I don't feel one way or another about Obama's rules tbh. I do understand the sentiment behind their repeal and I generally err on the side of states rights over the federal government for most issues. Yes, I agree that local governments have failed on this issue but the way those fixes from the federal government being pushed foster resentment and blow back, rightly or wrongly. I don't think Trump is doing this purely to spite Obama nor is it done in a vacuum. It is because this has been echoed in the GOP that gets their voters mad (whether that translates to votes or not I don't know). It's that whole "electing someone to smash the federal bureaucracy that makes their life hard".
If you pay taxes toward the federal government you want the benefits. It would be nice to only pay taxes for programs you want but it doesn't work that way. So yes, states want their cake and to eat it but again part of the issue is that there are other laws that force expenditures on local governments that put them between a rock and a hard place. They are free to choose what fatty foods they feed kids in as much an extortionee is free to not accept protection from the extortionist.
I think the discussion of states rights is part of the issue at hand because it is about what role the federal government has and what the responsibility is for the local governments. I wouldn't think that something as simple and as well understood as nutrition would be controversial but it is because of how it has been enacted.
What are you on about? Are you really this bitter over the election?
You DON'T think Trump is going to pay for a Mars mission.
He started a conversation about it. I have no idea what Trump will do. Even if he did support it I don't think Congress will go for it. There is no spin. Congress controls the purse. Trump wanting a budget doesn't mean he gets it. He has to convince people. How do you convince people? One way is to get people excited and to show lawmakers that excitement. You know... POLITICS.
So what's the point of telling an astronaut to "hurry it up"?
To get people talking about Mars. To get an idea of what would excite the electorate. To play with peoples minds. To keep opponents on their toes. To show support for NASA. Good god are you really this inept on publicity? Whatever you think of Trump he knows the media and he knows how to play the media. He has been in the media for some time with various successes and ran a successful presidential campaign against a better funded and more qualified opponent. Obviously he is doing something right with the media. Just because you are too bitter to see any silver lining doesn't mean the world is as shitty as your outlook and attitude.
And states should be able to choose to have slaves and / or treat minorities in a descriminatory fashion too, right?
So, because states violated personal liberties we shouldn't want states rights? Because the federal government has never abused individual liberty... -.- Which government is easier to change for people? The federal or local? This is a dumb argument and you know it. We are not ruled by the past and with power comes the ability to infringe on individual liberty. The feds do it just like the states.
There's a lot of people clamoring for repeal of the thirteenth ammendment, yeah?
I haven't seen any of them and obviously it wouldn't be enough to do... So unless you should me that there are enough people that this is a threat I think it is a bullshit statement.
The starting point was in fact local control which has shown itself to be almost a complete failure
For better or worse. Yes, I agree with you that they have done a horrible job but it is their job to fix. If you think that it is a problem that is an issue and you want to solve it you should convince the districts to be better.
they just couldnt do it with federal money.
And we are seeing that kind of action from the federal government challenged by cities that do not want to help the feds on immigration. Do you think that those cities are filing frivolous lawsuits? Many localities did reject federal funds but one issue is that the Department of Education still enforces very costly laws on those municipalities. You are forced, by federal law, to spend X money for Y reason and oh by the way if you don't like all our "optional" directives we can cut funding which can bankrupt the school. This is why people do not like the federal government messing with education.
Yes, childhood obesity is a problem and the schools share that blame but if you want to see real change that people can rally behind you don't do it from a top down federal initiative. You start at the local municipalities and change the people and not force them to change. Else you get those people pissed that elect people to smash your federal bureaucracy that is making their lives hard.
But are you seriously arguing that Trump's complete and total inconsistency is just like any other President?
Yes. The man has been in media for sometime and obviously he understands it by running successful media endeavors and a successful presidential campaign against a better funded and more experienced opponent. Obviously, there is method to his madness even if you or CNN don't understand it. His "inconsistency" I think is part of that method and I think many of his ardent supporters rationalize it to "deal making" or some other favorable trait that they admire even if they don't agree with the way it is done or the outcome.
