MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: muwarrior69 on August 23, 2022, 01:38:29 PM
-
https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/nasas-moon-rocket-artemis-1-go-for-launch-after-final-review/
If successful we may have a new generation of Astronauts on the moon by 2025. I can remember the excitement when Apollo 8 circled the moon in 1968, then the landing in July '69. In the fall of '69 I got to shake the hands of all 3 Apollo 11 astronauts when they came to Marquette to accept the University's award for outstanding exploration. In a way it was the highlight of my time at MU.
-
https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/nasas-moon-rocket-artemis-1-go-for-launch-after-final-review/
If successful we may have a new generation of Astronauts on the moon by 2025. I can remember the excitement when Apollo 8 circled the moon in 1968, then the landing in July '69. In the fall of '69 I got to shake the hands of all 3 Apollo 11 astronauts when they came to Marquette to accept the University's award for outstanding exploration. In a way it was the highlight of my time at MU.
Lol, we never landed on the moon. Do the research
-
The NASA tour is one of the coolest thing I've ever visited. I loved the recreated 1969 moon landing where the control room actually shakes from the rocket launch and the actual audio from the day.
Seeing a rocket launch is on my bucket list. I get NASA reminder emails all the time announcing the "launch window".
-
IDK, it seems to me like we stopped going there because there really wasn't much reason to go. And now we are going back because NASA wants to revive the glory years. I'd rather send up more telescopes and probes.
-
Keep sciencing.
Despite sultan's proclamation to the contrary, I'm pretty sure that Nasa is looking to use the moon for a extra-Earth base station. Especially with the ISS running out of useful life.
-
A better title would be NASA wants to return to the moon. Moot point. It Is good to endeavor to greatness. I hope they can find a way.
-
Keep sciencing.
Despite sultan's proclamation to the contrary, I'm pretty sure that Nasa is looking to use the moon for a extra-Earth base station. Especially with the ISS running out of useful life.
I will freely admit to not understanding this completely, but I really don't understand the need for an "extra-Earth base station." So we can go to Mars more easily? Great. Why are we doing that though?
-
I will freely admit to not understanding this completely, but I really don't understand the need for an "extra-Earth base station." So we can go to Mars more easily? Great. Why are we doing that though?
Pretty soon Earth will just be one giant sh!tstorm, so we need a new place to destroy
-
Pretty soon Earth will just be one giant sh!tstorm, so we need a new place to destroy
I don’t think it’s fair to Mars that we destroy that planet as well but they’ll probably have more water than the southwest in a decade or so
-
I will freely admit to not understanding this completely, but I really don't understand the need for an "extra-Earth base station." So we can go to Mars more easily? Great. Why are we doing that though?
Agree. What would be the point? It would give a 2-3 day head start on going to Mars. Why?
-
I have to believe the Fed Gov will go completely bust before they have the funds to ever get back in space.
-
(https://c.tenor.com/PJ4YGjdr3gQAAAAC/dumb-and-dumber-no-way.gif)
-
The NASA tour is one of the coolest thing I've ever visited. I loved the recreated 1969 moon landing where the control room actually shakes from the rocket launch and the actual audio from the day.
Seeing a rocket launch is on my bucket list. I get NASA reminder emails all the time announcing the "launch window".
Curious where this tour was? I’ve been to NASA facilities in Cape Canaveral, Houston and Huntsville and can’t recall seeing this.
-
Lol, we never landed on the moon. Do the research
Elliott Gould, James Brolin and OJ Simpson know you’re right about this.
-
Curious where this tour was? I’ve been to NASA facilities in Cape Canaveral, Houston and Huntsville and can’t recall seeing this.
Cape Canaveral. I want to say in 2018 or 2019 after they finished some major renovations on site.
Control room was put together exactly as July 1969 including a sweater on the back of a chair.
More on the same NASA visit when I don't have to type on my phone.
