Neil Armstrong says Barack Obama is 'poorly advised' on space

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Telegraph

Neil Armstrong says Barack Obama is 'poorly advised' on space

Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, has said that President Barack Obama is "poorly advised" on space matters, renewing criticism of a plan to abandon a project to return US astronauts to the moon.

Published: 7:00AM BST 13 May 2010

Appearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Mr Armstrong said that the Obama administration plan to end the Constellation program and cut other space efforts appeared to be made without input from NASA or the president's science adviser.

"I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the National Academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement," the Apollo 11 commander told the committee.

"A plan that was invisible to so many was likely contrived by a very small group in secret who persuaded the president that this was a unique opportunity to put his stamp on a new and innovative program."

Mr Armstrong, the first to set foot on the lunar surface in his 1969 mission, said the United States "has invested substantially for more than half a century to acquire a position of leadership in space" but that "to maintain a leadership position requires steadfast determination and a continuing investment in the future."



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7717795/Neil-Armstrong-says-Barack-Obama-is-poorly-advised-on-space.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Can't he shut up?

The president has made his decision, now STFU!

[JDPriestly]

3. I'm pleased that Armstrong is saying this.

Obama promised transparency. Who advised him with regard to his decision to change the policy on space exploration? We should know this.

[humblebum]

38. Landing men on the moon supercharged this nation's economy, knowledge

base, prestiege, and created thousands upon thousands of jobs in the process. A bold move to send Americans to Mars would have the same effect. That's what Obama is saying NO to IMHO. In this case I trust the wisdom of age and experience. That was also the wisdom of JFK.

[flaminbats]

93. so did Armstrong vote on UCUT?

Armstrong is no John Glenn, he should at least propose a tax to fund Bush's extravagant policy on Space Exploration!!

sorry, but I think Obama has taken enough hits. :shrug:

[humblebum]

98. A new focused space program would provide countless new jobs.

That in itself is worth the effort. Not to mention new industries that would started because of the Space Program. there is far too at stake to rely solely upon private industry to take the lead.

[pundaint]

5. Was that decision made with the promised public involvement? When would you allow speech?

[AllentownJake]

6. I hope that was sarcasm

Telling national treasures and historic explorers and heroes to shut-up seems kind of tasteless. No matter how much you are in love with a particular politician.

In fact, implying any American should shut-up because they disagree with a politician seems really tasteless and almost fascist.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yodoobo]

26. Neil may be a national treasure and Hero, but so his our President

And if an old out of touch national treasure is going to pick a fight with our National Treasure, one that is actively saving America, then I'm perfectly free to to decide who to back. (btw, having wrote that sentence, really hate the term "national treasure"

In this case, Obama is right and Neil is wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. They are both experts in their own fields -

and if Armstrong is saying Obama doesn't know what he's doing talking about space exploration, I'd tend to believe him - just as I'd believe Obama saying the same about anything Armstrong might happen to say about international law and the G8.

We need to be able to use the moon as a way station - a permanent base (not some low-orbit jumble of pods that will fall out of the sky in 20 years) where we can work on and perfect the problems of building structures on and under ground on hostile planets. Better to make any mistakes 3 days away from earth, then to find out there's a problem 3 months away from earth.

The first stop on the way to Mars should be the Moon.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Obama is NOT a hero!

Your use of that adjective to describe Obama cheapens the real heroes in our country, civilian and military alike, that risked so much so that the rest of us can enjoy the luxury of keyboard wars and the freedom to critique our own government and its officials.

[yodoobo]

57. maybe not to you, but he IS a hero to millions

Just because he doesn't carry a gun doesn't mean he is not a hero and beacon for us all.

Obama has given up more than you can possibly imagine to insure that you do have those freedoms. Just as the other heroes that you have in mind have.

[IndianaGreen]

59. and Obama's military record is...

and his civil rights record is...

and his antiwar record is...

The people that marched in Selma were heroes, as were the Northerners that went South to fight segregation (Joe Lieberman for example, as much as I detest him).

[yodoobo]

74. Yes he wasn't in the military

The freepers have spent alot of time posting that "important" fact.

So what. Frankly I'm glad he didn't go overseas and kill brown people, nor train to do so. I think its good that he can lead us without that element in his human makeup.


Obama has a fine anti-war record. one of the few that opposed the Iraqi war that he is now actively ending.

and he has a fine civil rights record with his work in law and community service.


