Community | March 11, 2010 | 68 comments

Obama to Nasa: No Space For You!

Image
diode
read it. instead of science and exploration, obama wants to focus on commercial space flight. sweet, something to make the super rich richer, and robbing us of scientific exploration. oh and it'd lose 70,000-100,000 jobs. great job again obama

WASHINGTON, March 10 - U.S. President Barack Obama is trying to tamp down an uprising in politically vital Florida against a new strategy for NASA that has rankled space veterans and lawmakers and sparked fears of job losses.

Obama's decision to kill NASA's Constellation program to launch astronauts into orbit and return Americans to the moon has prompted soul-searching on whether the United States is prepared to cede a pre-eminent space role to Russia and China.

"As with all great human achievements, our commitment to space must be renewed and encouraged or we will surely be surpassed by other nations who are presently challenging our leadership in space," Democratic and Republican members of the U.S. Congress from Florida wrote to Obama last week.

Obama's move for a greater private sector role in space launches -- as he seeks to keep ballooning federal deficits in check -- has generated fears of job losses among thousands of NASA employees who provide an important economic base in Florida, a state usually crucial in presidential elections.

Employees at major space complexes in Alabama and Texas are also worried.

It is making for a potentially explosive environment when Obama travels to the Cape Canaveral area on April 15 to host a space conference with top officials and leaders in the field.

"What reception will they get? Not good," said Keith Cowing, editor of nasawatch.com, a website that closely monitors the U.S. space agency. "It's a gutsy move. It's Daniel in the Lion's Den."

Obama, in his Feb. 1 budget proposal, planned to increase NASA's overall funding to $19 billion in 2011 with an emphasis on science and less spent on space exploration.

He would cancel the Constellation program's Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets, after $9 billion and five years of tests. Constellation is aimed at returning astronauts to the moon in the 2020s to clear the way for a Mars mission.

Instead, Obama would spend $6 billion a year for five years to support commercial spacecraft development and pursue new technologies to explore the solar system in what the White House called "a more effective and affordable way."

LARGER ISSUE

Various members of the far-flung U.S. space community have been troubled by the change, such as former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, who struggled to get more funding for Constellation from the previous administration of President George W. Bush and believes Obama should stick with it.

"There's a larger issue here," Griffin said. "Does the United States want to have a real space program? Do we actually think we can have a robust, exciting, world-leading space program by hiring private enterprise to furnish it?"

But John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, said he believed it was time for the private sector to get more involved in space.

"There's no reason to think that the technical talent in the private sector, combined with a significant degree of NASA engagement, cannot come up with a good solution," he said.

The debate to some extent has riven the space community. Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, supports the change in direction while Harrison Schmitt, one of the last on the lunar surface, opposes it.

NASA already has contracts with Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences Corp to deliver cargo to the International Space Station. SpaceX and other firms are developing spaceships that can carry passengers to orbit and back.

The shuttle system still has four more flights to get crews and hardware to the International Space Station before the craft are retired. After that, NASA will be without a heavy-lift capability for a period of time.

This means Americans would have to pay to ride on Russian rockets to get into orbit, a stark turn of events after the pivotal battle the United States and the Soviet Union fought to outdo each other in the space race.

To maintain a lift capability, Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson wants the administration to add one shuttle flight and develop the Ares rockets that are part of the Constellation program.

Ultimately, Nelson believes Obama needs to give the United States a goal for its space program and hopes it will be a mission to Mars. (Additional reporting by Irene Klotz; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
  1. groups:
    Community,   Space,   Weird Science
  2. tags:
    News Obama Science Space 1 more
  3.     
    |

68 comments // Obama to Nasa: No Space For You!

  • crystalman
  • Amber_Taylor
    • 0
      Amber_Taylor  
    • If you want to spend more gov. money on NASA we need to bring the Military portion of the budget down. Almost 50% of your taxes go to r&d like Lockheed to make super weapons.

    • 1 year ago
  • cclark_productions
  • janellsonfire
  • earthmann
    • +2
      earthmann  
    • Has anyone here seen the Constellation program? It's a sad. little joke. It's a revival of 1950's style space exploration. If you weren't embarrassed by the future of America's space program it's because you weren't paying attention, which is totally cool, I mean who reads Popular Mechanics anyway.

      Killing that program and redirecting the funds back to R&D at least gives us a shot for a world-class vehicle.
      Also, note, Obama increased funding into space exploration, not killed it. But either way, saving jobs in Florida is not what should determine the direction of the space program.

