Russia's Unmanned Capsule Misses Space Station 224
mikesd81 writes "Russia's unmanned cargo ship Progress 38 missed docking with the ISS and sailed right on by it instead of docking on autopilot. A telemetry lock between the Russian-made Progress module and the space station was lost and the module flew past at a safe distance. NASA said the crew was never in danger and that the supplies are not critical and will not affect station operations. There will be no other attempts at docking today, and the orbit of the module raises questions of any other attempts again. Packed aboard the spacecraft are 1,918 pounds of propellant for the station, 110 pounds of oxygen, 220 pounds of water and 2,667 pounds of dry cargo — which includes spare parts, science equipment and other supplies."
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
the supplies are not critical
In other words, it had everything worth living for in it. You don't *need* tasty food or new videos to survive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much:
Known in Russia as Progress M-06M, the new Progress 38 spacecraft is packed with nearly 2.5 tons of fresh food, clothes, equipment and other supplies for the space station's six-person crew.
Packed aboard the spacecraft are 1,918 pounds (nearly 870 kilograms) of propellant for the station, 110 pounds (nearly 50 kilogram) of oxygen, 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of water and 2,667 pounds (1,209 kilograms) pounds of dry cargo including spare parts, science equipment and other supplies.
About 213 pounds (97 kilograms) of the delivery ship's cargo is earmarked as items for the station crew. Astronauts always look forward to fresh fruit and other foods that arrive on Progress spacecraft, NASA officials have said.
Some personal treats for the station astronauts are sometimes included, but NASA officials kept mum on anything unique riding on Progress 38. "Anything that would be of interest is probably a surprise," NASA spokesperson Kelly Humphries told Space.com from the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Re:Right... (Score:4, Informative)
you really don't need video's sent into space on any physical medium either.
Russia Today said after this first ever failure to dock that a second attempt will be made on Sunday.
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
No, not technically. But international data rates to the space station are a bitch. /only half-joking
Re: (Score:2)
Idf the unmanned capsule is reusable, you put a HD on it, and have it load the digital mead while docked. While you will have additional weight in the sup-ly ship, it's a content weight, and it doesn't add mass to the space station.
Re: (Score:2)
"digital mead" - sounds tasty.
Also, what's a "sup-ly ship?"
I wouldn't expect that they would need data traveled via RocketNet (haha, instead of sneakernet? har har) - they have plenty of communications gear and are in a good position to make and receive transmissions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe the space module was using AT&T to communicate. AT&T better blast Owen Wilson into orbit to try to save face.
Re:Right... (Score:4, Funny)
...or simply as a public service.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a lot less than the data rate on my cell plan.
Re: (Score:2)
in Other words: And nothing of Value was lost. (Score:3, Funny)
This is NASA's way of pulling a USS Liberty incident on Russia's Aeronautical Space Ship (hereinafter A.S.S.)
I bet those asstronaughts were up there saying:
Re:in Other words: And nothing of Value was lost. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not clear to me why we're doing this whole space station thing in such a half-assed manner. Why not think in terms of a permanent space station, and all that entails?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but then you'd need a space-tug-tug to pull your space-tug back when it fails...
Where exactly do you get the idea that they are doing this in a half-assed manner? Contrary to what you might think, this is rocket science.
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, but then you'd need a space-tug-tug to pull your space-tug back when it fails...
Yo Dawg, I heard you liked space tugs...
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get the fuel to nip out, catch the vehicle, and bring it back in?
What to do about it? Launch another one. Either that or wait until November and have the Space Shuttle go pick it up...
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:4, Insightful)
Because no one else on Earth _wants_ anything close to it. They cost way too much for the marginal benefits they provide.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, the whole thing about it being safe is probably the problem. Well, was the problem. Back when the challenger had issues it really cut the program down. Unfortunately, it was a known problem (even
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Informative)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone were both born in the USA.
Skylab was a lab in space before the space shuttle. Salyut 1 was before that, but it had two missions that both failed. Soyuz 10 that could not board due to fire and Soyuz 11 that crew died on rentry do to a lab. Shuttles are pointless ISS could have been lifted by cheaper and safer rockets.
You seem to be wrong on all accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
The Shuttle has been called (and no doubt accurately) "the most complex machine ever devised by man". The fact that it was capable and flexible and all is wonderful, but that is offset by the huge
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about it proving "marginal benefits."
