NASA uses Photoshop. I thought so.

[widebody911]

Nice try. Those are Amish xmas lights

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

^^^^

That is so fake. Everyone knows this is what space looks like.

[Jim Richards]

Amish Xmas lights! Hahahaha!

I was completely FOS. This is actually turning out to be a pretty good thread. Thanks H n T!

[Crowbob]

I bet most of those pics are upside down, too!

If a light-years away nebula glows in the dark and there's nobody there to see it, is it still colorful?

[sammyg2]

Why would this surprise anyone? NASA started out as a scam, a cover up. it was invented as a way to get MORE defense money from congress for the cold war after congress (and the public) said no more.

So they invented NASA and Kennedy gave a rousing speech and the sheeples said OK and the CIA and the military got the money they needed to develop the ICBMs needed to blow up Russia.

After that work was done there wasn't really any need for NASA but they stuck around for a year or two to make it look legit.
Then they figured out that they may be able to keep this scam going, so the PR work started.
Ever since then they've worked really hard at scamming Joe Q. Public out of $18 billion a year, but doing things like photo-shopping and sensationalizing everything.

And the sheeples eat it up.

NASA has to pay the Russians to use the Russian rockets, and the sheeples still shell out the $18 or $19 billion.

If NASA took over the jerry Lewis telethon on labor day they'd break all records. They are much better at the con game than they are space exploration.

[tadd]

Sammy:
I do enjoy your responses, but on this you got my jaw on the desk . Maybe your tolling and if so, fair cop, Ya got me...but just incase you mean what you typed...

I get that $17 billion is 17 billion, but its freaking 0.5% of the total budget... and its science for heavens sake (get it heavens --> sky ---> NASA ).

Way I see it, the silent generation came home from WWII after seeing technology let them whup the Nazis and Japanese. So they as a generational group decided that spending societies money on things like basic research and public education was a good thing. The discoveries of the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s fueled the tech booms of the late 70s thru the 00s for private business.

Historically it is well shown that countries that invest well in basic research do well economically the following decade(s) after.

Even across all government research agencies the total is like $70 billion. NASA isn't even the biggest... Its dwarfed by NIH, but who would want to refuse research into curing illness. That would be stupid...



Just cause it really needs to be asked as a question, does the 2011 total cost of the F22 program of between $69 and $79 billion in 2012 money (for 183 planes) exceed the public service of one year of basic research (in 2013 money)?

Should all research be privately funded only? Cause it just aint going to happen. Yes, there were private research intuitions like PARC-Xerox and Bell labs when everyone was making money hand over fist, but their stuff was pretty narrowly focused foot paths when compared to the super highways of the federal research dollars. Ill give Elon Musk credit for spending his own cash (and others) on SpaceX, but he did get that cash from Zip2 and paypal. Both of which wouldn't exist without the basic research of distributed node communication systems from the government in the first place.

[Nostril Cheese]

Imagine if they found oil on Mars...

[Nostril Cheese]

Originally Posted by tadd

Just cause it really needs to be asked as a question, does the 2011 total cost of the F22 program of between $69 and $79 billion in 2012 money (for 183 planes) exceed the public service of one year of basic research (in 2013 money)?

Don't forget the F-35.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is fake.

[GH85Carrera]

The digital sensor in every cell phone and digital camera on the planet came from NASA research on how to capture photos from a space ship. They sure can't drop the film off at the local photomat.

They needed a way to capture an electronic image so the sensor was developed. Now pretty much everyone has one or more of them.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by tadd

Sammy:
I do enjoy your responses, but on this you got my jaw on the desk . Maybe your tolling and if so, fair cop, Ya got me...but just incase you mean what you typed...

I get that $17 billion is 17 billion, but its freaking 0.5% of the total budget... and its science for heavens sake (get it heavens --> sky ---> NASA ).

Way I see it, the silent generation came home from WWII after seeing technology let them whup the Nazis and Japanese. So they as a generational group decided that spending societies money on things like basic research and public education was a good thing. The discoveries of the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s fueled the tech booms of the late 70s thru the 00s for private business.

Historically it is well shown that countries that invest well in basic research do well economically the following decade(s) after.

Even across all government research agencies the total is like $70 billion. NASA isn't even the biggest... Its dwarfed by NIH, but who would want to refuse research into curing illness. That would be stupid...



Just cause it really needs to be asked as a question, does the 2011 total cost of the F22 program of between $69 and $79 billion in 2012 money (for 183 planes) exceed the public service of one year of basic research (in 2013 money)?

Should all research be privately funded only? Cause it just aint going to happen. Yes, there were private research intuitions like PARC-Xerox and Bell labs when everyone was making money hand over fist, but their stuff was pretty narrowly focused foot paths when compared to the super highways of the federal research dollars. Ill give Elon Musk credit for spending his own cash (and others) on SpaceX, but he did get that cash from Zip2 and paypal. Both of which wouldn't exist without the basic research of distributed node communication systems from the government in the first place.

I believe you MISSED the message. Back in the late 50's, we were already spending a great deal of money on the military.
But the military wanted MORE MONEY to fund the nuclear arms race. Mutually agreed destruction, etc.
It is true, it is well-documented.

The people of the US had just finished a world war and a Korean "police conflict" and were sick of war, sick of nukes, sick of duck and cover, the US people were not in the mood for more nuclear war.

ASK YOUR PARENTS, ASK SOME OF THE OLE FARTS HERE.