      -Johnny Lewis

    • 1 year ago
  • nicsansone
    • 0
      nicsansone  
    • Privatizing Space exploration... Ive seen this show. It was canceled. Defying Gravity.. Media driven space exploration, reality shows in space..

    • 1 year ago
  • srg
    • -3
      srg  
    • Okay. You people have got to stop being shocked when he gives laptops & island homes to al quaeda - dive bombs manhattan at ground zero w/his jumbo jet- stoping space exp. and losing 100,000 jobs so his cronies can get rich-er.

      This dark angry muslim believes he is mohammeds Punisher of whites, jews and America in general. His wife has told you, his pastor. his friends like black nazi van jones ("No black kid neva did no columbined"). His view of america is dark and twisted and he full intends to tear it down. Everything he does that hurts us, is NOT because he is so stupid he doesnt realize it. It's because he DOES.

      btw Mr. Jones...I guess you fogits about john boyd malvo. a black teen thug that crawled into the trunk of a car and slaughtered 10 people in d.c. area. Nevermind the 1000's murdered by teen bloods crypts & countless other gang bangas. But...like your buddy hussien obama...you black nazi's have a talent for seeing what you WANT to see and not much else.

      Me. Unlike michele hussien obama I HAVEN'T been ashamed of america all my adult life. I see the tremendous humanitarian relief coming out of white america for black nations like haiti and brown ones like chile ...china India/ bangaladesh- wheat to starving russia.

      Obama stated "Well, you know...the American flag is a symbol of repression in many parts of the world".
      right. we're repressing the livin crap out the haitians & the people of chile. how bout that su-nami few yrs. back there barack? without white american tax dollars, and white american private donations they would have ceased to exist. That American Flag has helped millions more than it has prepressed. If you are afraid or ashamed to wear that pin on your lapel...there is something seriously wrong with you. maladjusted & racist

      You see us as all bad all the time. My children...all soldiers...are NOT enemies of the state in spite of this admin. memos and opinions. I am PROUD of thier serivce in afghanistan & iraq and for the record...They tell me they WERE NOT air raiding villages and murdering innocent women & children. Personally, I believe my children over you.

      I am PROUD of this Nation. I am PROUD to be white. I thought with this last election you would see something good in us. something other than the hate filled rat-poison racisim of malcolm x. But...it's worse now than before. YOU are ever more the racists. What a shame. What a wasted oportunity to change our world.

    • 1 year ago
  • natfern
    • +1
      natfern  
    • srg:

      This is a very racist and inaccurate comment. How do you expect anyone to even respect your opinion if you have erroneous "facts", bad grammar, and horrible spelling?

      Firstly, who established Obama as the "Punisher of whites, jews, and America"? As I recall, he won by a landslide and was voted for in predominantly republican areas of our nation. Obama has never said or implied his view of America is "dark and twisted" or stated intentions of "[tearing] it down". America needed a change--the world's view of our political decisions (and presidential choices) were exceptionally negative. His election provided us with an opportunity to change this. But regardless, what bothered me most about this comment (although all of this pissed me off), is the fact that you're pretty blind to the fact that in most places in the world, America IS a symbol of repression in many parts of the world.

      We've invaded and conquered a plethora of "third world" countries and completely molded their cultures to mirror our own or we've instated our people in their politics in order to make sure they move towards a more America-like route. This is not to say we have not provided aid to places such as Haiti. But if you're going to look at America--look objectively. Rose-colored glasses only make you seem inept at taking in both the good and the bad of the world around you.

      The released memos do not condemn our soldiers. The memos state that torture occurred. It didn't say all soldiers were guilty of this and no one is implying that the duty our soldiers has to protect our nation is any less revered because of these memos. Regardless, we have an obligation NOT to torture enemy soldiers. After WWII, the United States prosecuted Japanese interrogators for water-boarding (among other things) so it is unfair to engage in the same behavior without expecting consequences.

      I am proud of our nation. I believe that we have potential to become an even greater and more accepting nation than we currently are--there is always room to better ourselves. And hopefully, people will open their minds and be more receptive of the world around them so that we can all change the world.

    • 1 year ago
  • Lurkistan
    • 0
      Lurkistan  
    • It says he's actually increasing NASA's budget for 2011, so there shouldn't be less jobs there should be more, just in different areas. The private companies who gain government contracts will have to hire more people too. Its certainly a gamble but it might pay off big time if the private sector gets more involved with space exploration. Just look at how fast other areas of technology are advancing with private companies at the helm

    • 1 year ago
  • theodor
  • mr_tibbles
    • 0
      mr_tibbles  
    • They're right about the job loss. My father has been an employee for Lockheed Martin for the past 28 years, and three weeks ago he was told that everyone in his department would be laid off by June.