Which kind of brings up an interesting point and another parallel. Just like when Rand Paul had a spat with the TSA, when our elected leaders start brushing up (negatively) against those controversial policies of the government, the more likely those policies will be changed.
I had hoped (maybe still hoping) that if Trump's conversations were picked up in dragnet and he learned about it that he would want to publicize those to eventually end those kind of practices or at least force them inline with the law. Just like Rand Paul and the TSA (Rand Paul was always a critic of the TSA but after that spat he stepped up his efforts to reign in on the agency).
Let's be honest, more and more elected representatives and judges will come into contact with these policies and I would hope that many of them won't like it and begin the slow churn of changes in government.
I would say he was elected on: "What have you got to lose?" The anti-Obama rhetoric had been around in the GOP for some time so expecting a GOP candidate to not give what the GOP wanted sounds... dumb. And let's be honest, Hillary wasn't popular (or liked is a better word) with democrats. She was a terrible candidate with a terrible candidate and a terrible message. It was about her. Trump, "what have you got to lose?" implies some hope instead of pure narcissism. Not that Trump isn't narcissistic as well but Clinton's campaign "I'm with Her" takes the cake of narcissistic campaigns in 2016.
I won't doubt that locals were doing a poor job of managing school lunches but they are the ones that should control it. If it is an issue that you feel strongly about, going to each district and convince them of a better standard is the best approach instead of coming from the Federal government. Just like passing prohibition, it didn't start at the federal level. If the solution you have is best (or in this case menu) getting enough people to follow that will eventually lead to a national policy standard.
This is my main contention with anything from a top down perspective. People should be in charge of their government institutions for better or worse. Local institutions are closer to the people and should be managed by those people that are serviced by those institutions. Federal directives and standards should be the very last step to simplify interstate commerce and welfare, not the starting point. If you start at the federal level you will galvanize the topic and piss off half the people which will eventually lead to a repeal of that topic/idea/standard no matter how good it is.
Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.
Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years...It's not just a matter of money.
Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it. Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late. Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.
Why is it that SpaceX can do it and not NASA? Why is it that for nearly a decade the only constraint to getting to Mars was money but now it's different? Why is it that Trump parading what Musk is basically trying to do is Trump being an idiot and not understanding the challenges? Does that mean Musk doesn't understand the challenges for such an aggressive timeline?
Are you suggesting that a University should give speaking venues to Flat Earthers on the same basis as astrophysicists?
As in teaching a class toward a major in 'flat earthery', no. As in hosting a flat earther speaker, yes. Are a flat earthers ideas so dangerous as to poison anyone to hear it?
People who want to establish a monarchy on the same basis as people who want to deal inside a republic?
Again, hosting a speaker, yes. You can do something like the Thomas Paine Society that debates the virtues of Republic on one side and the virtues of a Monarchy on the other.
The problem with allowing any idiot a reasonably prestigious pulpit is that there are so many idiots out there, and lots of them like to talk
Of course and this is really the issue for brick and mortar places like a university or with physical constraints like a news paper. But online there are no constraints and each idea must be able to stand on its merits and endure criticism.
Agreed on the difficulty but we also know a lot more and as you say better technology. Honestly, i think its just a funding issue to achieve that kind of aggressive deadline. I don't think that it will be funded but that aside. It is very much possible to make it a reality without taking on much increased risk.
As for emotions, you sound like you are some sort of snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump.
So, when someone says: "Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now" and I correct their timeline and wonder how that is different from another president that made a similar goal... That means I am a snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump? top kek.
At least someone else mentioned the space race as to why Kennedy wasn't stupid for doing but even then that doesn't excuse the claim that trump is an idiot for making nearly the same kind of goal. It wasn't even a goal just a quib a question to an astronaut in a publicity stunt for nerds like you and me to discuss and to get excited about (How is the possibility of getting to Mars sooner not exciting!!!!! WTF is wrong with you). Probably to get a feel for what would excite the electorate on a project like that because everything is money in politics. Yet somehow, he is an idiot for talking about something that should get us nerds excited because... Trump. I don't understand. I really don't.
