Just send these guys.



\by this time my lungs were aching for air!

ArkAngel: basemetal: Too bad there is no al Qaeda on Mars.

If there was, we'd know it by the Earth-shattering kaboom

Exactly! Where is the kaboom? I was told there would be an Earth-shattering kaboom!

Let's slash research, adventure and exploration... it never got us nuthin'. Moar social programs for all. Yay!!!

And, brother, when it disintigrates, it disintigrates!

Despite being an Obama supporter, I'm critical of him on a few things, but this is one of the biggest. The guy just doesn't see the value of NASA.

Approves.

basemetal: Too bad there is no al Qaeda oil on Mars.

FTFY

You think we'll be ready by the 24th and a half century?

StrikitRich: basemetal: Too bad there is no al Qaeda oil on Mars.

FTFY

Exactly. Start a rumor that there is oil on Mars. Problem solved.

I'm in Canada. What NASA does with it's money, is up the your government and your tax payers. My only opinion, is NASA should be looking at combining technology and practicality. The focus should change from pure science to exploration and mining. I've wondered why NASA's focus hasn't been to exploit it's established space knowledge and apply that to mining on the moon or reaching out to nearby asteroids for mining rare minerals. I love science, but like anyone on a budget, and Canadians are famous for doing lots of real work with very few resources, you do what you can afford to do. NASA needs to stop treating the government like an endless ATM (not ass to mouth, don't go there), and instead focus on real applications for it's science projects that utilize the knowledge they've gained. Sure, seeing jello float through the space station is a kick, and water globules bounce in perfect sphere's in zero gravity, but it needs an end product to justify the costs.

I did a fairly thorough research project at one point about NASA and specifically about the Apollo Program.

Even adjusted for inflation, that program cost each American just pennies per year while it was running.


NASA is probably one of the biggest bang-for-your buck parts of the government. It's very frustrating to watch partisan politics and the policy of zero-risk decisionmaking at the national level destroy such a worthwhile program.

farking James Web telescope. Words can't describe how sad my boyfriend is (he works in the aerospace industry). Makes me want to throw molotav cocktails at stuff.

I know what I will be hearing about all night tonight.

basemetal: Too bad there is no al Qaeda on Mars.

You just gave me an idea.

basemetal: Too bad there is no al Qaeda on Mars.

I hear there's spiders there.

We should be expanding nasa programs not cutting them. Science and technology are the keys to our future success

This is one issue that I am at odds at with Obama. He has slashed spending for NASA, for what? To appease the budget hawks? The very same budget hawks that get their panties in a bunch when the pentagon's astronomical spending is questioned?

We should invest in space. It may not hold immediate or even certain economic benefits, yet neither did the early cross Atlantic voyages. They were funded due to the explorer aspect of the human spirit. We need frontiers, a place to let loose our imaginations, and cutting that for the sake of austerity is a mistake.

/nerdish sad face

theorellior: Forgot_my_password_again: Despite being an Obama supporter, I'm critical of him on a few things, but this is one of the biggest. The guy just doesn't see the value of NASA.

Agreed.

Purdue_Pete: Moar social programs for all.

You okay with cutting the military too?

Yup.

Tat'dGreaser: Get rid of NASA and let the civilian market have a whack at it.

Space exploration is full of unknowns which puts it in the category of basic research, which is what government should be doing. Private industry gets interested after government research has discovered something that might make money.

such beautiful markings. a most unusual spec

My problem with space exploration is that we are using the same methods for putting humans into space as the Chinese used to send fireworks into the sky thousands of years ago.

I do not think that we should cut NASA funding, but I do think that their funding could be better spent in researching new methods of space exploration.

But I guess that's why the shuttle program has ended. Woohoo?

The #1 priority at NASA should be "get shiat into orbiatcheap", but the damn organization is filled with engineers and managers that can think only about huge pools of explosive fuel being propelled by engines. That is what they learned on and that is what they want to do. Rockets are still too damn unreliable and ludicrously expensive (and resource hungry).

