U.S. Satellite Programs in Jeopardy of Collapse 328
smooth wombat writes "A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, headed by Richard Anthens, has warned that 'the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget.' The list of Earth-observing satellite programs affected is a long one and includes satellite programs which observe nearly every aspect of Earth's climate. A delay in launching a replacement satellite or the disabling of a current satellite without a replacement could mean that data necessary to monitor or predict an upcoming event would be severely restricted. For its part NASA says that tight budgets force it to cut funding for all but the most vital programs. 'We simply cannot afford all of the missions that our scientific constituencies would like us to sponsor,' NASA administrator Michael Griffin told members of Congress when he testified before the House Science Committee February 16."
Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not right (Score:2, Insightful)
A time honored variant of this is that you have your bullets shipped in butter cartons, pay for them out of the butter budget, then sweep the details under the Rug of Aggregation.
it's all about STARVE THE BEAST (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's all about STARVE THE BEAST (Score:4, Insightful)
Only a fool could think they can feed the beast until it grows to unsustainable size, then it will let itself starve. Moreto the point that the people who live off the beast's waste (and I'm not talking welfare queeens here) are going to let themselves starve in consequence, when all they need to is release the beast glut itself opportunistically. What does it matter to them, as long as the beast feeds on somebody else?
The beast, after all, is only a tool of men, and men look after their own advantage.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
All of that, so we could show the world how awesome our toys are. Oh, and spreading democracy throughout the world.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
Support our troops indeed.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
How did we go from a president that served in the military, with nuclear physics experience,
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:4, Interesting)
The least successful war in U.S. history is probably going to be the costliest too.
-Eric
Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Least successful war? I nominate three others...
Vietnam, which we LOST. Many more allied casualties than this war, war aims not achieved, one million Vietnamese dead.
Korea, which was a DRAW. Also many more casualies than this war, war aims not achieved, barely held on to S. Korea, lots of Koreans dead.
The War of 1812, which we LOST. Washington DC sacked and burned to the ground. More American casualties than this war, and signifiant homeground damage due to British invasion. Oh yeah, and it made Andrew Jackson the indian-killing moron a war hero.
I might also mention the American Civil War, but at least a few good things came out of that one. Also some bad things, like one out of three American males dead. But hey, who's counting?
If you calculate the cost of these wars in constant dollars, some of them, particularly Korea if you include reconstruction (which I assume people are including in the Iraq cost), approaches the current cost of the Iraq War. It is likely that before the end, the Iraq War and reconstruction will end up costing more than Korea, but not by much.
Now, I think that the Iraq War is an expensive and miserable failure, same as the next guy, but hyperbole really weakens the case, don't you think?
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Civil War is a special circumstance.
And yes, Vietnam was certainly an embarrassing loss. But it didn't leave the U.S. international reputation in complete tatters. Nor did it pose a grave threat to the U.S. status as world superpower
This Iraq War is going to be a loss too. But it will also likely mark the beginning of the end of U.S. status as world superpower. And it has absolutely devastated our foreign relations standing, as well as encouraging the nuclear ambitions of countries like Iran and North Korea (who fear that they might be the next preemptive war on King George's list).
And it's financial costs are just BEGINNING to be tallied. Combined the hit to U.S. foreign relations, and the rise of Chinese/Indian economic power, it could very well lead the U.S. to eventual insolvency and "debtor nation" status.
-Eric
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stalemates of very different sorts; the War of 1812 was far more embarrassing, certainly, and fought on home soil. Whenever your capital gets sacked, that's a bad sign.
The Civil War is a special circumstance.
I agree. That's why I didn't include it amongst my 'three nominees' but stated it as a fairly instructive special case immediately following.
And yes, Vietnam was certainly an embarrassing loss. But it didn't leave the
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Informative)
Americans have spent way too much money;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&s
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why there isn't more alarm in the USA about this situation. From my studies of economics I have come to understand that we don't really understand economics - for every economist that says the debt in the USA is a big problem, you can find another that will say it's not a problem at all. Conclusion - we don't know. However, as a biologist I do understand that graphs like this one generally indicate that a big change is about to happen:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif [brillig.com]
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that means cutting the armed forces back by 90-95% and keeping organisations like PNAC under the
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some complexities that are getting missed in your assessment.
