Obama cut spendings at NASA and stopped space shuttle program

Kennedy spearheaded the biggest investment into NASA. He got the ball really moving.

Nobody spent as much as Kennedy did on NASA.

>So the reason it went down under Obama was because the "Big Spending" republicans forced him to cut it.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/322918-how-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration/

Obama canceled the Constelation project without going through congress at all.

https://phys.org/news/2011-02-obama-five-year-nasa.html

https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/01/nasa.budget.moon/index.html

But you're right, must have been all those pesky Republicans..

If you really want to fix the blane on SALT Ii, which I find acceptable, the dirty hands are Ronald Reagan's. Shrug. Yes, Dr. Dyson is on record as saying it's solvable. I deeply respect Dr. Dyson. I don't respect him enough to accept the assertion as the deed.

Bad enough he gave away everything they wanted starwars (orbital target acquisition) and FOBS banned. He gave them High Frontier. Jackass.

EDIT: Reagan, not you. SALT II is the reason we haven't tried using launching lasers. For just 1 thing.

Edit edit: A launch laser is an Orion with the engine on the ground. It needs really excellent targeting. Thie ship leaks fuel vapor into a combustion chamber. The laser fires. Rinse and repeat. Quickly. :-) fuel/air explosion. Get high enough you also bleed in O2.

[removed]

So the reason it went down under Obama was because the "Big Spending" republicans forced him to cut it.

But yes, outside of the cold war it does seem to be random.

[removed]

Neither, Elon Musk is the main driver for space. Bill Nelson needed to retire before he left the Senate!

You have to design a payload that can survive a nuclear explosion imparting the entire launch energy in an instant.

Sure, maybe you can launch a solid 100T block of steel. What do you do with that once it's in orbit? There's no space lathe to turn it into anything useful. Can you actually design a survivable vehicle to carry any other payload?

Assuming we have some reason to launch 100T blocks of steel into space, where are you sourcing them from? How can you transport them to the site? How are you going to load them into the gun? Does anyone need 100T blocks of steel in space right now?

How long do you think your barrel is going to survive repeated nuclear blasts for launch? How are you going to replace your barrel when it needs to be changed?

How much is it going to cost to build your gun? How many decades of launching 100T steel blocks into orbit, for which we have no orbital manufacturing capability whatsoever, will it take to make your money back?

If it's so hugely beneficial. It would be done or in the works but it's not? So we need to consider there are reasons. Your asking why it's not being done and I am giving you answers which your now saying are not valid. OK so your trying to argue thay the ISS is in desperate need or large steel structures? For what and how will it be assembled?

Water is a valid point but do you think designing an entirely new launch system just to bring water into space is economical.

"It's hugely beneficial for Artemis mission". Can you go into some details here about why Artemis needs to have a massive amount of stuff launched along side it? Does the mission not already have everything needed for success loaded onto a single rocket?

Why build space lasers when bad forest management will do it for you?

I think we would advance more quickly with the private sector as soon as space gives opportunities for new startups. Whatever they may be: from telecommunication to grow food on zero gravity,…

One of the first acts of Obama was to cancel a bunch of Nasa program funding that Republicans had pushed. It's not party based, it's individual politicians and their agendas.

[deleted]

lol fuck, I gotta mute Space now? I follow the pokemon TCG page and I swear if I see, "do republicans or Democrats like Pikachu more?" I'm going to throw myself off a 3 story building in a rural area so I break my legs and either die of dehydration or animals find me before then.

It depends on what decade you're talking about.

During the cold war it was probably Republicans.

But recently they've been responsible for cutting budget.

Neither. It depends on the person not the party.

Neither, really. But the Republicans would be the first to slash NASA's budget, so there's that.

That is what this article is about.

None of them do, sadly. Bill Nelson was an awful nomination from the current administration, for example. Neither side has a sensible vision for space and they all use NASA to score political points.

Republicans! They want to gain control of the space lasers that start California fires.

Oh yeah Elon is carrying the space industry rn. When I was at Nasa for an internship one of the senior engineers said that “Elon is the best thing to happen to the space industry since the Apollo Program”.

This. Politicians only care about getting elected. If creating space related jobs in their area will help do that they’ll support it. If not then they won’t.

[removed]