Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well at least he can meet JFK and tell him we made it.

 youbedead wrote:
Adjusted for inflation NASA hit its peak in 1965 at 35 billion, however it is still higher then any post apollo 11 annual budget

So like I said, in unadjusted dollars its the biggest its ever been, and in inflation adjusted figures its a modest cut from the year before. And yet we have this carry on from Republicans.

I mean, a move from a $17 billion budget to a $16 billion budget and we get this; "So now we have a skeleton crew of the former aerospace community and when we do decide to move forward again we will be decades behind. The momentum and quality personnel are gone."

fething ridiculous.

I'd like to chim in here a but. I'm responsible for raising and lowering the flags in my county so I do them a lot. I was surprised that they only had them at half staff for a day. I mean this Neil Armstrong for crying out loud. The first human to step on the moon. I figured they would leave them for longer than a day. Seemed strange to me

 sebster wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
Adjusted for inflation NASA hit its peak in 1965 at 35 billion, however it is still higher then any post apollo 11 annual budget

So like I said, in unadjusted dollars its the biggest its ever been, and in inflation adjusted figures its a modest cut from the year before. And yet we have this carry on from Republicans.

I mean, a move from a $17 billion budget to a $16 billion budget and we get this; "So now we have a skeleton crew of the former aerospace community and when we do decide to move forward again we will be decades behind. The momentum and quality personnel are gone."

fething ridiculous.

What has decreased though is percentage of the budget dedicated to NASA. People who actually want space exploration and science funding are more concerned with the fact that while the budget has increased actual spending has not, so they feel that the gov cares less and less about science. I'd imagine that most of the lamentations over NASA's budget are purely for political point though

Like no big announcement either about the half staff in his honor.

"fething"? OMG you are cool!

I hate to interrupt you guys when you are self congratulating your superior intellect. But the NASA budget is effectively cut despite your opposite views. You fail to take into account financial factors such as inflation. -1.8 billion according to wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA The NASA budget as part of the overall budget has also decreased. Argue dollars if you wish but there is no denying that the current administration has gutted the talent. By axing the manned space missions it also detracts from the scientific imperative of discovery that has existed in the past and drive so many innovations. Of course if you disagree, please stop by and tell all my neighbors and friends how wrong they are and none of them have been laid off.

Chaplain Levitcius wrote:
"fething"? OMG you are cool!

I hate to interrupt you guys when you are self congratulating your superior intellect. But the NASA budget is effectively cut despite your opposite views. You fail to take into account financial factors such as inflation. -1.8 billion according to wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA The NASA budget as part of the overall budget has also decreased. Argue dollars if you wish but there is no denying that the current administration has gutted the talent. By axing the manned space missions it also detracts from the scientific imperative of discovery that has existed in the past and drive so many innovations. Of course if you disagree, please stop by and tell all my neighbors and friends how wrong they are and none of them have been laid off.

What innovations would those be? Here's the catch, you can't list anything before 2000.

Go!

Chaplain Levitcius wrote:
"fething"? OMG you are cool!

I hate to interrupt you guys when you are self congratulating your superior intellect. But the NASA budget is effectively cut despite your opposite views. You fail to take into account financial factors such as inflation. -1.8 billion according to wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA The NASA budget as part of the overall budget has also decreased. Argue dollars if you wish but there is no denying that the current administration has gutted the talent. By axing the manned space missions it also detracts from the scientific imperative of discovery that has existed in the past and drive so many innovations. Of course if you disagree, please stop by and tell all my neighbors and friends how wrong they are and none of them have been laid off.

The forum automatically changes f*cking to fething along with some other curse words like sh*t becomes gak. Also the figures discussed are inflation adjusted figure, but to say that NASA has been 'gutted' is a complete misnomer at best


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Chaplain Levitcius wrote:
"fething"? OMG you are cool!

I hate to interrupt you guys when you are self congratulating your superior intellect. But the NASA budget is effectively cut despite your opposite views. You fail to take into account financial factors such as inflation. -1.8 billion according to wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA The NASA budget as part of the overall budget has also decreased. Argue dollars if you wish but there is no denying that the current administration has gutted the talent. By axing the manned space missions it also detracts from the scientific imperative of discovery that has existed in the past and drive so many innovations. Of course if you disagree, please stop by and tell all my neighbors and friends how wrong they are and none of them have been laid off.

What innovations would those be? Here's the catch, you can't list anything before 2000.

Go!

Are we talking innovations that came directly from manned space missions or gov funded science in general

Are we talking innovations that came directly from manned space missions or gov funded science in general

Only the first because the second still exists.

As does manned space flights and manned orbit

 youbedead wrote:
What has decreased though is percentage of the budget dedicated to NASA. People who actually want space exploration and science funding are more concerned with the fact that while the budget has increased actual spending has not, so they feel that the gov cares less and less about science. I'd imagine that most of the lamentations over NASA's budget are purely for political point though

Sure. Lamenting the long term decline in investment in NASA and other areas of science, compared to other areas of spending is a sensible argument, and one I agree with. But its also a non-partisan argument, because that decline has been sustained over multiple presidencies, and over both congresses.

It's this thing where people call the death of NASA because of a 6% cut in funding under Obama that's stupid.