First, the US can't cut military spending by 90-95%. It's simply ridiculous to suggest. The US has so much infrastructure (both in-country and outside) that there's always a significant outlay of cash required to keep it running. The military's strategic and logistical partnerships with other nations span the globe. US bases overseas are part of the socioeconomic framework of the host countries. As much as American
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so cutting military spending by 90% immediately is not feasible. But cutting military sp
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, that chart was levelling off. A classic S-shaped curve, exponential growth hitting limits and slowing to a new equilibrium. I'd guess that in mid-2000 things were looking pretty good. Then in 2001 it's up again, and every year since then it's gone up, and up, and up some more.
What the hell went wrong in late 2000, guys? What changed?
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
The US gov can spend trillions and still have good debt if those trillions are an investment in an improved economy, improved export revenues, improved technolo
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
You post just convinces me further of belief that we don't really understand economics...
Debt is debt. Saying that a debt is actually wealth, because the thing you have brought might be worth more in the future, is just gambling. It might be worth less. Running an economy on the premise that "the more we spend, the wealthier we are" just sounds foolish to me. One day, the bubble bursts, and I'm afraid that day is coming fast...
Re:NEED TO START TAXING THE RICH MORE (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no need to bring inflammatory psychological speculation into it. We tax the rich for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: because that's where the money is. I won't try and argue whether it's morally justified or not, but I will note that the top 0.5% of US citizens hold 25% of the US's wealth [berkeley.edu]. If you were a politician and wanted to be re-elected by popular vote,
Re:NEED TO START TAXING THE RICH MORE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
* Look, I can make completely unsubstantiated statements too! *
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
I find $19,705 million for 2004 (cf France with $8,473 million).
source [oecd.org], found via [globalissues.org]
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3)
I am certainly not surprised.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
Let's see how "insightful" you'll be 20 years from now, with a democratic Iraq flourishing for all its people and not just the few tyrants that its past was full of. Then let's see how other countries are doing. Most are currently run by a few, but even now we're starting to see Arabic people from all over that region becoming bolder in their demands for more freedoms. $400 billion is nothing whe
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I don't see how this jibes with his talk earlier about promoting science, but I suppose that was just empty PR anyway. You don't need fancy satellites to tell you about the world when ID can explain anything for free.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
Too much cognitive dissonance... head exploding! BUSH EVIL! NO WAR FOR OIL!
*SPLODE*
Oh, please. (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org] "Although the water supply has reached prewar levels in some provinces, ageing and poorly maintained equipment combined with looting and vandalism leaves the drinking water system substandard."
From the GAO [gao.gov]: "However, electrical service in the country as a whole has not shown a marked improvement over the immediate postwar levels of May 2003 and has worsened in some governorates." Not only is electrical service worse than during Saddam's rule, it's even worse than after much of their electrical capacity was destroyed DURING the war.
From Wikipedia (same link as before): "Untreated waste is polluting the Euphrates River, and many treatment plants require repair. More than 45 pipelines have exploded"
Right. And they're built to inferior standards, and you can't go to them in any case without risking death. I don't need to provide a link, you can see the story every day on CNN.
From Iraqi Body Count: [iraqbodycount.net] estimates range from 28 - 32K deaths just from coalition military activity since the start of the war. Other estimates, some of which include deaths from lawlessness and terrorist activity, are much higher, ranging up to a quarter of a million.
Way to distort the facts. Maybe you should try getting your news from somewhere other than the Weekly Standard.
Sean
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
You don't mention how many have died since the invasion. It might be interesting to compare the number of people killed per year during Saddam's presidency and the numbers since the invasion.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a monster, but let us put the suffering of the Iraqi people into context.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great. Why should I have to pay for it? Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it? I don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqi people, frankly. There are kids here in the US who aren't getting a decent education or nourishment. I have relatives who can't afford good health care, in the most wealthy society on the planet.
Where are all the islamic countries and their aid? Why is it the job of the US to police the world and free the oppressed people (as long as there is some supposed long-term strategic value to doing so)? Look at what's happening in Sudan. Why aren't we sending in the troops? Oh, right... No strategic interests in that part of the world.
