Obama: 8 Billion For High-Speed Rail, 0 for NASA & JSC

I miss Ohio. Maryland is just not the same (and not as affordable).

 

there's something you don't hear too often

 

perhaps i can help:

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bv6kwG4BhC8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bv6kwG4BhC8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

 

LUNAR SHOVEL - FAILURE TO ENGAGE! ABORT!

 

$0 for Nasa, $0 for Ground Zero Victims:

--
Obama Won't Back 9/11 Health Bill

The Obama administration will not support funding a 9/11 health bill intended to pay for medical treatment for those who have become sick in the aftermath of the attack. The news apparently came as a surprise to New York Democrats, who learned Thursday that the President won't back the bill, which would dole out $11 billion over 30 years to care for the people who have gotten ill after working at Ground Zero, and compensate families for their losses, the Daily News reports.

"I was stunned — and very disappointed," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. According to Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel, it was made clear "that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism that goes into the bill." He added: "I think it's fiscal restraint ... but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this." Legislators said they would ask the President to consider adding the 9/11 bill to the list of mandatory items rather than the list of discretionary items, which are subject to the White House's planned budget freeze, according to the tabloid.

 

Here is the thing, and why this decision to transfer over to commercial *can* hurt, but it doesn't have to.

The line of thinking was to have commercial companies provide cheaper (ie...no gov oversight of design & requirement) way to ferry US astronauts to the ISS. This could help save money for real exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit.

What has people in uproar are the rumors of no plans whatsoever for anything beyond LEO. No Ares, no Orion, no lander (already de-funded), nothing. When the ISS is de-orbited where will these commercial providers be sending people to? Nowhere. More circles around the earth. We have been doing that for 30 years and I believe that is why a lot of people are loosing interest.

The commercial crew market does not exist yet, it makes no sense to completely rely on something that does not exist. The Virgin Galactic type flights are only minutes long in a sub-orbital trajectory. NASA has sent more people into space than all other nations combined. Why are we willing to loose this expertise?

All that Obama has to do is replace Ares with a more DIRECT-ly shuttle derived launcher. This saves tons of jobs (which his number one priority as of last night, right?) Kick start the commercial crew market with taxi's to ISS (ignite start up small business, right?). NASA can then focus on continuing to build a beyond LEO only version of Orion, to be launched upon this new DIRECT shuttle derived vehicle.

People are starting to realize that he could be just returning to his original pans of delaying the replacement program to fund pre-K education. He traveled to Florida and gave a talk about extending Shuttle, speeding up CxP, etc. Now he is likely to have NASA focus on climate change (that what we have the NOAA for...).

We'll see come Monday, he still has a chance. We have the opportunity to both kick start commercial space and get out of Earth Orbit. Will he be a JFK or a Nixon?

The fact that some of these posters have absolutely no pride in Houston and\or JSC makes me sick. History has been made repeatedly in our own backyard. People travel from all over the world to see JSC.

Go Houston. Go Rockets. Go NASA.

 

LOL...u want to the gov't to pay for public's health care? WOW......if you had public option or universal coverage, they wouldn't really need the 11 billion would they?......LOL.

 

What was the size of Dubya's 9/11 health bill?

 

Careful. No one wants to listen.

 

I just see this being abused. I think the PROFIT driven Model
Will have some consequences which we will all pay for. . . .

Let's start with the cost of Maintenance on these Cable/Satellites?
You think comcast/TimeWarner/DirectV/Dish Network will absorb those costs
HELL NAW!!! . . They will pass the cost onto the consumer

Add to that the Cell phone and other communications satelites?
More costs added to the consumer

Then Military Satelites maintained by profit driving civilian companies
WHEW! . . 500$ hammers. . LOOK OUT . .here come 5 Mill Toilet Seats


All these increased costs will be passed on to the consumers
in increments from 20~50$ to maybe Hundreds
over time. . these costs will DWARF what could be a few extra billion

So . . Obama could throw NASA another 10 billion
or
The U.S. consumer will end up paying 100s of Billions a year
for generations!

