Former Astronauts Call Obama NASA Plans "Catastrophic" 555
krou writes "Talking to the BBC at a private function held at the Royal Society in London, former astronauts Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan both spoke out about Obama's decision to postpone further moon missions. Lovell claimed that 'it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology,' while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon. Said Cernan: 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence.' Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject."
Why so expensive? (Score:5, Funny)
With modern CGI techniques, surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?
Re:Priorities. (Score:2, Funny)
Personally, as a Republican, I think that you're grossly underestimating the threat our country faces from Islamic extremists, communists, socialists, gays, scientists, atheists, minorities, Mexicans, Africans, African-Americans, Asians, Russians, Palestinians, Europeans, South Americans, Canadians, Californians, hippies, aborted fetuses, 2pac, the New York Mets...
Another moon landing? (Score:1, Funny)
while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon.
I'm sure they could fake another one. The sfx these days are much better than 1969. Avatar looked stunning!
Re:Priorities. (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose you also hate the post office, fire department, police department, military, public roads, the electrical grid, etc. etc. etc...
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Funny)
That and a GIGANTIC FUCKING OCEAN! The only reason we can afford to fight so many wars is that it is very hard to invade America.
You may not have heard, but we've developed these things called "ships" and "airplanes" over the last couple centuries. You should read up on them - they're really kinda cool! Some 70 years ago, they allowed forces from the US, Canada, and Australia to successfully invade and defeat enemies in several nations, even though there were oceans in between!
I know, I know, it's hard to believe. Don't take my word on it - I'm sure if you google "World War 2" you should be able to come up with some confirmatory evidence.
Re:Priorities. (Score:3, Funny)
Since insuring everyone can actually save money, we can do both.
No, it wont. More coverage equals more cost, period. Even the Congressional Budget Office has come to that conclusion.
Two of the biggest false promises being made about universal care are that universal coverage and more testing will save money. Neither do. The more people you cover, the more its going to cost. There are some savings to be had from having a bigger pool, but the biggest costs in care won't be affected.
The only way universal care could actually cut costs is to limit services.
TOTALLY INCONCEIVABLE !! (Score:3, Funny)
It's totally inconceivable to imagine that when the Japanese Astronauts, the Chinese Taikonauts and the Indian Hehenauts live and work in their respectable moon-bases, we Americans are still stuck in the bottom of the gravity well.
The worst of all is this --- Not only are we stuck here, we rather waste time debating if we want to give the degenerates free healthcare than find ways to send our troopers to the moon.
Re:Priorities. (Score:3, Funny)
Hookers and blow have their hidden costs down the line.
Re:waste of money.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say coming down out of the trees was probably a mistake...
In fact we should return to the trees. By my math, raising the living level of 6.8 billion people by three meters yields a net increase in the human living level by 20.4 billion person-meters. We could achieve the same net increase in the level of human life by sending 53 astronauts the 385,000 km to the moon, but it's important to note that would do nothing for the median level.
Re:Priorities. (Score:3, Funny)
Are you suggesting, therefore, that three times more productive medical services are conducted on every person in the US per year than on every person in the UK per year?
Doesn't matter. None of the proposed Democrat reforms implement a UK-style system. I get the impression people think that universal coverage magically means less cost. They don't understand the control over costs and demand for health care that countries like the UK have and need to have. The US would not have those controls. It would simply make more people pay for more expensive health care and insurance.
Re:TOTALLY INCONCEIVABLE !! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, don't worry about it. Whatever happens to the rest of the country, our troopers will be certain to have the latest toys.
After all, the moon needs democracy, too.