-
I will freely admit to not understanding this completely, but I really don't understand the need for an "extra-Earth base station." So we can go to Mars more easily? Great. Why are we doing that though?
It's a superior vantage point from which to bomb Earth.
-
Agree. What would be the point? It would give a 2-3 day head start on going to Mars. Why?
It’s not time or distance, it’s launch mass savings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Going to Mars will take lots of ship (mass) and fuel for trans-Martian-orbital-insertion maneuver (more mass). Launching from earth means fighting earth gravity for every kg you send up the well. Using a lunar base station that can access lunar ice and refine fuel means you fight the 1/3g of lunar gravity to refuel before continuing to Mars and thus have significantly lower costs.
-
This one is for my fellow millennial posters.
https://youtu.be/Qswd5cCblAg
-
We just want to get to Mars to check on the potato crop.
NASA needs to remember to pack the sour cream and chives.
-
Cape Canaveral. I want to say in 2018 or 2019 after they finished some major renovations on site.
Control room was put together exactly as July 1969 including a sweater on the back of a chair.
More on the same NASA visit when I don't have to type on my phone.
I live 50 miles south of the Cape and have been there several times. The shaking control room is indeed cool. The displays are great and the tours of the launch pad are incredible.
Best part of seeing many of the exhibits is the docents are the engineers who worked on the specific vehicles. Sadly, many of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo engineers have died but there still are lots of Space Shuttle engineers who can talk about the intricacies of operating and building the shuttle.
Strongly recommend a KSC tour. But not on a launch day as the best things may be closed.
Also, Florida’s beaches are a great place to watch a launch. As is the roof of the Mansion in Melbourne. We went there one day when a party of NASA engineers gathered to watch the satellite fly overhead. Was a great experience!
-
We just want to get to Mars to check on the potato crop.
NASA needs to remember to pack the sour cream and chives.
And bacon!
-
I thought Mars was known for its cheese.
https://www.marscheese.com/#
-
It’s not time or distance, it’s launch mass savings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Going to Mars will take lots of ship (mass) and fuel for trans-Martian-orbital-insertion maneuver (more mass). Launching from earth means fighting earth gravity for every kg you send up the well. Using a lunar base station that can access lunar ice and refine fuel means you fight the 1/3g of lunar gravity to refuel before continuing to Mars and thus have significantly lower costs.
Sultan > Tsiolkovsky. ::) ::)
-
Sultan > Tsiolkovsky. ::) ::)
??? He was responding to Jockey.
I understand why its easier to go to Mars from the Moon rather than from Earth. I just don't understand why we are sending humans to Mars - or even to the Moon. We have the capability to send probes and rovers. We are even proposing to retrieve some samples. Which is really cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
-
??? He was responding to Jockey.
I understand why its easier to go to Mars from the Moon rather than from Earth. I just don't understand why we are sending humans to Mars - or even to the Moon. We have the capability to send probes and rovers. We are even proposing to retrieve some samples. Which is really cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
Honestly I think the only reason to send humans to the moon or to Mars is because we can and as a species we tend to want to explore or for sort of amorpheous geopolitical bragging rights. As a practical matter the potential benefit to society is either extremely long future (becoming a multi-planetary species ala state of affairs in Book 1 of the Expanse) or because NASA doing hard stuff tends to devolve to society in ways that don't really involve a direct benefit from boots in moondust. Planting a base at the southpole of the Moon before China does keeps our USA USA USA streak going, and there's a soft power type of benefit there.
Also, people get all rabble rabble rabble about STS costs and NASA budgets when in reality they're a rounding error on a rounding error to the federal government. If I had one wish it would be to give NASA enough money that running out of engineers to do missions becomes their rate limiting factor.
-
It’s not time or distance, it’s launch mass savings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Going to Mars will take lots of ship (mass) and fuel for trans-Martian-orbital-insertion maneuver (more mass). Launching from earth means fighting earth gravity for every kg you send up the well. Using a lunar base station that can access lunar ice and refine fuel means you fight the 1/3g of lunar gravity to refuel before continuing to Mars and thus have significantly lower costs.