The only limit to getting to Mars in 4-8 years is money (in politics that is everything) which a lot of people in NASA and the industry have been saying for some time. Yet, now it's different because Trump brought it up. WHY? Hell, the reason the Mars missions were pushed to the 2030's was because of funding!
What I get from you is this: "No.. No.. It's totally different this time! You see Trump is stupid and ur stupid cuz u defend Trump! LOL u mad bro".... Quite the uh... "argument" you have.
He said it. Adorable or not that is what the timeline was. Were you saying adorable at the prospect of POTUS Trump? Is that still adorable?
Mostly a matter of money. So? Is he going to pay for it?
As with anything politics it is always about money. So, I think we both can agree that if somehow he pulled money from his ass (whether that was negotiation on budget increase for NASA either directly or by cutting elsewhere or through other means ) that we could get to Mars in 4-8. 4 being a stretch and not likely (though possible) but 8 at "the worst case" is definitely in the realm of possibility aside from the politics of funding.
As far as JWST, you do know the budget that was approved by Congress and signaled be singed by Trump gave NASA a funding boost? It seems, that aside from climate science, Trump likes NASA. I suspect that his dislike of climate science, aside from the ass-hattery denial, is also because of the regulation that comes with it that has a direct impact on people that may have voted for him. Just because he doesn't like some things doesn't mean he is going to kill everything science. He hasn't signaled any such motivations. From what I can tell, it seems that he is friendly to space operations and exploration.
And yet you ignore every single aspect of the times that destroys you argument.
Yes, put it in a video about you DESTROYING penandpaper. So far it has been because War, budget (cuts to auxiliary programs), Trump is egotistical and it's only 4 years. Sorry if I don't find those convincing or truthful. Aside from the Space Race argument the others are weak to me but even that doesn't take into account that Kennedy didn't have the infrastructure or industry starting on that goal while Trump does have that behind him so it becomes an entirely budgetary decision.
So, the other argument about budgets and cuts when talking about a purely budgetary thing is dumb because it's possible to continue funding those auxiliary programs by that new directive to "get your ass to mars". Saying "but but Trump is cutting science funding for auxiliary programs that would make that mission possible" is a stupid argument because the budget of any mission might include that. Any other scientific program funding cut is what I was alluding to in my last point...
That doesn't even being to address: there is a difference between a POTUS saying something and doing something. Also it's 4-8 years not 4. There is a difference.
Pwn me more. I don't care but don't blame me for not being convinced of your "but Trump is bad"..."Did you guys know Trump sux!!!111!!".
So what you are saying you want to replace an agency that does something today with a private organization that does not exist today? And yet you want to get to Mars in 4 years time. Good luck with that. Privatization doesn't solve this problem; it just moves the problem somewhere else.
Did I miss the fact that NASA was trying to get out of LEO for the last few number of years? Or was Trump being dumb again and directing NASA before taking office and NASA listened? Where have you been? -.-
Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion.
You brought up funding to science and Trumps possible cuts to various science institutions including NASA. Either those budgetary concerns are relevant to the conversation or not. Pick one. This is getting tedious.
You are the some that seems so sensitive when anyone points out the flaws in your arguments.
You like projecting? I get annoyed with tedious arguments and you are being tedious.
It is the point because those are the times we live in. Different times for different challenges.
NASA has the expertise when it comes to launch systems
If that is outsourced to private industry then that point becomes moot. Again, all I said was potential overlap. You are projecting what I say.
And what part of NASA funding was used for that journal? I see no mention or link to NASA itself. I see no personnell attached to NASA.
Missing the point much?
So your sample size of one paper is being used to slander all of science even though you have yet to demonstrate how that 1 paper is related to anything that NASA does. Statistically you do know that a sample size of 1 does not represent much, do you?
