First moonwalker blasts Obama’s space plan

[IDemo]

Source: msnbc.com

NBC News: Neil Armstrong says rocket cancellation is ‘devastating’

msnbc.com and NBC News
updated 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

The first man to walk on the moon blasted President Barack Obama’s decision to cancel NASA’s back-to-the-moon program on Tuesday, saying that the move is “devastating” to America’s space effort.

Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong’s open letter was also signed by Apollo 17 commander Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon; and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, who is marking the 40th anniversary of his famous lunar non-landing this week.

The letter was released to NBC News just two days in advance of Obama’s trip to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for a space policy summit. Obama is expected to flesh out his vision for the space agency's future during his speech at the summit.

The most controversial part of the president's policy is the cancellation of the Constellation program, which was aimed at developing a new generation of Ares rockets and Orion spacecraft to send astronauts into Earth orbit and beyond.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science-space/

[Warpy]

1. I agree with Obama's plan

because we simply haven't developed enough hard science to make manned exploration particularly practical. I'm talking about ways to protect vehicles and suits from meteorites as well as ways to generate adequate food and water for off earth exploration, instead of just planting a flag after a couple of joy rides.

If we manage to avoid blowing ourselves up, we will probably get there, just not during this President's administration.

Furthering science by unmanned missions collecting as much data as possible while research into the boringly practicals stuff proceeds here are much better ideas, not glory hogging by adventurers.

[Confusious]

14. You don't pay much attention to science do you? nt

[izquierdista]

16. Sounds like he pays excellent attention.

Science is seldom glamorous, although when in a lab coat, I do bear a remarkable resemblance to George Clooney!

[Confusious]

26. No he doesn't

"protect vehicles and suits from meteorites as well as ways to generate adequate food and water for off earth exploration"

We have stuff flying above us every day. The shuttle window got hit by one at one point. Cracked the window, but it's thick enough to take it.
The Space station is up there. Seems to handle it just fine.

One the moon it would be even easier. Just bury everything.

The moon has water, ever hear of hydroponics?

[Javaman]

33. "Just bury everything. The moon has water, ever hear of hydroponics?"

And just where will the money come from to pay for this?

If we pull to of iraq and afghanistan, roll back morons* tax cuts for the rich, then I will consider the moon, but until then, we are broke, we don't have the money, our economy is based on a fiat currency as it is.

I am a huge proponent of space exploration, but I'm also a huge proponent of getting our financial house in order before we take on any other giant projects.

[Confusious]

57. I wasn't responding to that question

I was responding to the person who posted before who said we didn't have the technology for it.

If you want me to comment on that, then yes, cut the military budget, pull out off every country we are in, cut the number of super carriers from 10 to 6, and lets invest in basic science and a moon base.

Otherwise, we're just going to go down the intertubes wasting money on empire.

and honestly, I don't think it's going to happen. Our leaders seem to have myopic vision. It's gone and will never return for us, in the short term. Maybe Europe of China will do it. If not, maybe us again, in 100 years.

As far as your change of direction, to paraphrase Gold Five: "Stay on topic, Stay on topic"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes

[Javaman]

101. I'm sorry if I confused you, I won't let it happen again.

:eyes:

complex thoughts.

[Confusious]

104. No, I wasn't confused and it wasn't complex.

I'll make it easy for you:

I was talking about the technology, you came in screaming about were the money was coming from.

Obliviously, the program is being cut, so it's a moot point. I have my ideas about where to get the money from, but since I'm not in the gov'ment, it's not going to happen. So I stayed out of the money threads on this topic.

But you felt different, and decided to drag me into it, and I didn't care for that.

[Javaman]

106. LOL right whatever.

Merely responding to your post isn't dragging you into it. Man, talk about a persecution complex.

Get over yourself.

If you don't care for people to respond to your posts, well then, don't post.

What a pisser.

[Confusious]

108. I have no problem with them responding to my posts

I just like people to stay on topic, not wander off into unicorn land, which we are doing.

[Javaman]

109. believe what you want.

You made a statement, I responded to it.

if you can't deal with people commenting on what you wrote, then don't post.

[Confusious]

111. You got that half right

I made a statement, and you responded to something else.

But you're right. I shouldn't respond to people who can't follow the simple flow of a conversation.

I'll remember that. Thanks.

[boppers]

74. The way we handle most objects is by staying out of their way.

The shuttle windows aren't thick enough to handle a hit from a baseball sized object at 10,000 mph. Heck, the wings couldn't even handle *foam* flying at them at much lower speeds (1,870 mph).

