Slashdot Mirror
NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs
abde writes: "Sad news on Space.com -- NASA has canceled the X-33 reusable launch vehicle program due to cost overruns and severe budget cuts. Looks like we are stuck with the aging Space Shuttle [?] and NASA has relinquished the quest for cheap space launch capability. But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
I don't know where you got your bogus figures from. Clinton increased NASA's budget by 4.8% for FY 2001, and Bush increased NASA's budget by 2% for FY 2002.
0 02_010228.html
NASA's budget has remained approximately constant after adjusting for inflation since 1992; Clinton's budget increase for NASA in FY 01 was the first real budget for NASA since then.
See http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/ca01ag.htm#nasa
and
http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/funding_2
The tuition measurement was the tuition at the time. Universities were a lot cheaper 25 years ago. :)
You should have read the URL.
So many common day goods (flash freezing, microwaves, teflon ...) that we all know and love and depend on are direct spin-offs of the huge investment made in bleeding edge exploration. It is highly unlikely that any company could have afforded to develop these, had they even forseen the market.
SO in a way, yes. NASA is welfare for scientists, but everyone benefits.
In this light, I'd have to say that the budget cuts for NASA were the right thing. The ISS has never been that cutting edge or exploratary, so it is unclear what technological advances it would drive -- the earth is too close and will always be a crutch. A base on the MOON tho. Now that would be cool and useful!
Well, there's at least one project that has a better possibility of reducing launch costs to LEO. Check out Scorpius by Microcosm.
Sure, it's not as sexy as new, untested wizz-bang technologies (like aerospike engines, composite H2 tanks, scramjets, etc.). It pretty much follows LEO on the Cheap by Lt. Col John R. London. After reading this book, you'll start to really wonder why projects like the X-33 and X-34 were funded in the first place. You'll start to see the massive politics behind the space industry.
I work 33% of the year to support uncle sam, and yet during tax time i still manage to owe more money then the deductions normally witheld from my paycheck
Buying a condo was my tax break, being able to deduct my interest payments on my mortgage brought me to a manageable tax level
Why should i as a person who has never taken disability, never taken unenmployemnt (althought i have been unemployed) and have my own healthcare and medical insurance be the one fitting such a huge tax burden for the people who actually make use of these services? Why should i pay for people to be unemployed whenever i can pay for my own education to keep myself from being unemployed?
I make contributions to several different societies, from environmentalist to inner city foundations. I have my own life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement plan, savings plan, and cover my liability 100%.
Why again am i working 3 months out of the year to protect someone who doesn't do this for themselves?
Don't tell me they can't! I went to school, i did my work and still do my work and that is why i am here.
I would be more then happy with a 20% tax bracket that allowed 13% more investment in myself and my direct future as well as supporting people who are trying to achieve independance
This is totally off topic, but i'm glad NASA is streamlining rather then spending indefinatly.
Even though i didn't vote for bush, if he can get this tax break through and revive the economy he will get my vote! And if nasa, the military and the general technology aspects of the us increase during his term, i will vote him next time.
Until then, i'm fed up with how much i work to make everyone else life better when there is no one protecting my rights because i'm considered middle/upper middle class.
I'm the one buying shoes, clothes, staying in the hotels, buying the meals, paying for cabs, paying for trains, flying around and spending the cash that supports the economy so why am i being taxed so heavily to let a government dictate who gets my money
okay, offtope but i'm done hehe. some reason the tax part of this topic and postee pissed me off :)
- Set basic parameters for a desired launch vehicle: get x payload to y orbit for under z dollars/lb of payload.
- Guarantee to buy 5-10 launches from ANYONE who can come up with a viable launch vehicle (make them do a test flight first with a dummy payload of journalists). This gives them a chance of generating some cash flow out of the box.
- Provide legal/insurance umbrella for companies.
- Get the hell out of the way.
- There is no step 5.
Jon AchesonAll opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
There's nothing wrong with researching bleeding-edge technology, by all means we should do it. But when we're trying to build a "production use" vehicle, it should use proven technology.
The X-33 concept relied on many unproven concepts. They've found that they can't even manufacture fuel tanks for it that will meet the extreme requirements!