Clearly you don't like your President. I think you should take your gripes elsewhere. Obama is hero and a great man to many. I think you need to comes to grips with that fact.

[IndianaGreen]

75. One speech, and a lot of war orders after he became Prez

That's not a "fine" antiwar record.

[yodoobo]

76. That's what his opponents said to try and minimize him.

Didn't work.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Tell that to the families of the fallen!

People are dying and suffering on his account!

[yodoobo]

88. ok i get it

I get it. You don't like your President.

Thats ok. He still likes you and is looking out for you.

[Moochy]

91. Obama Likes You And Is Looking Out For You

Even If You Foolishly Disagree With His Majesty.

[24601]

62. Anybody protected by dozens of armed Secret Sercice special

agents doesn't need to carry a gun. On the other hand, no Secret Service, or any other agents protect my family. In any case, people who do carry need to know how to use them proficiently. I was on the Army (West Point) Pistol Team; however, I don't carry and my 9MM S&W is locked up because my family members aren't proficient in shooting or safety. And I'm not a hero, just a vet who was never shot at.

[yodoobo]

73. point is. carrying a gun DOESN't make you a hero

Its what you do for people that does.

Few have done more for us, for you than Obama.

[24601]

82. That doesn't make him a hero either. And the tone of the thread

which I reject absolutely - was snidely deriding, by injecting a tool associated with military service, in service to our country, state, city, home. Carrying a gun doesn't mak you NOT a hero either - it's the decisions you make, not with political calculation, but most often against personal interest to your continued existence. Volunteering for service in time of war (or in time of AUMF), or completing the fire-fighter's academy and taking your 1st run to a fire, depending on the circumstances may qualify. In this context, the country is full of heroes but I'd include very few politicians in that category, and no - President Obama is the our President and Commander in Chief, but on the hero scale, I dont rank him with a medic in Afghanistan.

[yodoobo]

89. "carrying a gun" - its a metaphor.

In this country we tend to make auto-heroes out of those who go out and kill those in other countries.

"shot a foreigner"? Well then your a hero! "carried a rifle in an illegally occupied country?" Well then your a hero!

Sorry, I reject that.

Certainly there are heroes who have given life and/or everything in defense of our rights. Some of them are war heroes, some of them are fighters here in our own country. Is Rosa Parks less of a hero than Audi Murphy?

That said, some of the actions that our country has taken overseas are not apt to produce heroes. Most of us would argue that the entire Iraq war is a crime as opposed to a hero minting exercise. In fact I would say that those who oppose the war and who worked to end the war are the heroes here.

[AllentownJake]

85. Shut the Fuck Up

Seems so classy.

[MrModerate]

14. No go. Armstrong's earned the right to an opinion.

Hell, *you've* earned the right to an opinion.

[AllentownJake]

15. The fascist nature of that statement STFU, the President has decided

simply amazing. Next is a diatribe on how liberal they are.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Il Duce has decided

or the Supreme Pontiff has decided, or Big Brother has decided and those not enthused by it are followers of Emanuel Goldstein.

[dflprincess]

46. And, given that Armstrong has not spent the last 40 years seeking attention.

He has preferred a quiet, private life. Armstrong must feel very strongly about this to speak out publicly and, in additon to having the right (like all of us) to say what he thinks, he's certainly earned the right to be heard in this area.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. His timing sucks. Where has he been for the last 40 years?

He could have done a hell of a lot for the space program if he hadn't gone all Greta Garbo on us.

[sofa king]

61. Heck, where was he eight years ago....

...When that shitty plan was cobbled together by you-know-who and his rapacious defense contractor backers?

Where was he when they milked the bid and delivered an unworkable rocket that can't get an honest man-rating?

I love the space program, I want to return to the moon just as much as Neil Armstrong does. But I also know that most of the past decade's "space program" was a money-siphoning charade, just like everything else the Bush Administration backed. President Obama likely suspects that if the project is continued, the curses of corruption and incompetence will start costing lives on top of the wasted dollars.

[24601]

63. The 1st amendment doesn't have any "Earn it" provisions. n/t

[MrModerate]

83. True, but expressing an opinion calls for a higher standard than merely speaking . . .

And Armstrong -- right, wrong, or indifferent -- meets that standard.

