Obama: "I am 100 percent committed to NASA and its future." - Polidicks

[QUOTE]President Obama says he is "100 percent committed to NASA and its future" in a [URL="https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/161d9a44862de87902_lhm6bh7be.pdf"]statement released by his campaign[/URL] in Florida. In the detailed, three-page statement, the president takes credit for "an ambitious new direction" for the space agency. Regarding the Space Launch System, the statement says NASA's new heavy-lift rocket being developed in Huntsville is part of the president's space strategy. "Support for the Space Launch System (increased) by 1.5% in President Obama's latest budget request," the statement said, "and the system continues its steady progress - in July, SLS completed its preliminary review, allowing the program to continue ahead to its preliminary design phase."[/QUOTE] [URL]http://blog.al.com/space-news/2012/09/president_obama_says_i_am_100.html[/URL]

I'm not expecting an enormous increase in budget, but it'd be nice to have it rise a bit every year.

Does this mean moonbase alpha 2 if obama gets elected?

Well if SpaceX's rockets really are as cheat as they say then they could always keep their spending down by buying SpaceX ones once they start selling them.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37587434]I'm not expecting an enormous increase in budget, but it'd be nice to have it rise a bit every year.[/QUOTE] 1.5%, I think it's not much, but also not nothing. Baby steps.

If he still really cares about NASA, by the end of the decade we should have a man on the surface of the moon. I mean projects like Voyager and Curiosity are awesome, but I think what really excites people and what we really need now is more manned space exploration. We landed on the moon over 40 years ago, there isn't any reason why we shouldn't be on Mars yet.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37587710]If he still really cares about NASA, by the end of the decade we should have a man on the surface of the moon. I mean projects like Voyager and Curiosity are awesome, but I think what really excites people and what we really need now is more manned space exploration. We landed on the moon over 40 years ago, there isn't any reason why we shouldn't be on Mars yet.[/QUOTE] I'm not hugely knowledgeable about the subject, but in my opinion putting a man on the moon again would be kind of a waste, what have we got to learn from the moon that we didn't cover back in '69? Back then there was huge pressure to do so ('Space Race' etc.) but now there isn't really a reason for going back there. Instead, we should put our efforts into getting a man on Mars, as you say.

[QUOTE=Cabbage;37587770]But in my opinion putting a man on the moon again would be kind of a waste, what have we got to learn from the moon that we didn't cover back in '69?[/QUOTE] It would be practice for a Mars mission more than anything. After 40 years NASA might be a little rusty at this manned space travel thing, it would be a good idea to work on successfully landing a man on the moon and maybe setting up a small manned base there before we try to tackle Mars. I mean all of our technology has changed and there would be completely different people doing it now. So a little practice would be a good thing don't you think?

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37587841]It would be practice for a Mars mission more than anything. After 40 years NASA might be a little rusty at this manned space travel thing, it would be a good idea to work on successfully landing a man on the moon and maybe setting up a small manned base there before we try to tackle Mars. I mean all of our technology has changed and there would be completely different people doing it now. So a little practice would be a good thing don't you think?[/QUOTE] Aah, Yes. I see your point now. That's a good idea. :v:

But you also have to take the huge costs into consideration, not to mention that the environment in the moon and Mars are probably different. And they will do that asteroid program before they go to the moon, which would happen if that asteroid wasn't plannin on fucking earth up

1. end all wars 2. increase nasa's budget 3. explore the galaxy 4. find intelligent life 5. space wars

Didn't John Kennedy encourage space travel too?

[QUOTE=Cabbage;37587770]I'm not hugely knowledgeable about the subject, but in my opinion putting a man on the moon again would be kind of a waste, what have we got to learn from the moon that we didn't cover back in '69? Back then there was huge pressure to do so ('Space Race' etc.) but now there isn't really a reason for going back there. Instead, we should put our efforts into getting a man on Mars, as you say.[/QUOTE] You can harvest the hyrdogen in the lunar soil as fuel for craft, then you can use less fuel on rockets on the ground and refuel on the moon.

[QUOTE=Zeraxify;37587894]1. end all wars 2. increase nasa's budget 3. explore the galaxy 4. find intelligent life 5. space wars[/QUOTE] [I]oh no our only space ship was shot down, all funding is cut and no more space wars for 40 years[/I]

[QUOTE=Zeraxify;37587894]1. end all wars 2. increase nasa's budget 3. explore the galaxy 4. find intelligent life 5. space wars[/QUOTE] [img]http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=NASA%20budget%20Vs.%20Military%20budget&chs=740x275&chco=0e3bef,ff0f0f&chd=t:1.8,98.2&cht=p3&chl=2010%20NASA%20budget|2010%20Military%20budget[/img] lol gg

[QUOTE=Bobie;37587965][img]http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=NASA%20budget%20Vs.%20Military%20budget&chs=740x275&chco=0e3bef,ff0f0f&chd=t:1.8,98.2&cht=p3&chl=2010%20NASA%20budget|2010%20Military%20budget[/img] lol gg[/QUOTE] How much of that money goes to predators firing rockets at brown people?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37588224]How much of that money goes to predators firing rockets at brown people?[/QUOTE] Lately it seems like all of it.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37587710]If he still really cares about NASA, by the end of the decade we should have a man on the surface of the moon.[/QUOTE] But weren't there already people on the moon?

[QUOTE=Bobie;37587965][img]http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=NASA%20budget%20Vs.%20Military%20budget&chs=740x275&chco=0e3bef,ff0f0f&chd=t:1.8,98.2&cht=p3&chl=2010%20NASA%20budget|2010%20Military%20budget[/img] lol gg[/QUOTE] make nasa into fighting aliens then! 100% Nasa

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37588224]How much of that money goes to predators firing rockets at brown people?[/QUOTE] Yeah I'd rather have those predators shooting martian rocks, they're the real treat.

[QUOTE=Ban Evader;37587436]Does this mean moonbase alpha 2 if obama gets elected?[/QUOTE] Moonbase Beta

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37587710]If he still really cares about NASA, by the end of the decade we should have a man on the surface of the moon. [/QUOTE] doing exactly what?

[QUOTE=AK'z;37588504]doing exactly what?[/QUOTE] Building a Starbucks. It's a long flight to Mars, gotta stay awake.

Imagine how much NASA could do at once if they had that military budget. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] well, it'd be unimaginable really, seeing how they already can do quite some stuff with their current budget (which is tiny for what they're doing)

-snoop-

moon rock has no value whatsoever. unless we're talking about a sub-genre of space rock. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZxpoq166Q[/media] :)

[QUOTE=AK'z;37588504]doing exactly what?[/QUOTE] Just kind of standing there. "Welp, sure is dry up here. Can I go home now?"

[QUOTE=AK'z;37588549]moon rock has no value whatsoever. unless we're talking about a sub-genre of space rock. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZxpoq166Q[/media] :)[/QUOTE] Reminds me of Super Metroid for some reason.

fuck yeah lets do shit

[QUOTE=GodKing;37588570]Reminds me of Super Metroid for some reason.[/QUOTE] well there already is a moon soundtrack: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LDIDuGbZSk[/media] but I'd rather have something funky played if I were on the moon.