As I see it, "marginal benefits" means what does it provide that something like a Saturn 1B couldn't. As I see it, there's a vast amount of unused capability in the Shuttle. It can repair satellites, but nobody wants to repair a satellite for the cost of a Shuttle mission. It can return vast amounts of mass to Earth (called "downmass"), but as far as I can tell, aside from the odd experiment, the only thing that ISS managers want returned is trash and that can be returned on vehicles (like the Progress, ATV and HTV) which burn up in the atmosphere. It has a bunch of flexibility in landing that really isn't that useful (landing people or downmass at an airport isn't much more useful than dropping them in the middle of the ocean, compared to the cost of a Shuttle launch).
As far as I know, there would be no ISS if it wasn't for the SS.
In other words, bad planning on the part of the ISS builders. None of the components were particularly massive. The Proton (or a Saturn 1B, Ariane 5, Titan IV, Delta IV Heavy, etc) could have launched all of the ISS components, if it weren't for the volume and dimensions of the pieces. By making the pieces large enough that only the Shuttle could lift them, then NASA insured that the ISS was beholden on the Shuttle in order to exist. This was, no doubt, part of an attempt to wring more funding for the Shuttle and protect NASA's supply chain from budget cuts. The drawback was that any delay to Shuttle flights, such as from the Columbia accident, insured that the ISS was pushed behind schedule. While if there had been other vehicles capable of servicing the ISS's construction needs, then NASA could have kept going with construction despite the loss of Columbia or even of the entire Shuttle program.
To summarize, the Shuttle became a single point of failure for the ISS and contributed considerably to the overall cost of the ISS's construction and past operation which is thought (once one includes the operation of the Shuttle past 2003) to run well over 100 billion dollars in current dollar cost. My view remains that with a smarter choice of sizing of ISS components and not using the Shuttle, NASA could have dropped the cost of the ISS to 20-30 billion dollars. in my view, we could have built 3-5 ISS for the cost of the ISS we actually built.
Re: (Score:2)
the benefits are not marginal, they where huge.
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree, the benefits are "marginal" until you need them.
One advantage of the Shuttle is it is designed to be a jack-of-all-trades. It has a big cargo bay that you can fill up with stuff, including a space lab. The arm can be used to grab nearby things and put them in the cargo bay for maintenance. It allows seven astronauts to work in a shirt-sleeve environment for two weeks. It's a pretty impressive vehicle.
The "problem" is ISS can do most of the science stuff that the Shuttle did better than the Shuttle could (because it stays up longer). So as a science vehicle, it's not really that useful anymore. The Satellites you might want to maintain are outside the Shuttle's reach. While satellites like the Hubble Space Telescope are within the Shuttle's range, HST was designed to be maintained by the Shuttle and, in fact, has to do some crazy stuff to target stars while whizzing around the Earth within the Shuttle's range. So at this point, the Shuttle's only mission is to carry astronauts from Earth to ISS. This is akin to using a big honkin' four-wheel-drive SUV to pick up groceries at the corner store--sure it will work but it's kind of a wasteful way to do it.
Using the Shuttle to capture the Progress Drone could probably be done. But it's kind of silly to spend $60,000,000 to launch a Shuttle to rescue a Progress drone that probably cost $10,000,000 to launch. Just launch another Progress and be done with it.
I won't bag on the Space Shuttle--it's a great machine. But we really don't need it anymore. Let NASA get on to the next big thing (whatever that may be) and let private industry take over supplying ISS with people and supplies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Now can your Atlas V do this while also supporting 7 astronauts? And can it bring that payload back home? That's what I mean about it being a jack-of-all-trades. If you need to do something in space (at least in Low Earth Orbit), the Shuttle can probably do it.
Don't get me wrong, though. Using a Shuttle to lift a satellite into orbit is a waste of money. NASA's plan for the Shuttle was to basically undercut private industry because they were spending money to send people into space no matter w
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep hearing nonsense like this, and it's really stupid. You're stuck in a Cold War mentality (which was absurd even during the Cold War).
Who the hell cares if there's no Shuttle replacement ready? Manned space exploration is about science, and there is no scientific need so urgent as to justify the continuation of the 30-year-old disaster that is the Space Shuttle.
SpaceX will be up to speed in a few years. Boeing and/or Lockheed Martin can man-rate a rocket and capsule in a similar amount of time if needed.
There is absolutely no reason to continue the massively overpriced and unnecessarily dangerous shuttle program just to prevent a 2-5 year gap in manned exploration.