[24601]

94. Higher standard? Protecting one's opinion is precisely what it's

about. Armstrong is a civilian with a point of view - with no "higher standard" on his lawful speech other than to tell it as he sees it without equivocation. We know precisely who he is and can judge for ourselves whatever value we put on his words.

President Obama is sworn to protect Armstrong's right to say it.

[MrModerate]

96. We seem to be talking past each other. Suffice it to say, I agree with your most recent post. n/t

[24601]

101. Fair enought - we're in violent agreemnt! n/t

[Lerkfish]

21. Um.. on space matters I take his advice over those advising Obama

and your post, sarcastic or not, is too eerily close to conversations I used to have with freepers at work regarding Bush.

[woo me with science]

52. +1 nt

[paulk]

72. +2

[razorman]

23. Will you feel the same way about whoever complains if President Obama's successor

reverses the decision?

[mbperrin]

25. Mmmm, it's not that kind of country.

Is it?

[Hosnon]

34. With regard to this nation's science policy (including space exploration), the opinions of

experts carry quite a bit of weight, as they should.

[boppers]

67. Astronauts are not policy experts.

They're payload, not informed decision makers.

[Hosnon]

86. Who said they were? But, then again, when it comes to space policy,

I would be surprised to find out that Armstrong wasn't extremely knowledgeable.

But your language (i.e., "payload") indicates your mind is likely made up.

[boppers]

95. Ever talked to a test pilot?

They are to science what Johnny Knoxville is to anthropology.

[christx30]

35. You're right

Because the President is actually a God who's will must NEVER be questioned ever. <sarcasm>

[AngryOldDem]

41. I had to laugh when I read this.

Shut up? Hell, the man's been a virtual recluse since 1969. It says something that he feels this strongly that he wants to speak out publicly.

He's entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

[Posteritatis]

48. I'll bet you found this sort of statement evil a few years ago. (nt)

[Vidar]

50. Armstrong's an expert on space; whereas Obama's expertise lies in corrupt Chicago

politics, of which we've had far too much already.

[boppers]

68. Armstrong's an expert on space?

I haven't seen his scholarly work on the topic, care to point me to his peer-reviewed work on the subject?

Or is simply being a passenger enough to make someone an "expert"?

[jberryhill]

69. I understand your point

But it did take more than being "a passenger", and Mr. Armstrong was very lucky to be selected from among a number of qualified persons.

I do understand that Mr. Armstrong has the luxury of not trying to make an entire government function, and that his perspective is biased.

Neil Armstrong, however, is a great American and his personal conduct in the context of his unique position in the history of the human species has been exemplary.

He, and Barack Obama, are among my top heroes, and I hope they have the opportunity to exchange views.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Our Audacious Leader has spoken, as he did on offshore drilling back in March!

Who are we, the insignificant people of this country, to challenge the wisdom and decisions of the Anointed One?

[neverforget]

77. I bet Buzz Aldrin doesn't have to shut up since he supports Obama, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051204404.html

Despite opposition from the Apollo commanders, other colleagues -- including Armstrong's crew mate Buzz Aldrin, the first American woman in space, Sally Ride, and numerous other, more recent astronauts -- support Obama's plans. Armstrong, Cernan and Lovell also served in an era when the agency dominated a greater percentage of the federal budget and before the agency's mission added scientific responsibilities. NASA also has added costly safety precautions to missions since the Apollo missions, making it harder to fulfill the wishes of older astronauts.

[QC]

80. You could have gone a long way in the court of Louis XIV. n/t

[Wilms]

2. Here's another good quote from the Senate hearing that invited Armstrong's testimony..

“It would be a disservice to NASA and to this nation to yet again initiate a space program where the means do not match the ends. Doing so merely guarantees that we will be meeting here still another time five to ten years hence. It is one thing to preserve jobs…it is another to conduct a space program. In this case, the former is easy…the latter is difficult.”

Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chairman, Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=35e2339c-7d93-4785-b02f-7658a5e08bb5


Hard to imagine a program more troubled than the Constellation. OK. The shuttle.

But Armstrong is right. Actually, claiming the President is ill-advised is sortof self-evident.

