You know how all of us condem Defence Spending? Well, I heard

[napi21]

a review today of all the things that are IN the Defence Budget that have very positively affected our country & the world! The internet, & teflon were products dveloped by NASA which is includedin the defnse budget! So was kevlar, & the GPS system. People think the defense budget is only wars & weapons, but where would we be without the things I mentioned? I kow it made be think about my anti defense spending! I never made my living involving programing or anything techie, but computer technology and the net dramatically improved my job in accounting, and now that I'm retired, I'd be completely lost without my computer and the net! BTW, I'd also be lost in the kitchen without teflon!

The politicians need to explain to the American people what the real benefits are of a lot of things that fall under the umbrellas of a small # of depts but have very beneficial tenticles that extend very far to improve our lives.

[TheKentuckian]

1. NASA separated from the Air Force quite a while back.

There also can be tremendous levels of research and development without maintaining pax americana and bases, projects, and system purely for political kickbacks.

If you want the big time return on investment get NASA resources, put money into deep sea exploration, and turn the Universities loose from corporate direction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Micro circuits

A few other communications gear

Microwaves

Lasers

Ladar

Soon vehicles will have FLIR...night vision...which I think it's stupid

EMS

One hour standard

Disaster logistics

This is just top of head

[avaistheone1]

3. The Pentagon and Defense Department have sucked enough money and blood

out of this country. Most of our dollars are wasted on Defense and wars. We spend more than all the leading industrialized nations on earth put together, yet we have are rapidly becoming a third world nation. Congrats.

[tabatha]

4. Hmmm.... not so sure about Teflon,

which I thought was created by Du Pont.

I like CorningWare. "It evolved from materials originally developed for a U.S. ballistic missile program".

Here is one article about Teflon. There are tons more about its bad effects.

http://noteatingoutinny.com/2007/09/24/not-getting-alon-anymore/

[JonLP24]

5. All that is great

but they could really cut that and spend money on programs of social uplift.

[TheMadMonk]

6. There's also a lot of potentially useful research that disappears into...

...DoD black holes. The linear areospike rocket motor and the SCRAM jet engine are two that come to mind.

[tkmorris]

7. Sorry. It's condemn. CONDEMN

Fuck me...

[walldude]

8. 2 Trillion unaccounted for

The Pentagon cannot account for a missing 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. Yeah, lets give them more money :eyes:

[Lasher]

9. The military didn't invent teflon or the internet!

Our wasteful military spending needs to be immediately cut at least in half! But instead we're going to slash our social programs instead and that's just plain wrong!

[napi21]

10. I didn't say the MILITARY invented the net! It was a product of NASA which at the time

was included in the Defense Dept budget! It may still be included in the Defense Dept Budget, I'm not sure. All I said was that when people hear Defense Dept, they automatically think war and weapons, and that's not true!

BTW, it wasn't ME who said teflon was aninvenion of NASA. All I was doing was repeating what the analyist said.

[madmax]

11. Didn't Al Gore invent the internet?

:hide: :scared:

[Lasher]

13. ...

:spank:

[ieoeja]

23. Yes.

An "Information Superhighway" was the central theme of his vice-presidential campaign in 1992.

As VP he pushed the NSA to study the feasibility of making their networking language available for a new network. On the Republican side he found an ally in Newt Gingrich. After the NSA surrendered their patent, Al Gore brought together industry leaders from telecommunications and computers to form the C3 organization which defines the language, rules, domains etc.

So, yes, Al Gore did invent the Internet changing the way we communicate and the way business operates. The man named the inventor by most of those who mock Al Gore is V Cerf. Yet, V Cerf happens to be one of those who claim that the "Internet" was invented by Al Gore.

Now, I am off to cerf** the net.


**Actual spelling by those who cerfed DARPANET and ARAPNET, the Defense and University networks written in the same networking language, prior to the INTERNET.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Actually the Internet was developed by

a few universities and ARPANET, the latter is STILL part of DOD.

[Sherman A1]

12. I think that the logic is a stretch, certainly some good

has come from the spending on defense in the guise of items like were mentioned, yet at what cost to get there?

