Slashdot Mirror
Pluto Mission Apparently Cancelled
hey! writes "This just in at space.com -- new details of the Bush NASA budget.
It looks like the Pluto-Kuiper express has been cancelled -- possibly our last chance for centuries to get a closeup look at Pluto's atmosphere. As Jupiter moves out of position for gravity assist and Pluto moves further from the Sun it's atmosphere will begin to freeze.
My favorite line in the report -- ISS will get increased "consistent with a strategy of constraining space station cost growth." OK, they're talking about being pound wise and penny foolish, but you can't pass up an Orwellian straight line like that."
If the Administration hadn't expressed an interest in constraining budget growth of the ISS, I'd be worried.
Anyone want to post hard numbers on exactly how many billions of dollars the ISS is over-budget? How much of our "financial aid" to Russia has really been "please, take this bribe and keep Baikonur operating a little while longer"?
The ISS is hugely, massively overbudget. The Administration's expressed interest in constraining more costs is prudence, not Visigothism. Saying "this thing is already several billion overbudget, and we don't want to see it grow one dollar moreso" is a great deal different from saying "we're not going to give this the funding it needs".
While I'm adamantly in favor of the space program and long-term habitation in space, I'm not in favor of the idea (which some Slashdotters seem to agree with) that any level of funding is acceptable, and any constraint on funding is neo-Luddism.
Aliens on pluto are reportedly unhappy with the decision, as they can now not live up to a bet they made last year with the Martians to crash the probe. The Martians are said to be joyful over the news because pluto now has to change it's name to snoopy.....
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
[B]ut you can't pass up an Orwellian straight line like that.
Sadly it looks like they can. Science or the pursuit of knowlege is usually one of the first things to go in times of trouble. I am not an American, but I would hardly call the times in the U.S. "troubled". I fear that the constant downgrading of NASA is perhaps that warning sign of trouble.
There is simply too much "lack of caring" for scientific (or more specifically skeptical) thinking in North America, things like the "outlawing" of evolutionary instruction are, like the NASA "A Blueprint for New Beginnings" dangerous. Sure, the budget is 2% greater than 2001, but with the space station all the money is put towards that.
Expect to see even more "cheaper, faster" but not "better" space exploring craft in the future.
I have a bad feeling about this.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
If any one of the big American sports leagues were to be suddenly disbanded, the money that was going to be spent on salaries, merchandise, stadiums, and all the other stuff could most likely pay more than enough for us to not only get to Pluto, but to hook up a bunch of tow-rockets and bring it back home.
Space station program management would also shift from Johnson Space Center, Houston to NASA Headquarters in Washington under Bush's plan.
This is a travesty. "Washington, we have a problem." How stupid is that!?
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Pluto, by contrast, has a massive bang for buck: a few hundred million to visit an obscure and beautiful place on the edge of human consciousness. People appreciate probes too: just look at Sojourner and NEAR.
[/rant]
Argh, I'm so frustrated. Bad day, just need to vent a little.
... but I doubt that over that time[centuries] period the composition of Pluto's atmosphere will ever be relevant in any practical sense.
This post isn't insightful. Some moderator has mistaken this for a thoughtful, considered statement balanced between two extremes.
Just to dissect this post a little:
When considered rationally, it's obvious that funding support for the ISS is much more important than research about the atmosphere of Pluto.
I doubt anyone can rationally argue the merits of one over the merits over another. Both sides have merits, and the powerful thing about science and research is that you don't know the value of those merits until it is tied in with other bits of knowledge.
Again, this isn't something one can judge except in hindsight. I can agree with the logic that we can't afford to send a probe to Pluto, I can't agree with the logic that the knowledge gained won't 'ever be relevant in any practical sense.'
Argh, I'm just pissed. Apologies to the readers who have to see this rant ^^
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Engineers, OTOH, apply the results of pure science and produce new technology.
Besides, it's not like science has been lax in providing the engineers with discoveries... this century has only seen the greatest growth of technological development in history.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with G. W. Bush. The space station has always been a public relations operation, as has the space shuttle and most of the rest of the manned space program (the technological spin-offs were just pleasant side-effects). You can't really blame George, though- he is just following the popular conception of what the space program is supposed to be. The ISS doesn't really provide the next step toward the moon or Mars- it's more efficient for a Mars mission to head out directly to Mars, rather than stop off at the ISS, but how is a politician supposed to know that when his science advisors are probably in favor of the PR operation?
