If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Explore Mars)   Americans believe NASA spending represents 2.4% of federal budget. NASA's actual budget is 0.5%. After being presented with this percentage, 75 percent of Americans said "increase NASA's budget 1% to fund Mars mission"   (exploremars.org) divider line 56
    More: Cool, NASA, Americans, federal budget, NASA spending, spending represents, Mars Exploration, funds, standard deviations  
•       •       •

1272 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-12 10:19:09 AM
But we're already spending 75% of our budget on foreign aid and a whopping 46% on Obamaphones.
 
2013-02-12 10:29:52 AM
Yes, it's much more important to go kill brown people in countries that aren't attacking us than funding NASA.
 
2013-02-12 10:34:48 AM
Plus I heard there's a woman on welfare driving a solid gold bmw.
 
2013-02-12 10:38:46 AM

Rapmaster2000: But we're already spending 75% of our budget on foreign aid and a whopping 46% on Obamaphones.


As well as 32% on interest, 40% on Social Security, 52% on Medicare, 25% on defense and. . . wait, where was I?  Oh, yeah, your mom.
 
2013-02-12 10:40:17 AM
There won't be any manned missions to Mars.  Sorry.  It won't happen.
 
2013-02-12 10:40:26 AM

Rapmaster2000: But we're already spending 75% of our budget on foreign aid and a whopping 46% on Obamaphones.


Don't forget the 38% that goes to Amtrak, 62% on green energy, 46% on public broadcasting, and whopping 73% that goes to food stamps.

That's several hundred percent!  No wonder we have a debt crisis.  If we don't eliminate all these cash-sucking pork-barrel projects, how will we ever afford to give tax-cuts to the long-suffering, beleagured job creators?
 
2013-02-12 10:43:44 AM
I guess 7 billion per year doesn't buy what it used to.
 
2013-02-12 10:49:33 AM
I'll dip my balls in it.

/got nothing
 
2013-02-12 10:51:57 AM

Doc Daneeka: Rapmaster2000: But we're already spending 75% of our budget on foreign aid and a whopping 46% on Obamaphones.

Don't forget the 38% that goes to Amtrak, 62% on green energy, 46% on public broadcasting, and whopping 73% that goes to food stamps.

That's several hundred percent!  No wonder we have a debt crisis.  If we don't eliminate all these cash-sucking pork-barrel projects, how will we ever afford to give tax-cuts to the long-suffering, beleagured job creators?


At least 72% of which was lost on Solyndra
 
2013-02-12 11:02:39 AM
Yes, because we gain so much from sending people to a barren, lifeless planet that is-- at minimum-- 55 million kilometers away from Earth (and at worst, about 400 million kilometers away).

Why, they might find some rocks! Or plant a flag! There's no end to the stuff they might do! They could even practice by standing in the middle of Tunisia while wearing red sunglasses.

And don't give me the old "we invent a bunch of things on the way to getting to Mars" fallback. If we dumped that much money into inventing on its own, and skipped the Mars part of it, we'd probably come up with a few nifty things, too.

What, exactly, is the point of sending a manned mission to Mars aside from the "gee-wow" factor? That money could be used to help people. It could be used to pay off our ridiculous debt to China. It could be used to improve the lives of average Americans. Right now, it's a complete waste of time and money to send people to a planet that-- by all practical accounts-- offers us nothing but  knowledge for the effort.

I'm all about knowledge, but you know what? Knowing the density of moon rocks doesn't improve my life.

We aren't going to colonize Mars. We aren't going to live on Mars, because we didn't evolve for it and we humans aren't too keen on needing to be plugged in to survive. We aren't going to start sharecropping or mining on Mars, either. There's absolutely nothing tangible to be gained from the investment except the mountain-climbing "Because it's there" reward.

Put that money into exploring the oceans, setting up national health care, or to get the bloated old politicians that corrupt our system out of office. Do something useful with it. If it's used to go to Mars, we might as well just load up all that money in an old rocket and shoot it into deep space, for all the good it will do us.

If there are any non-terrestrial people "out there" who want to meet us, let them come here. We're not proving anything by walking around on Mars. We'd be better served by ending wars and showing the universe at large (if there's anybody watching at all) that we're not savages who kill each other for entertainment and greed.
 
2013-02-12 11:04:21 AM

ZeroCorpse: We'd be better served by ending wars and showing the universe at large (if there's anybody watching at all) that we're not savages who kill each other for entertainment and greed.