I am not slandering science by calling out political crap masqueraded as science. That paper is harming science and there are more like it. Those papers cost millions in dollars. If you want science funded by tax money then you best be damn sure that those funds aren't being used for political crap that will piss off half the electorate because eventually someone will make it to power and use a blunt hammer to fix problem no matter how loud you bitch or how long you march.
Calm down and stop chasing the boogeyman you built up in your head. Two sides can be right and two sides are required to make a coin. If you think it is unfair to one side try being on the other and try to understand their perspective.
That has pretty much described his whole presidency and campaign so far. For example, his unfounded claims that Obama "wiretapped" him. His desire to "break-up" the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him. His insistence that crime is "the highest it's been in decades". I could go on and on about factually untrue things he says all the time. His policies have been reflective of his desire to tilt against windmills of his own mind.
Your conflating stating something (whether true, partially true, or not is irrelevant) and doing something. Stating something requires only him. Doing something does not.
He just wants a bullet point that he "repealed and replaced" Obamacare. With something. It doesn't matter to him that it might be exactly the same thing.
He did promise he would do that bullet point... The details are being worked out... What's the problem? You are saying that him trying to keep a promise and negotiating the details doesn't matter to him? How do you know? By his actions? Are you in his head? I don't think he personally cares but I also think that politicians that do care are few and far between. So what? Is he trying to fulfill is promise? It looks like it and he still has 3 years (or at least 1 til the midterms) to try.
him being one of the people that is actively sabotaging that effort is the problem.
I don't think bringing it up as an idea is sabotaging going to Mars. Calm your tits, their flappin' again.
As far as 100 days, i don't really care about it. I only mention it because that is the time frame that has passed. Again. I don't see the issue. You sound very partisan and very bitter. Give your tits a rest... They must be soar from flappin' so much.
4-8 years. Also, Kennedy started at square 1. We are further along by already having a heavy rocket and space industry and infrastructure. False equivalence.
Has he given any indication to disrupt James Webb or are you just projecting every possible worst case scenario to any and everything?
Farnsworth: Well, as a man enters his 18th decade, he thinks back on the mistakes he's made in life. Amy: Like the heaps of dead monkeys? Farnsworth: Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies? I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions). As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this??? When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.
Do you expect Trump to do all those things without any input to anyone else besides himself? For example, the Trumpcare. Whatever failure you want to call it for not being voted on from what I understand they are negotiating with the ardent conservative Congresscritters to get more support. IOW compromising. Isn't that a good thing and how it is supposed to work between the Congress and POTUS?
With all of those things (save military) he can't do those things alone.... whats the problem? I don't understand what your issue is. How is that different than any other president saying any other opinion on any other topic? Sheesh. It's almost as if you don't care what it is if it comes from Trump == bad. Stop it. It's annoying.
the will and skill to pursue that one idea, then I might take it serious. But the man's cranial capacity seems to be limited to what fits in a single twitter message, and as soon as the next idea comes up, the previous one is just pushed out the back door and abandoned.
It's been 100 days... What do you expect to happen? You have at the very least 3 more years of the guy. Have some patience and then make your judgement... Jeeze. Did you wait 100 days and think: "oh Obamacare didn't pass yet, therefore OBAMA IS A FAILURE AND I HATE EVERYTHING HE DOES NOW".
Calm your tits cuz they are flappin' worse than a bird migration.
So, a legacy is for the ego to live on in the future for the egotistical? Got it. Don't see much difference but okay. "I want something because me" v. "I want something because me to be remembered".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't feel one way or another about Obama's rules tbh. I do understand the sentiment behind their repeal and I generally err on the side of states rights over the federal government for most issues. Yes, I agree that local governments have failed on this issue but the way those fixes from the federal government being pushed foster resentment and blow back, rightly or wrongly. I don't think Trump is doing this purely to spite Obama nor is it done in a vacuum. It is because this has been echoed in the GOP that gets their voters mad (whether that translates to votes or not I don't know). It's that whole "electing someone to smash the federal bureaucracy that makes their life hard".
