|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
Is NASA really going to start looking up again and not down???
11 October 2010 Last updated at 13:39 ET Share this page * Share Obama signs Nasa up to new future By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News Falcon 9 launch (AP) The legislation calls for funds to be allocated to the development of commercial crew launch services The US space agency (Nasa) has been given a new direction, one that will seek to put astronauts in orbit using privately run launch services. The change comes into effect with the signing by President Barack Obama of the Nasa Authorization Act 2010. The legislation, passed by Congress last week, mandates the agency to fly the space station until 2020 and to launch one extra shuttle next year. It also instructs Nasa to start work on a rocket for deep-space exploration. The president's signature on the act brings to an end eight months of fractious debate on Capitol Hill about the future course of the agency. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn... we ought to question whether we can build a rocket” End Quote Democratic Senator Bill Nelson Nasa's Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters: "Our nation's leaders have come together and endorsed a blueprint for Nasa, one that requires us to think and act boldly as we move our agency into the future. This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for Nasa to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery." The act will mark a sea change in the way Nasa does some of its business, particularly in the realm of human spaceflight. The legislation calls for $1.3bn to be allocated to the development of commercial crew services over the next three years. The money will seed private companies to design and build rockets and capsules capable of delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The legislation also signals a formal end to the Constellation programme begun under President George Bush that sought to return humans to the Moon with a new spaceship called Orion and two new rockets called Ares 1 and Ares 5. Some $9bn was spent on Constellation. Much of its technology and know- how will now be directed into an alternative rocket system big enough to launch a spaceship, or at least some of its elements, on missions that go far beyond the ISS. Atlantis shuttle (Nasa) Nasa will aim to fly one last shuttle to the space station, probably in June or July 2011 These ventures are likely to include asteroids and, eventually, Mars. Legislators want Nasa to receive $11.5bn over the next six years to have the new heavy-lift rocket ready for operation by 31 December 2016. Some critics of the legislation have questioned whether the funding being requested is sufficient for the task, but Florida Senator Bill Nelson who helped build bipartisan support for the legislation said it should be ample. "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn - if we can't do it for that then we ought to question whether we can build a rocket." The act authorises $19bn for Nasa in the federal year 2011, a significant increase on 2010. This would allow the agency to expand its activities in a number of areas, including in Earth observation where some missions have been allowed to run past their nominal lifetimes without replacements being ordered up in time to prevent data gaps. Lockheed Martin Work done on Constellation will now be directed into the new heavy-lift launch system "I think it's wonderful that we're now at this stage," commented Dr Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of a group of experts tasked by President Obama with reviewing human spaceflight policy when he came into office. "The extensive discussion of the president's budget and the deliberation of the elements of this bill I believe have resulted in legislation that will strengthen Nasa and the space programme." The $19bn is not completely guaranteed. The money still has to be allocated by congressional appropriators, but Senator Nelson said he thought wide support on Capitol Hill for Nasa would ensure its activities were not denied funding as a result of more general arguments over federal spending and the need to reduce the nation's deficit. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
On Oct 11, 11:05*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote: snip off-topic nonsense and add oil to the flames http://www.costofwar.com/ Nobody has lived up to Kyoto. It is vapour-ware. The new technologies and the countless real jobs which would have matched the empty promises given at Kyoto are going straight to China. The money which would have paid for home insulation and solar panels and affordable electric cars has gone straight into the fat banker's pockets. The rest has gone on defence of the indefensible. Conventional war is very low risk but gets all the media attention. While half a Holocaust die on the roads every year and it goes unmentioned. 9/11 was a minor flesh wound compared with annual road deaths and murders. Yet you expect the sympathy of the entire world for all eternity. Just like the Israelis playing on a seventy year-old war wound to run riot with other's human rights. Glance over the figures in this link and ask yourself what the cost to the US economy is in crime fighting, prison services, security, insurance, health care etc.: http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html Keep the people poor. Keep them too cold and too hot. Keep them in debt to wasteful, centralised, energy producers. Keep them without jobs. Keep them hopeless. Keep them fearfully patriotic and you can recruit as much cannon fodder as you will ever need to run an oil- based economy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
"Chris.B" wrote in message ... On Oct 11, 11:05 pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" wrote: snip off-topic nonsense and add oil to the flames Ok, done. Any other idiot drool I can snip for you? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