A relationship built on lies cannot prosper.
 
2013-02-12 11:05:03 AM

ZeroCorpse: If there are any non-terrestrial people "out there" who want to meet us, let them come here. We're not proving anything by walking around on Mars. We'd be better served by ending wars and showing the universe at large (if there's anybody watching at all) that we're not savages who kill each other for entertainment and greed.


How about we become savages that roam the galaxy killing things? I'm ok with that.
 
2013-02-12 11:08:07 AM
We have a budget?
 
2013-02-12 11:13:20 AM
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-02-12 11:14:58 AM

ZeroCorpse: ...anti-Mars blah blah blah....


<deep mechanical breathing>

I find your lack of faith in the space program... disturbing.

<force choke>
 
2013-02-12 11:17:12 AM
cdn.openculture.com
I told you, dawg! I told you 'bout NASA funding!



ZeroCorpse: I'm all about knowledge, but you know what? Knowing the density of moon rocks doesn't improve my life.


Except that it DOES. NASA even releases an annual report of spinoff technologies, which is really only the highlights of what we get out of it. Chances are you can't get through a single day without benefiting from something learned from or developed for space exploration.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-12 11:17:55 AM
We don't have any farking money in the first place. Once the rest of the world really catches on and starts to ask for all that money we owe them, there won't even be a NASA.
 
2013-02-12 11:18:22 AM

Kibbler: There won't be any manned missions to Mars.  Sorry.  It won't happen.


Forever is a long time.
 
2013-02-12 11:26:14 AM

taurusowner: We don't have any farking money in the first place. Once the rest of the world really catches on and starts to ask for all that money we owe them, there won't even be a NASA.


FUN FACT: an entity capable of printing money cannot ever run out of money*, and is in approximately zero danger of ever defaulting on its debts.

File this under: "the federal budget is nothing like a household budget."  Heck, it's not even anything like Greece, since Greece neither prints its own money nor controls its own monetary policy.

(*Yes, this may in the long run lead to unpleasant effects like inflation, but since the inflation rate is extremely low at the moment, and can be controlled by the Fed through adjustments in the interest rate, I wouldn't worry overmuch about it.)
 
2013-02-12 11:30:59 AM
Why Mars? Mars sucks

Build a base on the Moon first.
 
2013-02-12 11:31:02 AM

ZeroCorpse: Yes, because we gain so much from sending people to a barren, lifeless planet that is-- at minimum-- 55 million kilometers away from Earth (and at worst, about 400 million kilometers away).

Why, they might find some rocks! Or plant a flag! There's no end to the stuff they might do! They could even practice by standing in the middle of Tunisia while wearing red sunglasses.

And don't give me the old "we invent a bunch of things on the way to getting to Mars" fallback. If we dumped that much money into inventing on its own, and skipped the Mars part of it, we'd probably come up with a few nifty things, too.

What, exactly, is the point of sending a manned mission to Mars aside from the "gee-wow" factor? That money could be used to help people. It could be used to pay off our ridiculous debt to China. It could be used to improve the lives of average Americans. Right now, it's a complete waste of time and money to send people to a planet that-- by all practical accounts-- offers us nothing but  knowledge for the effort.

I'm all about knowledge, but you know what? Knowing the density of moon rocks doesn't improve my life.

We aren't going to colonize Mars. We aren't going to live on Mars, because we didn't evolve for it and we humans aren't too keen on needing to be plugged in to survive. We aren't going to start sharecropping or mining on Mars, either. There's absolutely nothing tangible to be gained from the investment except the mountain-climbing "Because it's there" reward.

Put that money into exploring the oceans, setting up national health care, or to get the bloated old politicians that corrupt our system out of office. Do something useful with it. If it's used to go to Mars, we might as well just load up all that money in an old rocket and shoot it into deep space, for all the good it will do us.

If there are any non-terrestrial people "out there" who want to meet us, let them come here. We're not proving anything by walking around on Mars. We'd be better served by ending wars and showing the universe at large (if there's anybody watching at all) that we're not savages who kill each other for entertainment and greed.


Innovation does not work that way!

[morbo.jpg]

At some point we will colonize Mars. The lessons we learn terraforming it will be invaluable as we expand our galactic footprint.

What's more likely to end war: throwing $ at the problem or removing one of its admittedly many causes, resource scarcity. Colonizing other planets alleviates the notion of scarcity. This is an important step in the development of our species. Stop trivializing it.

