The administration is doing it again ...

[Extrasolar]

Word has leaked out that in its new budget, the Obama administration intends to terminate NASA’s planetary exploration program. The Mars Science Lab Curiosity, being readied on the pad, will be launched, as will the nearly completed small MAVEN orbiter scheduled for 2013, but that will be it. No further missions to anywhere are planned.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...to-blast-nasa/

If this is true, it is unbelievable! There is absolutely no way this can be allowed to happen. My personal favorite mission, Kepler, will actually not even be able to complete its 3 year mission. I propose that if this happens, we create a petition immediately to the White House using their system.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/

Any thoughts and suggestions on petition wording would be greatly appreciated, and it will need 25000 signatures. The faster 'we the people' can react an official announcement, the better. Occupy Space!

[Trebuchet]

I'd take that with a grain of salt. A large grain. The Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church, is not what I'd consider a trustworthy source.

[Extrasolar]

I'd take that with a grain of salt. A large grain. The Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church, is not what I'd consider a trustworthy source.

I totally agree with you, and I hope you're right. (hence the "If this is true..") Just want to be prepared, know what I mean?

[Sticks]

Politics and religion here

Thread closed pending moderator discussion

[Eadfrith]

Did anyone see this? Is it true that President Obama is going to end NASA for good??.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...to-blast-nasa/

[Hop_David]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...to-blast-nasa/

"word has leaked out" -- not the most convincing evidence.

I don't regard Zubrin as credible. I sure hope he is wrong in this case.

[Nicolas]

An article starting with "word has leaked out that" is a bit hard to discuss, since everything depends on the validity of that word.

Anyway, I'd think there would be politically less sensitive places to cut the budget than in one of NASA's PR billboards...

[ravens_cry]

I as well. NASA might not be the only space agency, not even the only space agency interested in exploring space, JAXA, ESA CNSA, even Russia is starting to get back into it and India has done some impressive early work.
But this would still be a grave disservice to humanity.

[Swift]

After some discussion among the moderators, this thread is moved from Science & Technology to Space Exploration and reopened. As long as the discussion stays within the topic of NASA's budget, it is within the allowed exceptions of our no politics rule (exception quoted below)

However, the following exceptions apply:
A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

Beyond the already noted ownership of the Washington Times, let's keep any religious discussion out of this thread.

And, as always, please keep the discussion polite and non-inflammatory.

Thanks,

[Swift]

Did anyone see this? Is it true that President Obama is going to end NASA for good??.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...to-blast-nasa/

Eadfrith,

First, welcome to BAUT.

Second, I've merged your thread into this already exisiting thread on the same topic.

Third, I would strongly suggest you review our rules, particularly if you are going to discuss politics here.

[Commodore]

Anything Obama proposes is DOA.

[Garrison]

I'd really like to see some other source corroborating this story because it seems on the face of it insane. Even if Obama were willing to take the flak for such a radical cut how much would it actually save versus the whole US budget? It smacks of someone engaging in some scaremongering to be honest.

[Commodore]

Anything Obama proposes from here on out is dead on arrival.

[centsworth_II]

I'd take that with a grain of salt. A large grain. The Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church, is not what I'd consider a trustworthy source.

Do you doubt that the words are those of Robert Zubrin? If not, it is Robert Zubrin's words that must be taken with a grain of salt.

[Hop_David]

I'd really like to see some other source corroborating this story because it seems on the face of it insane. Even if Obama were willing to take the flak for such a radical cut how much would it actually save versus the whole US budget? It smacks of someone engaging in some scaremongering to be honest.

There's a parallel thread at nasaspaceflight. Blackstar (aka Duane Day) posted this. Doesn't verify Zubrin's claims, but still makes me anxious.

[Swift]

I've merged the third thread about this topic into the previous merger of the other two.

[Garrison]

There's a parallel thread at nasaspaceflight. Blackstar (aka Duane Day) posted this. Doesn't verify Zubrin's claims, but still makes me anxious.

Well that version sounds more plausible, that there's going to be a flat/reduced science budget and something has to give. Since Congress was already discussing cutting the JWST is that really the shock announcement Zubrin is painting it as?