On Oct 11, 4:05*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote: Is NASA really going to start looking up again and not down??? *11 October 2010 Last updated at 13:39 ET Share this page * * * Share Obama signs Nasa up to new future By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News Falcon 9 launch (AP) The legislation calls for funds to be allocated to the development of commercial crew launch services The US space agency (Nasa) has been given a new direction, one that will seek to put astronauts in orbit using privately run launch services. The change comes into effect with the signing by President Barack Obama of the Nasa Authorization Act 2010. The legislation, passed by Congress last week, mandates the agency to fly the space station until 2020 and to launch one extra shuttle next year. It also instructs Nasa to start work on a rocket for deep-space exploration. The president's signature on the act brings to an end eight months of fractious debate on Capitol Hill about the future course of the agency. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote * * "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn... we ought to question whether we can build a rocket” End Quote Democratic Senator Bill Nelson Nasa's Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters: "Our nation's leaders have come together and endorsed a blueprint for Nasa, one that requires us to think and act boldly as we move our agency into the future. This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for Nasa to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery." The act will mark a sea change in the way Nasa does some of its business, particularly in the realm of human spaceflight. The legislation calls for $1.3bn to be allocated to the development of commercial crew services over the next three years. The money will seed private companies to design and build rockets and capsules capable of delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The legislation also signals a formal end to the Constellation programme begun under President George Bush that sought to return humans to the Moon with a new spaceship called Orion and two new rockets called Ares 1 and Ares 5. Some $9bn was spent on Constellation. Much of its technology and know- how will now be directed into an alternative rocket system big enough to launch a spaceship, or at least some of its elements, on missions that go far beyond the ISS. Atlantis shuttle (Nasa) Nasa will aim to fly one last shuttle to the space station, probably in June or July 2011 These ventures are likely to include asteroids and, eventually, Mars. Legislators want Nasa to receive $11.5bn over the next six years to have the new heavy-lift rocket ready for operation by 31 December 2016. Some critics of the legislation have questioned whether the funding being requested is sufficient for the task, but Florida Senator Bill Nelson who helped build bipartisan support for the legislation said it should be ample. "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn - if we can't do it for that then we ought to question whether we can build a rocket." The act authorises $19bn for Nasa in the federal year 2011, a significant increase on 2010. This would allow the agency to expand its activities in a number of areas, including in Earth observation where some missions have been allowed to run past their nominal lifetimes without replacements being ordered up in time to prevent data gaps. Lockheed Martin Work done on Constellation will now be directed into the new heavy-lift launch system "I think it's wonderful that we're now at this stage," commented Dr Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of a group of experts tasked by President Obama with reviewing human spaceflight policy when he came into office. "The extensive discussion of the president's budget and the deliberation of the elements of this bill I believe have resulted in legislation that will strengthen Nasa and the space programme." The $19bn is not completely guaranteed. The money still has to be allocated by congressional appropriators, but Senator Nelson said he thought wide support on Capitol Hill for Nasa would ensure its activities were not denied funding as a result of more general arguments over federal spending and the need to reduce the nation's deficit. Poor Rich! He is on Canadian welfare because he never learned to read or do simple math. From the NASA webpage, which you can down load NASA's budget (420990mainFY_201_Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf), you will find that the Earth Science budget rose from 1.3 billion in 2009 to the proposed 1.8 billion in 2011. Only personel and facilities has a higher dollar amount in the budget. So I guess NASA is still meeting it's charter and reason for existing. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
On Oct 12, 9:59*pm, "Androcles"
wrote: Ok, done. Any other idiot drool I can snip for you? Not really. Do you want to try some salt and vinegar muons? Flame fried with extra virgin, classical Greek oiliness. 100% guaranteed no slave's drool residues. I'm thinking of marketing them as Einstein's Crisps. [No relation] A sort of pseudo-upmarket, intellectual snob's snack with a slow, afterburner bite. :-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
On Oct 14, 12:51*am, "Androcles de Malwort" wrote:
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you. Well, it seems that even the profane paranoid has enemies. Frankly, old chap, you display remarkably poor skills at quoting for an ancient, Geek scholar. ;-) One can never be absolutely certain to whom you are being so rude. But that's entertainment, for you. :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
On Oct 14, 8:20*am, "Malwort von Androcles" scribbled furiously:
Scholarly Geeks are an oxymoron, grinagog. There! I knew you could do it with a little encouragement. One whole post without a single obscenity! One day at a time, Malwort! ;-) G. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
On Oct 14, 5:41*pm, "Androcles" @ alcoholicsanonymouse wrote:
"As you go through life, make this your goal: Keep your eye on the doughnut and not on the hole." Au contraire, my bijoux faux pas. The ambitious visual astronomer is always more interested in the light which passes through the hole than the light which impinges upon the whole. Except in the case of photography or imaging, where the light may be collected upon a sensitive surface in order to record the information hidden within the converging beam. I vaguely remember doughnuts being employed in some rather unusual "telescopes" which use grazing angles of incidence on the inner surface of a weakly, axial-cylindrical, mirror polished, focusing device. Used on orbiting satellite, imaging platforms for studying X-rays? It was shown in a magazine illustration probably some decades ago now. G.Pedant. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate?
