• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
What short of selling them and placing the proceeds in a blind trust would accomplish that? We're talking about buildings with his name plastered on them. You can't pretend you don't know what property you own.
As we won't get details (or likely even a hint) until 15 Dec 2016, we have no answers.

I would suspect that his supporters will accept nothing as adequate, while his detractors will accept nothing as adequate. [careful: wordplay]
 
We'd have been on Mars 10 years ago.

I believe that Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of the coolest dudes on the planet, said that a single year of Defense budget is more than the 50 year running budget of NASA. The mind can only dream about what we could achieve if the rest of the population dreamed, too.
 
I imagine it going to transit systems, bridges , energy research, better education and housing.

At some point before it was "over" I calculated the cost of Iraq would have paid to rebuild every outdated bridge and overpass in the entire US.

Twice.

And that doesn't count Afganistans cost.
 
That's the other 90%. ;)

Sorry, no way would I spend that ten percent on NASA. Maybe 1 percent. I'm all in favor of a healthy science and research budget but NASA would be way down on my list. I'm far more interested in Inner Space than Outer Space.

Richard Feynman was right on when he said there was "plenty of room at the bottom". We should be spending much more on nanotechnology and subatomic particles then missions to Mars or radio telescopes. I'm far more interested in the development of graphene, silicene, carbon nanotubes, Thorium and Fusion. Those things are much more likely to solve global warming and the other issues facing humanity than the stars and planets do.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, no way would I spend that ten percent on NASA. Maybe 1 percent. I'm all in favor of a healthy science and research budget but NASA would be way down on my list. I'm far more interested in Inner Space than Outer Space.

NASA does plenty of Earth science research, by the way, including work on global warming.
 
Sorry, no way would I spend that ten percent on NASA. Maybe 1 percent. I'm all in favor of a healthy science and research budget but NASA would be way down on my list. I'm far more interested in Inner Space than Outer Space.

Richard Feynman was right on when he said there was "plenty of room at the bottom". We should be spending much more on nanotechnology and subatomic particles then missions to Mars or radio telescopes. I'm far more interested in the development of graphene, silicene carbon nanotubes, Thorium and Fusion. Those things are much more likely to solve global warming and the other issues facing humanity than the stars and planets do.

NASA is the National Air and Space Administration. Inner space is before Outer space in the title.
 
NASA does plenty of Earth science research, by the way, including work on global warming.

Yes it does and I am not trying to minimize that. Still, I would funnel more money to NREL, DARPA-E and University Research departments. Also there is a huge problem in making the jump from promising laboratory breakthroughs to actual product development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom