That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Washington, D.C.: Are there any impacts of the ongoing U.S. presidential election to the direction of current space program?
Marc Kaufman: Definitely. While Obama started as a skeptic of the Constellation program, he has become a strong advocate (after some educating by Florida's Sen. Nelson in particular.) Both he and McCain have spoken of the possibility of extending the space shuttle program -- I believe by one mission or more. Obama has also spoken of the need to increase NASA Earth monitoring (to gauge global warming and weather trends) which has declined somewhat in recent years. McCain has spoken generally of wanting to keep the American space program second-to-none, but has also said all discretionary government programs (which includes NASA) will be in line for a haircut.
There is a large military component to space spending, and I would presume that Sen. McCain would be more inclined to keep that funding high while Obama might want to spread it around. The issue here is military "hard power" versus scientific and technological "soft power," and which helps the U.S. best in the world.
I am pleased to see another nation break out of earth orbit. I do hope the US stays in the game during the coming age of austerity.NEW DELHI - Scientists have better maps of distant Mars than the moon where astronauts have walked. But India hopes to change that with its first lunar mission.
Chandrayaan-1 - which means "Moon Craft" in ancient Sanskrit - launched from the Sriharikota space center in southern India early Wednesday morning in a two-year mission aimed at laying the groundwork for further Indian space expeditions.
Chief among the mission's goals is mapping not only the surface of the moon, but what lies beneath. India joined what's shaping up as a 21st century space race with Chinese and Japanese crafts already in orbit around the moon.
The United States, which won the 1960s race to send men to the moon, won't jump in this race with its new lunar probe until next spring, but it is providing key mapping equipment for India's mission.
As India's economy has boomed in recent years, it has sought to convert its new found wealth - built on its high-tech sector - into political and military clout and stake a claim as a world leader. It is hoping that a moon mission - coming just months after it finalized a deal with the United States that recognizes India as a nuclear power - will further enhance that status.
"It is a remarkable technological achievement for the country," said S. Satish, a spokesman for the Indian Space Research Organization, which plans to use the 3,080-pound lunar probe to create a high-resolution map of the lunar surface and what minerals are below. Two of the mapping instruments are a joint project with NASA.
Until now, India's space launches have been more practical, with weather warning satellites and communication systems, said former NASA associate administrator Scott Pace, director of space policy at the George Washington University.
"You're seeing India lifting its sights," Pace said.
To date only the U.S., Russia, the European Space Agency, Japan and China have sent missions to the moon.
Ship the bottom 50% to off-planet mining facilities?Kraken wrote:So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
Let the Chinese build our space toys like they already do the rest of our toys?Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
"Curiosity stuck her landing and captured the attention and the imagination of millions of people not just across our country but people all around the world," Obama told the controllers, many of whom remained at their consoles. "It's really mind-boggling what you've been able to accomplish."
About to begin a three-day bus tour in Iowa, Obama couldn't resist a political point — vowing to resist efforts to cut spending on basic science. "I'm going to give you guys a personal commitment to protect these critical investments," he said.
Kraken wrote:Obama rides the wave
"Curiosity stuck her landing and captured the attention and the imagination of millions of people not just across our country but people all around the world," Obama told the controllers, many of whom remained at their consoles. "It's really mind-boggling what you've been able to accomplish."
About to begin a three-day bus tour in Iowa, Obama couldn't resist a political point — vowing to resist efforts to cut spending on basic science. "I'm going to give you guys a personal commitment to protect these critical investments," he said.