:(

[bananas]

7. Augustine: "This program appears to be a viable undertaking, one that ranked highly in our overall..

From Augustine's prepared statement (pdf): http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=34016715-d8b2-471e-a4f1-21179c12cc22

While the committee did not offer a program that cancelled the Constellation program in its entirety, it did offer an option, referred to in the report as “5B,” that generally approximates the President’s plan as it was described during his recent remarks at Cape Kennedy. This program appears to be a viable undertaking, one that ranked highly in our overall assessment…provided, and this is to be emphasized, that it is funded as stipulated and that decisions are made as scheduled (especially those regarding a heavy-lift vehicle). The funding profile identified in our report to support Option 5B adds to the baseline budget profile three billion dollars per year, phased in over the next four years and realistically corrected for inflation using the appropriate aerospace indices.

I haven't watched the webcast yet - it's archived at http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=54f5c39e-f62c-487f-b9ed-fd4be38d096f&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=5&YearDisplay=2010

that link is from http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=20610

edit to add: links to prepared statements are in http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/12/2311971.aspx

[joshcryer]

Thanks for that, I've been saying it's Option 5B for quite some time.

[joshcryer]

17. BTW, prepared statements are on the commerce hearing site, too.

(linked from there, I mean)

[Ex Lurker]

4. Armstrong is a private citizen, he's under no obligation to shut up

and he speaks with more authority on the matter than just about anyone else alive. I agree with him; the President has made an ill-advised decision.

[ingac70]

8. Then Armstrong needs to cough up the cash to fund all of this.

Hello! There have been floods in TN and the White House has already said it will have to ask for supplemental funds because FEMA is so fucked from the last Admin.

I guess it is all a matter of priorities.

[AllentownJake]

13. I got a few ideas of where we can shift a few dollars for exploration

They come from these two wars we are funding, we could build on our knowledge and technology, or we could continue to bomb goat herders in caves...decisions, decisions.

Must be tough to be the Orator knowing the right thing to do without the political courage to do it.

[SemperEadem]

20. exactly

I can think of many more important things to fund with taxpayer dollars. After the collosal waste of money and time with Mars explorers which won't run unless perfect conditions exist, I can understand reluctance to giving NASA a blank check. There needs to be a far better return on investment than what is currently being given. This romantic notion of the US conquering space when they can't figure out how to keep a human from going mad from being alone in space for years at a time is laughable.

[Peace Patriot]

31. A "better return on investment" is Milton Friedman-speak.

Government "of, by and for" the people should be seeking the common good--including the long term goods of education, expanding knowledge of the universe, R&D for R&D's sake and inspiration--not a "return on investment." I see our political life constantly infested with the language of multinational corporate P.R. because they control the media. For instance, they have brainwashed many of us to believe that multinational corporations are more "efficient" than government at almost any task. They would love to make Social Security more "efficient," for instance (i.e., loot and destroy the best program the federal government has ever devised). And they have tried to make our educational system more "efficient" by expensive corporate standardized testing, aimed at making good little robot workers, while looting government coffers with tax cuts for the rich and corporate resource wars, resulting in the firing of thousands of teachers, the defunding of schools and the closing of libraries. But perhaps their worst--most destructive--"sell" of corporate "efficiency" has been their coup of private, corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting with virtually no audit/recount controls, now all over the U.S. They sold it as "more efficient" giving us faster election returns (i.e., great "return on investment" for ONE far rightwing-connected corporation, ES&S, which just bought out Diebold and now has an 80% monopoly on the U.S. voting machine 'market') but left out the democracy part--the part where everybody has a right to SEE and understand how our votes are counted.

Phrases like "return on investment" are designed to make us think that government should behave like Wall Street, like ES&S, like Exxon Mobil, like BP. Profit first. Profit is God. Profit is the ONLY value.

I disagree with you about the Mars explorers. I think that R&D for R&D's sake is an appropriate use of government resources. I certainly think that such programs should be monitored--democratically vetted on goals, on use of the money, on corruption, etc., as well as vetted by independent scientists on scientific validity and efficacy--but I DON'T think that they should be evaluated for "return on investment" any more than a child's ability to answer standardized questions should be used to evaluate teachers. The goal of a good teacher is to install love of learning--NOT love of rote learning, NOT love of guessing what "the authorities" want you to conclude is the right answer. We need a higher but necessarily messier, less "efficient" (less corporate), more difficult to quantify standard for programs that seek long term social good--such as the space program and the educational system.

