Trump Adds To NASA Budget, Approves Crewed Mission To Mars (nbcnews.com) 313
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: President Donald Trump signed a law on Tuesday authorizing funding for a crewed NASA mission to Mars. The new bill (S.442) adds a crewed mission to the red planet as a key NASA objective and authorizes the space agency to direct test human space flight programs that will enable more crewed exploration in deep space. The space agency has $19.5 billion in funding for the 2018 fiscal year, which starts this October. Trump had allocated $19.1 billion for NASA in his budget, which is slightly down from the current year, but still an improvement from the past decade, which saw the end of the space shuttle program. The commander in chief signed the bill surrounded by astronauts and his former Republican rivals, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who both sponsored the bill. Getting to Mars, though, isn't expected to happen during the Trump presidency. NASA has its sights set on getting to the red planet in the 2030s. In the near term, NASA plans to test its Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System rocket, in addition to visiting an asteroid and redirecting a chunk of it into orbit around the moon. Astronauts could later visit the boulder and use the mission to test some of the tools needed for a Mars mission.
Making NASA Great Again (Score:2, Informative)
Finally...
Back to what NASA was founded to do.
Re:Making NASA Great Again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Making NASA Great Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the NASA budget during the Apollo years averaged over 3% of the federal budget from '63 to '69, and peaked at almost 4.5%.
NASA might have been doing other things besides Apollo, but from '64 to '70 Apollo was over 50% of NASA's budget, peaking at 70% in 1967. [nasa.gov] If we want to have that kind of space program again, but with Mars as the destination, it's going to cost a lot more than has been allocated.
Re:Making NASA Great Again (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't you dare to confiscate my money to do it...
Your attitude is exactly what's wrong these days. "Pay for what I want, but don't pay for what I don't want." Here's a tip, it's not all about you, and if you want things you need to capitulate to what others want too.
Otherwise why don't you go move to Somalia? They don't collect taxes there. That sounds like the society that you deserve.
Re:Making NASA Great Again (Score:5, Informative)
The country can not survive without defense and maintaining law-and-order. Everything else is unnecessary and should therefor be done by non-government entities.
Tax-supported public education predates the founding of the United States. It was not a Federal entity, but it was public-funded through taxes.
There's a lot more to the United States than the Constitution, and there was from Day 1, or if you want to be pedantic about it, Day -4361 as the nation was founded almost twelve years before the Constitution was ratified. The basic framework of society already existed even prior to that, the Constitution was not written to wipe the slate clean and start over.
Re:Making NASA Great Again (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on the National Aeronautics and Space Act has an interesting list of the legislation's priorities, starting with priority #1:
Historically speaking the act, which was signed into law in July of 1958, was a reaction to the "Sputnik Crisis" created by the Soviet launch of an artificial satellite eight months earlier in October of 1957 -- an act which filled Americans with awe and a little dread, knowing that a Soviet device was passing overhead every 96 minutes.
So arguably NASA was founded to achieve preeminence in Earth orbit, not necessarily manned space exploration, which isn't mentioned at all in the legislation. Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 flight was still three years in the future, and JFKs Rice Moon Speech [wikipedia.org] followed a year and a half after that. That speech is well worth watching [youtube.com], by the way, if all you've ever seen is the "We choose to go to the moon" line.
Manned exploration of the outer solar system wasn't really what the founding of NASA was all about; in fact manned spaceflight has only a single mention in the unamended 1958 text:
... the term "aeronautical and space vehicles" means aircraft, missiles, satellites, and other space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts.
The main focus of NASA at its founding was to provide a single agency to coordinate space and spaced-based research, which at the time would have been largely (although not exclusively) Earth-focused.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA has out lived its usefulness. It would be far better to re-purpose NASA as a control agency, like the FCC and FAA. Then encourage private businesses to take up the space cause.
I can't wait (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't wait to see how the whiny little Trump-hating bitches spin this.
Re: (Score:2)
Spin what? NASA's budget and priorities remaining basically the same?
How do you spin news when there's no news at all to spin? That's like saying "Hey, gravity's still working today! How 'ya gonna spin that, physicists???"
Re: (Score:3)
You add some angular momentum. That's the way 9 out of 10 physicists prefer to get their spin.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you NASA's priorities are the same? Trump has taken all of the Earth observation activities away from them when he first came in on the basis that other organizations were there to do that. There was some outrage but not near enough. Now with Trump's budget proposal he wants to cut 15% from NOAA and their satellite imaging programs.