I guess so.
Of course you are completely ignoring the massive cost of creating a Lunar base.
-
I guess so.
Of course you are completely ignoring the massive cost of creating a Lunar base.
Who cares.
-
Who cares.
Do what boomers did, kick that can down the road
-
I guess so.
Of course you are completely ignoring the massive cost of creating a Lunar base.
No, I'm explaining the reasoning for why one would route their Mars trip past the moon. You asked why go to the moon on the way to Mars. I provided your answer.
Since now you're talking about a different issue entirely, and because I'm a nerd:
There's (probably) a calculation you could do where you plot one curve of "cost of launching lunar base mass and then fuel up the lunar well" against "cost of building pure fuel freighters and launching those from Earth's well." I'm not going to even try to back of the napkin the math here, but I think it's a logical conclusion to imagine that maybe trip 1 is cheaper to do the grunt outta Earth's well route, maybe trip 2, maybe even trip 3, but eventually the lunar base pays dividends.
Also, in order to make a Mars trip a survivable venture, we've got to do *a lot* of learning how to survive in deep space. ISS isn't deep space (not that lessons learned there are useless, they're just not necessarily testing the exact things we need to test). Apollo was the closest we came, and our guys logged less time combined than a one-way shot to Mars would take, which again isn't quite what we need. Putting astronauts in a near analogue for deep-space that's a 3(ish) day emergency flight home is probably a better learning environment than just hauling off and shooting people Marsward and hoping it all works out).
-
I've watched For all Mankind. What's the point in actually going to Mars anyway, the DPRK already has people there.
-
I worked for a federal lab the first 7.5 years of my work career.
Nothing as prestigious as NASA.
But my feeling now is that they are a tremendous waste of some of our brightest minds.
Sometimes they barely have the money to pay salary and keep the lights on.
If you have the drive, go into private industry. That is where mankind really advances.
IMHO.
-
??? He was responding to Jockey.
I understand why its easier to go to Mars from the Moon rather than from Earth. I just don't understand why we are sending humans to Mars - or even to the Moon. We have the capability to send probes and rovers. We are even proposing to retrieve some samples. Which is really cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
You dismissed the idea in your first post, then continued to dismissed it.
I'll correct my post:
Sultan and Jockitch > Tsiolkovsky
-
You dismissed the idea in your first post, then continued to dismissed it.
I'll correct my post:
Sultan and Jockitch > Tsiolkovsky
I questioned the need for an "extra earth base station" because I don't see much reason to go to Mars in the first place. I understand the physics behind it.
-
Was it’s a small first step or a giant leap?
-
It’s not time or distance, it’s launch mass savings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Going to Mars will take lots of ship (mass) and fuel for trans-Martian-orbital-insertion maneuver (more mass). Launching from earth means fighting earth gravity for every kg you send up the well. Using a lunar base station that can access lunar ice and refine fuel means you fight the 1/3g of lunar gravity to refuel before continuing to Mars and thus have significantly lower costs.
Yeah, but have you considered all the luggage that will be lost on those connections?
And you think you have to wait forever for United Airlines to deliver your bags to your hotel now? Just wait.
-
I worked for a federal lab the first 7.5 years of my work career.
Nothing as prestigious as NASA.
But my feeling now is that they are a tremendous waste of some of our brightest minds.
Sometimes they barely have the money to pay salary and keep the lights on.
If you have the drive, go into private industry. That is where mankind really advances.
IMHO.
good points. Recently we've been losing employees to startups and human spaceflight companies. No one seems to go work at nasa. They may work a nasa contract on the development side but it's a lil different.
-
In a holding pattern ...
-
Kinda like dis, hey?
#freeziggy2022toinfinity
-
Kinda like dis, hey?
