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.

 

The Russians want to build a huge MILITARY moon base.

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


This post is a little off base. The NASA R&D has created the means that facilitate countless particulars of the technological advances we enjoy today. Syphoning money from NASA to allow private ventures to surpass whatever it is you think you wish doesn't consider the vast infrastructure NASA already has in place no private venture could approach in depth or contractor support. You see NASA doesn't own or invent all of the technology it uses for the greater collective, but has in place the means to make the best use of such.

I hope it doesn't come to the fact the economic separation of the rich and middle class could facilitate a better infrastructure to collectively finance better space mission objective than what NASA has, we would all suffer due to that scenario.

There is little known of all the everyday discoveries that benefit human technological existence here from the space programs and NASA 'Spinoffs'. (Look up the term NASA Spinoffs sometime).




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Thank you i'm just glad someone else has some sense to realise; we are blowing to much money on the military and should be investing more into Science along with NASA. I don't know how he can ignore the graph i put up showing the miniscule NASA budget compared to the military.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 



Keep supporting your military industrial complex government shill!


I suppose that makes this the battle of the shills, then. I find it kind of interesting that you call me a government shill for analyzing the problems associated with a government-funded program (NASA).

I think that just makes you a boy with a love-affair for NASA provoked into a defensive rage.



Funny you post a chart that means nothing! that chart basically shows increased spending for NASA due to infation good job showing nothing meaningful..


I posted a -graph- that shows how government spending has increased by nearly 600% since the 1960s, inflation-adjusted. Since NASA was getting as much as 4% of the budget, according to you (a highly reliable source, I'm certain), that would mean that getting 0.68% of the budget means they are getting roughly the same in terms of purchasing power. (0.68 x 6 = 4.08)

That means the budget hasn't really made any dramatic changes one way or another. As I said - the graph is inflation-adjusted and normalized to the value of the dollar in 2005 - which means it shows increased government spending on the whole, not just due to inflation.

Have you even graduated middle school, yet?

reply to post by Illustronic
 



This post is a little off base. The NASA R&D has created the means that facilitate countless particulars of the technological advances we enjoy today.


If you had the ability to apply reading comprehension, you would note that I have said that this trend cannot be expected to continue, and the entire concept of NASA must be revised to ensure that the future of NASA is highlighted by similarly important discoveries and innovations.


Syphoning money from NASA to allow private ventures to surpass whatever it is you think you wish doesn't consider the vast infrastructure NASA already has in place no private venture could approach in depth or contractor support.


When did I say that we should siphon money away? I merely said that we need to pay closer attention to the relationship between NASA and the private sector. Currently, yes, NASA has more infrastructure than the private sector. That will not last - and simply cannot last. As interest in the private sector grows, and space-flight capability becomes more common, the amount of investor dollars going into developing industries in space will rapidly outpace any government spending. Corporations also have the advantage of being multinational - launch facilities in more favorable locations along Central America, Africa, South America, etc can readily be purchased and accessed by corporations that would practically require annexation for NASA to carry out such operations there.

NASA's role will have to change. They have been the pioneers of space flight - but that won't last when any group that can pull together a few million dollars can have a crack at colonizing mars or setting up mining operations on an asteroid.


I hope it doesn't come to the fact the economic separation of the rich and middle class could facilitate a better infrastructure to collectively finance better space mission objective than what NASA has, we would all suffer due to that scenario.


No, we really wouldn't. How many people does NASA send into space each year? How many would free enterprises be sending into space?

Sure - rich people would want to travel in space. The new middle class and upper end wage-earners would work there. Raw statistics dictate that space flight will be more prolific in the hands of free enterprises. NASA will send pictures and bring back samples. Corporations will send workers and bring back products. Under which scenario are you more likely to go into space?

Of course, it's pretty silly - both will exist side-by-side. No government can keep entrepreneurs from their ambitions. Whether we make the necessary adjustments to NASA or not, private enterprises will start going into space - and the government will continue to fund its own space program - effective or not.


There is little known of all the everyday discoveries that benefit human technological existence here from the space programs and NASA 'Spinoffs'. (Look up the term NASA Spinoffs sometime).


And my point is that "NASA Spinoffs" will become "Space X Spinoffs" and the like as their presence in space and their own R&D departments begin to overwhelm the comparative resources of NASA. It doesn't really matter who makes the discoveries - but since the private sector is going to start taking over what once was NASA's role, simply by virtue, we need to look at how NASA can remain an effective investment and continue to inspire further development.