The reasoning for this move are, although sad, is rather obvious. People are not as interested in the space program anymore. Why?
It is the combination of two things. First, the average American does not find space exploration exciting unless it is just that: exploration. Experiments and equipment testing, although necessary, just does not garner widespread public attention. This is an interesting catch-22 in our American society--the fact that people are so horrified when things go wrong (challenger) and blame lack of safety measurements etc, only to cut funding when not enough "exciting" missions occur in rapid succession. You can't have both, IMO.
More importantly, the American people, and their associated representatives have been brainwashed into thinking that any money given to NASA is a frivolous investment, the funding of which could be better used on other programs. The idea that "space is our future" rarely applies anymore unless people see incredible advancements on a rapid schedule or politicians can find some political reasoning to voice their support.
Which brings me to my second point. NASA has some real problems. Management fads are at the extreme in and around JSC. Politics and "pseudo-marketing" (hard to say NASA really "markets" anything, i hope you catch the distinction) have overrun the opinions and agendas of scientists and engineers. Which is where NASA's slogan of "better, cheaper, faster" becomes the biggest oxymoron in the world. NASA designs what must be some of the most complex, and most advanced machinery in the world. Not only that, but this machinery must withstand and incredible environment few can even fully comprehend. If you have read anything on the problems associated with building and designing the ISS, it is fairly plain to see that the technical achievment is very impressive. However, even with such incredible design potential, corners were cut that seem ridiculous in comparison to the money already spent. Likewise, the idea that "budget overrruns" are anything but to be expected in designing a reusable spacecraft is, IMO, ludicrous. Management yells, "we want safety and perfection!", and at the same time "hurry up!". The X-33 and 34 were great ideas that would have sped up and IMO, revitalized the space program. However, I'm sure that "public opinion experts" and budgeting gurus have stamped out these programs in favor of something more flashy like Mars exploration. Just don't be surprised if that runs way overbudget too.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
The reason these millionaires are fighting against the repeal of the estate tax is because it doesn't affect them. Bill will never spend all of his billions, and neither will his kids. He's trying to look like a hero by saying "We make too much money already - please keep taking part of what we have earned." The people that would be most affected by this repeal is small-business owners. Right now, if your dad owns a coffee shop (or any kind of business) and dies, his estate is taxed. You may have to sell the shop just to pay those taxes! This is ludicrous. People should be able to keep what they earn, no matter how much or how little it is. We're taxed all of our lives anyway, so why is that money taxed again just because you die? Yes, it would help the rich keep more of what they earned, but it would help alot more people in the middle class keep the American Dream alive.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
What does that mean when the *rich* fight against getting a tax cut?
:)
That's seriously bizarre. Oh well, I guess they can afford it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"But let's be clear, it is a form of sponsorship for scientists, whose results are of interest only to other scientists. The days of NASA providing marketable benefits to the average American citizen are long gone."
Mindsets like yours are extremely maddening! THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE IS ***NOT*** MARKETABILITY!!!!! NASA was never intended to be a market research organization! Congress created NASA to put US space technology on a par with world-leading space technology, following the Soviet launch of Sputnik and the US launch failure in 1957. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE MERCHANDISE!!! NASA EXISTS TO CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC SPACE RESEARCH!!!
It is only the grace of God that any form of science ever results in economic benefits. The fact is, whoever learns how the world around them works, gains a significant advantage in the use of that world. Quite often, that results in a financial benefit--but, that is not the goal of pure scientific research! The idea that all worthwhile science results in immediate economic gratification is a form of brutish ignorance, on a par with people who question the need for a smoke alarm or fire extinguisher simply because they haven't ever needed one.
NASA has a lot of problems, largely caused by people who don't know anything about science telling them what kind of programs they should be pursuing. For example, the United States probably should have a space station. However, the International Space Station is mostly a political and economic excuse, rather than the scientific research tool it might have been without outside interference. That's not to say that scientists always choose the most efficient way to conduct research; but at least scientists have a good idea as to the kind of research that should be conducted!
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Developed countries are facing the problem of underpopulation, not overpopulation.
