A little math problem...

NPR's Moira Gunn shows why it's better to be a rocket scientist when
discussing math in a article about NASA's budget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moira-..._b_545061.html

"And why? Because the proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19
billion ... and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7
billion."

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102074.html
But other than that... :-D

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
NPR's Moira Gunn shows why it's better to be a rocket scientist when
discussing math in a article about NASA's budget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moira-..._b_545061.html

"And why? Because the proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19 billion
... and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7 billion."

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102074.html
But other than that... :-D

Pat

700 x 365.25 (days) = $255,675 billion a year - 13.5 times NASA's budget.
This might explain why Constellation was cancelled - just like Apollo with
the Vietnam War - it's the '70's, but 40 years later.

:-[

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
700 x 365.25 (days) = $255,675 billion a year - 13.5 times NASA's budget.
This might explain why Constellation was cancelled - just like Apollo with
the Vietnam War - it's the '70's, but 40 years later.

:-[

Not at all. Apollo was visible manifestation of the Cold War and was
conceived of to prove our technological superiority over the Soviet Union.
Note that funding for NASA fell quite dramatically even before the first
landing. There was never any clear indication that the funding levels seen
during the ramp-up of Apollo would be sustained.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
NPR's Moira Gunn shows why it's better to be a rocket scientist when
discussing math in a article about NASA's budget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moira-..._b_545061.html

"And why? Because the proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19 billion
... and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7 billion."

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102074.html
But other than that... :-D

Pat

700 x 365.25 (days) = $255,675 billion a year - 13.5 times NASA's budget.
This might explain why Constellation was cancelled - just like Apollo with
the Vietnam War - it's the '70's, but 40 years later.

Wars are very expensive. And this topic of prioritizing national budgets is
just another reason I go on and on about Space Solar Power. As SSP
could help get NASA more money now, and be a primary solution to
reducing future wars over diminishing natural resources. Such as oil
....for instance.

If anyone still thinks SSP is a pipe-dream economically, just
spend some time in the first three links. They say they
could have a gigawatt class satellite flying in five years
/without/ any NASA involvement.

What if they had it?

Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Space Energy Inc Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm

War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation

"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
will occur somewhere around 2037"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf















:-[

On 4/21/2010 5:14 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
NPR's Moira Gunn shows why it's better to be a rocket scientist when
discussing math in a article about NASA's budget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moira-..._b_545061.html


"And why? Because the proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19
billion ... and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7
billion."

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102074.html

But other than that... :-D

Pat

700 x 365.25 (days) = $255,675 billion a year - 13.5 times NASA's
budget. This might explain why Constellation was cancelled - just like
Apollo with the Vietnam War - it's the '70's, but 40 years later.

Even that $700 million figure is open to a lot of speculation; I've seen
other estimates as low as $250 million per day.
Whatever the true amount, it's a hell of a waste of money on something
that was FUBAR from day one.

Pat

On 21/04/2010 10:33 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
NPR's Moira Gunn shows why it's better to be a rocket scientist when
discussing math in a article about NASA's budget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moira-..._b_545061.html


"And why? Because the proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19
billion ... and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7
billion."

She probably meant metric dollars.

Sylvia.

On Apr 21, 6:33*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:

And what is being done in Iraq is a *necessity*, to keep al-Qaeda from
obtaining a staging area. Sending a man to Mars, while exciting, is a
luxury.

John Savard

On 22/04/2010 11:57 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:33 am, Pat wrote:

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:

And what is being done in Iraq is a *necessity*, to keep al-Qaeda from
obtaining a staging area. Sending a man to Mars, while exciting, is a
luxury.

John Savard

I'm not even sure it's exciting. Looks more like an excuse for building
hardware to me.

Sylvia.

On 4/21/2010 3:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/04/2010 10:33 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
NPR's Moira Gunn shows why it's better to be a rocket scientist when
discussing math in a article about NASA's budget:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moira-..._b_545061.html



"And why? Because the proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19
billion ... and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7
billion."

She probably meant metric dollars.

Either that, or she has some info on inflation that the rest of use
don't know about yet. ;-)
Anyway, NPR could obviosly use some proofreaders to catch stuff like this.

Pat

On 4/21/2010 5:57 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:33 am, Pat wrote:

The actual amount is $700 million, not $7 billion:

And what is being done in Iraq is a *necessity*, to keep al-Qaeda from
obtaining a staging area.

Kind of hate to tell you this, but that's already happened.
As long as Saddam was running the place he kept them away, but the chaos
following his fall made Iraq a great place for them to start operations,
and the fact we couldn't find any WMDs and killed so many Iraqis
invading the place gave them a recruiting tool that they could have only
dreamed of before we went muddling into the country.
Osama bin Laden did the 9/11 attacks to start a pan-Islamic jihad
against the west by having the west vastly overreact to a terrorist plot
with only a comparatively few people involved in it, so that all of
Islam would unite against the west.
We played into his hands perfectly, doing exactly what he expected,
although even he probably didn't think we would be dumb enough to invade
Afghanistan - a meat grinder that had already destroyed many an army,
and seems to be one of the traditional last stops for empires that are
about to start coming apart.

Pat