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.

(NASA)   Coolest picture of the Earth and Moon taken from the surface of Mars that you will see all day   (photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov) divider line 38
    More: Cool, moons, Earth, Mars Science Laboratory, Science Mission Directorate, Malin Space Science Systems, Caltech  
•       •       •

6538 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Feb 2014 at 6:26 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-06 06:32:31 PM
That's a shop, I can tell by the pixel.
 
2014-02-06 06:34:22 PM
Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?
 
2014-02-06 06:39:07 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?


If they did that, there wouldn't be enough money for kickbacks and pet projects to buy votes with.
 
2014-02-06 06:39:35 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?


God did it.
 
2014-02-06 06:47:46 PM
I can't see the tides coming in or going out in that picture. I can't explain that.
 
2014-02-06 06:55:16 PM
Show this photo to the next azn idiot you see bragging about the Chinese rover on the Moon.
 
2014-02-06 06:55:33 PM
Seeing stuff like this, you can almost understand religion.
 
2014-02-06 06:58:34 PM
Aw, but I had my eyes closed. Take another one!
 
2014-02-06 07:02:00 PM

pastorkius: That's a shop, I can tell by the pixel.


Both of them to be exact.

/shakes fist!!
 
2014-02-06 07:28:25 PM
That was very cool. Thanks
 
2014-02-06 07:30:59 PM
It's a streetlamp
 
2014-02-06 07:33:56 PM
Thats no moon.

Oh wait it is, never mind.
 
2014-02-06 07:48:36 PM

slotz: Seeing stuff like this, you can almost understand religion.


In what way?
 
2014-02-06 07:51:50 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: slotz: Seeing stuff like this, you can almost understand religion.

In what way?


Something looks cool, therefor God?
 
2014-02-06 07:56:36 PM
I CAN TOTALLY SEE MY HOUSE IN THAT PIC
 
2014-02-06 08:07:02 PM

markie_farkie: I CAN TOTALLY SEE MY HOUSE IN THAT PIC


Yeah but Google Earth has a better view.
 
2014-02-06 08:30:02 PM

markie_farkie: I CAN TOTALLY SEE MY HOUSE IN THAT PIC


And I noticed that my fly was open.
 
2014-02-06 08:32:32 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?


The same reason that this thread wont get 100's of comments. People don't care. Thus when people complain about spending, and they need to cut somewhere they cut NASA/science because the American people believe more in angels then evolution or climate change. This despite NASA only getting 0.6 percent of the total budget in a good year.

So NASA gets about 16-17 billion a year. Things that Americans spend more money on than NASA.

Americans spend 90 billion dollars a year on booze.

Americans spend 60 billion dollars a year on our pets. 20 billion of that is on pet food alone.

The US government gives farmers between 10 to 30 billion a year in farm subsidies.

New York City alone, just that one city spends about 24 billion dollars each year on its education system.

Anyway, my point is that its chump change. Yet everyone always gets outraged at how expensive space exploration is suppose to be. This after we've spent 6 trillion dollars on two wars in countries where things will NEVER be stable.

Welcome to the United States, home of the stupid.
 
2014-02-06 08:36:21 PM

KarmicDisaster: Mambo Bananapatch: slotz: Seeing stuff like this, you can almost understand religion.

In what way?

Something looks cool, therefor God?


No. That's SO cool, that God!

/QED
 
2014-02-06 08:37:24 PM

Closed_Minded_Bastage: Yeah but Google Earth has a better view.


img.fark.net

Not by much.. You can barely see the rocket launcher tubes in the upstairs attic!
 
2014-02-06 08:54:26 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?


For the same reason that half of America is armed and ready to defend Jesus on a dinosaur from a comfy cripple cart, and the other half is trying to make enough scratch to leave before the cookie jar is empty.

/BTW, it's already empty.
 
2014-02-06 09:13:08 PM

FuManchu7: Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

If they did that, there wouldn't be enough money for kickbacks and pet projects to buy votes with.


This, for example.