If you pay taxes toward the federal government you want the benefits. It would be nice to only pay taxes for programs you want but it doesn't work that way. So yes, states want their cake and to eat it but again part of the issue is that there are other laws that force expenditures on local governments that put them between a rock and a hard place. They are free to choose what fatty foods they feed kids in as much an extortionee is free to not accept protection from the extortionist.
I think the discussion of states rights is part of the issue at hand because it is about what role the federal government has and what the responsibility is for the local governments. I wouldn't think that something as simple and as well understood as nutrition would be controversial but it is because of how it has been enacted.
I have no idea what your point is or why you are rambling. It is obvious you are very bitter over the election.
Get over it.
What are you on about? Are you really this bitter over the election?
You DON'T think Trump is going to pay for a Mars mission.
He started a conversation about it. I have no idea what Trump will do. Even if he did support it I don't think Congress will go for it. There is no spin. Congress controls the purse. Trump wanting a budget doesn't mean he gets it. He has to convince people. How do you convince people? One way is to get people excited and to show lawmakers that excitement. You know... POLITICS.
So what's the point of telling an astronaut to "hurry it up"?
To get people talking about Mars. To get an idea of what would excite the electorate. To play with peoples minds. To keep opponents on their toes. To show support for NASA. Good god are you really this inept on publicity? Whatever you think of Trump he knows the media and he knows how to play the media. He has been in the media for some time with various successes and ran a successful presidential campaign against a better funded and more qualified opponent. Obviously he is doing something right with the media. Just because you are too bitter to see any silver lining doesn't mean the world is as shitty as your outlook and attitude.
And states should be able to choose to have slaves and / or treat minorities in a descriminatory fashion too, right?
So, because states violated personal liberties we shouldn't want states rights? Because the federal government has never abused individual liberty... -.- Which government is easier to change for people? The federal or local? This is a dumb argument and you know it. We are not ruled by the past and with power comes the ability to infringe on individual liberty. The feds do it just like the states.
There's a lot of people clamoring for repeal of the thirteenth ammendment, yeah?
I haven't seen any of them and obviously it wouldn't be enough to do... So unless you should me that there are enough people that this is a threat I think it is a bullshit statement.
The starting point was in fact local control which has shown itself to be almost a complete failure
For better or worse. Yes, I agree with you that they have done a horrible job but it is their job to fix. If you think that it is a problem that is an issue and you want to solve it you should convince the districts to be better.
they just couldnt do it with federal money.
And we are seeing that kind of action from the federal government challenged by cities that do not want to help the feds on immigration. Do you think that those cities are filing frivolous lawsuits? Many localities did reject federal funds but one issue is that the Department of Education still enforces very costly laws on those municipalities. You are forced, by federal law, to spend X money for Y reason and oh by the way if you don't like all our "optional" directives we can cut funding which can bankrupt the school. This is why people do not like the federal government messing with education.
Yes, childhood obesity is a problem and the schools share that blame but if you want to see real change that people can rally behind you don't do it from a top down federal initiative. You start at the local municipalities and change the people and not force them to change. Else you get those people pissed that elect people to smash your federal bureaucracy that is making their lives hard.
But are you seriously arguing that Trump's complete and total inconsistency is just like any other President?
Yes. The man has been in media for sometime and obviously he understands it by running successful media endeavors and a successful presidential campaign against a better funded and more experienced opponent. Obviously, there is method to his madness even if you or CNN don't understand it. His "inconsistency" I think is part of that method and I think many of his ardent supporters rationalize it to "deal making" or some other favorable trait that they admire even if they don't agree with the way it is done or the outcome.
It isn't right or wrong it is just different.
Which kind of brings up an interesting point and another parallel. Just like when Rand Paul had a spat with the TSA, when our elected leaders start brushing up (negatively) against those controversial policies of the government, the more likely those policies will be changed.
