Perhaps I worded it poorly. I was amplifying and providing some specifics backing you up.He said that Obama gutted NASA, which I said was wrong, and wondered where he got that from. You respond with "more like the truth" maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say with that. Clearly you agree with what I had said. Seems like you should have responded to him showing that NASA isn't being gutted.
I am surprised that convoluted landing worked, especially the cable dropping from the hovering part of the craft.
Sounds like we sent a Harrier to another planet.
Words cannot adequately describe what an idiot you are.I would like to thank the genius of the muslims for the great leap forward last night.
If it hadn't been for Barack, Muhammad's winged horse, and the flight from Mecca to Jerusalem, mankind would never have ventured into the skys and beyond.
Eh, I might have to disagree with you. The largest contributor to budget creep that I've seen has to be adding new features. The worst part is when the new feature or requirement is added later in the program and requires massive rework to even make it feasible.And thats how things work.
Unless I'm mistaken, NASA had the metric system correct. It was Lockheed Martin that didn't use the metric system.I'm more than happy to taste crow I wanted it to land, but knowing that the Metric system is lost on some nasa engineers ( Mars Climate Orbiter ), I figured this one was more than doomed.
Kudos to Nasa!
I didn't make this crap up.Yet they continue to flow from his keyboard reinforcing over and over... so in a way... they do.