The US space program in decline?

[LaMont Cranston]

Coito ergo sum, I see you've run into my old friend Surendra. How about we invite him to play The God Game?

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, Long time no see. No doubt you were licking your wounds from the last time I cut you to pieces. I've been spending some time with some old friends, Connie Lingus and Phil Latio. Some of us figure you've been cozying up to your old buddy, Colin Oscopy...or maybe you're still "holding your own."

Anyway, you can consider this a friendly invite to join us on a little something called The God Game...

[Coito ergo sum]

6,000 NASA jobs on the line

By Hayley Kappes
The Daily News
Published April 9, 2010

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER — Between 4,000 and 6,000 contractors who work for NASA’s shuttle and Constellation programs at Johnson Space Center will lose their jobs if Congress approves President Barack Obama’s proposed budget plan to kill the program, Director Michael Coats said.

http://www.galvnews.com/story/154715

Wouldn't real "economic stimulus" involve INCREASING our industries? And, wouldn't the space industry be a good way to do that?

I can't believe anybody supports this toolbag anymore. W....T.....F?

[Coito ergo sum]

23,000 now expected to lose jobs after shuttle retirement
BY RICK NEALE
FLORIDA TODAY
February 26, 2010
…Revised projections now show that about 23,000 workers at and around Kennedy Space Center will lose their jobs because of the shuttles’ retirement and the new proposal to cancel the development of new rockets and spacecraft.
That sum includes 9,000 “direct” space jobs and — conservatively speaking — 14,000 “indirect” jobs at hotels, restaurants, retail stores and others that depend on activity at the space center, said Lisa Rice, Brevard Workforce president.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/02/27/ ... rida-jobs/

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama Killing the Space Program?
Former astronaut Neil Armstrong has issued a strongly worded rebuke of President Barack Obama, criticizing the president for proposed revisions to the U.S.' space program.

Armstrong, along with astronauts James Lovell and Eugene Cernan, called the proposal “devastating” in a letter obtained by NBC News. Read below for the full text:

"The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years," the letter begins."Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration. ...

"When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

"Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

"America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

"It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

http://milwaukeelive.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ogram.html

The Obama space program is shortsighted, ineffective, and stupid. Just cancel the whole thing, and forget about it.

[mistermack]

The title of this thread misses the point really. It's the US that is in decline, and the space program is just a symptom. Where americans get this idea of world leadership escapes me. That's been in decline since the second ww, and no space program will resurrect that.

I personally am a bit sad that we're not getting together and going for it a bit more, not for the human race, but for every species. Spread humans round the Galaxy a bit, and we might appreciate our home planet a bit more, and make a genuine effort to keep what's left.

I think the next big push will be from joint ventures, with China and India being the driving forces.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

The title of this thread misses the point really. It's the US that is in decline, and the space program is just a symptom. Where americans get this idea of world leadership escapes me. That's been in decline since the second ww, and no space program will resurrect that.

US world leadership didn't really begin until after World War 2. Before World War 2 our military was tiny and ill-equipped, and we tended toward isolationism, and a belief that the problems of Europe and Asia were not our problem. In the 1950s and 1960s, the US was dominant and the Americans were far and away ahead of the rest of the world in technology, standard of living, industry, economy, etc.

What is causing the US decline is our modern aversion to industry and manufacturing. We are actively driving heavy industry out of the US, and shutting down mining and natural resource development. Manufacturing is disappearing, and we are leaving ourselves with tourism, accounting, law and other paper pushing industries. That can only last in the short term.

What the space program can do is be a part of a large re-industrialization of the US. If you want to enact a "stimulus" program then the space program is a great way to spend the money. Why? (1) It can be a long term goal, over decades and even a century, (2) it requires high technology, low technology, support industries, natural resources, energy, and many other basic aspects of an economy in order to function, (3) it provides opportunity for scientists, engineers, and other highly educated people to use their know-how, and to develop new technologies, (4) we get many spinoffs from the space industry as a result.

I think the next big push will be from joint ventures, with China and India being the driving forces.
.

Maybe, but people tend to minimize and discount the US accomplishments, which have been many, and overstate the Chinese and Indian accomplishments, which have been few-to-none.

THAT is why the time is NOW for the US. We ARE ahead of them. If we want to remain the leader of the space industry, then we need to move forward now and not wait for these folks to catch up. When they catch up, and can do things on their own without us, they won't wait for us. They'll keep going.

[mistermack]

You seem to equate world leadership with military might, which is sad, but typically american.
The rest of the world is judging you by what you do with it, and that hasn't been so impressive.

Your imagined technology benefits are tiny, compared to the required investment.
US taxpayers are already hugely in debt, but you are happy to borrow even more from your kids, on a very doubtful bet.
My advice is, when you're heavily in debt, stay away from gambling.
.

[Clinton Huxley]

The US will go to Mars, if China lends them the money....

[Coito ergo sum]

You seem to equate world leadership with military might, which is sad, but typically american.

