Shared publicly  - 
Gitartha Nath's profile photoThe Big Bang Theory fan Blog's profile photoAyoob A's profile photoVitaliy Stupak's profile photo
really had no idea! thanks for the info.
NASA could use the funds they give for foreign countries. It is a terrible shame Congress is going backwards instead of forwards.
Thank you, +NASA for your contributions. If it was up to me, I'd have given you the funds that were given to Halliburton and other POS defense contractors.
If I was funding NASA I would have never dropped the Constellation program. And oddly The Prez, dropped what he picked to replace it. How about this plan The Aerospace industry can do anything that meets OSHA standards, and on a Tax free status as long as it's work is for a Space product only.

That is all investment funding is tax free, and all return profits are tax free as long as they are in return invested back into the Aerospace Industry for non earth based industry's.

Employees can be taxed still for there on Earth activity's, but if they work beyond the Earths Atmosphere it's tax free. Currently that is 62 miles or above 100KM (the Metric is for International use and the numbers are round off summaries since 100KM = 60.2 miles or that was what I learned in 1974)
NASA management could also contemplate - "How can we make money and not just spend it?"
+Frank Vargus --ESA turning to Russia for support in the mars exploration projects due to proposed NASA cuts...i'm from the UK so can't really comment on the US economy but wonder how much they're still spending on black projects ..without the work of NASA developments that make planes like the b2 possible just wouldn't have been made !
+Mark Herndon why should nasa try to 'make money'? The whole point is to conduct research and exploration that isn't immediately profitable but will be of a benefit to humans/the planet/the economy in the future. Save the 'making money' for the corporations
So NASA does make some money. But space exploration is rediculously expensive. I'm kind of caught between understanding and being annoyed about the cuts. The US economy is still fragile, and NASA isn't as immediatly important as preventing another recession (although, that'll work itsself out in my opinion). Obama said there wouldn't be another spaceshuttle built until the comming 'space tourism' age, maybe NASA should look into subsodizing their program that way....
Shucks and I wanted to walk on the moon at least once.
When the U!S!A! cuts funding to 'defence' the world might have a chance... but that would involve some very powerful people losing profits.
Stephen, I was just commenting the other day about how the US spends more on invading countries like Iraq than Canada spends on healthcare... There are a million things they could spend that money on that would be an improvement.
I'm wondering what US defense cuts would "give the world a chance". Give the world a chance to do what? Defend themselves for a change, instead of expecting us to do all the heavy lifting saving their sorry behinds, and then hating us for it?
Maybe close some of those 45 bases ringing Iran. After all, they're in no position to be at all dangerous to the US, and only Israel's saber-rattling is likely to change that.

After that, consider mothballing some of those Imperial Star Destroyers carrier battle groups - after all, how many mobile forces the strength of a medium-sized country do we really need in action?

Meanwhile, the rest of us, I'm sure, would find some way to muddle through, with out the "benevolent" assistance of the Galactic Empire United States of America watching our backs.
Iran now has nuclear capable missles capable of intercontinental flight, and is a major source of support for terrorism worldwide. Giving them a pass is asking for trouble. Iran is a nation whose leader has openly advocated the destruction of Israel, so who is doing the "saber rattling"?
Israel is not the problem.
+Gert Sønderby Israel has a lot to lose if Iran decides to get nuclear
weapons they would be stupid not to be concerned as would the united States
i guess i just don't see the point of trying to run government agencies as for profit ventures, to me that is 'enlarging the government' far more than running NASA as a well-funded research and exploration group. If you toss government organizations into the "free market" (though it isn't really) or ask private groups to fulfill government functions (like many conservative politicians want to)... what you actually have is a larger government and also for profit enterprises that don't have to 'play by the rules' because they are also the government. I've seen outsourcing that is 'supposed to shrink' the forest service and park service grow to a bloated size with consultants clinging to these agencies like ticks and doing substandard work for more money than a state employee. I don't want to see NASA going further down that path also.