So no, NASA's priorities aren't the same. And because the current administration doesn't believe in climate change they are defunding the satellite imaging that is us
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to see how the whiny little Trump-hating bitches spin this.
"A broken clock is right twice a day?"
"It's not possible for someone to entirely wrong on everything."
"One good decision on-paper does not excuse dozens of terrible ones."
"Those boys at Orbital needed something to shore-up the old Thiokol plants in Utah."
"Bread and circuses."
"Relatively cheap way to distract techie-types from the NSA/CIA/Homeland Security issues."
I'm sure there are others, each with its own merits and problems.
Re:I can't wait (Score:5, Funny)
You don't have a microwave? Luddite!
He doesn't want to be spied on.
Re: (Score:3)
As a European, I think it's a blast and a half. What's not to like about it?
It's just like the old Soviet joke: Is it possible for Trump to run a country? It is possible, but you better live in a different country.
Compare to defense budget (Score:2, Informative)
We're going to give NASA less than 3%of what we spend on killing people here on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to declare war on Mars. Maybe Jupiter too.
Re: (Score:2)
You're begging for a lame Uranus joke and you know it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This country (with no hostile neighbors) will cease to exist if it doesn't spend more on war than the next 7 most militaristic countries combined?
Re: (Score:3)
Defense not bases in 152 countries. A standing army is actually against the constitution hence the second amendment so that there are enough trained militia to raise an army in times of war.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of a well-funded military. Aside from the importance in providing safety and stability against outside intrusion, for better or worse, the power of the US military plays a huge role in the US's world strength: the US would never be able to sustain it's economic and political position if it did not have the most powerful military in the world, and achieving that requires massive funding. In addition, if that funding is properly spent, it goes back into the US economy, boosting the R&D and m
Surprise! The crew is... (Score:2, Funny)
Constant $? % of PIB? % of Fed Budget? (Score:2, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget
>The space agency has $19.5 billion in funding for the 2018 fiscal year, which starts this October. Trump had allocated $19.1 billion for NASA in his budget, which is slightly down from the current year, but still an improvement from the past decade, which saw the end of the space shuttle program.
Plain lie.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect a PR ploy whereby they allocate explicit funds for a manned Mars mission, but later undercut everything else at NASA, especially Earth science, when the general budget it made.
It gives them news bragging rights for kick-starting a Mars mission but hides the cuts to other space projects by moving them to a later time and plucking them down in the middle of a general budget forest.
Actually, I believe W is the one who originally announced a manned Mars mission, but never really funded it.
Adds to Budget PROPOSAL (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump does not yet have the dictator powers implied by the headline. Nor dose anyone consider him the driving vision of the space program.
I think he and the bill sponsors really only declined to try and stop what NASA was doing under Obama
Now we find out if the legislative branch also will keep the Senate Launch System in business.
No one expects them to cancel the SLS either.
But the non-event will be "NEWS".
Ob (Score:5, Funny)
Orange colored and there's no sign of any intelligence there.
And Mars is just as bad. DrabbadabbaTISH!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel the Mars rocket with Coal. Create jobs while going to Mars and who cares about the pollution in space.
Good news! The grays do not want to eat us! (Score:4, Funny)
Have always been surprised at Trump's support of NASA, whether as magnanimously as he would like us think or not. At least it is not a 30% or more cut like some other agencies. He rejects science, except when it comes to expanding real estate...
I guess the good news here is that we can conclude that the Grays - whom I assume are in total control of every President - do NOT want to eat us! They do not seem to care about our health.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't want to turn us into some powdered industrial product. But at least they do not want to eat us!
Re: (Score:3)
From a man who has to have almost everything gilded, I expect his (limited - the budget's still down, just not as much as anticipated) support is because it's a big, flashy, expensive prestige thing to him. There's a little bit of pork barrelling involved, too. I would expect his interest in the exploration and science return to be minimal.
But if we wanted to get to Mars in under a decade... we could just tell him it can happen by the end of his presidency if he gives NASA 10x the budget for a few years. H
Re: (Score:3)
Space exploration is key to the perception of the US around the world. A marketing guy named Clotaire Rapaille in his book "Culture Code" claims that subconscious "code word" for America in other countries is SPACE. You see a picture of astronauts in the US passport as well. I imagine Trump as an American nationalist intuitively understands that space exploration makes America, well, great.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not fundamentally anti-science. He just has a target demographic of people who want to live in the past. "make America great again"... the "again" tells everything.
