100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: unmaned russian spaceship falling back to earth | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Thu 04/30/15 01:11 PM
|
|
ALERT: Out of Control Russian Spacecraft is Falling to Earth
Out of control Russian spacecraft plunging back to Earth: Official reveals unmanned cargo craft has "started descending" Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015. It is now spinning out of control with "nowhere to go" except down The Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel, equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy ESA director Thomas Reiter: The spacecraft is 160 miles high and traveling at more than 16,000mph. That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres. Read more here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2015/apr/29/unmanned-russian-cargo-spacecraft-m-27m-falling-to-earth-live |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALERT: Out of Control Russian Spacecraft is Falling to Earth Out of control Russian spacecraft plunging back to Earth: Official reveals unmanned cargo craft has "started descending" Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015. It is now spinning out of control with "nowhere to go" except down The Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel, equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy ESA director Thomas Reiter: The spacecraft is 160 miles high and traveling at more than 16,000mph. That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres. Read more here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2015/apr/29/unmanned-russian-cargo-spacecraft-m-27m-falling-to-earth-live |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALERT: Out of Control Russian Spacecraft is Falling to Earth Out of control Russian spacecraft plunging back to Earth: Official reveals unmanned cargo craft has "started descending" Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015. It is now spinning out of control with "nowhere to go" except down The Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel, equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy ESA director Thomas Reiter: The spacecraft is 160 miles high and traveling at more than 16,000mph. That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres. Read more here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2015/apr/29/unmanned-russian-cargo-spacecraft-m-27m-falling-to-earth-live surprised that people haven't been killed yet with all the space junk falling on us... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALERT: Out of Control Russian Spacecraft is Falling to Earth Out of control Russian spacecraft plunging back to Earth: Official reveals unmanned cargo craft has "started descending" Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015. It is now spinning out of control with "nowhere to go" except down The Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel, equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy ESA director Thomas Reiter: The spacecraft is 160 miles high and traveling at more than 16,000mph. That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres. Read more here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2015/apr/29/unmanned-russian-cargo-spacecraft-m-27m-falling-to-earth-live surprised that people haven't been killed yet with all the space junk falling on us... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALERT: Out of Control Russian Spacecraft is Falling to Earth Out of control Russian spacecraft plunging back to Earth: Official reveals unmanned cargo craft has "started descending" Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015. It is now spinning out of control with "nowhere to go" except down The Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel, equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy ESA director Thomas Reiter: The spacecraft is 160 miles high and traveling at more than 16,000mph. That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres. Read more here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2015/apr/29/unmanned-russian-cargo-spacecraft-m-27m-falling-to-earth-live surprised that people haven't been killed yet with all the space junk falling on us... they keep putting more and more stuff up there with no way to remove any of it, so i would think so... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 04/30/15 02:46 PM
|
|
Makes you wonder how they get thru it! And the pic really only shows "near Earth orbit"  http://www.space.com/16518-space-junk.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
2OLD2MESSAROUND
on
Thu 04/30/15 03:28 PM
|
|
'60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what ’60 Minutes’ highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense — but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on ’60 Minutes’ comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martin‘s United Launch Alliance (“ULA”). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, that’s right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome!
Finders, keepers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what ’60 Minutes’ highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense — but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on ’60 Minutes’ comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martin‘s United Launch Alliance (“ULA”). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, that’s right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
2OLD2MESSAROUND
on
Thu 04/30/15 05:31 PM
|
|
'60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what '60 Minutes'� highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense -� but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on '�60 Minutes' comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martinâs United Launch Alliance (âULAâ). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, thatâs right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ 2old2 stated >>> Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. InvictusV stated >>> Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... I guess you were wanting me to supply the answer {weren't sure if you were just POKE'N at me or you really wanted an answer} sooo ... Obama: cut Constellation to pay for education By Jeff Foust on 2007 November 20 at 2:06 pm ET Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released today the education plan he would enact if elected. The full 15-page plan includes a variety of proposals, including reforming early education programs. The last section of the plan, titled “A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility” explains how he would pay for these initiatives. The passage of relevance here: “The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,” among other steps. According to MSNBC, Obama would leave in place $500 million/year for Constellation’s “manufacturing and technology base”, but would otherwise transfer the funding to the education effort. None of the campaign’s official statements or other media reports indicate any alternative measures the campaign would take to address what, on its face, would appear to be a five-year delay in the introduction of Ares 1, Orion, and the other main components of NASA’s current exploration architecture. (A potentially ironic item, depending on your opinion on the importance of Constellation: one other section of the Obama education plan is titled “Make Math and Science Education a National Priority”.) The Republican National Committee has criticized the move to delay Constellation, The Hill reports, quoting RNC spokesman Danny Diaz: “It is ironic that Barack Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.” Ya, it sucked and it really sucks when hard budget choices have to be made; the NCLB has cost this country ---  well, it's been a cluster since it's inception but that's an entire whole thread/topic on it's own merit! before my shadow comes rushing in here and flags me with a personal foul --- where are you Conrad  I personally wish the DOD didn't get the glut of our budget each & every year but my 'HOT LINE DOESN'T PHONE' doesn't ring! DAM IT... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what '60 Minutes'� highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense -� but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on '�60 Minutes' comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martinâs United Launch Alliance (âULAâ). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, thatâs right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ 2old2 stated >>> Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. InvictusV stated >>> Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... I guess you were wanting me to supply the answer {weren't sure if you were just POKE'N at me or you really wanted an answer} sooo ... Obama: cut Constellation to pay for education By Jeff Foust on 2007 November 20 at 2:06 pm ET Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released today the education plan he would enact if elected. The full 15-page plan includes a variety of proposals, including reforming early education programs. The last section of the plan, titled “A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility” explains how he would pay for these initiatives. The passage of relevance here: “The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,” among other steps. According to MSNBC, Obama would leave in place $500 million/year for Constellation’s “manufacturing and technology base”, but would otherwise transfer the funding to the education effort. None of the campaign’s official statements or other media reports indicate any alternative measures the campaign would take to address what, on its face, would appear to be a five-year delay in the introduction of Ares 1, Orion, and the other main components of NASA’s current exploration architecture. (A potentially ironic item, depending on your opinion on the importance of Constellation: one other section of the Obama education plan is titled “Make Math and Science Education a National Priority”.) The Republican National Committee has criticized the move to delay Constellation, The Hill reports, quoting RNC spokesman Danny Diaz: “It is ironic that Barack Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.” Ya, it sucked and it really sucks when hard budget choices have to be made; the NCLB has cost this country --- well, it's been a cluster since it's inception but that's an entire whole thread/topic on it's own merit! before my shadow comes rushing in here and flags me with a personal foul --- where are you Conrad I personally wish the DOD didn't get the glut of our budget each & every year but my 'HOT LINE DOESN'T PHONE' doesn't ring! DAM IT... well.... I obviously knew the answer. So you wish we weren't so dependent on Russia while attempting to blame republicans, but now that Obama's choice to cancel the Constellation program comes to light .... It's about the kids... HAHAHA... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
InvictusV stated >>> well.... I obviously knew the answer. So you wish we weren't so dependent on Russia while attempting to blame republicans, but now that Obama's choice to cancel the Constellation program comes to light .... It's about the kids... HAHAHA... Pray tell - where exactly did I mention the GOP - blame the GOP - type the GOP {and the voices that are whispering into your ear do not count} --- you really need to make an attempt to open your dialog to include people that don't think in only 2 party line structure --- it becomes really confining and conversation ending! LMAO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
InvictusV stated >>> well.... I obviously knew the answer. So you wish we weren't so dependent on Russia while attempting to blame republicans, but now that Obama's choice to cancel the Constellation program comes to light .... It's about the kids... HAHAHA... Pray tell - where exactly did I mention the GOP - blame the GOP - type the GOP {and the voices that are whispering into your ear do not count} --- you really need to make an attempt to open your dialog to include people that don't think in only 2 party line structure --- it becomes really confining and conversation ending! LMAO Dodge Duck Dip Dive and Dodge. I really don't care what party you support or don't support. This isn't a conversation. This is debating something you posted. You obviously have no answer besides this last reply which is what a 4th grader would come back with. did you eat the chalk susie? NO.... what is that chalk substance doing on your lip, susie? I don't know... Ralphie threw something at me, its his fault I ate the chalk... So you did eat the chalk? NO... Ralphie.... he .. he .. he ate the chalk... Is this where you are going? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: '60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what '��60 Minutes'�� highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense - but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on ’60 Minutes’ comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martin‘s United Launch Alliance (“ULA”). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, that’s right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. ***************** Then let me regurgitate what I had posted that seems to have got your tidy-whities all in a knot  I posted the '60'Minute partial article because it was pertinent to the discussion about the satellites and the comment that 'MightyMoe' made about 'hope they could maneuver out of the way of all that debris up there'; and then because of the problem with the supply shuttle failing and soon to fall back upon earth I mentioned my wish that we 'weren't dependent upon Russia for so much of our NASA equipment' yada-yada-yada you chimed in with >>> Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... I replied with >>> I guess you were wanting me to supply the answer {weren't sure if you were just POKE'N at me or you really wanted an answer} sooo ... PLUS THE LINK AND THE PARTIAL ARTICLE and then you posted You replied >>> well.... I obviously knew the answer. So you wish we weren't so dependent on Russia while attempting to blame republicans, but now that Obama's choice to cancel the Constellation program comes to light .... It's about the kids... HAHAHA... ************************************** And now you're just being uttering insulting and vile; if you have issues with the article the take it up with the author of the article --- I just used it for the source that YOU SEEMED IN NEED OF! Nothing more - throwing ad hominems into a discussion brings it right down into a grammar school **** fest...I'll with draw from this diatribe because you have zero point and just want to abuse and hack & attack! Not my circus - Not my monkeys; enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what ’60 Minutes’ highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense — but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on ’60 Minutes’ comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martin‘s United Launch Alliance (“ULA”). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, that’s right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... he also dropped NASA to a shell of what it used to be, and wanted the space program tp be international... and look what he got - ESA, Russia, China, Japan and India all went solo... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: '60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what '��60 Minutes'�� highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense - but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on ’60 Minutes’ comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martin‘s United Launch Alliance (“ULA”). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, that’s right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. ***************** Then let me regurgitate what I had posted that seems to have got your tidy-whities all in a knot I posted the '60'Minute partial article because it was pertinent to the discussion about the satellites and the comment that 'MightyMoe' made about 'hope they could maneuver out of the way of all that debris up there'; and then because of the problem with the supply shuttle failing and soon to fall back upon earth I mentioned my wish that we 'weren't dependent upon Russia for so much of our NASA equipment' yada-yada-yada you chimed in with >>> Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... I replied with >>> I guess you were wanting me to supply the answer {weren't sure if you were just POKE'N at me or you really wanted an answer} sooo ... PLUS THE LINK AND THE PARTIAL ARTICLE and then you posted You replied >>> well.... I obviously knew the answer. So you wish we weren't so dependent on Russia while attempting to blame republicans, but now that Obama's choice to cancel the Constellation program comes to light .... It's about the kids... HAHAHA... ************************************** And now you're just being uttering insulting and vile; if you have issues with the article the take it up with the author of the article --- I just used it for the source that YOU SEEMED IN NEED OF! Nothing more - throwing ad hominems into a discussion brings it right down into a grammar school **** fest...I'll with draw from this diatribe because you have zero point and just want to abuse and hack & attack! Not my circus - Not my monkeys; enjoy! Your first post had absolutely nothing to do with the original post. You chose to start it off with some copy and paste about a republican that wanted money for a pet project.. Like that is the first time in the history of Congress that has happened. I looked at the entire article and all you did was copy 2 small paragraphs that fit your overall agenda. Then you make this bold: And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, thats right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. And then you conclude with: I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. Clearly you were making the pet project funding look as if the republicans don't care about NASA or DOD having to use Russian built engines. They just care about pet projects. I countered with the fact that there was a program in place that would have created a US made vehicle that would have done those things you wish they had without having to use Russian made rocket engines. Then you come back with some copy and paste from when Obama was a candidate talking about taking the funding and putting towards education. So.. your little obfuscatory tactics really didn't amount to much of anything other than exposing your unwillingness to admit you have an agenda. Own up to it Susie, you have chalk on your lip... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: '60'Minutes this past Sunday > Simultaneously, the seapower subcommittee wrote its bill, with its chairman, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), adding more money than the Navy itself requested, funding the overhaul of an aircraft carrier, a three-year task estimated at $4 billion. Rep. Forbes comes, coincidentally, from the Hampton Roads area, home to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard that will perform the lucrative overhaul. With the chairman setting that example, what other members of Congress would see much reason to take a hard look at military spending so as to fund more worthy areas like what '��60 Minutes'�� highlighted? House Republicans do have a budget solution: take off the budget spending caps for defense - but not for domestic spending like food stamps. Furthermore, that is not the only relevant procurement scandal. The anti-satellite threat highlighted on ’60 Minutes’ comes both from China and Russia. Yet the U.S. space program is dependent for heavy lift rockets on a monopoly provider, Boeing and Lockheed Martin‘s United Launch Alliance (“ULA”). And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, that’s right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/26/behind-anti-satellite-threat-highlighted-by-60-minutes-are-u-s-defense-spending-scandals/ Not only are all those 'SATELLITES' not made to maneuver the amount of debris that is floating around in the proximity to ours & everyone else's became even more cluttered when China sent 2 missiles into deep space and shot one of their own satellites out and the other rocket traveled on into deeper space where our hidden military 'SPY IN SPACE' are sitting up there; supposedly beyond the range of anyone's missiles! REALLY BAD NEWS! I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. ***************** Then let me regurgitate what I had posted that seems to have got your tidy-whities all in a knot I posted the '60'Minute partial article because it was pertinent to the discussion about the satellites and the comment that 'MightyMoe' made about 'hope they could maneuver out of the way of all that debris up there'; and then because of the problem with the supply shuttle failing and soon to fall back upon earth I mentioned my wish that we 'weren't dependent upon Russia for so much of our NASA equipment' yada-yada-yada you chimed in with >>> Who decided to cut off the funding for the Constellation program and wanted private companies to provide the service to and from the space station? I guess he didn't get the memo that there were no private companies even close to providing manned flights... I replied with >>> I guess you were wanting me to supply the answer {weren't sure if you were just POKE'N at me or you really wanted an answer} sooo ... PLUS THE LINK AND THE PARTIAL ARTICLE and then you posted You replied >>> well.... I obviously knew the answer. So you wish we weren't so dependent on Russia while attempting to blame republicans, but now that Obama's choice to cancel the Constellation program comes to light .... It's about the kids... HAHAHA... ************************************** And now you're just being uttering insulting and vile; if you have issues with the article the take it up with the author of the article --- I just used it for the source that YOU SEEMED IN NEED OF! Nothing more - throwing ad hominems into a discussion brings it right down into a grammar school **** fest...I'll with draw from this diatribe because you have zero point and just want to abuse and hack & attack! Not my circus - Not my monkeys; enjoy! Your first post had absolutely nothing to do with the original post. You chose to start it off with some copy and paste about a republican that wanted money for a pet project.. Like that is the first time in the history of Congress that has happened. I looked at the entire article and all you did was copy 2 small paragraphs that fit your overall agenda. Then you make this bold: And ULA uses the Russian RD-180 rocket engine. Yes, thats right, the U.S. military space program depends on a Russian-made monopoly rocket engine. And then you conclude with: I certainly wish we weren't so dependent on Russia for so much of our NASA equipment and getting our Astronauts to & from the IST. Clearly you were making the pet project funding look as if the republicans don't care about NASA or DOD having to use Russian built engines. They just care about pet projects. I countered with the fact that there was a program in place that would have created a US made vehicle that would have done those things you wish they had without having to use Russian made rocket engines. Then you come back with some copy and paste from when Obama was a candidate talking about taking the funding and putting towards education. So.. your little obfuscatory tactics really didn't amount to much of anything other than exposing your unwillingness to admit you have an agenda. Own up to it Susie, you have chalk on your lip... typical democrat, and this surprises you? all democrats want to do is: A. blame republicans b. tell others what and how to think c. anyone that disagrees with them is either: 1. racist 2. sexist 3. just argumentative and plain wrong... everything she just talked about is a direct result of obarry, NASA and the space program was running fine when bush left office... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you are honest, and not prejudiced yourself, you'll realize that Republicans and Democrats both have a habit of playing political games with everything. There's more "If it's from Democrats, it's BAD" thinking on the GOP side of things these days, than vice versa, but it's not the quantity that makes such thinking defective. It's the thinking itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IgorFrankensteen Stated >>> Well, if you are honest, and not prejudiced yourself, you'll realize that Republicans and Democrats both have a habit of playing political games with everything. There's more "If it's from Democrats, it's BAD" thinking on the GOP side of things these days, than vice versa, but it's not the quantity that makes such thinking defective. It's the thinking itself. No - Nooooo, we won't have 'ANY FREE WILL THINKING' around here; if it's not purged out of their party line then it's not allowed! They ASSume and conjecture to a point that there isn't any random thought process --- because to be so hard wired into their party line doesn't allow for 'FREE THOUGHT'!!! It's an unknown equation and it just makes them angry; sends them right into pack attack mode - it's all they know! Topic ending behavior for sure! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sun 05/03/15 11:03 AM
|
|
Well, if you are honest, and not prejudiced yourself, you'll realize that Republicans and Democrats both have a habit of playing political games with everything. There's more "If it's from Democrats, it's BAD" thinking on the GOP side of things these days, than vice versa, but it's not the quantity that makes such thinking defective. It's the thinking itself. well, i'm more independent than anything else, i have no love for the GOP either... but right now, it's not a GOP president lying to us, it's a democrat liar in office right now... democrats have my attention on whats being screwed up more than the republicans right now... i think you can look up when obarry made massive spending cuts to NASA, and made America's shuttle program gone... |
|
|
|
|