[Confusious]

92. You can track baseball sized objects

maybe even ping pong size.

a fleck of paint, not really.

[CynicalObserver]

48. Apparently few have read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

The moon will have enormous military importance in this century, and you can bet China (and russia) realize it, whether Obama does or not.

[defendandprotect]

60. Think what Obama realizes is . . .

no one is going to the moon --

and very likely we never have!

[humblebum]

53. Colossal mistake by Obama.

The Space program has paid for itself many times over in applications of technology and security. Not having a strong national space program jeopardizes security and allows others to potentially hold America hostage.

[Vidar]

71. I'm with the astronauts on this one. Obama is with his useless banker buddies.

[1620rock]

2. Obama has mad a few dumb mistakes, but sadly this one takes the cake.

[lakercub]

8. Why?

The constellation program was in trouble anyway (over budget, behind schedule, and not actually adding much in the way of new technological value) and everyone agrees budget cuts need to be made somewhere. Besides, when Bush proposed going back to the moon, he did it as a political stunt, and there was never really thought put behind why. We've already done it "because it was there," but now we need some new justification for it, especially in a down economy. The potential science for these missions is exciting, but right now that isn't where enough of the thought has gone.

Presidents have to make budget cuts, but whenever they do, the cuts they make are always attacked by someone. I'm just glad he had the stones to make a cut that could be unpopular among those whose knee-jerk reaction to space cuts is that we are choosing to go backward. That's not the case. NASA funding needs to be constantly examined to make sure money is being spent wisely, something that is rarely done. As a person "in the biz" I can say that all contracts involving the Lockheeds, Boeings, Northrups, etc., should be reexamined extremely closely as a good deal of budget waste can be found there. The DoD contractors are some of the biggest money wasters in the country...and some of them are involved with Constellation (naturally I understand we could save a ridiculous amount of money if we stopped the damn wars, but that appears to be a ways down the road sadly).

I love the space program and science in general, but this is one that, in the short-term, we can live without. The deficit really is too high and I want a President who will take action to do something about that, which I have seen this President do. When things stabilize economically, I hope intelligent space funding is one of the first items put back on the agenda...but for now, we need to feed and clothe the poor and help distressed homeowners.

[New Dawn]

12. Why not cut the military's budget instead?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/13-4

[lakercub]

13. At this point

I don't know about "instead." I would be cutting the military budget as well...I should have made my point more clear. The entire DoD budget needs a thorough cleansing (and delousing).

[Javaman]

34. yes, cut the military to start another gigantic costly project.

how about feeding people, educating people and giving everyone national health care?

Until we rebuild our economy, nothing in the way of space is going to happen any time soon.

This nation is spending play money. If we go to the moon, we won't even have that.

[sudopod]

39. Giganitic is relative.

The DoD spends 700 billion BEFORE you start counting Iraq war spending. NASA barely makes 15 billion. In comparison, the State Department spends 10 billion a year to maintain our embassies around the world. NASA honestly operates on a shoelace, and considering how much technological progress has come from the space program, not to mention the fundamental need to explore space in order to secure the extended future of life on earth, killing NASA would be penny wise and pound foolish.

[Hansel]

59. Why not cut both? nt

[defendandprotect]

61. Absolutely . . .and we can merge our services and save 28% of MIC budget!

Unfortunately, the moon is "the highest hill" in military concept --

if we could get there, we would have been there already.

42 years later -- ?

No one is there -- and likely no one was ever there --



PS: Hope Obama also puts a huge tent over Star Wars -- militarization of the skies --

and $$$ hole!!

[RainMickey]

24. Wrong, we'd better save the earth or else

there will be no one to explore the moon.

[Javaman]

35. Shhh, stop making sense, will you?

Don't make me come back there!!

Cheers. :)

[ozone_man]

37. True, but Obama would rather support goldman sachs and endless war

than spending on science and space exploration, which have a real return on investment. When it comes to saving the Earth, Obama seems more interested in drilling off shore than investing in sustainable energy.

[Bradical79]

46. Doesn't seem dumb

Just a bit boring. He increased their budget and is putting more money into some useful technologies, and canceled a bad over budget program. I would have liked him to set some big lofty goal though to at least drum up public interest. If the public becomes too bored with the space program, it's more likely politicians will try to kill/cripple it.

[caraher]

3. And the second moonwalker praises it

This is not a slam-dunk either way.

