Trump demands NASA stop wasting money on the international space station

President Trump plans to cut off funding to the International Space Station by 2025.  Many people do not even know there is an International Space Station, because it is so rarely in the news, but it has cost more than $100 billion to build and support.

What follows is a complete list of the most important discoveries of the space station over the past 20 years:

...

...

...

The space station is another example of welfare for NASA.  It provides nothing to America, using taxpayer money to provide welfare for scientists and engineers to be tremendously unproductive.

NASA scientists see it differently.  That's because they are addicted to space porn: any time an image or data comes from outer space, no matter how irrelevant, astronomers experience physical arousal.  And unfortunately, they want us to pay for it.  It's like paying for drug addicts.

We are always told that the space station is doing important work.  Look, rats float in space!  Screws rotate clockwise twice as often as they rotate counterclockwise!  Why do they do that?  We need to fund another space station for 20 years to find out!

The Trump administration in February proposed ending direct U.S. government support of the space station in 2025, prompting debate and discussion over whether commercial industry can make a business of building and operating orbiting research facilities staffed by astronauts.

Why is that relevant?  If it's economical, they will do it; and if it's uneconomical, it won't get done.  What's wrong with that?

Paul Martin, NASA's inspector general, told the Senate's Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness on Wednesday that it is unlikely a commercial operator could wholly take over the space station's annual budget by 2025.

Why is the amount that the government arbitrarily decides to spend a benchmark of how much private industry "must" spend?  Why not let private industry spend as much or as little as it wishes?

The space program is very much like global warming: we are told that it is extremely important and not allowed to examine or question its value to society.

Another example: Did you know we just spent nearly a billion dollars to send a probe to Mars – to study earthquakes?  Astronomers, always needing a fix of new space porn, will tell us how important it is, how learning about earthquakes on Mars will tell us about earthquakes on Earth.  If we want to learn more about earthquakes on Earth, why not study them on Earth?

President Trump is 100% right to terminate this bloated welfare office in the sky.  It's only a pity that he has put the decision off to 2025.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

President Trump plans to cut off funding to the International Space Station by 2025.  Many people do not even know there is an International Space Station, because it is so rarely in the news, but it has cost more than $100 billion to build and support.

What follows is a complete list of the most important discoveries of the space station over the past 20 years:

...

...

...

The space station is another example of welfare for NASA.  It provides nothing to America, using taxpayer money to provide welfare for scientists and engineers to be tremendously unproductive.

NASA scientists see it differently.  That's because they are addicted to space porn: any time an image or data comes from outer space, no matter how irrelevant, astronomers experience physical arousal.  And unfortunately, they want us to pay for it.  It's like paying for drug addicts.

We are always told that the space station is doing important work.  Look, rats float in space!  Screws rotate clockwise twice as often as they rotate counterclockwise!  Why do they do that?  We need to fund another space station for 20 years to find out!

The Trump administration in February proposed ending direct U.S. government support of the space station in 2025, prompting debate and discussion over whether commercial industry can make a business of building and operating orbiting research facilities staffed by astronauts.

Why is that relevant?  If it's economical, they will do it; and if it's uneconomical, it won't get done.  What's wrong with that?

Paul Martin, NASA's inspector general, told the Senate's Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness on Wednesday that it is unlikely a commercial operator could wholly take over the space station's annual budget by 2025.

Why is the amount that the government arbitrarily decides to spend a benchmark of how much private industry "must" spend?  Why not let private industry spend as much or as little as it wishes?

The space program is very much like global warming: we are told that it is extremely important and not allowed to examine or question its value to society.

Another example: Did you know we just spent nearly a billion dollars to send a probe to Mars – to study earthquakes?  Astronomers, always needing a fix of new space porn, will tell us how important it is, how learning about earthquakes on Mars will tell us about earthquakes on Earth.  If we want to learn more about earthquakes on Earth, why not study them on Earth?

President Trump is 100% right to terminate this bloated welfare office in the sky.  It's only a pity that he has put the decision off to 2025.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.