Ok, rhetoric aside, it is not clear to me that Constellation program is (was) scientifically sound (the original idea of placing a capsule on the top of Shuttle's booster did not quite work out due to issues with vibrations). Base on the Moon was a part of the Constellation program. I liked the base on the Moon idea.
IMHO, cancellation of the Constellation program will not put us behind Russia and China, who still rely of the 60-s technology to put people in space. Outreach activity of NASA is small peanuts comparted to everything else, so it should not be a basis of the outrage over Obama or NASA.
ISS should have been dumped long time ago. There is no science (or anything else) there anymore.

it's not a rhetoric per say.. it's the "logic", if you will, behind his decision.. the outrage is legimate from my point view because Obama is not committed to the United States..

what's the "return" from the space program?
to me the whole thing looks like a giant black hole..
money goes in, nothing comes out..

"what's the "return" from the space program?
to me the whole thing looks like a giant black hole..
money goes in, nothing comes out..
Сегодня 19:51"
Mike, there has been a whole host of innovations over the last 25-30 years directly attributable to the space program, from satellite communications to new drugs developed and tested in the weightless environment. You can probably GOOGLE a lot of this stuff.
But I do agree that NASA over the years has done a lousy job advertising their achievements and how these translated into our everyday lives. They need to hire an advertising agency....

The main thing of space exploration (outside of missiles and satellite com or other military applications -- which was NOT done by NASA) was development of integrated circuits.
But as for "the rate of return" -- high energy physics probably did much more for less money invested -- accelerators and detectors for medical applications, superfast computing for pretty much everything and, of course, World Wide Web (browsers and such). And that's besides the main goal -- studies of particles and their interactions.
No one argues that space is "the final frontier". But many things there could now be done with robots and do not require expensive human participation.
What kind of medicine was developed in weightless environment (and requires that environment)?

uhm.. i don't know if diapers came out...
i have looked to see how much 'return' we are actually getting from the space program before and it was not much..
i wonder if there is a cost/benefit analysis of that whole thing.
it's a "cool" thing to do, the whole dream of walking on moon ( before ) and walking on Mars now..
however from a practical standpoint, I think we have better places to spend the money..
lets China do the heavy lifting for now..

why let China do it?? did they ever pioneer in anything?? they can still do it.. but if we stop, I think the whole process will stop..

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2002) — A miniature pump designed to help your heart beat and a device that insures the safety of the International Space Station and its crew have received NASA's commercial and government invention of the year awards.
Receiving NASA's Commercial Invention of the Year is a miniature ventricular-assist device (VAD). Initially called the NASA/DeBakey heart pump, it is based in part on technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps. It is intended as a long-term "bridge" to a heart transplant, or as a more permanent device to help patients toward recovery and a more normal life.

the <FONT color=#002bb8>Four Great Inventions of ancient China
: <FONT color=#002bb8>papermaking, the <FONT color=#002bb8>compass, <FONT color=#002bb8>gunpowder, and <FONT color=#002bb8>printing

the Four Great Inventions of ancient China: papermaking, the compass, gunpowder, and printing