--WH--
Let's see, 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut over 5 years, about 250 billion per year. Get rid of the $5 billion per year you're giving Gates and Buffet in tax cuts, and voila, NASA budget problem solved.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
- Gravity
- Been there
- Less complicated system
They could come up with some sort of dome that they use and have the shuttle transport and install it (it would be of a minimal size - bed rooms..). They just launch tons and tons of air canisters (enough for a few months) and then launch construction equipment.UPS Sucks
dimator writes:
... ), which has meant fierce competition instead of cooperation. Johnson, in particular, was run by the notoriously prickly George Abbey, who has just been bumped up to a non-job in NASA headquarters, after some 20 years (interrupted) of stubborn power.
>Space station program management would also shift from Johnson Space Center, Houston
>to NASA Headquarters in Washington under Bush's plan.
This is a travesty. "Washington, we have a problem." How stupid is that!?
Of course the Mission Control rooms at Houston's Johnson Space Center will remain right where they are. What is changing is that the JSC manager will no longer be virtually independent. One of the crippling problems with NASA over he years has been the feudal independence of the various centers (Houston, Marshall, Kennedy, Dryden, JPL
All this means is that Goldin is making sure nobody gets that powerful again anytime soon.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
We have two many nuclear submarines going around in circles that really are not needed any more. How many times over is it necessary to destroy the Planet? We have enough power to destroy *all* life on Earth.
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
If you think that the threat has subsided, well it has to a point, but remember that in 1995 we came to within 2 minutes of Nuclear devastation due to a Norwegian weather rocket fooling the Russians into thinking that the US had launched a first strike against Moscow.
I am not saying we should scrap all the military assests, that would be silly, but we should cut back the white elephants and put that money into something more meaningful.
We have achieved more when reaching out exploring than we have any other way, in my ever so humble opinion.
StarTux
Mars, Europa, or Titan might be more interesting targets from a personal point of view, but chances of getting there anytime soon look dim. Rationally, even there, I'd prefer detailed 3D imagery and scientific analysis brought back by unmanned probes, rather than wasting money on the ISS and other publicity stunts.
If you want to experience unexplored nature, go into the oceans: cheaper, far less explored than earth orbit, and a lot more interesting. And if you want to actually experience getting close to space, climbing a high mountain gives you a more immediate experience.
Estimated cost of national missile defense system: $ 60 billion.
In other words: The United States develop a "missile defense" system against "rogue states" which is known not to work. For this money, they could fly man three times to Mars and back. 'nuff said.
--
This particular budget cut is a travesty of magnificent proprtions. The celestial clock happens to be perfectly in tune with our technological advancement, to offer us this rare glimpse of our environment, as a species. To decide that we can't afford to redirect a few paltry resources to the task strikes me as narrow and crude. It's almost as if, as a species, we are too lazy to bother craning our necks a little to see what's outside the crib.
But it doesn't have to be this way. NASA isn't the only agency capable of sendiing the probe. in fact, maybe this feat could be accomplished on a voluntary basis? We have theories/plans for magical technology at our disposal, commercial support services to pester, potential launch capabilities and a wide variety of legal launch facilities around the world.
Consider: we have, just here at slashdot, the ears of a number of very technically capable individuals that might be persuaded to help create a Pluto Probe in an open sourced, ameteur manner. Corporate sponsorship would be soon to follow. Perhaps I haven't thought it out too carefully, but it is apparent to me that the potential to deploy a probe exists, despite the government.
::I will not moderate my opinions for your stinking karma
However, this seems to have some good details.
More money on space-based propulsion research (solar-electric and nuclear) and 'more robust' Mars explorers, for example. These are both quite important things. A big advance in propulsion could lower the cost of all solar system exploration and open up new possibilities. I'd really like to see some more succesful Mars missions like the Pathfinder.