People like you make me crazy. Either you're insulting my intelligence by trying to divert my attention with emotional rhetoric, or you're just stupid. I wish the Bush Administration would just have the balls (hear that Rummy?) to just fucking say what they're doing, and why. "We believe that having a friendly country in the middle east will be in our long-term interests. So we took out an unfriendly despot in a country that wasn't particularly liked by its neighbors (a bunch of slightly more friendly despots). But we didn't do the homework on what would happen, and now we're kinda stuck. Oops! Live and learn!"
No, they have to pull out this stupid "Think of the happy Iraqi children!" bullshit.
Bah.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, I don't think that Americans are in any position to complain.
Where in the fuck did you get the idea that I was happy about that? I am mad as hell that we went there to begin with, dummy. It's not my government. I didn't vote for them. I held my nose and voted for the other guys. So did most of the people in my state and my part of the country.
The Iraqi people don't want us there, no matter how many right-wing cheerleaders post pictures of smiling children. If they did, they'd police themselves and settle the fuck down. After the shrine was blown up the other week, there were Iraqi police running around killing Sunnis. There are Shiite death squads (mostly police and army) who've been operating pretty much out in the open for at least a year.
This is not a civilized place, and the people are not ready for democracy. They don't want it. We can't force it on them. We fucked up. We've wasted money and lives. If the islamic world cared about anything besides hating the West, they'd step in and help Iraq help itself.
The US military does not train peacekeepers! They're trained to bring as much death and destruction to an area as they have to in order to achieve a strategic goal. When the military gets involved, people die. I wish our fucking cowboy-in-chief understood that, or cared. Maybe if most of our government officials hadn't gotten deferments in the last big war (oh, sorry, "police action"), they'd understand that.
For the record, lefties annoy me as much as right-wingers. They're two sides of the same (stupid) coin. People don't fucking think for themselves anymore.
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:2)
And in many sections of Iraq, they still do not have the clean water, reliable electricity and sewer system they used to have. Moreover, the clinics and hospitals that do exist are completely overrun, understaffed and out of medecine. Oh the joy of anecdotes and in
Re:Guns or butter? Bush chooses guns. (Score:3, Interesting)
Accoring to the CIA, the war made no difference; Iraq [cia.gov]- 68.7 years, Iran [cia.gov] - 69.96, Syria [cia.gov] - 70.3.
According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk], "Life expectancy: 57 years (men), 60 years (women) (UN)",
Oh dear... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I realised that they're not just cancelling missions that are trying to learn more generally, they're cancelling missions that have immediate and obvious benefits: weather monitoring to try and help avoid natural disasters, studying global warming and suchlike.
What ARE the Americans playing at? This seems to me to be a very foolish course of action, these problems will not go away if we're blind to them...
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
In other words, missions which are directly hurting Bush's biggest sponsors.
No, the reasoning is clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the reasoning is pretty clear, if you accept one premise: anything the private sector might the government ought not do. By this way of reasoning, government weather monitoring, morally speaking, tantamount to theft of potential profits from private parties.
I'd posit, I hope in an impartial way, that acceptance of this precept is the greatest difference between the conservative and liberal theories of governance.
An alternative precept is this: the government should do any activity where, on the whole, the public benefits more from government participation than government non-participation. This is a liberal viewpoint. To represent the conservative viewpoint fairly, conservatives don't say this is false, but it is true only in a tautological sense. They believe that in any case where the private sector participates to some degree in an activity, public sector participation a priori impledes the progress of the public good. This means it is never the case that government activity in spheres the private sector is interested in does the public good, people of a conservative bent can hold both premises consistently.
Of course, these are caricatures of liberal and conservative thinking. Most thoughtful people don't reason exclusively from first principles to specific situations, but make allowances for exceptional circumstances.
In any case, while one might violently disagree with government policies of the left or right, the stupidity if it exists doesn't necessarily lie in the process of reasoning, but the first principles from which that reasoning proceeds.
Re:No, the reasoning is clear (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it's better to let the private sector take on vital services like this. I'm going to start a wellfare company, a police business, and a judicial corporation. Maybe I could get some pointers from the petrolium, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries about how to be fair, too...