I had hoped (maybe still hoping) that if Trump's conversations were picked up in dragnet and he learned about it that he would want to publicize those to eventually end those kind of practices or at least force them inline with the law. Just like Rand Paul and the TSA (Rand Paul was always a critic of the TSA but after that spat he stepped up his efforts to reign in on the agency).
Let's be honest, more and more elected representatives and judges will come into contact with these policies and I would hope that many of them won't like it and begin the slow churn of changes in government.
I would say he was elected on: "What have you got to lose?" The anti-Obama rhetoric had been around in the GOP for some time so expecting a GOP candidate to not give what the GOP wanted sounds... dumb. And let's be honest, Hillary wasn't popular (or liked is a better word) with democrats. She was a terrible candidate with a terrible candidate and a terrible message. It was about her. Trump, "what have you got to lose?" implies some hope instead of pure narcissism. Not that Trump isn't narcissistic as well but Clinton's campaign "I'm with Her" takes the cake of narcissistic campaigns in 2016.
I won't doubt that locals were doing a poor job of managing school lunches but they are the ones that should control it. If it is an issue that you feel strongly about, going to each district and convince them of a better standard is the best approach instead of coming from the Federal government. Just like passing prohibition, it didn't start at the federal level. If the solution you have is best (or in this case menu) getting enough people to follow that will eventually lead to a national policy standard.
This is my main contention with anything from a top down perspective. People should be in charge of their government institutions for better or worse. Local institutions are closer to the people and should be managed by those people that are serviced by those institutions. Federal directives and standards should be the very last step to simplify interstate commerce and welfare, not the starting point. If you start at the federal level you will galvanize the topic and piss off half the people which will eventually lead to a repeal of that topic/idea/standard no matter how good it is.
Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.
Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years...It's not just a matter of money.
Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it. Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late. Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.
Why is it that SpaceX can do it and not NASA? Why is it that for nearly a decade the only constraint to getting to Mars was money but now it's different? Why is it that Trump parading what Musk is basically trying to do is Trump being an idiot and not understanding the challenges? Does that mean Musk doesn't understand the challenges for such an aggressive timeline?
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
https://www.extremetech.com/ex...
Have you only recently followed news about space and Mars because your obsessed hatred of Trump?
Are you suggesting that a University should give speaking venues to Flat Earthers on the same basis as astrophysicists?
As in teaching a class toward a major in 'flat earthery', no. As in hosting a flat earther speaker, yes. Are a flat earthers ideas so dangerous as to poison anyone to hear it?
People who want to establish a monarchy on the same basis as people who want to deal inside a republic?
Again, hosting a speaker, yes. You can do something like the Thomas Paine Society that debates the virtues of Republic on one side and the virtues of a Monarchy on the other.
The problem with allowing any idiot a reasonably prestigious pulpit is that there are so many idiots out there, and lots of them like to talk
Of course and this is really the issue for brick and mortar places like a university or with physical constraints like a news paper. But online there are no constraints and each idea must be able to stand on its merits and endure criticism.
Agreed on the difficulty but we also know a lot more and as you say better technology. Honestly, i think its just a funding issue to achieve that kind of aggressive deadline. I don't think that it will be funded but that aside. It is very much possible to make it a reality without taking on much increased risk.
Yes. Very adorable like Clinton 90% chance of winning.
Anyway, I think that if Congress were to agree on funding in 4-8 years a manned mission to Mars is possible.
As for emotions, you sound like you are some sort of snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump.
So, when someone says: "Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now" and I correct their timeline and wonder how that is different from another president that made a similar goal... That means I am a snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump? top kek.
At least someone else mentioned the space race as to why Kennedy wasn't stupid for doing but even then that doesn't excuse the claim that trump is an idiot for making nearly the same kind of goal. It wasn't even a goal just a quib a question to an astronaut in a publicity stunt for nerds like you and me to discuss and to get excited about (How is the possibility of getting to Mars sooner not exciting!!!!! WTF is wrong with you). Probably to get a feel for what would excite the electorate on a project like that because everything is money in politics. Yet somehow, he is an idiot for talking about something that should get us nerds excited because... Trump. I don't understand. I really don't.