I work on the space program and the Shuttle does a damn good job. I have another question, why is it government has to re-invent the wheel everytime they decide to build something new? I've asked co-workers in the past, why don't we over time build new shuttles with upgraded equipment that would inturn be cheaper to launch?
Down here they build something then run it into the ground. Then they start over from scratch! The X-33 was bound to fail from the beginning! The X-34 was not a replacement, it was a test bed. Look at Columbia, its still flying but when they built the others they were able to make them lighter which enable higher orbit or more payload.
What do you prefer, upgrade old PC reusing some parts or buy all new stuff from scratch? When the bloodsucking auto makers build a new model do they start over with completely different brake pads and rotors or due they use the old proven design?
Maybe the shuttle could have evolved over 30 years into the X-33 instead of trying to start from scratch after 20?
Actually, if there was pure refined gold on the Moon, using todays launch veichles, it would cost more that it would return to bring it to Earth.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
It is not "illegal to engage in private spacefaring." There's a large launch-services industry (SeaLaunch being one notable one.)
You seem to be right. I couldn't find any reference to that ban. I know I heard space activists complain loudly about things like that 10 years ago, but if there ever was such a ban, it must be gone now.
I'm dissapointed in how the system is currently structured, yes. NASA has always been in a quandry due to it's untenable status. It's funding is completely at the whim of each administration and subject to a great deal of external manipulation & "adjustment". [...] Rather I see changing the status of NASA or some successor agency to a more stable one with a more reliable budget as being an answer.
But every government agency is subject to those whims. It's inherent in the governmental system. I think the difference is that most agencies delivier tangible benefits to large groups of voters, so they're harder to mess with. And you can't restructure that away.
NASA was created with the mission to win the space race part of the cold war. That mission is accomplished, so it's current purpose is pretty vague.
On the other hand as I noted I don't see any supposed "privitization" being preferable. Already many STS services are privately managed yet there seems little cost savings.
Is this odd? No - I don't think going to an extreme, particularly an extreme I consider an innapropriate response to be the optimal solution.
This rhetorical trick of pretending there is only my alternative and a very extreme and scary one is called "false choice". In reality there are of course many different options.
I found this article on a libertarian space policy. It makes a lot of sense to me. An interesting fact it mentions is that around 60% of space spending is already done by private industry.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0005/libsolutions.html
Favorite quote: "no government agency that runs with the efficiency of the Pentagon and the U.S. Postal Service will ever realize the dream of commercially viable orbiting stations or moon bases."
Tell me, do you find it odd that you assert falsehoods, competely disregard the point of much of my posting then misrepresent my position ?
Oh please. Don't be childish.
Guess where that 950millions really went to...
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Exactly. The same thing happened to Rotary Rocket. The original plan was to build a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, but after problems with the "rotary engine" concept, it was downgraded to a suborbital technology demonstrator.
Single stage to orbit rockets powered by chemical fuels are inherently marginal. Well over 90% of the vehicle weight at launch has to be fuel, so there are terribly restrictive weight constraints on the vehicle. (By comparison, a commercial airliner at takeoff is typically less than half fuel by weight.) This is the basic reason space travel is just barely possible.
In some ways, that's the problem. If chemical fuels with twice the energy density were available, space travel would be straightforward. If the best fuels had half the energy density, chemical rockets would be hopeless, and atomic-powered space travel (which is quite feasable, provided you launch from somewhere isolated enough for atmospheric nuclear testing) would have been tried by now. But because it's just barely possible to do it with chemical fuels, we're stuck with a marginal technology.
Both developments were underwritten by governments, UK/France for Concorde & US's DOD for 747.
The market went with super-large. Why? Primarily efficiency; Super-large turned out to be more economical in a fleet then super-fast. Cost per passenger-mile was lower as was cost per passenger-hour. As a primary limiting factor is gate access it proved easier to get a (then) gate-and-a-half for a single 747 boarding then three or four for equivalant Concorde flights. Finally after supersonic flight was banned over land many of the planned Concorde routes were closed to it (I remember the Concorde gate at the Kansas City airport sitting empty for years.)