It is extremely difficult to imagine NASA escaping the Romney / Ryan spending axe.Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
I was hoping that a Romney follower might know of a policy statement. AFAIK he only addressed it once while pandering in FL during the primaries, and that was a generality.El Guapo wrote:It is extremely difficult to imagine NASA escaping the Romney / Ryan spending axe.Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
Yeah, I know. But at the same time, what value would there be in any such policy statement? First, the only campaign promises that are worth a damn are related a candidate's front-line issue. Second, especially with Ryan on the ticket, a Romney administration is going to be heavily focused on cutting spending, which is almost necessarily in conflict with NASA / space exploration.Kraken wrote:I was hoping that a Romney follower might know of a policy statement. AFAIK he only addressed it once while pandering in FL during the primaries, and that was a generality.El Guapo wrote:It is extremely difficult to imagine NASA escaping the Romney / Ryan spending axe.Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
I found thisindicating that Romney refuses to offer any specifics (sound familiar?) on space policy, and thisindicating that it's probably just another expense item to Ryan. So unless somebody has evidence to the contrary, I'll conclude that the Romney/Ryan ticket is disinterested in NASA at best, and more likely hostile toward its budget.
That is quite a long leap to take. Last election cycle Obama flat out came out saying he was going to slash it. When challenged he backpedaled and you took him at his word the second time. He proceeded to cancel the Mars initiative and shut down the Space Shuttle program and gut it's successor.Kraken wrote:I was hoping that a Romney follower might know of a policy statement. AFAIK he only addressed it once while pandering in FL during the primaries, and that was a generality.El Guapo wrote:It is extremely difficult to imagine NASA escaping the Romney / Ryan spending axe.Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
I found thisindicating that Romney refuses to offer any specifics (sound familiar?) on space policy, and thisindicating that it's probably just another expense item to Ryan. So unless somebody has evidence to the contrary, I'll conclude that the Romney/Ryan ticket is disinterested in NASA at best, and more likely hostile toward its budget.
I don't know; maybe it's lose/lose for him.El Guapo wrote:Yeah, I know. But at the same time, what value would there be in any such policy statement? First, the only campaign promises that are worth a damn are related a candidate's front-line issue. Second, especially with Ryan on the ticket, a Romney administration is going to be heavily focused on cutting spending, which is almost necessarily in conflict with NASA / space exploration.Kraken wrote:I was hoping that a Romney follower might know of a policy statement. AFAIK he only addressed it once while pandering in FL during the primaries, and that was a generality.El Guapo wrote:It is extremely difficult to imagine NASA escaping the Romney / Ryan spending axe.Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
I found thisindicating that Romney refuses to offer any specifics (sound familiar?) on space policy, and thisindicating that it's probably just another expense item to Ryan. So unless somebody has evidence to the contrary, I'll conclude that the Romney/Ryan ticket is disinterested in NASA at best, and more likely hostile toward its budget.
So even if Romney made specific space exploration promises, how much would that be worth really? The only thing that would pique my interest here is not campaign promises but some kind of personal connection between Romney and/or Ryan and space exploration. Perhaps an accounting of hearing the moon landing audio, or some personal interaction with the fruits of space exploration related innovations.
It's not the silence / lack of specifics that would concern me. It's that *plus* the deep spending cuts that Romney / Ryan want. Romney (IIRC) wants to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP while preserving 4% for defense spending, plus tax cuts. That's going to require deep, deep spending cuts. If Romney / Ryan haven't said anything specific about space exploration spending, what are the odds that those programs are not among those receiving deep cuts?msduncan wrote:That is quite a long leap to take. Last election cycle Obama flat out came out saying he was going to slash it. When challenged he backpedaled and you took him at his word the second time. He proceeded to cancel the Mars initiative and shut down the Space Shuttle program and gut it's successor.Kraken wrote:I was hoping that a Romney follower might know of a policy statement. AFAIK he only addressed it once while pandering in FL during the primaries, and that was a generality.El Guapo wrote:It is extremely difficult to imagine NASA escaping the Romney / Ryan spending axe.Kraken wrote:Arise, thread!
Four years later we see Obama's space policy unfolding. The man seems to have little to no personal interest, but NASA's budget has largely escaped the axe. If manned spaceflight is in the process of being outsourced, at least robotic exploration is as healthy as can be expected under our austere circumstances.
So what's Romney got? Any position at all? I have a feeling I know how NASA would fare under Ryanomics, but that's just a hunch.
I found thisindicating that Romney refuses to offer any specifics (sound familiar?) on space policy, and thisindicating that it's probably just another expense item to Ryan. So unless somebody has evidence to the contrary, I'll conclude that the Romney/Ryan ticket is disinterested in NASA at best, and more likely hostile toward its budget.