Imagine being those astronauts doing that right now, aina? "Hey no big problem, we just have a fuel leak in the engine. We'll get that fixed right up and have your asses in space in no time."
EDIT: I just thought to look and am seeing this is uncrewed. Ignore, but leaving to memorialize my stupidity.
-
A little Flexseal and duct tape and they are good to go.
-
I saw this note from a NY Times piece this morning.
But a mission to the moon also has some scientific value on its own. Rocks collected in previous missions, for example, revealed the moon’s origin: It likely formed from debris after an object the size of Mars hit Earth more than four billion years ago.
In the Artemis missions, NASA is especially interested in studying ice in lunar craters. Depending on how long it’s been there, the ice and its characteristics could provide a history of the solar system. The ice could also be used to establish permanent bases on the moon, if it can be turned into drinking water, oxygen or spacecraft fuel (as Ken explained in The Times).
And the missions could produce collateral benefits. Past innovations in the space program have led to technological advancements in everyday life, including in computing and food preservation.
-
Love my Tang and Space Food sticks.
And who doesn't use Velcro.
-
OK, I get the thirst for knowledge bit, and all.
But I have to ask, is going to the Moon really worth the cost? Will we find anything groundbreaking that changes the trajectory of life on Earth? Candidly, I seriously doubt it.
One looks at NASA today and grimaces. Bill Nelson, a tottering, over-the-hill vanquished Senator is now NASA Administrator. He's asleep even when he's awake.
Once upon a time, going to the Moon was a big deal. It had everything -- national pride, entertainment value and technological advancement. Now, it's just a weak attempt to recapture the imagination of the NASA of old.
NASA would be wise to review what happened on Moon missions after Apollo 11 -- public interest waned dramatically. What had been Must-See TV was now ho hum. Absent a fuel tank exploding, there isn't the interest. Especially when you compare a Moon mission to what's happening with the James Webb telescope.
Been there ... done that.
-
OK, I get the thirst for knowledge bit, and all.
But I have to ask, is going to the Moon really worth the cost? Will we find anything groundbreaking that changes the trajectory of life on Earth? Candidly, I seriously doubt it.
One looks at NASA today and grimaces. Bill Nelson, a tottering, over-the-hill vanquished Senator is now NASA Administrator. He's asleep even when he's awake.
Once upon a time, going to the Moon was a big deal. It had everything -- national pride, entertainment value and technological advancement. Now, it's just a weak attempt to recapture the imagination of the NASA of old.
NASA would be wise to review what happened on Moon missions after Apollo 11 -- public interest waned dramatically. What had been Must-See TV was now ho hum. Absent a fuel tank exploding, there isn't the interest. Especially when you compare a Moon mission to what's happening with the James Webb telescope.
Been there ... done that.
You have to learn to walk before you learn to run. NASA is preparing to launch to Mars by testing on the moon. Very simple.
-
OK, but why go to Mars?
-
OK, but why go to Mars?
*gestures at the world around us*
All kidding aside, to see if we can become an interplanetary species. Harder to go extinct that way.
Next step for humanity.
-
OK, but why go to Mars?
Because why stop at ruining just one planet?
-
Because the federal government has the ability to piss away more taxpayer money.
And we know what the federal government loves.
-
Because the federal government has the ability to piss away more taxpayer money.
And we know what the federal government loves.
I know. The federal government is about to piss away big bucks helping the people of Mississippi get through a crisis caused by the state’s refusal to keep its basic infrastructure in decent working order. Stoopid federal
government!
-
Different topic dip. Piss, let me know when the 30 trillion debt gets paid off.
-
Because the federal government has the ability to piss away more taxpayer money.
And we know what the federal government loves.
NASA's budget is .24% of the federal budget. I think we get a good ROI for that amount. Some nice shiny things for what is actually less than a drop in the bucket.
-
*gestures at the world around us*
All kidding aside, to see if we can become an interplanetary species. Harder to go extinct that way.
Next step for humanity.
The history of the earth suggests that we will go extinct at some point. Almost all species have. And regardless, unless we perfect interstellar travel, we will be going extinct when the sun goes red giant.
-
The history of the earth suggests that we will go extinct at some point. Almost all species have. And regardless, unless we perfect interstellar travel, we will be going extinct when the sun goes red giant.
I don't know, the wealthiest of us seem intent on accelarating that timetable significantly.
-
Different topic dip. Piss, let me know when the 30 trillion debt gets paid off.
There are many, many places one might examine in order to reduce government spending. NASA's budget is miniscule. Fully eliminating its ~$20B annual budget would amount to less than a rounding error.
-
Different topic dip. Piss, let me know when the 30 trillion debt gets paid off.
It won't be and doesn't need to be.
-
Guess that is the attitude that got us a 30 trillion debt.
Solution, print more phony money and go into debt more.
-
Guess that is the attitude that got us a 30 trillion debt.
Solution, print more phony money and go into debt more.
The last time the US was nearly 200 years ago.
-
Did you mean 22 years ago under Clinton?
The $ just isn't worth to much is it?
-
OK, but why go to Mars?
Knowledge. Technological development.
I am pretty ambivalent about the whole matter, but there are definitely reasons to go. Mankind has always expanded their horizons.
I'm sure Queen Isabela had discussions about whether traveling to an unknown world was worth the trouble. Why bother? It was just more land that looked like the land they already lived on.
The only question should be about ROI.
-
Queen Isabela was expecting Columbus to bring her back stuff.
-
The history of the earth suggests that we will go extinct at some point. Almost all species have. And regardless, unless we perfect interstellar travel, we will be going extinct when the sun goes red giant.
Right, which is why we should try to change that. Sun won't be a factor for 5 billion years. So I think we have some time.
-
Seriously, you think going to the Mars is going to save mankind. I would have thought going to the Moon would have done the trick. Please.
-
Seriously, you think going to the Mars is going to save mankind. I would have thought going to the Moon would have done the trick. Please.
It's a stepping stone, as I mentioned earlier. Do try to keep up.
I'm sure you'll be fine if the federal budget isn't balanced... and since the federal budget isn't a small business I think we're going to be just fine.
-
Did you mean 22 years ago under Clinton?
The $ just isn't worth to much is it?
The US didn't carry federal debt while Clinton was in office?
-
Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two terms in office:
Sorry, guess he turned it around.
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2018. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6% GDP in 2000, below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of 20.2%
-
Queen Isabela was expecting Columbus to bring her back stuff.
That's why I said that our biggest criteria should be ROI. Elon Musk isn't investing his own money because he wants to help mankind. He is looking only at his bottom line. He will make money by going to Mars.
So, regarding NASA, the question becomes - can the gov't get a positive ROI?
-
Remember, the government isn't a small business that needs to be fiscally accountable.
-
Seriously, you think going to the Mars is going to save mankind. I would have thought going to the Moon would have done the trick. Please.
You're missing the point of every tangential benefit to NASA. For 60+ years, NASA has been unintentionally inventing products that improve human life as it attempts to solve problems with space travel. So there is 60+ years of track record showing that an attempt to travel to/inhabit/colonize Mars will not just make humans "interplanetary", but more realistically will create 10s, if not hundreds, of new technologies or uses for existing tech, that will make the lives of normal earthbound people. Thats why you keep pushing
-
Geeze, I would have thought all these great inventions would have created tremendous tax revenues to keep the government out of debt.
-
Geeze, I would have thought all these great inventions would have created tremendous tax revenues to keep the government out of debt.
In the best of years, erasing NASA wouldn't even remove 10% of the annual deficit. And the benefits of NASA and its scientific endeavors are vast, no matter if you want to mock them or not. But you keep wanting to boil it down to DURR SPACE TRAVEL DURR. There are countless other government waste spots to b***h about. If you want to carve out defense spending to go to NASA instead, you won't get complaints from me, but NASA is a really stupid "anti-government debt" punching bag.
-
Wow, sorry, guess I hit a sore spot.
It's all a sham buddy.
-
Geeze, I would have thought all these great inventions would have created tremendous tax revenues to keep the government out of debt.
Again, the government hasn’t been out of debt in almost 200 years. I don’t know what you mean by Clinton years, but the US has been in debt since 1837.
-
Geeze, I would have thought all these great inventions would have created tremendous tax revenues to keep the government out of debt.
Smooth brained people worry about government debt, and just see a number getting bigger.
HOW ON EARTH WILL WE AFFORD DIAPERS NEXT QUARTER????????
-
Smooth brained people Mediocre white people worry about government debt, and just see a number getting bigger.
HOW ON EARTH WILL WE AFFORD DIAPERS NEXT QUARTER????????
FIFY
-
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102413/why-and-when-do-countries-default.asp
-
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102413/why-and-when-do-countries-default.asp
Cool. The US is nowhere near default.
-
Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two terms in office:
Sorry, guess he turned it around.
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2018. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6% GDP in 2000, below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of 20.2%
Mostly due to increase tax revenues due to the creation of a higher tax bracket and capital gains income due to a white hot stock market - the latter of which wasn't going to be easily replicated.
But tell me, how long have you been worried about the national debt? 30-40 years? And yet over that time, the United States has remained one of the highest performing countries economically. Do you think your concerns may be overblown?
-
Mostly due to increase tax revenues due to the creation of a higher tax bracket and capital gains income due to a white hot stock market - the latter of which wasn't going to be easily replicated.
But tell me, how long have you been worried about the national debt? 30-40 years? And yet over that time, the United States has remained one of the highest performing countries economically. Do you think your concerns may be overblown?
They are. Economists don't worry. Politicians use it to shoe horn it into conversations to drum up support from 'fiscal conservatives' who don't understand things like fractional reserve, quantitative easing, GDP, and bond ratings. It's literally the 'Caravans of migrants at the border!' for fiscal conservatives... who don't actually exist in the US congress.
-
They are. Economists don't worry. Politicians use it to shoe horn it into conversations to drum up support from 'fiscal conservatives' who don't understand things like fractional reserve, quantitative easing, GDP, and bond ratings. It's literally the 'Caravans of migrants at the border!' for fiscal conservatives... who don't actually exist in the US congress.
“Tea Party Conservative” “Family Values Republican” make me laugh out loud.
-
Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two terms in office:
Sorry, guess he turned it around.
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2018. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6% GDP in 2000, below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of 20.2%
It's cool that you're disappointed that America didn't elect another Clinton and also raise taxes.
-
OK, but why go to Mars?
a trip to Mars, or something similar like James Webb, involves tremendous engineering and science, not to mention imagination. Webb has inspired a new generation of stem bound kiddos and if my daughter and son are inspired enough by Webb to go into stem, then mission accomplished. Perhaps they wont do space but something that helps others via science. And I assume many other young girls and boys are inspired. That's why we go
-
Aren't there a lot more efficient ways to encourage children to go into STEM fields? Or fund scientific innovation?
And don't get me wrong. The James Webb telescope is a great accomplishment that I fully support. But it is about 10% the budget of the Artemis project - and that's only to get people to the Moon.
That is my biggest problem with this. It is orders of magnitude more expensive to include human travel into space exploration. And I don't think that is worth the extra $90 billion or so when compared to unmanned exploration.
-
For enlightened MUSpoop elitest.
The National Debt Affects Everyone
Given that the national debt has recently grown faster than the size of the American population, it is fair to wonder how this growing debt affects average individuals. While it may not be obvious, national debt levels directly affect people in at least five ways.