The Soviets did fly their Concordski for many years though I believe they went out of service awhile ago. Aside from that no one has been able to figure out a model that would support wide-spread use of supersonic fight enough to underwrite development costs (Concorde has certianly never paid back it's R&D expenses.) Many countries have done extensive research on next-gen supersonic aircraft but none have shown a compelling economic advantage.
Indeed aside from Canada underwriting Bombardier's progress in mid-size/mid-haul aircraft (& revitalizing that market) the only major development is Airbus's mega-development A380 with 555 seats. Promising to out-jumbo the 747 it has a several customers signed up & is going ahead with production development. Boeing has responded with yet another extension of it's 747 platform but has declined to commit to an entirely new aircraft.
Many of the R&D projects on supersonic flights have now begun to be curtailed. As the industry moves further and further to giant aircraft and the problems of economical supersonic flight remain intractable a next-generation successor to Concorde becomes more & more unlikely. With it EOL'd at 2010 you better start saving now before the era is over.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
He's saying that there is no real way to remove all the loopholes but eliminate as many of them and eliminate that nasty class warfare the democrats play with a flat tax.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I have thought about it from both ends, thank you very much. Have you?
An inheritance is a particular form of gift that only occurs at death. Now I understand why they do gift taxes so that people can't just get around income taxes by giving and receiving gifts. But an inheritance gift isn't done for income tax avoidance purposes so that's not an issue. On top of that, have you thought of what these kind of financial concerns do to people in the grieving process? The kids want to fulfill dad's wishes to keep his dream alive but they have a very short countdown before they have to pay a crippling tax payment. Unless you are one of the super rich who can afford the expensive attorneys to finesse this, the process dumps a big burden to the grieving family. Now that's really fair and moral isn't it?
Furthermore, the estate tax collects just about enough money to pay for the people who harrass grieving families into paying it. As a revenue generator, it's a wash. So guess what, the money doesn't go to the kids, it doesn't go to the tar-paper shack family on the other side of the tracks, it goes to pay treasury agents who have an upper-middle class income derived from financially pressuring families who have just suffered the loss of a parent. Oh I can see morality written all over this, can't you?
The death tax is a form of institutionalized class envy enforced through state action. The last time I checked, envy, in all its forms, was considered a sin by most moral systems and certainly any system that I'd want to follow.
I suspect that you really don't know the libertarian line here and have a fairly prejudiced idea about what libertarians believe in. Let me give it to you in a nutshell. Libertarians believe that the government is an institiution that survives by applying violence to accomplish societal goals. Libertarians believe that the number of areas where this is appropriate is small and shrinking and we would like to reduce and eliminate the level of government violence from as many areas of societal action as possible.
DB
. ...or a personal-automobile fanatic who believes that simple maintenance of existing roads is a plot of pot-smoking fuzzy-headed greenniks.
The point is, it's easy to demonize this sort of thinking (that failing to adjust for cost-of-living is a cut in itself). But it's also virtually useless. If you ask the ordinary "citizen on the street", you'll find that, in their heart of hearts, they begin from a status quo assumption: Let's keep everything where it is now, EXCEPT...
Economists have dealt with this paradox for so long, they've come up with mechanisms to cope. For example, things can be quoted in "real dollars" or "constant 2000 dollars" or whatever. This is more than a trick. Since money is just a measurement of your ability to purchase, inflation really does eat into your money supply. This year, with the same $100, you buy less "stuff" than last year. Thus, your $100 is worth less than last year -- and so, you've been given less than last year.
As a child of the late 1970s, I understand inflationg real good... a failure to adjust for cost-of-living is a cut.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The reason I ask if you read the article in detail is that it states one thing, but cites facts which imply another. It is an impressive achievement of spin, but little else. Bush did not win a statewide recount, he won the recount based on undervotes in the counties Al Gore tried to have selectively counted (according to the article you cited). The article implies Bush won the state, when in fact they only discussed a subset of the existing data and ignored a large portion of the data gleaned from recounts in other, more republican areas which surprisingly favored Gore.