The military and the gubmint were really scared of the soviets and when they learned of sputnik, it meant something to them. it meant THAT THE SOVIETS HAD THE CAPABILITY TO HIT THE US WITH A NUKE!



It was never about the moon, it was about who could build the better ICBM, who could bomb each other better.
We used going to the moon as a smoke screen to sell to the people so they would pay for ICBM research and testing without knowing it.
My father and grandfather were both working at white sands missile range in the late 50's and early 60's. They watched it from the inside.

So lets go back to your other argument, the one about the $17 billion.

Talking about how much a fighter jet costs in comparison is asinine, because this is ON TOP OF THE MILITARY BUDGET!

IOW take all the money spent on military, good or not, and add the NASA budget. It is EXTRA!

They are spending money on military research and calling to something else. It is a lie.

If you don't mind, please show me in the U.S. Construction where the LAW OF THE LAND gives congress the power to take my money and spend it on "science research" as you call it. Show me where it says that is legal.
It isn't. It is illegal.

But if you called it MILITARY SPENDING, then it would be legal. Just not honest from a gubmint stand point.




TEN pallets stacked high with $100 bills equals one $billion.

[Nostril Cheese]

^^ clearly to scale.

[sammyg2]

In the immediate post-war era, the US and USSR both started rocket research programs based on the German wartime designs, especially the V-2. In the US, each branch of the military started its own programs, leading to considerable duplication of effort. In the USSR, rocket research was centrally organized, although several teams worked on different designs. Early designs from both countries were short-range missiles, like the V-2, but improvements quickly followed.


In the USSR early development was focused on missiles able to attack European targets. This changed in 1953 when Sergei Korolyov was directed to start development of a true ICBM able to deliver newly developed hydrogen bombs. Given steady funding throughout, the R-7 developed with some speed.
The first launch took place on 15 May 1957 and led to an unintended crash 400 km (250 mi) from the site. The first successful test followed on 21 August 1957; the R-7 flew over 6,000 km (3,700 mi) and became the world's first ICBM.[4] The first strategic-missile unit became operational on 9 February 1959 at Plesetsk in north-west Russia.[5]

It was the same R-7 launch vehicle that placed the first artificial satellite in space, Sputnik, on 4 October 1957. The first human spaceflight in history was accomplished on a derivative of R-7, Vostok, on 12 April 1961, by Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. A deeply modernized version of the R-7 is still used as the launch vehicle for the Soviet/Russian Soyuz spacecraft, marking more than 50 years of operational history of Sergei Korolyov's original rocket design.

The U.S. initiated ICBM research in 1946 with the RTV-A-2 Hiroc project. This was a three-stage effort with the ICBM development not starting until the third stage.

However, funding was cut after only three partially successful launches in 1948 of the second stage design, used to test variations on the V-2 design. With overwhelming air superiority and truly intercontinental bombers, the newly forming US Air Force did not take the problem of ICBM development seriously.

Things changed in 1953 with the Soviet testing of their first Thermonuclear weapon, but it was not until 1954 that the Atlas missile program was given the highest national priority.

The Atlas A first flew on 11 June 1957; the flight lasted only about 24 seconds before the rocket blew up. The first successful flight of an Atlas missile to full range occurred 28 November 1958.[6] The first armed version of the Atlas, the Atlas D, was declared operational in January 1959 at Vandenberg, although it had not yet flown. The first test flight was carried out on 9 July 1959,[7][8] and the missile was accepted for service on 1 September.

The R-7 and Atlas each required a large launch facility, making them vulnerable to attack, and could not be kept in a ready state. Failure rates were very high throughout the early years of ICBM technology. Human spaceflight programs (Vostok, Mercury, Voskhod, Gemini, etc.) served as a highly visible means of demonstrating confidence in reliability, with successes translating directly to national defense implications.

The US was well behind the Soviet Union in the Space Race, so U.S. President John F. Kennedy increased the stakes with the Apollo program, which used Saturn rocket technology that had been funded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Nostril Cheese

^^ clearly to scale.

Do you own calculator internet tough guy? Do the ****ing math.

[Nostril Cheese]

Why not read a few books on rocket development instead of posting stuff you find online?

[wdfifteen]

Tang

Without NASA there would be no Tang.

'Nuff said.

[Pazuzu]

Not photoshop-ed. Processed. Different. So very very different.

[Nostril Cheese]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Do you own calculator internet tough guy? Do the ****ing math.

Got one of these as a gift from an engineer who worked at NAA Seal Beach.



They built this..

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by Holger

They get sharpest images from far-far-far-away galaxies but cannot make a clear photo of objects in our solar system?

You left out your green text here? Or maybe you've never worked with a camera in your life. I know I'm too lazy to use green text here, but I try to put some emote to help make it obvious.

Color, requires a measurement of both amplitude, and wave length. It also represents a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation that may get obstructed when other bands do not.

It takes a lot less powerful equipment to do analysis of what materials are present that would give particular colors to areas, and color it in yourself. This is why early security cameras were black and white.

[tevake]

GPS navigation, comprehensive weather observation, Hubble space telescope, the international Space station, around the earth Sat.communication.
Just a few of the more large scale accomplishments of our efforts to understand more than is right around our town.

Cheers Richard

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Tang

Without NASA there would be no Tang.

'Nuff said.

And reason enough to scrap the whole agency, too.

I hate Tang. The orange liquidy stuff, not the other.