First, as the national debt per capita increases, the likelihood of the government defaulting on its debt service obligation increases, and therefore the Treasury Department will have to raise the yield on newly issued treasury securities to attract new investors.
This reduces the amount of tax revenue available to spend on other governmental services because more tax revenue will have to be paid out as interest on the national debt. Over time, this shift in expenditures will cause people to experience a lower standard of living, as borrowing for economic enhancement projects becomes more difficult.
Second, as the rate offered on treasury securities increases, corporations operating in America will be viewed as riskier, necessitating an increase in the yield on newly issued bonds. This, in turn, will require corporations to raise the price of their products and services to meet the increased cost of their debt service obligation. Over time, this will cause people to pay more for goods and services, resulting in inflation.
Third, as the yield offered on treasury securities increases, the cost of borrowing money to purchase a home will increase because the cost of money in the mortgage lending market is directly tied to the short-term interest rates set by the Federal Reserve and the yield offered on treasury securities.
Given this established interrelationship, an increase in interest rates will push home prices down, because prospective home buyers will no longer qualify for as large of a mortgage loan since they will have to pay more of their money to cover the interest expense on the loan they receive. The result will be more downward pressure on the value of homes, which in turn will reduce the net worth of all homeowners.
Fourth, since the yield on U.S. Treasury securities is currently considered a risk-free rate of return, and as the yield on these securities increases, risky investments such as corporate debt and equity investments will lose appeal.
This phenomenon is a direct result of the fact it will be more difficult for corporations to generate enough pre-tax income to offer a high enough risk premium on their bonds and stock dividends to justify investing in their company. This dilemma is known as the crowding out effect and tends to encourage the growth in the size of the government and the simultaneous reduction in the size of the private sector.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, as the risk of a country defaulting on its debt service obligation increases, the country loses its social, economic, and political power. This, in turn, makes the national debt level a national security issue.
The Bottom Line
The national debt level is one of the most important public policy issues. When debt is used appropriately, it can be used to foster the long-term growth and prosperity of a country. However, the national debt must be evaluated in an appropriate manner, such as comparing the amount of interest expense paid to other governmental expenditures or by comparing debt levels on a per capita basis.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/national-debt.asp
-
Cut military spending. Quit giving tax credits to billionaires and companies making record profits.
-
Geeze, I would have thought all these great inventions would have created tremendous tax revenues to keep the government out of debt.
A department that accounts for .25% - .50% of annual Federal spending should throw off so much in profits that when those profits are taxed at (pick a number) 30% they should cover the deficit spending of all the rest of the government? I'm sure you are well aware this is a specious argument.
-
Here's the list of agencies and their budgetary resources.
https://www.usaspending.gov/agency (https://www.usaspending.gov/agency)
-
Thanks, good info.
-
Did you mean 22 years ago under Clinton?
The $ just isn't worth to much is it?
Actually, 22 years ago the debt was just not increasing.
(Answered. Never mind.)
-
You're missing the point of every tangential benefit to NASA. For 60+ years, NASA has been unintentionally inventing products that improve human life as it attempts to solve problems with space travel. So there is 60+ years of track record showing that an attempt to travel to/inhabit/colonize Mars will not just make humans "interplanetary", but more realistically will create 10s, if not hundreds, of new technologies or uses for existing tech, that will make the lives of normal earthbound people. Thats why you keep pushing
This. Thanks Wags.
-
“Tea Party Conservative” “Family Values Republican” make me laugh out loud.
And the Tea Party is/was fully funded by the Koch Brother(s).
-
For enlightened MUSpoop elitest.
The National Debt Affects Everyone
Given that the national debt has recently grown faster than the size of the American population, it is fair to wonder how this growing debt affects average individuals. While it may not be obvious, national debt levels directly affect people in at least five ways.
First, as the national debt per capita increases, the likelihood of the government defaulting on its debt service obligation increases, and therefore the Treasury Department will have to raise the yield on newly issued treasury securities to attract new investors.
