NASA Cancels Missions After All 256
jd writes "Barely a day after NASA chief Dr. Griffen swore blind that projects might be frozen but not cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints, news comes of a new asteroid mission that has been cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints - something Dr. Griffin did not mention in his earlier comments. The visit to two asteroids, short about $90 million, was completely abandoned according to NASA, with no possibility of revival. In consequence, smaller missions are reportedly feeling at much greater risk."
Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Misleading (again) (Score:2)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or come up with some other neat, small, and cheaper things like Stardust. Now that was cool.
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, what ever floats your butt.
"Space shuttle, I just can't quit you."
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the Space Shuttle was a damn good idea and the concept is still a damn good idea. If it sucked so bad then why are people still considering a reusable delivery system today?
Nay Sayer!!!
It's still a good idea, just like the 286 intel chip was. But they need to opportunity to go next generation on the project and build a new series. In the future I think it would make more sense if NASA only built two and then started a redesign.
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2)
I'd love to know what you consider the "outstanding stuff" to be. The answer to life, the universe, and everything, maybe? Aliens with pointy ears? Most astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and planetary scientists would tell you that the progress that's been made just in the last decade has been nothing short of stunning.
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
The New Horizons pro
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Space is absurdely huge. Absurdely. It's difficult for you and I to imagine Pluto's distance, much less the Oort cloud's.
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
You dont know what you're talking about. The space station is outdated compared to what? How can you say it's outdated if there is no other new space station with which to compare it. The fact is that space programs must use components that have a track record of stability. For instance, in 1995, would it have made sense to load Windows 95 and its fabulous new plug and play technology onto the shuttle's computers? Obviously no, that software was
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2)
Heh... And you can bet that if he announced such a program, the mainstream press would be talking about the "controversy" over the composition of the moon, as if it were a legitimate debate.
To all the naysayers. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. NASA shouldn't be shooting for the Moon and Mars because it takes away from the smaller missions.
2. NASA should take a lesson from the private industry on how to get to space cheap.
But isn't this exactly what government is great at. Shouldering HUGE projects that no private industry in its right mind would spend money on... Ultimatly to progress science or humanity in general. No private industry is going to beat NASA to Mars. So let them have the small missions, hell once they really get their feet under them we can even contract out the smaller missions to them. But the really big stuff like getting people to Mars is only going to get done my NASA. And sure maybe we could hold back and wait for technology to progress a bit more, but we would still be stuck in Europe if that was the case.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2)
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2)
Reverend Falwell? Is that you?
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Government projects (Score:3, Insightful)
The one reason that government's can sometimes do things better or first is because they don't have to make a profit
The government doesn't have to make a profit; somebody else does. Doing things "first" comes at the expense of the entire country, and "better" is always debatable.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2)
I guess I'd be stuck in Africa, which may not be too bad for me, but a whole lot better for my great great great great great grandparents.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2)
Yes, because in 1750, life in africa was so much better than life in America - and 1850 and 1950... Chances are, if your family would have stayed there, it would be dead by now. It's pretty safe to say that more lineages in Africa have died in the past 500 years than have lived. The problem is, however, your family would not only probably be one of those lineages that die
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2)
That statement was meant to be funny. I'm not implying that you owe me anything, and you certainly don't. I don't buy what you said about people being worse off in Africa at face value, though.
Explain the "progress" part again? (Score:2)
Your argument appears to be hinged on the notion that revisiting the Moon represents "progress". It looks more like "regress" to me: boldly re-solving a technological problem that was solved in 1969 and was already considered boring by the time I was two years old.
Of course, Mars is a lot farther away. If we
Government needs to fund pure science,not missions (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem (as far as a corporation is concerned) is that in science you don't always know what you're going to find out before you find it out. Weird problems in one area can lead to huge advances of knowledge in something that's completely unrelated. That's why it's best for the government to continue funding this basic research, since it's the people that're going to eventually benefit from it, or maybe never benefit from it. What corporation wants to fund experiments counting the number of Neutrinos (very weakly interacting particles that have no forseeable practical applications) that come from the sun? No corporation in their right mind is the answer. They'll never make back money invested in it. But yet that very experiment has led to big developments in the understanding of particle physics. We now know that neutrinos have mass, and oscillate between the different types of them. And even this knowledge has no practical applications of it at all. Might it someday? Maybe, then again maybe not.
Really, the big problem with a Mars mission is you're going to waste a lot of money on one big project that could produce a LOT more scientific results if used in 100 other small projects. You'll probbably gain some technology along the way, but what do we really expect to gain scientifically from a manned Mars mission? Maybe we'll find life on Mars, and learn more about planetary geology. Is that worth scrapping all the other smaller missions? I don't think so.