    • 1 year ago
  • Lurkistan
  • thedirtman
    • 0
      thedirtman  
    • Lurkistan:

      I worked for Lockheed (before Lockheed-Martin) and my department was closed in 1993. Contracting and subcontracting is clear and frequent. NASA has a big shop in next to Lockheed-Martin in Sunnyvale California.

      The department closures are a way of boosting stock prices. When investors hear layoffs and downsizing is occurring they come clamoring to invest.

    • 1 year ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • The title of the article was kinda misleading... He isnt ending NASA just our next mission to the moon. Well that and hes canceling the Ares rocket program and funneling more money to research than exploration. Not a bad move.

    • 1 year ago
  • John_Dugan
    • -2
      John_Dugan  
    • Yes lets spend all our energy on not finding a way for humans to travel to other planets and live in space, lets spend it all down here on the ground.

      Of course when the ground under our feet gets blown to bits by an asteroid, and the human races is wiped out we might have wished we spent that less than 1% of our budget on manned missions to space, it would have only taken a tiny fraction of the trillions given to banks and GM to have saved the human race.

      Is it doom and gloom to think about this possibility, no I dont think so, we know that this can happen, has happened and could happen at anytime, how do we know this? Well it was space science that showed us that its not as safe as we with our tiny lifespans might think out here in space, oh yeah we do live in space on a huge spaceship and are all astronauts, so maybe we should build a few lifeboats just in case some huge iceberg of a comet comes along, oh thats right we dont need to have enough lifeboats on our "ship" its indestructable, hmmm that sounds familiar.....

      But then maybe we shouldnt have "wasted" money on the space science that has shown us the risks out here in space, that way we could just blissfully live our daily lives squabbling away as usual and then without warning ...SPLAT... Maybe that is better.

      Btw the number of scientists that are funded to find threats and give us an early warning are fewer than the crew at your local fast food joint. And the funding is like a paltry million, and can they find every threat in time? No they are undermanned and underfunded......

      So yes go on humanity dont wast any money on space and lets spend it all down here giving trillions to failing banks and auto makers that are failing because of greedy stupid practices.......

      Yes I do like the idea of a "private" space program if I had the $'s I'd build a few space ark colony ships and only let on board the smartest kids on earth (an IQ test would be required) and head out on a magnificent voyage of discovery and when the day comes .. oops... we can watch the fireworks on earth from our viewscreen.... :-)

    • 1 year ago
  • diode
  • thedirtman
    • 0
      thedirtman  
    • John_Dugan:

      I hear you. Bolides and comets from space are a real risk that people just accept without thinking. Yet, it isn't that difficult to solve. When it comes to saving themselves people won't give one dollar. People don't live through extinction events, so even if they do happen there isn't anyone around to remember. Extinction events are only something people hear about from some guy on Current that gets a down arrow. People want to hear about hate and war and buy fighter jets because that is the only thing America does well anymore. People are more offended by someone speaking Chinese than a bolide that would wipe out a major city and cause prices of food to rise 50 percent at the store.

      Each person in America runs about the same risk of dying from a cosmic collision as they do being electrocuted in their home, or drowning in a swimming pool, or flying in an airplane. I see no pools left unfenced. Every electrical item is carefully constructed with three prongs, and everyone worries about every little thing that could happen in an airplane.

      People imagine that there is this big government that takes care of every little thing. I live near Lake Powell and Glen Canyon dam. In this area the soil is made of non-cohesive sand and silt that easily erodes. Riverbanks can destabilize during overgrazing and cause the lake to fill with sand. One day the lake will be completely filled and the clean energy from Glen Canyon dam will become non-existent. You might think we would employ a few people to extend the life and of the lake and the dam a number of years since that energy is so important to us. Yet, how many people does our big government employ for this purpose? Take a guess.

      Zero. That's how big our big government really is.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  
    • John_Dugan:

      I can't say I agree. Frankly, the human race has soiled it's own nest. Given that we haven't managed to control ourselves in way at all i.e socially, environmentally, spiritually, economically, I see no reason to spread that kind of nonsense to nearby planets or star systems. When we learn to cooperate and control ourselves, planetary travel will be the next, logical step ahead for man.

