Keukasmallies Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 President Obama says we will visit Mars in his lifetime. In my view he is on Mars as I write this post.... Does anyone out there have a pet project that you'd like the President to comment on; maybe make a visit to your town to promote; devote a stimulus effort to; enlist Congress' support for? It doesn't make any difference if he has been against your idea until now because he can change that in just a minute and make millions believe he was a supporter all along.
Alaska Darin Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Does anyone out there have a pet project that you'd like the President to comment on Constitutional Government
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 President Obama says we will visit Mars in his lifetime. In my view he is on Mars as I write this post.... Does anyone out there have a pet project that you'd like the President to comment on; maybe make a visit to your town to promote; devote a stimulus effort to; enlist Congress' support for? It doesn't make any difference if he has been against your idea until now because he can change that in just a minute and make millions believe he was a supporter all along. I believe by "we" he means "the Chinese"...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 wasn't there a discussion the other day trashing Obama for cutting NASA spending and missions to the moon along with "eliminating" the shuttle?
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 wasn't there a discussion the other day trashing Obama for cutting NASA spending and missions to the moon along with "eliminating" the shuttle? Actually, he increased NASA spending, while eliminating the manned space program that was supposed to get us to Mars in his lifetime. THAT sort of two-faced stupidity is well worth trashing anyone for.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Here's an interesting question for all of you-would you take a trip on a space shuttle that had no limits on fuel or anything and could take you anywhere in the universe BUT you could never return to Earth and had to leave everything behind?
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Actually, he increased NASA spending, while eliminating the manned space program that was supposed to get us to Mars in his lifetime. THAT sort of two-faced stupidity is well worth trashing anyone for. Is that true, or what the media wanted people to believe? The Orion programLAS/CEV is still going to happen. Orion is a spacecraft design by Lockheed Martin for the United States space agency NASA as part of the Constellation program. Part of is not all of. As to Ares I, I believe it's being mothballed, because it's too expensive to launch. The alternate plan is to develop the Taurus 2 rocket http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Here's an interesting question for all of you-would you take a trip on a space shuttle that had no limits on fuel or anything and could take you anywhere in the universe BUT you could never return to Earth and had to leave everything behind? Only if I get to push your racist ass out the !@#$ing airlock.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Only if I get to push your racist ass out the !@#$ing airlock. Anytime, anyplace.
John Adams Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 President Obama says we will visit Mars in his lifetime. In my view he is on Mars as I write this post.... Does anyone out there have a pet project that you'd like the President to comment on; maybe make a visit to your town to promote; devote a stimulus effort to; enlist Congress' support for? It doesn't make any difference if he has been against your idea until now because he can change that in just a minute and make millions believe he was a supporter all along. Actually, the thing that he said will happen in his lifetime is not a man landing on Mars but putting a man in orbit around Mars and returning him to earth. That could happen. And landing someone on Mars could probably happen too. Getting him back from the surface of Mars seems unlikely in any of our lives without a technological jump none of us can foresee. Gravity is a B word.
ieatcrayonz Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Here's an interesting question for all of you-would you take a trip on a space shuttle that had no limits on fuel or anything and could take you anywhere in the universe BUT you could never return to Earth and had to leave everything behind? You're starting to sound like a hippy.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Anytime, anyplace. Any place with an airlock, which really limits anyplace. A blatant racist AND an internet tough-guy. How impressive!
finknottle Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Actually, he increased NASA spending, while eliminating the manned space program that was supposed to get us to Mars in his lifetime. THAT sort of two-faced stupidity is well worth trashing anyone for. I think some of the frustration is this: his position on NASA has changed several times since the campaign. At this point it is less about whether his vision is right or wrong, but rather whether he has a genuine committment to anything space-related at all. Saying we are goint to the asteroids or Mars by 2030 has about as much weight as promising us that the deficit will be eliminated by then. It looks like empty promises, with a few activities and some money thrown about to relieve political pressure. Like a 20 year plan to eliminate the deficit, space activities take continuity of committment. I didn't have much faith in Bush's plan, but he stuck with it. Obama ripped it up and assures us of a new plan. I am even more certain that the next president will come in, brush Obama's half-hearted plan aside, and announce his own program. It is the worst of all worlds: we are going nowhere, and spending money doing it.