What worries me about the manned Mars mission is the vast majority of the money is going to go to private industry to develop technology only suited to going to Mars. That's great if you think Science is just about making the world like Star Trek, but it isn't so good if you think science is about learning things about our universe. Don't get me wrong, I think the manned missions have some importance. I just don't think that importance overshadows the science that Nasa (and really hardly anyone else) produces.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2)
Manned missions are only meaningful in terms of colonisation or commercial e
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary thing to be gained by travel to space is intellectual property, which is why, until IP law gets the enormous overhaul it will need to properly balance return on
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly why there are no more antibiotics on the horizon -- much more profit in Viagra.
Sorry, government should (IMHO) take charge in those areas where something is in humanity's best interest, but is not yet profitable. Once things are profitable, the gov't can get out of the way. Private industry is too focused on short-term profit to care much about anything else.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:2)
Look how popular Tamiflu is due to the threat of avian flu. Private individuals and governments are stockpiling it in large quantities. I believe the company can't make it fast enough to meet the demand right now, and it hasn't even hit. I'm quite sure that alot of companies would love to be in the same shoes and therefore there is a business/profit need for new antibiotics.
"How much do you value an ere
Why that never happens (Score:2)
But in reality, politicians are too focused on short term electability to care much about such long term plans. Anything much beyond the next elections is ignored.
Not because politicians are bad people. The voters just won't elect those with your long term visions.
It's hard to quantify, but I'd say that business in general is better at long term planning than government.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are not. "By definition", they bring in more money than they cost. That does not mean they are in "humanity's best interest".
Proof: murder, robbery, and war, are all profitable, and are very much *not* in humanity's best interest.
It sounds terrible, but I am yet to hear one good reason to make antibiotics for people who can't pay.
Because sometimes it's *you* who can't pay. Ever been broke? Should you deserve to die because you got sneezed on by some unclean jerk during the short period where you didn't have enough money for medication?
If you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die. It's that simple.
That's nonsense. By your morals, it would be absolutely moral for someone to kill you, since it would show you are unable to "keep yourself alive", and thus "deserve to die".
What? It's OK for the government to help keep you alive with police, fire, and military? Hypocrite.
Your ideal world is the "law of the jungle". It's in the top of your list, "1. Arm Citizens". What do you think happens when a beloved family member of one of those "armed citizens" becomes deathly ill and needs medicine they can't pay for? Do you think they'll just politely die, as you think is their darwinian duty? Don't count on it.
Darwinism would suggest they take those arms and acquire what they need (or want) by force. Who are you to stop them? It's darwinism, after all.
You've got Darwin all wrong. It's not just the survival of the one with the biggest gun and the most money. It's also strength in numbers. You focus on some lazy, drug-addled, morally inept, socially obscene bum who gets free health care and cry "foul". Just like with freedom of speech, it's not there to help the undesirable elements of society, it's there to help us all. To do so, to do it right, yes, you have to protect the undesirables. But free medical care helps you, too, even if you can fully afford it on your own. Fewer people coming in to the office sick, fewer children getting sick at your school. You lessen unemployment, you lessen stress, you allow people the freedom to spend money on what they want, rather than on what they are forced to, which leads to a stronger economy and a healthier, more robust society.
It makes completely rational sense to provide the public with free access to government services, and it even makes "darwinian" sense, if you must.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:2)
Darwinism is a theory of natural law. It is not a theory of morality. In evolution, there is no such thing as humanity - it's just a temporary stage that will inevitably be replaced. There is no such notion of doing something for the good of the species, only for the propagation of one's own genes.
Saying that forms a reasonable basis for morality is like saying we should jump off a cliff because things naturally fall down.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad the point in question is whether war is in "humanity's best interest", and not whether, in spite of all the evils and horrors of war, there is also some benefit.
I'd imagine that every war there has ever been has had something good about it. That doesn't justify them as being in "humanity's best interest".
think of the huge technology increases that occured as a result of world wars I, II, and the Cold War.
And how many millions had to die in t
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
People pay for cigarettes; do cigarettes help people?
You're not a capitalist (Score:2)
What you reccomend:
1. Give Free Antibiotics
2. Watch Them Mate
If you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die.
You're a Fascist Jerk.
Do you also frequent stormfront.org much?
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not, government FOR THE PROFIT, by the people. You have a corruption of American values, good sir.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
My post was intended as sarcasm (Score:2)
The market is all about perceived need, whereas NASA is run by scientists who have done credible research that determines what we REALLY need.
