26.10 @ 5:59PM
Mr. MR, I am really having a hard time following you. I can't figure out if you really believe I am some sort of Obama supporting liberal or not. So I will make my position very clear. I am a conservative. As a conservative I support strictly following the Constitution as originally intended. This includes recognizing the fact that the Constitution only authorizes the Feds to perform certain specifically enumerated powers. Of those enumerated powers national defense is one. I believe a space program that was solely for the purposes of national defense could be justified constitutionally. But a space program for space exploration for space exploration's sake, or in the name of learning or progress or scientific advancement or whatever can not be. Scientific research is not an authorized function of the Feds. The only thing the Constitution says about science is with regard to patents. So the feds can give out patents to private enterprise seeking to explore space, but they can not fund it themselves.
Authentic Constitutionalist conservatives should be celebrating the cuts in NASA, not bemoaning them. Someone who considers themselves a conservative but is complaining about cuts in our unauthorized "space program" are either complaining about it just because Obama is doing it or they are not serious about their professed allegiance to constitutionalism.
Matt Morehouse| 4.27.10 @ 10:22AM
By this line of reasoning was it constitutional for Jefferson to authorize the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition?
Just asking.
Dan Phillips| 4.27.10 @ 12:55PM
Actually no the Louisiana Purchase was not constitutional. This was widely debated at the time and Jefferson pretty much conceded as much but went through with it anyway.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.27.10 @ 10:33AM
Please, complain about the things that are destroying the country, NASA is but a small drop in the bucket. Sure, voice your adherence to the constitution, but for whatever reason you don't mention programs that cost soooo much more, those programs that distort society, re-distribute your wealth, perpetuate Obama's racist intentions. Hammer those things and you and I will approach agreement... Of course I won't agree with you on Ron Paul...
Dan Phillips| 4.27.10 @ 1:13PM
Mr. MR, what is destroying this country, among other things, is a federal government run amok. We would have no credibility criticizing more costly issues if we defend unconstitutional spending in other areas. It is one thing to look the other way, so to speak, about relatively minor expenditures, but it is another thing to actually defend them. If you defend NASA then you lose all credibility as a constitutionalist.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.27.10 @ 1:30PM
DUDE!!!
I have never claimed to be a constitutionalist. You are stuck on a "one note samba" and should expand your horizons to include all the other violations to the constitution that are redistributing YOUR wealth, start there. Again, I'm not a Ron Paul fan...
Northern Rebel| 4.26.10 @ 1:01PM
Now where was I?
Oh yeah:
I've got news for you friends; all future wars will be fought from space, and the country that controls space, will rule the world.
"President Anti-Christ knows this, and thus, he must undermine our ability to protect ourselves from the countries he believes to be better than us:
Russia
China
N. Korea
Venezuela
Cuba
Iran
These countries are better in his eyes, because they embrace some form of communism, or fascism, and that is his guiding philosophy.
The fact that he would be the first one executed, does not cross his mind, nor does it occur to the hollywood elite, or dummies like Alan Brooks.
The great God Clinton started the process, when he sold guided missile secrets to China, for campaign contributions, and Basketball Jones is at the helm now, continuing to bring about the destruction of the United States of America, and freedom itself.
You see normal Americans don't deserve freedom, because we didn't go to Yale, or hob-nob with the effite elite, and discuss their own brilliance with each other. We just made the country work, and America working properly, is a threat to "President Anti-Christ".
So it must be economically, and socially destroyed, and rebuilt in Maobama's image. Hence the deliberate destruction of the American economy, and the attempt to populate our country with illegal immigrants that are not Americans. Then all he has to do is pull the plug on granny, and everyone that remembered America's greatness, and how we got there, will be gone.
He must pass illegal immigration amnesty fast, and let them vote, so he can implement the rest of his plan to destroy NASA, and our national defense, because real Americans are on to him, even the ignorant folks who thought they were voting for "change."
Now that they are broke, out of work, and losing their homes, they are starting to see what kind of change they voted for.
Derek Leaberry| 4.26.10 @ 1:17PM
A country with a structural $ 1.5 trillion dollar yearly deficit as far as the eye can see can not afford a space program. Nor can it afford subsidies to the elderly or afford to be world policeman, among other things.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.26.10 @ 1:20PM
Derek--
Don't ya mean we can't afford Barack Obeanbag...
Old Soldier| 4.26.10 @ 2:57PM
We stare out the stars and wonder if we are alone. We wonder when another race will contact Earth - or why they haven't already.
Now I wonder if they all elected socialists and quietly settled into a kind of government enforced technological atrophy.
Northern Rebel| 4.26.10 @ 3:55PM
Dan Phillips:
Right you are!
If the constitution were followed as written there would be no:
Department of Education
Department of Health &...........................
Department of ANYTHING!
There would be no right to kill babies.
There would be no racial preferences.
There would be no "special rights" for Americans, depending on what flavor they are, or how they feel about something.
There would be no Federal Reserve Bank.
There would be no campaign finance "reform", and people would be able to give whatever money belongs to them, to whomever they wished to give it to. The freedom of Information Act, would force full disclosure of these donations, information the IRS would not have, because there would be no IRS!
(The income tax is in the Constitution through Amendment, but there is no provision, that allows a department like the IRS to be created. Income taxes were meant to be of a stipend-like portion of your income, 1 or 2%.)
How's that workin' out for ya?
The perversion of the Constitution has been committed in large part, by liberals, socialists, and "progressives" since the start of the 20th century.
Conservatives, even AUTHENTIC CONSERVATIVES, have strayed over the line, Usually in the name of Business (jobs) and defense of our country, a rather important priority, some of us think.