With our current three-Shuttle fleet, you could only reasonably expect to run 4-6 missions a year at most anyway, and I promise you that the termination of the program would not come when the new vehicle is ready, but when you are suddenly left with *two* Shuttles and seven fewer astronauts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:4, Informative)
It was not an exact copy at all. It looked similar, it performed a similar task and was designed as a response to our shuttle. It was not an exact copy, it was not parts compatible or anything like that. The Tu-4 was about as an exact Russian copy of the B-29 as was possible for them. Even that was not parts compatible in the engines an guns/mounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The only failure I can see is that the space station fuel is either not compatible or not mingled with the supply pod fuel. If it were, at least there'd be a chance of salvaging something, (sans the wasted fuel, of course.) a few orbits down the line.
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Funny)
Actually,
Everything is going completely as planned.
There were no supplies on the vessel and the pod was purposely sent off course. This was a very thoroughly planned tactical decision in order to acquire the funds for the supplies via the insurance payoff.
We would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog!
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're doing this whole space station thing in such a half-assed manner because approximately half of the people in Congress would dearly like to see the entire thing cancelled (and this is not a vote along party lines).
Out of curiousity, do you have a roll-call vote we can refer to that might give us some idea who to vote out of office if we don't like them half-assing it? I for one would like to know names.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, I'm not joking.
Re: (Score:2)
Both groups are at fault. The anti's, for keeping it from its full potential, and the pro's, for not realizing that sometimes a thing half-done might not be worth doing at all.
But the pro's are worse, because they never offered a compelling argument as to why it should be done with public money, which every man is compelled to contribute regardless of his will.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the radiation higher up than LEO is a bitch.
Re:It's time to deliver a space tug to the station (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the space program had (has) it's share of fuck-ups, I would be hesitant to jump up and yell aloud: "Everyone is stupid, I just had a great idea no one else thought of before". I mean, what you say sounds reasonable, but if hundreds of scientist didn't provide for some sort of space tug, they probably had some reason, other than plain stupidity. Some possible reasons I can think of from the top of my head (at 3:00AM; disclaimer - IANAS*):
1) The frequency of such missed dockings is too low to justify the cost.
2) It is cheaper to send another probe than to have a space tug ready at all times - Remember that mass is money in space, and also you have maintenance to consider.
3) The technology for the space tug is not safe enough - it could be unpleasant if one of the astronauts gets marooned on the space tug.
Please don't try to refute the above points. I am not saying this are the reasons, those were just examples.
You may be right and nobody thought about some sort of contingency plan for such a scenario, but I would check it before marching around and talking about "half-assed manner".
* IANAS - I am not a scientist.
I choose option 4 (Score:2)
Re:I choose option 4 (Score:4, Informative)
Well the cash always seems to be there for the US to go to war.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you've got the money, honey, they've got the time. Remember, the ISS is anything but permanent. It's going to be deorbited in a couple of years unless the various agencies find a whole lot of money to keep it up.
See above. This, folks, is why we need the ISS as half assed as it is. We have to learn how to solve all of these little
Re: (Score:2)
No, that this much harder to do than you imagine.
And think of the value for money - the development cost and launch cost of such a rescue vehicle versus the cost of a single Progress mission. Unless accidents like this happened really frequently, the cost of a rescue vehicle would vastly outweigh the advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because Congress is more concerned with funding the military industrial complex than scientific advancement that doesn't include more efficient ways to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
But I think that the idea was *probably brought up* if not at least contemplated... but due to , it just wasn't feasible ($$$).
The first thing that comes to mind, is how are you going to power it? You would probably mostly negate the benefit of sending up supplies. A fuel source in space is like oil on earth in like 300 years - very difficult to come by!
And even if it wasn't "money" or the "cost" of getting
Re: (Score:2)
Four years!? These kinds of decisions tend to have more to do with Congress than the White House. Congress likes bringing in pork to their districts, but doesn't like spending a lot of money that won't go right there. So science and innovation tend to take a back seat to building stuff that we may or may not need. (See also: half of the military hardware we have lying around that we don't need, generally don't want, and often can't even use.)
Did you see that? Our space plans just floated awy (Score:3, Funny)
arrarrarrarrrarr
So while trying to resupply it, the 'RUSSIAN' components failed to deliver its payload. It's now a possible danger to our gov't/mil satellites.
arrrarrarrarr
What do you propose we do?
arrarrarrrarr
Well, the public isn't going to like this. Can't we use our own rockets for this? Oh, so the Russians have superior rockets. How much money are we spending on this? Oh, that's not good. Didn't we already cut the Space Shuttle program out? Oh, so we can't even get our own people or supplies up to the ISS? Well WTF CAN WE DO!???????????
arrrarrrarrrarrr
get me Bruce Willis and Steve Buschemi!
pendantry (Score:2, Informative)
Packed aboard the spacecraft are 1,918 pounds of propellant for the station, 110 pounds of oxygen, 220 pounds of water and 2,667 pounds of dry cargo
More like 0 pounds. Surely slugs would be a more useful measurement in a weightless environment. Or better yet: kilograms.