A few decades ago, there was no apparent global warming problem. People drove gas guzzlers without a second thought. Trump confort his supporters by saying they can still do.
But Trump's target demographic also remember fondly remember the moon landings. By supporting NASA and planning missions to Mars, Trump make these people happy.
His s
Re: (Score:3)
Many people think Trump is an idiot. He is not. He knows exactly what to say in order to make enough people vote for him.
I'm glad someone else sees this. Trump is arrogant, and a bit of a narcissus, but he is not an idiot. What I actually find kind of funny, not funny as in "ha ha" but funny as in sad, is people blinded by their love for the man and those blinded by their hate can't see what is happening. Trump is playing both sides like a fiddle. He is saying exactly what needs to be said to keep his base happy, and to throw the opposition in disarray and have them frothing at the mouth.
I'll say it here and now that
Well, it's bound to be crude. (Score:2)
Almost meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
He can't remain President long enough to actually do the mission.
Hell, he won't be Pres long enough for hardware designs, much less actually bending metal.
Much less launching anything...
That's NASA's biggest problem these last few decades - no way to stick to anything beyond the term(s) of the current President, so nothing can really be done that takes longer than about five years....
Which is another way of saying "nothing can really be done."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's NASA's biggest problem these last few decades - no way to stick to anything beyond the term(s) of the current President, so nothing can really be done that takes longer than about five years.... Which is another way of saying "nothing can really be done."
Five years? They should just switch to Agile, then they'd have something that's Done every two weeks. I know an "expert", I'd be happy to forward contact details to any NASA headhunters. Or the ones with poison blow darts, either way works for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...
I fully support our glorious President's bold plan to ... huh? What do you mean, then Mike Pence would ...
Holy shit, call it off! Call it off now!
In the bunker (Score:3, Informative)
Trump could make up NASA's budget shortfall by skipping a few weekend getaways to Mar-a-Lago on the taxpayers' dime and maybe having his wife and son move into the White House after the kid gets out of school in five weeks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well.. While we are making stupid claims... How about Obama's trips to the Med, where he and his wife took separate aircraft and a boat load of friends? And what makes you think protecting the president in FL is all that much more expensive than having him at the White House? It's not like they don't have SS staff in both places at this point...
Haters gota hate I guess....
Re: (Score:3)
You silly person. Think about what you just said. "what makes you think protecting the president in FL is all that much more expensive than having him at the White
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember the crowds on the National Mall for Trump's inauguration?
Basically, you lie your damn head off and attack anyone who calls you on it, even if they're holding up irrefutable proof right in front of your face.
It's also known as 'politics', it's just that Trump is about as subtle as using a nuke in a fist fight.
Re:Confused (Score:4, Informative)
I guess you didn't see Chelsea Clinton's tweet: "If you have less money one year versus the previous year, that is called ____ ("cut"), otherwise know as _____ ("less money").
NASAWatch added a Capt Picard facepalm picture.
Re: (Score:2)
look up the numbers for most of Obama's presidency which were lower, however a couple years (including this one) were on par
So... (Score:2)
NASA shall go to Mars, just with less money than before without going to Mars? Or do I get this wrong?
an idea everyone will like (Score:2, Flamebait)
You see a Mars mission. Trump sees deporting immigrants 4 at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have a Martian Visa. Otherwise they ARE illegal immigrants.
NASA could get to Mars sooner with SpaceX (Score:2)
Spacenews reports [spacenews.com] that SpaceX has been working with NASA to identify potential landing sites on Mars for both its Red Dragon spacecraft starting in 2020 and future human missions. SpaceX, working with scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and elsewhere, had identified several potential landing sites, including one that looks particularly promising - Arcadia Planitia.
Those landing sites are of particular interest, he said, for SpaceX’s long-term vision of establishing a human settlement
perfect tagline infinity-and-beyond (Score:2)
as "we will have a man on Mars in 20 years" for the past 50 years. Now it has been extended to infinity. This only trumps up the Mission To Nowhere as everyone loves to talk about Mars because you can defer costs to build real hardware to some other smucks 20 years into the future. Unlike if Moon is the goal then gotta come up with some real money now to build a lander, transfer stage, etc.
