Did I hear that right, 97% of NASA personnel have been fired???...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please tell me that is incorrect.
but what does that mean in reality? Are subsidiary employees of companies like Raytheon and Honeywell that work in NASA centers affected? And how long is this shutdown in reality going on? And what of currently 24/7 running space satellite missions that require non-stop employee presence?
This government plays this kind of bull shit every year , they are like two immature boys ( democrats and republican ) just to show that they can do, At the end they will give in and each will take credit . But it really shows how stupid older man are here .
Nobody is "fired" Let's put it this way, CIT is still operating Curiosity, so we can think of it as: NASA staff travel coordinator, furloughed; NASA mission operator, not furloughed. So the far more immediately vital NASA missions are also still operating.
That is false. The Republican Party started playing this kind of politics in the 90s, and has been encouraged by the results - it's been working for them and their backers. The danger to NASA is the loss of high value employees to other jobs, and here the Reaganomic trashing of the US economy works in the government's favor - the job market is not that good for satellite trackers and specialty programmers in odd lingos. But there will eventually - and sooner rather than later - be a brain drain in the various "non-essential" government agencies, which will further the Republican Party tactical goal of sabotaging government in general.
Why are you saying false since the 90 , and every year we hear the same scare tactics. How about if there would be law for every day the government stops take of each congressman and senator 10000.0 dollars . I would not be surprised if this BS would continue .
The recent years in which Congressional Republicans have used these tactics have been those in which the Republican Party faced a Dem President or Congress it (accurately: its backers) wished to destroy for Partisan advantage. So you didn't, for example, see these tactics employed during the W&Cheney "administration" to defund and thereby prevent the Iraq War.
This is the behavior of both parties. Obama created this atmosphere by choosing Rham Emanuel as his chief of staff and pushing through his health agenda without consulting the GOP. One representative actually stated that Emanuel screamed at him while they were both naked in a gym shower. They were playing Chicago style politics in Washington and this set the Partisan tone. Obama had to little experience to know better. He has been a terrible leader. You can look at Clinton to see how a moderate Democrat was able to work with both sides. The Republicans also have poor leadership and direction. Obama's belief against negotiations has only given TeA Party members that much more fuel. You never hear the media criticize Obama-- you only hear them report Robert Redford accusing the GOP of racism.
He needed a honest version of Rove? That consultation took place during the election campaign. That's the most unlikely reason, and pales in comparison to decades of Right Wing history, which sets the tone of all subsequent partisan politics in America. Unlike the typical Right Winger, he mastered the history of American oppression by mastering constitutional law. But how long does it take to realize the Right stink to high heaven? One encounter with fundamentalists at a Republican fundraiser should be malodorous enough to last a lifetime. That's the jacket Republicans started putting on him once he was received so warmly by voters and throngs world wide. They're just jealous that they can't produce a charismatic person who is also well educated and centered on the first principles of American idealism. Compare the idiots of Clinton's era with the Tea Party. Then look at how they were initiated by GW Bush. Look at all the pandering to fundamentalists, the relentless pursuit of a return to laissez faire, the endless chain of manufactured controversies and mean, stupid phobias, and by the time Obama gets to office, there is nothing left to work with. You can't create intelligence in mean stupid people simply by agreeing to work with them. That's so understated as to be a misrepresentation of recent American history. Refusing to negotiate with terrorists is a sign of strength, not a weakness. Besides, there is no negotiation. Congress simply wants to shut down the Executive Branch, by exploiting a loophole in the Constitution, and only because they are now implementing the repairs to laissez faire damage set in motion by the Bush-whackers. The Right Wing are the folks who have refused to compromise. Once voters made it clear they wanted Obama in part because of his health plan, the idiots on the Right should have ceased and desisted from attacking the will of the voters. Instead, they amped-up the kitty, threw fundamentalism into high gear and gained just enough House seats in the states that were notoriously of the fundamentalist Right Winger flavor. They are the ones who are intransigent. They simply have convinced folks like you to put away all of the history that contradicts your beliefs. I don't suppose you've ever taken a course in Journalism? This is a pretty vapid argument you're raising.
Agreed. He consulted them for MONTHS. Heck, he based it on Romney's Massachusetts plan. They refused to work with him despite his months of consulting them. They had every opportunity to work with him on the plan, and contributed exactly as much to the plan as they wanted to. Given that he just re-opened the government and got everything he wanted - that's a hard statement to support right now. He brought both sides together. When Clinton was president, all the republicans were claiming he was the most divisive president ever, he was a criminal, he should be impeached etc. In twenty years someone like you will be saying "Chelsea Clinton is a terrible president; she's the most divisive president ever. At least a moderate like Obama could work with both sides." ====================== Public Opinion Toward Tea Party Hits Low Point by Adam Wollner October 16, 2013 4:50 PM The Tea Party's standing with Americans is at its lowest point since the movement took shape in 2010, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday. The poll, conducted from Oct. 9-13, reports that nearly half (49 percent) of the public now view the Tea Party unfavorably, compared with 30 percent who view it favorably. Since February 2010, when Pew first began gauging opinion on the Tea Party, unfavorable views have nearly doubled, and the number of "very unfavorable" views has tripled. =========================== Clearly you have never watched FOX News! It's 24/7 Rage Against Obama.