/NASA's budget won't make a dent in the national debt
//should really send robots first
 
2013-02-12 11:47:02 AM

KingsleyZisou: Innovation does not work that way![morbo.jpg]At some point we will colonize Mars. The lessons we learn terraforming it will be invaluable as we expand our galactic footprint.What's more likely to end war: throwing $ at the problem or removing one of its admittedly many causes, resource scarcity. Colonizing other planets alleviates the notion of scarcity. This is an important step in the development of our species. Stop trivializing it./NASA's budget won't make a dent in the national debt//should really send robots first


Landing on Mars isn't going to do anything for resource scarcity. Sending stuff from Mars to Earth would always be many times more expensive that refining it on Earth, and nothing of note is ever going to run out - it just becomes more and more expensive to get it from lower and lower grade ores. The key to space travel will be adjusting to live in space, dropping back to planets would be a pointless step backwards once a significant amount of humans (or post-humans) have escaped the gravity well. The industrial age of space will be based on harvesting resources out of asteroids and moons and similar low/no gravity situations to create more living capacity in space, with nothing or neglible amounts of material ever going back to the Earth, or down to other planets.
 
2013-02-12 11:51:16 AM
I love space and sci-fi...  But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.  That is unless we hope to find the cure for Cancer, poverty in America, or can solve our energy crisis by going to Mars.
 
2013-02-12 11:54:14 AM

darthdrafter: ZeroCorpse: ...anti-Mars blah blah blah....

<deep mechanical breathing>

I find your lack of faith in the space program... disturbing.

<force choke>


Hey, he's just trying to question authority.  There's nothing wrong with putting together a qualitative analysis of a problem to get some questions answered and if the quantitatives arrived at demonstrate the project to be impractical, there is nothing wrong with positing a query about its feasibility.
 
2013-02-12 12:07:50 PM

RedTank: I love space and sci-fi...  But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.  That is unless we hope to find the cure for Cancer, poverty in America, or can solve our energy crisis by going to Mars.


2 out of 3 isn't half bad, alleviating resource scarcity as well as developing innovative ways to power extraterrestrial bases are both likely spinoffs of going to mars.
 
2013-02-12 12:14:52 PM
People are missing the point.  How many people were motivated to go into science, technology and engineering because of the moon landings?  The spinoff technologies and the knowledge alone are well worth it, but that's not nearly the most important thing.
 
2013-02-12 12:17:41 PM

Egoy3k: RedTank: I love space and sci-fi...  But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.  That is unless we hope to find the cure for Cancer, poverty in America, or can solve our energy crisis by going to Mars.

2 out of 3 isn't half bad, alleviating resource scarcity as well as developing innovative ways to power extraterrestrial bases are both likely spinoffs of going to mars.


Exactly sending a space ship to mars and then powering equipment while you are there is going to require some super efficient power generation systems. For that matter since there doesn't seem to be a ton of easily available water for drinking on mars they are going to need a very high tech water filtration systems.
 
2013-02-12 12:18:52 PM

xria: KingsleyZisou: Innovation does not work that way![morbo.jpg]At some point we will colonize Mars. The lessons we learn terraforming it will be invaluable as we expand our galactic footprint.What's more likely to end war: throwing $ at the problem or removing one of its admittedly many causes, resource scarcity. Colonizing other planets alleviates the notion of scarcity. This is an important step in the development of our species. Stop trivializing it./NASA's budget won't make a dent in the national debt//should really send robots first

Landing on Mars isn't going to do anything for resource scarcity. Sending stuff from Mars to Earth would always be many times more expensive that refining it on Earth, and nothing of note is ever going to run out - it just becomes more and more expensive to get it from lower and lower grade ores. The key to space travel will be adjusting to live in space, dropping back to planets would be a pointless step backwards once a significant amount of humans (or post-humans) have escaped the gravity well. The industrial age of space will be based on harvesting resources out of asteroids and moons and similar low/no gravity situations to create more living capacity in space, with nothing or neglible amounts of material ever going back to the Earth, or down to other planets.


Agreed. But don't you think going to Mars is one of the early steps on that journey?

Also, other planets will figure into this. There will comes day when most of humanity lives off planet. But that doesn't mean people will give up this lifestyle.