But wait, there are some people talking about the Moon besides Spudis and Wingo. Maybe we get some action before we a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The devil needed an escape route (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really sure either. Most of those that I know who advocated for Trump during the primaries and the general election did so for the lulz. They wanted to see how screwed up it would get, literally one invoked the, "hold on, I'm making popcorn" trope.
These were not otherwise-unintelligent people either. While I find their particular choice distasteful, the concept of throwing the wrench into the works, especially with the seeming underhandedness of how the DNC and the Clintons worked to ensure her nomination was not without a certain appeal. Unfortunately the particulars in this instance may have made this worse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which one of the two is worse is unknowable in principle, but arguably Trump responds to the public feedback, however clumsily. Clinton didn't, being assured of the future she saw in her head. Trump won and she lost. Therefore it's likely we've got a President who is more receptive to the nuances of the real world. I believe that Clinton would have been more likely to cause a calamity -- as she did in Libya, being dead-set on her vision and deaf to the situation in the field.
Re:The devil needed an escape route (Score:5, Interesting)
The Clintons have always responded to public feedback. If anything that's been one of the biggest knocks against them, that they were without principles and could be swayed by opinion polling. Compare her positions in 2008 and 2016 - do you think she really had a change of heart? Or even look at how much she shifted left in response to Sanders' challenge, adopting versions of many of his stances. Lesser/weaker ones to be sure, but it's not like she was unyielding.
Contrast this to Trump. Has he changed on anything of any significance, at all, even when those things have proven unpopular? Even unpopular with his own voters? He won't even do basic things that people are asking of him like releasing his tax returns, or taking actual actions to distance himself from his businesses. Hell, everyone says the Clintons were corrupt, but at least they recognized that there were lines of behavior that they shouldn't be crossing, and had the sense of shame to be embarrassed about it. Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about that - he still owns, and profits fully from, every single thing his businesses are doing, while he's President, meaning that just about anyone (including Foreign Governments) can straight up pay him money (which is grossly in violation of the constitution).
Re:The devil needed an escape route (Score:5, Insightful)
No President before Trump has pushed so many bald-faced lies so quickly either. Even if all dialogue prior to Inauguration Day is discounted, he literally got the ball rolling by lying about aspects of his inauguration itself, and has not relented since then, and he's even brought it up multiple times without being prompted to do so.
I was no fan of Clinton either, but I doubt that she would have been so incredibly blatant about her lies. I expect she would have operated more like the Patrician from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, which I would ascribe as being lawful evil to lawful neutral depending on the issue. Trump is more like chaotic evil to chaotic neutral, in the sense the he doesn't even understand how the power of the Presidency works and how those he chooses to associate with directly demonstrate his decision-making skills.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama lied all the time, just the press constantly covered for him. The media is still covering for him, somehow there are multiple transcripts and recordings of Trump campaign officials, but you know, there wasn't any wire taps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-contradiction is the lowest form of lying. I rate it at Level 0. You don't even need to check anything to know that at least one side is false. (Interestingly enough, it is logically possible for both sides of a contradiction to be false, but not for both sides to be true.)
Just for reference, Level 1 is counterfactual statements. Trump gets to this level pretty often, though it's hard to be sure because he may then slip in the true facts and create the self-contradiction. However the problem of Level 1
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* I still hate typos, and they still slip through Preview too often. *sigh*
s/this the techniques/the techniques/
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh* I still hate typos, and they still slip through Preview too often. *sigh*
I prefer to see the article subject as a typo - this sounds better:
Trump Approves Crude Mission to Mars - "Grab it by the Olympus Mons" he tweets.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Clinton had much of opinion about anything. Hillary was just a robot doing what her staff told her. Given a chance to think for herself her great decision was to setup a email server and use it exclusively as SoS.
George Washington, Tom Jefferson, A Jackson, JFK (Score:4, Interesting)
> he still owns, and profits fully from, every single thing his businesses are doing, while he's President, meaning that just about anyone (including Foreign Governments) can straight up pay him money (which is grossly in violation of the constitution).
Most of the country's early presidents, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson owned businesses which had customers from other countries. You have an opinion about what the Constitution means, and the people who actually wrote the Constitution disagree, they thought that when they wrote "emoluments of the office" they meant exactly what they said, emoluments - payments for holding the office, as opposed to ordinary buying and selling things at market prices. Most presidents from George Washington to John F Kennedy sold things (business) just as they bought things (shopping). It wasn't until 1965, LBJ, the presidents starting moving their business wealth into a blind trust.