[Javaman]

36. Of the two, I side with Buzz.

He's been very active and a huge spokesman for the space program and it's future for years. While Armstrong lived quietly in the private sector turning down interviews and opportunities to promote space to the public for years.

Armstrong was my hero as a kid, Buzz is my hero as an adult.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Without getting into anything too deep here, I would just say

I'd much rather be shooting rockets at extraterrestrial targets than at people wandering in some Godforsaken Asian desert.

[Beavker]

6. If only that would be the option

The moon or the middle east. We return from the middle east, we can go to the moon.

[Beavker]

5. I'd love to see our program come back.

But sorry. We have people dying from lack of health insurance, rampant unemployment, our kids dying overseas in two fiasco, futile wars, and a national deficit that is huge. I think walking on the moon can wait? No?

[tomm2thumbs]

7. precisely - unless we are opening up low income housing on the moon anytime soon

or perhaps we can let the tea baggers move there and call it 'New Texas' or something that Rick Perry would approve of, like Nobamaland... Until that time, throwing money after something like this can be money not-so-well-spent, at least for a couple years. It isn't ending the space program, just ending the idea that we need to open up shop on the moon again. Like that is dire?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

9. No.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

10. Perhaps they should have waited to hear the plan,

instead of doing this just a couple of days in advance.

[onehandle]

11. Issue a 'moon tax' of 1% on everyone making more than 250k. Support that, Commander. nt

[CLANG]

19. No, I believe in a progressive tax

1% over 250k
2% over 500k
3% over 750k
4% over 1m
et cetera

[onehandle]

47. This would be on top of the progressive tax, just to pay for our next stage of manned space flight.

Wrap it in a flag and back to the moon we go.

After that comes the America, fuck yeah, Mars tax.

[madrchsod]

15. we should be there by now....

but constant wars since 1992 has drained our nation of the vision of the late 50`s and 60`s. we put men on the moon then decided to build a bus.

[change_notfinetuning]

17. Big mistake. So much for the "vision thing". Last one out, turn off the dreams.

[Confusious]

27. +1

[Xenotime]

18. It's easy to criticize when there is still doubt that he actually went in the first place.

[psychopomp]

21. Only the ignorant, deluded or gullible doubt the success of Apollo

Please don't tell me you are one of them.

[sudopod]

40. Oh Cheezus McChrist with fries.

I don't even...

[BootinUp]

87. lol

I won't even respond to these types with sarcasm, I refuse to.

[Javaman]

41. oh for pete sake...

If you want to go on believing that stuff, go live with the flat earthers, okay?

Not that I had any doubt to begin with, but the recent Japanese satellite orbiting the moon, recently transmitted photos of the landing sites. But I'm sure even the nut job conspiracy will find something wrong with that.

[jberryhill]

43. That was not a Japanese satellite - it was a Prius they didn't manage to stop /nt

[Occulus]

56. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

But did it upset Luna's menstrual cycle?

:rofl:

[tammywammy]

66. LOL

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Maybe that laser reflector was placed on the moon by Leonard Nimoy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

:shrug:

[bemildred]

20. I thought Michael Jackson was still dead? nt

[UndecidedGuy]

114. Wow!!

I cant believe it took this long to make an MJ joke!!

[Zomby Woof]

22. "Too many lives they spend across the ocean...

"... too much money they spend up on the moon...."

Ronnie Van Zant was right.

[sylveste]

25. huh?

with all due respect to Ronnie Van Zant, the money is spent right here on earth and not the moon.

[Corey_Baker08]

23. As a Youth, I Also Agree That the NASA Shuttle Program Should Continue & Our Generation Should......

Have our own moment of 'walking on the moon' in which it is the goal of this generation to reach the moon again, or mars or something to that extent. I do however understand that the President is not completely 'throwing away the NASA program' as I have not read his entire plan, however it is my impression that he does intend to scrap our generations space program named 'Constellation' and I completely disagree with his decision.

I believe Nightly News with Bryan Williams covered it very well tonight, explaining that if this program is scrapped as now scheduled, it could mean the loss of tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs throughout Florida and the rest of the Country and the last thing we need at this moment or any moment leading up to the midterms or 2012 is more preventable job losses.

[mbperrin]

28. The complete death of science in the US.

Space program would have been worth doing if nothing was there - chip technology, computers, medical monitoring, cell tech, and a whole lot more all came from the space program solving problems, not to mention solar power, super insulation, battery tech and too many others to count.