My previous post was making fun of the "free market decides everything" crowd.. which is probably why they got back at me by modding me down as a "troll"...
Space Exploration (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, and for you anti-NASA freaks, I'd like to provide you with a link to a history of NASA's budget [wikipedia.org]. It calculates to about $3 per taxpayer per year. Compare that to the military budget, which is about 500 times higher.
Re:Space Exploration (Score:2)
True, but there are a lot more people into science fiction than there are that actually understand the science, and those are the ones you have to entertain these days...
Re:Space Exploration (Score:2, Interesting)
That chart shows the current budget at $16B. Assuming that there are around ~250 million actual taxpayers in this country, that comes out to $64 per taxpayer per year.
Try 31 times higher. (Score:5, Informative)
That's a bit of an exaggeration... NASA's share of the federal budget [kowaldesign.com] is roughly 15 billion dollars. The DOD gets 475 billion. That's closer to the neighborhood of 30 times. It's worth mentioning that the executive branch gets 25 billion a year though; About the same as the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and NASA combined... Limos and jets cost more than shuttle missions apparently.
Re:Space Exploration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Space Exploration (Score:3, Insightful)
However, to answer your question: Iran is a sovereign nation and while some people would like us to simply "put a stop" to their plans, at least as many people would be very upset with us if we did. Iran claims their nuclear technology is for peaceful use. Iraq claimed it had no weapons of mass destruction
Re:Space Exploration (Score:4, Insightful)
That argument is simply insane. You are talking about the same Federal Government that funded the Louisiana Purchase. The US government was spending large portions of its budget exploring and acquiring new territories before most of the current Armed Forces branches even existed.
Somebody needs to go through a bunch of these "B..b..but the Constitution says nothing about space exploration" posts with the -1,Troll stick. I don't know where this thinking is coming from, but it has no historical basis.
Climate of budget tightening (Score:5, Informative)
This is a difficult situation because the mission has a lot of merit. But it was over budget and had technical problems [spaceflightnow.com]. Something had to go in a climate of budget tightening. Most people on this forum will rail at this decision. They should blame the aimlessness of NASA's manned space program since Apollo, and credit NASA administrator Michael Griffin for doing something about it.
Re:Climate of budget tightening (Score:2, Informative)
Damn... (Score:3, Funny)
A Clear Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
You want a clear vision (Score:2)
I'll give you one. I have an idea to get into space as cheaply as a space elevator, with materials and technology we have now, I even know who would pay for its design and construction. I submitted it to slashdot as a story about a month back, but its still in the pending queue (presumably waiting for the right stories to come along). I might have to just spill it if its not posted soon, tis burning a hole in me brain. However thats neither here nor there.
Space has got vast, essentially unlimited resource
JPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:JPL (Score:5, Interesting)
JPL is special in that it is run by the California Institute of Technology for NASA. JPL employees are employees of Cal-Tech, not the federal government.
JPL is much more focused and efficient then any other NASA center, and it shows. It's also the only place in the US where a space mission can go from concept, to detailed design, to fabrication, launch from KSC, and then operations are at JPL as well. End-to-end inside the JPL fenceline.
Re:JPL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:JPL (Score:3, Interesting)
What?? More important stuff? (Score:2, Funny)
Terrestrial Planet Finder Missions (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's the missions that DO have good crossover that seem to me like they should be prioritized. And the best example I can think of are the missions to put up huge space telescopes to find a second Earth. Finding another Earth would be hugley inspiring, and as far as I understand it these scopes would be fantastic scientific instruments as well.
Am I the only one who was particularly sad to see these missions delayed?
Re:Terrestrial Planet Finder Missions (Score:2)
time to do instead of look (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to dump the stupid navel gazing telescopes and put some money into actually doing things in space instead of just looking at them.
If you always just claim people are too expensive to send, you aren't going to develop very good engineering and technologies to send people. I'm glad we've broken out of this loop and will actually being doing something worthwhile in space again.
Re:time to do instead of look (Score:2)
it's stuff like that that requires American men. you can't delegate ass-kicking to robots. unless they're awesome 50 foot tall robots with lasers shooting out their eyes.
so our path is clear: America needs to create an army of 50 foot tall robots to kick Mars' ass. there exists a robot height gap between the US and the Soviet Union that threatens our ability to kick Mars' ass.
also we need to explode
Re:time to do instead of look (Score:2, Insightful)
You are an idiot. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's time to dump the stupid navel gazing telescopes and put some money into actually doing things in space instead of just looking at them.
