# Neil Armstrong blasts Obama Space Plan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by zanket, Apr 14, 2010.

1. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Good one. Still, I'm willing to pay my share for the rovers. I asked my son if he wanted to work an extra year of his life to pay for more rocks from the Moon to be displayed in museums. He wasn't thrilled with the idea.

3. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Hmm, then why did they have a microphone on one of the missions that crashed? It cost like $100K and was an add-on from students. Nowadays it'd probably be$10K.

Safe to say that future kids don't want to work several extra years so some rocks from Mars can be brought back. We buy everything using interest-only loans you know. Today's kids will spend their whole lives paying for stuff that was bought many years ago. Until they've paid off all debt to date it doesn't matter if they're fine with future spending.

5. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
And this is where Armstrong is clearly not thinking correctly. Notice he doesn't mention the cost. Point-blank obviously, if it's too expensive the nation faces lower stature regardless, possibly even a financial collapse. And it is too expensive, because we have way too much debt already. We can't keep foisting costs onto future generations, esp. for things that are only nice-to-haves not needed for survival. We'll have a hard enough time surviving as it is.

7. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Zankent, clearly you do not understand what the "Rocks" are and you do not understand Cost Analysis.

Do you agree with the phenominal amount of money dumped into HIV/Cancer research?
I mean c'mon... really... what are the odds of finding a cure for THAT stuff...

Funny thing is, cancer and HIV treatments have improved Drastically in a very short time thanks to that research. Much of it was only able to be conducted in space, in experiments run aboard the shuttle.

You seem to think that we need to focus on right here at home. Ok, but what you fail to realize is that by expanding off the surface of the Earth, we ARE focusing on Home.

8. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
HIV, yes. Cancer, no, there's no evidence of anyone living longer except via surgery; chemotherapy benefit is indeterminate e.g., and cancer is sharply on the rise almost certainly due to our modern lifestyle with its nasty chemicals and genetic engineering and whatnot. If we want to reduce cancer, we reverse progress, reduce the population and forget about space exploration. There's no good evidence that space experiments are needed for finding a cure for anything. That's speculation designed to make people wealthy off the space program. Show me otherwise.

9. ### PandaemoniValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,634
I am sure that is not quite true. Everyone knew that Lnace Armstriong *might* beat cancer, but that doiesn't make his doing so less inspiring to them. In fact, no one has ever accomplished anything that was "impossible", by definition.

You can be an inspiring parent, teacher or leader simply by being attentive and dedicated to those in your charge. So I see some inspirational value to this. Besides, it is presently impossible for us to get to the moon. If we needed to do it by Monday, we'd be out of luck.

There are people who are inspired by hearing God Bless America or the National Anthem. Personally, I find the pictures from the Hubble inspiriing, and I think the Mars Pathfinder was deemed inspiring by a lot of people too, and that was just a robot.

Cost-effective? No. Inspiring? Sure, why not?

10. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
You don't find the cost of one cup of coffee per American inspiring?

11. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Show you otherwise... Ok so you are saying I need to prove your belief wrong? Fascinating.

12. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Nice try, oh illogical one. Future or current Republican you must be.

13. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Too bad the george II and his merry band of Republicans didn't think of that before they begain their "deficits don't matter" approach to federal spending and opening public coffers to raids by their buddies (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug) and not mentioning allowing those same buddies to run the economy into the ground by not watching the hen house.

14. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
My political affiliation could not be determined from my stance on one issue. Nor is it even relevant.

Secondly, your claim is that our current technological lifestyle has increased the rate of cancer, and asked that I prove you wrong.

Who is illogical?

15. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
So if we can't go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time, we're second rate? Like France and Norway and all the other countries having a higher standard of living than the US? What a joke.

16. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Perhaps. But that is not MY issue.
My issue is advancement, progress and knowledge.

It strikes me as a futile effort to forsake such in lieu of focusing on stale problems that need advancement, progress and knowledge to resolve them.

17. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Political forum, and yes it can easily be determined.

Nope, didn't say that. But I did say that there's no good evidence that space experiments are needed for finding a cure for anything. Take a look and you'll see only "mights" and "coulds" with nothing of substance to back it. And definitely nothing that shows it's a better bet than spending the money elsewhere, like buying up Amazon rain forest to protect all the other species purported to be promising for a cancer cure.

18. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
A higher standard of living isn't advancement to you? If people could retire instead of working until they die to pay the debts of these programs, they'd have time to enjoy the advancements made so far.

19. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
No, but you can speculate based on how you wish to accuse me...

In that instance: Space? no. Effect of Zero G? Yes. It is a requirement for many experiements. These experiments are best suited for a shuttle orbiting the Earth, rather than the time crunch of conducting them in a falling elevator... then hitting the brakes.

But this topic isn't about that, anyway. It's about expanding beyond Earth Orbit.
Which gives advancement much further in the future than what you might witness in only your lifetime. And perhaps THAT is the reason why you care so little about it.

You haven't explained cancer yet.

20. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Anyone could declare it a requirement for that. Is that your only bar? What matters is whether the experiments are worthy and the best use of the money, and not just for cancer research.

It's my opinion that such "advancement" is so wasteful that it could collapse our society. That's why I care a lot about not doing it. You're free to have your own opinion but one should be logical about the goals, esp. in terms of opportunity cost.

Nor need I.

21. ### PandaemoniValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,634
If you are saying that Moon missions would be cost effective, then I just disagree, it doesn't matter what the cost is per person if the payout is less than that per person on average. Plus tyou have to look at more than just the cost and the benefit, but at the benefits that would accrue apply that money in another way.

If anything I am annoyed that we killing this program, but still increasing NASA's budget at the same time.

22. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Yes, and also consider the benefit of not borrowing the money in the first place (i.e. do nothing).

23. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Well it turns out Neil might have been a bit premature in his critism. It turns out President Obama does not see a point in going back to the moon. So he has set out a plan to move into deep space...development of better engines (e.g. plasma propulsion systems, etc). He wants to be on Mars in a few decades.

The problem I have with NASA is and have always had, is that they really have squandered time and money on projects like the shuttle. They are an organization in desperate need of a visionary leader. I think Obama is taking a stab at being that leader. Which is light years better than what george II offered.