The Ozone Files Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Article: An Extraordinary Budget for NASA in 2016: Congressional omnibus would increase the space agency's budget by $1.3 billion After months of delay, Congress unveiled its plans for funding the federal government in 2016. Assuming this legislation passes into law without major modifications, NASA will fare extraordinarily well. The space agency is set to receive $19.3 billion—nearly $1.3 billion more than it did last year. This is the same top-line level we proposed back in October. I called it the "everybody wins" scenario. Prompted by a discussion on the front page of Reddit this morning, I shared this link on /r/houston. Seems relevant to Houstonians in general. Perhaps some positive news amidst the energy industry downturn. And perhaps a step closer to the vision of Johnson Space Center seen in The Martian. Also, for those unaware, Houston-area Congressmen have significant influence over this budget: Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the chair of the science and space subcommittee within the Senate commerce committee John Culberson (R-TX Houston) is the chair of the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS), and Related Agencies subcommittee within the Appropriations Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives Background links on these two on space and science funding: [1] [2] [3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intencity77 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Ignorant conservative politicians on a "science" committee? What a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Ignorant conservative politicians on a "science" committee? What a joke! Yeah, I guess gradutes from Princeton, Harvard, and SMU must be ignorant, right? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Yeah, I guess gradutes from Princeton, Harvard, and SMU must be ignorant, right? Right? It doesn't matter what their college degrees are in, they are both still pin heads when it comes to their opinions on all things "science". In fact I think I heard one of these knot heads reply that "he was not a scientist" when questioned about climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0123 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Yeah, I guess gradutes from Princeton, Harvard, and SMU must be ignorant, right? Right?Not all grads, but some are. It also means they could use their intelligence for evil means if that is their intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Not all grads, but some are. It also means they could use their intelligence for evil means if that is their intent. Perhaps. And some might apply that sentiment to other graduates of, say, Harvard who hold high political office. But to assume they're ignorant just because one doesn't agree with them is, well, ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Ok so back to the topic at hand...this is really great news, and for the flack Culberson gets on rail, his dedication to the Europa mission is impressive. Eric Berger did an interview with him about a year back about the Europa mission and he seemed determined to get a lander for the I itial launch. I'm really glad to see he kept to his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Ok so back to the topic at hand...this is really great news, and for the flack Culberson gets on rail, his dedication to the Europa mission is impressive. Eric Berger did an interview with him about a year back about the Europa mission and he seemed determined to get a lander for the I itial launch. I'm really glad to see he kept to his word. Agreed. If it passes, I wonder how much will end up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ozone Files Posted December 16, 2015 Author Share Posted December 16, 2015 Ok so back to the topic at hand...this is really great news, and for the flack Culberson gets on rail, his dedication to the Europa mission is impressive. Eric Berger did an interview with him about a year back about the Europa mission and he seemed determined to get a lander for the I itial launch. I'm really glad to see he kept to his word. Yep. The budget "provides $175 million for the new Europa mission and an additional $25 million for 'icy satellites surface technology' development. It directs NASA to develop a lander for Europa." From the LA Times article linked above (#3): NASA had left the mission, which involves fly-by scrutiny of one of Jupiter's four largest moons, out of its budget; the "cromnibus" funding bill passed late last year requires that it be funded, thanks to pressure from Culberson. ...Culberson: "That's in statute. Europa is the only mission it is illegal for NASA not to fly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 They are not the same thing. One can disagree with opinions on politics, but science is fact-based. To disagree with 95% of the world's scientists means you are, in fact, ignorant. Or, worse, in the pocket of those who wish to keep us uninformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 They are not the same thing. One can disagree with opinions on politics, but science is fact-based. To disagree with 95% of the world's scientists means you are, in fact, ignorant. Or, worse, in the pocket of those who wish to keep us uninformed. To think there is really consensus among 95% of the world's scientists is ignorant. And so, for that matter, is thinking that having a consensus of scientists means the discussion is over. There was once scientific consensus (a genuine consensus) that the sun revolved around the earth; there was once scientific consensus (a genuine consensus) that the earth was flat. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Comparing the wealth of knowledge of 2015 to Pre-Copernicus times is pretty hilarious if you think that's a defense against whatever it is we're arguing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Comparing the wealth of knowledge of 2015 to Pre-Copernicus times is pretty hilarious if you think that's a defense against whatever it is we're arguing about. Of course I was doing no such thing. I was just waving the caution flag on thinking that scientific consensus, even if there is such a thing, is (or should be) the end of the inquiry. There are of course many examples of scientific consensus that later proved untrue, including many post-Copernicus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 You're spinning the importance and magnificence of scientific progress though. Science is about putting up theories and testing them over and over even when we obtain the same results, but using the minimal chance that a theory is proven wrong as an argument against the science itself is wrong, and yes, ignorant.When your whole argument is essentially, "well we could prove it wrong sometime in the future, against all odds (where the common consensus comes into play, which is most certainly a real thing and is not pulled out of thin air) so we shouldn't take a claim, that has tremendous support and merit, as a truth because...there's a chance!!!!This is of course also ignoring the insanely more sophisticated and advanced tools of measurement that we posses to today than we did in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 You're spinning the importance and magnificence of scientific progress though. Science is about putting up theories and testing them over and over even when we obtain the same results, but using the minimal chance that a theory is proven wrong as an argument against the science itself is wrong, and yes, ignorant.When your whole argument is essentially, "well we could prove it wrong sometime in the future, against all odds (where the common consensus comes into play, which is most certainly a real thing and is not pulled out of thin air) so we shouldn't take a claim, that has tremendous support and merit, as a truth because...there's a chance!!!!This is of course also ignoring the insanely more sophisticated and advanced tools of measurement that we posses to today than we did in the past. All of that ignores the fact that there is not really anything like 97% consensus. See my earlier post. And you continue attempting to put words in my mouth. Please stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Besides the fact that I never spoke for you or put words in your mouth as that's a clear defense mechanism for when you don't yet have a fully formed argument....and setting aside your butchery of scientific understanding...Here's a link (hey I can post those too, to let other people argue for me!) from a website that sotes over 18 separate foundations and research groups, among others, that back up the claim.Except....this link is to a little know scientific research group known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration...you know, the guys who make those weird rockets to space and stuff. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 To think there is really consensus among 95% of the world's scientists is ignorant. And so, for that matter, is thinking that having a consensus of scientists means the discussion is over. There was once scientific consensus (a genuine consensus) that the sun revolved around the earth; there was once scientific consensus (a genuine consensus) that the earth was flat. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 You linked to a guy who runs The Heartland Institute. He's so toxic that even the Koch brothers have distanced themselves from him. He's a paid idiot who argues that second hand smoke isn't dangerous and that public schools need to be eradicated. The guy didn't even attend college much less major in a scientific field. But, if he's who you want to believe over credible scientists, then more power to you... but, that is ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.