Was there some constitutional amendment in 1965? I don't know of any change in the Constitution that required LBJ to do that, it just looks good politically.
George Washington had a half billion dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
> to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars
George Washington had a half BILLION dollars (expressed in today's dollars, of course). The very same people who *wrote* the Constitution supported Washington for president, and didn't see any Constitutional issue.
One commentator at the time did see it as a *political* liability. Most people agree it is better public relations to divest, which is why most recent presidents have done so.
I don't know if Trump's business ventures will turn out to be a significant problem or not. I hope not, of course. Understanding a bit of his personality, he's always focused on the biggest, most grandiose thing. Running the United States is far grander than naming royalties on a hotel, so based on his personality I don't think he gives a shit about a hotel right now - he's running the whole COUNTRY and he's likely trying to be the most significant president in recent history. A little money is no longer an issue - he could lose half his money and still be a multi-billionaire. For him, it's about doing something HUGE, doing things that will be in high history books.
It would certainly look better if he sold off all of his businesses. I've sold two businesses, both simple, very small companies. One took three months to sell, the other took two years. I would guesstimate that given the complexity of some of Trump's hundreds of business relationships, it would take perhaps three or four years to get most of them sold off. That's an issue. I don't know that there is a particularly good solution now that he's president. I voted against him because I didn't think he should be president, but anyway now he's president and he has these business interests that aren't going to vanish - just as the early presidents did. It's certainly an optics problem. It's not a Constitutional problem, according to the people who wrote the Constitution.
Re:The devil needed an escape route (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nonsense. Trump is a populous president. Like him or hate him that is his thing. His thing is turning the will of his base into reality.
Clinton has evolved on some minor issues, but her thing is being establishment which brings with it some internalized power. She does not have to agree with the public, she does not have to do what they want. Do you think the public actually wanted a war with Russia? No, that was just the politicians.
If Trump had been a politician for any amount of time we would of seen that as well, his base simply has not changed any of their opinions. Their were multiple times throughout the run where he tried changing his message and went back because of the feedback. That was actually one of the most common insults used on him throughout the early and middle of the race, that his policies changed every time you spoke to him.
Re: (Score:3)
And now they are finding out EXACTLY how much worse it gets
You seem to like to say that, but you seem to do so with out citing any evidence. So I'm going to come out and ask you to cite your sources. Please show us how Trump supporters are "finding out EXACTLY" how much worse it can get.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I have been watching the news. Both side, liberal and conservative outlets. I've also watched Wallstreet, several socialist media sites, and cpan for raw input. Virtually every indicator says we are doing fine if not getting better.
Now this may not be any of Trumps doing and just something leftover from the Obama administration. But put it simply the gloom and doom you and people like you, have been predicting since November simply isn't happening.
So again, if its so bad, please site your s
Re: (Score:3)
Please document the lies that he has made and where you have your evidence from. So far all I have seen is a bunch of unfounded innuendos. I don't believe for a moment that Obama wiretapped his ass. But Trump might believe that so it doesn't make it a lie. It just makes
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe for a moment that Obama wiretapped his ass
Well now, seems I might be wrong about something.
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/22/521133929/house-intel-chair-trump-aides-swept-up-in-legal-u-s-surveillance/ [npr.org]
The chairman's revelations served to partly vindicate Trump's March 4 claim on Twitter about being incredulous that President Obama had sunk to "a new low" by ordering a wiretap of his phones before the election.
I find that part of the story very interesting. Also facts that seem to point at contacts with in Russa to the Trump campaign. Seems this pig might have caught the scent of a truffle. I say we sit back and see how this plays out.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is a great deal of confusion about what "troll" means. Actually, I have concluded that one of the most broken parts of Slashdot moderation is the use of negative moderation that is not part of positive moderation. I'm not saying that negative moderation shouldn't exist, but rather that it should be part of a symmetric relationship and I think Slashdot would be a MUCH better place if the scales were tilted in favor of good behavior rather than bad. (I also believe that the moderation of posts s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Please stop referring to him as "President Bannon". It's a sign of disrespect to popular vote loser Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
But but but the Atlanta Falcons scored more points in the first three quarters, the Falcons should be the Superbowl champs.
