Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
How the candidates prioritize space exploration
The Republicans seem much more committed, but of course many of them are in favor of cutting the Earth Science budget. Bernie Sanders has in the past voted to decrease NASA's budget, though he claims to be in favor of the program, but throws about the "take care of our needs on Earth" platitude. Hillary Clinton just gave out some vague platitude, as his her style on most issues.
Edit: I really hope NASA gets a funding increase, and a clear goal, in the next administration. Obama made the right call in canceling Constellation, and the new hardware is moving along at a much better pace. And of course China is planing on building a Space Station in 2018, and Russia is talking about setting up a moon base with the Euro's. Can't let the commies take the lead in space from us now can we
edited 3rd Nov '15 5:50:47 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Don't descend into hyperbole again. Even in the best scenario, the US would not be the only one in space, nor will we (or have we, in actuality) get to do all the firsts. As it is, NASA has made clear that they're aiming for a manned Mars mission in the 2030s. Part of the problem is that it's not exactly easy to tie it to any pressing issues right now. (Also, taking care of problems here on Earth is not actually a platitude. We have a shitload of problems here on Earth. It just shows a very binary way of thinking that is hard to shake out of many of our politicians.)
As you can tell by the tongue, that was a joke. However I am serious about the US needing a large scale manned presence in space to compete against Russia and China, even if we don't get to do all the first we should at least be their. And the whole binary thinking thing was what I meant by calling the "concentrate on Earth problems" thing a platitude.
x3 While there are many Earth-bound problems, NASA budget is miniscule (0.5% of total budget). Don't forget there are a number of technologies we use today that are byproducts of the Apollo missions. A Mars missions will almost certainly result in new technological advances. The return on investment is much higher than a lot of the other crap US gov spends money on.
edited 3rd Nov '15 6:16:36 PM by nightwyrm_zero
Hearing that Bernie is an honest-to-Go...er...an actual secular person makes me tempted to look up more on him but afraid I'll be disappointed. (I'm one of the people in the camp of don't-usualy-vote independents appalled enough at the Republican slate to consider voting Democrat in '16.)
I'm not fiscally liberal but there are signs of him being a member of an endangered species: an honest politician.
![]()
Yeah, I already know all that. I've posted several times saying we need to increase spending on NASA, so I don't know why you're telling me shit I already agree with.
But saying "Earth problems" is not in fact a platitude, it's just blinkered thinking. Words mean things.
edited 3rd Nov '15 6:17:04 PM by AceofSpades
And I think there are a number of younger Democrats in positions like Governors and Senators (Kristen Gillibrand, Castro, Corey Booker, etc.) who are definitely being groomed for success.
The parties seem to have somewhat opposite strategies right now: Democrats are continuing to stick to seniority rule, and thus the Democrats who make most of the national headlines and get the plum/influential positions are those who are most experienced. Hence why a lot of the powerful Dems in the Senate and House, (and running for president) tend to be in their 60s and 70s.
Republicans meanwhile are in a state of constant flux, (because of the demand to move ever further rightward, to be more fanatically conservative and purity tests where people get disqualified for having ever stepped against the conservative orthodoxy does result in a constant turn over) so there is constant change in who is considered the young Next Big Thing among right wingers. The downside to this though is that nearly all of them burn out or do something that takes the luster off their star, and then their 15 minutes is over and the eye of the right wing is looking for the next standard bearer. (See how not so long ago it was hip to hype guys like Jindal, Rand Paul, etc. as new faces that were going to change the GOP and assume leadership positions... and that's not working out very well, now is it?)
edited 4th Nov '15 5:23:38 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Joe Scarborough is a Token Conservative on MSNBC.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In a little hilarity, former Austin, Texas city council candidate Jimmy Flannigan has snapped up Jebcanfixit.com and has launched his own site in order to keep Jeb Bush from using the slogan.
edited 4th Nov '15 12:18:18 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Jack, China does have a small space station as is, it's only a 2 man thing (compared to the ISS being a 44 man long stay thing) but it does count.
But yeah, NASA investment would be good, what are you going looking at as a craft with the space shuttle gone? I know we've got some super nice space plane tech in the pipeline over here.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Were contracting flights to the ISS out to private companies, Space X and Boeing to be exact, Space X is human rating their Dragon Spacecraft
and Boeing is creating a new Sierra called the CST 100
and since I last checked they started calling it the Strainer, fucking advertisers. Also while Sierra Nevada corporation and their Dream Chaser Spacecraft lost out to Space X and Boeing, they are continuing development.
For Beyond Earth Orbit Exploration Nasa has The SLS.
Like the Ares 1 and 5 for the old Constellation program, except it is actually meeting it's developmental milestones. And also holding over from project Constellation is Orion
. Though it would only be used to ferry astronauts to and from larger exploration vehicles for exploring things like Mars or the Asteroids. Those things are currently in concept. Like I said good hardware, the problem is Nasa has little to no direction, and needs more money.
edited 4th Nov '15 2:59:52 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Wheee, ten pages of responses! Let's hope my connection holds on long enough to post this!
I think they have but do not take my word for it, since I am not quite familiar with these news. But in any case, here is a related story.
There is a catholic saint: Saint Sebastian. He is known for being arrowed and left for dead. He was nursed back to health by some woman and he immediately decided to go speak to the guy who decided to order his shooting about how that is not a nice thing to do.
He was beheaded.
It is kinda pointless to talk to someone so deaf and hostile to a movement that they would sacrifice them in order to foster their own goals, whereas at least the Democracts would, and have, given them the chance.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYeah, that is sort of the issue here: there is literally no point in trying to engage the Republican party in civil rights conversations. Everyone who counts on that side is completely deaf to them. Sure, you might get Kasich to listen, but pegging your tent to someone who's all but invisible in the polls isn't going to get you anywhere.
edited 4th Nov '15 7:03:45 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, at least they don't call each other Castratos.