I like the infrastructure IDEA but imo NASA being gov Run is a must
Once again . . this is SHORT TERM THINKING
saving 10 cents today to pay 10dollars tomorrow


Rocket River

 

I lived in Ohio for almost 3 years and the only thing I miss about that sh!thole is my family and Jacobs Field.

 

Dude, You are FAR AND AWAY more optimistic than I

See. . . I consider the Government to be a big ole funnel of tax payer dollars
into rich corporate hands. This is just the opportunity corporations needs to
get a foot hold into Nasa.

The Reality is . .. folx working at NASA may get a Pay increase when they
move to the 'private sector'
[more cost passed on to the consumer]

In Out Capitalistic society
It is BETTER a private company bilk the government for 100s of billions a year
rather than the government spend 10s of billions on a slightly less efficient program [I stress the word SLIGHTLY]

Once the government let's private industry in . . the next step
is them stepping out completely.

Rocket River

 

nope.

I compiled subsurface stratigraphy around the area now known as 'top thrill dragster' and worked with the swiss engineers that built the ride. Like most swiss, they were pricks.

as a patron, I haven't been there since I was a child. 13 or 14ish, and even then I wasn't a fan of roller coasters.

 

People being "made sick" over the opinions of others is the absolute nut of what's wrong with the country right now.

You don't make me "sick" at all. We have a lot of overlap, and we see a few things differently.

I have pride in my father and his colleagues. I'm proud of him and his colleagues that put a man on the moon, that got 13 back to Earth in one piece.

I am not proud of the new brass that came in after that. He fought the plans for the shuttle and the ISS tooth and nail, and he was right. He was one of team that predicted that every 50th solid rocket, as designed, would fail catastrophically, and it was the 49th rocket that brought down the Challenger. His group's work was dismissed by the new, DC-entrenched management.

I would recommend: don't tell anyone else what to be proud of, and don't tell others, sans any real argument, why they should be provincial instead of national in the year 2010, with so many enormous challenges facing this sliding nation.

Please do support manned space flight and the current NASA trajectory -- I applaud it, even though I disagree. Again, you don't make me "sick," aside from the incredibly judgmental stuff.

 

I'll agree to that, as there will always be foul play in this world. There has bound to be a middle ground though. NASA already buys off the shelf launches for other payloads. I don't think that NASA needs to build a new launcher when proven ones are already flying. They can be made to launch humans like in the old days. There are no human ready spacecraft currently the open market however.

Where did I say that a mere difference of opinion is what makes me sick? I said specifically having absolutely no pride - none. Not a just a difference of opinion. Sorry, but people who are completely ashamed of their city, its history, and its accomplishments makes me sick. That's my opinion, too.

Of course, I am not saying that absolutely no argument can be made against either Houston or NASA. I have plenty for both. You need arguments against things to improve them at times.

I never commanded anybody telling them what they should be proud of. Again, all I said is that in my opinion, I find being ashamed of your city is messed up, and that it makes me sick. Saying I am against something and telling other people not to do it are two different things.

I get the feeling you may have thought my post was directed at you? That was not the intent.

 

I find it really bizarre that I am somehow ashamed of my city if I feel NASA is poorly run and wastes money on obsolete projects. That's like saying I'm ashamed of Houston when I say that horses are a poor mode of transport these days.

I fail to see why the space program will all of a sudden abandon Clear Lake merely because it isn't the feds picking up the tab. From what I've seen many companies already locate there, and Texas certainly doesn't discourage companies from locating here.

I'm more than a little offended at this arrogant assumption that if you don't support NASA you don't like Houston. Very reminiscent of the "move to France" crowd in the midst of Iraq. I'll reserve the right to criticize my city or country when it ****s up, thank you very much. I'm not going to go into starry eyed worship mode.