It's morons like you who have made the U.S. fall behind in science. You see the spectacular pictures coming back from the Hubble Space Telescope and the only wonder you are filled with is wondering if there's a wa
Re:You are an idiot. (Score:2)
We did that almost 40 years ago -- when we were a leader in science. In the last 30 years, we've not landed another person on the moon or any other celestial body. 36 percent of undergraduate students in the United States receive their degrees in science or engineering, compared to 59 percent of undergraduates in China and 66 percent in Japan. In 2004, the United States graduated 70,000 engineers, while China
Let me be the first to say.... (Score:2)
You fell for the Bushit. (Score:3, Insightful)
He will convince people (like you) that it's okay to kill off the Shuttle, the International Space Station, probes like the one being discussed here, and unmanned planetary missions -- because we're going to Mars. Then he'll use the fiscally irresponsible federal deficit spending (that he encouraged and approved) as a reason why NASA can't have enough budge
How to do it for less (Score:2)
There are cell phones with more computer processing power
than all of NASA during the Apollo program.
Second, to bring the cost down, we should use techniques
that have great leverage on reducing costs. These are
advanced automation and use of local materials.
Advanced automation means instead of sending robots to a
place, you send a robot factory. Instead of sending
structural beams to the moon, you send a magnetic sifter
to separate the 0.2% iron-nicke
Get real! (Score:2)
There are cell phones with more computer processing power
than all of NASA during the Apollo program.
A close encounter with Mars still puts it 69 million kilometers from Earth. The moon is about 385,000 kilometers away. Lighter weight computers just won't have much effect when you look at what must still be carried: Astronauts, food, water, compressed gases (for air), fuel, switches, wiring, etc. While processing power has done wonderful things
40 more million? that's it? (Score:2)
For some reason, people tend to get more excited about silly sci-fi movi
Re:40 more million? that's it? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Every dollar spent by NASA must be first appropriated by Congress. If NASA sells some old hardware, or receives a donation, that money goes straight to the federal government's general fund, not to NASA.
Outsource NASA (Score:2)
Out here in Silicon Valley, we have NASA Ames, which has a good wind tunnel and a large number of marginal NASA programs. The wind tunnel is worth keeping, but everything else, including the airfield, could be canned with no great loss.
Terminate shuttle and buy scientific results (Score:2, Insightful)
Foolish Choices (Score:4, Informative)
I'm all for going to the Moon and on to Mars, but I want a sustainable space program. I want to see us go out to space and develop the resources that are out there.
As has been pointed out on this thread, the Shuttle isn't the best way to do this. We need safe reliable transportation to space at a reasonable cost. I think the best answer is a space elevator. The folks over at www.liftport.com are working on actually building one -- well actually four of them. If LiftPort accomplishes it's goals, it will have four space elevators that will be able to carry a shuttle load of cargo to orbit on a WEEKLY basis. Since the elevator will extend out sixty thousand miles, it will also serve as an excellent launching platform for missions to anywhere in the inner solar system. The Earth's own momentum will supply the initial velocity needed.
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:5, Insightful)
Such as law enforcement?
Get this very clear: ANYTIME you ban a substance or object you will ALWAYS create a blackmarket for said substance or object. Why do you think kids are killing each other on the streets today? Video games? No, it's drugs... a blackmarket that is ripe for the kind of thugs who can play the game... Do you recall prohibition at all?
Currently smokes and alcohol are a windfall for the US government considering the level of taxation as well.
But whatever, ban them, let's go back to bath tub gin (which probably caused more health problems in speak easies than what factory made alcohol causes in today's society.)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
I'm not sure the GP was suggesting we ban alcohol and cigarettes, but its always funny to me that in the US that we can't have, eg, higher taxes to help the poor get medical bills, because people who earn their money should get to keep it, and its not the government's job to take care of every person anyway-
You'll eliminate cig & alcohol tax in the proc (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got Google, use it. According to the budget explorer [kowaldesign.com] roughly 644 billion for health and human services and 475 billion for the DOD. And NASA? 15 billion. The Executive office of the President gets about 25 billion BTW.
Eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and you end up with a heck of a lot of money not being spent that could be used for any number of better things.
Well isn't that just a load of off topic flamebait. Yet here at Slashdot, that's what mods call Insightful!
Well, allow me to retort with a few "insightful" comments of my own. I smoke and drink and I say, go right ahead slick... You also eliminate cigarette and alcohol taxes. Oops! Forgot about that, didn't ya sport? So, your "money saved" is already being spent. Here's a better idea... Why don't we institute a fat ass tax on fast food and junk food. Then we can go for a diabeties tax on colas with caffeine... You know, those deadly addictive products with no warning labels. Then we can have All Kinds Of Extra Money to spend on things like space travel and research! ... No? Don't like the idea of taxing your twinkies? Well damn! I could've sworn heart disease was the number one killer in America. Pot, meet kettle.
