What does one tell a little boy who wants to be an Astronaut? What advice should one give to a child whose imagination is fired by thoughts of space travel, exploration, and the challenges of the unknown? Astronaut Dr. Anna Fisher told the young boy to, “Study Russian.”
The United States of America, thanks to President Obama, retired the Shuttle Program last month with the final flight of Discovery and cancelled President George W. Bush’s plans to return to the Moon. Since the United States will have no manned space capabilities until 2021, the young man will need to travel into space with the Russians or the Chinese.
As reported by The Washington Free Beacon,
The Discovery shuttle flew for the last time Tuesday, beginning in Cape Canaveral, Fla., on the back of a 747, looping around the monuments in Washington D.C., and landing in Virginia, where it will ultimately be transferred to the Udvar-Hazy annex of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
In Washington, onlookers left buildings and stood on rooftops to watch the shuttle and its escort circle the city.
Funding for NASA peaked in 1966, and since then Political Correctness has overwhelmed NASA with Obama now turning NASA into an environmentally oriented climate monitoring service to promote Climate Change “science” and evidence to substantiate the need for governmental Cap and Trade taxation and oversight. P. J. O’Rourke commented on the devastating changes in NASA and their future implications for the United States,
But the U.S. space program is short of machinery, muddled about goals, and low in morale. The space shuttle has been retired. Thousands of NASA employees and contractors lost their jobs. We have no way to get a man into space except by asking Vladimir Putin, “Mother Russia, May I?”
The Bush-era Constellation program, with its moon and Mars capabilities, was canceled. Neil Armstrong called the decision “devastating.” The Augustine Commission, an Obama administration panel of scientists, retired astronauts, and aerospace experts chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, judged Constellation to be hopelessly behind schedule, underfunded, and over budget. I’m glad they didn’t judge me.
The new Space Launch System or SLS, the heavy launch vehicle that will replace Constellation’s Ares I and Ares V rockets, won’t be ready for a manned flight until at least 2021.
A prominent advocate for space exploration was not so pleased, calling Obama’s space policy a “continual disaster.” He said Obama “had a fabulous space platform when he was running for president, then threw it out.” The administration is “eviscerating the Mars program,” “threw away $10 billion in Constellation programs,” had been “promoting commercial stimulation of private space efforts then cut the funding for it.” He summed up Obama space policy as “castration of NASA.”
Barack Obama has suggested that NASA save money by landing on an asteroid instead of returning to the Moon. This is Obama’s way of getting the United States to Mars on the cheap and without much preparation.
There is a problem with Obama’s logic. Even an asteroid the size of Texas would not have enough gravity to allow a spacecraft to land on its surface. MSNBC and other Left Wing sources have extolled the genius of Obama wanting our space explorers to land on an asteroid.
There will be humans in space. For a long time those humans will be transported by Russia and China. The next footprints on the Moon will probably be Chinese.
It is sad and sobering to contemplate how the misguided priorities of our leaders have destroyed much of the human achievement that was gained in space. Scientific progress has been on hold since at least since the onset of the Great Society in 1965 because our politicians have used our nation’s treasure to buy votes rather than to pursue human excellence and the destiny of mankind among the stars.
Comments (22)
Add comment@May You make some good points.....
May, I would simply suggest again, that it is Congress who appropriates money, and not the President.
But, what is the Republican position on increasing the budget for NASA? Is it in the Ryan Budget Bill? If it is then, please tell us where it is.
Newt Gingrich, in his campaign speeches, spoke of colonizing the moon. Where is "he-who-must-not-be-named" on this issue?
It just doesn't seem to be anywhere with the Republicans.
Now what you are leaving out, is the progress that private industry is making toward the development of manned space vehicles.
NASA has awarded some money to private companies to develop manned vehicles. Space X is one of them.
Space X plans a launch of its Falcon 9 rocket with the Dragon 9 spacecraft on April 30, 2012.
Quite frankly private industry is the perfect place to develop this technology. And, they are employing former NASA engineers.
The bottom line is that it is incorrect to single Obama out on this issue when Congress fails to provide the necessary funding. Obama is correct in calling for the privatization of future manned space exploration.