Was it not Eisenhower who said something along the lines of "Every Gun produced, Every Warship launched in the end steals from those who are cold and have no clothes....................?"

[Warren DeMontague]

14. NASA is *not* part of the Defense Budget. If it was, we'd have people on Mars by now.

Defense and NASA work together sometimes, true. But the budgets are separate. NASA has to scrape by on a constantly cut, hobbled budget. All the DOD has to do is sneeze and someone hands them a bag with a Trillion Dollars.

And I've certainly never said we should eliminate defense spending, but seeing as we spend more than the rest of the world combined and there is no terror threat from Zeta Reticuli that we know of (hmmm... or maybe we should combine it with NASA, after all) I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that Defense be cut, especially since there are plenty of ways -not just through NASA, but that's a good one- to foster scientific and technological R&D beyond the military.

[Confusious]

15. Does the navy need more 14 billion dollar carriers?

do we need bases in almost every country around the world, when people are starving, living in poverty or can't find a job. infrastructure crumbling. soon there won't be shit left worth defending. Not our possessions, nor our way of life.

I have no problem with research, but I do have a problem with those things.

That 14 billion doesn't include the cost of an air wing. double the amount for that.

and take this into account: a 10 million dollar supersonic missile could take them out. fire 10 at once, one will hit.

140 times as small. Not a good return on investment.

[unhappycamper]

18. *cough* *cough*

The USS Gerald R Ford is gonna cost somewhere between $16 billion dollars and $40 billion dollars.

[ngant17]

16. NASA upper management is guilty of treason

for openly defying Pres. Kennedy's orders to cooperate with the Soviets in lunar mission in 1963.

Apollo-Soyuz happened under Nixon less than 10 years later. Why couldn't it happen in 1963? What was technologically impossible for NASA then, when it suddenly became possible a few years later? Because of rightwing control and the military-industrial complex?

[Confusious]

17. After Kennedys speech at the UN

congress passed a resolution in the budget stating:

No part of any appropriation made available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by this Act shall be used for expenses of participating in a manned lunar landing to be carried out jointly by the United States and any other country without consent of the Congress.73

They had the purse strings. Either shut it down, or no soviets.

besides that, he never ordered them, and he wasn't a king.

[ngant17]

20. actually, the Pelly Amendment was more specific

as a rider, which passed the House on Oct. 10, 1963:

"No part of any appropriations made available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by this act shall be used for the expenses of participating in a manned lunar landing to be carried out by the US and any Communist, Communist-controlled, or Communist-dominated country, or for expenses of any aeronautical and space activities...which are primarily designed to facilitate or prepare for preparation in such a joint lunar landing except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the President and with the advise and consent of the Senate..".

However, I would suggest that the Pelly Amendment never seriously affected US-USSR space cooperation at that point in time since it was generated by the most extreme, reactionary members of Congress in a furious response to Kennedy's UN speech of 20 Sept. 1963. It reflected little of the general public sentiment and overall scientific interests in research of outer space which were already held by at that time between the two countries (i.e., consider the close collaboration between Dryden and Blagonravov).

Besides, if this Pelly Amendment was still in force, it was conveniently forgotten during the Apollo-Soyuz missions in 1975, nor was it ever resurrected to prohibit any of the Space Shuttle missions involving the Russian cosmonauts since then. Thus, in spirit and in deed, the Pelly Amendment was simply a venomous piece of hysteria of no merit whatsoever. No reasonable, peace-loving person could possibly honor the Pelly Amendment. It is best left in the dustbin of history where it remains today.

Actually, as far as the "purse strings" are concerned, given the absurdity of the Pelly Amendment, Pres. Kennedy probably would not have signed off on the NASA appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1964 when it would have been submitted to his desk in Dec., 1963. NASA's future was very uncertain prior to LBJ taking office.


If you are referring to NSAM 271, I think you are incorrect in its meaning. it was not a decree by a "king", as you seem to suggest. Rather it was a presidential order given directly to NASA. NSAM 271 specifically instructed NASA Administrator James Webb to take personal initiative and responsibility for substantive cooperation in space with the USSR. NSAM 271 was declassified in 1981 so this wasn't even known to most historians before that time.

