Well he's pretty much lost me with this one--how can anyone think gutting the space program is going to help students get ahead in science and technology. They need something to dream about if they are going to get encouraged to go into those fields -- the early days of the space program definitely provided that spark and we really should be pumping more money into the program to try to stir up that kind of enthusiasm now.

*sigh* I already knew that the candidates I prefer wouldn't do well enough to be true contenders, but I had been willing to settle for Obama. Guess I need to root for Hillary now. :-(

It's much cheaper, safer, and more scientifically valuable to explore the deep ocean than the moon. We've been to the moon. More people have been to the moon than to the bottom of the deep ocean trenches. The moon is cold. It's dark. It's barren. Moving right along...

doublesecretprobation: ensure.

Too bad no one gives a shiat about using correct words any more.

Shaggy_C: So, he's saying before we start farking up the rest of the galaxy, maybe we should fix things here on Earth first? Christ, you fark nerds need to get your heads out of your asses and realize Star Trek isn't going to happen in your lifetime. I know this may be shocking to some of you, but...you'll get over it.

Small steps, if we're ever going to get anywhere, and going back to the moon I think is a necessary step. The world's brief jaunt with space exploration is like watching a child holding on to their mother's leg, running off to check out something a short distance away and then running back to mom's leg a little scared and unsure. Our space program has been greatly stunted because of a few mishaps and such.

shiate is always gonna be farked up here, but it's when people are farking around with some new ideas that some of the best discoveries are made. This needs to happen for the world eventually.

/not a trekkie
//crosses Obama off list

charlatan brown: Shaggy_C: So, he's saying before we start farking up the rest of the galaxy, maybe we should fix things here on Earth first? Christ, you fark nerds need to get your heads out of your asses and realize Star Trek isn't going to happen in your lifetime. I know this may be shocking to some of you, but...you'll get over it.

THIS

And seriously people, you're talking about "getting our eggs out of one basket" and moving to other planets? Are you aware that we can hardly land an unmanned space rover on the nearest planet? We are also unable to even find a planet which supports life.

Exploration of our universe, and development of our infantile physics theories is one of my greatest interests. But before we move our eggs to another basket, first we should learn how not to destroy baskets.

As it always has, History will leave you behind.

Rev. Skarekroe: Hmmm...

America:

the moon:



Humans have developed new technology in the five hundred years since Columbus discovered Hispanola.

Film at 11.

"A rat done bit my sister Nell
And whitey's on the moon.
Her legs and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon...."

What's old is new again, apparently.

Obama proposed delaying one space project. I can't believe that some people would base their vote on that.

*sigh*

While I disagree with de-dunding NASA overall, I am all for slashing or totally revamping this misguided Moon/Mars mission. It's woefully underfunded and has no chance of ever actually getting to the Moon or Mars any time in the next 20 years, and the money drain is wrecking NASA's priorities. There's no money for primary research, not enough money for other useful exploration, certainly no money for aeronautics research (you know, the other half of their name), and we still have no replacement for an obsolete space shuttle.

As a previous poster mentioned, the current Moon/Mars initiative is an underfunded, half-baked Bush attempt at echoing JFK. If you really want to go to the moon, we need to fund it many, many billions on top of NASA's regular budget.

In other words, I don't totally agree with Barack taking from NASA to fund education, but we do need to fund education, and we probably should rethink our Moon/Mars plans, so... hopefully his plan is more comprehensive than this.

Dances-With-Lobster: It's much cheaper, safer, and more scientifically valuable to explore the deep ocean than the moon. We've been to the moon. More people have been to the moon than to the bottom of the deep ocean trenches. The moon is cold. It's dark. It's barren. Moving right along...

I'm starting to see it that way.

We'll be back. We just don't have a reason to go back right away. This project isn't more then a photo-op and a chance to put more footprints and whack a few more golf balls.

Yes, in a perfect world with plenty of resources we would be going balls out at this. Yes, we were robbed that a trillion dollars were spent on a useless war instead of putting people onto the moon and Mars. BUT, right now there are more important things with much higher potential returns on investment then Apollo 2.

for good or for awesome: You farkers are getting all emotional over something we don't need. Manned space flight should be used to upgrade the Hubble and then scrapped. Use the money we save to build a super-collider.

Yeah. Why would we ever need to get off this planet?

Seriously, you guys, that whole "asteroid impact" thing is just bullshiat. And who needs extraterrestrial resources - we've got all we need right here!

earthwirm AND... If Bush is "anti-science" then WTH!!? is Bush doing going off doubling the budget for the office of science during his tenure? Why is it Bush seeks to fund fusion projects and supercomputing sites?