Sad to see the country lying down and dying voluntarily. I'm glad I don't have too much time left anyway. It's really painful to go through when you've been on the other end.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

52. Why invent when it's cheaper to invest

we can out-source the space program. Let the other countries bear the expense of research and education. We can then bring their experts here with H-1B visas as needed.

It's a good business plan.

[mbperrin]

77. Lousy plan, because your knowledge base is not endemic nor embedded

in industry and education.

You're on the short end of the old mercantilist stick.

Investing is a joke, right? Paper shuffling in a casino of rigged outcomes cannot create anything new; in fact, 30 years of "sophisticated" investment "strategies" have left 90% of Americans with lower real incomes than they started with, with more family members working more hours to try to get the basics, with the result of record bankruptcies and ruin.

That's what empires do - rot from the overhead....

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

79. I'm just grumpy

My company did some investing "elsewhere" and now I'm out of a job.

Yes, our industry is almost gone, and education is on its way out.

:grr:

[mbperrin]

82. Really sorry to hear that. It's killing the country, and I don't know why

other than money for a very few.

I hate that.

Sending positive thoughts your way for something good to happen!

[struggle4progress]

29. Unmanned robotics gives a bigger bang for the buck. A major point

of the moon program was We can put a man safely on the moon, so we can sure as hell drop a thermonuclear into downtown Moscow

Now everybody in the world knows we can drop a thermonuclear into downtown Moscow, but the USSR is gone

We don't need the cute and inspiring PR, and we can get a bigger scientific payback if the space program isn't limited by the need for extensive life support.

[cap]

31. but having people up in space doing the exploring

leads to new advances in medical technology, food science, etc for the rest of us. Concrete new discoveries that help the people directly.

Also, we need gas for the economy (discovering new technology does that) and increased competitiveness from China (who is putting a man on the moon).

There's a lot of work on systems integrations that has to be done for man-rated missions as opposed to mission critical missions that leads to better manufacturing.

[ixion]

30. I agree with Mr. Armstrong

but I've always felt we abandoned the space program in the 70's by and large. It would be nice to return to manned space exploration. I think it's good for humanity.

[MatthewStLouis]

32. President Obama is pragmatic to a fault. Armstrong is right.

People need something to aspire to, something to dream of, something bigger than themselves. The lofty goals of the space program has always provided that.

[defendandprotect]

64. Armstrong doesn't represent any of those things ---

nor does the industry built up around the NASA lies --

42 years later talking of a "lofty goal" is naive --

If we could get to the moon and survive, we'd be there --

42 years later -- no one is there!

Humankind is earthbound.

[Confusious]

69. So you don't believe we went to the moon

I'm not surprised you agree with those wacks.

[hunter]

38. I'm a complete science geek, I watched the moon landings, and I agree with Obama.

We knew how to get to the moon in the sixties. We knew how to build space shuttles in the seventies. We knew how to build space stations in the eighties.

This is old technology. The institutions built around these technologies are corrupt, most especially the Military Industrial Complex pigs feeding at the government trough.

When we decide to go to the moon again we must demand innovation and accountability. The existing aerospace infrastructure system can't deliver that.

Let's aim to explore the moon further cheaply, with small rockets and robots.

Let's aim for human exploration of Mars when we can do it right, when we can get there in a week or two riding big constant acceleration ion engines or some similar technology.

Going to Mars with existing chemical rockets and space station technology would be a publicity stunt, much like crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a small canoe. It wouldn't really be science.

[Jennicut]

42. Which is Aldrin's point.

He thinks it is trying to reach for past glory right now.

[hunter]

70. I like Buzz Aldrin. He's eccentric, often way off the mark, and not in a bad way.

The sorts of projects that will get us sailing around the Solar System will require innovative science, things like Christine Charles's Helicon Double Layer Ion Thruster ( http://prl.anu.edu.au/SP3/research/HDLT ) or the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket of Franklin R. Chang Díaz ( http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc ).

In so many ways the U.S. is still stuck in a 1950's and 1960's Cold War stupor. Our world ends with the Apollo moon landings and the Cuban Missile crisis. Somehow we can't get past that.

[immoderate]

45. We might get a new flavor of TANG!

People cite technology that was developed FOR the space program as if it came FROM the space program. All the tech was developed and built on Earth, not in space!

There is much to do before we blow billions (trillions?) of dollars out the air lock.