Specifically, recounts conducted by the Orlando Sentinal and further discussed in the Kausfiles indicate that the overvote in largely republican counties, ignored by both sides, would have resulted in a win by Al Gore by several thousand votes, even using the most stringent recount standards. The reason turns out to be the unambiguous votes by many first time voters, who voted for Al Gore, then wrote in Al Gore and marked the write-in box as well. As unambiguous votes they would have, by law, been counted for Al Gore. Apparently many people misunderstood the write-in box as a "confirmation" box, a sort of check to make sure the vote was counted correctly (and is a strong indication that voters really do need to be educated in exactly how the ballotting process works).
The upshot is this: If Al Gore had gotten his way (selective recounts of Democratic counties) Bush would have been declared the winner. However, if the entire state had been recounted correctly, current data indicate that Al Gore would have won handsomely. It is an interesting ethics lesson, both that, had Al Gore done "the right thing" he would have won and no one could have reasonably denied him a recount.
By all indications, Al Gore won the election, both in Florida and in the US as a whole. The Bush camp knew (or at least suspected) that this was the case and pressed ahead, taking the presidency without a full and proper accounting of the votes in the state (contrary to every other close election in the country, where recounts were in fact conducted, including hand recounts of ballats unreadable by machine).
The fact that the opposing side behaved in a disengenous manner by not requesting a statewide recount and trying to select particular counties instead does not in any way diminish the fact that the Bush camp has usurped the electorial process and taken office in opposition to the explicit will of the American people. That makes him a usurper as far as I am concerned, and I strongly suspect history will, in time, agree, no matter the amount of spin his supporters may put on the issue in the short term.
Finally, I should note that my point in referring to Dubya as the Usurper is not intended to somehow "drive him from power", but to be in his face that he doesn't belong there, he has no mandate, and he'd better tread softly and not attempt to shove his right-wing agenda down our unwilling throats. It is important that we as a people show as much backbone as we can, in a peaceful manner, lest such behavior be repeated in the future (perhaps next time by the democrats). Our democracy is more important than either of those clowns (and for the record, I didn't vote for either of them), and it does not serve our democracy at all for us to take this sort of thing without comment, nor for our so-called "fourth estate" to curry favor in an effort to enhance their access to public figures by promoting such blatently biased spin.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They are incorporated, but that does not prevent the IRS from forcing liquidity, especially when they're majority shareholders. Now, in their case, it's an absolute necessity to incorporate, but you're simply ignorant if you think incorporating is a magic bullet. First, there are significant additional costs (e.g., getting taxed twice). Second, the structure does not make sense for every company and the liabilities run all over the map. Incorporating may free the investor from direct personal liability, but it does not free the shareholders/investors from losing everything they put into the company.
In any event, if you read my comments a little more carefully, you would have noticed words such as "shareholders". These, at the very least, imply that the companies are corporations.
these programs were not just nasa...they were ventures made up of several leading aerospace companies, many of whose shareholders are rich, and were hoping (obviously) for a nice production run, as well as high tech spinoffs that would keep the USA and her economy strong.
In recessive times, sometimes it's not best to go into production, but just stick with r&d.
the X34 and X33 were both fairly close to production, so a lot of r&d is already done.
Here are linx for anyone interested :
X33 and X34 and more in-depth stuff at x33 (nasa) and X34 (nasa)
What a shame. The linear aerospike engine was in test, the frame and skin were waiting for the tank, and the launchpad is almost done.
These technologies and programs would have created thousands of jobs as they trickled down through the US economy.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Government involvment in space exploration is a good thing...
I'm all for corporations getting involved in space, but without NASA real science will cease. Why? It makes no immediate financial sense. NEAR? Forget it, no one will go to a Gap on Eros. Pathfinder? Forget it, people want the SUVs, not the rover.
Without NASA, we'd have never gone to the moon. We'd not have had Hubble. WE'D NEVER KNOW IF ANTS COULD SORT TINY SCREWS IN SPACE!!!
The very least they could do is send that money to education, instead of spending it on some other frivolous cause.. More than likely that moeny will go to our wonderfully worthless space defense system. I know! Let's void treaties with our allies to protect ourselves against a non-existant threat!!
end communication
While you make a good point, it's just... wrong to use the word rich as you are using it, and the fact the media uses it that way is not an excuse. True rich people don't pay taxes, to any significant degree. They have accountants and lawyers and investments and lots of write-offs and loopholes - they aren't people that work for a good salary, they are people that have so much money IT supports them.
