Such as?

>all the money spent on defence
>16%
objectively false

I love how this chart has 27% Medicare & Health and 33% Social Security, Unemployment & Labor taking around 60-65 percent of the chart

> i love how 60% of this chart takes up 60% of this chart

did they drop you on your head when you were stillborn?

Brainlet post of the year. Cutting it a bit close to the end of the year but you still qualify.

...

what did he actually mean by this? it's a conspiracy to make them look more expensive?

>NASA can't make the hubble telescope operational for years
>DOD hands them two telescopes equivalent to hubble because they don't need them anymore

funny shit

He's full of shit. Humans don't know a god damned thing but how to fight one another for resources.

>We basically don't have Moon bases, Mars bases, and interplanetary space ships and stations because liberals and money.
Yes, curse those liberals and their tax cuts.

What could they REALISTICALLY be hiding? Like it can't be that fancy or it would've been released

>Life extension
>All world leaders die normally
Dumbest conspiracy ever.

More than half of all discretionary spending is on the military. Total spending is mostly legislatively mandated.

Yes. It really is. The only real conspiracy is crony capitalism. All the ayy lmao shit and "we have space copters" bullshit is "leaked" to the public to shift focus away from the rich bastards running the MIC and siphoning the wealth of America turning it into a third world, despotic shithole.

defence spending does unironically trickle into space travel as pace projects are important for defence

the biggest reason we are not further ahead when it comes to space travel is undoubtedly liberal projects including but not limited to: keeping niggers alive, obamacare, failed projects such as common core (which also damage the prospects of our children) and anti- nuclear projects

Are you suggesting tax cuts are why we dont have space travel?
When all your taxes go towards keeping savage apes alive as that chart up there showed thats nor really much of an argument

>they
space nigger begone

What?

>because liberals and money
Every liberal I know wants NASA to have more funding
Every Fox News conservative I know thinks space is a waste of muh tax payer dollars
The other side of conservatism on /pol/ either thinks earth is flat or thinks the moon landings were fake

>blue states send more money to Washington and receive less compared to red states
Really induces neurological activity

Please try to be less biased, neither dems nor reps have any fucks to give about space travel.

It wasn't Trump who massively cut NASA's budget and cancelled both the space shuttle and constellation, in turn forcing America to rely on foreign nations and private companies for all access to space.

Firstly the space shuttle was an expensive meme and NASA knew it, secondly it was Trump that completely cut funding to NASA's Earth Sciences division in order to stifle dissent against his anti-science 'climate change is a hoax' stance. Enjoy not being able to predict hurricanes because the supreme leader decided no one needs to know about ocean surface temperatures.

It's the other way round now, Trump wants America to go to the moon for patriotic reasons and to fuel his ego, on the other hand Obama was the one who crippled NASA by cancelling multiple projects and slashing its budget. Whatever you think about him, you've got to admit Trump's nationalism does have it's pros.

No one actually gives a fuck about NASA's Earth sciences there are other agencies dedicated to those fields; it's a good thing it's being cut, where do you think all that cut funding is going to be rerouted to...maybe actual space missions?

If we knew they wouldn't be black projects now would they?

>neither dems nor reps have any fucks to give about space travel.
Depends if their constituency is involved in the space industry at all.

It's not that NASA couldn't, it's that they were more interested in other kinds of telescopes. Hubble wasn't the only great observatory, there was also Chandra, Spitzer and Compton. NASA had more interesting things that simply building a second HST. Soon there will be JWST which will move to the much more scientifically fertile near and mid infrared. But then after that NASA will spend well over 3 billion converting the first NRO telescope into a WFIRST abortion (consider WFIRST was originally a 1.5 billion dollar mission before NRO). Thanks for nothing NRO, you have literally cost NASA money by giving them optics that nobody really wants but that now need to be used. Now the thing is drastically over-budget again and will have to be cut down.

Not him but NASA's budget has been relatively stable for years now even under Obama. The major difference is that Obama emphasized more funding in Earth Science while Trump is supposedly emphasizing more funding in Planetary Science.

Both are equally important since the former is necessary to understand habitable/ composition of atmospheres while the later is needed to study the physical and gravitational bodies in space. So this isn't really a pro or con just a priority shift that most of the public would ignorant about when it gets down to the details.

If Trump was actually "pro" NASA he fund both branches not just one.

Obama cancelled Constellation because it was underfunded and going nowhere. It was so bad that CxP wouldn't have seen lunar return missions until the late 2020's. It was never really cancelled anyway as the Senate revived Ares 4 as SLS and Orion lives on. The only thing that really died was Ares I.

>NASA can't make the hubble telescope operational for years
It wasn't supposed to be a permanent fixture. It had a mission, when that time was up and they were going to decomission the Hubble there was a big outcry from the public to "save the hubble," because everyone likes pretty pictures of the cosmos.

>black projects
free technology from those evil ghettos!

You obviously didn't understand that fellow's point, so let me explain it you:

Even if the interest was there, there would not be much money to fund it, because massive amounts of it is being "put to use" in other, worthless areas.

World leaders are no elite.

Orion was cool but I like Medusa better.

It's the same principal of using nuclear explosions to provide propulsion, thus getting around 1000 times better specific impulse compared to chemical or nuclear thermal rockets, except it's much more efficient than Orion because instead of a small pusher plate the Medusa craft has a large thin parachute structure deployed in front of it, shaped like a parabolic dish. The bombs detonate at the focal point. Since the entire structure is in tension is can be made much lighter than the Orion, allowing more mass to be devoted to fuel or useful payload, plus the elasticity of the structure automatically smooths out the shock waves into a continuous acceleration of the spacecraft. Medusa also lets you use bombs with a much higher yield, which would come from extra fusion fuel, because Medusa can be scaled up way beyond what a pusher design like Orion can be.

Medusa is roughly 10x more efficient than Orion, and we could actually do an interstellar mission in less than 100 years with useful amounts of payload mass with it. You could even use a large Medusa propulsion unit to carry an Orion unit to another star, allowing you to slow down and have enough delta V leftover to visit any major planets and most dwarf planets in a reasonable time frame. Of course you could also use it for interplanetary transport, ideally the transport of large payload masses throughout the solar system and manned spacecraft on long distance hauls to the outer solar system. Medusa would be useful for hauling comets around, as you could bring a very large sail and a supply of fusion nukes with no deuterium, then use the deuterium in the water ice of the comet itself to fuel the bombs.

>44.8 billion = 1%
>29.8 billion = 1%
Wut?
Just call it 0.6% ffs