Re: (Score:2)
I apparently missed where the Falcons got declared Superbowl champs by being several points down at the end of the game but being declared the winner by an arcane system that values points scored in the last quarter at several times the value of points scored in the other quarters - an arcane system created because the Founding Fathers of American Football didn't trust referees.
But honestly I don't say it to complain about your crazy rules. I say it because I think it's hilarious how much it ticks him off t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to remember if I ever got to the point of calling Dubya anything else. Maybe my problem is that I can't respect the office apart from the occupant?
I wish you would offer a more constructive alternative, however. Perhaps Bannon's title should be "Acting President" or "De Facto President"? Then again, I'm still hoping that Pence assumes the first title via the 25th. That seems to our only hope for an escape to a future in which a Mars colony might be part of mankind's future. Bad as Pence would be,
Re: (Score:3)
Then again, I'm still hoping that Pence assumes the first title via the 25th.
You should be careful what you wish for. Before you state something like this you should really go research Pence before you wish him as president. I actually can't help but wonder at the people who hate Trump so much they want to see him impeached.
The things people "think" Trump will do that scare the crap out of them, Pence will do. Pence has stated he will set back gay and women rights. At least Trump has stated he has no issues to this. Even if these where Trumps stated goals, he doesn't have t
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Were you ever angry that NASA was converted in a propaganda tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it turns out the budget was REDUCED by $400 million
In other news: the chocolate ration was raised from 30 grams a week to 20 grams a week. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
it turns out the budget was REDUCED by $400 million
In other news: the chocolate ration was raised from 30 grams a week to 20 grams a week. ;)
Wasn't that a Michelle Obama school lunch strategy...
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Sec. 412) The key U.S. objectives for human expansion into space shall include achieving human exploration of Mars and beyond through the prioritization of those technologies and capabilities best suited for such a mission in accordance with the stepping stone approach to exploration specified in federal law.
This contradicts much of the story. And the comments being made here...
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, an anti-Trump post that's actually amusing.
was Orrin Hatch (R-UT) there, too? (Score:2)
Cruz (R-TX) and Rubio (R-FL)
PROK for the PROK GOD!
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Informative)
He is cutting NASA's budget for this year (from $19.5B to $19.1B) but is expressing support for a goal that will cost WAY more than that AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, so paying for it will be somebody else's problem.
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably the martians will pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
*W&e''reN**ot()()Pa@yingFORy@ourFu!c!kingSpac(cra$$ftATH^^0
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah... you can't really strongarm a planet which has Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... you can't really strongarm a planet which has Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator technology.
Where was the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!
Re: (Score:3)
No. Obama actually made health care available to millions of people. drumpf is saying someone, someday in the future, should go to Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he didn't. He only made it seem like that. What it really did was kick million of people off the insurance they had and made them buy crappy Obamacare insurance. It also reclassified medicare as insurance. Then it forced people that wouldn't normally be able to afford the insurance, sign up for Medicaid.
An that is where your imaginary number of "millions" come from. Was it a good thing that all these people where forced to sign up for Medicaid. Well yes, but it really didn't matter. All those
Re: (Score:3)
What its called, medcaid or medicare, really doesn't matter, but I'm sure that everyone reading understand the point. If it offends your sense of the universe, then I'm sorry.
I honestly don't care what you think, obamacare, aca, was a abomination. It was something forced on them that nobody wanted. It did far more harm than good and end the end has assisted nobody. It in no way made insurance afordable, in fact it did just the opposite.
Before obamacare I had family insurance for about $250 a month.
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump? Selfless? Seriously?
No, trump just needs a distraction so he's tossing out a "hey lets go to Mars" statement right now. He's not spending a bunch of money on it. In fact he's cutting money across the board for things like health care so he can waste money on a military buildup. It's just a distraction. And you fell for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like Bush and Obama who also promised Mars missions
Deja Moo. The feeling I've heard this bullshit before. I'm just not so gullible now. Call me when they launch.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that Melania is the next Anna Chapman?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money cannot buy happiness, but it helps...
Money cannot buy science.... But again it sure helps..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Already happened on Iapetus [space.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, just think what they did on that Apollo era sound stage.. (sarc off)...
Re: (Score:2)
That should be part of the Constitution. For all high govt posts like President Senator Judge once your term is over you need to emigrate to the Mars colony. Ahving ex President's hanging around just cramps the style of the current President. Also Maximum age for elected Office needs to be 50. No more 70 year old Presidents and 90 year old Senators. Let them go and teach on Mars.