NASA's ISS funding to end

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180213_30/

The US space agency has announced changes that aim to end government funding for the International Space Station, and see American astronauts traveling to the Moon by 2023.

NASA's acting administrator Robert Lightfoot says federal support for the ISS is planned to end from 2025 and the agency will instead look at encouraging privatization. It will request 150 million dollars in fiscal 2019 to help commercial companies expand activities in low-Earth orbit.

The plan also earmarks 10.5 billion dollars for human space exploration. That includes a mission to the Moon's orbit by 2023.

Lightfoot said the plan "reflects the administration's confidence that America will lead the way back to the Moon and take the next giant leap from where we made that first small step some 50 years ago."

US President Donald Trump instructed NASA last December to come up with a plan to send American astronauts back to the Moon.

36 billion to build the mexico border wall... then around 5.5 billion each year to police & service it.

i wonder if  the Senate and the House of Representatives will agree to funding NASA to go back to the moon ?

[C C]

i wonder if the Senate and the House of Representatives will agree to funding NASA to go back to the moon ?

If they've got a gatekeeper role for that particular, eccentric part of a budget. Cyclic evaluation of the financial maintenance of this multiple POTUS-term long project (inevitable setbacks and delays also included). So arguably irrelevant what's said or done in the short-run about a manned Moon trip still supported by Trump. How long will the Republicans have the numbers and keep goosestepping with Boss Tweet (as well as whether or not anyone like Trump is POTUS during the next round and beyond)?

Have never really checked on how Boss Tweet felt about the ISS last year (or just don't remember), but one could speculate that the international cooperation aspect might have been a turn-off for him with respect to obscuring American glory (and thereby roundaboutly his own). Or his personal stance and influence wasn't a factor at all if NASA started K9-mounting that leg quite a while ago.

Ted Cruz blames the idea on “numbskulls” over at the Office of Management and Budget: [...] To be sure, the private sector getting involved in the ISS isn’t exclusive to Trump. NASA took steps to outsource cargo supply flights to the ISS to the private space companies Orbital ATK and SpaceX under President George W. Bush; the Obama administration extended the model to hire Boeing and SpaceX to fly astronauts there.

Politicians periodically vacillate with regard to the view below, so it's hardly ironclad that Democrats would scrap manned flight to the Moon.

Humans vs. Robots: Who Should Dominate Space Exploration?: "The most recent footprints on the moon are 40 years old, and the next artificial mark on the lunar surface will probably be made by a robot's wheels rather than human soles. Many space scientists, engineers and politicians argue that this is a good thing. Most astronomers will tell you that virtually anything a human can do on another planet, a robot can do, only cheaper and without the risk of losing a life. But the battle between humans and robots for the starring role in the next chapter of space exploration is not yet settled."

No need for manned spaceflight, says astronomer royal Martin Rees: "Forget manned moon bases, forget a Mars colony – most future space travellers will be robots, according to astronomer royal Martin Rees. Rees, professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge University, thinks sending people into space is a waste of money, given recent advances in unmanned space technology. He said European space scientists should focus on miniaturisation and robotics to remain competitive in a space sector dominated by Russia and the US."

- - -

[Syne]

Really? "goosestepping"? I thought you were better than that, CC.

[RainbowUnicorn]

i wonder if  the Senate and the House of Representatives will agree to funding NASA to go back to the moon ?

If they've got a gatekeeper role for that particular, eccentric part of a budget. Cyclic evaluation of the financial maintenance of this multiple POTUS-term long project (inevitable setbacks and delays also included). So arguably irrelevant what's said or done in the short-run about a manned Moon trip still supported by Trump. How long will the Republicans have the numbers and keep goosestepping with Boss Tweet (as well as whether or not anyone like Trump is POTUS during the next round and beyond)?

Have never really checked on how Boss Tweet felt about the ISS last year (or just don't remember), but one could speculate that the international cooperation aspect might have been a turn-off for him with respect to obscuring American glory (and thereby roundaboutly his own). Or his personal stance and influence wasn't a factor at all if NASA started K9-mounting that leg quite a while ago.  

Ted Cruz blames the idea on “numbskulls” over at the Office of Management and Budget: [...] To be sure, the private sector getting involved in the ISS isn’t exclusive to Trump. NASA took steps to outsource cargo supply flights to the ISS to the private space companies Orbital ATK and SpaceX under President George W. Bush; the Obama administration extended the model to hire Boeing and SpaceX to fly astronauts there.

Politicians periodically vacillate with regard to the view below, so it's hardly ironclad that Democrats would scrap manned flight to the Moon.  

Humans vs. Robots: Who Should Dominate Space Exploration?: "The most recent footprints on the moon are 40 years old, and the next artificial mark on the lunar surface will probably be made by a robot's wheels rather than human soles. Many space scientists, engineers and politicians argue that this is a good thing. Most astronomers will tell you that virtually anything a human can do on another planet, a robot can do, only cheaper and without the risk of losing a life. But the battle between humans and robots for the starring role in the next chapter of space exploration is not yet settled."

No need for manned spaceflight, says astronomer royal Martin Rees: "Forget manned moon bases, forget a Mars colony – most future space travellers will be robots, according to astronomer royal Martin Rees. Rees, professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge University, thinks sending people into space is a waste of money, given recent advances in unmanned space technology. He said European space scientists should focus on miniaturisation and robotics to remain competitive in a space sector dominated by Russia and the US."

- - -

Surely a moon satalite would be a good idea.

Who regulates the moon ? LoL !

a satalte platform in earth orbit could push all the orbiting space junk at the moon.
then use it as construction material by nanobots.

[C C]

Really? "goosestepping"?

Meh. They just don't have any good names for other marches / military steps. Infamous reputation or not, it winds-up being the snazzy default.

The perception of Trump having such puissance works either way. For Republicans who see their party (in DC) as not having had much backbone and solidarity prior to Trump, it now seems to acquire it via his coordinating influence ("Amazingly, GOP stayed on message, pushing the president’s theme"). And for Republicans who deem that their party (in DC) did have some anchoring and gumption of its own beforehand, it now nevertheless finds itself either grudgingly or amenably obliging caretaker Trump, the Outsider.

- - -

[RainbowUnicorn]

Really? "goosestepping"?

Meh. They just don't have any good names for other marches / military steps. Infamous reputation or not, it winds-up being the snazzy default.

The perception of Trump having such puissance works either way. For Republicans who see their party (in DC) as not having had much backbone and solidarity prior to Trump, it now seems to acquire it via his coordinating influence ("Amazingly, GOP stayed on message, pushing the president’s theme"). And for Republicans who deem that their party (in DC) did have some anchoring and gumption of its own beforehand, it now nevertheless finds itself either grudgingly or amenably obliging caretaker Trump, the Outsider.  

- - -

CC Elucidates an excellent point.

The 50% of voters whom chose not to vote...
(roughly half the voting population)
240 million elidgible
136 million voted
100 million not allowed to vote(they cant ALL be under voting age)

100 million CANT vote
124 million WONT vote


are they too uneducated to comprehend the construct of diverse democracy ?
is it a sign of a truly corrupt society ?

whats the deal ?

where is the diversity ?