Cost bailing out the UAW pension-$26.2 Billion  NASA 2011 budget $17.6 billion

Recently passed  $1 trillion over 5 years farm bill   NASA projected FY2014 budget $17.7 billion

DoE green energy/jobs program $28 billion for 2, 298 permanent jobs.  NASA's curiosity rover $2.5 billion  7,000 jobs
 NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo Program  approx $ 6 billion over 5 years est 11,800 jobs for life of program

 .
 
2014-02-06 09:17:38 PM

Spad31: I can't see the tides coming in or going out in that picture. I can't explain that.


That's because you don't have the superior quality of Monster brand cables for your HDMI connection.
 
2014-02-06 09:19:26 PM

KarmicDisaster: Mambo Bananapatch: slotz: Seeing stuff like this, you can almost understand religion.

In what way?

Something looks cool, therefor God?


I will venture a guess and say the concept of infinity. Infinite universe. Space travel makes that real.

/atheist
 
2014-02-06 09:36:21 PM

bbfreak: Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

The same reason that this thread wont get 100's of comments. People don't care. Thus when people complain about spending, and they need to cut somewhere they cut NASA/science because the American people believe more in angels then evolution or climate change. This despite NASA only getting 0.6 percent of the total budget in a good year.

So NASA gets about 16-17 billion a year. Things that Americans spend more money on than NASA.

Americans spend 90 billion dollars a year on booze.

Americans spend 60 billion dollars a year on our pets. 20 billion of that is on pet food alone.

The US government gives farmers between 10 to 30 billion a year in farm subsidies.

New York City alone, just that one city spends about 24 billion dollars each year on its education system.

Anyway, my point is that its chump change. Yet everyone always gets outraged at how expensive space exploration is suppose to be. This after we've spent 6 trillion dollars on two wars in countries where things will NEVER be stable.

Welcome to the United States, home of the stupid.


hasty ambush: FuManchu7: Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

If they did that, there wouldn't be enough money for kickbacks and pet projects to buy votes with.

This, for example.

Cost bailing out the UAW pension-$26.2 Billion  NASA 2011 budget $17.6 billion

Recently passed  $1 trillion over 5 years farm bill   NASA projected FY2014 budget $17.7 billion

DoE green energy/jobs program $28 billion for 2, 298 permanent jobs.  NASA's curiosity rover $2.5 billion  7,000 jobs
 NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo Program  approx $ 6 billion over 5 years est 11,800 jobs for life of program


Or maybe it has something to do with NASA being overly bureaucratic with piss-poor project management. The GAO is always nailing them on audits. A twenty-fold increase in NASA's budget would probably result in a doubling of useful returns. Saying that we should just trust NASA with doing the right thing with no oversight is just as dumb as saying we should leave defense policy and spending to the Pentagon. And like the Pentagon, if you want to get something really cool for your NASA dollars, you're probably better off setting up some sort of skunk works/DARPA equivalent that's separate from the established bureaucracy. Going with the establishment will get you almost nowhere. Even if you're doing really cool stuff, there are finite resources and you still need to show the value of what you're doing.

But, as the two of you have described, the best defense most people can muster is "hey, look at all these other things I cherry-picked that we 'waste' money on, surely we can afford to waste a bunch of money on this thing I happen to like". In your view, what would be an appropriate funding model? How did you arrive at "twenty times"? I'd love to see the analysis on that one.
 
2014-02-06 09:39:59 PM
Wow. Two dots.

Call me when we win a space battle.
 
2014-02-06 09:41:33 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: bbfreak: Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

The same reason that this thread wont get 100's of comments. People don't care. Thus when people complain about spending, and they need to cut somewhere they cut NASA/science because the American people believe more in angels then evolution or climate change. This despite NASA only getting 0.6 percent of the total budget in a good year.

So NASA gets about 16-17 billion a year. Things that Americans spend more money on than NASA.

Americans spend 90 billion dollars a year on booze.

Americans spend 60 billion dollars a year on our pets. 20 billion of that is on pet food alone.

The US government gives farmers between 10 to 30 billion a year in farm subsidies.

New York City alone, just that one city spends about 24 billion dollars each year on its education system.