This doesn't mean government agencies shouldn't be frugal with money, but I guess I believe in a separation of for-profit and state just like a separation of church and state. I've heard the Egyptian Army was a bit of a for-profit venture of the Egyptian government.... for example... they are not really an asset to their country right now from what I hear.
+Charlie Hohn Taking government private is not the way that it was intended for it to be, But when greed comes into play politicians jump on the private bandwagon A lucrative job without work or work hours and enormous paychecks are the reason government departments goes private .
+William Johnston not sure what you mean, i didn't experience anything like that as a private or government employee...
It's good to remember that private sector isn't exclusive to American owned corporations. A British company owns the transit system in San Diego for example.
Charles, the USA spends more on "defense" (really weapon development at great profit for weapon companies) than some countries spend on anything. Surely anyone can imagine some benefits of spending some of that money on more creative and less destructive things.

(and, as if you will believe it, the USA is not the great defender you think it to be.)
Just think were we would be in space if NASA had as big of budget as the Armed Forces did. Or even as much as one of the branches got. We'ed at least have bases on the Moon if not on Mars and some of the outer planetary moons.
The case for the intensified study of space weather would be a great thing. Put $ on that.
Now I'm a Pacifist but what you have to understand +Stephen J Oäkes is that Research and development expenditure in the Military Field is what has brought us the Scientific age we live in today. Radar (British development WW2) Programmable Computer (British development WW2) the mobile phone (US development WW2) Jet engines (British + Nazi development WW2) Rocket development (Major Nazi development WW2 (so much so that NASA forgave the Nazi War criminals and employed em!) the list is endless. Research Ok usage defo not
Simon there is much that the world uses today to make life easier to live in. I'll use an example you did not use, Velcro. Then there is many things that the Aerospace Industry only developed faster, example TANG. It was created by non NASA people but NASA funding made it happen about 10 years faster. And then were would you kid be if they did not have a cell phone. Then private industry is working to reach pace with out the Feds building their rockets for them.

How about the idea of having Unions send a precentage of their commitment fees to NASA.

I still think canceling the return to the Moon and aiming to Mars was a secret plan to End America's Manned Space Program. This has been desired by some in politics since we bet Russia to the Moon. They would have rather given billions to Africa, which would have feed the dictators more than the people the wanted to help. But to them it's the attempt to help not the end result that counts.
I think NASA is a really good deal until nonengineers tell engineers how to do things.
Reactionaries in the US want to cut NASA's budget, because NASA is publishing analysis of remote sensing data, confirming long-term and short-term global warming. Some NASA scientists have "gone too far" in saying that most of global warming in man-made.
John you left out the middle man, the politician. They also use the money they steer to spenders to buy votes.
I think its better to bring the Chinese with all that mony they had
I keep up with you +NASA . Thank you guys for all your hard work.
Most of you that are critsizing (in eiher direction) are taking very complicated situations, pulling a few facts that support your argument, and dismissing the rest.

Military spending: yes, it's rediculous, and it became that way as a result of 9/11 overreaction from the previous admin. Military research has had a huge effect on technology (can't believe you missed the internet), these technologies have led to the abilities to have a space program. But these were almost all developed before the military had such a huge budget. Whomever said 'Isreal is not a problem' obviously hasn't been paying much attention to what's happened there for the last 2000-3000 years, I consider religious pregidice a problem no matter what religion. On a similar note, Egypt is a completly different government structure and culture. But it is true that corrupt people find there way into governments everywhere, and they're good at wasting money. Maybe we wouldn't have to trim anything in the budget if we could get rid of corruption
NASA all enyone wonders is when will the world end. I think if it dose end in 2012 its because the sun is over heating
Dude, it wasn't 'supposed' to end in 2012, the Myan calandar just starts over again, and it did that on Jan. 23rd.
Just to play Devils Advocate for a second (or the entire conversation....) wouldn't NASA's website be a bit biased in the direction of giving them more funding?
I recognize the hundreds of smaller NASA projects that have been successful and beneficial over the years, however I feel NASA needs another ground-breaking, highly publicized, earth-shattering mission reminiscent of the Apollo era. Instead of having hundreds of small guns aimed at 50-100 targets, set up one giant target and have all guns concentrated on a bullseye.
I agree, however, there are a million urgent needs for fund, unfortunatly, the cost is so high and has no immediate gratification. I was hoping there'd be a manned mission to mars in the next few years.... I don't see it happening anytime soon (they also don't know how they'd manage to bring the astronauts back if they did just yet).
I put it down like this: If you don't fund it now, you are perpetually pushing back the clock of innovation. Either we spend it now, or we'll be spending it later to piggy-back on some other nation.
I think it's already starting to head in that direction.
Some since NASA bet the USSR to land man on the Moon, have had the attitude that we shall not or need not be at the lead point of America or NASA leading the Human ventures into Space. And they felt that America needs to be subservient to a better nation like Communist Russia. We bet them with our dominance in Aeronautics and the Space Race to the Moon. So Russia focused on Living in Orbit of Earth in Space Stations. Then as they took the lead America plans and builds a Space Station that was huge one that could fit a few Mir Space Stations in it. As not to have Russia lose again the big wigs that set the future for NASA with the flaw of the stations hear shielding giving them cover decide that one damaged station was enough why embarrass them even more.