      As far as an asteroid hit, we've lived with that threat for as long as we've been on the planet. Not saying it's not going to happen but we all die. Whether from disease, old age or asteroid strike it matters not, dead is dead.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
    • -1
      telcod  
    • Yeah, I know Oprah gets wet every time she hears Obama's voice or name being uttered, but get really real. Did you thing the feel good guy was going to not rape your country like the Bush's and Clinton (and Gore)? Think again and look at who is playing in his white house. The operative word is think.

      And why are we in Iraq at a cost of 600,000+ people? Expect some big surprises and watch the small print. I didn't think I could despise anyone more than Clinton and Bush. I must now reconsider. Obama is in a whole new league.

    • 1 year ago
  • Daimyo
    • 0
      Daimyo  
    • telcod:

      Im pretty sure no one can top bush. If you remember, his last couple years as pres. he sent more troops in Iraq to supposedly get our troops out safely. That was a big fat lie and we still have those troops there. Now hopefully Obama pulls out all together but im sure at that point people will call him a coward, or if another terrorist attack arises, he'll be blamed for pulling out. So its a lose lose no matter what. As for space exploration. I rather be able to fly to london from hawaii in 2 hours then hear how we found water on mars and we can populate it in the year 3050 when we are all dead. If we get space travel down now. In 20 odd years with new technologies, it'll most likely be as cheap as flights are now. And Flights now will be dirt cheap so everyone wins. Sounds smart to me.

    • 1 year ago
  • diode
  • Saladin
  • diode
  • thedirtman
    • -1
      thedirtman  
    • Ten thousand robots can travel space at the price as one human being. Now that's cost savings.

      When it comes to private industry launching space ships it will never happen in America. Private industry would hire Iranian people to build them before they would hire Americans. Obama could have said manned space flight is over in America and it would mean the same.

    • 1 year ago
  • courage
    • -2
      courage  
    • Thanks again for the hope and change every one who voted for obama should be ashamed.We are in the infancy of space exploration there are elements out there we wont find here there are discoveries that will fundamentally change our understanding of the universe instead we dump more money on the poor who remain poor but continue to get money dumped on them so they can be more comfortable in there poverty the poor have always been here they will always be here the future calls out and obama spits in its face.

    • 1 year ago
  • RaceBannon
  • telcod
    • -1
      telcod  
    • RaceBannon:

      It is about class warfare you moron. And I do not get a Woodie over Obama as you do. Get it straight or welcome to prison sex america.. Who's wife you gonna be today?

    • 1 year ago
  • RoBot_rOcKer
    • -1
      RoBot_rOcKer  
    • honestly i dont know why we care so much about space that we waste even a penny on it. logically what are we going to gain from all this. why don't we focus on the rock we are on before we focus on a rock that billions of miles away. It is not like we are ever going to invent "hyperdrives" or whatever and start traveling the universe and settleing other planets. as Spock would say it is illogical. Im just saying why don't we focus on our planet for a change. sometimes i think our imaginations get the best of us.

    • 1 year ago
  • RaceBannon
    • +2
      RaceBannon  
    • privatizing science is what got us mosanto. I don't even want to imagine the horrors of corporate space faring...

      The role of scientific discovery is and was not meant to be a way to make money, its for the sole purpose of discovering the truth about our universe. Nasa isn't a business, and if america wants to cut something cut the military and send all the troops to learn physics and engineering, that'll actually benefit society. I could care less about the profitability of something so enriching and beneficial, I doubt people even know the tech that came from nasa research that we use everyday.. Ahh its irritating, but I mustn't let my emotions permeate through in regards to this matter its more of a common sense thing.
      We already bastardized our universities with no kid wanting to have a true education and pursues pseudo sciences like say economics or business so they can make money.

      Socrates must be rolling in his grave, well or face-palming with zeus : /

    • 1 year ago
  • Lurkistan
    • 0
      Lurkistan  
    • RaceBannon:

      Was your computer developed and built by a government entity? I get where your coming from, but a balance of private and public usually works the best, which is what obama's plan is all about, NASA's funding has actually INCREASED for next year. Monsanto is a good example of that balance being tipped too far in the corporate direction.

    • 1 year ago
  • PigFarmington
  • crispyfritters
    • +6
      crispyfritters  
    • Your argument is only half true. Back in the early days of the railroads, only the rich, or large transportation companies were able to use the railroads. As the railroads began to expand, however, a ticket was cheap enough for most people to afford one. The same is true of airplanes. For a long time, only the rich were able to afford to fly to places. Now, almost anyone can afford to get somewhere by flying (albeit while passing through ridiculous airport security)

      Up until recently, spaceflight has been something that only massive government bodies such as NASA have been able to achieve. This is beginning to change, and although only the rich can afford to get into space as we speak, as space travel becomes more profitable, as technology evolves, and as competition for space-flight grows, there will eventually be incentive for people to spend money on expanding space exploration -- ie. profit.

