Obama cancels NASA's Constellation moon programme Watch

Saff123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 8 years ago
#81
(Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
I think that it was a long-term project which would have reaped economic rewards, created future growth industries, and allowed for the development of new technology. I believe it is short-sighted to cut this program, but only time will tell - you're right, the NASA budget is still going up. However, will that be enough to compensate for this colossal hold-up?
Which NASA project has ever covered the costs of development? I can't think of any, and I'm as keen as anyone on space exploration.

As I've said, his not entirely cut the programme. His cut out the human element which would have required a massive boost to NASA's already huge budget, for a decade (probably longer). No president would be able to look the American people in the eye with a $1.6 trillion deficit and convince them that it was the right to write NASA blank check.

Many other technologies will be developed in lieu of this, and in particular robotics will get an enormous boost from this decision. When America is able to afford to send a manned mission. Many of the technologies will have been developed and matured to aid in that manned mission, it's not like his cut it to shreds.

This wasn't an easy decision. Obama didn't do this to spite human exploration. I'm not cheering this decision, I'm disappointed but it was the right decision when you look at the state of things here on earth, especially in America 2010.
0
reply
Remarqable M
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#82
Report 8 years ago
#82
maybe obama could temporarely halt space exploration to solve the problems in the us first.
0
reply
Liptease
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 8 years ago
#83
We could send ASIMO. His cute and considerate see here>
0
reply
ChrisBan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 8 years ago
#84
(Original post by Saff123)
Which NASA project has ever covered the costs of development? I can't think of any, and I'm as keen as anyone on space exploration.

As I've said, his not entirely cut the programme. His cut out the human element which would have required a massive boost to NASA's already huge budget, for a decade (probably longer). No president would be able to look the American people in the eye with a $1.6 trillion deficit and convince them that it was the right to write NASA blank check.

Many other technologies will be developed in lieu of this, and in particular robotics will get an enormous boost from this decision. When America is able to afford to send a manned mission. Many of the technologies will have been developed and matured to aid in that manned mission, it's not like his cut it to shreds.

This wasn't an easy decision. Obama didn't do this to spite human exploration. I'm not cheering this decision, I'm disappointed but it was the right decision when you look at the state of things here on earth, especially in America 2010.
Its a shame the Republicans will do their best to block Obama getting this through
0
reply
Frieza
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 8 years ago
#85
I don't really understand how can someone still believe that the americans actually landed on the moon.
Surely you must be really naive?

They supposely did it 40 years ago, when the best processor in the world was less powerful than a nowadays £20 mobile phone. And now, even if that ****** was to finance the moon project, it would have taken 10 YEARS and a ******** of money.

With the technology now, they can't do what they did 40 years ago. Yeah, right.
0
reply
crushedfruit
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#86
Report 8 years ago
#86
Not bothered about this. Why do we need to revisit the moon? Its been done before. Send some probes out to look for life on Titan or something.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 8 years ago
#87
But...but...I wanna go see the clangers!
0
reply
Sephiroth
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#88
Report 8 years ago
#88
(Original post by Frieza)
They supposely did it 40 years ago, when the best processor in the world was less powerful than a nowadays £20 mobile phone. And now, even if that ****** was to finance the moon project, it would have taken 10 YEARS and a ******** of money.

With the technology now, they can't do what they did 40 years ago. Yeah, right.
Things aren't that simple. We don't have the rocket technology we did 40 years ago. The Saturn V is still to this day the best/most powerful rocket NASA or anyone in the world has ever produced. You may wonder why not re-use the design in a return moon trip, but the reality is most of the people who worked on the Apollo project have retired and building new Saturn Vs is easier said than done when the expertise is no longer there. Instead of spending the time on that, the goal was to build a rocket that could do it more efficiently, a progression.

Computing power is irrelevant, you just stack processors together. Your computer might have been the size of a room in the 60s that can now fit in a mobile phone but it was equally capable of the task at hand. They wouldn't try to go back to the moon using the power of a mobile phone these days however, the extra computing power available would be used for extra safety, monitoring, tracking and processing systems. You make the most of what you've got available at the time.
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#89
Report 8 years ago
#89
(Original post by Frieza)
I don't really understand how can someone still believe that the americans actually landed on the moon.
Surely you must be really naive?