The only limit to getting to Mars in 4-8 years is money (in politics that is everything) which a lot of people in NASA and the industry have been saying for some time. Yet, now it's different because Trump brought it up. WHY? Hell, the reason the Mars missions were pushed to the 2030's was because of funding!
What I get from you is this: "No.. No.. It's totally different this time! You see Trump is stupid and ur stupid cuz u defend Trump! LOL u mad bro".... Quite the uh... "argument" you have.
Everything old is new and everything new is old.
8 years. Adorable.
He said it. Adorable or not that is what the timeline was. Were you saying adorable at the prospect of POTUS Trump? Is that still adorable?
Mostly a matter of money. So? Is he going to pay for it?
As with anything politics it is always about money. So, I think we both can agree that if somehow he pulled money from his ass (whether that was negotiation on budget increase for NASA either directly or by cutting elsewhere or through other means ) that we could get to Mars in 4-8. 4 being a stretch and not likely (though possible) but 8 at "the worst case" is definitely in the realm of possibility aside from the politics of funding.
As far as JWST, you do know the budget that was approved by Congress and signaled be singed by Trump gave NASA a funding boost? It seems, that aside from climate science, Trump likes NASA. I suspect that his dislike of climate science, aside from the ass-hattery denial, is also because of the regulation that comes with it that has a direct impact on people that may have voted for him. Just because he doesn't like some things doesn't mean he is going to kill everything science. He hasn't signaled any such motivations. From what I can tell, it seems that he is friendly to space operations and exploration.
The current record for instrument package survival under Venerian conditions is what? Two hours and seven minutes I think.
I guess not as bad as L.A. although vog instead of smog?
And yet you ignore every single aspect of the times that destroys you argument.
Yes, put it in a video about you DESTROYING penandpaper. So far it has been because War, budget (cuts to auxiliary programs), Trump is egotistical and it's only 4 years. Sorry if I don't find those convincing or truthful. Aside from the Space Race argument the others are weak to me but even that doesn't take into account that Kennedy didn't have the infrastructure or industry starting on that goal while Trump does have that behind him so it becomes an entirely budgetary decision.
So, the other argument about budgets and cuts when talking about a purely budgetary thing is dumb because it's possible to continue funding those auxiliary programs by that new directive to "get your ass to mars". Saying "but but Trump is cutting science funding for auxiliary programs that would make that mission possible" is a stupid argument because the budget of any mission might include that. Any other scientific program funding cut is what I was alluding to in my last point...
That doesn't even being to address: there is a difference between a POTUS saying something and doing something. Also it's 4-8 years not 4. There is a difference.
Pwn me more. I don't care but don't blame me for not being convinced of your "but Trump is bad"..."Did you guys know Trump sux!!!111!!".
So what you are saying you want to replace an agency that does something today with a private organization that does not exist today? And yet you want to get to Mars in 4 years time. Good luck with that. Privatization doesn't solve this problem; it just moves the problem somewhere else.
Did I miss the fact that NASA was trying to get out of LEO for the last few number of years? Or was Trump being dumb again and directing NASA before taking office and NASA listened? Where have you been? -.-
Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion.
You brought up funding to science and Trumps possible cuts to various science institutions including NASA. Either those budgetary concerns are relevant to the conversation or not. Pick one. This is getting tedious.
You are the some that seems so sensitive when anyone points out the flaws in your arguments.
You like projecting? I get annoyed with tedious arguments and you are being tedious.
It is the point because those are the times we live in. Different times for different challenges.
NASA has the expertise when it comes to launch systems
If that is outsourced to private industry then that point becomes moot. Again, all I said was potential overlap. You are projecting what I say.
And what part of NASA funding was used for that journal? I see no mention or link to NASA itself. I see no personnell attached to NASA.
