It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Makes NASA Finish Useless $350 Million Structure

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
There are a lot of useless companies out there with visionary CEO's living in corporate mansions.
Most of the companies projects turn out to be systems death marches because there is a split between the technical people in the company and the analysts/management. Good example is the Virginia company that tried to develop "Warsim".




posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
It is nearly complete, for a cost of an additional $57 million. The Obama administration cancelled nearly everything related to space exploration, redirecting funding to climate change satellites. He has no need of it, a Republican President will.
a reply to: crazyewok



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: neo96

Great way to spread the Fox news report youve been listening to all day on repeat.

Most taxes are paid for by the "evil" rich. Taxation is not the problem, spending is. This here is a small example of the larger problem.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

look at it this way: if *you* bought a new 40000 dollar car and paid all but the last payment and then let it get repossessed; if you seriously tried to tell your friends and family you saved 1000 dollars you'd be laughed at by your friends slapped by your spouse and committed to an institution by your shrink. (and your credit would be ruined for years)

if a politician makes the same claim he's a shoo-in for reelection and high popularity polls.
edit on 20-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

That's not what happened at all. They spent $2 billion (not a good fraction of a trillion), and it would have cost another $9+ billion, not just a few million.

It was only 20% done. Everything you said is simply wrong.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
did ja know that due to changes in the oval office and in congress and the obsolete budgeting for NASA the space station beginning back when Reagan first proposed it until it was finally assembled was forced to be redesigned midstream three times. each time obstensibly to save money and each time causing the cost to go up geometrically?

this kind of political interference in the name of "saving money" is nothing new.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

That's not what happened at all. They spent $2 billion (not a good fraction of a trillion), and it would have cost another $9+ billion, not just a few million.

It was only 20% done. Everything you said is simply wrong.


i don't think so. i think you have your percentages reversed.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

That's not what happened at all. They spent $2 billion (not a good fraction of a trillion), and it would have cost another $9+ billion, not just a few million.

It was only 20% done. Everything you said is simply wrong.


i don't think so. i think you have your percentages reversed.

Except I am 100% sure I can source my figures, can you?



The $11-billion super collider has been the highest priority of the U.S. high-energy physics program for the last decade--the next leap in the human quest to discover the origins of matter.

About 20% complete, the super collider is the biggest project the Energy Department has ever tried to build. A spokesman said a detailed plan on how to profit most from the dismantling of the collider's human and tangible assets will be submitted to Congress by next July.

Nearly $2 billion already has been spent on the collider.

articles.latimes.com...

Your turn.
edit on 20-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
did ja know that due to changes in the oval office and in congress and the obsolete budgeting for NASA the space station beginning back when Reagan first proposed it until it was finally assembled was forced to be redesigned midstream three times. each time obstensibly to save money and each time causing the cost to go up geometrically?

this kind of political interference in the name of "saving money" is nothing new.


Also with the greatest respect , that is also not true.....
The midstream redesigns ( 4 ) were done to add technology that was being developed at the time of the space station development.
You have to remember that tech was moving quite fast during that time ;-) and they wanted as much of it onboard as possible.


ALSO : This article is a year old .... ???
Jan 8, 2014 3:13 PM GMT



snoopyuk
edit on 20-1-2015 by snoopyuk because: sp



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

look at it this way: if *you* bought a new 40000 dollar car and paid all but the last payment and then let it get repossessed; if you seriously tried to tell your friends and family you saved 1000 dollars you'd be laughed at by your friends slapped by your spouse and committed to an institution by your shrink. (and your credit would be ruined for years)

if a politician makes the same claim he's a shoo-in for reelection and high popularity polls.


The difference here is this tower became obsolete and there was no benefit to finishing which is why NASA wanted to abandon it.

Now they have wasted 56 million and stuck with a million a year maintenance fee.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
But they stop a pipeline that's going to bring in 5 Billion a year in taxes alone ????