Since Obama killed the spaceshuttle program, is NASA really justified? Maybe it is a waste of money. Other than to maintain some satellites, which could be done by a private company. National prestige doesn't mean what it used to any more, and there is no practical reason to perform experiments. Maybe we should gut NASA.
The space shuttle program was killed by Bush, and righteously so mind you, the space shuttle was a complete and utter failure! Bush instituted the constellation program, a program too ambitious for the modern fiscally restrained time and congress failed to funded it. Congress is technically killing NASA. But I personally blame Nixon, he started the space shuttle program and scrapped Apollo, if NASA had stayed with the Apollo hardware we would have been to Mars by now! That not my opinion mind you that Mich Griffin former head of NASA opinion: http://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_exp.html "Once again, a look at the budgetary history provides a sobering lesson for the future, a sobering view of “what might have been.” Let’s recycle to the early 1970s, a time of budgetary starvation for NASA, a time when we did not yet have the Space Shuttle, but did still have the Apollo systems – the Saturn I-B and Saturn V, the Apollo command/service modules (CSM), the lunar lander, and the Skylab system. All of these things were in existence in 1973, having been created in that seminal first 15 years of our agency’s history. Make no mistake; these systems were far from perfect. They were expensive to develop and expensive to operate. Our parents and grandparents, metaphorically speaking, did not really know quite what they were doing when they set out to accept President Kennedy’s challenge to go to the Moon. They learned as they went along. But what they eventually built worked, and worked well. And it could have kept working at a price we could afford. Let’s look at some recurring costs in dollars then and now. All costs include both hardware and mission operations, and are at the high end of the range of possibilities, because they take no advantage of stable rates of production. Fiscal 2000 costs are approximate, obtained by inflating programs in the aggregate, rather than tracking and inflating separate expenditures of real-year dollars. Element Real-Year $ M FY 2000 $ M Apollo CSM 50 160 Apollo Lunar Module 120 400 Apollo Lunar Mission 720 2400 Saturn I-B 35 120 Saturn V 325 1100 Skylab Cluster 275 925 Let’s assume that we had kept flying with the systems we had at the time, that we had continued to execute two manned Apollo lunar missions every year, as was done in 1971-72. This would have cost about $4.8 billion annually in Fiscal 2000 dollars. Further, let us assume that we had established a continuing program of space station activities in Earth orbit, built on the Apollo CSM, Saturn I-B, and Skylab systems. Four crew rotation launches per year, plus a new Skylab cluster every five years to augment or replace existing modules, would have cost about $1.5 billion/year. This entire program of six manned flights per year, two of them to the Moon, would have cost about $6.3 billion annually in Fiscal 2000 dollars. The average annual NASA budget in the 15 difficult years from 1974-88 was $10.5 billion; with 60% of it allocated to human spaceflight, there would have been sufficient funding to continue a stable program of lunar exploration as well as the development of Earth orbital infrastructure. I suggest that this would have been a better strategic alternative than the choices that were in fact made, almost 40 years ago. After a time, as NASA budgets once again improved, we would have begun to concentrate our lunar activity around an outpost, and we would have used cargo missions to emplace the outpost equipment. A modified Apollo Lunar Module descent stage, with extra fuel and cargo replacing the ascent stage, could have been used for the purpose. The Saturn V could deliver two such vehicles with a single launch. So, over time, we could have built up an early lunar outpost, or smaller ones at different places of interest. By the present day, using what we had with minimal modifications – and I will remind us all that the Soyuz systems of that era are still flying – we would have a vast store of experience and a significant amount of lunar infrastructure. When the civil space budget eventually improved, as it did, we would have been well positioned to begin development of a Mars mission. And in the meantime, without doubt, we would have continued to modify, refine, and incrementally improve the old Apollo designs, to the point where they would have provided greatly enhanced effectiveness by the present day. If we had done all this, we would be on Mars today, not writing about it as a subject for “the next 50 years.” We would have decades of experience operating long-duration space systems in Earth orbit, and similar decades of experience in exploring and learning to utilize the Moon. This essay on “the next 50 years” would be quite different than the one I am offering here. I think most of us will agree that it would have been a better one."
And if they hadn't scrapped the X-20 program for the Apollo program we'd have been to Mars by now . . . Truth is we could go to Mars in five years if we wanted to. We don't want to. That's the problem. It's not Apollo or the X-20 or the Constellation program cancellation or the Space Shuttle; it's that we don't care to spend the money to do it.
The new NASA space launch system. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vgtoDSRSE8w4CPImBxohdbw&bvm=bv.55139894,d.eWU Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh sure it just would cost hundreds of billions. Having stayed with Apollo would have saved the most money. Reusable space plane technology though was simply not developed enough at the time though.
The funny thing is, a capitalist society can still run and operate without a government. So it is really only government positions that are affected by the shutdown. Also, NASA already has or is working on autonomous systems so eventually NASA employees could spend several weeks or months on vacations without monitoring any of their spacecrafts or satellites.
Username, Troll stay on issue please. This is not the thread to take about capitalism verse goverment or political ideology in general. See I did not say a word about Nixon's or Bush's political beliefs, I spoke only of what they did working or failing, mainly failing, but that had nothing to do with their political beliefs.