Ask just about any of the investors, CEOs, and senior workers at these new private space companies - what inspired many of them to do this was watching the moon landings as a kid. NASA inspired the work and progress these individuals and companies have made. But if NASA is to continue to do such things - it can't be doing the same thing everyone else is doing. Private companies will soon start building space stations and launching expeditions to find water and other resources throughout the solar system.

What can we do with NASA to make the next "moon landing" and drive our children and grand-children to make "another day on the job?"



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


The graph is not inflation adjusted you're just a shill it shows amount in billions per year with the amount of inflation since then the budget of NASA is even less % of the federal budget You've clearly missed out on you're grade school math; keep spouting your nonsense. It isn't going anywhere

edit on 17-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Reply to AIM64C



When did I say that we should siphon money away? I merely said that we need to pay closer attention to the relationship between NASA and the private sector. Currently, yes, NASA has more infrastructure than the private sector. That will not last - and simply cannot last. As interest in the private sector grows, and space-flight capability becomes more common, the amount of investor dollars going into developing industries in space will rapidly outpace any government spending. Corporations also have the advantage of being multinational - launch facilities in more favorable locations along Central America, Africa, South America, etc can readily be purchased and accessed by corporations that would practically require annexation for NASA to carry out such operations there.

NASA's role will have to change. They have been the pioneers of space flight - but that won't last when any group that can pull together a few million dollars can have a crack at colonizing mars or setting up mining operations on an asteroid.


You see NASA is way ahead of you. Have you heard of the ISS National Laboratory yet? The operation of the lab is open to international bids (sorry the extended due date was April 1, 2011). Teams who bid on the operation of the NASA ISS NL will be consortiums of private corporations, (DOE NLs are run this way), NOT BY the U.S. government, but FOR the U.S. government with closely monitored financials.

The retirement of the Shuttle program by no means NASA is bailing out of leading the world in space exploration, but that is only the public perception of NASA.

The 5 areas of focus for the ISSNL are; Plant and microbial, Human, animal, and cell biology, Applied physical sciences, Fundamental physical science, and Earth science and remote sensing. Sounds kind of vague doesn't it, like everything that effects you in life huh? (and I forgot to mention the kids!! please consider the kids!).

I didn't pry into the near term launch vessel question while on a team to bid this opportunity very far (but couldn't help myself with an aside in one meeting), but it was implied to me that European crafts will get men to the ISS until NASA has their new manned craft ready. Russia was mentioned as well as we know they are a big player in the ISS today, and in the future as well.

My function on the team did not afford me time to spend with the team's proposal guts, I just did my part of it, as insignificant as it may seem, but I think after tug-a-warring the myriad of ideas I at least put together a nice graphic for the proposal. What do you think? (References not public I had to black out).

Yeah, I'm just a graphics dude, afforded NASA cooperative work assignments since 1987.




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The thrust of my reply is that space exploration is going to be a unified world-wide cooperative effort from now on, no more 'space races' of country-centric propaganda pride.

The real achievements cannot be hidden anyway, there's just too many out there to call a bluff, as there were in the 60's also.

Do people that believe the moon landing hoax really think people in the 60's were stupider than now? Yet some of those same people say ancient civilizations on earth were smarter than now. It doesn't make sense does it. So where did all of this advanced ancient infrastructure go? Just sort of vanished from the face of the earth or something?

I don't think so. They didn't even have plastic beer cups then, how so naive.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


Yes, the graph is inflation adjusted.

Here's another one: www.theneweditor.com.../archives/10530-Total-Federal-Tax-Revenue-and-Spending-in-Inflation-Adjusted-Dollars.html

Further - my point was to look at the whole of U.S. spending, not just what we spend on the military. I've long been a proponent of restructuring the military spending system, as the current command budgets are use-it-or-lose-it systems. But the military is only about 15% of the budget (including social security spending - which you may as well consider part of the budget, because it is no longer treated as its own self-sufficient affair), or 25% of the budget when you exclude social security spending. Over 60% of our budget goes to income supplement spending - welfare.

Sure - we are spending a lot on wars - but we are spending far more on simply guaranteeing people a standard of living whether they try in life or not - and we spend even more on our older generations as their bodies break down and require medical attention as well as reach retirement age. Where there is money being spend there is money being misspent. It's simply dumb to look at only one area of federal spending and compare it to NASA's budget. www.nytimes.com... - That's the 2011 budget - though I think that one is post-negotiations - it looks different than the one I was looking at about a month ago while arguing economics with one the the resident progressives.

