[MID]

ninjadude, on 28 October 2009 - 09:33 PM, said:

were he to increase funding you and others who believe as you would do continue to whine about unnecessary spending. all you're doing is whining that he did not fall for for it.

No...I think we would consider that money well spent, as it always has been.

Quote

We are comming out of a depression the likes of which have not been seen since the 30s.

No, we are not. There is no depression, there never was. It's not close to what happened in the past, not remotely. It's certainly been exacerbated by government spending policies and the promise of increased taxes and more spending, but it's not a depression.

Quote

I'm sure funding will increase later in his term or in his second term.

I wouldn't count on that; either on any substantial increase in NASA spending, or in a second term for this President, especially with the tax cuts set to expire, and other government expenditures which will put this economy back into a slide.

[DONTEATUS]

Yee of Little Faith!

[turbonium]

$13 billion a year, up to 2020, is "severely underfunded"?? The whole Apollo program cost about $137 billion, so why would $130 billion ($13B p.a. over the next 10 years) be claimed as "severely underfunded"??

Why would it cost more than Apollo? That's prepostorous. It should be much cheaper to do 40 years later. It would be.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

turbonium, on 01 November 2009 - 10:09 AM, said:

$13 billion a year, up to 2020, is "severely underfunded"?? The whole Apollo program cost about $137 billion, so why would $130 billion ($13B p.a. over the next 10 years) be claimed as "severely underfunded"??

Why would it cost more than Apollo? That's prepostorous. It should be much cheaper to do 40 years later. It would be.

Basic economics not your thing either turbonium? Never heard of inflation? By your logic cars should be cheaper to make now than in 1969 (and in real terms they are) but try buying one at 1969 prices and see how far you get.


Now please keep the conspiracy stuff on the correct forum.

[turbonium]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 01 November 2009 - 02:41 AM, said:

Basic economics not your thing either turbonium? Never heard of inflation? By your logic cars should be cheaper to make now than in 1969 (and in real terms they are) but try buying one at 1969 prices and see how far you get.

Inflation is already taken into account in the Apollo numbers, Waspie. Care to try again?

This post has been edited by turbonium: 02 November 2009 - 09:05 AM

[Waspie_Dwarf]

turbonium, on 02 November 2009 - 09:04 AM, said:

Inflation is already taken into account in the Apollo numbers, Waspie. Care to try again?

Fair enough, my mistake. I really shouldn't post things on a Sunday morning, my brain is usually still asleep.

However the aims of Constellation are far wider ranging than Apollo. It is a far wider ranging project with the goal of establishing a permanent base on the moon and maybe continuing on to Mars. It is these long ranging aims which are considered underfunded.

Indeed part of the Augustine Panel's argument is that NASA is taking too expensive a route and that it can be done more cheaply.


If you look at airliners the cost of designing and building them is far higher now than it was in the '60's, that is why there are now so few airline manufacturers. The same is true of military aircraft. Modern aircraft are packed with expensive technology that didn't exist in the 1960s, they are more capable but more expensive. Why should spacecraft be different from aircraft?

If you wish to discuss this programme and the funding level here then do so, but do not try to turn this into a conspiracy theory thread. You are free to discuss that aspect of your beliefs in the correct forum.

This post has been edited by Waspie_Dwarf: 02 November 2009 - 12:48 PM
Reason for edit:: typos. Seems my brain is still asleep on a Monday afternoon.

[DONTEATUS]

We shall find our way,Its just the nature of ou world to be in constant need of more.
In any station ofour Lifes we all seem to want and need more.
I think Nasa will soon get its new needed funding. Times they are a changing !

[danielost]

the apollo capsule had a few switches to through if needed and could hold 3 people.

the orion is using the latest in air fleet insturments and can hold 6 people. this means it has to be at least 2x the size of apollo. thus if it was using the apollo tech it would cost at least 2x apollo.


obama only wants to spend and spend on things that will get him reelected he doesn't care about things that will really help this country and it's people.


so homeland security and temp jobs get the funding and nasa which puts more money back into the economy than it gets has to put up with barely enough to keep the lights on.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 02:43 PM, said:

obama only wants to spend and spend on things that will get him reelected he doesn't care about things that will really help this country and it's people.


so homeland security and temp jobs get the funding and nasa which puts more money back into the economy than it gets has to put up with barely enough to keep the lights on.

Let's stay on topic please. There is a whole section dedicated to politics. Please keep political comments directly relevant to the subject of the thread. Thank you.

[danielost]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 02 November 2009 - 08:59 AM, said:

Let's stay on topic please. There is a whole section dedicated to politics. Please keep political comments directly relevant to the subject of the thread. Thank you.

im sorry but since the funds are controlled by the president some politics has to get involved in this discussion.


and in order to understand where the money that nasa needs is going and why it has to be brought up,


otherwise the discussion will be, nasa doesn't have enough money end of discussion

This post has been edited by danielost: 02 November 2009 - 03:02 PM

[Waspie_Dwarf]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 03:02 PM, said:

im sorry but since the funds are controlled by the president some politics has to get involved in this discussion.

I agree that some degree of politics are inevitable, but your comments will be seen as Obama bashing by some and the thread will become derailed. That is why I am nipping it in the bud now. I am not singling you out, DONTEATUS was given the same request several days ago and complied.

This post has been edited by Waspie_Dwarf: 02 November 2009 - 03:23 PM

[MID]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

im sorry but since the funds are controlled by the president some politics has to get involved in this discussion.

...actually daniel, the money in the U.S. is completely under the control of the Congress, not the President. The President can sway a Congress, certainly, but just remember, it's the House and Senate who control the funds...for everything. They're responsible ultimately for the dollars that go to NASA.

This post has been edited by MID: 04 November 2009 - 02:34 AM

[danielost]

MID, on 03 November 2009 - 08:34 PM, said:

...actually daniel, the money in the U.S. is completely under the control of the Congress, not the President. The President can sway a Congress, certainly, but just remember, it's the House and Senate who control the funds...for everything. They're responsible ultimately for the dollars that go to NASA.

true but some think that nasa is a waste. i don't. i think research for research purpose only is worth the money.

[MID]

danielost, on 03 November 2009 - 10:08 PM, said:

true but some think that nasa is a waste. i don't. i think research for research purpose only is worth the money.

I understand your position daniel, and I agree with it.
People who think NASA is a waste are in my opinion, uneducated.

I know there's currently a big row going on over NASA's future budget. There's alot of talk about the spending for the future, as if it's a big deal relative to government spending as a whole. It is insane.

Write your Senators and Congress-person.
That's the only action possible....

[DONTEATUS]

Where did the Year of Apollo go?