12 thoughts on “Let’s Play A Game”

  5. We spend too much. Next Sentence. We spend too little.

    Human spaceflight is not an affordable priority given the pressing demands on Earth and the scarce resources available to meet them. Equally worrying, the Obama plan risks repeating the mistakes of the past: budgeting too little.

  6. Do I have to do all the heavy lifting around here?

    Clearly, you need a crash government program to develop a heavy-lift capability.

  7. With the decommissioning of the shuttle, the United States will not have the capacity to transport crew or cargo to the station

    Assumption: United States means govt., not American businesses.

    Go Dragon… yeah, I’m a SpaceX fanboy.

  8. Mr. Obama has wisely rededicated resources to studying the effects of climate change and other phenomena on Earth.

    Big Assumption: Obama has wisdom???

    Other assumption: They have a clue how to study the climate (without making it a political football.)

  9. In an era when government will not be able to do everything

    Name an era when they could do everything! Do we want them to?

    Assumption: Govt. has to do it all.

  11. It would be better to rethink the space program entirely. The era of the space shuttle is limping to a close

    [[ really? why limping? Works about as well as always ]]

    , with just three more flights planned.

    With the decommissioning of the shuttle, the United States will not have the capacity to transport crew or cargo to the station; it will rely on, and pay, Russia to do so.

    [[ Wrong. Commercial cargo contracts from NASA are in place (not to mention the related existence of Japanese and European cargo carriers) ]]

    [[ here is my fav: ]]

    While we understand the romantic attraction of human spaceflight, the drive for exploration can be satisfied by less costly and less hazardous means. Human spaceflight is not an affordable priority given the pressing demands on Earth and the scarce resources available to meet them.

    [[ That is a value judgment, WaPo-zer. I’ll decide for myself what I value, what is worth the risk, and how I will spend my money.

    This kind of earthbound demoralizing philosophy seem to be a great argument to remove as much money from the Federal Budget as humanly possible. In that sense, I would agree with the Pozer. Defund NASA, and send the $63 dollars per year back to rightful owners. ]]

  12. I’ll try:

    > the Bush administration’s ill-conceived, under-funded program to return to the moon by 2020 and reach Mars by 2037

    > Human spaceflight is not an affordable priority given the pressing demands on Earth and the scarce resources available to meet them

    > Equally worrying, the Obama plan risks repeating the mistakes of the past: budgeting too little.

    > Under Mr. Bush’s Constellation program, NASA was spending 39 percent of its budget on human spaceflight; Mr. Obama proposes devoting just 18 percent. It’s hard to see how that will be enough if the mission remains largely the same, even with the prospect of cost savings from new technologies and increased reliance on the private sector.

    > Mr. Obama said last week that he was committing $3 billion to begin developing the heavy-lift rocket necessary to get crew and supplies into deep space. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that won’t be enough. The smaller rocket that Mr. Obama announced he was canceling, the Ares I launch vehicle, has already cost $9 billion.

    > With the decommissioning of the shuttle, the United States will not have the capacity to transport crew or cargo to the station; it will rely on, and pay, Russia to do so.

    > In an era when government will not be able to do everything, reaffirming a mission to Mars remains a long, and costly, shot.

Comments are closed.