Well, privatizing every one of these things has some precedent, don't they? So it's not impossible to imagine, at least for some people, that these activities be done entirely by the private sector.
(1) Tornado warnings: there are private weather companies. In fact I'd say that tornado warnings if anything a stronger case for privatization than, say hurricane warnings, as the damage area for tornoadoes is localized, although the risk area is large.
(2) Welfare. At one point time this was the province of private charity, and some would like to be again.
(3) Police. It's called a private security firm. Think also gated communities.
(4) Judicial. It's called mediation. It's not a 100% replacement of course.
This may seem far out, but I've certainly met highly intelligent people who strongly believe that government withdrawal from these areas would be a good thing.
Now, as a liberal my philosophy is that the government should engage broadly in these areas, leaving scope for private enterprise to address market segment needs. So, the government should warn people of tornadoes. But if certain enterprises need greater lead time or higher geographic precision than the public as a whole nees, that's a business opportunity. Likewise, let the state provide care for pregnant drug addicted teens, and the private sector provide care for pregnant drug addicted teens from wealthy families. Let the public sector provide police, but private firms provide 7x24 on-premises monitoring.
Missions value exaggerated (Score:3, Interesting)
science for science's sake has often lead to many of the greatest breakthroughs in science history.
We are talking about observational science here. What great breakthroughs have EOS missions ever produced?
It doesn't sound like the GOES weather satellites are effected, just some of the more specific Earth Observing System missions.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
Re:Oh dear... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Beethoven Corporation brought us a lot of great music...oh, wait, no.
I'm so happy businesses created this Internet thing that we're using...crap, no, they didn't do that, either.
I'm sorry, I'd like to provide more examples, but I think this is the stupidest thing that I have ever read.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
Without business, vaccinations wouldn't have been mass produced, you wouldn't be able to buy a Beethoven CD, and the Internet would have been something for universities and the military, not the general public.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
I see.
So it's "robbing from you" when taxes are used for fundamental research, but when my tax money goes to help the government kill people who don't look like I do across the ocean, it's "national security", eh?
> You also say that public research brings advances to society, but I don't believe that, either.
That may be the funniest, stupidest thing I've EVER read on
Re:Oh dear... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the greatest advances in society happen as the result of war or the threat of war. Sad but true. Some recent examples:
These are just a few examples. Certainly there are products which business has developed for consumers but many major advances come from the military doing the legwork.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
The advances in tech from the space program alone is staggering.
Re:Oh dear... (Score:4, Informative)
Not a word in there about science.
That has got to be about the dumbest fscking argument I've ever seen. Do you actually think that counts for something? Here's something called a fact. Watch out. This might hurt.
Quoted from the law which created NASA and guides it's purpose. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.
DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
Sec. 102.(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
Sounds like science to me. Back under the bridge you little troll!
Re:Oh dear... (Score:2)
>
> Not a word in there about science.
Let's see...the Bureau of "Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms" has nothing in its name about explosives, so they really shouldn't be in the business of regulating anything else. The "Food and Drug Administration" doesn't have anything in its name about medical devices, so it really shouldn't be in the business of regulating those nifty devices doctors use on us during surgery. The "US Forest Service" says nothin
Re:Oh dear... (Score:3, Informative)
Sec. 203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall--
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
Get a bigger budget easily.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Get a bigger budget easily.... (Score:2)
What else did you expect? (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry about that pesky climate change thing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
More questions (Score:4, Insightful)
So, we might be losing the ability to track dangerous weather systems, monitor volcanic activity and study the effect of humanity on the planet due to the demands of "scientific constituencies"? What exactly is a "scientific constituency"? The reporter/editor should have clarified this.
Or is this more of a situation where the sexy projects (travel to the Moon and Mars) are taking precedence over real science? And why doesn't that surprise me?
Re:More questions (Score:4, Informative)
The problem has been that NASA is not only declining to fund new satellite programs, they're also cutting funding for existing ones, and going back on promises to fund projects already underway. (Some commentary from Nature on the subject is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7078/f
"Scientific constituencies" (Score:2)
ie. the voters and/or lobbyists. Add 'scientific' in there, and he's most likely talking about groups like the American Geophysical Union [agu.org] and the American Astronomical Society [aas.org]
ps. There's a
Well, of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
All those pesky earth-science satelites keep on reporting that the globe is heating up and stuff. Why would we want to hear that? That doesn't fit with our politics at all!
