Slashdot Mirror
Trump Adds To NASA Budget, Approves Crewed Mission To Mars (nbcnews.com)
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.
Finally...
Back to what NASA was founded to do.
I can't wait to see how the whiny little Trump-hating bitches spin this.
Umm. Perhaps the gender equality and muslim outreach dollars were cut but STEM budget lines remained the same or increased,
Were you ever angry that NASA was converted in a propaganda tool.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
We're going to give NASA less than 3%of what we spend on killing people here on Earth.
Surprise! The crew is be Hillary Clinton and her daughter. Oddly enough, Bill didn't object...
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.
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".
Orange colored and there's no sign of any intelligence there.
And Mars is just as bad. DrabbadabbaTISH!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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!
So you're saying that Melania is the next Anna Chapman?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
I don't understand how giving less money to NASA is adding to the budget?
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.
I disagree, and here's why.
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).
Presumably the martians will pay for it.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
NBC news, what do you expect? The bill passed the house without amendment, and it passed the Senate. Lots of Democrats probably voted for it. But leave it to the breathless idiots in the media to report on this like Trump did it all by himself. The actual bill says this:
(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...
Murphy was an optimist
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.
> 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.
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.
But but but the Atlanta Falcons scored more points in the first three quarters, the Falcons should be the Superbowl champs.
Yeah... you can't really strongarm a planet which has Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator technology.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
> 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.
*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.
Funding is up. Perhaps the article was not well-worded, but for sure, by some, it was poorly read. The NASA budget was 19.3 billion for 2017, 19.5 billion for 2018. Trump was originally going to go with 19.1 billion but that was bumped up to the 19.5. Seems some folks just need to be sarcastic, and will twist the truth to do it. Doesn't it ever get old?
No. Obama actually made health care available to millions of people. drumpf is saying someone, someday in the future, should go to Mars.
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.
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 people that where forced to sign up would have been put on medicaid any way if they went to the hospital. Basically, all that part of it did was force people to sign up for medicare that would have already been covered by medicaid any way. So, really all it did was nothing.
An no, I didn't get my information from Fox news or something like that. I actually watched this first hand as my daughter had to go to the hospital. They didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it, so by default she was put on medicare. An yes, I offered to help pay for the medical costs but was told flat out by the person helping fill out the paper work that, it would have made it worse. Anything that I contributed would have counted against her as income and might have caused her application to be turned down , which would have left them with out insurance at all.
So no, Obama didn't put put millions on insurance. He put millions on Medicare. So any reforms that Trump pushes through, unless he eliminates medicare, will not push millions off of insurance. All it will do is not automatically enroll them in medicare.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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. After obamacare that went up to $1200 a month. Which is not a uncommon story. The only thing left was obama care, which with its $6500 deductible actually made the insurance worse than useless.
As for the exchanges, when they worked, they where almost unusable. I tried to navigate that nightmare. It was a joke.
Removing pre-existing conditions from insurance might have been the only good thing to come out of this mess.
While medical reform was and is still badly needed, obama care wasn't it. The faster its gone the better. Another side effect of the failure of obamacare is it will probably mark Obama's presidency as one of the worse in history.
Now then, if you wish to continue this conversation, get an account. I have decided that AC are no longer worth my time.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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 the support base in Congress to pull it off.
Pence does. He is a career politician. He has the contacts and the smarts to pull it off if he is set in office. It is far better to stumble through a Trump presidency and hope he is a mediocre one time president than to have Pence in there.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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 sources.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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 him wrong.
So, again, site your sources. So far all you have tossed out is a bunch of rumors and options that can vary as the wind blows. I'm not asking to much from you am I? I'm just asking where you got your information from, specifically.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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/
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.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.