There are plenty of ideas that CAN be done (rail gun up the side of a tall mountain, space hook, space elevator.....), but they lack the support of the old rocket jockeys that can't let go of the technology they grew up with.

NASA is always on the chopping block, and the reason why, in my opinion, is because we have a Congress largely made up of people who absolutely do not want their beliefs challenged.

Think about this - if life were found on Mars, even if it's microbial life, how would the fundies on good old planet Earth react? Life on another planet? That's not in the bible. And how did those microbes get there? Scientists would start theorizing on the evolution of those life forms...EVOLUTION! Can't have that in the national discourse except to be trampled over as "just a theory".

Couple this fear of discovering something that might challenge biblical beliefs with a growing population of people who worship stupidity. You have a potential presidential candidate (Santorum) who criticized the current president for "thinking he's smarter than you." I'd HOPE the president is smarter than me. Why would you want someone of average intelligence leading the country? That's worshiping stupidity. That's telling Americans that being smart is BAD. Being smart makes you "an elitist". Being smart is wrong and sinful.

It's the farking dark ages having a resurgence in this country, and it's sickening.

mamoru: Our very own Bad Astronomer put it really well in his write-up:

My opinion hasn't really changed in years. NASA is a tiny, tiny part of the federal budget, far less than 1%. There are other places where money can be found, other places where cuts make more sense.

I've made this analogy before: if you have a hard drive full of 4 Gb movie files, you don't make room by deleting 100kB text files! You go after the big targets, which is far more efficient. Reducing NASA's budget for Mars exploration frees up 0.01% of the federal budget. That's it. One ten-thousandth of what we spend overall, a hundredth of a penny for every dollar.

What does that mean in more understandable terms? Over the past few years, the rate of money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq is about 20 million dollars per hour. In other words, the amount of money being cut from Mars exploration is equal to what we were spending on the War on Terror in just 15 hours.

You might want to read that again. For the cost of less than a single day on the War on Terror, we could have a robust and far-reaching program to explore Mars, look for signs of life on another planet, increase our overall science knowledge, and inspire a future generation of kids.

Damn straight. Since this is a budget request from the White House, I'd just like to offer an unhappy "Go fark yourself, Mr. President. How can you be so short-sighted?".

Oh well, as long as we're spending more important billions on blowing up brown people somewhere, I guess everything is ok, amirite?

:(

Why do you hate brown people?

It's a God awful small affair.

You're our only hope!

madgonad: orbiatcheap

heh, gotta love the Fark filters.

theorellior: GeekTheMighty: Even adjusted for inflation, that program cost each American just pennies per year while it was running.

I once calculated that the cost of the Iraq War would have paid for over fifty Apollo-style launches. Fifty.

Sadly, that sounds low.


/ not saying that we didn't think there were good reasons to go in... when we went in.
// not anti-military
/// not anti-government
//// just anti-stupid-spending
/ (and pro-slashie)

GeekTheMighty: I did a fairly thorough research project at one point about NASA and specifically about the Apollo Program.

Even adjusted for inflation, that program cost each American just pennies per year while it was running.


NASA is probably one of the biggest bang-for-your buck parts of the government. It's very frustrating to watch partisan politics and the policy of zero-risk decisionmaking at the national level destroy such a worthwhile program.

Apollo cost about $136B in 2007 dollars. That is about $800 per person for the US population at the time. NOT PENNIES.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

It looks like we are going to be stuck on this dustball for the rest of my life. :(

Dr. Whoof: NASA is always on the chopping block, and the reason why, in my opinion, is because we have a Congress largely made up of people who absolutely do not want their beliefs challenged.

Think about this - if life were found on Mars, even if it's microbial life, how would the fundies on good old planet Earth react? Life on another planet? That's not in the bible. And how did those microbes get there? Scientists would start theorizing on the evolution of those life forms...EVOLUTION! Can't have that in the national discourse except to be trampled over as "just a theory".

Couple this fear of discovering something that might challenge biblical beliefs with a growing population of people who worship stupidity. You have a potential presidential candidate (Santorum) who criticized the current president for "thinking he's smarter than you." I'd HOPE the president is smarter than me. Why would you want someone of average intelligence leading the country? That's worshiping stupidity. That's telling Americans that being smart is BAD. Being smart makes you "an elitist". Being smart is wrong and sinful.