Solar Storms (Score:2)
Re:Solar Storms (Score:2)
Actually, the solar observing projects haven't (yet) been cut completely--
STEREO [nasa.gov] is set to launch this year (but no one knows when, due to problems with a battery used in the system to destruct the third stage of the rocket in case something goes wrong)
SOLAR-B [nasa.gov] is set to launch this year as well (it's a joint JAXA [isas.ac.jp] project, though)
SDO [nasa.gov] should be on track as well
That's not to say that these projects aren't hitting financial problems -- STEREO's delay is a problem, as it costs more to keep the spacecra
More efforts required (Score:2, Insightful)
Military vs. Scientific Satellites (Score:5, Insightful)
A scientific satellite to help observe global warming? NOT in this administration! They don't even want to acknowledge that global warming is happening, let alone help observe it.
If this upsets you, I suggest you vote for a President that actually cares about Science.
Re:Military vs. Scientific Satellites (Score:2)
He cares about science. Just look at how hard he and his cronies have worked to make sure our bright young biology students are aware of "divergent views on evolution."
Maybe his sky-god can pay off our huge national debt one day too.
-Eric
Glad we have our priorities straight (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA's 2006 Budget: 16.656 billion [nasa.gov]
Glad to see my government has no problems blowing 14 years worth of operating expenses on something that by all appearances will never have a positive outcome, while letting vital programs for all of earth collapse.
Re:Glad we have our priorities straight (Score:2)
> hardware based on modern technology, they'd have plenty of money
If they'd just get rid of those expensive shuttles...then we'd have an unfinished boondoggle of a space station sitting in orbit with zero science capability that eats up billions of dollars and takes 2-3 guys just to keep it from falling apart.
Oh, wait...
Talk about speaking from both sides of one's mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
"the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond. [cnn.com]
AND
President Bush's Jan. 14 speech painted broad brushstrokes of his plan to put humans back on the Moon and send them to Mars. [space.com]
Oh but that was back in 2004, right, trying to get more "techies" to vote for him...
And NOW, as most of us have always know is TRUE color...
Disgruntled members of a congressional oversight committee objected Wednesday to a White House budget plan that threatens to cripple NASA's unmanned space programs and Earth and aeronautics research, President Bush's plan instead emphasizes sending American explorers back to the moon by 2018. [chron.com]
Budget cuts for 2002 [house.gov]
Elsewhere there is talk of a 1% increase in NASA's budget for 2k7 but this is NOTHING compared to the slash to the budget that Bush dealt NASA when he first took office because he "needed" that money for the military we would later use to attach the middle east...
Hmmmm... Nice Logic! Instead of looking FORWARD back then... and looking into alternative fuels, the future, and Space
But that's ok, it's obvious at this point that most Americans have a short attention span and don't really delve deeply. At least the "red" ones.
Re:Talk about speaking from both sides of one's mo (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wish this expectation of failure made acceptance of the President's failures easier to deal with. Pe
Re:Too bad that you do not read (Score:3, Interesting)
You saw exactly what I was pointing out.
No one is thinking about how, when he came into office, he slashed the NASA budget to the BONE.
Then in 2004 mentions, "oh lets do this... Lets go to the moon and Mars, etc. etc." BUT that was all fluff to get voters from the "tech" areana.
And NOW, he is back to the same old same old... The NASA budget is STILL less then the budget it had PRIOR to this President being in office.
Thanks again for "gro
Bush increased NASA funding overall. (Score:4, Informative)
I should really write this out as a form letter and paste it in pre-emptively to each NASA thread about budget, since it always turns into Bush-bashing.
The Bush administration has increased funding every year for the past several years. The President of the US does not control how NASA's budget works. Sure he has made a push toward manned space flight being revamped, but why would you complain about re-vamping an outmoded inefficient system?
