Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama's 2016 NASA Budget Status Quo, Funds Europa Mission

Posted by samzenpus on from the paying-bills dept.

MarkWhittington writes The Washington Post reported that the NASA portion of the president's 2016 budget proposal is basically status quo though it does provide further funding for a mission to Europa. A Europa probe is near and dear to the new chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that funds NASA, Rep. John Culberson. However, the $18.5 billion budget proposal also funds the asteroid redirect mission, which has come under increasing fire from both Congress and the scientific community. The Houston Chronicle suggested that the final spending bill will be considerably different once congressional Republicans get through with it.

13 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Europa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I was told not to attempt any landings there

    1. Re:Europa by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

      But then they'll try to fund a pipeline from Europa to American refineries so that they can sell the gasoline to China.

    2. Re:Europa by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably because there are people that are into things that you're not into?

      Life would be incredibly dull if we were all into only the same things.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Europa by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hello from 2015!!! I see you are a time-traveler from the year 2034 (since the movie "2010" starring Roy Scheider came out in 1984), or have somehow discovered a rift in the space-time continuum by which you can communicate with the past. Can you please tell us about life in 2034 and what mistakes we can avoid?

  2. Europa by Zalbik · · Score: 4, Funny

    Europa?!?!

    Well that's it, we're doomed.

    Thanks Obama

  3. Too early to be discussing the contents by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The budget that Obama submitted is basically a fantasy novel with lots of boring numbers in it. The House and Senate are going to shitcan it the instant it lands in their hands so they can pass their own budget instead. It's not even worth talking about the budget because it has absolutely nothing to do with whatever finally makes it through Congress.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Too early to be discussing the contents by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama has, in Hollywood jargon, "jumped the shark".

      As he provocatively noted in the State of the Union Address . . . he does not have to face any re-election. He has found legal loopholes, which allow him to do whatever he wants, and totally ignore Congress or the Supreme Court. He can open the borders to the US to floods of illegal immigrants, change foreign policy against nations that have threatened the US with nuclear missiles and call for violence against domestic police forces.

      And now he will be implementing a tax plan to "help the middle class" . . . by taxing the middle class more. Rich folks don't pay any taxes. They can afford expensive tax lawyers. A lot of families with two working parents will be surprised to learn that they are "wealthy" under Obama's new rules.

      I recently watched documentary in German television about infamous dictators Josef Stalin, Muammar Gaddafi and Idi Amin.

      It was quite frightening that I thought that Obama would fit in quite well with this crew . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Too early to be discussing the contents by dywolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your idiocy is showing.

      1- They aren't legal loopholes. A law previously passed by Congress that gives the POTUS authority to act is NOT a legal loophole. It is simply the exercise of powers already granted.

      2- He isn't flooding the country with illegal immigrants. No POTUS in history has cracked down as hard on immigration as he has. In his first term alone he deported more people the in the previous 12 years. Furthermore, net immigration across the Mexican border has actually been negative for the past two years.

      3- He is the POTUS. He IS the head diplomat of the country. HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY.

      4- What you said about taxes is a blatant lie. The taxes proposed are wholly on the upper classes and business.

      What's truly frightening isn't how uninformed and detached from reality you are,
      nor even that you still vote despite that ignorance,
      but that people modded you insightful, which means you aren't the dumbest one here.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  4. Re:More tax dollars up in smoke. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    Private industry can barely get into orbit.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. it'll get slashed in half as usual by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    while the military spend of the US clears $800Bn - making it yet again the single largest military spender in history, outspending every other nation combined.

    BTW when an increase doesn't keep pace with inflation + the CPI over the same period (which 5% doesn't, and providing that 5% counts annually it's short by about 0.2 for 2013/12-2014/12), then it's a cut.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  6. Re:Creating a budget isn't the POTUS' job by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, they passed a law a while back requiring the administration to present a budget to congress so they wouls stop crying about not funding what the administrations wanted. Its just a whishlist more or less and often quite a bit maked it through to the final budget.

    But yes, you are correct, constitutionally it is congress' job. But i think this is more political theator to set up issues for 2016. They cannot really poke a candidate running for more of the same so they have to find a wedge of some sorts to say elect another democrat and this time it will be different without running against the sitting administration.

    Expect a lot more of this in the future.

  7. Re:Standard government doublespeak by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called inflation. It's why if my pay remains constant, year after year, I'm making less money, because that money won't buy as many things. If it cost $1 million to buy a drone last year, and the government spent $100 million on drones, they bought 100 drones last year. If they spend the same amount next year, when the price of drones goes up to 1.1 million each, they're only buying 90 drones. Now, maybe you think that we shouldn't buy that many drones, or any drones at all, but that's another argument.

  8. Re:More tax dollars up in smoke. by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're an idiot. Who do you think built the rockets that got men to the Moon? Hint: it wasn't NASA or the government, it was a company called Rocketdyne.

    Today's private spaceflight companies like Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are mostly doing the same thing: they're vying for government contracts for things like ISS resupply missions (in addition to commercial contracts for satellite launches; they didn't have commercial communications or other satellites back in the 60s).