Sputnik moment


#1

Honestly did Obama dare to use a Russian satellite as an example of what American ingenuity can do? “Hey dufus, we had our space program that could have been used as an example”

Obama’s state of the union address: US must seize ‘Sputnik moment’ | World news | The Guardian

Excerpt:

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Translation of the above quote. Obama will continue to sabotoge currewnt enery sources and hamstring any development of resources so in the end this nation will become more dependent on others fore thewir enewrgy and technology.

I might add Obama fulfilled my previious post about what he would say in his speech

http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f13/anybody-going-watch-state-union-speech-30022/#post423318

#2

I think you misinterpreted what he meant, Sam. He was talking about how we’re falling behind in science and technology like we were in the 60’s. Sputnik was our wake-up call to invest more in these things; he’s comparing that to how Asia is trouncing us in education and R&D.

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.

Now it’s our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.

The next two paragraphs extol America’s innovative and individualist spirit; then he ties it up with the Sputnik reference and a call to increase government spending on science and technology as we did during the Space Race.

So, in context:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.


#3

Good God. Really?

Oh, and no, he didn’t portray the Republicans as evil. There was no malice towards them…


#4

My, it looks like I got the kids upset. God and patriotism is SOOO yesterday.


#5

Then why did he cut NASA funding?


#6

The Liberal troll, aka Lithium/Obama/Nebula, seems to be obsessed with you. It’s up to its old stalking habits.


#7

Because NASA employees did not contribute enough to his campaign.


#8

He was talking about how we’re falling behind in science and technology like we were in the 60’s. Sputnik was our wake-up call to invest more in these things …

Ummm … yeah. The one area in which we were “behind” the Soviets in the 1950s was rocketry. And the Soviets’ lead was due to a huge boost from capturing many German scientists, the ones who created the V2 rockets. The US was, in the 1950s and 1960s, among the world leaders in nuclear physics and electronics. Pres. Obama is invoking a popular myth (which does have some truth in it; NASA was birthed and was one of several drivers of technology) as a pretext to … SPEND!!! BTW, Mr. Obama’s goal of 80% of US energy production ~25 years from now being from renewable sources is utter fantasy, unless 1.) almost all of it is nuclear, or 2.) US energy production is concurrently reduced 90%-95%. Of traditional “renewables”: wind mills are relatively mature and suffer from the intermittency of wind; solar cell technology is at least two generations from the kind of efficiency and the kind of producibility necessary to be meaningful producers of power and be economically viable (Zero government subsidies); solar has this problem … the sun faces the wrong side of the earth ~1/2 of every day; the only solution to the intermittency of wind and the night time problem of solar is to over-produce and store the excess to fill in gaps, but modern battery technology is generations away from being adequate to that purpose, and the extra complication (storage, switching and generation from the stored energy) severely impacts reliability and economic viability. So Pres. Obama is either grossly ignorant of what he says or is using a glittering mirage to distract the American people from his spendaholic plans (he’ll be out of office by 2017, so he won’t face any consequences from the failure of his “goals”).


#9

Actually, Sam, I’m pretty sure Suds is right about what Obama was saying about the Sputnik moment; it just wasn’t original with him. I heard the term mentioned on the radio in this very context several days before the State of the Union address.

Side note: Pete, on the issue of storing energy (not that I believe that alternative energies are a good bet), batteries- indeed, electrical anything- aren’t the only way to store energy. One way might be to spend the overproduction to pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper one, and then in the slack times, make up the difference with hydroelectric generation.


#10

[quote=“Chief_Dork, post:7, topic:28971”]
Because NASA employees did not contribute enough to his campaign.
[/quote]NASA the new Muslim outreach program and global warming verifier.

Bottom line this country was engaged in doing things long before Russia sent up a satellite. This country far out stripped Russia’s accomplishments in that direction and now under Obama we have to use Russia’s space program and thumb a ride.

That does not sound like trying to keep th edge up to me in learning.

As for the speech Obama said right off “we are coming out of a recession” which is a direct reference to the allegation that it was the Republican’s fault and not the practices of a democrat congress the last two years of the Bush administration.

I would expect Lithium to blindly support the big zero and as for suds I guess patriotic fever has never entered her thoughts of why a president of ours would glorify another country’s achievement that we have had such a tempestuous relationship with.