      NASA is a giant funding black hole. While they are very good at doing science, their stated objective -- that is, to get us all into space -- requires billions upon billions (sorry, Carl Sagan) of dollars for minuscule returns in thirty or so years. Obama's plan to fund commercial spaceflight is something that we should have been doing for decades, and it's the only thing that's going to result in average people being able to buy tickets to Mars within our lifetimes.

    • 1 year ago
  • crispyfritters
    • +1
      crispyfritters  
    • crispyfritters:

      It's also worth noting that, while NASA may suffer haemorrhaging as a result of an expansion of commercial spaceflight -- private bodies such as Scaled Composites will in turn develop a greater demand for engineers and scientists -- thus offsetting the loss of jobs caused by NASA's downsizing.

    • 1 year ago
  • ehtx1
    • 0
      ehtx1  
    • I think this is actually a good thing. NASA should never be apart of a government agency. Thats what has been holding it back all these years. NASA needs to be a private, independent organization so it can raise it's own money for exploration of space, science, and research.
      NASA could actually put pattons on some of the inventions it creates and make a ton of money for itself. It's time NASA starts to grow on its own and stop using the government as a crutch. Space travel is not limited to just the United States. It should be a gift for all of mankind.
      NASA would be twice as big and have alot more funds if it would combine with all of the contract busineses it works with. Maybe in the future NASA could even join with the ESA (Europe) and Japan Space Agency. That would be awesome for free democractic countires. Russia & China would be no match.

    • 1 year ago
  • livejelly
    • 0
      livejelly  
    • I think that funding can be used to improve earth's situations first.
      Every industry face job loss.(the workers will get unemployment right?) Is it the right decision for that funding to go to commercial space flights? No. It should be invested in regular flying-safety etc.
      because that's what the majority of the people are using.
      NASA definitely have contributed to many advancements, but there is no improvement here on earth for majority of the people. There needs to
      be a balance where eartlhy conditions are improved as well.

      Space programs have gone through trial & error periods like any industry.
      We have even put garbage in space.
      Also why cannot we improve our conditions here --should we keep destryoing our planet because we can get out to go to space and to another planet? and will we destroy that too? people have to change, what is good of going to Mars,
      if we are going to take the same wars, fights, greed, human nature with us?
      We have to get better first and take care of the planet we have. It seems to me
      like lot of "sky is falling people" have gotten their way for too long and kept
      resources from those who need it to survive.

      It is good to keep an alternative space in mind, but money going toward research possibilities, instead of what
      could help improve conditions and implement actions now and save humanity
      seems pretty selfish.

      So if the governement is not taking all the funding from NASA it should not be a problem, they just have to cut back on somethings like everyone else.

    • 1 year ago
  • ChunkyCheezes
    • +2
      ChunkyCheezes [removed]  
    • Obama is spot on with one. The whole idea of going to space to put flag in the soil of the moon is silly to begin with and not really an accomplishment because no ones lives were made better by it.

      Now the situation on earth calls for the money to spent on projecst within the stratosphere.

    • 1 year ago
  • ChunkyCheezes
  • keithponder
  • rodstradamus
  • diode
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • rodstradamus:

      We used Nazi scientists following WW2 since they literally invented rocket technology and advanced it far beyond what any of the allies were able to accomplish. The Russians gobbled up whatever Nazi scientists and technology they could get their hands on too. The MiG fighter that they flew in the Korean conflict was a reverse engineered Nazi plane they nabbed after taking control of Eastern Europe.

      Oppenheimer wasnt a Nazi... he was left-leaning and practically a socialist. Not to mention he regretted his decision to build the bomb until the day he died. You are correct about the Bush family though.. they had strong ties to the Nazis before and even during the war up until the point when the US entered the war in 1941. In fact Bush's Grandfather was vocally anti-intervention in WW2.

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • +3
      GodsnLiberals  
    • I cant believe im saying this but this is a brilliant move from obama..the way to really let this thing take off is make it commercialized..