I'd blame 40 years of anti-intellectualism more then anything else to be honest, politicians ultimately do what they can to be re-elected and science gets you un-elected

 youbedead wrote:
I'd blame 40 years of anti-intellectualism more then anything else to be honest, politicians ultimately do what they can to be re-elected and science gets you un-elected

The space program isn't really an abundant source of scientific research and usable output. It hasn't been for decades. It's cool, they perform experiments that can't be done elsewhere, but the results haven't been showing up for a long time. Now that there are several countries with space programs the nationalist value of NASA has dwindled. There simply isn't much reason to go to space for scientific reasons until we have the science to start doing large scale projects. The public has, over time, fallen out of love with space.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
I'd blame 40 years of anti-intellectualism more then anything else to be honest, politicians ultimately do what they can to be re-elected and science gets you un-elected

The space program isn't really an abundant source of scientific research and usable output. It hasn't been for decades. It's cool, they perform experiments that can't be done elsewhere, but the results haven't been showing up for a long time. Now that there are several countries with space programs the nationalist value of NASA has dwindled. There simply isn't much reason to go to space for scientific reasons until we have the science to start doing large scale projects. The public has, over time, fallen out of love with space.

The vast majority of major innovations from space exploration did't enter the public market until decades after their initial use. Innovations and discoveries by their very nature are unknowable until hey are made. Also why the hate for pure science, not every experiment has to have immediate practical implications

I don't see any hate there. I think he's trying to explain the trend.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I don't see any hate there. I think he's trying to explain the trend.

Didn't mean to be directed at shuma sorry, meant the general hate for pure science

 youbedead wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I don't see any hate there. I think he's trying to explain the trend.

Didn't mean to be directed at shuma sorry, meant the general hate for pure science

Because of climate change. Thats it. Thats the only reason. Businesses didn't like environmental legislation, they lobbied trillions over time in the government, media, and in homes to turn people against environmental science. You can't be specific. Either scientists are bad elites or they aren't, this isn't a game where nuances work. Thus american business, even science businesses like the pharma industry, have lobbied to make science look bad for decades. NASA does science, it's a government agency, ergo for years conservatives railed against it as being a wasteful expenditure of elites who just want to prove climate change.

 youbedead wrote:
I'd blame 40 years of anti-intellectualism more then anything else to be honest, politicians ultimately do what they can to be re-elected and science gets you un-elected

I think its more that NASA was for a very brief time an incredibly highly funded program. I'd think the funding it received in the 60s and 70s is probably a greater share of GDP than any science program had ever received before or since then. What we've seen since is a steady drift back to something more within historic norms.

 sebster wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
I'd blame 40 years of anti-intellectualism more then anything else to be honest, politicians ultimately do what they can to be re-elected and science gets you un-elected

I think its more that NASA was for a very brief time an incredibly highly funded program. I'd think the funding it received in the 60s and 70s is probably a greater share of GDP than any science program had ever received before or since then. What we've seen since is a steady drift back to something more within historic norms.

Nah, the US naval expeditions topped that by far, taking up to 1/4 to 1/3 of the annual budget.

http://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/usexex/learn/Philbrick.htm

Granted it was the 1840's so the federal budget was quite the same scale it is today, but its just amazing that we as a nation that was less then a century hold at that point decide to dedicate such a massive amount of money to the advancement of science, and in my opinion is one of the most inspirational things our country has ever done.

 youbedead wrote:
Nah, the US naval expeditions topped that by far, taking up to 1/4 to 1/3 of the annual budget.

Yeah, % of budget. Not % of GDP. Using up 1/3 of the budget is a comment more on how small the budget was than how big the naval expeditions were.

Granted it was the 1840's so the federal budget was quite the same scale it is today, but its just amazing that we as a nation that was less then a century hold at that point decide to dedicate such a massive amount of money to the advancement of science, and in my opinion is one of the most inspirational things our country has ever done.

Putting a man on the moon is just a hell of thing. At least the equal of any other achievement I can think of.

But I don't think we need to trick ourselves into thinking that was because everyone back then thought the way forward was to fund science. People thought space travel was a thing that was just around the corner, and they wanted to beat the Soviets. Put those things together, and you can explain the ahistoric budget for a science program.

Absolutely, think we could convince the Russians to go all commie again. I want a moon base dammit.

 youbedead wrote:
Absolutely, think we could convince the Russians to go all commie again. I want a moon base dammit.

Just convince the Iranians to start a space program. You'll have a colony on Mars by this time next year.

 sebster wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
Absolutely, think we could convince the Russians to go all commie again. I want a moon base dammit.

Just convince the Iranians to start a space program. You'll have a colony on Mars by this time next year.

You kidding, Israel would bomb the rockets before that, citing Irans nuclear threat or some nonsense like that. Maybe the Chinese would be up to it

 sebster wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
Absolutely, think we could convince the Russians to go all commie again. I want a moon base dammit.

Just convince the Iranians to start a space program. You'll have a colony on Mars by this time next year.

Well I suppose the future potential will be from China - first manned space voyages, making their own space suit, and now even their first space laboratory (they have another 2 planned apparently, the last one will be built to connect to shuttle launches and by the end of the decade is going to have a similar internal area to the ISS). They have a new launch vehicle going up over the next year or so, which is designed to haul stuff to the moon (I guess a Saturn equivalent), which will make it by far the most powerful rocket in usage today.

With the size of their economy, and its continued growth (though slowed) I would certainly envisage them having a pop at the moon by the end of this decade, perhaps even Mars over the next 20-30 years or so. If that happens, it will be interesting to see if it spurs on a new space race, and perhaps then a US President will manage to justify huge NASA spending because of the threat to US supremacy in space technology and travel.

Will certainly be interesting though who will be the first to Mars, the way things are going I think it is no certain thing that the first man on the red planet will be an American.

Armstrong was a terrible NASA member. Didn't make Muslims feel good about themselves.