Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Senate approves NASA budget cut

By a 69 to 30 vote today, the U.S. Senate today approved legislation that would cut NASA's 2012 budget by $509 million, or 2.8 percent, to $17.9 billion.

The budget includes $500 million for development of commercial spacecraft and $3 billion for work on the giant Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule for deep space exploration missions.

It also includes $500 million for the James Webb Space Telescope, targeting a 2018 launch of the hugely over-budget successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said Monday during a visit to Kennedy Space Center that it was a "minor miracle" NASA's budget hadn't been cut more, and that the agency had fared well compared to many others.

The Senate bill must now be reconciled with a U.S. House version that proposes a deeper overal cut of $1.6 billion, to $16.8 billion. It includes only $312 million for commercial space vehicles and would kill the Webb project.

The 2012 fiscal year began Oct. 1, but the government has been operationg under a temporary budget that continues 2011 spending levels through Nov. 18.

The Senate vote today covered spending plans for multiple agencies in additon to NASA.

3 comments:

charioteer said...

Environmentally-speaking NASA's toxic rocketry program funding needs to be cut to ZERO!

Also, total lies concerning man able to survive going to Mars. It would take a wall of water enveloping the spacecraft at least several meters thick, to protect the occupants from deadly cosmic rays. http://news.discovery.com/space/mission-to-mars-health-risks-110718.html

Not to mention that it is an ongoing HEALTH HAZARD to anyone going into outer space. Why are we subjecting human beings to this madness? Oh yes, the "conquering of space, the final frontier" brainwashing of the 'baby boomers'...who are now in charge.
http://tinyurl.com/cm367ex

Doesn't it appear that all of NASA's posts are so glamorous and seeming well-intentioned? Think again. They have an agenda to militarize space with their warmongering technology, at the expense of our atmospheric envelope and all life that depends upon our 'ocean of air'.

At NASA's environmental cleanup page,
http://www.ssc.nasa.gov/environmental/cleanup/clean.html, it says, "We take full responsibility for any problems caused by past practices and ensuring the protection of the environment and the health of the surrounding community."

That's all well and good, now what about the ongoing SOLID ROCKET FUEL program? Is this present technology ensuring the protection of the environment?

Here is the censored TRUTH of how NASA really salutes its veterans:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/space-shuttles-and-rocket-launches-caused-1-billion-toxic-pollution

Float to space instead of rocketing there, and accomplish everything at a mere 25 miles altitude that was being done, 14X further, at 350 miles out.

Even the Space Station and Hubble Telescope would operate better at this altitude. Why? Because the highly toxic SOLID FUEL ROCKET BOOSTERS are left out of the equation.

Also, documentation of how Nazi turned into NASA, and still continues to wage war upon our environment.

What does HELEN CALDICOTT have to say about this ongoing insanity...endorsed by Obama?
http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html

stevehansell said...

charioteer as far as your 25 miles up thoughts the ISS couldn't even begin construction. By the time the first hardware went up or was AMAZINGLY "floated up" as you believe could actually be done, the hardware would come back down. I assume you think some giant helium balloon would be able to lift hundreds of tons of mass to 25 miles? You would be wrong unless the balloon was the size of Texas! You need zero/micro gravity with miles of margin and no atmosphere otherwise the drag and gravity at 25 miles would bring it all down the second the amazing float was cut free of the hardware, I pray there aren't people in that amazing Space Station you dream of floating over our heads! "Space" is roughly defined as occurring at an altitude of 62 miles but even that is still way too low. Some experiments can occur at 25 miles using high altitude balloons but not the ISS, very sorry. The answer to your environess is being seriously studied. The new boosters are called LRBs, liquid fueled(LOX/LH2) boosters which exactly like the Space Shuttle's Main Engines (SSME's)produce steam as their exhaust. But until the design is certified the newer five segment SRB will be utilized along with the remaining Space Shuttle's liquid fueled SSMEs.

stevehansell said...

charioteer as far as your 25 miles up thoughts, the ISS couldn't even begin construction. By the time the first hardware went up or was AMAZINGLY "floated up" as you believe could actually be done, the hardware would come back down. I assume you think some giant helium balloon would be able to lift hundreds of tons of mass to 25 miles? You would be wrong unless the balloon was the size of Texas! You need zero/micro gravity with miles of margin and no atmosphere otherwise the drag and gravity at 25 miles would bring it all down the second the amazing float was cut free of the hardware, I pray there aren't people in that amazing Space Station you dream of floating over our heads! "Space" is roughly defined as occurring at an altitude of 62 miles but even that is still way too low. Some experiments can occur at 25 miles using high altitude balloons but not the ISS, very sorry. The answer to your environess is being seriously studied. The new boosters are called LRBs, liquid fueled(LOX/LH2) boosters which exactly like the Space Shuttle's Main Engines (SSME's)produce steam as their exhaust. But until the design is certified the newer five segment SRB will be utilized along with the remaining Space Shuttle's liquid fueled SSMEs.