This time Romney has said nothing specific and you are ready to jump to conclusions that he's shuttering the doors.
Bias much?
Obama has at least maintained NASA's current funding and committed the country to a long-range strategy. NASA has a general goal and a fairly stable budget. Obama's the devil we know.msduncan wrote: Last election cycle Obama flat out came out saying he was going to slash it. When challenged he backpedaled and you took him at his word the second time. He proceeded to cancel the Mars initiative and shut down the Space Shuttle program and gut it's successor.
This time Romney has said nothing specific and you are ready to jump to conclusions that he's shuttering the doors.
Bias much?
Republicans in Congress are pushing for major cuts across the federal budget, but so far, they're not willing to sacrifice a plan to build a moon colony.
In fact, Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are eyeing an even more ambitious goal: building a base on Mars, too.
This one doesn't bother me too much. I question the wisdom of moving a 500 ton rock into Earth's gravity well. Seriously, this plan has "hey yall, watch this!!" written all over it.Enough wrote:GOP budget seeks to kill NASA's plan to capture an asteroid.
In doing, we would learn much and probably develop a lot of new technology and methods. Most of which would be put to use in subsequent unrelated missions.RLMullen wrote:This one doesn't bother me too much. I question the wisdom of moving a 500 ton rock into Earth's gravity well. Seriously, this plan has "hey yall, watch this!!" written all over it.Enough wrote:GOP budget seeks to kill NASA's plan to capture an asteroid.
"This mission represents an unprecedented technological feat that will lead to new scientific discoveries and technological capabilities and help protect our home planet," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden this past April. "We will use existing capabilities, such as the Orion crew capsule and Space Launch System rocket, and develop new technologies like solar electric propulsion and laser communications -- all critical components of deep space exploration."
If I were NASA, I'd start pushing the Missionaries-to-Mars angle. Or I'd suggest that living on Mars proves that Climate Change is a hoax. Or that Martian rocks under radiocarbon dating top out at 4,000 years.Isgrimnur wrote:Meanwhile, the House Rs want a Mars base.
In fact, Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are eyeing an even more ambitious goal: building a base on Mars, too.
As Lawbeef said, it was a technology demonstration project that pulled together a lot of new hardware and techniques. I agree that it didn't stir the imagination or promise any direct payoff. If the heavy booster and Orion capsule escape unscathed but repurposed, I won't lament the loss of the asteroid stunt.RLMullen wrote:This one doesn't bother me too much. I question the wisdom of moving a 500 ton rock into Earth's gravity well. Seriously, this plan has "hey yall, watch this!!" written all over it.Enough wrote:GOP budget seeks to kill NASA's plan to capture an asteroid.
As I remember it, NASA was firming up plans for a Mars landing in the 1980s while Project Apollo was winding down. Mariner 4's answer was a resounding and deeply disappointing "No." Prior to that mission scientists still considered advanced life to be possible there.Men should land on Mars sometime before the century's end. Some optimists say this could happen by the late 1970s but others argue that the formidable problems to be solved make any time period less than some 30-odd years unrealistic. Unless, they add, there is some now unforeseen breakthrough in launching giant loads into orbit or propelling such loads through interplanetary space. Even before man lands on Mars, however, the question of whether some form of life exists there will be answered next year when NASA will send Mariner on a Mars fly-by.
PS - you too, Colorado!Hey, remember Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the guy who threw needless layers of bureaucracy at SpaceX because the private space company was doing its job of launching rockets into space a little too well? Well, it looks like he’s being joined by gentlemen from the other side of the Capitol: Three congressmen are trying to do the same thing...
...If there’s any anomaly here, it’s why a few people in Congress seem so hell-bent on throwing roadblocks in the way of private businesses that can revolutionize our access to space. Is Orbital Sciences next, or Sierra Nevada and other smaller, more flexible companies poised to start launching payloads into orbit? How long will these Congress critters be an impediment to the future?