No, I did not equate leadership with military might. I equated it with standard of living, economy, industry, etc. Prior to World War 2, the US was not the "superpower" that it became. In 1910-20, about 80% of the US population lived on farms.

The rest of the world is judging you by what you do with it, and that hasn't been so impressive.

Actually, to anyone who knows any history at all, the US has done far more good with it and been more successful at it than most of the "rest of the world." I love how you credit the "rest of the world" with the moral authority to "judge" what the US does. Which countries are these moral authorities?

Your imagined technology benefits are tiny, compared to the required investment.

That's plainly false. The technology benefits of the space program so far have been massive, and worth every penny.

US taxpayers are already hugely in debt, but you are happy to borrow even more from your kids, on a very doubtful bet.

Me? No. I said that IF - IF - IF - you ware going to spend "stimulus money," then the space program is a fantastic use of that money. Surely, you can distinguish the difference between what I said, and how you mischaracterized it.

My advice is, when you're heavily in debt, stay away from gambling.
.

I agree, which is why investing in AN ACTUAL INDUSTRY is far better than flushing it down the toilet on useless programs, turtle crossings, ATV trails, sending out coupons to people for HDTVs, dumping millions into airports that service 20 people a month, paying money to non-existent towns for made up programs, paying the ongoing bills of municipal governments, or paying people not to work. Doing something that builds something, that creates something, and that develops something, is a far better use than what much of the "stimulus" money has been spent on so far.

[Coito ergo sum]

The US will go to Mars, if China lends them the money....

Or, if we have the will to do it. We have the people. We have the technology. We just do not have a populace that understands the value of going to Mars. On both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, scientific ignorance is prevalent.

[Clinton Huxley]

The US will go to Mars, if China lends them the money....

Or, if we have the will to do it. We have the people. We have the technology. We just do not have a populace that understands the value of going to Mars. On both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, scientific ignorance is prevalent.

It's money......just money. Interestingly, the fourth largest item of US expenditure, after defence, social security and medicare, is interest on the national debt. That's about $190 Billion a year or ten times NASA's budget....
I reckon to get to Mars, you need to scale back the military and withdraw from Imperial commitments.

I saw an argument once that the UK would be in a much stronger position now if it had withdrawn from Empire in the 1880s - around about then the cost of protecting the damn thing began to be more than the value received from it....can't remember where I read that though......

[Coito ergo sum]

The US will go to Mars, if China lends them the money....

Or, if we have the will to do it. We have the people. We have the technology. We just do not have a populace that understands the value of going to Mars. On both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, scientific ignorance is prevalent.

It's money......just money.

No it isn't, as the continued flushing down the toilet of far more money than NASA gets. If we can borrow money to build ATV trails and refurbish empty airports, and send money to fake towns and cities, then we can (a) stop those things, and (b) give the money to NASA.

Interestingly, the fourth largest item of US expenditure, after defence, social security and medicare, is interest on the national debt. That's about $190 Billion a year or ten times NASA's budget....

Soon to be the largest item in the budget, if our current economic policy continues.

I reckon to get to Mars, you need to scale back the military and withdraw from Imperial commitments.

We don't have "imperial" commitments. But, it would be nice to scale back the military. Would that we could eliminate it altogether. That would be a great day.

I saw an argument once that the UK would be in a much stronger position now if it had withdrawn from Empire in the 1880s - around about then the cost of protecting the damn thing began to be more than the value received from it....can't remember where I read that though......

Yeah, but we don't have a colonial empire like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands all had. And, the world is much smaller now. Unfortunately, isolationism is not an option.

[mistermack]

No, I did not equate leadership with military might.

US world leadership didn't really begin until after World War 2. Before World War 2 our military was tiny and ill-equipped

You seem to forget what you write as quickly as you write it.

What is causing the US decline is our modern aversion to industry and manufacturing.

Capital will happily invest where there is a profit to be made. Many of your big industries are losing money, because they can't compete with china and india. They make money on the same products american companies would make a loss on.
You seem to think it's a policy. It's not, it's good old capitalism.

Actually, to anyone who knows any history at all, the US has done far more good with it and been more successful at it than most of the "rest of the world." I love how you credit the "rest of the world" with the moral authority to "judge" what the US does. Which countries are these moral authorities

I think I must have missed all that 'good' that the US has done with it's military. I did notice Vietnam though, and how the US stole Palestine from it's inhabitants, and Afghanistan. Or is this the 'good' that you meant? It doesn't seem to be going too well.

Nobody referred to moral authority but you. But everybody is entitled to an opinion, that's what "judge" means. And if you talk about world leadership, then world opinion is entirely relevant.
And the US has never stood lower in world opinion than now.
.

[Clinton Huxley]

When I referred to money I was really thinking of something that Arthur C. Clarke once said, that humanity had reached the point where anything it wanted to do boiled down to money. With enough money, the technological and engineering problems of any project could be solved

As for the "Imperial commitments", well, the US does not have an "Emperor" or formal colonies but does have bases in about 150 countries. Its an "informal empire" but its an empire all the same. Ideas about "Imperial over-stretch" apply IMO.