I think the Pluto-Kuiper mission could not give much valuable information, when compared to the Europa Mission and Solar Probe. The Solar Probe was also cancelled. IMHO the Europa Mission is the most important of these three.
Just as Pluto is largely irrelevant now in the Grand Scheme of Things. Unless, of course, you'd like to stop and pick up a bag of dusty ice for your martini on your trip to Beta Lyrae. But then again, you'd probably have scores of other bodies to choose from in the Kupier Belt.
To quote the document which the Slashdot reference refers to:
To support a potential, future sprint to the planet Pluto before 2020, additional funds will be directed to key propulsion technology investments.
I think this is an excellent idea: The Deep Space 1 probe has already pretty much proven that ion drive works, and more interesting propulsion technologies exist on the drawing board. Not only the Pluto-Kuiper program will benefit from this (the Kuiper belt will still be there) but other probe programs as well (except maybe Moon probes, but they ain't that interesting anyway).
The whole budget thing seems to me like GWB is shaking a stick at NASA, saying that they must start to think about the commercialization of space, and to build more reliable stuff.
It isn't all bad, IMHO. It could be a lot worse.
This is insanely off-topic, but it's worth mentioning, because it comes up every time someone suggests we cut the nuclear triad to save mondo buckaroos:
Nuclear Forces Cost Virtually Nothing. In comparison to the conventional infrastructure, that is. Yes, the R&D for the B2, Ohio SSBNs, and Trident D5 were very expensive, but everything except the B2 pales in comparison what we're going to spend on the F-22, F-117, SeaWolf, and JSF.
Fundamentally, about the only significant cost-savings you can squeeze out of the Nuclear forces is not to build any more B2s (I think we have 1 scheduled for FY2002, at about $2B ). Cutting anything else is a tiny savings, since we've already done the research and paid for the hardware, and there is fundamentally very little there to begin with.
Yes, I'm very much for getting rid of the B2 force, and seriously cutting the MX/Minuteman deployments. But don't be fooled. These aren't going to save any significant money (doing both of the above might save a few hundred million/year, tops). Compared to the billions it costs to keep a single Carrier task force running, or an Armored Division prepped, this is peanuts. And remember, a huge amount of the military budget is personnel (pay, medical benefits, housing, et al), consumables (new ammunition, jet fuel, etc.) and R&D, all of which have very little to do with the nuclear forces.
If you're going to cut nukes, do it for strategic reasons. Don't be an idiot and think it will save any real money, though.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
According to NASA:
2000/09/13 - A NASA stop work order has been issued for The Pluto-Kuiper Express mission as currently envisioned. Further direction from NASA has been given to develop a new mission to reach Pluto before 2020.
Note that the date is last September, which is before the US Election debacle. To you Bush haters out there, please understand the facts of the situation before you immediately jump all over Dubya.
The US nuclear arsenal is less than 3,000 megatons of explosive yield. Russia's nuclear arsenal has been estimated to have a comparable yield. While this is enough, if properly targetted, to kill a large proportion of the humans on Earth, it isn't remotely enough to "destroy all life on Earth". As a point of reference, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has been estimated to have released 450 megatons of energy.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The effects of 'nuclear winter' after massive nuclear warfare may kill much more than just mankind, since most forests will die in few years without a summer and then ocean life will collapse, too. This leaves virtually no room for highly-organized life as we know it, because oxygen concentration in the air drops dramatically without green plants, and low temperatures make most of now-flourishing regions deserts. Anaerobic forms of life still have good chances to survive, but all of those are very primitive.
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
If you read the troll FAQ (sorry, don't have the link), you'll recognize this as a classic troll. First sentence is entirely reasonable, but, as the post progesses, it becomes more and more inflammatory. The closing line, "NASA is finally doing something useful.", is the closing barb...
If you don't believe me, check qpt's user info and look at his comment history. See how many -1's qpt has posted? There are also some 3's and 4's, suggesting that he's a pretty successful troll.
Just so I don't wander too far off-topic, I'll analyze and rebut one line:
Far too much effort is being wasted in superfluous programs that have no real chance of every producing a usable application.