Anyway, my point is that its chump change. Yet everyone always gets outraged at how expensive space exploration is suppose to be. This after we've spent 6 trillion dollars on two wars in countries where things will NEVER be stable.

Welcome to the United States, home of the stupid.

hasty ambush: FuManchu7: Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

If they did that, there wouldn't be enough money for kickbacks and pet projects to buy votes with.

This, for example.

Cost bailing out the UAW pension-$26.2 Billion  NASA 2011 budget $17.6 billion

Recently passed  $1 trillion over 5 years farm bill   NASA projected FY2014 budget $17.7 billion

DoE green energy/jobs program $28 billion for 2, 298 permanent jobs.  NASA's curiosity rover $2.5 billion  7,000 jobs
 NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo Program  approx $ 6 billion over 5 years est 11,800 jobs for life of program

Or maybe it has something to do with NASA being overly bureaucratic with piss-poor project management. The GAO is always nailing them on audits. A twenty-fold increase in NASA's budget would probably result in ...


Blah blah blah, you don't trust the government to do anything right. So cut all the spending! Right?
 
2014-02-06 09:50:44 PM

bbfreak: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen:

Blah blah blah, you don't trust the government to do anything right. So cut all the spending! Right?


No, I'm pretty sure I said nothing of the sort. As with everything else, I'm asking for at least a token effort to show what you'd get for the money. But since you offer nothing of the sort, I can only presume that it means that you know fark-all what you're talking about and can only attack those who challenge you.
 
2014-02-06 10:30:14 PM
Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Or maybe it has something to do with NASA being overly bureaucratic with piss-poor project management. The GAO is always nailing them on audits. A twenty-fold increase in NASA's budget would probably result in a doubling of useful returns. Saying that we should just trust NASA with doing the right thing with no oversight is just as dumb as saying we should leave defense policy and spending to the Pentagon. And like the Pentagon, if you want to get something really cool for your NASA dollars, you're probably better off setting up some sort of skunk works/DARPA equivalent that's separate from the established bureaucracy. Going with the establishment will get you almost nowhere. Even if you're doing really cool stuff, there are finite resources and you still need to show the value of what you're doing.

But, as the two of you have described, the best defense most people can muster is "hey, look at all these other things I cherry-picked that we 'waste' money on, surely we can afford to waste a bunch of money on this thing I happen to like". In your view, what would be an appropriate funding model? How did you arrive at "twenty times"? I'd love to see the analysis on that one.

Fine, let me try that again. You start from a negative view of NASA so I was annoyed, yes its true that there are pork projects like SLS/Orion/ISS/Shuttle. There are also great exploration missions like Curiosity, Opportunity, Voyager 1 & 2, all the earth science/solar science that is being done on a daily basis. Or the commercial space program that is likely going to end up with Space X flying humans to ISS in 2016 at the earliest.

Don't forget, NASA also makes our airplanes more safe/efficient/etc.

So yes, NASA has its problems but overall it provides a benefit to our species and the United States as a whole are great. I am fine with making sure NASA is managed more responsibility, but you have to realize that the reason NASA is managed the way it is in the first place is because of Congress. Congress likes its pork. That being said the commercial space program shows that as long as we have a competitive system when it comes to contracts and clear goals with our space program we can succeed.

The problem with SLS/Orion is that there were no bidding involved. Space shuttle contractors paydirt was coming to an end with the end of shuttle, so they built a rocket to keep shuttle contractors happy.

Moving forward NASA should have a clear goal for its manned/unmanned program. They should also make sure they keep to budgets as much as possible (having a clear plan/a stable budget helps in that regard). That being said, James Webb and Curiosity Rover are both invaluable tools of science despite being over budget. Both are also totally affordable even despite the cost overruns.

Mostly I value science and exploration because there have ALWAYS been economic and quality of life benefits as a result. A manned mission to Mars for example, just off the top of my head. Could lead to technology that could make us much more efficient as a species when it comes to resources. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when you need to spend two years on Mars totally cut off from the rest of humanity, you have to adapt and push the limits of your technology.