John Adams Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Any place with an airlock, which really limits anyplace. A blatant racist AND an internet tough-guy. How impressive! Since the airlock was in a spaceship, it's really limited. But of course he doesn't like Tom--he sensed Tom's Afrikaans blood.
John Adams Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 I think some of the frustration is this: his position on NASA has changed several times since the campaign. At this point it is less about whether his vision is right or wrong, but rather whether he has a genuine committment to anything space-related at all. Saying we are goint to the asteroids or Mars by 2030 has about as much weight as promising us that the deficit will be eliminated by then. It looks like empty promises, with a few activities and some money thrown about to relieve political pressure. Like a 20 year plan to eliminate the deficit, space activities take continuity of committment. I didn't have much faith in Bush's plan, but he stuck with it. Obama ripped it up and assures us of a new plan. I am even more certain that the next president will come in, brush Obama's half-hearted plan aside, and announce his own program. It is the worst of all worlds: we are going nowhere, and spending money doing it. I get this criticism. The problem with the Aries program (as I understand it) is several-fold. First, We've been to the Moon. It's not particularly interesting. I mean, I'd love to go but as a destination worthy of a national space program, there's not much value in it. Second, the Aries program was way behind and not going well so why continue to pour money down that hole? Going to Mars and returning by 2030 is not outrageous. Landing a man and returning would be (with current technologies). It's not inconceivable to orbit a man around Mars and return him by 2030...though it sure would be hard. And that would be an amazing accomplishment.
meazza Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 I get this criticism. The problem with the Aries program (as I understand it) is several-fold. First, We've been to the Moon. It's not particularly interesting. I mean, I'd love to go but as a destination worthy of a national space program, there's not much value in it. Second, the Aries program was way behind and not going well so why continue to pour money down that hole? Going to Mars and returning by 2030 is not outrageous. Landing a man and returning would be (with current technologies). It's not inconceivable to orbit a man around Mars and return him by 2030...though it sure would be hard. And that would be an amazing accomplishment. We didn't go to the moon, it was all a fraud! http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=124
TheMadCap Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Is that true, or what the media wanted people to believe? The Orion programLAS/CEV is still going to happen. Orion is a spacecraft design by Lockheed Martin for the United States space agency NASA as part of the Constellation program. Part of is not all of. As to Ares I, I believe it's being mothballed, because it's too expensive to launch. The alternate plan is to develop the Taurus 2 rocket http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/20taurus2/ It is in the sense that there is no clear plan to replace it other than some vague comments about developing hardware for longer duration flight. You have to have somewhere to go first. The biggest problem with Ares I was it's skyrocketing budget. Everytime they solved one problem with the motor, it would change the lifting power, thus, requiring modifications to the Orion. In one way, Obama did us a favor by killing off a system that was doomed to failure to begin with. Constellation was not the only, or even the best option for a Mars mission, and many people questioned why this program was chosen over something more cost effective, such as DIRECT...
Dante Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 I say we spend the money to go NOW!! I mean immediately like next week. But Obama, Pelusi(sp who cares?) and Ru Paul have to be the first astonauts. They can be the first settlers and start their own Marxist race! Can you imagine the offspring of Ru and Pelusi? Wait, can that dried up shrew even have kids anymore? Anyway, it would be cheaper in the long run even if it cost a few hundred billion to pull it off. By the time this jug head gets done with us we won't have enough trees to print all the money were going to need.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Any place with an airlock, which really limits anyplace. A blatant racist AND an internet tough-guy. How impressive! It wasn't meant to be taken literally, dumbass.
Booster4324 Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 It wasn't meant to be taken literally, dumbass. Words and terms have meaning, say like, "government official"?
Recommended Posts