I think it’s way too early for prognostication. Even without presidential response, the economy is likely to be a lot better by 2012, if only just from reversion to the mean, and Obama is likely to get a fair amount of credit for that regardless of whether it’s merited or not. He could quite easily end up doing even better in 2012 than he did in 2008.
Of course, on the other hand, it’s also possible that the economy recovers far enough or fast enough that people forget how bad it was, and vote based on other issues. Or that some other crisis comes up, and that Obama handles it remarkably well or remarkably poorly, and that ends up being the big issue for 2012. Or many other contingencies. Which brings me back to my first point, that it’s really too early to say what will happen.
There’s no obvious economic return on getting a haircut. $13 every six weeks to Great Clips and all I have to show for it is a pile of clippings. Yet I keep going back.
It is early for 2012 predictions. That won’t stop em from flooding in though!
As for the economy, I was assuming it would continue to improve. Just not fast enough to fix the job market in time. Employment tends to lag in recent economic recoveries. Like I said, a soft job market was to be expected. Obama should have been more proactive.
I ask this as someone who was excited about having some heavy lift capability finally available after 30 years: What was fatally flawed about the Ares?
No. Even if one were to take as a given your premise that things are worse now than they were as a result of Obama’s presidency:
I’m not at all convinced that McCain, or another “more experienced” Democrat would have handled things in anyway dramatically different enough to put us much of a different spot than we are today.
Wrong or slow-acting solutions doesn’t mean a person “can’t handle the problem.” Unless Obama does something so grossly negligent that it is inconceivable that another person in his position would ever do such an action, calling Obama incompetent is nothing more than partisan name-calling, with no real meaning whatsoever.
Ares 1 was based on single solid rocket booster from the shuttle stack. It was chosen for some practical reasons (it already exists, and it’s proven reliable in the shuttle application). It also had a lot to do with keeping the jobs going with current contractors.
Unfortunately, it also has a lot of vibration. Fixing that added weight to the rocket, and it’s still not great.
Because a solid rocket can’t be shut down, a launch escape system has to be really powerful. So the Ares 1’s launch escape tower added even more unanticipated weight - the launch escape rocket has more power than the Atlas rocket that put John Glenn into orbit. Ares 1’s design requirement of using an SRB means it has a very fixed set of limitations around launch weight. Adding this other weight severely compromised the system.
Then there was the airbag removal. The Orion capsule was originally designed with an airbag, which would allow it to come down on land. But it was removed, and the capsule now has to make a water landing - meaning Apollo-level support costs for each landing.
Some engineers are very worried about the basic concept. For example, it turns out that when that rocket fires, it saturates the region above and around it with flaming pieces of solid rocket fuel, which makes a low-altitude abort of questionable survivability. And, separating stages is risky, because solid rocket boosters do not shut off cleanly - they ‘burp’ and spit a bit as the last fuel is used up. So there’s a risk that the second stage will separate, then before it can accelerate away the first stage will ‘burp’ and hit it again.
Then there’s the budget, which had already almost doubled.
Finally, a lot of people were advocating simply man-rating the current Atlas or Delta boosters, which had roughly the same capability and have been flying commercial satellites for a long time now. IMO, that would have been a better alternative, but the pre-compromise Ares I did look like it would perform better. Now that we know what we know, it seemed like a waste.
I’ll admit that. Obama is incapable of significantly reducing unemployment by passing more laws. But was that really your question? I thought your OP had something to do with Obama causing increased unemployment, misspent stimulus funds, or deficits or something. It was a nice constellation of rage.
I’ve still never reported someone’s post. Narking on others is not my style. I prefer to express my opinion and let other people decide what they think of behavior like yours.
xtisme, this is the third time in about two weeks I’m seeing personal insults from you in Great Debates, and it needs to stop. This is a formal warning. Any personal problems between you and gonzomax (or anyone else) belong in the Pit.
$13 times (52/6) haircuts per year times 300 million people equals $33.8 billion per year just for haircuts. We could have a Howard Johnson’s on the moon in ten years for that kind of dough.
We can’t afford space exploration any more, but we shore do look purty.
This is silly. Obviously there is some sort of benefit for you to get a haircut (whether that helps with a job or landing a boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever), which is why lots of people get haircuts. That benefit may only exist because of arbitrary cultural standards (or necessary safety standards, in some cases), but the benefit is there nonetheless.
With the case of space travel or exploration, there are no direct benefits, only hypothetical ones that may or may not ever appear. The comparison is nonsensical.
Plus, if you do really think that no one gains a direct benefit from haircuts, that isn’t an argument for space exploration. It’s an argument against haircuts.
Personally, I’m in favor of unmanned space exploration, but not manned, although if we’re allocating government resources, I would like more to go towards underwater exploration than space exploration. But I have to admit the benefits that could accrue from either of these are hypothetical and other people may prefer to spend government resources of non-theoretical benefits.
I just told you - poor engineering decisions by NASA created a very marginal system with a lot of risk and with no hope of bringing costs down due to economies of scale (due to the insane recovery costs of each launch). But basically, the Ares 1 was just too flawed.
I still like the concept of Constellation - a program based around a specific goal with measurable CTQs. Frankly, it doesn’t have to be the Moon or Mars - they could set a goal of landing a man on an Asteroid, or of being able to move X tons of material out to the Lagrange points and back, or whatever.
You’re an engineer - have you ever worked on a project that had really poorly defined requirements? What was your experience? Poor Requirements and lack of concrete goal with measurable CTQs is perhaps the biggest cause of engineering program failure.
NASA has always been susceptible to this. Apollo worked spectacularly well, because it was focused. Every ounce of weight had to be measured against its ability to help the program achieve a very specific goal. The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, turned into a dog’s breakfast of conflicting requirements because it was such an ambitious program that it had to meet the needs of a lot of people. So they went the ‘general purpose rocket’ route, and wound up with a system that was over budget, too heavy, and way too expensive to fly to truly meet the initial promise of easy access to space.
The ISS is worse. The lack of fixed goals has caused it to be re-designed several times, it’s gone way over budget, and it was scaled back to the point that it could barely do any science, which was the whole purpose for putting it up in the first place. (except it wasn’t - every president and NASA administrator had his own idea of what it should be, so the requirements drifted regularly).
So I was happy to see a program that had very specific metrics for success - in the beginning, anyway. As the program went on, I grew more and more disillusioned with the direction it was heading. So good riddance, but cancelling a flawed launch system is not an excuse for abandoning a vision.
I love the space program. None of it is a waste. it defined our country and made us special. We were the country that put a man on the moon. The technology was of benefit to many disciplines and the science enriched us all. Of course our military got a great boost from our superior technology. Walking away from it would make us more like just another place to live.
Obama inherited the debt but has done nothing to turn it around other then throwing money at the problem. It is now his and our problem. If you use the Greenspan formula we will be bankrupt in 2 years unless we there are some massive changes. We will be printing money like crazy that won’t be worth much. It’s time to notice the elephant in the living room or we can sit around drinking the political Cool-aid on C-Span and wait for the ax to fall.
I don’t think Obama has a clue as to how to fix the budget deficit. He is too busy with other issues. Once the states start going bankrupt like California and Illinois it will be like watching dominoes fall. Who will bail out the states when the government can’t?