Yeah, like quantum mechanics. Oh, wait, about a third of all technology invented in the past 50 years involves QM (directly or indirectly). Think semiconductors, high-temp superconductors, laser diodes...
And what the hell was up with those crazy Watson and Crick guys who were playing with a double helix? And that Newton guy...
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful.
I could go on, but it's just a troll. If you fell for it (as the moderators have), you should be ashamed of yourself.
My guess is that it's really aimed at taking China's ICBM's out of the game if there's a confrontation over Taiwan, but even that doesn't make sense (smuggled-in weapons render the world's best NMD system useless).
So, can anyone point me to a well-thought-out justification for NMD that convinces me to do something other than encourage my government to tell the US government to go jump when they ask to use the Australian bases for this (not that my encouragement will make a lick of difference, but . . . )
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Your fact completely invalidates 95% of the /. comments on this article. Glad to see that some people still know what they're talking about, instead of just taking another propagandizing opportunity to make fun of "strategery".
OK, they're talking about being pound wise and penny foolish
For some reason I am looking more forward to a tax break than I was the Pluto mission....
love is just extroverted narcissism
I think it is if not a really great idea, at least a good compromise and to delay a Pluto probe.
While I am neither a propulsion scientist nor a molecular chemist, it does seem likely that setting themselves a tangible goal for next generation propulsion systems is good.
Likewise, it will make a lot more sense (of course, maybe too much worrying about "sense" when we should be thinking "pushing the envelope") to colonize the moon with nanoscale technology in perhaps 20 years.. this apparently passes up the human dramas that marked the world's space exploration efforts, of great adventure and risk on the bootstrap limb of history.
I'm pretty worried about cutbacks made in the first months of 2001 as it shows the new President of the United States, and his constituency by and large, do not share this sense of wonder or focus on learning as a species, of self-evolution. If they did in an organic, willful way I'd think people would feel an overwhelming urge to encompass the entire solar system and out to the Oort clouds in the sweep of an arm and say, We have been there and it is ours to give to our children.
It seems inevitable that no matter how much or little NASA may be doing, a contracting economy and provincialism require NASA to provide evidence of belt-tightening as well. My hopes are that the science and fiction on which we feed ourselves here makes itself true by realizing a manifest destiny kind of story in the first half of the twenty-first century.
It seems evident that the way we are teaching each other to think through Slashdot and similar media (well it looks that way surfing at 3..) must have a significant effect on the way this story unfolds, through philosophy, attitude to technology, political voice, and "Can do" spirit. I think some of this must be present in space entrepreneurs. They must be intent.
I'd say that in our networked lives that reach around the world to share information while at the same time, drilling down at solving the problem at one's own feet in gritty software code, we're playing an important part of building the foundation for this future and we must not imagine that we are not involved. Let intellect and vision lead our vacillating planet! How old do you intend to be when you call the Moon?
Pluto's not a Real Planet (tm) anyway.
-Shakespeare The Merchant of Venice
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Woah people, why is this bad? Sure if supplies and engineering talent was unlimited we should send something to pluto. They are not however. Supplies are finite, and other then it is there, there is no compelling reason to go to pluto.
Everyone has their own ideas of what to spend money on. Personally I want to spend my own money as I see fit. What will going to pluto gain us that we don't have already? What is on pluto that we need to go study? So far it just looks like a "because it is there and this is the best time for the next few hundred years" arguement. I've been looking at a new linux laptop, and a tax cut would help me get it. (Now I agree that over the all the people in the US the pluto mission isn't very significant, but a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking real money which is significant over the population of the us.
Of course there will have to be two women for every man.
(Sorry, my evil left hand typed that).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Several points:
- The TTAPS study has been fairly discredited as an over-simplistic analysis. .
.
- Specifically:
- It assumes far longer "hang times" for atmospheric particulates than observed reality
- It assumes far higher levels of small particulates than found in observed reality
- Worst of all, it was a one-dimensional static analysis
- In short, it was great copy, but lousy science.
- The most likely outcome of a massive nuclear conflict would approximate that of the Thera Explosion or Krakatoa: one season with a short, cold summer, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, where, oddly enough, 90+ % of the targets are. .
.