/it'll be the 1% who live down the well
//James S A Corey's books on this subject, though fiction, are fascinating imo
 
2013-02-12 12:26:54 PM

Egoy3k: RedTank: I love space and sci-fi...  But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.  That is unless we hope to find the cure for Cancer, poverty in America, or can solve our energy crisis by going to Mars.

2 out of 3 isn't half bad, alleviating resource scarcity as well as developing innovative ways to power extraterrestrial bases are both likely spinoffs of going to mars.


Perhaps there are better ways of doing that while getting a better bang for your buck?  From a dollar for dollar cost benefit I believe investing in solving energy and poverty issues directly is better than simply justifying an exploratory Mars by the potential secondary benefits.

Let private industry find a way to make a profit in space and then the real fun will begin.
 
2013-02-12 12:27:19 PM

RedTank: I love space and sci-fi... But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.


War is a waste of money. Cut back on that just a tiny bit and you have ample funds for space technology.

However, i think if NASA wants more money, they should provide more transparency. As it is now, they screen everything before releasing it to the public, and we only ever get to see a small percentage of the data they gather. Every NASA satellite and telescope should stream its data live to the public, so the people paying for it have access at the same time NASA does. It's space, ffs, not a matter of national security, unless there's something they're hiding...
 
2013-02-12 12:36:01 PM

J. Frank Parnell: RedTank: I love space and sci-fi... But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.

War is a waste of money. Cut back on that just a tiny bit and you have ample funds for space technology.

However, i think if NASA wants more money, they should provide more transparency. As it is now, they screen everything before releasing it to the public, and we only ever get to see a small percentage of the data they gather. Every NASA satellite and telescope should stream its data live to the public, so the people paying for it have access at the same time NASA does. It's space, ffs, not a matter of national security, unless there's something they're hiding...


War is a huge waste of money.  If we weren't spending so much on the military each year I would be willing to spend more on NASA - but not as of today.
 
2013-02-12 01:10:36 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Screw Mars.  Where is my Space Titanic?
 
2013-02-12 01:36:36 PM

ZeroCorpse: Yes, because we gain so much from sending people to a barren, lifeless planet that is-- at minimum-- 55 million kilometers away from Earth (and at worst, about 400 million kilometers away).

Why, they might find some rocks! Or plant a flag! There's no end to the stuff they might do! They could even practice by standing in the middle of Tunisia while wearing red sunglasses.

And don't give me the old "we invent a bunch of things on the way to getting to Mars" fallback. If we dumped that much money into inventing on its own, and skipped the Mars part of it, we'd probably come up with a few nifty things, too.

What, exactly, is the point of sending a manned mission to Mars aside from the "gee-wow" factor? That money could be used to help people. It could be used to pay off our ridiculous debt to China. It could be used to improve the lives of average Americans. Right now, it's a complete waste of time and money to send people to a planet that-- by all practical accounts-- offers us nothing but  knowledge for the effort.

I'm all about knowledge, but you know what? Knowing the density of moon rocks doesn't improve my life.

We aren't going to colonize Mars. We aren't going to live on Mars, because we didn't evolve for it and we humans aren't too keen on needing to be plugged in to survive. We aren't going to start sharecropping or mining on Mars, either. There's absolutely nothing tangible to be gained from the investment except the mountain-climbing "Because it's there" reward.

Put that money into exploring the oceans, setting up national health care, or to get the bloated old politicians that corrupt our system out of office. Do something useful with it. If it's used to go to Mars, we might as well just load up all that money in an old rocket and shoot it into deep space, for all the good it will do us.

If there are any non-terrestrial people "out there" who want to meet us, let them come here. We're not proving anything by walking around on Mars. We'd be better ser ...


Yes, let's never leave Earth. Sure, our resources are dwindling and population rates are skyrocketing, but who cares?

/Stupid moon landing
//Shoulda spent the money on more ICBM's
 
2013-02-12 01:37:23 PM

RedTank: Egoy3k: RedTank: I love space and sci-fi...  But increasing NASA's budget at this moment for specificaly Mars exploration is a waste of money.  That is unless we hope to find the cure for Cancer, poverty in America, or can solve our energy crisis by going to Mars.

2 out of 3 isn't half bad, alleviating resource scarcity as well as developing innovative ways to power extraterrestrial bases are both likely spinoffs of going to mars.

Perhaps there are better ways of doing that while getting a better bang for your buck?  From a dollar for dollar cost benefit I believe investing in solving energy and poverty issues directly is better than simply justifying an exploratory Mars by the potential secondary benefits.