Missing the point much?
So your sample size of one paper is being used to slander all of science even though you have yet to demonstrate how that 1 paper is related to anything that NASA does. Statistically you do know that a sample size of 1 does not represent much, do you?
I am not slandering science by calling out political crap masqueraded as science. That paper is harming science and there are more like it. Those papers cost millions in dollars. If you want science funded by tax money then you best be damn sure that those funds aren't being used for political crap that will piss off half the electorate because eventually someone will make it to power and use a blunt hammer to fix problem no matter how loud you bitch or how long you march.
Calm down and stop chasing the boogeyman you built up in your head. Two sides can be right and two sides are required to make a coin. If you think it is unfair to one side try being on the other and try to understand their perspective.
See, you are well on your way to get that football twenty kilometers with your catap... contraption. ^_^
That has pretty much described his whole presidency and campaign so far. For example, his unfounded claims that Obama "wiretapped" him. His desire to "break-up" the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him. His insistence that crime is "the highest it's been in decades". I could go on and on about factually untrue things he says all the time. His policies have been reflective of his desire to tilt against windmills of his own mind.
Your conflating stating something (whether true, partially true, or not is irrelevant) and doing something. Stating something requires only him. Doing something does not.
He just wants a bullet point that he "repealed and replaced" Obamacare. With something. It doesn't matter to him that it might be exactly the same thing.
He did promise he would do that bullet point... The details are being worked out... What's the problem? You are saying that him trying to keep a promise and negotiating the details doesn't matter to him? How do you know? By his actions? Are you in his head? I don't think he personally cares but I also think that politicians that do care are few and far between. So what? Is he trying to fulfill is promise? It looks like it and he still has 3 years (or at least 1 til the midterms) to try.
him being one of the people that is actively sabotaging that effort is the problem.
I don't think bringing it up as an idea is sabotaging going to Mars. Calm your tits, their flappin' again.
As far as 100 days, i don't really care about it. I only mention it because that is the time frame that has passed. Again. I don't see the issue. You sound very partisan and very bitter. Give your tits a rest... They must be soar from flappin' so much.
4-8 years. Also, Kennedy started at square 1. We are further along by already having a heavy rocket and space industry and infrastructure. False equivalence.
Has he given any indication to disrupt James Webb or are you just projecting every possible worst case scenario to any and everything?
Farnsworth: Well, as a man enters his 18th decade, he thinks back on the mistakes he's made in life.
Amy: Like the heaps of dead monkeys?
Farnsworth: Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies? I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions). As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this??? When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.
Do you expect Trump to do all those things without any input to anyone else besides himself? For example, the Trumpcare. Whatever failure you want to call it for not being voted on from what I understand they are negotiating with the ardent conservative Congresscritters to get more support. IOW compromising. Isn't that a good thing and how it is supposed to work between the Congress and POTUS?
With all of those things (save military) he can't do those things alone.... whats the problem? I don't understand what your issue is. How is that different than any other president saying any other opinion on any other topic? Sheesh. It's almost as if you don't care what it is if it comes from Trump == bad. Stop it. It's annoying.
the will and skill to pursue that one idea, then I might take it serious. But the man's cranial capacity seems to be limited to what fits in a single twitter message, and as soon as the next idea comes up, the previous one is just pushed out the back door and abandoned.
It's been 100 days... What do you expect to happen? You have at the very least 3 more years of the guy. Have some patience and then make your judgement... Jeeze. Did you wait 100 days and think: "oh Obamacare didn't pass yet, therefore OBAMA IS A FAILURE AND I HATE EVERYTHING HE DOES NOW".
Calm your tits cuz they are flappin' worse than a bird migration.
So, a legacy is for the ego to live on in the future for the egotistical? Got it. Don't see much difference but okay. "I want something because me" v. "I want something because me to be remembered".
So, what you are saying is that Humans will be taking the robot jobs because planetary exploration was largely relegated to robots?
Ha! Take that AI. We'll take your jobs now.