That being said Dan, I would argue that it is in the best interests of national security for NASA to remain viable. As I said, future wars, and the rapid arrival of electronic espionage, and satellite terrorism demands that we remain far and away the most technologically superior nation on Earth. It is in the best interests of the rest of the world, that we remain strong enough to protect freedom.
Without an America that is stong enough to defend itself, including those from within, the free world is in peril, and the oppressed are hopeless.
The United States Constitution is the brick and mortar of freedom. Without it all is lost.
But, as Abraham Lincoln once said:
"We have a duty to protect, and defend, and live by the Constitution, but we have no obligation to perish because of it."
davelnaf| 4.26.10 @ 7:48PM
Obama enjoys these opportunities to stick it to what he views as the majority ‘establishment’ of the US. The Space Program is part of that, a noisome success story embedded in a larger success story called the United States of America. It is hoped by now that enough Americans have awakened to the underlying perniciousness of the Obama ‘vision.’ If they have not the manufactured decline of the US by the Obama administration will continue unabated. But evidence is accumulating that the Bamster has overreached the carnivals heights of even his narcissistic grandeur and will fall to Earth soon enough.
Troy| 4.26.10 @ 7:56PM
I am all in favor of NASA crumbling; I am quite sure that it will help space exploration. In New Mexico the company Virgin is building a spaceport. If it doesn't get destroyed by govt. regulations made for the fun of it, there will be flights going up for any reason you can imagine, tourists, research, sattelite orbital placement. NASA has, from the start, said "we will do what we think is best no matter your opinion because we think better than you do." This, to me, is the heart of the Socialist attitude. Let it go private enterprise, it is starting to work already. Eventually the government will be putting rockets up through SpaceportAmerica.
If you look at the Age of Exploration, most of the successful explorers (maybe all, I'm not sure) operated with government grants rather than as direct employees of the government. This let the governments cut off the poor performers (like Columbus) and focus their money on the more successful explorers. There's a reason we call these continents the Americas rather than the Columbias. Amerigo Vespucci was a better mapmaker; Columbus was just lucky... a lot. Let NASA fail, let the Florida space industrial workers move to New Mexico for new jobs. The weather is better suited for it anyway.
Seapuss| 4.26.10 @ 8:55PM
Being against funding for manned space exploration seems to be a peculiarly liberal-Democratic disease.
Among those suffering from this malady was William Proxmire, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin. Proxmire gave one of his famed “Golden Fleece Awards” to NASA. And asked about the prospect of someday building colonies in space, Proxmire remarked, “It’s the best argument yet for chopping NASA's funding to the bone .... I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy."
Senator William Fulbright, a Democrat from Arkansas, was also a committed foe of the Space Program. During a Senate debate over proposed funding for space exploration, Fulbright said he’d rather spend the money on America’s cities, adding, "We voted for sewers. Certainly sewers are more important than going to the moon."
One of the most vehement critics of NASA and the Space Program was the lefty space-hater, Walter Mondale, Democratic Senator from Minnesota and Vice President under Jimmy Carter. Mondale famously called NASA “a waste of money that would be better spent on welfare.” He also condemned the Space Shuttle as a "senseless extravaganza in space." In addition, while debating funding for the Space Shuttle on the Senate floor, Mondale bellowed, “I believe it would be unconscionable to embark on a project of such staggering cost when many of our citizens are malnourished, when our rivers and lakes are polluted, and when our cities and rural areas are dying. What are our values? What do we think is more important?”
More recently, Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, disclosed her bias against exploring space. Regarding the most recent debate over NASA’s budget and the future of U.S. manned space flight, Pelosi stated, "I, myself, if you are asking me personally, I have not been a big fan of manned expeditions to outer space, in terms of safety and cost.”
As for U.S. presidents, most of the supporters of NASA have been Republicans. And with the notable exceptions of JFK and LBJ, the Democrats have been largely hostile to NASA. Jimmy Carter has been described as “perhaps the least supportive of U.S. human space efforts of any president of the last half-century.” It was also very clear that space was not a high priority during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Now, Barack Obama has put America in full retreat when it comes to manned space exploration.
Yes, indeed. Elections do have consequences. How sad for America and its once-proud Space Program.
Yosemeti Sam| 4.27.10 @ 12:23AM
Um, Democrat John Glen went on a nostalgic joy
ride on one of the space Shuttles.
Where is his voice on BHOs' - world is flat - outlook
on space cum technological rewards explorations?
Curtis| 4.27.10 @ 12:37AM
So where are our liberal freinds on this topic?
Where are the environmentalists who need satellite data in order to monitor global warming? The biologists who wish to track whale migrations and ocean currents from space? The peaceful hippies who think that every commie we hug in space is one step closer to a world without warfare? the tree hugging nut jobs who believe that any day now our planet is going to up and die from too many cow farts, and we're all going to have to move to the moon or mars?
I hope BHO gave them plenty of crayons, when he told them to shut up and color.
Pingback| 4.27.10 @ 3:08AM
Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill Sundling| 4.27.10 @ 4:20PM
The Space Program has been a big waste of money for years. Manned space travel will never become cheap enough to ever be practical. Why send men further out when we can send remote vehicles? I don't know why NASA needs a budget outside of possible military uses.
barrgg| 4.27.10 @ 5:18PM
You mentioned Neil Armstrong's opinion on Obama's decision, but not Buzz Aldrin's. Why is that? Perhaps because you couldn't possibly use a micron of objectivity.
Fred James| 4.27.10 @ 6:11PM
I think we need to cut back on government spending and government control by increasing government spending and government control over THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
Sheesh! Are you right wingers brain dead?
Dan Phillips| 4.28.10 @ 12:58PM
Fred, they are not right-wingers. True right-wingers understand that NASA is an unconstitutional expenditure.
fjsdk| 7.1.10 @ 2:20AM
beijing massage
shanghai escorts