--imm

[boppers]

73. TANG? That old lie? Uhm....

"Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs?

Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink’s heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program."

From: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm#spinfaq12

[immoderate]

75. Thanks for those details.

I knew those items were developed independently of the space program. Same with microchips, which are often mentioned as space technology.

--imm

[boppers]

76. Sorry if I was snippy.

I'm a tad grumpy about the "shovel more money to Texas and Florida, and market products as being nifty" programs for using civilian tech and money to figure out that we're in a (life-wise) dead solar system.

We already know this.

We don't need to spend billions sending a meat-package to Mars to find out that it's dead, too. We don't need to spend billions going back to the moon to find out that it's, well, still dead.

[immoderate]

85. In case my comment was ambiguous, I fully agree.

Sending people back to the moon, or on to Mars with current technology, is nuts. I mean really nuts.

--imm

[Confusious]

91. We sent people to the moon

with less then a tenth of the computing power then you have in your car.

If we did that then, we can more then do it now.

The only reason you think it's nuts is because you don't keep up with science or history and can tell how far we've come since then.

It's not only possible it's very likely that, if it was not cut, and we had the will, people could be living there on a regular basis by 2020.

[immoderate]

98. You sound like a teenager, so I'm going to help you out.

I'm just guessing, based on your grammar, and your assumption that you know more than I do.

Computers don't get us to the moon.

Even my car, which, as you assert, has ten times the computing power than the Apollo craft, won't go to the moon. Not ten times faster; or ten times cheaper, either. I don't see how new computers are relevant, since they worked fine forty years ago. (Did they discover a new route?)

My point is that going to the moon with current technology is a drain on our resources, with no prospective return either scientifically, or economically. Maybe I'm a little behind on my science, but AFAIK, they still use rockets, a technology that's thousands of years old.

But I'm open to learning from any and all sources. What exactly am I missing about science or history that might change my opinion? :shrug: I am ready to be enlightened.

(My apologies if you're not actually a teenager, but merely sound like one.)

--imm

[Confusious]

103. Well, I guess you can be an ass at any age

Seems like you didn't really learn anything as you got older.

"Computers don't get us to the moon."

:rofl:

And we did the fancy calculus calculations with what? A horse that stomps out a number?

I guess that's why you don't see the point I was trying to make with computers. Well, there's nothing I can really do to help. It's just your failing I guess.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

One of the basics? They developed the equipment and methods for testing metals to find even the slightest weakness.
They used it to check the heat shield of the return vehicle.

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

[defendandprotect]

78. Exactly . . . obviously, anything of value that has been learned --

if anything -- is not open to the public, but shelved for profit.

That's why these things have been so boring -- including the last Mars

exploration --

Somewhere a short while into the Moon landing farce, people were yelling

to get "I love Lucy" back!!!

[Confusious]

93. Benifits of the moon program

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer

[immoderate]

102. Is there anything there...

...that could not have been developed if there were no manned lunar landing?

I rest my case.

[Confusious]

105. Prove a negative

argumentum ad ignorantiam

I rest my case.

[immoderate]

107. I'll take that as, "I can't."

Who asked for proof?

Hint: All of those technologies were developed on earth by contractors who never rode in a rocket.

--imm

[Confusious]

110. I think the point is

Most of the technologies involved with the space program would have either not been looked into, or would be behind on the curve.

The money spend during that time, little went to the actual putting a man on the moon. The rest went to basic science research.

Basic science research which the US is falling behind in.

No, I can't say they would not have been developed.

But I can say, without the moon missions and the space program, one thing we are counting on to save us from climate change wouldn't be where it is today:

Solar cells.

And that's one example.

Another thing I'm sure of, you're not going to take that as proof that the moon mission was worthwhile.

[immoderate]

112. Nonsense.

Solar cells were in use 100 years before the space program. Russell Ohl patented the modern junction semiconductor solar cell in 1946.

Anyway I have no problem with space science and research. It's just that manned missions to Luna and Mars are neither feasible nor productive at this time.

I don't hold the notion that "manned space trips are the only way to advance science."

--imm

[Confusious]

113. I never said

that they were invented or created for the space program nor did I say "manned space trips are the only way to advance science."

Again, as above, you missed my point, and proved another. I leave it to you to figure out which point I was trying to make. ( though I doubt you will, mostly because you don't want to )

[Ratty]

55. Me too. Painful as it is I gotta agree with Obama

Anyway, Constellation has been pretty controversial, even within NASA ranks. There are good reasons to cut our losses there and look at some of the competing designs. If we're going to do something big, let it be Mars or one of the Martian moons. Good reason to keep the ISS around awhile longer and dump the distraction of going back to the moon.

