What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
75 Comments
- kingofinternet, on 06/03/2008, -5/+57going to mars made more sense than going to iraq
- 471776, on 06/03/2008, -3/+29I'm an Obama fan, but his space policy isn't exactly great. The NASA budget should be increased, not cut. I think he should re-examine the issue.
- charlietuna, on 06/03/2008, -1/+15This is a quote I ripped off from http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2007/11/p ...
''Americans believe that funding for NASA accounts for 24 percent of the federal budget. In reality, of course, the percentage is much smaller, much, much smaller. ...[T]he space agency's funding as a percentage of the federal budget at somewhere around 0.6 percent.''
Lets try to correct that misperception. - jedi3335, on 06/03/2008, -4/+16I hope you guys realize that Obama has already pledged to delay the Constellation project by another 5 years (leaving us a full decade without our own manned space program). You can read it on his website, on a policy document called, "Pre-K:12 Education Fact Sheet". The last paragraph details how he plans to delay manned space flight to fund universal pre-k. There are a lot of pressing issues facing this nation currently, but I feel that neglecting space flight in favor of government pre-school is a bad trade off.
- Pilot85, on 06/03/2008, -0/+12scientific exploration generally does make more sense than unjustifiable wars.
- toxicityj, on 06/03/2008, -4/+14Speak for yourself. I'd gladly pay extra at the pump if it meant NASA got better funding.
- CDoug03, on 06/03/2008, -6/+16Actually continued space flight is the key to our energy crisis. The moon has enough Helium-3 in its surface to power the entire human popular near indefinitely.
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72 ... - eth3l, on 06/03/2008, -2/+12It is my belief that Obama's policies are regressive and that the left wants nothing more than to see the US status as a world leader fade into the sunset. Obama's policy of ending constellation is a step in this direction.
The fact is the space program is a massive mark of pride for the US. Without it you can trash just about every piece of technlogy you use on a daily basis, from velco to tiny transistors. If we do not maintain a manned space presence then the russians and Chinese will dominate and there is alot wrong with that proposition.
The saddest thing is that bailing Constellation will put so many people out of jobs and we will be at great risk for losing some of the best and brightest scientists. - vampgrrl, on 06/03/2008, -2/+10Wrong, besides that it is mankind destiny to advance technology, there are resources that we know of, and some we don't yet know that we may be able to use, but it is the answer to getting humans off this planet and into space, which is critical for the survival of mankind. Think about 10, 100, 500 years down the road, not just next month.
Everything is a waste without leadership and a vision. I mean, England could have said nah...we don't have time to sail to the New World, we have problems enough here... - ridium, on 06/03/2008, -1/+9The space program helped drive innovation in the US and reinvigorated interest in the sciences. Investing in the space program is investing in our future and has direct benefits for our school system and industry.
In education, interest in the sciences will rise and give educators something they can point to and say "This is why science is important." For business, it creates new industries and gives businesses a market for innovative products.
Current issues are important but without an eye to the future we'll be stuck in the present. - vanguardanon, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7I don't agree with completely shutting down NASA, I view it just like a military agency. You need to keep it going in moderation at all time. Every president in my memory (I'm 35) has announced great things for NASA and each time it was shot down by a population that cared more about day to day concerns.
You will not be a hero if you try to put people on Mars. You will be nailed for not doing something about (insert your favorite crisis/problem here). - modad, on 06/03/2008, -3/+10The lack of a manned space program isn't that bad. Unmanned missions cost less, don't put anyone's lives at risk, can be done more frequently and have gathered lots and lots of data. While I admit it would be cool to have someone go to Mars or even back to the moon, not doing those any time soon won't stop the process of space exploration, it'll just make it different.
- Regbooker, on 06/03/2008, -1/+7Do you actually know from where your computer's microchip base technology came from ?
- arunforce, on 06/03/2008, -1/+6You are really clueless, aren't you?
- Pssdoff, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4If we successfully construct space tethers, it would drastically cut fuel requirements.
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4yea, because we are getting so much free oil from Iraq.
- zydeco, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5I'd rather see a domestic "space program" dedicated to solving our energy problems. You'll still get your Velcro and integrated circuit-type discoveries, we'll get this country independent of oil and back on it's feet, THEN we'll have the resources to get to Mars or whatever else we want to do.