America may not always be the first to create new technology but when we get started we can leave them in the dust quickly. And now with this Housing deal weakening much of the world that depended on leadership from America when America recovers it will not take much to bring the US back into the lead.

The one thing that would anger the ones whom started this dip will hate the most is we go back to the old way of America is #1 and no one need work with us so we are the one and only first rate leader. America needs to share the process of becoming number one in technology creation with others. Or just out of jellassy they will find another way to try to remove our better processes of creating new technology in America. And that process is called freedom and this gives the frredon of capitalism to win or rule over socialism or also know as only the leaders get the good stuff and the workers get everything evenly divided and shared with the hard working and the bums that think it is owed to them because they were born.

I'm not going to say how or where to start this will make my message political. And I've tried hard not to do such, it is up to you to figure this solution out for yourself. All I'll say is let capitalism bring NASA back create humanity's destiny in space not to extinguish on this 3rd blue rock from the Sun.
If you want to know how I feel about the US's need to feel 'on top', do a bit of reaserch on the Avro Aero, and why that project was cancelled. Those planes were better than the planes we have now. The US has been on top of the technology game for a long time, but in the passed, they've done it by being a bully. Where the technology is developed is less important than if it gets developed.
I recall the Avro Aero Car, it was actually kind of a flying saucer, and officially it was the only flying saucer that the Air Force built, but it was built up in Canada. In most cases it seems something is mainly build to make the big wig happy not to advance aviation. Unless it is for War.
+Dean Holer, there was no 'car' at the end. It was built by the Canadian Airforce in Canada. It was 40 years ahead of the rest of the world for aviation technology, and the US insisted that Canada cancel the project with a vieled threat of war.
Um, 'vieled threat of war'? Are you serious? Where did you get that from? The US never threatened war with Canada over the Avro Arrow. The US did want the program canceled but that was because they wanted to sell Canada SAMs instead. But there was no threat of war. Just a pushy pointing out that the future threat was from ICBMs, not manned bombers flying over the north pole.

And ultimately it was Canada's decision to cancel the program. Ostensibly because it was too expensive. And for the time the Avro Arrow was extremely expensive.

And also the Arrow was most certainly not 'better than the planes we have now'. The Arrow would have been a good plane for it's time (although hardly 40 years ahead of the rest of the world - other countries were working on similarly capable jets at the time) but it's time was almost 60 years ago. It seems every time I hear someone talk about the Arrow they keep inflating what it was capable of.

For one thing the current CF-18s are multi-purpose fighters. The Arrow was solely a bomber interceptor. The arrow wouldn't have had the maneuverability necessary for fighter interception or general air superiority missions. Nor would it have been able to hold enough ordnance for bombing missions the way the CF-18 can. The Arrows sole purpose was to take off from air bases in the south and fly at high speeds to intercept Russian bombers over the Arctic Ocean. It couldn't do much else.
It wasn't the weapons capiblities, it was the aviation (high speeds over long distances, extreamly fule efficent...etc)

Canada and the US have been at war several times over the past few hundred years (mostly when Canada was still British North America, but twice after Canada was granted it's independance from Britian, apparently it's not taught in US history classes...). Although the 'official' reason why the program was scrapped was expense, US officials said that it was a 'threat to America' if the Arrow was developed and they will consider 'military action'... To me that sounds a lot like a threat.
OK, first things first: "US officials said that it was a 'threat to America' if the Arrow was developed and they will consider 'military action'"[citation needed] Seriously. I spent some time googling for this and all I found were some claims on some conspiracy web forums.

