Astronomers Surprised at Getting Paid to Find Waterless Planets

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/21/140506.shtml?s=te

Waterless Planets Surprise Astronomers

NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Scientists taking their first "sniffs of air" from planets

outside our solar system are a bit baffled by what they didn't find: water.

One of the more basic assumptions of astronomy is that the two distant, hot

gaseous planets they examined must contain water in their atmospheres. The

two suns the planets orbit closely have hydrogen and oxygen, the stable

building blocks of water. These planets' atmospheres - examined for the

first time using light spectra to determine the air's chemical composition -

are supposed to be made up of the same thing, good old H2O.

But when two different teams of astronomers used NASA's Spitzer Space

Telescope for this new type of extrasolar planet research, they both came up

dry, according to research published in Thursday's edition of Nature and the

online version of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The study of one planet found hints of fine silicate-particle clouds.

Research on the other planet found no chemical fingerprints for any of the

molecules scientists were seeking.

"We had expected this tremendous signature of water ... and it wasn't

there," said the study leader for one team, Carl Grillmair of the California

Institute of Technology and Spitzer Science Center. "The very fact that

we've been surprised here is a wake-up call. We obviously need to do some

more work."

Grillmair's colleague, Harvard astronomy professor David Charbonneau, said

these surprising "sniffs of air from an alien world" tell astronomers not to

be so Earth-centric in thinking about other planets.

"These are very different beasts. These are unlike any other planets in the

solar system," Charbonneau said. "We're limited by our imagination in

thinking about the different avenues that these atmospheres take place in."

Our own solar system has two planets without water in the atmosphere,

Grillmair noted: Mercury, which doesn't have an atmosphere, and Venus, which

is a different type of planet from the huge gaseous ones that would be

expected to have the components of water in the air.

So far, scientists have found 213 planets outside our solar system, but only

14 have orbits that make it possible for this type of study; only eight or

nine of those are close enough to see. Grillmair's team studied the closest,

which goes by the catchy name HD 189733b. It's a mere 360 trillion miles

from Earth in the constellation Vulpecula. The other planet, HD209458b, is

about 900 trillion miles away in the constellation Pegasus and it's the one

with the strange silicate cloud.

So where'd the water go?

Maybe it's hiding, scientists suggest. The water could be under dust clouds,

or all the airborne water molecules have the same temperature, making it

impossible to see using an infrared spectrograph. Or maybe it's just not

there and astronomers have to go back to the drawing board when it comes to

these alien planets.

The other finding on the more distant of the two planets seems to indicate

that the atmosphere is full of silicon-oxygen compounds, said study lead

author L. Jeremy Richardson of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

"They'd be like dust grains and they would form clouds," Richardson said.

And that cloud of silicates could be blocking the space telescope from

measuring lower-lying water, Richardson and other scientists said.

I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

H.

"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:w8gDh.3488$XT.940@trnddc06...

> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/21/140506.shtml?s=te

>

> Waterless Planets Surprise Astronomers

> NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2007

>

> WASHINGTON -- Scientists taking their first "sniffs of air" from planets

> outside our solar system are a bit baffled by what they didn't find:

water.

>

> One of the more basic assumptions of astronomy is that the two distant,

hot

> gaseous planets they examined must contain water in their atmospheres. The

> two suns the planets orbit closely have hydrogen and oxygen, the stable

> building blocks of water. These planets' atmospheres - examined for the

> first time using light spectra to determine the air's chemical

composition -

> are supposed to be made up of the same thing, good old H2O.

>

> But when two different teams of astronomers used NASA's Spitzer Space

> Telescope for this new type of extrasolar planet research, they both came

up

> dry, according to research published in Thursday's edition of Nature and

the

> online version of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

>

> The study of one planet found hints of fine silicate-particle clouds.

> Research on the other planet found no chemical fingerprints for any of the

> molecules scientists were seeking.

>

> "We had expected this tremendous signature of water ... and it wasn't

> there," said the study leader for one team, Carl Grillmair of the

California

> Institute of Technology and Spitzer Science Center. "The very fact that

> we've been surprised here is a wake-up call. We obviously need to do some

> more work."

>

> Grillmair's colleague, Harvard astronomy professor David Charbonneau, said

> these surprising "sniffs of air from an alien world" tell astronomers not

to

> be so Earth-centric in thinking about other planets.