There's an interesting page on Nuclear Winter, Nuclear Summer, and other variants here.Mind you, I saw things from two perspectives: as a student geologist from the early 1980's, and as a Strategic Air Command Bomber Crew member in the mid- and late-1980's. . .
snip
Highlights of 2002 Funding
snip
Did I read wrong, or is Bush actually INCREASING the budget for some majour programs? And privatizing space flight? There is strong support for the argument that privatizing space flight will send us forward by leaps and bounds, because of the increased funding, the increased safety requirements, and the increased interest (competition, etc).
Truth be told, NASA isn't getting enough. But when Bush actually increases their budget, rather than decreasing it like I feared he would, I think he deserves a little credit. True, some of the bazillion dollars given to military could have gone to NASA, but at least he increased spending on space stuff!
So don't be so quick to criticise Bush on this one; he seems to be doing NASA a favour this time.
Forager
student of animation and the fine arts
Charon is a lot closer to Pluto's size than the Moon is to Earth's.
No relation to Happy Monkey
It really saddens me to see how the space program has gotten shoved in the background over the past decade or two. Sure, it's a horrendously expensive endeavor in the short term, but I can't think of ANY better long-term investment, with returns in technology, economic wealth (I'd wager there's gold - and things even more valuable - in them there asteroids), and essential resources (stick a big array of solar panels in orbit, and you've got insane amounts of free energy, forever). And with overpopulation and global industrialization progressing at their current rate, humanity better start thinking NOW about where it's going to go as a species once things start to get truly shaky, even if that's a century or two down the road. Getting lots of people off the planet, one way or another, looks like the best long-term option from my perspective.
In the short term, too, I think the space program has many benefits. It gives people something to dream about, and a way to express the pioneer spirit now that all of available land masses on earth have been more or less spoken for. When I was growing up, in the late 70s-early 80s, the space program was one of the first things to get me REALLY fired up about learning. Following the progress of the Voyager missions, the Mars probes, and the first Space Shuttle flights was utterly mind-blowing. I suspect that these interests had plenty to do with my getting interested in computers, which has proved rewarding in all sorts of ways. But then, a few years later, between the arms race of the cold war and the explosion of the Challenger, the U.S. cooled off on the space race, and hasn't regained the same momentum since.
There are plenty of arguments that money for the space program can be better spent. Not just on increased military spending and tax cuts for the rich, but for things like food and education. How can a nation spend billions building space probes when so many of its own people are going hungry, homeless, and without medical care? That's a sticky question.
But in the long term, I think that if anything holds the keys for humanity's long-term success as a species, it's probably the space program.
Note to President Bush: if you succeed in getting me that $1600 tax cut you've talked about, you can send my share to NASA. They've got much cooler things to spend the money on than I do.
All your mp3 are belong to us.
Wow, do we have a little chip on our shoulder, or what? I didn't notice that the original poster was extolling the virtues of Bill Clinton.
Gore, at least, might have been enough of a geek to see the value in less sexy projects like the Pluto probe, rather than just the big-name Mars and ISS projects (although I think those are important, too).
And whether or not NASA's new approach of doing it on the cheap was a result of budgetary constraints or not, I can't really say, but regardless it certainly seems to me a very practical and cost-effective way of surveying the solar system.
No relation to Happy Monkey
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
To those of you bitching and whining: Instead of depending on Uncle Sugar for everything, why don't you organize an effort to privately fund a probe? If it's that important, you shouldn't have any trouble raising the funds.
Oh, I see, it's important, not not important enough to do anything personally.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Much of today's understanding of molecular biology would not be possible without evolution.
For instance, in the human genome, only a portion is known to code for proteins. Although some of the remaining junk DNA may, in fact, have a biologically significant role, much of it does not.
It follows, from evolution, that since the biologically insignificant DNA will not code for genes, a mutation in a portion of junk DNA, will not, in general, deleteriously affect the physiological health of the resulting organism. Since no deleterious effects ensue, it follows that the reproductive success of the organism will not be affected by this mutation. One can then use data about the composition of a segment of DNA to locate putative genes.