And NO it's not worth going back there for Helium-3 until somebody actually figures out how to fuse it - We don't even know how to fuse Deuterium and that's a lot easier to do. I get tired of that old canard that seems to come up every time somebody talks about going back to the moon. Show me a He3 fusion reactor and then we can talk.

[defendandprotect]

65. And much like the first ....

publicity stunt of "going to the moon."

42 years later and no one is there --

we're not there --

humans are earthbound -- we're not going anywhere --

And, more likely, anyone who did get to the moon is dead --

[jody]

44. Outstanding, I hope congress increases NASA's budget. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Neil, if you wanted to support NASA, you probably shouldn't have hid in a cave for 40 years. n/t

[defendandprotect]

62. Too many painful questions he can't answer ...

42 years later!!

We aren't there -- no one is there --

and probably have never been there !!

[Confusious]

67. As someone else said

chezus mcchrist with fries

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. .

http://www.spike.com/video/buzz-aldrin-punches/2744522

[defendandprotect]

97. Yep . . . . saw it quite some time ago --

[superduperfarleft]

83. Oh. My. God.

"and probably have never been there !!"

You are insane.

[defendandprotect]

99. "Only fools never doubt" . . .

and certainly there is much to doubt about the moon landings --

[goclark]

96. I am enriched by the conversation on this post

I'll take Health Care for All and let Tom Cruise and those with money to burn fund the Space Program for now.

We have enough fixing to do right here on earth.

Use the funds to provide for Medical Discoveries for our Scientist right here.

Let's start with a Cure for Diabetes or Cancer.

If the cure is on the moon, let's go there but as of right now, Earth is my choice.

[defendandprotect]

100. We also need to defund Star Wars . . . militarization of the skies . . .

We need superfunds raised to help the Homeless and unemployed --

tax the rich!

[harun]

51. I support Obama on this.

[zappaman]

54. Hilarious!

There are still people who believe we went to the moon?
Astounding!!!

[classysassy]

58. Feed the hungry here on planet earth

screw those old fucking moon walkers.( Michael Jackson did a better job of moon walking and it didn't cost us billions of dollars).

[defendandprotect]

63. Agree . . . take care of our homeless/hungry and unemployed . . .

[Confusious]

68. You realize that it's not the money that's spent on science

That pays off in being able to grow more food or new building materials to make homes cheaper.

It's just the political will to do it.

Cutting science is cutting our own throats.

[Forkboy]

72. Like the money will ever be spent on that.

[superduperfarleft]

84. Right, because money that would be used to "feed the hungry"

is being directly diverted to the space program.

It was dumb the first time someone said this, it's even dumber the billionth time.

[sudopod]

95. Boo spirit of exploration

Hooray pedophiles!

[newportdadde]

80. Just need to figure out a way for Goldman Sachs to own part or all of NASA.

[BootinUp]

86. people need to educate themselves

with info from both sides of the debate before saying Obama is making a "huge" mistake. If you read the whole article linked in the OP, it becomes clear that Armstrong and the others that signed the letter are using a wee bit too much hyperbole in their argument and that it is not supported by the facts.

[pitohui]

88. jeez armstrong must be a real prince

he refuses to give interviews for years...decades...but suddenly he has time free to squeak up and shit on the black man...

go away, armstrong, you wanted yr privacy, you didn't want to influence public affairs or be bothered by your "public," who the fuck cares what you have to say? you are IRRELEVANT, the planet earth is exactly the same as it would have been if your little stroll in 1969 had never happened at all -- the moon exploration was squandered WAY before obama, ever hear of a little known president called ronald reagan???? or maybe gerald ford?????

[Confusious]

90. The moon mission changed the world

In ways which are still being counted.

[sudopod]

94. Chill the fuck out.

A lot of the Apollo astronauts had a difficult time coping with the aftermath of the moon landings, each in his own way. Buzz had himself committed for a time after his marriage broke up, IIRC. That doesn't mean they can't have an opinion about space travel...as engineers and astronauts, you'd expect them to feel strongly in some way.

Not to mention his timing wasn't good, as it came out a day or two before the President's announcement this afternoon.

[BrightKnight]

89. Let him head a commission to propose solutions within the budget constraints.

Recessions suck.