>

> "These are very different beasts. These are unlike any other planets in

the

> solar system," Charbonneau said. "We're limited by our imagination in

> thinking about the different avenues that these atmospheres take place

in."

>

> Our own solar system has two planets without water in the atmosphere,

> Grillmair noted: Mercury, which doesn't have an atmosphere, and Venus,

which

> is a different type of planet from the huge gaseous ones that would be

> expected to have the components of water in the air.

>

> So far, scientists have found 213 planets outside our solar system, but

only

> 14 have orbits that make it possible for this type of study; only eight or

> nine of those are close enough to see. Grillmair's team studied the

closest,

> which goes by the catchy name HD 189733b. It's a mere 360 trillion miles

> from Earth in the constellation Vulpecula. The other planet, HD209458b, is

> about 900 trillion miles away in the constellation Pegasus and it's the

one

> with the strange silicate cloud.

>

> So where'd the water go?

>

> Maybe it's hiding, scientists suggest. The water could be under dust

clouds,

> or all the airborne water molecules have the same temperature, making it

> impossible to see using an infrared spectrograph. Or maybe it's just not

> there and astronomers have to go back to the drawing board when it comes

to

> these alien planets.

>

> The other finding on the more distant of the two planets seems to indicate

> that the atmosphere is full of silicon-oxygen compounds, said study lead

> author L. Jeremy Richardson of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

>

> "They'd be like dust grains and they would form clouds," Richardson said.

> And that cloud of silicates could be blocking the space telescope from

> measuring lower-lying water, Richardson and other scientists said.

>

>

>

"the_Host" <the_Host@everywhere.net> writes:

>I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

I wonder how many tax dollars are subsidizing you posting YOUR crap.

--

Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas

chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273

LAST GAME: Chicago 8, Houston 0 (February 18)

NEXT GAME: Thursday, February 22 vs. Iowa, 7:05

On Feb 22, 10:41 am, "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net> wrote:

> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

Still more valid and beneficial than believing in God.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

> Subject: Re: Astronomers Surprised at Getting Paid to Find Waterless Planets

> From: "the_Host" <the_Host@everywhere.net>

> Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.atheism

> Message-ID: <2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET>

> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600

>

> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

If you don't like living in a high technology society, move. Afghanistan,

I understand, has little to no science around to bother you...

--

Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423

EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

------------------------------------------------------------

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each

other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest

forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement

in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the

head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect

little pigs of those it wins over to its side."

- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>

> H.

>

> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:w8gDh.3488$XT.940@trnddc06...

>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/21/140506.shtml?s=te

>>

>> Waterless Planets Surprise Astronomers NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Feb.

>> 21, 2007

>>

I haven't done the math, but i would expect that Bush wastes more money in

one hour of the Iraq war than they do in NASA funding for a year.

--

MarkA

(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

"the_Host" <the_Host@everywhere.net> wrote in message

news:2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET...

>I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

$20.00 is too much....

If they can't find tastey animals or cheap alien labor they just go get jobs

at Wal-Mart.

"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1172165652.048914.133680@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 22, 10:41 am, "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net> wrote:

>> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

> Still more valid and beneficial than believing in God.

Wrong.

Believing in God is free.

Paying these dullards is expensive and they have DONE NOTHING.

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.02.22.18.04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

>> Subject: Re: Astronomers Surprised at Getting Paid to Find Waterless

>> Planets

>> From: "the_Host" <the_Host@everywhere.net>

>> Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.atheism

>> Message-ID: <2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET>

>> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600

>> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

> If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

Why don't these astronomers form a for-profit company and see how many folks

pay them to be astronomers based on what they can produce??????

"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.02.22.18.53.03.853223@stopspam.net...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

> I haven't done the math, but i would expect that Bush wastes more money in

> one hour of the Iraq war than they do in NASA funding for a year.

Prior to 9/11 the DoD spent in one day NASA's annual budget.

Since then it has been money well spent. The DoD has racked up hundreds and

hundreds of thousands of dead enemy dune coons.

NASA has crashed another spaceship and is now shitting in their diapers

while driving...

On Feb 22, 1:53 pm, MarkA <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

> > I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>

> > H.