It is well known that the amino acid composition of proteins in determined triplets of bases. It is also well known that there is considerable redundency in the genetic code-- there are 20 amino acids, and 64 possible combinations of 3 bases (A,C,G,U/T). Some amino acids are only coded for by one codon, others by two, three, four or six codons.
Take Alanine, for instance. Four possible codons exist, GCU, GCC, GCA, and GCG. The last base is esentially redundent. (This sort of redundency is a major motif of the genetic code.)
Now suppose that a protein contains alanine at a certain point. The gene will code for that specific amino acid at that point, with the codon GCG. Suppose that a mutagen comes along, and changes one base to a Thiamine.
Thus, the new gene contains either TCG, GTG, or GCT. The first codes for Serine, the second for Valine, and the third for Alanine. The first and second mutaions will cause the "wrong" amino acid to be incorporated in the protein, possibly impairing that protein's function. The third codes for the correct protein.Thus, DNA is partially third position redundant. In many cases, the third position is not contrained by evolutionary pressures, since a mutation at that point will not affect reproductive success. Hence, that mutation may be transmitted to offspring.
Now, a lingering problem in genomics, is that proteins may be coded in six different reading frames-- three different frames for the positive and negative strands of DNA. If one can incorporate the fact that the third position of some codons is not evolutionarily constrained, one can use that knowledge to devise algorithms for gene finding.
Granted, not by much (about a 2% increase for each) but remember this is an increase over arch-liberal Clinton's budget numbers. If an increase over democrat-level spending isn't enough, I don't know what is.
By the way, this is consistent with both Reagan's and G.H.W.'s support for the space program...
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
I can tell you were never in a submarine...
Before you go announcing we have too many submarines, answer me these questions:
- What is the expected number of submarines to be lost upon beginning of hostilities?
- What is the expected number of surviving subs who will recieve launch orders?
- What percentage of those subs will launch?
- For each launching sub, how many missles will it get off?
- For each launched missle, how many warheads will reach their target and detonate?
Now, based on that consider this fact: you must insure the final number is sufficient to destroy the enemy for deterance to work and insure that many missles are on station at all times. To do this you have X submarines.Right now we do that with 18 Tridents, At any given time two will be in for long term maintenace, leaving 16. Four to six of those will be inport turning over crews . That means about 11 subs cover this need. If you take away two you decrease that by nearly 20%, which will lead to about 25% longer cruises for the remaining crews.
Right now a boomer run is normally about 90 days, with my shortest having been 83 and the longest I remember any one doing being 113. You are saying we should bump this up to around 113 normally and probably move the record to 130 days. While Tridents are hotels compared to the old 616/640s I served on, I still would not want to do >100 days deployed on one (believe it or not, astronauts on the ISS have more contact with the outside world than a boomer's crew).
Unless you wish to contend that deterance is no longer needed, you should think about the issues driving the number of warheads and launch systems in place instead of just falling back on the "we can destroy the world X times" arguement about force size. It is more complex than that.
Herb
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
If we take all the proceeds from the "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" merchandise, we could finance NASA enough to get a human on Pluto.
;-)
Sorry Ed.
Yeah, weren't they using old-fashioned liquid helium metallic superconductors?
Doing it with modern liquid nitrogen superconductors would probably be much cheaper.
---
wot's this, then?
"people called Romanes, they go to the 'ouse?"
--
His disclaimer stated "...I THINK he stole the presidency" (emphasis mine). The man can think what he likes. I think we stole it and I'm damn glad we stole it. That's a childishly simplistic summation of my own highly biased opinion, hardly worth a fruitcake to anyone but me.
As for being fair, his fairness was highly evident. Admirably so.
I hope that when the tables are turned, I can be half as fair.
**>>BELCH
Take a deep breath.
You're assuming that Bush thinks like Clinton.
The Summer of '69 Student Government and their Suede/Denim Secret Police has finally left the building (along with most of the furniture, but hell, small price to pay). It'll take a while to get used to the idea of a government being run by adults. In time, even you will adjust!
**>>BELCH
"deterrants"
"why not pout this money into things "
"chgance"
"Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? "
"it was there own weapons"
"military assests"
Frankly, if the funds are diverted from NASA's excessive spending and into basic education then I have no problem with a few cut-backs. ;)
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life