Obama's speech today at NASA

[AshtonBlack]

Not as much as it will....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... t-revealed

[Clinton Huxley]

Not as much as it will....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... t-revealed

Ah, but that includes the new aircraft carriers, too. You know, the ones that might not have any planes on them.....

[beige]

On a more serious note, how much does this cost the British taxpayers?

I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay too late in answering that

[RuleBritannia]

Thank you Obama , because what NASA needs to get a person to Mars isn't money, it's wishes. Wish powered spaceships, rockets filled with hope and Cross-Your-Fingers Fuel®.

[oddmanout]

On a more serious note, how much does this cost the British taxpayers?

I think a replacement for Trident is estimated to cost about £100 Billion, over the service lifetime of the system. One can't help but think that money could be spent on something more useful.

Not as much as it will....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... t-revealed

Wow, astronomical costs! Well, to be honest I don't know much about the UK's budget, but surely that must be a huge chunk of it (even if divided upon many years)? And yes, surely that money could be spent better!

[oddmanout]

Thank you Obama , because what NASA needs to get a person to Mars isn't money, it's wishes. Wish powered spaceships, rockets filled with hope and Cross-Your-Fingers Fuel®.

6 billion dollars isn't enough? (No, I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't have any idea if that is a lot, too little or nothing at all in this context).

[Kristie]

Thank you Obama , because what NASA needs to get a person to Mars isn't money, it's wishes. Wish powered spaceships, rockets filled with hope and Cross-Your-Fingers Fuel®.

Sounds like a Disney movie.

[Rum]

On a more serious note, how much does this cost the British taxpayers?

I think a replacement for Trident is estimated to cost about £100 Billion, over the service lifetime of the system. One can't help but think that money could be spent on something more useful.

Not as much as it will....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... t-revealed

Wow, astronomical costs! Well, to be honest I don't know much about the UK's budget, but surely that must be a huge chunk of it (even if divided upon many years)? And yes, surely that money could be spent better!

Yep - it would sort out our current financial mess in more or less one go.

[Clinton Huxley]

On a more serious note, how much does this cost the British taxpayers?

I think a replacement for Trident is estimated to cost about £100 Billion, over the service lifetime of the system. One can't help but think that money could be spent on something more useful.

Not as much as it will....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... t-revealed

Wow, astronomical costs! Well, to be honest I don't know much about the UK's budget, but surely that must be a huge chunk of it (even if divided upon many years)? And yes, surely that money could be spent better!

Yep - it would sort out our current financial mess in more or less one go.

WelL, the budget deficit for this year is more than £100bn........

[oddmanout]

Yep - it would sort out our current financial mess in more or less one go.

Hm. I hate to ask too many questions, because even I find that annoying, but is there any current debate about it among politicians? (The reason I formulated my question that way is because in Sweden, there are a lot of issues that "the people" discuss which the politicians completely ignore, i.e. one would imagine that there is a "silent agreement" on the issue).

[Clinton Huxley]

Yep - it would sort out our current financial mess in more or less one go.

Hm. I hate to ask too many questions, because even I find that annoying, but is there any current debate about it among politicians? (The reason I formulated my question that way is because in Sweden, there are a lot of issues that "the people" discuss which the politicians completely ignore, i.e. one would imagine that there is a "silent agreement" on the issue).

Won't hear too much talk of the deficit until after the election. No party wants to admit what it is going to have to do once elected to get the finances back in shape. It's going to be slash and burn.....

[oddmanout]

Won't hear too much talk of the deficit until after the election. No party wants to admit what it is going to have to do once elected to get the finances back in shape. It's going to be slash and burn.....

That's odd! In Sweden, the exact opposite would be the case; all parties would talk about just how they would counter the deficit before the election, and then they would do something completely different (or even the opposite) once in power.

There's a Swedish word, "valfläsk" for this phenomenon (election promises given just before an election to gain votes, i.e. vote-catching). It's just odd, from my point of view, that this topic isn't used as vote-catching. Just how much of the Brits support the Trident program?