Do yourself a favor and stop being a walking argument for active eugenics programs.

reply to post by Illustronic
 



You see NASA is way ahead of you. Have you heard of the ISS National Laboratory yet? The operation of the lab is open to international bids (sorry the extended due date was April 1, 2011). Teams who bid on the operation of the NASA ISS NL will be consortiums of private corporations, (DOE NLs are run this way), NOT BY the U.S. government, but FOR the U.S. government with closely monitored financials.


In ten years, they won't be the exclusive provider of orbital laboratory facilities.

That's my point.


The retirement of the Shuttle program by no means NASA is bailing out of leading the world in space exploration, but that is only the public perception of NASA.


NASA needs a new orbiter. Plain and simple.


The 5 areas of focus for the ISSNL are; Plant and microbial, Human, animal, and cell biology, Applied physical sciences, Fundamental physical science, and Earth science and remote sensing. Sounds kind of vague doesn't it, like everything that effects you in life huh? (and I forgot to mention the kids!! please consider the kids!).


That's all fine and dandy, since 'they' are the only ones up there and providing the infrastructure. Like I said - that won't last very long at all. I would estimate about ten years. Fifteen at the most.


I didn't pry into the near term launch vessel question while on a team to bid this opportunity very far (but couldn't help myself with an aside in one meeting), but it was implied to me that European crafts will get men to the ISS until NASA has their new manned craft ready. Russia was mentioned as well as we know they are a big player in the ISS today, and in the future as well.


Well, it wouldn't really be considered an international space station if there weren't other countries assisting. None of them have an orbiter, though. Not as though that's the only thing that matters - but it's a rather useful thing to have.


Yeah, I'm just a graphics dude, afforded NASA cooperative work assignments since 1987.


Sounds like a pretty cool gig.

In either case - my point is that in another fifteen years - we're going to see SpaceX with their own space station project(s) and expeditions to various regions of the solar system.

What's NASA going to be doing then? Even Intel and AMD have 20+ year roadmaps for their products and development of the company. Hell, Congress has projected funding for the development of aerospace fighters in the 2020-2030 time-frame since the 90s.

And, more importantly - what will the role of NASA be alongside these new private ventures? It's not a question of if private ventures will be up in space - it is a question of when, and how rapidly they expand.


The thrust of my reply is that space exploration is going to be a unified world-wide cooperative effort from now on, no more 'space races' of country-centric propaganda pride.


Sounds pretty boring.

I find it rather funny how you condemn such races and feats while praise the developments and advances such competitive initiatives achieve.

The first company to begin profitably mining an asteroid has the corner market. The first company to start manufacturing materials in space (and there are many reasons to do so - our oxygen-rich atmosphere is very corrosive) gets brand-name privileges, and the first company to have an effective orbital exchange system for those products sets the bar for all others to come.

And while companies are not above a little sabotage and espionage - they generally do not try and race each other while simultaneously threatening each other with strategic nuclear exchange.


Do people that believe the moon landing hoax really think people in the 60's were stupider than now? Yet some of those same people say ancient civilizations on earth were smarter than now. It doesn't make sense does it. So where did all of this advanced ancient infrastructure go? Just sort of vanished from the face of the earth or something?


Tired? You kind of ran away with that line of thought.

In either case - I wouldn't say that ancient people were smarter than us, or necessarily dumber than us. They may have, very likely, been privy to things we are not. Quite obviously, looking at some of the ruins (like Puma Punku), we can't explain how they did what they did. Perhaps it was a simple little clever way they accomplished it - something we're missing due to a lack of perspective. Or maybe they did have stone-cutting lasers - but in either case, it doesn't really help us with our current space travel issues.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


we just ship the Chechnyans up there, problem solved.

well, seemed like a good idea at the time!


wanting and doing are a couple different animals.

who will get there first? don't know.

maybe china will have the welcome mat out first.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 





What current space vehicle technology has the ability to carry tons of processed material back to earth and then return for more? Is their some sort of space dump truck I'm unaware of? But seriously, are you postulating the material could be processed and then converted on site (the moon) and then the energy 'beamed' back to earth? Just kurious


Well, developing a vehicle capable of a trip back to Earth wouldn't be terribly hard, or cost ineffective, using today's technology.

The Moon has 1/6 Earth gravity, so your lift vehicle would scale down in fuel, power, mass, etc. Or it could lift more mass. You wouldn't land back on Earth of course, to much energy use. Just 'drop' the cargo from orbit, already in a convienient to use atmosphereic entry capsule, and continue around with a boost from Gaia to pick up more ore.