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave wrote in
: On Oct 11, 4:05*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" wrote: Is NASA really going to start looking up again and not down??? *11 October 2010 Last updated at 13:39 ET Share this page * * * Share Obama signs Nasa up to new future By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News Falcon 9 launch (AP) The legislation calls for funds to be allocated to the development of commercial crew launch services The US space agency (Nasa) has been given a new direction, one that will seek to put astronauts in orbit using privately run launch services. The change comes into effect with the signing by President Barack Obama of the Nasa Authorization Act 2010. The legislation, passed by Congress last week, mandates the agency to fly the space station until 2020 and to launch one extra shuttle next year. It also instructs Nasa to start work on a rocket for deep-space exploration. The president's signature on the act brings to an end eight months of fractious debate on Capitol Hill about the future course of the agency. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote * * "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn... we ought to question whether we can build a rocket” End Quote Democratic Senator Bill Nelson Nasa's Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters: "Our nation's leaders have come together and endorsed a blueprint for Nasa, one that requires us to think and act boldly as we move our agency into the future. This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for Nasa to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery." The act will mark a sea change in the way Nasa does some of its business, particularly in the realm of human spaceflight. The legislation calls for $1.3bn to be allocated to the development of commercial crew services over the next three years. The money will seed private companies to design and build rockets and capsules capable of delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The legislation also signals a formal end to the Constellation programme begun under President George Bush that sought to return humans to the Moon with a new spaceship called Orion and two new rockets called Ares 1 and Ares 5. Some $9bn was spent on Constellation. Much of its technology and know- how will now be directed into an alternative rocket system big enough to launch a spaceship, or at least some of its elements, on missions that go far beyond the ISS. Atlantis shuttle (Nasa) Nasa will aim to fly one last shuttle to the space station, probably in June or July 2011 These ventures are likely to include asteroids and, eventually, Mars. Legislators want Nasa to receive $11.5bn over the next six years to have the new heavy-lift rocket ready for operation by 31 December 2016. Some critics of the legislation have questioned whether the funding being requested is sufficient for the task, but Florida Senator Bill Nelson who helped build bipartisan support for the legislation said it should be ample. "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn - if we can't do it for that then we ought to question whether we can build a rocket." The act authorises $19bn for Nasa in the federal year 2011, a significant increase on 2010. This would allow the agency to expand its activities in a number of areas, including in Earth observation where some missions have been allowed to run past their nominal lifetimes without replacements being ordered up in time to prevent data gaps. Lockheed Martin Work done on Constellation will now be directed into the new heavy-lift launch system "I think it's wonderful that we're now at this stage," commented Dr Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of a group of experts tasked by President Obama with reviewing human spaceflight policy when he came into office. "The extensive discussion of the president's budget and the deliberation of the elements of this bill I believe have resulted in legislation that will strengthen Nasa and the space programme." The $19bn is not completely guaranteed. The money still has to be allocated by congressional appropriators, but Senator Nelson said he thought wide support on Capitol Hill for Nasa would ensure its activities were not denied funding as a result of more general arguments over federal spending and the need to reduce the nation's deficit. Poor Rich! He is on Canadian welfare because he never learned to read or do simple math. From the NASA webpage, which you can down load NASA's budget (420990mainFY_201_Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf), you will find that the Earth Science budget rose from 1.3 billion in 2009 to the proposed 1.8 billion in 2011. Only personel and facilities has a higher dollar amount in the budget. So I guess NASA is still meeting it's charter and reason for existing. It's reason for existing? The originators of the program are spinning in their graves... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming and what you can do to against it | .. | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | February 4th 10 10:00 PM |
dinosaur extinction/global cooling &human extinction/global warming | 281979 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 17th 06 12:05 PM |
Solar warming v. Global warming | Roger Steer | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | October 20th 05 01:23 AM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |
CO2 and global warming | freddo411 | Astronomy Misc | 314 | October 20th 04 09:56 PM |