Unfortunately, no. Lockheed-Martin is a publicly held corporation. Going through with this would not be approved by their board of directors, vice presidents or stock holders unless it could be shown to be profitable in the long run. This capsule will be paid for, that is if it isn't paid for already. I would assume it's all been taken care of, courtesy of tax payers. I'd bet you everything I have against this being a charitable donation to the government in the name of science.
Maybe he's remembering this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOVXh4xM-Ww. It was Jim Kramer on CNBC. Not CNN but he really rages after about 2 minutes into the video. All of this happened a bit before the market went to hell.
The middle east, if possible, obviously.
The most beneficial thing we could do is build a system to detect such asteroids as early as possible. Once located, it's easy to deflect an asteroid that's far away. A small nudge or impact from a probe or the like would push it out of an intercept course while it's still far away. The closer it gets, the more force is required to push it off at an angle that will keep it out of our way. It may take a few newtons of force to deflect an astroid coming in from as far away as saturn, but much more to deflect an asteroid that's already close to mars.
I guess in simpler terms, if we had a really awesome early detection system, all we need is a small rocket launched from the ISS to impact it, wheras with a crappy system, we need Bruce Willis.
Have you ever read a comic book before, let alone a movie? Almost every issue you've raised is addressed in some story or another from Superman rejecting his power (the world is promptly asked to kneel before Zod). The first thing Peter Parker does is act for self gain and he sees that his family is promptly met with demise. In the watchman, Dr. Manhattan quickly becomes indifferent, while Ozymandias quickly decides that the ends justify the means. Honestly, I think we already know all of the possibilities if we look at all of the alternate universes humanity has scribed that contain such people. In the end it really comes down to the personality of the person wielding the power.
It's really not so much different from becoming a public official. Do you vote to ban cable competitors from your district in return for Comcast financing your re-election? Well, you believe that the health care initiative you're trying to pass is for the greater good so you have to be there to get it through. So you take the money, but then they ask you to sign ACTA. But think of the children without health care. Some people will stick to their virtues and others will fall into corruption. If my both the study and my analogy are correct, then yes, the slide into corruption is slippery indeed.
And it's never been a crime to quote Shakespeare or Stephen King, but it's much more difficult to show your friends a clip from a movie that you don't own.
Wait this is Slashdot... Napoleon: Total War
There's an episode where House shows a guy how to do the deed and do the least damage to his organs so he can donate them to his son. I forget why there was a sense of urgency. In any case, I forget if and how it all worked out as well. Certainly not something to be replicated in this situation. There's no TV magic to make it all work out IRL.
There actually are places out there where you can get paid a premium on your donation if you fulfill certain characteristics. While SAT scores don't typically fetch higher prices, a man's profession can fetch them higher values particularly if they are a doctor or lawyer. Racial or ethnic background can add to the value as the price paid for the specimen depends on what has a high demand at the bank.
The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.