It's the farking dark ages having a resurgence in this country, and it's sickening.

The good news is science always moves forward. It might take a long time, but we will get there. Sadly, maybe not in our lifetime.

Fart_Machine: It's a God awful small affair.

It's not my fault you got sent back in time to 1978.


/watch out for that girl on tv
// farking terrifying

madgonad: The #1 priority at NASA should be "get shiat into orbiatcheap", but the damn organization is filled with engineers and managers that can think only about huge pools of explosive fuel being propelled by engines. That is what they learned on and that is what they want to do. Rockets are still too damn unreliable and ludicrously expensive (and resource hungry).

There are plenty of ideas that CAN be done (rail gun up the side of a tall mountain, space hook, space elevator.....), but they lack the support of the old rocket jockeys that can't let go of the technology they grew up with.

They also lack funding for the basic R&D necessary to make them actually happen, none of which will appear as long as Senator Thiokol and Representative Lockheed continue to demand corporate welfare for rocket producers while screaming about DEBT DEBT DEBT and strapping young bucks buying t-bone steaks with food stamps in their tricked-out Cadillacs while Real 'Mericans are beaten in the streets by government thugs and greedy climate scam scientists.

Rockets are resource-intensive and generally single-use, but they do work. Other methods need to be developed, but until the moron patrol stops trying to send your country off a cliff, none of that will happen.

mamoru: Damn straight. Since this is a budget request from the White House, I'd just like to offer an unhappy "Go fark yourself, Mr. President. How can you be so short-sighted?".

We no longer have a civilian, reusable vehicle for manned space travel and we are still using what is essentially 75 year old propulsion technology. So why continue to spend billions on sending robots to a dead planet we've visited dozens of times in the last 45 years, when the money could be used for things needed for the next generation of space exploration? I can't see that this is short-sighted. Rather it's taking the long view and setting priorities.

theorellior: Forgot_my_password_again: Despite being an Obama supporter, I'm critical of him on a few things, but this is one of the biggest. The guy just doesn't see the value of NASA.

Agreed.

Purdue_Pete: Moar social programs for all.

You okay with cutting the military too?

We are cutting the military.

Only thing that doesn't seem to be meeting Mr. Budget Axe is social crap/entitlements and foreign aid. Obama wants to give Egypt $1.3 Billion in aid for just their military for some damn reason, on top of another couple hundred million in other aid.

What would NASA do with another $1.3 billion?

Pretty sure whatever it is would be better than what Egypt's military or some welfare case will.

madgonad: GeekTheMighty: I did a fairly thorough research project at one point about NASA and specifically about the Apollo Program.

Even adjusted for inflation, that program cost each American just pennies per year while it was running.


NASA is probably one of the biggest bang-for-your buck parts of the government. It's very frustrating to watch partisan politics and the policy of zero-risk decisionmaking at the national level destroy such a worthwhile program.

Apollo cost about $136B in 2007 dollars. That is about $800 per person for the US population at the time. NOT PENNIES.

I don't have my numbers handy so I can't really ask for yours, but the numbers I had were per-person-per-year, based on census numbers and the listed data for Apollo budgetary numbers from NASA's budgets at the time. Even adjusted for inflation (err... 2002 dollars) the cost was fairly low.

Like I said, I don't remember. It was still a tiny, tiny part of the US budget, even then.

Do they need anyone to explore the mounds of Venus?

Oh, great! Now what's Union Aerospace Corporation supposed to do with all those BFG's?

We have spent more money on our two most recent wars, they NASA has spent in its entire history combined.

Just imagine where we could be now if Martians were brown not green, and had oil.

I think one of the main reasons NASA budget gets shiat on so much is because of public perception. People think its SUPER EXPENSIVE, billions and trillions of bucks for them rockets, and sat-tee-lights.

God Damn it so much, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

If you need me I'll be in the angry dome.

Subby, who doesn't have a predilection for high-powered weaponory?