BTW: Learning a second language is good for the mind.
The power of Liberty
"[T]he power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest fonctionaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work? And who will deny that a world in which the wealthy are powerful is still a better world than one in which only the already powerful can acquire wealth?"
Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974 Source: The Road To Serfdom, P. 115.
535m × 294m × 209m = bigger than Texas?
Dimensions of Itokawa, an asteroid landed on by a space craft from Earth in 2005.
Science and science education has suffered greatly since 2001 - during both the Bush2 administration and with the denialist GOTP Congress that followed. This blog is plenty proof of that.
Russian?
Here's a Russian word for you Dr. May.
Pizda
@ May
"Scientific progress has been on hold since at least since the onset of the Great Society in 1965"...
Until we had five manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972? (Right in the middle of the Great Society).
You are examining this from an outmoded, Cold War perspective. Most young, conservative people today advocate a revitalized space program via the private sector through decreased regulations and tax incentives.
As Spock would say...
Your argument is highly illogical.
I get a kick out of seeing what you blame Obama for every day but today takes the cake.
Live long and prosper...ya'll.
Comrades
Due to the fact that we have previously surrendered to Russia, then we are actually still in space.
The language issue may take longer to implement...
language
Mandarin in kindgarten is probably where the future is.
@crncob
"Mandarin in kindgarten is probably where the future is."
This may be true—not for space travel but for business. What is it, the Chinese have a population of a billion people or so and have the money to buy. This is a market that can't be overlooked.
@Just-a-thought
Oh that's hilarious...
Well played sir.
@Just-a-thought
You definitely have him by the short ones now.
Hayabusa contact with Asteroid Itokawa
The “landing” of deep space probe Hayabusa on asteroid Itokawa was a unique encounter employing fascinating technology. The Nippon Electric Company (NEC) has a lot of information one can access on the probe and the mission. http://bit.ly/HHVDzd
Because of its small size, the asteroid Itokawa exerted almost no gravitational pull, so Hayabusa could not technically land on the surface of the asteroid. The probe came in contact with the asteroid in a manner similar to an astronaut performing a spacewalk coming in contact with the Hubble Telescope or the Space Station. Of course, Itokawa exerted more gravitational pull than did the Hubble Telescope or the current Space Station. The gravitation force of Itokawa apparently did cause actual acceleration of Hayabusa toward the surface of Itokawa during the “landing” procedure, but the gravitational pull was too weak to maintain the spacecraft on the surface of the asteroid. Sample collection took place “under extreme low gravity conditions,” http://bit.ly/I6axRs
“Sample collection under extreme low gravity conditions: Sample collection from the surface of an asteroid by shooting a pellet into the asteroid's surface and collecting some of the particles that fly up as a result”
Additional information is located under “How did Hayabusa collect samples?” http://bit.ly/IlUtug
“Due to Itokawa's weak gravitational pull, Hayabusa was not built to stably sit on the asteroid's surface. The probe was supposed use a target marker to touch down on Itokawa, and then use equipment called a sampling horn to collect a surface sample.
Collection was supposed to be accomplished by shooting a metal pellet that weighs several grams into Itokawa's surface and collecting the particles that flew up as a result the instant the probe touched the asteroid.”
Space and Astronomy news gives a nice description of the Hayabusa “landing” on Itokawa. http://bit.ly/HNkQHh
“The velocity at the time of starting descent was 12cm/sec. At the altitude 54m at 5:28am, wire-cutting of target marker was commanded, after which, at 5:30am at altitude 40m, the spacecraft autonomously reduced its own speed by 9cm/sec to have substantially separated the target marker. It means that Hayabusa’s speed became 3 cm/sec. Separation and freefall of the marker was confirmed from the image as well as from descending velocity of the spacecraft at the time of reducing the speed. The marker is presumed to have landed on southwest of MUSES Sea.
Hayabusa then switched its range measurement from Laser Altimeter (LIDAR) to Laser Range Finder (LRF) at the altitude 35m and moved to hovering by reducing descending speed to zero at 25m above the surface, below where Hayabusa, at 5:40am at altitude 17m, let itself to freefall, functioning itself to the attitude control mode adjustable to the shapes of the asteroid surface. At this point, the spacecraft autonomously stopped telemetry transmission to the earth (as scheduled) to have changed to transmission with beacon mode more efficient for Doppler measurement by switching to low gain antenna (LGA) coverable larger area.”