[tusenfem]

Anything Obama proposes from here on out is dead on arrival.

We will not go that way, this starts and ends here. This road will lead to partisan discussions which are off limits.

[Van Rijn]

Do you doubt that the words are those of Robert Zubrin? If not, it is Robert Zubrin's words that must be taken with a grain of salt.

And Zubrin's words should always be taken with a grain of salt.

I wouldn't be at all surprised at painful cuts, but he seems to be claiming more than that.

[Garrison]

And Zubrin's words should always be taken with a grain of salt.

I wouldn't be at all surprised at painful cuts, but he seems to be claiming more than that.

The Link Hop_David provided suggest that 'painful cuts' pretty much sums it up, the original article seems to be presenting a far more sensationalist view of what's happening.

[ozprof]

The Planetary Society is certainly taking the reports seriously. They have organised a special forum in conjunction with the Mars Society to discuss it.

http://www.planetary.org/about/press...a_Turning.html

Ozprof

[Hop_David]

The Planetary Society is certainly taking the reports seriously. They have organised a special forum in conjunction with the Mars Society to discuss it.

http://www.planetary.org/about/press...a_Turning.html

Ozprof

Lou Friedman calls Mars the 21st century "new world" - an analog to the 16th century Americas for the Europeans. I've seen Chris McKay advocate strapping 20 gigawatt nuclear thermal rockets to outer solar system comets to crash them into CO2 deposits at the Martian poles to induce runaway greenhouse on Mars.

I see the Planetary Society as an arm of the Mars Society.

Terraforming/colonizing Mars via Mars Direct is a non starter. If I were a congressman listening to the Planetary/Mars Society lobby, I would not be sympathetic.

[CJSF]

I see the Planetary Society as an arm of the Mars Society.

What sort of evidence is there of such a statement? I don't see it that way AT ALL.

CJSF

[CJSF]

And then there is this post, which may be more encouraging.

CJSF

[Noclevername]

And then there is this post, which may be more encouraging.

CJSF

More encouraging, and frankly more believeable.

[Extrasolar]

And then there is this post, which may be more encouraging.

CJSF

Well, that is encouraging! I am also glad I am now aware of Mr Zubrins motives.

[antoniseb]

... If this is true, it is unbelievable! ...

No need to make it conditional. If it is false, it is also unbelievable.
I would suggest that in the future we all be slow in rushing to accept any science-in-politics stories published in the mainstream media. These seem like unusually contentious times, and few media sources are independent these days.

[Extrasolar]

No need to make it conditional. If it is false, it is also unbelievable.
I would suggest that in the future we all be slow in rushing to accept any science-in-politics stories published in the mainstream media. These seem like unusually contentious times, and few media sources are independent these days.

Thanks for the advice, but if it was real, it would require a quick response from the community that cares most about this subject. I will gladly bring this kind of thing to the attention of this community because I am passionate about science and I know most of the people here are too. I would rather be wrong in such cases and look like a fool than be right and have done nothing.

[ToSeek]

I see the Planetary Society as an arm of the Mars Society.

The Planetary Society was founded in 1980 and has well over 100,000 members. The Mars Society was founded in 1998 and has about 10,000 members. I don't think either one is an arm of the other, but if it went either way, it would be the opposite of your claim. (Personal disclaimer: I'm a member of both.)

[Hop_David]

The Planetary Society was founded in 1980 and has well over 100,000 members. The Mars Society was founded in 1998 and has about 10,000 members. I don't think either one is an arm of the other, but if it went either way, it would be the opposite of your claim. (Personal disclaimer: I'm a member of both.)

On page 8 of Beyond The Moon the Planetary Society put forth four recommendations.

Excerpts:

"...the ultimate goal of which should be establishing the capability for human exploration of Mars"

"In particular, human landings on the Moon should be deferred until after a new transportation and interplanetary flight capability is developed and validated."

I find it ironic that the Planetary Society will say out of one corner of their mouth "hang together or hang separately" and out of the other tell moon advocates to go to hell.

I still get letters asking me to rejoin the Planetary Society. I throw them in the trash.