This reduces the amount of tax revenue available to spend on other governmental services because more tax revenue will have to be paid out as interest on the national debt. Over time, this shift in expenditures will cause people to experience a lower standard of living, as borrowing for economic enhancement projects becomes more difficult.
Second, as the rate offered on treasury securities increases, corporations operating in America will be viewed as riskier, necessitating an increase in the yield on newly issued bonds. This, in turn, will require corporations to raise the price of their products and services to meet the increased cost of their debt service obligation. Over time, this will cause people to pay more for goods and services, resulting in inflation.
Third, as the yield offered on treasury securities increases, the cost of borrowing money to purchase a home will increase because the cost of money in the mortgage lending market is directly tied to the short-term interest rates set by the Federal Reserve and the yield offered on treasury securities.
Given this established interrelationship, an increase in interest rates will push home prices down, because prospective home buyers will no longer qualify for as large of a mortgage loan since they will have to pay more of their money to cover the interest expense on the loan they receive. The result will be more downward pressure on the value of homes, which in turn will reduce the net worth of all homeowners.
Fourth, since the yield on U.S. Treasury securities is currently considered a risk-free rate of return, and as the yield on these securities increases, risky investments such as corporate debt and equity investments will lose appeal.
This phenomenon is a direct result of the fact it will be more difficult for corporations to generate enough pre-tax income to offer a high enough risk premium on their bonds and stock dividends to justify investing in their company. This dilemma is known as the crowding out effect and tends to encourage the growth in the size of the government and the simultaneous reduction in the size of the private sector.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, as the risk of a country defaulting on its debt service obligation increases, the country loses its social, economic, and political power. This, in turn, makes the national debt level a national security issue.
The Bottom Line
The national debt level is one of the most important public policy issues. When debt is used appropriately, it can be used to foster the long-term growth and prosperity of a country. However, the national debt must be evaluated in an appropriate manner, such as comparing the amount of interest expense paid to other governmental expenditures or by comparing debt levels on a per capita basis.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/national-debt.asp
Nice of you to call me elitist! Tell me the number of trillions that I should be worried about.
Most of the national debt ($24 trillion) is owed to US citizens. Tax rates can be raised (since we seem to have no problem cutting them constantly) from the populace or businesses to cover the debt we have. Alternatively, we can reduce spending. This isn't some run away freight train that can't be stopped.
Also, You need to consider that US treasuries are the safest in the world and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. People and governments worldwide will continue to invest in the US for this exact reason. They will continue to use and pay for things in dollars.
-
Actually, 22 years ago the debt was just not increasing.
(Answered. Never mind.)
Actually the National Debt increased every year under Clinton.
That being said, I disagree with just about everything NCMUfan said.
-
Just being the difference. ;D
-
Artemis 1 having a little difficulty getting off the launch pad.
-
NASA did it, two days ago.
Us Scoopers are slipping.
-
NASA did it, two days ago.
Us Scoopers are slipping.
Fake. That was Rico taking a shìt.
-
??? He was responding to Jockey.
I understand why its easier to go to Mars from the Moon rather than from Earth. I just don't understand why we are sending humans to Mars - or even to the Moon. We have the capability to send probes and rovers. We are even proposing to retrieve some samples. Which is really cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
Because the technology we develop to get to the point we can go to Mars will revolutionize tons of fields, and is a reasonable deliverable to excite people.
Space travel and the associated technological developments are a massive ROI for the minuscule dollars the government invests in it.
-
Because the technology we develop to get to the point we can go to Mars will revolutionize tons of fields, and is a reasonable deliverable to excite people.
Space travel and the associated technological developments are a massive ROI for the minuscule dollars the government invests in it.
Space exploration is a wonderful investment for all the reasons you state. I think the ROI becomes A LOT more problematic when you have to incur the costs of keeping humans alive and returning them home.
I also don't believe there will be as much excitement and you suggest. It's not the 1960s.