They supposely did it 40 years ago, when the best processor in the world was less powerful than a nowadays £20 mobile phone. And now, even if that ****** was to finance the moon project, it would have taken 10 YEARS and a ******** of money.

With the technology now, they can't do what they did 40 years ago. Yeah, right.
You do realise that evidence for the moon landings left on the moon is scientifically observable and was confirmed at the time by the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-p..._Moon_landings

As for processing power, what does that have to do with anything? They built atom bombs in 1945 with less processing power than a 1980s digital wristwatch, they cracked German codes with a machine that was practically just a series of tubes.

Gtfo with your conspiracy nonsense.
0
reply
chidona
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#90
Report 8 years ago
#90
I hate the fact that all the news agencies picked up on this and that it got more attention than the budget proposal from which it came.

Yes, going to the moon would be ace and all, but in terms of macro efficiency with the tightening constraints due to the administration's decision to cut the deficit, splurging money on a project that was over time, over budget and largely a failure in terms of results really was not a feasible (or desirable) prospect. The line had to fall somewhere, and better here than somewhere with a more direct impact on the average American.
0
reply
Riderz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#91
Report 8 years ago
#91
(Original post by Talveer)
There is no point in going back to the moon.

Its FAR better to invest in new technologies like he is doing. People seem to forget that Nasa is a science based organisation, not an adventure company.
I agree. There was never much scientific basis for going to the moon for a second round of landings, it was just an American ego trip. Much better to invest in new technology, telescopes and the like.

As for expecting the private sector to come up with solutions, im not sure. Have we reached a stage where the private sector has enough experience to develop these things? Probably so. But space budgets are such a fickle thing that I cant see any company wanting to invest however many billion dollars only for the next president in 10 years or so to change funding or say that we dont need it any more. Also your going to get a rocket which is designed to be mulitpurpose and not focused enough for NASAs requirements, because the company will spread the cost over launching other things as well. On the other hand, the aero industry is all private and that seems to work......
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 8 years ago
#92
Sounds like a fecking waste of money to me. Let the private sector do it. Good for Obama.
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 8 years ago
#93
(Original post by A is for Awesome)
they cracked German codes with a machine that was practically just a series of tubes.
The internet?
0
reply
Jingers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#94
Report 8 years ago
#94
There's more important things than going into space - obviously bar things like threats to earth and ting.
0
reply
pinkpenguin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 8 years ago
#95
Disappointing, yes, but it's not affordable. :dontknow:
0
reply
David.Williamz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 8 years ago
#96
(Original post by Pocket Calculator)
a time will soon come when we are no longer capable of putting people into space at all.
Interested to know why :O
0
reply
hypocriticaljap
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 8 years ago
#97
Absolutely no future in manned space flight. The US will return however as soon as China look as if they're going to get there. Military need always pushes tech spending. The true future in space exploration is robotics and space seeding.
0
reply
Blátönn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 8 years ago
#98
(Original post by khalaf)
He's not called "Mr Obama". Who the **** calls him Mr.Obama??! What a bunch of idiots, he's Mr President or President Obama :mad:
He has a doctorate so it should be "Dr. Obama" anyway; double fail for the BBC. Also, he isn't out president so why should we call him Mr President?
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 8 years ago
#99
(Original post by burningnun)
The internet?
:yep: Yep, I believe they just used google.
0
reply
khalaf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#100
Report 8 years ago
#100
(Original post by Blátönn)
He has a doctorate so it should be "Dr. Obama" anyway; double fail for the BBC. Also, he isn't out president so why should we call him Mr President?
I don't care what he's called exactly but it should contain President or some kind of appropriate title, anything but Mr.Obama :rant:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.57%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (227)
40.75%
Nope, not that interesting (221)
39.68%

Watched Threads

View All