Second: The Arrow was most certainly not fuel efficient. ALL aircraft at the time - including the Arrow had it ever actually flown - were extremely inefficient. Extra-especially at high speeds.

As for speed and range and altitude your wrong yet again. It's true that the Arrow was, as I said before, a good plane for it's day, but it wasn't 40 years ahead. The Arrow was to have a range of around 556 km (that's 200 nautical miles, hence the weird number in km). A cruising altitude of 50k ft, and a top speed of around Mach 2. Before the Arrow no existing bomber interceptor could do that. But the Arrow wasn't the only aircraft under development at the time. [My citation would be the wikipedia page on the avro arrow]

Just a few years later (the Arrow having been canceled in 1959 probably won't be in actual service until at least 1960) in 1964 the MiG 25 entered service in the Soviet air force. It had a range of 1730km, with a ceiling of around 80k ft and a top speed of Mach 3.2. The Arrow was obsolete 5 years after it was canceled. [Again, my source would be the wikipedia page on the MiG-25.]
EDIT: Sorry, 80k ft, not 80k km. /EDIT

Third: "Canada and the US have been at war several times over the past few hundred years (mostly when Canada was still British North America, but twice after Canada was granted it's independance from Britian" - Wrong. In so many ways wrong.

The US has only been at war with Britian/Canada twice. Well, I mean wars that were actually declared and fought over. (So, thus excluding the 'Aroostook War'(1838) and the 'Pig War' (1859), which were boundary disputes which resulted in troop deployments but no actual fighting.) Namely the American Revolutionary War (1776) (when one American Army tried to invade what is now Quebec but failed horribly) and the War of 1812 which ended in a draw. (As much as both sides like to claim 1812 was a resounding victory for their side truth was it was a draw in most respects.) Both of these wars occurred before Canadian independence. (And for that matter so did the other 2 'wars'.)

And besides, when exactly do you put 'Canadian Independence'? Because I could give you a number of dates in which powers were transfered from London to the colonies/Canada (1848, 1867, 1931, 1947, 1965, 1982) but I don't really think of any one of them as 'the date of Canadian independence.' Canadian independence was a very piece-meal affair that evolved over time rather than a singular event like American independence.
You are just going by the words used to label the hover craft like transport. Words do play tricks, and this was around 1965 or so, the maker was Avro Aerospace
I liked what I discovered in projections of future projects desire for the next 50 years or so. As humanity learns to live in space and prepair to venture beyond the Sol Solar System as the 21 century nears it's final years. Some of the ideas seem they have come from desires of the Engineers at Lockheed Martian based in Denver. I have talked with some since my brother is an EE engineer there and use to and may still work on the Orion Space capsule. It use to be as part of the Constellation program that Bush created in 2004 as we were to return to and colonize the Moon.

Now that the budget for Mars has grown bigger than could be funded, the project seems to have ended and the Moon is returning to become a project that may meet the money available.

Who knows after some time of lunar living in a less costly method we may go from the Moon to Mars. In the Constellation project they had dreams of 2018 return to the Moon and 2033 look into going from the Moon to Mars, maybe even a colony in 2036 from materials built on the Moon or Lunar orbit.

With the funding aspects of today, figure a return Moon landing in 2020 to 2025 then Mars in 2050 or so with possible Asteroid landings in 2030.

These projects may come in less time than projected, and this all depends on the amounts invested. And the investment rate depends on how the public desires projects to be started. I still like my idea of making all investments into space not taxable and all profit returns invested back into space projects non-taxable. Doing this could speed up space exploration 50 to 200%
Add a comment...