#11

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:8, topic:28971”]
Ummm … yeah. The one area in which we were “behind” the Soviets in the 1950s was rocketry. And the Soviets’ lead was due to a huge boost from capturing many German scientists, the ones who created the V2 rockets. The US was, in the 1950s and 1960s, among the world leaders in nuclear physics and electronics. Pres. Obama is invoking a popular myth (which does have some truth in it; NASA was birthed and was one of several drivers of technology) as a pretext to … SPEND!!! BTW, Mr. Obama’s goal of 80% of US energy production ~25 years from now being from renewable sources is utter fantasy, unless 1.) almost all of it is nuclear, or 2.) US energy production is concurrently reduced 90%-95%. Of traditional “renewables”: wind mills are relatively mature and suffer from the intermittency of wind; solar cell technology is at least two generations from the kind of efficiency and the kind of reducibility necessary to be meaningful producers of power and be economically viable (Zero government subsidies); solar has this problem … the sun faces the wrong side of the earth ~1/2 of every day; the only solution to the intermittency of wind and the night time problem of solar is to over-produce and store the excess to fill in gaps, but modern battery technology is generations away from being adequate to that purpose, and the extra complication (storage, switching and generation from the stored energy) severely impacts reliability and economic viability. So Pres. Obama is either grossly ignorant of what he says or is using a glittering mirage to distract the American people from his spendaholic plans (he’ll be out of office by 2017, so he won’t face any consequences from the failure of his “goals”).
[/quote]I would like to also point out the cases he gave of individuals that he claimed did this or that because I am highly suspicious of any figures coming out of a democrat’s mouth as for accuracy to facts.

The speech was the typical cookie cutter hodgepodge of things thrown in to make it seem he truly feels the need to accomplish things while reality has shown us he means none of what he says.

I gleamed from the speech that he was going to stay on course of taking this country toward socialism and he would not work with republicans to undo the harm the democrats forced down the throat of America that they have already done.


#12

Is that all you can say, Sam? I was really polite and I think I made a good case.


#13

Okay, I didn’t say he was right, or an honest person, just that Sam misinterpreted what he meant by “Sputnik moment”…


#14

Well, Sam is right about our space program. Obozo is wrong. The only thing that made us anxious was that the launch was hurried, to get theirs up before us. We weren’t sure if they had armed the satellite.
I guess it doesn’t matter that we handed them their proverbial arses, for the next 13 years and beyond. Yet, Obama always chooses to promote the other guy, in disparaging the country his wife was never proud of before. He sides with our enemies and insults good Americans,and their families. He’s apologized for the US all over the world. Not very Presidential.


#15

Add to that the height of the space race was the race to the moon, not sputnik.


#16

Sputnik went up in 1957.


#17

Well said by a man far more patient than I am.


#18

[quote=“SuddenImpact, post:12, topic:28971”]
Is that all you can say, Sam? I was really polite and I think I made a good case.
[/quote]I am being polite. I could have said a lot more but since you do not have the understanding what patriotism is or the fact that Obama choose to read a speech fraught with feel good platitudes and rah rah rhetoric, he choose to make it sound that it was the accomplishment of others that started the quest for space and that is not true.

Obama could have mentioned the industrial age and Henry Ford and many more instances of American ingenuity but he choose to by implication a Russian event as the impetus which start kicked the U.S. to explore horizons. The U.S. had pioneered many things before that event and we still do.


#19

[quote=“Tiny1, post:14, topic:28971”]
Well, Sam is right about our space program. Obozo is wrong. The only thing that made us anxious was that the launch was hurried, to get theirs up before us. We weren’t sure if they had armed the satellite.
I guess it doesn’t matter that we handed them their proverbial arses, for the next 13 years and beyond. Yet, Obama always chooses to promote the other guy, in disparaging the country his wife was never proud of before. He sides with our enemies and insults good Americans,and their families. He’s apologized for the US all over the world. Not very Presidential.
[/quote]Meanwhile Obama’s wife goes around the globe eating all kinds of cursine while telling the American people they need to watch what they eat and how much.

It is hard to present one as a hero when that person does not lead by example.

Bottom line the speech prepared for Obama to read was filled with others words and meaningless garbage that did not reflect reality.


#20

None of the other examples would have acted as an analogy for the U.S. lagging behind other countries in global competition. I seriously think you’re taking this one example way too far; he said loads of stupid stuff in that speech; why misrepresent a perfectly good analogy when there’s so much other stuff to ding him on?

I understand what patriotism is, and I know Obama doesn’t, and I never said or implied there was anything positive about the speech, so I think you’re being very unfair.