    • 1 year ago
  • diode
    • 0
      diode  
    • with the way things are looking down here, we're definitely going to be moving off planet eventually. and like dugan says, i'd rather be there before our world blows up than after

    • 1 year ago
  • John_Dugan
    • 0
      John_Dugan  
    • There are two basic argument points here:

      1. the Chinese have openly stated they plan to build a military base on the moon, and their space program is well on the way to achieving this.

      2. if humanity is faced with an extinction level event in the near future do we want to be in a position to be able to spread mankind away from earth and out into space or shall we just become extinct due to short sightedness and everything we ever accomplished, fought for will all be for naught?

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • John_Dugan:

      Well, your point #1 solves your point #2.

      If there is an "extinction level event", then the Chinese and Russians may survive, thus humanity will survive.

      But frankly, that's not a realistic scenario anyway- we would need a LOT more technological advancement before a colony on the Moon or Mars could be completely self sustaining, so why not let China and Russia do the grunt work?

      We can launch much later, when Corporate America is ready to build a Moon Hilton, a Hard Rock Moon and a Disney Moon Theme Park.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
    • 0
      thedirtman  
    • John_Dugan:

      If there were an extinction event there is much that could be done on Earth to survive the fallout. For example, crops could be engineered to grow in colder climates. Seeds could be freeze dried and stored until needed.

      But mankind is not taking the simplest measures to survive even a mild catastrophe.

    • 1 year ago
  • Future_America
  • jaystyx
    • +1
      jaystyx  
    • How does this affect any future missions to Mars? Landing on Mars is a distant goal that no space agency is capable of doing at this time. Anyone who believes that China and Russia are now in position to put a man on Mars first is mistaken.

      By the way. A Mars mission may even be a collaborative effort between many space agencies, like the international space station.

    • 1 year ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • jaystyx:

      "A Mars mission may even be a collaborative effort between many space agencies, like the international space station."

      Now theres an idea. International cooperation would achieve so much more so much quicker.

    • 1 year ago
  • diode
    • 0
      diode  
    • people don't understand how much NASA does, and how much of that is applied to our daily lives. not to mention we'll be living in space soon enough, i'd rather not be behind in space exploration

    • 1 year ago
  • Eternalposer
    • +3
      Eternalposer  
    • "Obama, in his Feb. 1 budget proposal, planned to increase NASA's overall funding to $19 billion in 2011 with an emphasis on science and less spent on space exploration."

      It's not like Obama is hurting NASA. He is increasing their funding and canceling a program that wouldn't have gotten us much more than the rights to say we were on Mars first. He is simply asking NASA to focus on further developing the technology they have in order to make it cheaper and more efficient. We are overextending ourselves on earth, we don't need to do it in space too.

    • 1 year ago
  • ChunkyCheezes
  • Alex_French
  • Andrew_Douglas
    • -1
      Andrew_Douglas  
    • I kinda agree with both sides on this.

      I disagree with ending NASA's space exploration programs...but free enterprise in space is a good idea. Technology evolves that much faster when a whole buncha people are brainstorming ideas.

    • 1 year ago
  • onemalefla
  • Thhines
  • iloveflynn
  • onemalefla
  • GodsnLiberals
  • indecisiveh
    • 0
      indecisiveh  
    • onemalefla:

      Wow you're right, here I am typing on my NASA keyboard in a House built by NASA and I didn't even realize. I should have known from my NASA brand athletic shoes or my NASA insurance provider the get's me the NASA medical services when I get sick from the NASA chemicals in my water supply.

    • 1 year ago
  • soulhakr
    • 0
      soulhakr  
    • onemalefla:

      Your statements imply you haven't quite understood the whole article - that's okay, the editor didn't either. They're not ending the Space Program. In fact NASA's funding was increased. The previous administration commissioned NASA with an expensive long-term project in addition to what they were already working on... and then cut NASA's funding considerably. The current administration is canceling that project (we don't need it right now) increasing NASA's funding, and telling them to delegate and outsource their work so that they can accomplish what they're supposed to.

    • 1 year ago
  • Thhines
  • courage
    • -2
      courage  
    • onemalefla:

      yea but what did it give the poor says the democrat if you told them it would reduce global warming if we moved to the asteroid belt they might be open minded and future seeking

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • schobiz
    • +1
      schobiz  
    • We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our own oceans. Want to know more about the universe? Let's try putting an equal amount of resource into exploring where we actually came from.

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • freshfish
    • +1
      freshfish  
    • good tell me WHAT has NASA done lately for mankind? Besides making an oversize research hotel in space.
      How bout a couple of Earth monitoring Satellites that are publicly accessible.
      You know some of us still live on this planet..

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
more from Community:

top videos