It is the head of NASA who makes the budget the way it is. There is never enough money to do what you want to these days, no matter who is in charge of the country or what party they belong to. Michael Griffin has a hard job, and what he is saying is true, we need more science money. I am not disagreeing. But this notion that Bush has cut funding is folly, and shows up in every thread.
Guns and butter indeed.
kulakovich
Re:Bush increased NASA funding overall. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush has REARRANGED funding (Score:3, Interesting)
And the head of NASA reports directly to the President. And NASA is definitely part of the executive branch of the US government. If the President says "jump" to NASA, it responds "How High, Sir?".
If the scientists had been in control, we would have shot the International Space Station and the Shuttle years ago. Together they suck up most of NASA's budget, and return little or nothing in new data.
You are correct, NASA's budget is not being globa
It is waste, not politics (Score:4, Insightful)
The US satellite industry has self-destructed. At one time, not very long ago, if anyone in the world wanted to launch a satellite, they went to the US. Now, they go to the Europeans. Why? US companies didn't want to bother with little commercial satellites. They wanted contracts in the $billions. Even if these big government projects fail and get cancelled, they are still more profitable than the commercial contracts.
Increasing funding won't do a thing except waste more money. We need to stop measuring our performance by how much money we spend! How about measuring by how effective we are?
Eventually, of course, the government will wise up and stop bankrolling these billion dollar boondoggles. They will just buy data from the European and Asian satellites. But, of course, that won't happen until at least next quarter, so party on!
Remember... (Score:2)
Thank You Mr. President.... (Score:2)
I, for one, am glad that you aren't worried about monitoring the status of the earth when there's a dead planet like Mars beckoning to be "explored." Beside that, we all know you can't possibly subsidize new, profitable, romantic business models on the back of programs that yield nothing but information (that might provide a counterpoint). We, all of us, accept that it's simply a matter of priority. If the investment does't lead US to a more competitive, hegemonic postion internationally, then it really isn
Is it that time of the year already? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's another plea for awareness so that Congress can make sure that the NASA pet projects that have gone on for years can continue. Of course there isn't any money in the budg
Could some one explain to me wh;y? (Score:2)
What does NASA do that
Oxymoron? (Score:2)
House Science Committee. Isn't that an oxymoron?
The Red Planet (Score:4, Insightful)
But when running NASA, even Griffin can't find money to keep America's most beloved, productive, and strategic science agency alive.
Meanwhile, Bush's support for proliferating nuclear weapons to all the hot wars in Asia is great marketing for the useless Star Wars "missile defense shield".
False emergency? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a Bunch of Monkeys! (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, here's the deal: NASA just got a budget increase. Did anyone notice that? That's important, because it means the budget cuts are not to NASA, but to some programs. And, the reason, children, that the satellites are being starved, the number one reason for budget cuts everyone else in NASA, is not because Bush is President or the Republicans control Congress or the U.S. Vietnam War was a stalemate or the U.S. economy is deep in debt. No; the Number One drain on NASA's budget is the space shuttle program, followed closely by the space station program. As in, say bye-bye to 80% or more of whatever money NASA gets. THIS IS THE REASON BUSH IS CUTTING OUR LOSSES ON THE SHUTTLE AND SPACE STATION!! We (in the U.S.) have to get rid of those programs, or we aren't going to have a space program.
Yes, the Earth-observing satellite programs are in bad shape. They have been for a long time. Believe it or not, they were in bad shape before Bush became President. And, unless we cut our losses on the space station and come up with an economical replacement for the space shuttle, the EOS programs are going to be in terrible shape long after Bush leaves office.
Nothing I've said here is secret or novel. This is all common knowledge to anyone paying attention to the U.S. space program. So, how to explain the bulk of the posts to this thread?
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Without even being American, I'm pretty sure that if you restrict the government to only the things expressly allowed in your constitution, you'd end up with being fifteen acres of the poorest hippies ever to own a printing press. You _are_ aware, are you not, that things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC or indeed a standing army are not covered by that constitutio
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2, Troll)
You _are_ aware that our 9th and 10th Amendments allow for the States and the People to perform these powers themselves? Why should someone in California pay for a highway in Illinois? Why should someone in Miami pay for a fire in Denver?
The Federal government has no ability to perform efficiently, which was why we had the Constitution in the first place.