In addition, the discussion of the ion engines is quite fascinating. “Close-Up on the Asteroid Itokawa” as some nice photography of the asteroid. I recommend interested readers spend some time at the NEC website and seek out additional information to share with us. http://bit.ly/Jdd5Lc
http://bit.ly/J2VGrV
@Just-a-thought
I don't think May is going to answer you ever. His last post seems to say "I could give a [expletive deleted]."
@largordo
Don is not so good with percentages, I guess that's a liberal assertion to which he doesn't seem to have the time to carry on a "dialogue."
I'm persistent though, I'll ask him everyday, till he responds.
JAT
The dialog is a little slow today. You do realize that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was sponsored by Richard Gephhardt and Bill Bradley (both Democrats), right? As a result of this tax law....yes, it lowered the tax rate, but it also got rid of a lot of tax loopholes which, as a result, increased the tax revenue by 4%. Do we want to give credit to the Democrats for this or to Reagan for this?
@JMarie
Yes, I certainly am aware and I appreciate your response. However, like Dr. May please don't use partial information to try and and say it was a tax increase. Your answer was on partial as the top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Thus your 4% figure is correct in one sense, those paying 50% rates however were reduced by 22%.
1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50% 1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
A little fact that you failed in include in your response. However, you answer was much closer than Don May's answer, wherein he claimed that the rates were cut from 78% to 30% which is obviously incorrect. He did however give credit to Mr. Reagan as having created and I quote "This resulted in the longest sustained economic growth in the history of our World."
So if Don is correct, does one give credit to the Democrats or to Mr. Reagan?
RE: The slow dialogue...
I guess this sort of stuff doesn't interest Billy Wayne or AmericaFirst. I seem to recall from some time in the past that May is a huge Star Trek fan. In the original series, there were a number of episodes that certainly exposed issues of the day and carry forward to today.
One of those episodes took place on a planet where people who had black and white faces and people with white and black faces, were warring with each other. To some degree that is indicative of what is going on today, in the United States. The solution in that episode, was compromise. That doesn't see to be happening in our current setting when one group refuses to compromise.
Setting that aside, it is clear that May, is fascinated by space exploration. It is unfortunate that he is trying to drag politics into the issue when it is clear that entrepreneurial Americans also share the same passion. They are investing private money to develop a civilian space program. NASA at least has some grant money to contribute.
Most of us know about Space Port, USA which is located in New Mexico, and is open to visitors. However, it costs a bit for a tour.
All of this shows American determination to develop civilian space exploration--even without government funding. Instead of using the political label of "Progressive", how about calling them "Futurists"?
Politics shouldn't be an issue here. Let's see what happens on April 30, 2012 when Space X launches their rocket. If successful, it could be the beginning of a new era. With enough financial backing, they can compete with the Russians or the Chinese. They need to be given the opportunity to prove themselves.
@May...the slow day.....
May, you either you didn't present a very strongly controversial issue today, or it didn't seem to appeal to those on your side or the "liberal" side to discuss "hot button" political issues. It was a nice pause.
I would simply suggest those who normally support your passion, apparently could care less about our future in space, unless it is from military dominance. Uh, sometimes you have suggested that, but I would simply suggest that our military is way ahead in that area. If you polled Americans, I suspect they would support space exploration. In the recession that we have experienced, and the recession that we are now beginning to recover from, they aren't really can't see putting money toward that effort.
As our economy continues to improve, I am certain that our leadership, whichever party will be in charge, will do the right thing to ensure, America will maintain a leadership position in space.
After all, it was the "Space Race" days of the early 60's that brought us to where we are today. We were first to the moon, and no one can take that away from us. Any competitors will be "also rans."
Private industry is on the right track here, and we should be supportive of those efforts.
Let's see now, does that make three times I have tried to express that thought?
So now it is time to get back into the "wet" dirt, and throw mud at each other....LOL
@Obviousman
. . .but. . . I'm wearing my new white shirt. . .