We're throwing BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars into killing, terrorizing and controlling people in foreign lands--a crippling expenditure that is mostly padding the pockets of PRIVATE corporations. And we have let these multinational entities run wild in every respect--including their very "efficient" ruination of the Florida and Louisiana coastal waters, beaches and wildlife at the present moment. How about we give some respect, instead, to the inefficient "tree huggers" and to the "crying in the wilderness" biologists and other scientists who have repeatedly warned about both off-shore oil drilling and deregulation. Fund THEM. Give them an agency, give THEM big government contracts to provide INDEPENDENT (of corporate influence) social and scientific opinion about our ruinous dependence on oil and on control of our government agencies by multinational oil vultures like BP. An INTUITIVE lover of dolphins is a far better guide to government policy on ocean oil drilling than corporate-run Minerals Management and the EPA have been. Independent, CAUTIOUS scientists and engineers--if they had had a voice--would have PREVENTED the BP spill by requiring installation of a failsafe device that cost mere millions, instead of the BILLIONS now lost to the oil spill and what may well be permanent degradation of the environment, at a time when the entire planet is in danger from the use of fossil fuels and other pollutants.

"Return on investment" is the wrong kind of thinking for certain very important subjects--and, in my opinion, space exploration is one of them. You cannot quantify love of learning. You cannot guarantee profit from scientific research. You cannot put a dollar value on the inspiration, motivation, increase in human knowledge and future usefulness of live pictures from Mars, of soil tests on Mars, of human habitation of the Moon, of the discovery of water in many places in our solar system, of the discovery of planets outside of our solar system, of Hubble's penetration of the vast, vast, vast, VAST reaches of the universe or of the potential discovery of life elsewhere in the universe. These things are not "cost-effective." They are more important than that. They express our VALUES as a society. Are we killers and greedbags? Or are we adventurers, educators and democrats with a small d? Do we believe in human progress or do we believe that profit is God?

[Igel]

45. You've delineated the return you want to see on your investment.

ROI doesn't have to be measured in $/time -- revenue for the current f/y. It can be anything you get in *return* for your *investment*.

Obama likes to talk about "investing" in people, in education, in infrastructure. He likes to talk about the *benefits* ("returns") in people's lives, in American competitiveness, in American prosperity.

In other words, his entire complaint is that there hasn't been sufficient investment, hence sufficient return; that there hasn't been smart investment, hence there's been insufficient return.

It's "business speak" and "economics speak," not "Milton-Friedman" speak--unless you simply mean that Friedman spoke as an economist. Regardless of the superficial form, the substance is still worthwile. Then again, I've always thought that form should follow function, that symbols were less important than the referents they stand for, that superficiality is to be subordinate to substance.

[customerserviceguy]

51. The Mars Rovers

have lasted much longer than anyone ever expected. They're a testament to our engineering skills, which we used to celebrate in the heyday of space exploration. Your comments about human exploration are noted, but they don't apply to unmanned space probes.

When we were watching the first satellites go up in space 40-50 years ago, could we forsee GPS machines? You might regard them as a frill, but they keep a lot of people from wasting time and gasoline not knowing where the heck they're going.

[boppers]

70. The mars rover program massively exceeded expectations.

"which won't run unless perfect conditions exist"?

They were expected to run for 90 *days*. They've been going for 7 *years*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover

[IndianaGreen]

55. End Obama's wars, and there will be plenty of money

for our country's infrastructure, for Medicare for all, and to take care of those impacted by climate change (including you).

[ingac70]

65. Obama's wars? Seems I saw that on some teabagger signs...

in Nashville at their "convention"

[IndianaGreen]

66. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Philippines, Pakistan... How many so far?

Unlike those folks that will support a war, or series of wars, just because there is a Democratic President, progressives are opposed to all those wars and to the infringement of our liberties at home--no matter who is in the White House.

It was a Democratic President who chose to escalate the war in Vietnam, with tragic consequences, and it was another Democratic President that chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

[Moochy]

92. When do they stop being Bush's Wars?

2012?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KellyW]

10. He’s right

And that is the ultimate soft criticism. He is not saying there is anything wrong with the president or his judgment. Just that he is poorly advised. Always the best approach if you want to persuade someone.
He is also spot-on. The bad advice is coming from Lori Garver. I was extremely disappointed when she took the main role in the transition for NASA. And even though she is officially ‘Deputy Administrator’, she is the real power when it comes to shaping policy, rather than the ‘ex astronaut’ who is officially the NASA administrator. Her career in some ways exemplifies what has gone wrong with NASA since about 1990. Lots of plans, but no actual flying.