The people that pay the most taxes, and thus the ones that benefit most from tax cuts, are not rich people - they are upper middle-class people that work for a living at well above average wages. They are usually professionals that have worked their way to the top of their field, senior database analysts, network admins, engineers, etc. Lumping them together with people that never need to work, that make far more money than they are likely to ever even see, simply by sitting on their arse and letting their money work for them, is bizaare and I dare say absurd.
Sure, a guy that makes say, 100-160k/year is better off than the guy flipping burgers - but he's a world away from folks like Buffet, Turner, Gates or Bush. And he's the one shouldering the tax burden - not them.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Refurbishing the vehicles can only go so far - the original design was a test and we've never moved beyond it. We've learnt a lot about high-performance hydrogen motors, thermal insulation, airframe requirements, etc. but it's all for naught if none of it is ever applied to a version two.
Limiting the Shuttle fleet to 6 flights a year won't help things much. Sure it's less wear & tear but they're still getting long in the tooth and could be greatly improved on. Unfortunately there's been a requirement for some sort of great-leap-forward when really much of what's required is a simple evolution and refinement.
Much of the basic question of course is why we're in space and what our goals are. I (and yes I'm not alone on this, no need for a poll) believe that there's incredible opportunity there. I also believe that a national program is a good because many of the costs are larger then industry is willing to pay (most of the supposed privatization is pay-us-we'll-do-it-for-you.)
I don't entirely believe the folks that claim privatization is the solution-to-all-problems (Ride British railways lately? Electricity in California?) If commercial space flight truly *is* viable then why aren't more companies investing their own dollars into it and not trying to pry open the public purse?
This seems one of those areas that public investment will yield benefits for everyone, much like hydro projects and managed public lands. Too big & long-term for companies to pursue independently but suited to governments.
I don't see it being too long before we'll be able to 'capture' one of the closer asteroids (presumably one whose orbit brings it near to Earth) and eventually steer it someplace convenient. with it in place as a source of material we'd be able to construct nifty things like cost-effective power satellites and tele-operated mining & refining of materials for use on Earth.
All of this requires however that we have a reasonable means of getting reliably and regularly to at least low Earth orbit and that is slowly slipping through our fingers. We know there's something like a .1% chance of an accident every launch, with only 4 aging orbiters we're putting a lot of eggs in very few baskets.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
(The Bushes, incidentally, are a wealthy, well-connected family with roots in the english monarchy many generations back. Their 'status' predates the formation of the USA.)
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
As I understand it, NASA has money under a program called the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). X-33 was funded under that program. NASA has decided that the X-33 wasn't using the money effectively, and has decided to distribute that money instead to numerous other related projects.
d ex2.html
Basically, they decided the technology wasn't there to put all there eggs in one basket (the X-33/Venturestar) and do so some more R&D. This is a smart decision and a Good Thing: pumping money into a project that's ahead of its time is exactly how we got stuck with the Space Shuttle.
(In fact, the SLI budget has actually increased 64% in this budget. More money is actually being spend to develop cheap launching technologies.)
Good article at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0103/01x33/in
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
I noticed that it is generally in the human nature, to be too short sighted when there seems to be no problem in the short range. It has happened numerous times before in the human history, that actions not taken in their due time had to be corrected (if there was such a possibility) when they became real problems.
In the case of NASA, I think they are making a most severe mistake. The X-33 and X-34 were the first steps to opening the space for the rest of us. I believe that humanity strives towards the stars, and a convenient (read: modern and cheap) shuttle system is crucial for our first step outwards.
Machiavelli compared the actions of a prudent man to an archer. The archer can not be sure that the arrow will descend too much during its flight. And the proper solution is not to discard arrows, but send them a bit higher.
The Right Stuff seems to paint the picture that in the 50's the Air Force had it right the whole time and NASA screwed it up. In the 90's, the AF seemed to have huge sucesses in space deployment, except for projects where congress made them do things NASA's way. Now in the 21st century, the Air Force is funding another round of low cost expendible rockets (they have too, they're running out of old ICBM's and the shuttle can't lift a MILSTAR), and NASA seems to only be interested in doing things the least cost effective way possible. I'm not saying that total militarization of space is the answer, but someone needs to do SOMETHING about NASA.