[Clinton Huxley]

Won't hear too much talk of the deficit until after the election. No party wants to admit what it is going to have to do once elected to get the finances back in shape. It's going to be slash and burn.....

That's odd! In Sweden, the exact opposite would be the case; all parties would talk about just how they would counter the deficit before the election, and then they would do something completely different (or even the opposite) once in power.

There's a Swedish word, "valfläsk" for this phenomenon (election promises given just before an election to gain votes, i.e. vote-catching). It's just odd, from my point of view, that this topic isn't used as vote-catching. Just how much of the Brits support the Trident program?

Oh, we get election promises, that's standard, but the elephant in the room is being ignored by the political parties. They don't want to sound too scary.

Replacing Trident? 50-50 split, probably.

I think we should be rid. Keeps us in a servile position with the Merkins, upon whose grace we depend for our so-called "Independent deterrent"...

[Coito ergo sum]

What did you think about it?

I was, unfortunately, disturbed by everyday life when listening to this speech (live), so I missed the most important parts. I heard something about the new Orion rocket (?) having a deadline of 2015, which will be a rocket powerful enough to go beyond the moon (and, eventually, to Mars). Also, the budget was raised with 6 billion US dollars, and something about 2000+ job opportunities being created. Someone should be able to fill in the rest (and provide a link to the speech once available) but I also heard him mention the year 2024 (?) as an important date.

He said he wished that "we" would land on Mars before he's dead (or something to that effect)

America, fuck yeah!

Addit: Link to the speech and transcript.

I've been a big proponent of the space industry for some time, and it's been my position that it is a great way to create excellent jobs in sectors of the economy that actually mean something: technology, industry, materials, superconductors, computers, robotics, AI, rocketry, fuels, aeronautics, astronautics....the list is endless. It's a way to provide an industry for young people to get into that requires science and technology. It's not an industry that is favored by most people, liberals and conservatives alike, because they don't see it as beneficial and they think it's more about ego than anything else. I disagree on that point wholeheartedly. In my view, the future of humanity depends on space flight, exploration and colonization, and there is no point in waiting.

I agree wholeheartedly with President Obama when he said, "We have to fix our economy. We need to close our deficits, but for pennies on the dollar, the space program has fueled jobs and entire industries. For pennies on the dollar, the space program has improved our lives, advanced our societies, strengthened our economy and inspired generations of Americans, and I have no doubt that NASA can continue to fulfill this role," Obama said.

Apparently, Obama said he advocates sending astronauts on missions to asteroids by 2025. A mission to orbit Mars could happen by 2035. I find these goals laudable, but I don't think it goes far enough, and I think he is missing some necessary steps. I think we need a base and launching point on the Moon, as well as working equipment (if not stations) at important "LaGrange" points (most importantly those between the Earth and the Moon). So, I would prefer we: (a) get back to the Moon and build a base at Clavius, and learn how to live and work in that environment, (b) proceed on with exploration missions to Mars and a Mars landing with a human being, (c) send robotic missions to asteroids, (d) learn to construct spacecraft in space, at LaGrange points for repeated travel and use small reusable shuttles to get us to and from the Earth, (e) build a space elevator to move heavy stuff up to space.

We have the technology and the know-how. We have waited long enough. We are about to lose the generation that walked on the Moon because people don't live forever, and it is important to rescue that knowledge and experience, and advance beyond what they did.

This is NOT science fiction. Werner Von Braun and his crew had plans for a Mars Mission back in the 1950s. We can do it. And, if we were to start now, and get men back on the Moon before 2020, and have a Mars Mission underway, we could foster another industrial revolution in the US and generations of science, enginnering and technology experts in the US. We need scientists and engineers. Not burger flippers and paper pushers.

[Clinton Huxley]

Indeed, NASA is an excellent way of funnelling subsidies to the aerospace industry......