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

That's not what happened at all. They spent $2 billion (not a good fraction of a trillion), and it would have cost another $9+ billion, not just a few million.

It was only 20% done. Everything you said is simply wrong.


i don't think so. i think you have your percentages reversed.

Not even an apology when I prove you wrong? You just disappear?



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
remember these are the people (not talking about (R)s or (D)'s ) that spend billions and billions of a super particle collider and then canceled it when there were just a few millions left to pay it off thus ensuring it was never completed and claimed they saved the american tax payers a few million rather than the truth which is the cost U.S. the good fraction of a trillion dollars for nothing.

That's not what happened at all. They spent $2 billion (not a good fraction of a trillion), and it would have cost another $9+ billion, not just a few million.

It was only 20% done. Everything you said is simply wrong.


i don't think so. i think you have your percentages reversed.

Except I am 100% sure I can source my figures, can you?



The $11-billion super collider has been the highest priority of the U.S. high-energy physics program for the last decade--the next leap in the human quest to discover the origins of matter.

About 20% complete, the super collider is the biggest project the Energy Department has ever tried to build. A spokesman said a detailed plan on how to profit most from the dismantling of the collider's human and tangible assets will be submitted to Congress by next July.

Nearly $2 billion already has been spent on the collider.

articles.latimes.com...

Your turn.
well you appear to be correct.i was going by memories dating to the period in question which was nearly three decades ago. obviously i did not remember correctly. congratulations. however its a difference of (admittedly large) degree not kind.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04



Not even an apology when I prove you wrong? You just disappear?


you are lucky i even saw that the thread had new replies since i only keep track by monitoring the recent threads page. if i hadn't you would still be here whining about me disappearing. Don't you have anything better to do; like i don't know....maybe maturing a little?
edit on 20-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Wow, that's appalling!

My country embarrasses me sometimes. If I were the head of NASA, I'd tell the pork loving congressman to get bent.






posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
well you appear to be correct.i was going by memories dating to the period in question which was nearly three decades ago. obviously i did not remember correctly. congratulations. however its a difference of (admittedly large) degree not kind.

Wrong. You claimed a good fraction of a TRILLION had been spent, with mere millions left to go. So if we are VERY conservative, maybe $200 billion spent, and mere few millions left to go.

Your claim was 99.999% of the project was complete, $200+ billion spent, and $2 million left to go.
Reality is about 20% of the project was complete, $2 billion spent (1% or less than what you claimed) and $9+ billion left to go (literally over 4000x more than your claim).

The cost kept going up, and sources of funding that were anticipated never materialized. It sucks it was cancelled, but when the numbers are off as far as yours it is not degrees, it's kind.


originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you are lucky i even saw that the thread had new replies since i only keep track by monitoring the recent threads page. if i hadn't you would still be here whining about me disappearing. Don't you have anything better to do; like i don't know....maybe maturing a little?

Yes, people like you who make outrageous claims with no backing them up and then run away after being proven wrong are certainly the mature ones. Expect me to call you out on your antics every time.
edit on 20-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You see, it's not as easy as you think, once contracts are signed, contractors involved, promises made, sweet under the table deals, dinners, other deal sealing gestures, you just can't go back on your word in America like that, not so easy not so fast, especially if you are Uncle Sam, you have deliver on your promises, no matter if the deal was a lemon at inception....that is the real truth, it has nothing to do with anything other than the legalities and the money it would cost, to do as some seem to foolishly think could stop on a dime, lets deny ignorance and face the facts of this matter...then move on, that sum of money is a grain of sand on a beach of what gets wasted daily, by Federal and State governments...so lets throw away the crying towels...this has been happening for decades...



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

NASA loves it, what makes you think they don't? everyone gets paid, you just might not understand the game....they'd still get a dream project regardless, this was filler, that well, to say the least wasn't so filling but they will still pick their teeth after the feast either way....



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join