In addition, NASA (upper level management, to be specific) willfully disobeyed and dishonored that presidential order. Dr. Robert C. Seamans(Associate NASA Administrator) had threatened to resign rather than cooperate. A former head of NASA's moon flight program, Dr. B. Holmes, was just as vehement against it. They were allied to the rightwing factions inside and outside government.

I submit that, Pelly Amendment notwithstanding, JFK could have and would have found a way to get the cooperative Apollo-Soyuz moon mission(s) off to a start, had he been able to survive the attacks against him in that fateful year of 1963. IMHO he would have de-funded NASA if that was what was necessary to make his Apollo Programme happen. To think otherwise amounts to little more than a shallow appreciation of Pres. Kennedy contribution to our history.

[Confusious]

24. he would have de-funded NASA

How could he have defunded NASA? he's the president, not congress.

I think the directors of NASA were also against it because the engineers were against it. Not totally because they were dirty commies, but because of the engineering hurtles. They were having problems getting the equipment built by american contractors to work together, adding Russian equipment would have made the task impossible.

"Dr. B. Holmes, publically stated in an ABC television interview in Sept. 1963 that a Soviet-American mission to the moon would be, "a very costly, very inefficient, probably a very dangerous way to execute the program." "

Isn't that from your page?

Doesn't sound so vehement when you take into account what the engineers said about it. Sounds like someone who is concerned about getting it done.

I guess that was the pelly admendment, but it was watered down in the Senate to say exactly what I posted. They were riders attached to each and every NASA budget 64-66 saying that the money could not be used in joint operations with the Russians.

"This basic provision was repeated in the NASA appropriations acts for fiscal years 1964-1966. President Lyndon Johnson called this clause an "unnecessary and undesirable restriction.""

So the '75 mission didn't have those restrictions on it.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/ch2-4.htm

Besides, considering Russia in the future, and their military industrial complex in the past, I would, and do, have reservations about giving anyone not a long time ally access to missile tech.

To sum up, you have congress saying you can't spend any money to do this, and a president saying do this, what exactly is a person suppose to do? Form a commission of one to study the issue?

I do believe the founders meant for congress to be the last word, not the president.

[ngant17]

27. I can follow your arguments however

the President could have refused to sign off on the NASA appropriations for the following year(1964). That would have at least stalled the purse strings. Missing a paycheck or two could have done a lot for some of the NASA engineers' attitude adjustment.

The whole idea behind the international space cooperation was to promote trust and reduce the hostility.
Certainly some Russian conservatives would have been against the same thing, to avoid sharing their space technology with a foreign country (US), but someone has to make the first step in a positive direction. Kennedy did that. Khrushchev was going to work with the President to make it happen.

There was nothing technologically impossible in 1963 which suddenly became possible in 1971, when the Apollo-Soyuz proposals started. What some of the NASA engineers where saying in 1963 against the space cooperation, this amounted to politics and not science. The Soviet engineers did not echo the same sentiments against cooperation, they favored it and they knew it was not the science but the politics which needed to be overcome. Yuri Gagarin felt that a certain amount of time was needed to move forward with the joint lunar missions. It was not based on technological shortcomings, but political considerations. Physics is not democratic.

Most of my historical information about NASA and their reaction to the 20 Sept. 1963 UN speech by JFK, it came from the original NASA documents which NASA sent me.

[Confusious]

28. The only thing Apollo-Soyuz did was have 2 capsule link in space

All you needed was a docking ring. Not integrate whole systems, computer and mechanical, together. They were also working on a deadline. If you watch any documentary or show, the entire purpose was to get to the moon before the decade was out. They barely got the LEM finished before it's trial date. You still want the to do that while adding in further problems of russian equipment?

We never would have made it in 69 if we added the Russians and by the time we would have been prepared, the budget would have been cut because of the recession, and we would have never gone.