They would be unmanned robotic ore ferrys, fueled in part by gravity.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You are a troll your graph is not inflation adjusted do not spread lies.

Educate yourself

en.wikipedia.org...





As this chart shows, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo. At its peak, the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar (or 4% of the total federal budget) was being devoted to the space program. In March 1966, NASA officials briefing Congressional members stated the "run-out cost" of the Apollo program to put men on the moon would be an estimated $22.718 billion for the 13 year program which began in 1959 and eventually accomplished six successful missions between July 1969 and December 1972.[citation needed] According to Steve Garber,[citation needed] the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars). The costs associated with the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets amounted to about $83-billion in 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $28-billion (Command/Service Module $17-billion; Lunar Module $11-billion), Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars)....



NASA budget is much lower in TERMS of spending NOW so try again and fail.

Also since 2004 the budget has actually gone down in percentage of Federal budget so don't try and refute a the graph. Put that in your mouth and suck it
edit on 18-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 



You are a troll your graph is not inflation adjusted do not spread lies.


If I were trawling, I would post merely the failures of NASA over the past 20 years. Remember the loss of the martian probe? One of those highly accomplished NASA employees forgot to convert meters to feet (I believe it was the radar altimeter dealt with feet/inches and the navigational system dealt with meters, or something along those lines). Bottom line - the re-entry was too hot and we made a crater on Mars.

And I would overlook the accomplishments of NASA, completely, and say things merely to get a rise out of you.

The term "troll" evolved out of the term: Trawl - like when fishing. You cast a net into the water and pull it along and catch whatever you run across. When you're forum trawling - you're casting a line and simply trying to dig up trouble where you can.


Educate yourself


While wikipedia is often a great place to start - it's often a bad place to cite.


NASA budget is much lower in TERMS of spending NOW so try again and fail.


I'm going to put this in about as basic, elementary terms possible, in the hopes that you might be able to wrap that tiny little mind of yours around simple concepts:

www.supportingevidence.com...


The chart shows the total federal receipts (income) and outlay (spending), adjusted for inflation, during each fiscal year from 1940 to 2009, with projections through 2015.



This chart was created from historical tables included in the U.S. Federal Government fiscal year 2011 budget. The federal government adjusted its fiscal year one calendar quarter (3 months) during 1976, creating a 'transition quarter,' which has been neglected in this chart.



7) This chart includes the effect of inflation, or the changing value of a dollar. For current (not inflation-adjusted), see U.S. Federal Government Receipts and Outlays Over Time.

8) This chart says nothing about the size of the receipts and outlays relative to the size of the U.S. economy (Gross Domestic Product). See U.S. Federal Government Receipts and Outlays as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Over Time.


It. Is. Inflation. Adjusted.

Period.

Now. Let me teach you how to read a graph, since you don't seem to be able to. The numbers on the left-hand side represent spending in billions of dollars. The farther 'up' a dot or line appears, the more spending that represents.

Still with me? Read that again if you need to, or maybe ask a friend.

Once you have that down, you're ready for the next concept.

The numbers along the bottom represent dates. The farther "right" a number is, the more likely it is to be a year of war-mongering and public massacres of homosexuals (paying attention?). So, for a corresponding date, a 'point' is placed above it that represents the amount of spending.

On another amusing point - the graph system is so efficient, and so complex, it is doubtful that humans ever created it, and it is really just a borrowed concept from hyper-advanced extra-terrestrials (who also passed down knowledge of algebra to the most socially elite).

That's U.S. Federal spending in general - not just on NASA.

By looking at the spending trends of NASA: en.wikipedia.org...



We see that, in inflation-adjusted terms, NASA's budget has been steadily increasing since the end of the Apollo era. It is easily twice what the budget was in the early 1960s, and NASA enjoyed a seven year period where their budget was substantially greater than it is today, from 1963 to 1969.

Now - I'm not opposed to increasing their budget - but whatever we do, we need to commit to it and go - The Apollo program cost a pretty penny - but it has been worth it in terms of inspiring technological and industrial innovation. Let's pick something big and go for it, if we're going to do it. Otherwise, it seems kind of pointless to cry over NASA's budget. It is, by no means, smaller than what it has been. Sure - everyone is always asking for more money, we never run out of wants and desires. NASA would probably take a trillion dollar budget if they could figure out how to spend it - as would the Department of Energy, or the National Parks... people-ranger-maintainer guys.