Yes, technically we could invent that sort of technology without going to Mars, but there is no incentive to do so. Resources are plentiful here on earth, especially in the west. Nobody wants to dream of the future anymore, or make the world a better place. You can do that through engineering, and by pushing yourself as a species beyond what is possible. Space exploration is great for that.
 
2014-02-06 10:36:19 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?


Politics.
 
2014-02-06 11:00:13 PM

bbfreak: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Or maybe it has something to do with NASA being overly bureaucratic with piss-poor project management. The GAO is always nailing them on audits. A twenty-fold increase in NASA's budget would probably result in a doubling of useful returns. Saying that we should just trust NASA with doing the right thing with no oversight is just as dumb as saying we should leave defense policy and spending to the Pentagon. And like the Pentagon, if you want to get something really cool for your NASA dollars, you're probably better off setting up some sort of skunk works/DARPA equivalent that's separate from the established bureaucracy. Going with the establishment will get you almost nowhere. Even if you're doing really cool stuff, there are finite resources and you still need to show the value of what you're doing.

But, as the two of you have described, the best defense most people can muster is "hey, look at all these other things I cherry-picked that we 'waste' money on, surely we can afford to waste a bunch of money on this thing I happen to like". In your view, what would be an appropriate funding model? How did you arrive at "twenty times"? I'd love to see the analysis on that one.

Fine, let me try that again. You start from a negative view of NASA so I was annoyed, yes its true that there are pork projects like SLS/Orion/ISS/Shuttle. There are also great exploration missions like Curiosity, Opportunity, Voyager 1 & 2, all the earth science/solar science that is being done on a daily basis. Or the commercial space program that is likely going to end up with Space X flying humans to ISS in 2016 at the earliest.

Don't forget, NASA also makes our airplanes more safe/efficient/etc.

So yes, NASA has its problems but overall it provides a benefit to our species and the United States as a whole are great. I am fine with making sure NASA is managed more responsibility, but you have to realize that the reason NASA is managed the way it is in the first place ...


If nothing else we know we are farked in space.
 
2014-02-06 11:14:03 PM

bbfreak: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Or maybe it has something to do with NASA being overly bureaucratic with piss-poor project management. The GAO is always nailing them on audits. A twenty-fold increase in NASA's budget would probably result in a doubling of useful returns. Saying that we should just trust NASA with doing the right thing with no oversight is just as dumb as saying we should leave defense policy and spending to the Pentagon. And like the Pentagon, if you want to get something really cool for your NASA dollars, you're probably better off setting up some sort of skunk works/DARPA equivalent that's separate from the established bureaucracy. Going with the establishment will get you almost nowhere. Even if you're doing really cool stuff, there are finite resources and you still need to show the value of what you're doing.

But, as the two of you have described, the best defense most people can muster is "hey, look at all these other things I cherry-picked that we 'waste' money on, surely we can afford to waste a bunch of money on this thing I happen to like". In your view, what would be an appropriate funding model? How did you arrive at "twenty times"? I'd love to see the analysis on that one.

Fine, let me try that again. You start from a negative view of NASA so I was annoyed, yes its true that there are pork projects like SLS/Orion/ISS/Shuttle. There are also great exploration missions like Curiosity, Opportunity, Voyager 1 & 2, all the earth science/solar science that is being done on a daily basis. Or the commercial space program that is likely going to end up with Space X flying humans to ISS in 2016 at the earliest.

Don't forget, NASA also makes our airplanes more safe/efficient/etc.

So yes, NASA has its problems but overall it provides a benefit to our species and the United States as a whole are great. I am fine with making sure NASA is managed more responsibility, but you have to realize that the reason NASA is managed the way it is in the first place ...


See, those are rational, practical arguments to make. Couple that with at least a modicum of accountability on NASA leadership and you can start to have a viable space program. I'm not against space exploration at all; I love it. If it were all up to me I'd much rather take the money spent on farm subsidies and some of the other things you mention and redirect it toward space and other science programs I happen to like. But I can't let my own preferences get in the way of recognizing that there are finite resources to spend and a lot of "good causes" to spend them on. At some point you have to prioritize, and expect results from those in whom you put your trust.
 
2014-02-06 11:29:00 PM
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's where all cats are.
 