[joshcryer]

16. Armstrong has been too out off the loop to know how NASA was being handled by Griffen.

NASA was a debacle, a cost-plus government funded expedition to nowhere.

[madrchsod]

18. the space program decided to make a big rv....

with no where to park it. nasa has wasted years with their rv program .we should have a base on the moon by now.

[Wizard777]

19. Speaking of space. Obama is also poorly advised on drug issues.

[CLANG]

22. Hey old fart - STFU! Whose money do you want to use?

[yodoobo]

24. Neil needs to mind his own business

He hasn't been involved in space in 30 years.

Obama has the best and men around him to advise - Men who are CURRENT on matters.

Heck I've never been involved in space in a professional capacity and even I can see that Obama's plan is the wiser and better.

Go back to your retirement and let the experts run things Neil. Obama has this under control.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mbperrin]

28. The point of the space program is not to go anywhere in particular, or

to "conquer" space. It is to solve the problems associated with doing that, and the space program is the father and mother of all that inhabitants of the USA value today.

Like cell phones? No space program, no satellites, no micro technology. Like the Internet? No DARPA, no Internet. Like all of the various medical and scanning technologies? No space program, none of that. Like superinsulation and sustainable living? No space program, none of that. Like solar energy? No space program, none of that.

The moment we decided to militarize space, which is what the current administration is doing, we lose all the innovation for the public, as everything becomes shrouded in the "fog" of the Pentagon. Giving up on space means surrendering the lead on technology, and that means the death of our particular civilization, far from perfect, but when dead, further than ever from improvement. We spent pennies on space in return for TRILLIONS in benefits.

But I suppose killing wedding parties in Afghanistan and looting museums in Iraq, granting trillions to crooked bankers and international corporations are all higher priorities than the actual improvement of life for our citizens. Certainly has been that way for a while now and accelerating.

At least I'm old enough that I won't have to see the end, because I have not and will not consent to the means that gets us there.

[ozone_man]

37. +1

Where are our priorities? Waging war and bailing out banksters seems to be Obama's path. Not a national treasure in my book.

[go west young man]

29. For all these "Shut the fuck upers". You debate with the skill of a five year

old pedantic child. You have all the charm and wit of a Bill O'Reilly. You do a disservice to DU and make us no better than Freepers. Please, please, grow up. For if the best DU has is "STFU" then this country is in real trouble. Debate the Op and get informed and quit making the rest of DU look bad please. America has to evolve beyond this ignorant selfishness. This selfishness that makes you "STFUpers"think you can be as rude as you like and still be taken seriously. DU can do much better.

As far as the Space Programs go that's an easy one. Quit funding useless wars and there's plenty of money for everything. That's where the real debate should be on a site like DU. We should all be against the useless wars if we are truly progressive liberals. We should shut down the behemoth military industry that's robbing us blind and get truly progressive.

[Duppers]

64. +100 nt

NT

[lovely]

78. I agree

[yodoobo]

90. true enough, but this is a not a high school contest.

Obama is doing the business of the nation and leading us all as individuals forward.

Somtimes people need to stop pretending they are on the high school debate team and let the man do what he has been asked to do.

[Hatchling]

30. Obama is poorly advised on a lot of things.

Just sayin' :popcorn:

[Cha]

40. And, I'm just sayin' he's done an amazing

clean up job so far since he took over the bushcheney job in spite of all the lies and cheap shots swirling around him.

[Bragi]

32. Maybe it's the same people he's listening to on Afghanistan? /nt

[Kolesar]

33. The Cold War is over. This gravy train for the weapons industry has to come to a stop

I am in favor of Earth observation and deep space probes, but spending a hundred billion for national pride is stupid.

[mbperrin]

39. NASA budget this year: $18 billion. Total all spending by NASA since

1958 - $450 billion.

This year's war on terra - $162 billion; total since 2001: $685 billion.

Spending 2/3 of a trillion to kill wedding parties, goat herders, and other civilians seems a bit stupid.

[Kolesar]

44. Non sequitur ... eom

[mbperrin]

47. ?

[hunter]

42. The Fonz has jumped the shark. No, seriously.

Going "Back to the Future" um, I mean "Back to the Moon!" using 1950's missile technology would be just like that.