The reason why the NASA budget has been decreasing relative to overall federal spending is because federal spending has increased by roughly 300% since the 1960s -AFTER- accounting for inflation.

The purchasing power allotted to NASA has actually been on the rise.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Actually take a look at the graph again the purchasing power has gone down. If you can wrap you're head around a simple graph that is.


Year NASA budget
(Nominal) % of Fed Budget[3][4] 2007 Constant
Dollars
1958 89 0.1% 488
1959 145 0.2% 1,841
1960 401 0.5% 3,205
1961 744 0.9% 6,360
1962 1,257 1.18% 12,221
1963 2,552 2.29% 24,342
1964 4,171 3.52% 33,241
1965 5,092 4.31% 33,514
1966 5,933 4.41% 32,106
1967 5,425 3.45% 29,696
1968 4,722 2.65% 26,139
1969 4,251 2.31% 21,376
1970 3,752 1.92% 18,768
1971 3,382 1.61% 15,717
1972 3,423 1.48% 15,082
1973 3,312 1.35% 14,303
1974 3,255 1.21% 11,494
1975 3,269 0.98% 11,131
1976 3,671 0.99% 11,640
1977 4.002 0.98% 11,658
1978 4,164 0.91% 11,411
1979 4,380 0.87% 11,404
1980 4,959 0.84% 11,668
1981 5,537 0.82% 11,248
1982 6,155 0.83% 11,766
1983 6,853 0.85% 13,051
1984 7,055 0.83% 13,561
1985 7,251 0.77% 13,218
1986 7,403 0.75% 13,421
Year NASA budget
(Nominal) % of Fed Budget[3][4] 2007 Constant
Dollars
1987 7,591 0.76% 17,735
1988 9,092 0.85% 14,454
1989 11,036 0.96% 16,734
1990 12,429 0.99% 18,019
1991 13,878 1.05% 19,686
1992 13,961 1.01% 15,310
1993 14,305 1.01% 18,582
1994 13,695 0.94% 18,053
1995 13,378 0.88% 16,915
1996 13,881 0.89% 16,457
1997 14,360 0.90% 15,943
1998 14,194 0.86% 15,521
1999 13,636 0.80% 15,357
2000 13,428 0.75% 14,926
2001 14,095 0.76% 15,427
2002 14,405 0.72% 15,831
2003 14,610 0.68% 16,021
2004 15,152 0.66% 15,559
2005 15,602 0.63% 16,016
2006 15,125 0.57% 16,085
2007 15,861 0.58% 15,861
2008 17,318 0.60% 17,138
2009 [5] 17,782
2010 [5] 18,724
2011 [5] 19,000
2012 (est.) [5] 19,450
2013 (est.) [5] 19,960
2014 (est.) [5] 20,600
2015 (est.) [5] 20,990



The first set of numbers after year is nominal(Money spent at time of year).The last set of numbers is 2007 purchasing power. Now take that into account and check the comparison between now purchasing power and 1960's TROLL

So you're going to stand here and tell me that 6 billion dollars in 1966 is not more purchasing power than 17-19 billion in 2011 ARE U CRAZY???? Check the graph read it hard; because its grade school math.

Now take a good hard look at 33 billion dollars 2007 dollar constant in 1966;compared to the 17-19 billion 2007 Constant NASA budget has been in the last few years
edit on 19-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I would love for this to happen!



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I'd love nothing more than the rest of the world to venture scientific instruments into space for the betterment of mankind and discovery but most of the rest of the world's space programs sole purpose is to launch communications satellites for industry, and military. We have a couple of moon probes and picture mapping thingy nearby but the world is dragging their collective space feet, and haven't accomplished a minute fraction of what NASA has so far. I'd also like the world to police themselves militarily instead of U.S. picking up that tab. If America brought home it's 250,000 plus world police force more of our fiscal problems could easily be affordable.

People starve in 3rd world countries primarily due to their own political corruption, not ours.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


Holy #, you are one obnoxious little ignoramus.


So you're going to stand here and tell me that 6 billion dollars in 1966 is not more purchasing power than 17-19 billion in 2011 ARE U CRAZY???? Check the graph read it hard; because its grade school math.


Are you literate? This is a serious question.

