Q&A: Do you agree with Neil Armstrong that Obama is turning the U.S. space program “third rate”?

Question by GOD’S REPORTER Crisp Avatar: Do you agree with Neil Armstrong that Obama is turning the U.S. space program “third rate”?

Best answer:

Answer by Gee Wally
Yes I do. But the republicans would do that too.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Author: admin

15 thoughts on “Q&A: Do you agree with Neil Armstrong that Obama is turning the U.S. space program “third rate”?

  1. Who cares? We have more important things to spend our money on on Earth.

    Let me guess, we should reinstate Bush’s idea of going back to the moon right? Why, so we can say we did?

  2. As I don’t care one bit for BHO more cuts need to be done .We are broke the space program is a luxury we can’t afford.

  3. Yes. It is one of the few decisions I disagree with Obama on. The other thing I didn’t like that he did was offer China 100 billion a year to participate in cap and trade. He did say we had hard choices to make with our budget. I think the military and social security will be the next things that may get cut.

  4. So. . .

    You want Mr. Obama to cut spending, and when he does this, you slam him for cutting spending?

    Oh, I see – it is only good spending cuts when they are for things YOU don’t utilize or need. They are only good if they are in the things you don’t like or want around. I get it now.

  5. I agree (although I would call it 2nd rate). I disagree with the decision, but the odd thing is the conservative outrage over it.

  6. No

    You realize of course that the previous administration ended the Space Shuttle program, correct?

    “In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced that the Space Shuttle program would end by 2010”


    You realize that NASA’s budget for 2011 slightly INCREASES the budget from 2010, and does not cut money…right?

    “The budget, expected to increase slightly over the current $ 18.7 billion”


    You realize, of course, that the current NASA administrator says jobs will be ADDED, correct?

    “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that because NASA has more money overall, it should have more jobs compared to the previous administration’s plans for a moon mission. But more of those jobs will be on research into airplanes and climate change. NASA also plans to spend billions of dollars more over the next five years on developing new rocket technology and helping private firms build their own ships to take people to the international space station.”


  7. Um, he hasn’t changed substantially NASA spending since Bush decided to close down the shuttle program a number of years ago. You want billions more for space when people need training and jobs (and health care?)>

  8. Neil DeGrass Tyson, a scientist I greatly admire, and whose books I find very edifying, said about the same thing on the Colbert Report. When we were kids, everyone wanted to be an astronaut. People would fill an auditorium to hear one of them speak and wait for hours outside in hopes of getting an autograph. Nobody waits in line for a robot. 8^< But in case you haven't read about it, we're having some financial difficulties at the moment. Manned space missions are ENORMOUSLY more expensive than mechanized ones. The Space Shuttle was supposed to save a lot of money by being re-usable, but in fact it costs many times as much as the equivalent mission unmanned. And we can get the same work done, accomplish the same thing, learn just as much, with robots. Obama cut funding for manned space flight, but apportioned a lot of money for robot development. It's just a wise, prudent move at the time. We will continue to explore space and I feel good about that. We will send more probes to Mars and beyond, where we can't send people yet anyway. The Space Shuttle only went up about 125 miles, just the edge of space. Satellites launched from the Space Shuttle still had to have rockets to carry them thousands of miles farther away from the earth. The people, as highly intelligent and well-trained and intrepid as they all are, are just there for show. We just have to be careful these days how we spend money. I would MUCH MUCH rather have spent 2 trillion dollars exploring space (or providing health care) than killing innocent bystanders in Iraq, but that decision was already made for us. The key to happiness in life, both individual and collective, is realizing that you can have anything you want in this life, but not EVERYTHING you want. You have to make choices.

  9. That’s a huge federal program that has been utterly ineffective and extremely costly to the American taxpayers . It needed to be scrapped decades ago. BTW. Aren’t you Conservatives for a smaller federal government? Scrapping this thing is in effect making it smaller.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.