|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Nothing new here.
NASA's earth observing system has been under congressional pressure for 15 years. Only a small fraction of the ambitious program has been implemented or is likely to. Its kind of sad. Whatever side of the global warming debate one might be on, its difficult to evaluate the situation with weak data. NASA is not the only agency under environmental funding duress. NOAA, USGS , and Forest Service typically receive huge budget reduction every year in the White House budget, but congress restores part of them. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
rick++ wrote:
Nothing new here. NASA's earth observing system has been under congressional pressure for 15 years. Only a small fraction of the ambitious program has been implemented or is likely to. Its kind of sad. Whatever side of the global warming debate one might be on, its difficult to evaluate the situation with weak data. There is no weak data on global warming you ****ing freak. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Andy Resnick wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=7 I don't understand- you are surprised that a government agency is acting like a government agency? Or did you think NASA is, for some reason, different than every other government agency? How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that the administration believes should be (de-)funded. Hmmm ... let me think, I know ... they're ROCKET SCIENTISTS! Now, what other brilliant observations do you have for us asshole. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Thomas Lee Elifritz is the ****ing freak.
I'd guess rick forgot more than you know be the time he was 2 years old. Go hug a tree, get warm and fuzzy, then explain why the earth is only 1 deg c warmer, if greenhouse gasses have been elevating for 50 years? Don't have a clue, I know, but you think you have all the answers. All morons do. "Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... rick++ wrote: Nothing new here. NASA's earth observing system has been under congressional pressure for 15 years. Only a small fraction of the ambitious program has been implemented or is likely to. Its kind of sad. Whatever side of the global warming debate one might be on, its difficult to evaluate the situation with weak data. There is no weak data on global warming you ****ing freak. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Rock Brentwood wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off* the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying *on* it! Three down, only 6.5 billion more to go! http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off* the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying *on* it! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
greysky wrote:
Well, you should have read the mission statement that was only barely rejected: "You got money? We got rockets. Lets get together..." Or this one: "NASA - we used to have the Right Stuff, but now we just prostitute Our Stuff to wherever the money comes from." NASA: where every mission is a test flight risking the potential cost of catastrophic failure because ... there is no such thing as a free launch. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
SBC Yahoo wrote:
Go hug a tree, get warm and fuzzy, then explain why the earth is only 1 deg c warmer, if greenhouse gasses have been elevating for 50 years? Actually, it's more like 150 years, but I'll let that slide. Don't have a clue, I know, but you think you have all the answers. All morons do. Not into the science thing are you. Well, let's start with carbon flux : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle Check back later once you grok it. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
Ken Wood wrote:
jonathan wrote: "Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... The consolation prize here is that sometimes one has to hit bottom before they realize there's a problem. The political decisions by a few to steer Nasa away from environmental issues, especially the hot one of global warming, is a huge political mistake. NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid place to spend finite resources. But space development and space science in the vicinity of the Earth is a great application in which to spend finite resources in pursuit of Earth sciences, and robotic photo exploration of the moon and Mars and the moons of Mars and the asteroids, will keep the general public engaged and interested in the science on which their very lives depend. Once we have space in the vicinity of Earth sorted out, propulsion, launch, life support, etc, the exploration of the solar system is trivial. NASA definitely doesn't get it, but they are just following the fuhrer's orders. The decider decided, and if you want to keep your job, shut up. Further reading : http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=4 http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=5 http://cosmic.lifeform.org?p=6 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:
NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid place to spend finite resources. KW NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles. NOAA should be directed to research climate issues. Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate agency to analyze the data from it. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | News | 0 | January 28th 06 12:41 AM |
Space Calendar - May 26, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 26th 05 04:47 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | March 25th 05 03:46 PM |