Let private industry find a way to make a profit in space and then the real fun will begin.


We could invest in current technologies directly. But the major benefit of the space program is new technologies. Sure we can throw money at solar. Or we can go to mars and have x% chance to come up with something better than solar.

The better point though is this isn't a zero sum situation. We should do both/all of the things mentioned in this thread.

/money is temporary but science is forever
 
2013-02-12 01:58:38 PM

tacchimonster: [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 550x309]

Screw Mars.  Where is my Space Titanic?


www.technovelgy.com

I was thinking Fhloston Paradise.
 
2013-02-12 02:15:22 PM

There's no way we have the funds to go to Mars.


We need that cash to fund tax cuts for the rich.


/trollie trollmeister

 
2013-02-12 02:15:35 PM
My guess is that we'll need two things to make missions to Mars possible: a good source of power, and a rocket engine that can produce enough thrust, continuously, to accelerate the spacecraft at 1G, or more.

The source of power will almost certainly need to be something like a portable fusion reactor. The other proposals I've seen, so far, seem pretty half-assed (though admittedly, I'm not an expert); one thing breaks on those, and you could lose the entire colony. With something like a portable fusion reactor, you could take a bunch of them. If one fails, it's no big deal.

I once calculated a rocket engine that can produce 1G of continuous thrust could get people to Mars in something like three weeks, even when Mars is farthest from Earth. No more problems with long-term radiation exposure or people being in an enclosed space for 6 months. Better still, 1G acceleration means there will be Earth-normal gravity for the whole trip, so no more health issues caused by microgravity.

If you want to get to Mars, we'll need to solve those two problems, first.
 
2013-02-12 02:57:44 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-12 03:21:07 PM

J. Frank Parnell: However, i think if NASA wants more money, they should provide more transparency. As it is now, they screen everything before releasing it to the public, and we only ever get to see a small percentage of the data they gather. Every NASA satellite and telescope should stream its data live to the public, so the people paying for it have access at the same time NASA does. It's space, ffs, not a matter of national security, unless there's something they're hiding...


They do put data online for anyone to see. http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/  "Streaming live to the public" assumes a capability that NASA doesn't have... But you can get some pretty recent data.

I just grabbed this at random   http://archive.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/mastpreview?mission=hst&dataid=IC5S1 1 010 Observation date: Feb 9 2013. Three days old. Not bad...
 
2013-02-12 03:25:25 PM
Let's just all go buy a Redbull, and they'll have a dude jumping from the Mars stratosphere in no time at all!
 
2013-02-12 03:39:00 PM

ZeroCorpse: Yes, because we gain so much from sending people to a barren, lifeless planet that is-- at minimum-- 55 million kilometers away from Earth (and at worst, about 400 million kilometers away).

Why, they might find some rocks! Or plant a flag! There's no end to the stuff they might do! They could even practice by standing in the middle of Tunisia while wearing red sunglasses.

And don't give me the old "we invent a bunch of things on the way to getting to Mars" fallback. If we dumped that much money into inventing on its own, and skipped the Mars part of it, we'd probably come up with a few nifty things, too.

What, exactly, is the point of sending a manned mission to Mars aside from the "gee-wow" factor? That money could be used to help people. It could be used to pay off our ridiculous debt to China. It could be used to improve the lives of average Americans. Right now, it's a complete waste of time and money to send people to a planet that-- by all practical accounts-- offers us nothing but  knowledge for the effort.

I'm all about knowledge, but you know what? Knowing the density of moon rocks doesn't improve my life.

We aren't going to colonize Mars. We aren't going to live on Mars, because we didn't evolve for it and we humans aren't too keen on needing to be plugged in to survive. We aren't going to start sharecropping or mining on Mars, either. There's absolutely nothing tangible to be gained from the investment except the mountain-climbing "Because it's there" reward.

Put that money into exploring the oceans, setting up national health care, or to get the bloated old politicians that corrupt our system out of office. Do something useful with it. If it's used to go to Mars, we might as well just load up all that money in an old rocket and shoot it into deep space, for all the good it will do us.

If there are any non-terrestrial people "out there" who want to meet us, let them come here. We're not proving anything by walking around on Mars. We'd be better ser ...


Open up your imagination a little bit. Living on and transforming Mars will likely be the next step for our species as we expand our galactic footprint outwards. No, this won't happen in our lifetime, but it could happen in the next couple centuries. Yes looking to improve our society here on Earth is vital, but we also can't ignore the longterm future of our species.