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to put it differently: Do you feel that it's okay for your wife to sleep around so that she can find the most efficient lay?
Seriously, you need to go to China. I'm not saying this in a 'get the hell out' sort of way, but they have a government very much like the one you seem to want; no restrictions on business for the most part, very little taxation, cheap labor...
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the one thing you rugged rocky mountain individualists, Randroids, and libertarians in love with your own wallets don't understand is that we aren't just Californians or Illinoisans. We are not a Confederacy, no matter how much the Dixiecrats running the country want that to be.
We are Americans, E Pluribus Unum. Helping Californians helps me. If I help pay to fix earthquake damage
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
Oh? I don't see it.
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
If you're afraid for the climate or the environment, donate your money voluntarily to commercial or not-for-profit businesses to create research wings. Asking me to pick up the tab for your toys, against my will, is really not acceptible anymore to me....
Climate & environmental research is not a toy. Perhaps its not appropriate for it to be in NASA, but without research
Golddigger? Try Booth Babe. (Score:2)
Which doesn't automatically mean it's a boondoggle.
At the time it was conceived, we were engaged in a great struggle over the future direction of civilization. The Cold War. While munitions (which I think we can all agree are legitimate government expenditure) were used in this struggle, the ultimate weapon of the struggles was national prestige. 132 billion in 2006 dollars spent over the course of a decade is not an unreasonable to get a decis
Re:Golddigger? Try Booth Babe. (Score:2)
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:5, Insightful)
So move elsewhere. Or work to get someone else elected.
I never drive, I only use the trains. I therefore think that all funding for highways should be cut. I mean, private industry will pick up the slack, right? Anyone who drives can choose to send a few bucks to their favorite highway maintenance organization, right?
"A great majority of the citizens of the State are so far in debt that there is no likelihood of escaping it in their lifetimes, so the citizens push the debt off to the next two generations."
Personal debt has more to do with people not spending within their means, and being ecouraged to enter into bondage with the credit companies. It doesn't tie in so well with government debt, you are conflating the NASA budget with Social Security, etc.
"I don't see any public interest achievements in NASA, and I definitely don't see why NASA or the U.S. government needs to be handling any scientific research"
Then open your eyes. Or read more history of science. One of NASA's roles is to create new markets -- for example, without NASA, there wouldn't be a market for commerical satellites.
"It is time to just end the program entirely and leave it up to a competitive marketplace. There are enough billionaires with money to spend, let them finance these toys strictly for ego"
What competitive marketplace? There is no market yet. Government has always acted to open new markets, which is what NASA is all about.
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
This country (the U.S.) was built around personal responsibility and freedom. Neither of your "answers" there cover either. Why should I move when I live in a country that is based on freedom? I'd rather see solutions to downsize the federal government and let the states adapt. I don't believe in democracy, so voting is counter-intuitive and against my morals, although I do vote [blogspot.com].
I never drive, I only use the trains.
The trains by me are funded by for
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
Who exactly do you think pays the upkeep for your "cheaper and more efficient" road system? The Highway Fairy?
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1704 [mises.org]
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
Re-read your history. You misunderstand what personal responsibility and freedom meant to the people who founded the US. I suggest you read "Washington Crossing the Delaware," Macculloch (sp?) does a great job of explaining the different interpretations of the major factions.
"The trains by me are funded by force -- the average rider pays a few dollars, and the taxpayer pays almost $10 more to cover the bureaucracy of the tra
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:3, Informative)
Thats because you probably have not looked.
For example, you could see how NASA research can benefit you if you are handicapped or as you grow older by reading Robert Heinlein's non-fiction essay "Spinoff", based on his testimony before comittee in Congress. Its found in the collection _Expanded Universe_.
You can read some of it via Amazon.com here. [amazon.com]
It starts about page 501.
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
Us aussies dont need to pay farmers to produce because our farmers are good enough that they (except in times of natural disasters like floods or drought) dont need subsidies to stay in business.
US farm subsidies cause more total output of various crops to be produced than would otherwise be the case which drives prices lower and hurts unsibsidised farmers. In the
Re:A pretty golddigger is still a golddigger. (Score:2)
I agree with you wholeheartedly. A national healthcare system is not sensible.