The planet will still be there for millions of years to come. What's the rush to get there and find ice? Because we can't let the Chinese do it first? It's time to get your head out of the Cold War and into the realities of today's world. - MarkHattersley, on 06/03/2008, -1/+4I love the way you just typed that thought into a computer and shared it with the world via a satellite network... did you manage to keep a straight face as well or was that too much to ask for?
- Yage2006, on 06/03/2008, -1/+4If America would stop declaring war on things it would have been colonizing space by now with all the $ its been wasting.
- Sairynn, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3There's no need to limit this to NASA. There's plenty of people in the government who should become an hero.
- PigGeneral, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3I would be quite pleased if a President made a hard push towards a space exploration milestone. Would push for so many tangent developments that would help society as a whole, as the last space push did.
It was posted earlier, affordable launch technology. A launch loop would be amazing to have for society, as well as our economy. Would create jobs building the thing, and then being the country that slingshot things into orbit for 1/20th current costs? Yeah like that couldn't have long term applications. It would definitely go overbudget to build (new and experimental projects do, its a fact), however it would have long term and lasting applications. Or partner up with ESA to build the thing. That is what really holds the human race back. We keep using these quaint chemical rockets to push ourselves off the planet. Was cool in the 60s, not really so much anymore. - rupertd, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3That sentence just summed it all up perfectly. Beautiful.
Please America, make Space an issue this election, the rest of the world needs your lads at NASA to push the world forward! - inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3Everyone knows it was from the alien wreckage at Roswell. Don't try to prove otherwise.
- Arramol, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3There's not a "hero" in the sense of someone who takes it all upon himself, true, but even 40 years after the fact, to someone who wasn't even alive then, it's awe-inspiring to watch the earliest lunar landing footage and hear, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Being born in the 80s, I haven't gotten to see anything like that. The Mars rovers are a great step, but a human landing is much more tangible. I'd like to see us become the boldly advancing nation again - even out of competitiveness) instead of being mired in this business of Iraq and recession.
- Greengoo, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3What?
- Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3MEGATRON!
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -1/+3Personally, I think Obama will waste tons of money on "programs". But just to clarify, your definition of "showing leadership" means funding NASA?
- csstudent, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4I'd rather see NASA spam than Obama spam.
- nick111, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4Nah, the reason there isn't so much money to go around is that your guy spent it all on a war.
You've got to see Obama's point though - I mean if education is properly invested in then there will be less people like you about the place voting for people like Bush. It's a win win for everyone. Even you, only you probably can't see it from here. - vampgrrl, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4And Obama has made comments stating he would take money away from NASA and give to other programs. That is not showing leadership, especially as the Chinese do have lofty goals to get into space (as do India, and a resurgent Russia)
- frankingeneral, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2This is exactly the problem. NASA can't be privatized cause it would never make money. Look at the comment below. Tempurpedic mattresses, that's why we should keep NASA, so we can develop something and give it to the Swedes so they can make money off of it. ***** brilliant.
- JohnnyXmas, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2A human mission to Mars is expected to cost $40 billion to $80 billion.
The cost of the War on Iraq has now exceeded $500 billion.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.... - Emmo213, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2We are not going to lose our space program. He wants to cut back on NASAs budget, not cut NASA. They are different.
- jayemee, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2You only need to get to the moon once, theoretically. Once there sending anything back would be a comparative doddle.
- Rocketman1882, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Saying the moon can cure the energy crisis isn't very clear thinking. The problem with your argument is the energy required to get to and back from the moon. Right now, our current fleet can only carry a very small payload into space. It takes a lot of power to remove something from the Earth's gravitational field, so unless engineers are able to come up with a solution, we won't be getting any free energy from the moon.
- doctechnical, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Replace "terrorists" with "communists" and you've got the reason we went to the moon in the first place. It wasn't for scientific exploration as much as it was (a) a huge propaganda win and (b) keeping our hand in for the militarization of space.
- CeeJayDK, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1What's wrong with beaming energy back to earth ?
- FriskDown, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1What is that supposed to mean?
- Icetype, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Your comment is full of win.