That would have at least stalled the purse strings. Missing a paycheck or two could have done a lot for some of the NASA engineers' attitude adjustment.

Or they would have just left entirely. I don't think it would have been too hard for an engineer who worked in the space program to find another job, do you?

[ngant17]

21. actually, the Pelly Amendment was more specific

as a rider, which passed the House on Oct. 10, 1963:

"No part of any appropriations made available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by this act shall be used for the expenses of participating in a manned lunar landing to be carried out by the US and any Communist, Communist-controlled, or Communist-dominated country, or for expenses of any aeronautical and space activities...which are primarily designed to facilitate or prepare for preparation in such a joint lunar landing except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the President and with the advise and consent of the Senate..".

However, I would suggest that the Pelly Amendment never seriously affected US-USSR space cooperation at that point in time since it was generated by the most extreme, reactionary members of Congress in a furious response to Kennedy's UN speech of 20 Sept. 1963. It reflected little of the general public sentiment and overall scientific interests in research of outer space which were already held by at that time between the two countries (i.e., consider the close collaboration between Dryden and Blagonravov).

Besides, if this Pelly Amendment was still in force, it was conveniently forgotten during the Apollo-Soyuz missions in 1975, nor was it ever resurrected to prohibit any of the Space Shuttle missions involving the Russian cosmonauts since then. Thus, in spirit and in deed, the Pelly Amendment was simply a venomous piece of hysteria of no merit whatsoever. No reasonable, peace-loving person could possibly honor the Pelly Amendment. It is best left in the dustbin of history where it remains today.

Actually, as far as the "purse strings" are concerned, given the absurdity of the Pelly Amendment, Pres. Kennedy probably would not have signed off on the NASA appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1964 when it would have been submitted to his desk in Dec., 1963. NASA's future was very uncertain prior to LBJ taking office.


If you are referring to NSAM 271, I think you are incorrect in its meaning. it was not a decree by a "king", as you seem to suggest. Rather it was a presidential order given directly to NASA. NSAM 271 specifically instructed NASA Administrator James Webb to take personal initiative and responsibility for substantive cooperation in space with the USSR. NSAM 271 was declassified in 1981 so this wasn't even known to most historians before that time.

In addition, NASA (upper level management, to be specific) willfully disobeyed and dishonored that presidential order. Dr. Robert C. Seamans(Associate NASA Administrator) had threatened to resign rather than cooperate. A former head of NASA's moon flight program, Dr. B. Holmes, was just as vehement against it. They were allied to the rightwing factions inside and outside government.

I submit that, Pelly Amendment notwithstanding, JFK could have and would have found a way to get the cooperative Apollo-Soyuz moon mission(s) off to a start, had he been able to survive the attacks against him in that fateful year of 1963. IMHO he would have de-funded NASA if that was what was necessary to make his Apollo Programme happen. To think otherwise amounts to little more than a shallow appreciation of Pres. Kennedy's contribution to our history.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. What?

...wait, what?

[WinkyDink]

22. Yeah, and Tang from NASA. (P.S. We spell it "Defense.") So worth the trillions---and the dead.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Um. NASA isn't part of the defense budget.

And if you want to get technical, the payoffs from the civilian, peaceful space program- i.e. NASA- have been enormous. Not just "tang".

[jeanpalmer]

26. People will find they can do without

kevlar and teflon. But SS?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Not to mention their work on Land Mines and Prosthetic Limbs.

[704wipes]

31. the bases in Japan, germany, Italy, Britain, Spain, Saudi A, ...

had not a fucking thing to do with those developments.
Operating those bases and the supply chains to them is
the biggest drain.

Time to close bases in countries we defeated over 60 years ago.

THAT, could put a dent in current and future spending.

[hunter]

32. You know that brilliant kid who excelled in school, became a scientist, and cured breast cancer?

Instead he grew up malnourished in a slum, ate lead paint and bad food, had an IQ of 90, got shuffled through bad schools and graduated barely able to read and write, joined the army to escape the gangs, and got killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan.

Yep, all that defense spending and lack of social spending "very positively affected our country & the world!"