I'm going to quote myself:

"We see that, in inflation-adjusted terms, NASA's budget has been steadily increasing since the end of the Apollo era. It is easily twice what the budget was in the early 1960s, and NASA enjoyed a seven year period where their budget was substantially greater than it is today, from 1963 to 1969. "

From 1960-1964/65, NASA's budget was less than to slightly larger than it is today, as they geared up for the surge that followed in the mid-late sixties; 1966-1969 as procurement for the Apollo projects was at its peak.

Immediately following the Apollo program, NASA's budget dropped to about 15-20% lower levels than today, and maintained that budget until it peaked under the Reagan administration before seeing more cuts in the Clinton administration. It has been, basically, on the rise ever since - albeit a slow rise.

There's simply no reason to expand their budget without a clear reason to do so. In the 60s - we were going to the friggin' moon, for God's sake. It was one of the single most unified techno-industrial endeavors ever undertaken by humans. We pushed the limits of known and developing industrial capability - at a premium price.

We could build a rocket that would take us to Pluto or build a space station in orbit around Mars right now. We could have in the 60s, too. It will/would have cost enormous sums of money for something that we could do for much less a few decades later.

Personally, I say we bite the bullet and authorize the development and procurement of a new orbiter and accompanying booster/fuel tank (if it is deemed necessary or cost-effective).

The problem you seem to have is that you can't communicate your ideas very well, and you do not seem to be very adept at reading what another person has to say.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Its the United States President that authorizes a venture to go to Mars, the Moon, or Pluto. NASA can only submit proposals. Actual planning and drafts of outlining the means just wont take place without a presidential nod. Hopey McChange not only didn't give a nod, he nearly took a sword to NASA funding, and gave it 10 fold to mismanaged banks instead. You need your healthy bank before you need NASA, right?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Because i prove you wrong you get mad nice! So you now realise i was right and you were trolling!
Look at the data it doesn't lie



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 




NASA has been around since 1958. That means it is a 53 year old agency. During seven of those years, NASA enjoyed a budget twice as large as it is today (inflation adjusted). The other 46 years, over 80% of its existence, have seen budgets lower than this years' budgets, or very similar to this year's budget (if larger, not by more than 10%).

The reason such a large budget existed for the space program during those seven years was the Apollo program.

You act like NASA has been operating on a shoe-string budget recently, and like the space program is being dismantled or something. It is not. Spending this year is slightly above the average of the past ten years, and substantially larger than the average for the previous 40.

Neither of us really proved the other wrong. You made the comment about NASA's share of the budget being less now than it was in the 60s. That's true. However - government spending on the whole has gone way up (even after factoring in inflation) - which accounts for the smaller percentage of the budget; even more so when you consider those years were the founding of NASA and gearing up for the Apollo program. Everything from the launch facilities still in use today to the control centers were being subsidized by that budget.

Your implication and selection of data attempted to imply that NASA was somehow being 'starved' of funding - when, in reality, they are seeing better funding now than they were through the 70s, early 80s, mid-late 90s, and above-average for the 2000-2010 time-frame, inflation-adjusted.

My point was also that there are far larger expenses in our budget than the military. While the military is currently fighting -three- wars, their funding is eclipsed by government health-care spending, alone. The treasury is also operating under a budget only slightly smaller than the U.S. military (as it is fighting three wars). You could completely cut military spending (everything - including retirement benefits to veterans and compensation for injuries) and we would still be spending about 200-500 billion into debt - depending upon whose numbers you use.

The U.S. military is only about 15% of the budget, including social security spending, and 22% of the budget excluding social security.

reply to post by Illustronic
 


The president merely submits a budget. Congress decides whether or not to approve it, and can make changes to the budget.

In reality - NASA's budget is inconsequential, a mere 20-billion by comparison to 3 Trillion in spending.

Of all the things the government could spend money on - NASA is one that is a good idea. We simply need to prioritize our spending better. Do we want to be paying people for a free ride, or exploring space? With a mere fraction of what we spend on welfare, we could fund another Apollo program. If we could save even half the money that normally is lost to fraud in the medicare system, we could fund several Apollo programs.

The country isn't "broke" - we just can't afford to throw money away like we have been.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


The Military is "Only" 15% of the budget yeah only 15% of the federal budget....i want to just get that out there you said 15% "Only". Thats actually huge its not something u apply "Only" too when considering the federal budget.
edit on 20-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You people need to quit being so negative. We're going to commercialize space, it is going to happen. You people may say we've never been to the Moon, you people may say we'll never colonize space, but here's something to think about, many years ago, people thought that the Earth was flat, and... well, is it?

No.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Davian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join