There are plenty of guys who restore old railroad equipment and streetcars; machines that were high technology a hundred years ago. But they don't pretend they are pushing any new technologies and they will even do their best to preserve the flaws and quirks of the old technology. A lovingly restored antique streetcar fitted out with a modern regenerative solid state motor controller just wouldn't be right.

Our current tools for reaching earth orbit are primitive. They are in every way the technological equivalents of toxic smoke belching coal fired steam locomotives. Since these machines are currently the only thing we've got then the Russian engineering approach of "make the damned things work" is by far the best. You want to get into space? The safest craft is a Soyuz. There's little need for anything new unless it encompasses some radically new technology -- technology nobody has. (Or maybe you believe there are aliens hidden away in some Area 51 freezer...)

I love space exploration. Unfortunately we are somewhat frozen in our past and limited in our perspectives. The next great innovations in space travel probably won't occur within the confines of current space programs. These innovations are going to happen in someone's lab, probably a lab researching some obscure and curious phenomena on a shoestring budget.

If we truly want to get ahead and into space we need to be funding this basic kind of research and not simply throw money at projects that are expensive rehashes of older technologies.

The current space technology needs to be kept alive, so yes, keep feeding the space station.

And yes, this same technology could be used on the Moon or on a long dreary and dangerous trip to Mars, but what's the point? Putting more human footprints on the Moon, or footprints on Mars is vanity. It's not research, it's not progress.

When we've developed the technology to make the trip to Mars in two weeks or less, maybe then it will be worthwhile and exciting to send some humans along for the ride. But a two year Mission to Mars or a Moonbase Alpha using current technologies is just a slow tragedy in the making.

Let's do the basic science and engineering first and make the trip exciting.

[Demeter]

43. Space Ain't The Only Area Obama Gets Bad Advice

Look at the economy, the banks, the war crimes, the wars...we aren't even getting any change.

[Art_from_Ark]

81. Really

Add to that the utterly unconscionable decision to allow lots of new offshore drilling leases in the wake of what will undoubtedly be the worst man-made environmental disaster ever.

Is there any area where he's actually getting GOOD advice?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Armstrong = Leno, Aldrin = Conan.

I'm with CoCo.

[lynne]

58. Mr. Armstrong has earned the right to give his opinion and I'm glad he's speaking up -

- I'm more inclined to have faith in what he has to say than anything coming from a corporate CEO or a politician.

[woo me with science]

71. Everyone has a right to voice an opinion, but some opinions are worth more than others.

Armstrong's carries more weight than most.

[bobthedrummer]

79. Except when weightless, nevertheless Armstrong is a monumental hero

[hatrack]

84. This from the guy who said "Feynman is being a real pain in the ass" during the Challenger hearings

That's right, wouldn't want anybody to get to the heart of the matter as to how bad decisions and political pressure killed seven astronauts. That would be "poorly advised", wouldn't it?

Whatever, Neil.

[tinrobot]

97. Time for a new paradigm, Neil...

When you sat on top of that Saturn V in July of 1969, it was the pinnacle of a cold war driven, military industrial complex-enabled effort that created a amazing moment in time. Glad you were the star of that show, and it sure was a good show. But we are no longer fighting the cold war, and the military industrial complex needs to go. The moment you had 40 years ago will not return, and should not return.

We need to develop new, cheaper, faster, and less bureaucratic ways of reaching orbit and beyond. That requires ditching the bloated Constellation rocket and coming up with a new paradigm.

[renegade000]

99. And Buzz Aldrin supports the president's direction:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/421062main_Buzz_Aldrin_Statement.pdf

We can play the "he said/she said" game all day...

My personal opinion, Obama has done more for the future of science via his reform of health insurance, the student loan system, and inclusion of basic research grants in the stimulus package (and other funding increases) than he has "hurt" it by simply refocusing the efforts of ONE federal agency. I'm getting ready to start a PhD program, and thanks to his policies, I and other graduate students can worry a little less about funding opportunities and living expenses. In other words, it's now easier for people who want to be scientists to make that commitment.

This whole controversy strikes me as a bunch of complaining that Obama has cancelled the "cool" project, and all we have left is just those lame unmanned missions and basic research projects... because those have never taught us anything or employed anyone... :sarcasm:

Feel free to flame away...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

100. Were bankrupt, something has to give

And sending fighter pilots and scientists on camping trips in space is a good place to start,