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.

 

Poor NASA

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Just look what NASA has resorted to for funding future space missions, for shame


Depending on bake sales now. I wonder whats next, lemonade stands?

Source


The 2013 budget proposal submitted by the Obama administration earlier this year would cut funding for NASA's planetary science projects by about $300 million. While Congress is still deliberating over the federal budget, groups of scientists are planning a series of demonstrations — in the form of bake sales, car washes and other events — for Saturday, June 9, to plead their case. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Wow, cutting their budget by 300 million? Ridiculous.
edit on 8-6-2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
That is sad to see NASA's decline but money is still going into space.

SpaceX has operated on total funding of approximately one billion dollars in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity has provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M. The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. NASA has put in about $400-500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts. SpaceX currently has contracts for 40 launch missions, and each of those contracts provide down payments at contract signing, plus many are paying progress payments as launch vehicle components are built in advance of mission launch, driven in part by US accounting rules for recognizing long-term revenue

SpaceX Funding (Wikipedia)

I'm not too worried about Space Exploration loosing funding and investment at the moment.
lets hope spaceX keeps their 100% success rate and get us to mars.
NASA got us far but now it's up to private companies to take the wheel.
edit on 8/6/2012 by listerofsmeg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


Well you can blame your glorious leader for that not NASA.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


Yea, I think youre right. I believe that the future of space exploration/travel will fall, almost completely into the hands of the private sector, which really isnt that bad a thing, I dont think.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Let's put on a show!


Between the lousy NASA admin and the lousy Federal admin...it's sad.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
screw advancement of humans, screw exploration, we need war, oil and lots of it, transfer all the money into the predator drones budget, they need to be perfected...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   



The first commercial spacecraft to journey to the International Space Station returns safely to Earth. Also, new milestones for other commercial crew/cargo spacecraft; John Glenn awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom at White House; and more!


There is a 7 passenger capsule in development.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


Yea, I think youre right. I believe that the future of space exploration/travel will fall, almost completely into the hands of the private sector, which really isnt that bad a thing, I dont think.


Yeah. You can think that. There is reason to believe that because they have created the situation in which that is the logical expectation. But everybody ignores the fact that they knowingly, for decades, relied upon the aging shuttle without a replacement of either it or an improved launch system. Do any of you bother to look elsewhere for answers to that suppoedly massive, massive failing that should be having Congressional investigations looking how this situation could be allowed to happen? You know, the ability of us not to have a manned vehicle for space is a national defense issue as well as a "scientific" endeavor as it always has been billed to the public.

The answer is seen in our skies about every day. The answer is the black triangles. They are our new vehicles for space and have been for over a decade.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 



Depending on bake sales now. I wonder whats next, lemonade stands?


Nope, lemonade stands were outlawed last year.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
While I have been a NASA enthusiast since I was 4 (1969), I think it would be interesting to see the actual book value of NASA -- i.e. the total $$$ of assets it has accumulated since its inception.

Though, government needs to be removed from Space Exploration, and the private sector growth is promising. Want to get it done cheaper and faster? Cut the government out of the process...Right?

I see the dismantling of NASA as a good thing, not a bad thing. While there are many great achievements in human space exploration created by NASA, I think those same achievements can be accomplished through private funds, publicly held companies.

Capitalism, not government socialism, needs to take over.

Anyone have any data as to the net worth of NASA? I say sell it off and pay down the national debt with the proceeds.

Now THAT would be a great garage sale!@



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
No flying saucers = no funding.
NASA = No Advanced Ships Allowed



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
If Spacex can do it, the cost as well being 10 times cheaper, then why not.


According to Alan Lindenmoyer, commercial crew and cargo manager for NASA, a recent federal analysis estimated that using traditional NASA procurement to spacecraft design and construction, developing a similar capacity would have cost four to 10 times as much.


But here’s the big one: Money. SpaceX has received i think $381 million from NASA to develop the capability — its rocket and spacecraft — to fly cargo to the space station. All told the company has spent about $1 billion, said its CEO, Elon Musk.

If we’re going to get people beyond low-Earth orbit, the cost of getting stuff to orbit has got to come down.

