Obama: 8 Billion For High-Speed Rail, 0 for NASA & JSC

troll?

 

Could you please be so kind to tell me from where the pie chart comes from?

 

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ur3CQE8xB3c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ur3CQE8xB3c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

 

right click (on image) -> properties

 

So then you admit you are trolling by posting in a thread with no intent of discussing the subject matter of the thread.

 

i thought the subject matter included high-speed rail, which i've discussed at length.

do you admit you're trolling by not reading the entire thread title, as well as all the posts contained therein?

 

Manned space missions = NASA. This is how the general public views it. Yes, NASA does aeronautics too but doubt most know (or care) about it. The Space Shuttle and soon to be Constellation were/going to be NASA's crown jewel.

Luckily there is still ISS but can't really label that program as NASA's. We play a part and that part is becoming smaller and smaller by the year. This is especially true now that we won't have our own vehicle going there in about 6 months.

 

Well, that might be right about perception, but a lot of NASA is brilliant unmanned probes and unmanned scientific satellites. Relatively small part of the budget, but over the last 30 years, this is where all the good science has happened, in terms of learning new things about the universe.

 

Of couse I read the whole title but it also includes NASA too so under your own reasoning you are trolling since you admit to not discussing both key aspects of the title.

 

General perception doesn't mean that is the reality. Also NASA is still involved with manned missions and can even continue with studying how to get back to the moon.

 

Yes, NASA is involved with manned missions. We will send our astronauts to the ISS by asking the Russians to give us a ride. Ya, we'll be involved alright. Ok seriously, we will still do some science on ISS but the original point of ISS was to study/create a way to see how humans can live in space. Next step was the moon but that is now gone.

NASA is still continue to study how to get back to the moon? Can you please explain how NASA will do this? What program will they achieve this through now that Constellation is axed?

 

I am curious. Who those who think we need to continue to fund NASA because Houston is "Space City" did you think we needed to bailout GM because Detroit is "Motor City"?

 

You are mistaking study with doing. NASA scientists and engineers can continue research in a future Moon mission that could take place once the funding situation improves. Further the Admin. can always change their mind and they can press for restoring funding for future budgets or to future Admins. They can also look into the possibility of figuring out how to create a more efficient and cost conscious way to get to the Moon. The Constellation program need not be the end all of going back to the Moon.

 

IMO - A moon base/mission would be the Jumping off point to the rest of the solar system

Rocket River

 

If there were a reason or purpose to go to the moon, the US could organize it in under 5 years. The fact that we aren't is because there is no good reason to.

But, there is plenty of pure science that needs doing:

1. efficient Earth orbital lifting
2. exploration of dark matter and energy
3. fusion energy
4. genomes
5. stem cells

And as many useful products will be produced from those as from manned space travel. Let's move on.

As in: why aren't the train systems maglev? It's proven technology that just needs to be applied.

 

we did bail out GM. and NASA is far more important than GM, imo.

 

care to elaborate on that?