Obama's Logic vs American's Logic...
The point is Obama is dismantling the Institutions of America ; one by-one they are being ' Down-Sized ' and 'degutted' . Regulations to prevent the United States from going forward are coming ' fast and furious' ; and to those paying attention , the actions are obvious .
Now, for example: The ' Fast and Furious ' fiasco is being covered-up. Yet, pictures from a ' War Zone of 2/Yrs ago' are big time items for investigation ? I call that ' Pure Propaganda ' against our US Marines . Those 'War Zone' picture should be ' highly classified ' to begin with . But no, right in the middle of an Election Year....all of a sudden 2/yrs old pictures are big news .
Also, the Secret Service Crisis: I really don't believe a word of it ! Why, because these are highly trained-agents; Secret Service Agents that know very good and well not to compromise their duties ; certainly the worst of them would not act like inexperience high school teenages . No offense to the ' High School ' teenagers, because ...teenagers themselves would not be so stupid as ' That '.
I see another well orchestrated ' Manufactured Crisis ' by the BHO inter-circle . Pure Smoke-Screen and to further discredit yet another ' Institution ' .
Blame Congress, but the truth of the matter is Obama sets the agenda, the direction and ' what he wants done ' . He is working hard at dismantling the US Military ; he is not just cutting material he is going to the heart of the matter...he is cutting people.Thousands of US Marines and Hundreds from the other service will be let go shortly . I wonder why? What is his ' logic '?
No, there is no problem with Obama's logic , he knows exactly what his plans are and he knows exactly what he is doing . His instructions don't come from the Pentigon or any other Agency or Institution.
His power is comimg from where his Big Money is coming from. Mainly from George Soros . Google:[ www.sorosfiles.com ].
His strategy comes right out of the" Muslim Brotherhood Project ". How do I know? Well, I read that plan! It would do every American good to go Google ' The Project, and See the Plan for themselves.
As I see it ...everything is going according to plan ; to our certain demise if we don't get a handle on it .
Therefore, I ask: Where is the American's Logic !?
As I've mentioned before, American are arguing among themselves, playing Games . Yes, playing ' The Blaming Games ',going over Statistics and looking a Charts/Polls, while the Country goes down the drian.
American appear to be ' paralyzed ' as " Deer in front of the on- Coming Head-Lights ! Who has bewitched US and where is the Logic in all this maddness ?
Therefore, when Obama is defeated in November things can return to some kind of normal .
@Charlie3 Uhhh....
Charlie3, you post suggests premature speculation.
We had a nice peaceful day, without a lot of interactions. No one was rabid here. The dialogue off blog topic, was directed toward questions May has avoided answering.
Without doubt, May hasn't missed out on the "hot button" topic that you are bringing up. It is likely to appear in one of May's new blogs, probably coming up on the morrow.
So, hold back on all of that angst you are feeling now, copy and save your comments, and re-post them when that is the topic being discussed by May on his blog.
I have a whole collection in waiting.
At this late point, and considering the blog topic, it will probably go unnoticed. Have a little patience.
JAT
I will resume ysterday's discussion of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. For some reason, you either want to rewrite history...or you don't understand what happened with this tax law which we still use to this day even though it has been tinkered with almost yearly. Looking at it through your eyes, YES, the rate of taxes were decreased for the upper income group and YES, the lower tax rate was increased by 4%. However, this was due to a simplication of the tax law and we had HOW MANY taxes brackets prior to this? What they did was do consolidate the income levels and make fewer tax brackets. They also closed the major tax loopholes (enjoyed mainly by the rich). By closing the loopholes, they could lower the tax rate for the wealthy, but the overall taxes collected was higher because certain items such as the capital gains were now taxable and taxable at the higher rate. It was also distribution neutral, which means it didn't favor one economic group over another. ' To fiscal conservatives, dropping tax rates represented an opportunity to impose supply-side economics (a theory of economics that assumes lower taxes will generate more government revenue in the long run). Liberal tax theorists were attracted to broadening the tax base by closing loopholes, arguably taken advantage of by wealthy taxpayers and paid for by the poor through higher tax rates. Both conservatives and liberals believed the act promised higher levels of compliance by the taxpaying public.'