Alright. Go ahead, mod me down you guys. [davehitt.com] I know you want to.
Guess what causes heart disease! (Score:2)
And those taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to the health care costs inflicted on society by smokers. Forgot about that, didn't ya sport? The median tax rate on cigarettes in the U.S. is 80 cents per pack. If you smoke a pack a day, for 30 years, you've paid $8760 in taxes. That won't come close to covering the costs for chemotherapy, heart bypass, after-stroke care, or any of the other likely results of your
Re:Guess what causes heart disease! (Score:2)
False. The costs for smoking-related illnesses includes everything from heart-bypass operations to chemotherapy to long-term care for smokers who suffered strokes. Smokers get hospitalized more often for pneumonia, emphysema, infections, diabetes, and many other diseases and conditions than non-smokers.
You're assuming everyone who smokes is a liberal parasite on the public dole. Not necessarily true!
No. S
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
OH! It's for the people! Imagine that! Some people on earth have vices! You're perfect though - you don't cost the taxpayer anything. The world owes you! It's all those people that smoke and drink and don't run every morning before work and play rugby after work on Thursdays! They're taking all of your money! Good work, detective. You just g
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
No, no, the rugby is out; too easy to get hurt doing that. Come to think of it, a lot of distance runners eventually have knee problems requiring surgery, so nix that too. With everyone paying in and me as the only beneficiary (because things I do are reasonable by definition), I expect the system to work quite well, thank you!
But of course that's the point I was trying to make (sarcast
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
State (and Federal) budgets would fall apart without the massive sin taxes on certain products.
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
This is already changing. Part of living longer because you don't smoke means you live healthier longer too, and so can work longer. Many people choose not to retire at age 65 then die 5 years later mostly from inactivity and boredom from not working. Improved medical care might also extend the working and healthy years for individuals.
I'm strongly in favour of restricting access to alcohol and more impor
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2)
How about we take the funds, effort, and manhours that would be put into this program and spend them findi
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2, Informative)
Oh yes. Wait - they are? I haven't seen it, have you? I give you a 20 year time frame - you give me one, just one, that's right one (1) example of a foreign country where a large problem, like a threat to us, has been solved. Until then, STFU.
Colbert Report (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, he had Peggy Noonan on his show a few weeks ago, who was a speechwriter for Bush and Reagan, amonst other republicans. She was mentioning how during Bush's 2004 campaign she took a leave from her job at Wall St. Journal to work for Bush's re-election. Colbert immediately responds with "Which of Bush's many achievements made that worthwhile?" And she couldn't say anything but just smirk. She didn't even attempt any talking point of one thing Bush did, it was pretty awesome seeing her pretty uncomfortable she was in even trying to list something positive Bush achieved.
Re:This is what I can say... (Score:2)
I give him props for that, probably better than I would have done.
Since then however.... I got nothin.
Re:This is what I can say... (Score:2)
I suspect that the collapse of the stock bubble had as much of an effect on that as has Bush. Further, there was never any $480 billion surplus. When Clinton left office, there was a surplus of $86.4 billion which they characterized as a surplus of $236.2 billion (by counting the social security surplus, etc. with general receipts).
Source: p. 317 of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/f [whitehouse.gov]
Re:This is what I can say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me tell you something:
When all the money being spent or a substantial amount of money to be spent MUST be borrowed from foreign governments/institutions, that looks like the third world. It has nothing to do with size at all. And that is the USA.
China, Russia, Japan and the EU now help us with our balance of payments. That's a [sad] fact. It was even speculated that China could punish us just by being stubborn by refusing to cooperate. This is exactly what the USA used to do to the 3rd world countries that it used to support financially. This time, the countries I mention above could do the same to us.
Now that sounds like the 3rd world. Do not let the skyscrappers and highways fool you. This country is sinking in debt and mismanagement. The bad thing is that it will get worse before it gets any better.
Re:This is what I can say... (Score:2)
Re:earth to civvies (Score:2, Insightful)
Having a say, and "dictating" are two different things. Only a small fraction of shuttle missions have been military-related. Having a few percent dictate the entire design would not be very rational.
Re:earth to civvies (Score:2)
Military mission needs contributed a great deal to the design of our current vehicle, and the Air Force was heavily involved in the process. In fact, the shuttle was about to start launching military missions from CA's Vandenberg Air Force Base when Challenger happened. Most people don't realize the amou
Re:Marketing Strategy (Score:2)