Re:pendantry (Score:4, Interesting)
Pounds are a measure of mass, not weight [wikipedia.org]
This is because the most common definition of a pound is in terms of kilograms.
Even Hollywood... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even Hollywood had this one figured out.
Manual override.
Why didn't they have some sort of override for the Astronauts/Cosmonauts on board the station to correct trajectory in the last few moments? After all, they are the only ones that actually have a real eye on the situation and can react the fastest.
That must have been frustrating watching Mom's chocolate chip cookies and the latest issue of "High Times" go sailing past and not be able to do anything about it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"They have manual control available for once the Progress gets to the parking orbit. The issue is Progress 38 didn't go to the parking orbit, it just went straight on past."
Ok, new plan.
Train Proboscis Monkeys (extra digit for controls) to pilot Progress in for the last docking maneuver and solve the "Fresh Food" issue at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The is a point where there is no return. It just has to keep going. depending on the failure, you can just 'change' trajectory.it could end up going to fast, or arc to a not quite the right position and destroy the station.
OTOH, would could just send up flying transforming robots. I mean, Hollywood has that figured out to, right?
Conversion error (Score:2, Funny)
Russians, "We are 15 centimeters from docking".
Nasa, "15 meters, rodger".
Russians, "No! 15 centimeters!"
Nasa, "How many feet is ...."
Crash!
Nasa, "Never mind".
Vger (Score:5, Funny)
Progress? (Score:5, Funny)
This is what passes for "Progress" in space these days?
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
...folks on /. like to say "Who needs airline pilots? Those planes fly themselves."
rj
The New Wave (Score:3, Funny)
And with that, the space salvage industry was born in a rush to be the first to recover this massive payload.
Carmack - go get 'em!
220 lbs of water? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's 27 gallons / 100 liters. I don't know how the water recycling works on the IIS, but I find it interesting that they send up a seemingly small amount...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS [wikipedia.org]
The ISS has two water recovery systems. Zvezda contains a water recovery system that processes waste water from showers, sinks, and other crew systems and water vapor from the atmosphere that could be used for drinking in an emergency but is normally fed to the Elektron system to produce oxygen. The American segment has a Water Recovery System installed during STS-126 in Destiny that can process water vapour collected from the atmosphere, waste water from showers, sinks
Re: (Score:2)
the supplies are not critical and will not affect station operations
Not to worry, the whole station's basically running on autopilot.
Oh, shoot!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Our guys would have said something about converting to the metric system.
Re:Oxygen fuel and water aren't critical? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called being prepared. The ISS is kept well-stocked and the loss of a single resupply run is expensive but not operationally critical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know how long (if ever) the next pass along an appropriate vector will be? I wonder if that cargo is lost completely.
Re:Oxygen fuel and water aren't critical? (Score:5, Funny)
Not as much as the milk, holly is going to have to put those poor bastards on the dog's milk now.
Re:Oxygen fuel and water aren't critical? (Score:5, Funny)
Lasts longer than any other milk, dog's milk.
Re:Oxygen fuel and water aren't critical? (Score:5, Funny)
Why?
No bugger'll drink it.
Re:Oxygen fuel and water aren't critical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oxygen fuel and water aren't critical?
The fuck?
Meaning they still have plenty.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In soviet russia, space station misses you!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is a cover-up. I know for sure. In realty, the ship was hijacked and captured by aliens. I have very credible sources within the conspiracy theorists community ! ;-)
Since you mention you had DVDs on board, maybe that's what the aliens were after... I will share this with my contacts, thanks !
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:4, Interesting)
Well to be fair, unlike other measures in the SI system, kilograms isn't all that much better than pounds. It still isn't defined in terms of any universal constant (speed of light, properties of atoms, etc), but rather defined by the International Prototype Kilogram in France.
The most common definition of the pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. The pound is abitrary but so is the kilogram.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
" very near exactly the weight of 1 litre of water."
which is arbitrary.
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Not nearly so as you think it to be. 1000 kg is a mass of 1000 liters of water; that's a cube 1 meter on its side. Meter is derived from the size of the Earth (ancient Greeks could do it).