Yes, presidents always get credit for everything the government funds under their tenure. Those programs starved for a long time, while all of the funding increases went to NIH and NSF, and restoring their health was due to a big push by lots of people and congress.

Bush also wanted to go to Mars. I also heard he's great to have a beer with.

robbyking: Didn't we decide to blow it up (new window)?
I dont care who you are ...that was funny

Why spend money to go to the moon when we can better use it to buy more votes.

Jeez, the count of people who are now not voting for Obama has risen to 9...

Nine farkers who consider THIS inconsequential, trivial news to be what makes them decide not to vote for him.

Again: farking nerds.

Nabb1: I wouldn't base my whole vote on it, but it bothers me to no end that NASA's budget, which is a very small portion of overall federal expenditures, is being trimmed for this. It seems hypocritical to me that for all the criticism Bush has drawn for being hostile to science (yet oddly very much in favor of expanding our space program - one of the very few areas in which I agree with him), people are not even questioning why this should be done. And people saying this is just about "putting a couple of guys on the moon" are being extremely myopic about this. I wouldn't base my vote on it, but it's definitely a strike against him as far as I'm concerned.

That's fair, but I've seen several people post that he "lost their vote". Maybe they weren't going to vote for him anyway and were just trying to be dramatic, but it seems like a fairly trivial issue to base a vote on. I don't see how this is even a top ten issue to begin with.

I'd love for him to cut corn ethanol subsidies instead, but that wouldn't fly in Iowa or Illinois. It's funny how you get punished for being too specific about certain things.

First, lets get one thing straight: if and when we go back to the moon, it will have nothing at all to do with exploration. We were there, we saw what we already knew, the moon is dead and lifeless. When we go back, it will be practice for Mars, which I hope and pray I will see in my lifetime. We need this practice.

Maybe he knows something about the alien base on the dark side of the moon. I mean, not that aliens told us to get off the moon. No reason we just abruptly stopped the Apollo missions for no reason whatsoever. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

LedZeppelinRule: While I disagree with de-dunding NASA overall, I am all for slashing or totally revamping this misguided Moon/Mars mission. It's woefully underfunded and has no chance of ever actually getting to the Moon or Mars any time in the next 20 years, and the money drain is wrecking NASA's priorities. There's no money for primary research, not enough money for other useful exploration, certainly no money for aeronautics research (you know, the other half of their name), and we still have no replacement for an obsolete space shuttle.

As a previous poster mentioned, the current Moon/Mars initiative is an underfunded, half-baked Bush attempt at echoing JFK. If you really want to go to the moon, we need to fund it many, many billions on top of NASA's regular budget.

In other words, I don't totally agree with Barack taking from NASA to fund education, but we do need to fund education, and we probably should rethink our Moon/Mars plans, so... hopefully his plan is more comprehensive than this.

This this this.

Anyone who thinks this one paragraph article is a comprehensive review of the actual plan should sit down and relax...and I really wonder how many of the people saying they won't vote for Obama now were going to vote for him before.

Paedophile_Deluxe: That's fair, but I've seen several people post that he "lost their vote". Maybe they weren't going to vote for him anyway and were just trying to be dramatic, but it seems like a fairly trivial issue to base a vote on. I don't see how this is even a top ten issue to begin with.

Considering that he's only marginally different from Edwards, someone who's polling about as well as he is, and that this shows a fundamental disagreement with how I view both education and the space program, I'd say it's a pretty good reason to stop supporting him.

He didn't "lose" my vote anyways. I was planning on voting for Kucinich.

smithbryan42: Reminds me of that Kang/Khan simpsons episode.

I think you mean Kang and Kodos.

Him chiming in on the Imus debate shook my support for him.

This pretty much kills it.

Dammit, I'm out of candidates again.

OriginallyDC: Maybe he knows something about the alien base on the dark side of the moon. I mean, not that aliens told us to get off the moon. No reason we just abruptly stopped the Apollo missions for no reason whatsoever. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

I know, 'cause it doesn't cost any money to launch massive rockets or anything... I'd seriously love to have some of whatever it is that you smoke.

If we don't go to the moon, where will all the hawt purple-haired girls work?

The Ninj': Children can still be inspired that we put a man on the moon, they just have to open a history book

Yeah, because there's nothing more inspiring to a kid than showing him that and saying "look what we used to be able to do"

Meh. We never went to the moon in the first place. I can wait another 5-10 yrs before checking it out again (all the while documenting what Russia & China are learning) if it meant making our snowflakes a little less retarded.

The Ninj': Ok, wait - why do we want to go back to the moon? Why do we feel the need to do that before those other countries (again)? We already got there first, and there was nothing there.

Maybe because there's resources up there and science we can perform only on the moon. Would you rather strip mine a beautiful mountain vista or some lifeless rock? And where else are you planning on placing a planet-sized optical interferometer to hunt for Earth-like worlds orbiting other stars?