- akash8m, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2No single country can manage all the space costs, it is better to have a United Nations Federations so all countries can contribute and do wonders for mankind.
- prometheanspark, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I don't believe a redirection of NASA from the current Ares 1/V to something more like DIRECT will resonate particularly well with voters because the issue is too complex and the savings (if any) are relatively modest. Ares 1 is a pretty lame rocket, but it's main purpose is to develop the J-2x and 5 seg SRB that will be used on the Ares V. Ares V itself is quite a respectable rocket.
Hopefully SpaceX will be successful with their Falcon 1 launch this month, and successfully launch a Falcon 9 in the first year of the next administration. Between SpaceX and Bigelow aerospace, the US basically has an embryonic private space program. The COTS program was a bold move in support of this, and given a little good news from SpaceX the next president should propose increased use of these resources. That would probably resonate better with voters, not least because they'll be able to purchase flights on SpaceX rockets and stay in Bigelow stations. Whereas only Saudi princes can buy a ride on NASA rockets.
I don't think modifying the RS-68 for an upper stage would be a good idea. If anything the J-2X is a little on the large side itself. A better option would be the RL-10 based RL-60 engine that is 3 times the size of the RL-10, and about 1/3 the J-2X or 1/15 the RS-68, and has considerable development done already. Such an engine could be used on the EELVs and future upgrades, such as the wide bodied centaur as well as exploration launch vehicles. If Ares V requires the full thrust of the J-2X, two or three RL-60s could be used. Considering that Saturn 1 used 6 RL-10 and Saturn V used 5 J-2s, that wouldn't be unprecedented. This would result in a production rate (and cost reduction) of the RL-60 of perhaps 10-20 per year as opposed to 4 per year for the J-2X. If we're going to build a factory for a new engine, we might as well pick an engine that will actually get used. - modad, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I'm glad my sarcasm wasn't lost on everyone.
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -3/+4Reminds me of when Homer Simpson was sent to space because nobody paid attention to NASA anymore.
Popular with geeks, but the general population thinks NASA is basically a giant waste of money. It's no hero, sadly.
We're talking about a population that contains a big portion of people who think a college education is a waste of time. And that God zapped everything into existence.
But hey, when you're at the point where poor people can't afford milk, space exploration is pretty much an extravagance. I somewhat agree that things like health are more important than space exploration that may or may not turn out to be valuable within the next 100 years. - SPThom, on 06/03/2008, -5/+6I grew up fascinated with the space program, and I do wish it got better attention, both in terms of funding and in recognition. But there are far more pressing issues to deal with. A president that could help end this stupid war, help right our economy (and the crummy business practices & lack of regulations that keep landing us here), that could help turn our educational system around from being among the worst of modern nations, would be plenty heroic for me. No time for building legacies, let's start fixing what's broken.
- 471776, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I'll vote for him, because I believe in most of his policies. Almost everything he wants to do will be positive and useful for our country; NASA is one of very few areas where I would disagree with his policy.
- spacester, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1FWIW, and it prolly ain't much . . . .
My 5-point plan to make things happen up there much sooner, and still be compatible with Barack's politics, as I understand them:
"What if Obama said . . . "
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1 ... - littlebiker, on 06/03/2008, -3/+4It's great where we are getting to- you never know how much this can help. Wonder how many of us really want to see the outer space:
http://www.tezaa.com/view/holiday_on_another_plane ... - smek2, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I didn't intend to downplay the landing on the moon. Just to point out, that spaceflight isn't just a NASAs achievement.
- justanotherday, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1It means not taking money away from one of the few very massively successful programs the US government has ever had. The ROI on the space program has been enormous. It means continuing to fund them at about 0.5% of the federal budget. What's so wrong with that? Have you ever considered how much of the stuff you use every day has been spawned directly by that investment?
- Zodac, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0"A newly-inaugurated President Clinton, McCain, or Obama could give NASA a big public challenge to do better, while instructing the agency to do no damage or modification to the nation’s precious STS infrastructure. Let him or her challenge NASA to come up with a better plan to get its new launcher online sooner, and cheaper."
Man what?
Just saying "do what you're doing, but do it better and for less money, you figure out how" and expecting results is good leadership? -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is