>

> > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >news:w8gDh.3488$XT.940@trnddc06...

> >>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/21/140506.shtml?s=te

>

> >> Waterless Planets Surprise Astronomers NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Feb.

> >> 21, 2007

>

> I haven't done the math, but i would expect that Bush wastes more money in

> one hour of the Iraq war than they do in NASA funding for a year.

>

> --

> MarkA

> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

"Waste" is, of course, subjective. Non subjectively, the Nasa budget

is roughly 1/3 the outlay of the Iraq war in 06 or 07. Given the

effects or the Iraq was have been largely negative, it could easily be

said the entire outlay was a waste.

Hatter

On 22 Feb., 22:59, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net> wrote in message

>

> news:2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET...

>

> >I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>

> $20.00 is too much....

Wow, only an American can up with such an answer and be proud to be an

ignorant moron... Well, considering who's running the country...

On 22 Feb., 23:04, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in messagenews:pan.2007.02.22.18..04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

>

> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

> >> Subject: Re: Astronomers Surprised at Getting Paid to Find Waterless

> >> Planets

> >> From: "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net>

> >> Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.atheism

> >> Message-ID: <2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>

> >> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600

> >> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

> > If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

>

> This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

>

> Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

> college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:04:30 +0000, Patriot Games wrote:

> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message

> news:pan.2007.02.22.18.04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

>>> Subject: Re: Astronomers Surprised at Getting Paid to Find Waterless

>>> Planets

>>> From: "the_Host" <the_Host@everywhere.net>

>>> Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.atheism

>>> Message-ID: <2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET>

>>> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600

>>> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>> If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

>

> This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

>

> Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

> college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

>

> Why don't these astronomers form a for-profit company and see how many folks

> pay them to be astronomers based on what they can produce??????

Why don't we form for-profit governments and mine'll blow yours up...

--

Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423

EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

------------------------------------------------------------

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each

other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest

forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement

in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the

head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect

little pigs of those it wins over to its side."

- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:57:15 -0800, Parsifal wrote:

> On 22 Feb., 23:04, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in messagenews:pan.2007.02.22.18.04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

>>

>> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

>> >> Subject: Re: Astronomers Surprised at Getting Paid to Find Waterless

>> >> Planets

>> >> From: "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net>

>> >> Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.atheism

>> >> Message-ID: <2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>

>> >> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600

>> >> I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>> > If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

>>

>> This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

>>

>> Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

>> college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

>

> à propos useless: how much has this USELESS war in Iraq cost so far,

> moron?

It's the usual. My funding is essential, yours is a waste of money...

--

Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423

EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

------------------------------------------------------------

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each

other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest

forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement

in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the

head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect

little pigs of those it wins over to its side."

- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:10:52 -0800, Hatter wrote:

> On Feb 22, 1:53 pm, MarkA <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

>> > I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>>

>> > H.

>>

>> > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> >news:w8gDh.3488$XT.940@trnddc06...

>> >>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/21/140506.shtml?s=te

>>

>> >> Waterless Planets Surprise Astronomers NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday,

>> >> Feb. 21, 2007

>>

>> I haven't done the math, but i would expect that Bush wastes more money

>> in one hour of the Iraq war than they do in NASA funding for a year.

>>

>> --

>> MarkA

>> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

>

> "Waste" is, of course, subjective. Non subjectively, the Nasa budget is

> roughly 1/3 the outlay of the Iraq war in 06 or 07. Given the effects or

> the Iraq was have been largely negative, it could easily be said the

> entire outlay was a waste.

>

> Hatter

OK, I ran the numbers. According to the National Priorities Project, as

of late 2006, the war in Iraq is expected to cost 137 billion dollars in

FY 2007, above and beyond the non-wartime cost of maintaining the

military. I don't believe that this takes into account the 'surge' that

Bush wants to implement. Meanwhile, the annual budget for NASA, FY 2007,

according to whitehouse.gov, is about 16 billion. That means that we are

spending about 8.6 times NASA's budget to fight in Iraq. And, we're

getting such a great return on our investment, no?

--

MarkA

(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:04:30 +0000, Patriot Games wrote:

> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message

> news:pan.2007.02.22.18.04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

>> If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

> This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

It is indeed high-tech. It's also about trying to learn about the universe of

which we're a part.

> Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

> college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

Actually, that's almost completely untrue. Most of this kind of research is

paid for with public funds; it's also often paid for by philanthropic

institutions.

> Why don't these astronomers form a for-profit company and see how many folks

> pay them to be astronomers based on what they can produce??????

Just because you're an ignorant idiot doesn't mean that's true of the rest of

us. Oh, and what they _produce_ is knowledge. Lots of it.

Not to mention tons of cool pictures, many of which are in the public domain

since they were generated by publicly-funded projects such as the Hubble Space

Telescope and Spitzer, among others. Check out my Zazzle page for some

examples.

--

Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/

Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/

http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600 there was an Ancient "the_Host"

<the_Host@everywhere.net> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism

>I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

Spitzer cost $800 million, plus launch costs. Call it 1.2 billion

over all. Since it does other research, and the NASA scientists do

other research, the true value is much higher.

The war in Iraq costs $195 million a day

So, The entire Spitzer program cost as much as six days of the war.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the

source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a

stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as

good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

On Feb 22, 7:14 pm, MarkA <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:10:52 -0800,Hatterwrote:

> > On Feb 22, 1:53 pm, MarkA <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote:

> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600, the_Host wrote:

> >> > I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>

> >> > H.

>

> >> > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >> >news:w8gDh.3488$XT.940@trnddc06...

> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/21/140506.shtml?s=te

>

> >> >> Waterless Planets Surprise Astronomers NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday,

> >> >> Feb. 21, 2007

>

> >> I haven't done the math, but i would expect that Bush wastes more money

> >> in one hour of the Iraq war than they do in NASA funding for a year.

>

> >> --

> >> MarkA

> >> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

>

> > "Waste" is, of course, subjective. Non subjectively, the Nasa budget is

> > roughly 1/3 the outlay of the Iraq war in 06 or 07. Given the effects or

> > the Iraq was have been largely negative, it could easily be said the

> > entire outlay was a waste.

>

> >Hatter

>

> OK, I ran the numbers. According to the National Priorities Project, as

> of late 2006, the war in Iraq is expected to cost 137 billion dollars in

> FY 2007, above and beyond the non-wartime cost of maintaining the

> military. I don't believe that this takes into account the 'surge' that

> Bush wants to implement. Meanwhile, the annual budget for NASA, FY 2007,

> according to whitehouse.gov, is about 16 billion. That means that we are

> spending about 8.6 times NASA's budget to fight in Iraq. And, we're

> getting such a great return on our investment, no?

>

> --

> MarkA

> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

I looked at the 07 Iraq budget bills at 41.7 billion(Our Nasa figures

match)...did I get bad info?

Hatter

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.02.22.23.55.20.436290@com.mkbilbo...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:04:30 +0000, Patriot Games wrote:

>> Why don't these astronomers form a for-profit company and see how many

>> folks

>> pay them to be astronomers based on what they can produce??????

> Why don't we form for-profit governments

Did that.

> and mine'll blow yours up...

Did that too.

You had a point?

"Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com> wrote in message

news:6np1b4-noc.ln1@tinker.exit.com...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:04:30 +0000, Patriot Games wrote:

>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message

>> news:pan.2007.02.22.18.04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

>>> If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

>> This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

> It is indeed high-tech. It's also about trying to learn about the

> universe of

> which we're a part.

Bullshit. Name JUST ONE commercial spin-off from astronomy in the last

TWENTY YEARS.

Just one.

>> Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

>> college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

> Actually, that's almost completely untrue. Most of this kind of research

> is

> paid for with public funds; it's also often paid for by philanthropic

> institutions.

Bullshit. Cite?

>> Why don't these astronomers form a for-profit company and see how many

>> folks

>> pay them to be astronomers based on what they can produce??????

> Just because you're an ignorant idiot doesn't mean that's true of the rest

> of

> us. Oh, and what they _produce_ is knowledge. Lots of it.

You said it was mostly paid for with public funds and philanthropy so why in

the world wouldn't they WANT to generate a RETURN on that???

Answer: Because you lied and they can't.

> Oh, and what they _produce_ is knowledge. Lots of it.

Which has exactly HOW MUCH commercial value?