2014-02-07 01:55:29 AM
I don't have much worth contributing to the thread, but I am definitely amazed.

Science!
 
2014-02-07 02:42:21 AM
Let's face it. We are never getting off of this damn rock. We will exterminate ourselves long beforehand, or nature will for us.

The only hope for Earthkind is that a kinder, more foreseeing species rises up in the ashes. Maybe they can take some of our trinkets to other places that we can only dream of.
 
2014-02-07 07:48:25 AM
bbfreak [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 08:32:32 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

The same reason that this thread wont get 100's of comments. People don't care. Thus when people complain about spending, and they need to cut somewhere they cut NASA/science because the American people believe more in angels then evolution or climate change



Keep up with the anti-republican/religious derp. Sadly for you the facts don't support your lies

The Superconducting supercollider for just 1 example was canceled by her clinton while he had democrat majorities in the Senate and house.
 
2014-02-07 07:55:45 AM
[qute]bbfreak [TotalFark]

Blah blah blah, you don't trust the government to do anything right. So cut all the spending! Right? Yeah, why would anyone want to cut spending to a wasteful group that has zero accountability? That's crazy talk.
 
2014-02-07 10:53:42 PM

OnlyM3: bbfreak [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 08:32:32 PM

Chalji: Absolutely unreal.

Why aren't we giving NASA twenty times as much funding?

The same reason that this thread wont get 100's of comments. People don't care. Thus when people complain about spending, and they need to cut somewhere they cut NASA/science because the American people believe more in angels then evolution or climate change


Keep up with the anti-republican/religious derp. Sadly for you the facts don't support your lies

The Superconducting supercollider for just 1 example was canceled by her clinton while he had democrat majorities in the Senate and house.


Uh, what lies? 77 percent of Americans believe in angels. Meanwhile only 60 percent of Americans believe in evolution. When you split that down party lines, Republicans who tend to be more religious don't even have a majority that believe that evolution is true.

static4.businessinsider.com

Meanwhile only 67 percent of Americans believe climate change is happen. With only 44 percent of Americans believing that climate change is because of human activity. Again, Republicans don't even have a majority that believes that climate change is true. Let alone that its caused by humans.

www.people-press.org
Now if you're referring to the part about cutting spending. I'm sorry to break it to you but the Republicans have become the party of spending cuts since the Tea Party got its claws into it. Yes, science has suffered as a result. Now by no means am I saying the Democrats are that much better than the Republicans, they may believe in science but they don't fund it to adequate levels. The Republicans meanwhile don't believe in science, and their actions harm science if anything.

Exibit A: Science in this country has suffered as a result of the sequester because we only spend a very small percentage of tax payer dollars on science/exploration and when you are already on a shoe string budget, its not a good idea to cut the string thinner. Then American scientist get frustrated, and think it might be better to go somewhere else. There is no doubt that both parties are to blame for the sequester, but we wouldn't of gotten to the point where we needed a sequester if the Republicans weren't cutting happy. Of course the Democrats were idiots to believe that the thought of a sequester would force the Republicans to work with the Democrats on a budget.

Instead what happened, is you got Tea Party Republicans who were very happy with the sequester. After all, they cut spending after all right?! *facepalms*

Exibit B: Which brings me to the shutdown last October. The Republicans ask the Democrats for a spending bill with lots of cuts. The Democrats give them a budget below Paul Ryan's original budget. The Republicans ask to delay Obamacare or they'll shutdown the government. Government shutdown! Yay!

Now, what does this have to do with science? NASA's newest Mars orbiter was nearly delayed two years because of the shutdown. Government research was threatened, because when you abandon a government laboratory full of experiments. If those experiments aren't maintained, you're going to lose the data from them. Lab rats will die that you've been using for cancer research or something. Finally because of the Republican shutdown, the US government had to cancel the 2013 Antarctica research season as a result of the shutdown.

Look, I honestly wish we had a real alternative to the Democrats. I really do, but at least the Democrats are in favoring of maintaining our science and research programs/believe that evolution/climate science is a real thing. The Republicans meanwhile have just become destructive in everything they do.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report