If SpaceX is successful, we’re taking a big step down that road.
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman
No flying saucers = no funding.
NASA = No Advanced Ships Allowed



There is only orbital missions that seem NASA ready as advanced saucer technology
will be continue to be used in secret. To the Moon and Mars I wonder still about radiation
dangers as another suppressed information source says outer space is a frier.

So as we go along and ignore the radiation, is there a chance NASA makes it beyond
orbit technology without the saucer that beats Newton's Third Law and the rest of conventional
science. Well keep up the mission propaganda and suppress anything totally wild as UFOs
being something we know about.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by Larryman
No flying saucers = no funding.
NASA = No Advanced Ships Allowed



There is only orbital missions that seem NASA ready as advanced saucer technology
will be continue to be used in secret. To the Moon and Mars I wonder still about radiation
dangers as another suppressed information source says outer space is a frier.

So as we go along and ignore the radiation, is there a chance NASA makes it beyond
orbit technology without the saucer that beats Newton's Third Law and the rest of conventional
science. Well keep up the mission propaganda and suppress anything totally wild as UFOs
being something we know about.
So you are saying we have not breached the van allen belts am i correct?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


They can cut NASA, NASA is just a front. The real technology and space explorations comes from the lesser-known NAVY space command, started in the 1800's. NASA is just a face used to divert attention. NASA is a public side of the NAVY.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I think relying on the private sector to perform the duties of a state is utterly bloody stupid. First things first, the exploration of space should NEVER be a for profit venture. The idea is that you put money in, and get information and new human frontiers out. There should never have been any thought of reclaiming funds from space exploration efforts, at any point.

I have seen that a small venture is being organised to put man in a lifetime colony on mars by twenty twenty three. The non government organisation that is performing this feat is doing it in the most pathetic way possible, and do you know why ? It is because they lack the billions of dollars of investment in space technology that ONLY a government, or alliance of governments can provide.

Until we realise that the only thing between us and the continuance of our species beyond the end of our solar system, is increased spending on space flight mechanics, colonising other worlds, and eventual escape from the entire planetary system we know and love, all our efforts will mean nothing any way.

If I was a betting man (that is to say if I had a brass sodding farthing to my name) I would lay odds that the end of a proper space program in the US will be the end of real, deep, and useful exploration of space as we know it, for an unacceptable amount of time. This, more than the threat of nuclear winter, more than the concern about getting knifed outside a pub, more than the worry about the imminent collapse of the Euro, worries the living hell out of me. If mankind can abandon that which saw his feet upon our moon, which saw that which he created pass beyond the edge of our solar system, then he may as well abandon his hope for the future, because it is our explorative and inquisitive nature that defines our species.

Without the outlet for our natural tendancies that space provides, and without the route away from supernova incineration, or possible asteroid strike, that space travel provides, I see us becoming even more fractious and dangerous to one another than we already are. It may seem strange, but the images of mans first steps on the moon, united all thinking people, all over this planet, in wonder, awe, and inspiration. Without moments like that to bind us together, we will only drift further apart. This bodes very ill.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by Larryman
No flying saucers = no funding.
NASA = No Advanced Ships Allowed



So as we go along and ignore the radiation, is there a chance NASA makes it beyond
orbit technology .


They already have do some research



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Private companies such as SpaceX still get their money through NASA budget. Without NASA money there will be no manned spaceflight.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by Larryman
No flying saucers = no funding.
NASA = No Advanced Ships Allowed



There is only orbital missions that seem NASA ready as advanced saucer technology
will be continue to be used in secret. To the Moon and Mars I wonder still about radiation
dangers as another suppressed information source says outer space is a frier.

So as we go along and ignore the radiation, is there a chance NASA makes it beyond
orbit technology without the saucer that beats Newton's Third Law and the rest of conventional
science. Well keep up the mission propaganda and suppress anything totally wild as UFOs
being something we know about.
To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.




This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data
. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo only about an hour to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered on Earth's magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts, greatly reducing the exposure.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 



To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.


Use hyperspace travel to avoid radiation problems.



edit on 6/8/2012 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join