> Not to mention tons of cool pictures, many of which are in the public

> domain

> since they were generated by publicly-funded projects such as the Hubble

> Space

> Telescope and Spitzer, among others.

"Publicly-funded projects" = TAXPAYER got fucked, again.

This whole fantasy with Space has grown old and tired. There isn't anything

out there. We can't go anywhere out there. We get NOTHING back for our

investment.

During Mercury-Gemini-Apollo we generated PILES of commercially viable

spin-offs which, paid for EXCLUSIVELY by American taxpayers, practically

technologically revolutionized the entire planet.

Today what do we get? NASA crashes a spaceship on liftoff and kills

everybody, NASA crashes a spaceship on landing and kills everybody, NASA

goes to Mars and gets lost, NASA goes to Mars and tells us not one fucking

thing that we didn't already know, NASA drives around all day shitting in

their diapers...

We humans have real problems and all you bring to the table is "cool

pictures." Guess what? We already have folks doing that, they live in

Hollywood and they DO NOT need TAXPAYER money to do what they do.

The free ride is about over.

Here are your options:

1) Solve real problems.

2) Make real money and pay real taxes.

3) Get a job at Wal-Mart.

Pick one.

"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1172184983.561044.175790@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> On 22 Feb., 22:59, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>> "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net> wrote in message

>> news:2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET...

>> >I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

>> $20.00 is too much....

> Wow, only an American can up with such an answer and be proud to be an

> ignorant moron... Well, considering who's running the country...

If you weren't a thumbsucking coward you wouldn't be hiding your real ISP

behind a GMail account.....

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message

news:inist2d2ud3kenfidpi5of9daomrcq956t@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:41:23 -0600 there was an Ancient "the_Host"

> <the_Host@everywhere.net> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism

>>I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

> Spitzer cost $800 million, plus launch costs. Call it 1.2 billion

> over all. Since it does other research, and the NASA scientists do

> other research, the true value is much higher.

Thanks for providing the COST, now please delineate the VALUE.

On 23 Feb., 15:35, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1172184983.561044.175790@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>

> > On 22 Feb., 22:59, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> "the_Host" <the_H...@everywhere.net> wrote in message

> >>news:2eef1$45ddb986$4088c657$14090@EVERESTKC.NET...

> >> >I wonder how many tax dollars went into this crap?

> >> $20.00 is too much....

> > Wow, only an American can up with such an answer and be proud to be an

> > ignorant moron... Well, considering who's running the country...

>

> If you weren't a thumbsucking coward you wouldn't be hiding your real ISP

> behind a GMail account.....

If you weren't a thumbsucking moron, you'd see my complete email

address, and my real name, next to my alias, between crotchets..

BTW, is "bastard" your first name or your family name?

What's wrong with a Gmail account? You want to use it to send me

insults privately?

On 23 Feb., 15:32, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Frank Mayhar" <f...@exit.com> wrote in message

>

> news:6np1b4-noc.ln1@tinker.exit.com...

>

> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:04:30 +0000, Patriot Games wrote:

> >> "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message

> >>news:pan.2007.02.22.18.04.37.666632@com.mkbilbo...

> >>> If you don't like living in a high technology society, move.

> >> This isn't high technology its a colossal ripoff.

> > It is indeed high-tech. It's also about trying to learn about the

> > universe of

> > which we're a part.

>

> Bullshit. Name JUST ONE commercial spin-off from astronomy in the last

> TWENTY YEARS.

>

> Just one.

>

> >> Wanna know why college tuition is so expensive? Its because a portion of

> >> college tuition goes to pay for all this USELESS bullshit.

> > Actually, that's almost completely untrue. Most of this kind of research

> > is

> > paid for with public funds; it's also often paid for by philanthropic

> > institutions.

>

> Bullshit. Cite?

>

> >> Why don't these astronomers form a for-profit company and see how many

> >> folks

> >> pay them to be astronomers based on what they can produce??????

> > Just because you're an ignorant idiot doesn't mean that's true of the rest

> > of

> > us. Oh, and what they _produce_ is knowledge. Lots of it.

>

> You said it was mostly paid for with public funds and philanthropy so why in

> the world wouldn't they WANT to generate a RETURN on that???

What's the return on the war in Iraq, goose-stepping moron?