Someday, if mankind is to survive, visiting Mars will be a vital stepping stone. Maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic or foolish to think we can exist beyond Earth, but I'd rather we hope for and strive for the best than be satisfied with sitting in our little corner of the galaxy indefinitely.  If anything, the importance of space exploration is being underplayed in our world, but it's understandably hard to convince people when no one currently alive will reap the benefits of the expenditures.
 
2013-02-12 04:07:06 PM
KingsleyZisou:

/money is temporary but science is forever

Until we bomb ourselves back to the Stone Age, anyway.
 
2013-02-12 04:33:03 PM

ZeroCorpse: I'm all about knowledge, but you know what? Knowing the density of moon rocks doesn't improve my life.


Knowledge for its own sake is amazing. And if we invent cool things on the way to determining that knowledge that's fine too. But in the end, and I quote "science is interesting and if you don't agree you can f*ck off." The mentality you express is what's holding our species back every bit as much as the science deniers like creationists and global warming "skeptics". You just dress up your resistance to progress differently.
 
2013-02-12 04:46:52 PM
Why do people, supposedly intelligent people, talk about "wasting money in outer space when there are so many problems down here on Earth?"

Do they actually think that the money is spent in outer space? Are the astronoauts shopping at some giant orbiting Wal-Mart that sends it's profits to the Klingon Empire?

All the money goes to purchase and develop equipment, techniques, and knowlege right here on Earth. It all goes into the economy down here buying In-n-Out burgers, Netflix movies, and the latest iGadgets.
 
2013-02-12 05:07:05 PM

Doc Daneeka: Rapmaster2000: But we're already spending 75% of our budget on foreign aid and a whopping 46% on Obamaphones.

Don't forget the 38% that goes to Amtrak, 62% on green energy, 46% on public broadcasting, and whopping 73% that goes to food stamps.

That's several hundred percent!  No wonder we have a debt crisis.  If we don't eliminate all these cash-sucking pork-barrel projects, how will we ever afford to give tax-cuts to the long-suffering, beleagured job creators?


Too bad our military only gets 3% of the budget. It makes me feel unsafe; like I'm gonna wake up tomorrow and my cornflakes will be replaced with commie flakes.
 
2013-02-12 05:11:41 PM

SmellsLikePoo: Let's just all go buy a Redbull, and they'll have a dude jumping from the Mars stratosphere in no time at all!


Not Felix, he doesn't believe in manned space travel despite the very obvious technical engineering learned as a result of space travel and used in his suit.
 
2013-02-12 05:28:31 PM

bbfreak: SmellsLikePoo: Let's just all go buy a Redbull, and they'll have a dude jumping from the Mars stratosphere in no time at all!

Not Felix, he doesn't believe in manned space travel despite the very obvious technical engineering learned as a result of space travel and used in his suit.


I read a few articles with quotes of Felix trashing NASA soon after the jump... That dude can go suck a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-02-12 05:31:49 PM
Also, to put into perspective how much money NASA uses. Curiosity Rover, 2.5 billion dollars. Expensive right? Nope. That's about the price of a movie (a cheap one, 8 bucks or so divided among the 300 million of us), that 2.5 billion dollars is over several years of development. Cheap, affordable, better than starting another war under false pretenses. Its a travesty that as a species we rather embrace war, reality tv and in general the lowest common denominator. We as a species should be about bettering ourselves, and helping each other in doing so. Our species, our society, and our world would be better for it. Instead its fark you, I've got mine and the idea that your beliefs are more important than human decency. We can be better than this, and not through just space travel. Through science in general, and I'd love to see an increase in science funding in general.

Instead the longest running sea lab is shuttered, and serious doubts about the future because short term problems have been deemed more important. Fark that shiat.
 
2013-02-12 05:38:42 PM

SmellsLikePoo: bbfreak: SmellsLikePoo: Let's just all go buy a Redbull, and they'll have a dude jumping from the Mars stratosphere in no time at all!

Not Felix, he doesn't believe in manned space travel despite the very obvious technical engineering learned as a result of space travel and used in his suit.

I read a few articles with quotes of Felix trashing NASA soon after the jump... That dude can go suck a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.


Agreed. Katie Couric too.
 
2013-02-12 07:24:06 PM
Lets just pull back the billions that we waste on Israel?

I bet if given the choice between the two, Mars would win hands down.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report