Did Neil Armstrong forget his wallet up there or something? Fark it. Lets use that money for an investment that will have a real return. Children can still be inspired that we put a man on the moon, they just have to open a history book, or more realistically they can just look it up on Wikipedia.

Yes. Because they've been so inspired by history books since we gave up on Apollo.

Shaggy_C

So, he's saying before we start farking up the rest of the galaxy, maybe we should fix things here on Earth first?

With a philosophy like that, we could never do anything. You might as well say "Before we start spending money to build video game consoles, maybe we should fix things here on earth first."

At least that way you'd have a chance at saving some real money.

http://www.rudygiulianiquest.com/blog/?p=32

Lift Off! Rudy's Rocket Scientists!

Looks like NASA employees have found their man in Rudy.

Here is another possibility. Osama wants to get elected right? Alot of senators/congresspeople have vested interest in other porkbarell type programs and if suggested cutting one of them right away, they would fight against getting him elected. Oh, they wouldn't say that to the public, but you better believe it would happen. Say you are going to cut Social Security? OOooo you would have lots of seniors up and arms, and lets face it people we are an aging population, and the majority of those who vote are older, not young folks. Same goes with military and other programs. Sooo he picks on NASA which is not a high priority at this time. Who does he piss off? Mostly younger voters, which sad to say is the group which has the lowest prescentage of voters.

As for me, I'm still on the fence on who I'm voting for. For one thing, if whomever is elected to president doesn't work on balancing the budget and reducing national debt, they aren't getting my vote in the next election. One of the ways they can do that is make sure that A. The funds are not misspent on usless projects and B. Accountability for funds for those using goverment dollars. That is what I am looking for.

quietbs: If we don't go to the moon, where will all the hawt purple-haired girls work?

On the base in my pants.

Crazy Alias: Osama wants to get elected right?

Whoopsie.

Fomby_Belcher: On the base in my pants.

It's a small world, after all...

LocalCynic:We're throwing billions at NASA for a project that we can't do because our shuttlecraft are outdated. Cutting the moon budget and re-jiggering the rest of NASA will address your concerns, AND ensure that we have more money for education.

Please learn about the subject before giving any more knee-jerk defense of 'your guy'. The shuttlecraft are outdated. But NASA has a plan to upgrade the shuttle fleet, just as you want. The new fleet of vehicles is based on the shuttle technology but will be able to perform all the current jobs of the shuttles, as well as go to the Moon and Mars. Even better, they'll be far cheaper to operate than the shuttle ever was. The shuttle fleet is due to be retired in a couple of years, and the new fleet will be the future of American spaceflight.

This plan is called Project Constellation. This plan is what Obama wants to cut. Under Obama America can be proud to be the first country to lose manned spaceflight ability.

haha nerds are shiatting in the pants because of the possibility they cannot be IMPERIALISTS over a massive heap of rock but didn't we explore the moon already? What is also laughable is he might also lose votes based on this frivolous matter

/welcome to American politics... only species on earth that would vote for George Bush...TWICE

This is like taking money from your kid's lemonade stand to help pay your mortgage.

Why are politicians so gung-ho about funding 0-5/preschool programs? Is it because there's essentially no way to view the effectiveness of it and they're basically just expensive daycares, so that they can say "Look at what I created for 'education'"? Gigantic waste of money.

"Australia wasn't a colony, it was a prison camp. If you want to say that we have a vested interest in putting our prisoners in space, then it would be a valid comparison."

Putting prisoners(exiling them really, if we are talking the moon and AUstralia here) on top of a gravity well above the planet one lives on might just be a bad idea, maybe...

FlashHarry: let's see: iraq, education, health care, foreign policy, the environment, privacy... serious issues, all. but one mention of postponing a return moon mission - and he's lost your vote? riiight.

There are plenty of other candidates with similar stands on iraq, education, health care, foreign policy, environment, privacy...

Crazy Alias: As for me, I'm still on the fence on who I'm voting for. For one thing, if whomever is elected to president doesn't work on balancing the budget and reducing national debt, they aren't getting my vote in the next election. One of the ways they can do that is make sure that A. The funds are not misspent on usless projects and B. Accountability for funds for those using goverment dollars. That is what I am looking for.

Then why not eliminate useless defense spending. It's the largest discretionary spending in the budget, accounting for over half of what the government spends on non-earmarked programs.

Why not eliminate projects like the nuclear hand grenade? Why not eliminate funding for most of those nuclear missile silos? Do we really need massive fleets of B-2s and aircraft carriers to fight terrorism?

People talk about pork barrel programs, but they miss the biggest pork barrel program of them all: Most of the defense budget.