Yes, those are no longer definitions; but they give something very close from, as far as humanity is currently concerned, readily accesible (by unsophisticated means) constants around us.
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Human feet vary far more than the mass of water in a given location.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:4, Informative)
I can see lots of things around me that would make very poor standards for measurement. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think the difference would have been obvious to Mr. AC when he decided to stick his foot into his mouth and couldn't get it a whole foot in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Foot is defined using meters for some time now. And for much longer time is way bigger than average human feet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not exactly true. The kilogram hasn't been defined in terms of water since 1889, when officially became defined by the IPK. From 1901 to 1964 the liter was defined in terms of kilograms (the other way around), but even that is no longer true. 1 liter of water may still be close to a kilogram, but that isn't how either of them are currently defined.
Re: (Score:2)
The kilogram is defined as the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram. The original definition was that of the mass of one liter of water at the melting point of ice, but there are too many variables for this. How much of the water is made up of isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen? What is the air pressure, since that affects the melting temperature and hence the density of the water, hence the number of molecules in the liter, hence the mass.
Even the IPK is a problem, since its mass varies. There are
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, the most common thing I need to weigh is myself. Pounds work just fine for that, and I never need to convert it to ounces or tons. For those times when Kilograms are more convenient, I use Kilograms (which is mainly when I am doing science). Otherwise, I just use pounds, which are more convenient to use around here because ever
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Kilogram is a unit of mass...
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:4, Informative)
It's not about the story behind the unit. If the definition is arbitrary or not doesn't matter at all. What does matter is the way it works. I can tell you exactly how many grams are in a kilogram, and how many grams in a Ton. And that makes perfect sense. It's 10-base. it's metric. It's logical.
Now, try that with the ridiculous conversion ratios between ounces, pounds, stones and all that crazy mumbo-jumbo that is the imperial system.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'd give it a go, but I was only taught SI in my (American) public school. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard for me to comprehend. But it doesn't make things more complex than necessary.
Also, the whole world uses the metric system. Only the US uses the brain-dead imperial system. So it looks like it's you that don't have what it takes to understand a new system.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, the US doesn't use stone. That's a British thing.
I mostly agree with your argument, just wanted to point that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm...should we use or not use, as a basis of our unit system, a numeral system which is unavoidably most intuitive for virtually every human? What to do, what to do...
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:4, Insightful)
it's no more mumbo jumbo then the metric system
It is. It freaking switches whole *numeric bases* every couple units, for God's sake! it makes an even bigger mess than computational units, and without the mathematical reasons to do so.
The only 'Imperial' unit I know worth preserving is the Fahrenheit/Rankine, I still prefer Celsius/Kelvin but it's not bad either. But yards, pounds and all that crap need to die a quick and very painful death, they deserve nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, all of the SI units are arbitrary. Second and Meter were defined centuries ago and only later standardized according to "speed of light, properties of atoms, etc." when those became known and quantified. So a meter is no better than yard and a second is good only because, luckily, no one thought of another unit of time. They are now considered "better" because they are part of the SI system.
I agree that part of the reason that the SI system used meters and not yards is because it is a more logical
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that originally a gram was defined by the weight of water in a set volume (cube of 1/100 of a meter) - so it could have been standardized with universal constants. Guess they have their reasons.
Actually, the mass of one cc of water is not necessarily exactly 1 gram. You need to account for the concentration of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in that water which will alter the mass. You can get a cc of water that weighs about 1.2 grams if you mix deuterium and oxygen-18.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Metre [wikipedia.org] was "Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole"
The gram [wikipedia.org]: Originally defined as "the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the hundredth part of a metre, and at the temperature of melting ice"
Compare this to some imperial units:
The foot [wikipedia.org]:
The popular belief is that the original standard was the length of a man's foot. [...] Some believe that the original measurement of the English foot was from King Henry
Re:Can't believe they still use pounds (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck are you talking about? Pounds is debatable but kilograms always means mass. Things have mass in space.
If you are smart enough to think that you know the difference between mass and weight, then you sure as shit should be smart enough to know that kilograms is a measure of mass.
Re: (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:2)
No he isn't.
How is giving NASA more money, better goals, and scrapping parts of a program that could not work 'getting out of the space business'?
Why don't you try using the brain you probably have to look at facts instead of repeating what liars tell you?
Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, his proposed budget for NASA involves increasing its budget slower than inflation. Which, technically, makes it "giving NASA less money".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Houston, the good news is that we received the supply capsule...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)