I'm hoping that the Military will atleast get its act together and militarize space properly. We need obiting battlecrusiers. :)
The military is what kicked the airline industry into high gear. Before World War II, the airline industry was struggling to stay afloat transporting a few thousand passengers a year in old biplanes, hoping they didn't crash too often.
After WWII, the airlines got to use all the aircraft technology developed during the war. The first post-war airliners were converted bombers, which were larger, faster and more efficient. The airlines were now capable of the holy grail of Making Money! The military is much more interested in efficient development and use of technology, since the consequences of inefficiency are high (being blown to smithereens.) If the military decided they needed a much larger presence in space (for missile defense for instance,) chances are a cheap launch vehicle would be developed in a hurry. A few years later, the military technology would trickle down to the civilian market and we would have cheap spaceliners.
This almost makes me want a good Cold War style arms race between the U.S. and China, if it weren't for the risk of nuclear Armageddon. If Dubya decides to build a missile defense system, China and Russia would respond by building zillions of ICBMs, which would prompt the US to improve the missile defense, creating a higher demand for space launches, thus necessitating the development of a cheap, reusable, reliable, high-turnaround launch vehicle. Hopefully the civilian market for launches, manned spaceflight and colonization will develop before someone presses the Button.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Several points. First of all I think that you should read up on the tax situation and how it is working.
Second, these desicions are made within NASA, and with the cost overrun of the space station, there is just less money to spend on these projects. Why would NASA cut this project? Its simple, the technology has been proven, and in order to make something like this a reallity it will take huge sums of money. When the time comes that NASA needs a new reusable launch vehicle, they will recieve the funding to do it, and it will cost more than expected, just like the shuttle and the space station.
NASA does not like to take on more than one project, and have shown themselves to be best when working towards a finite and defined goal, with little distraction and lots of money.
There is also money in the budget for further development on new technologies, and when the time comes that they are needed, they will be given more funding.
This is how NASA has always worked, regardless of the administration.
I actually would not even grace it that much. Reality check (with statistics from Time/Newsweek etc):
;-) (C'mon... I dare ya).
Myth: The poor pay most of the taxes in America
Reality: The lower classes in america do not pay any taxes. As you go up, the tax burden goes up.
Just look at the tax cut. The bottom run of the tax scheme goes from 15%->10%, a 33% cut. The top rung goes from 36%->33% about a 9% cut. Further realize that only about ~120 million american's even pay taxes in the first place. The others actually get money back, even though they never paid anything.
Myth: But they just deduct everything.
Reality: Ever heard of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax?)The AMT is an amount that you can not deduct under, and as usual, it is a very high number in the higher brackets.
Here is a good argument about the mostly liberal billionairs that spoke up. The wealthy are conservitive, but right now, no changes is a liberal position.
BTW, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are about to loose the JSF. GE did make a bonaza on the air market a few years back, but that's clinton's territory, the defense industry is getting ready for another round of base cuts, and budget cuts (Bush's new money goes to get our millitary people off of food stamps... yes you read that right).
BTW, the Economist has a pretty good write up.
BTW, one of the things that Bush is trying to do is get rid of the hump in the tax code between 20k and 27k where there is strangly a 31% tax, surrounding two 16-16% ranges. Oh... yes.. now I remember why that is there, so the poor stay poor.
As for the rest and the entire argument about "payroll taxes" thoose taxes are social security and medicare, programs that are completly seperate. If you don't like that tax, repeal Social Security
Why should there be a tax cut? The percent of the GDP that is being eaten is the highest it has ever been.
I suggest people who start complaining about tax cuts being focused on the rich try giving it some thought instead of just shooting from the hip. You may think that you could make a tax cut that isn't aimed at the rich, but it just doesn't happen. You see, when you focus a tax cut on the lower tax brackets, you might think that the poor can take advantage of it, and the rich can't. But that simply isn't true.
First, the lower and even middle class do not have the resources necessary to take advantage of tax laws. How many of you have known someone who barely jumped passed a cutoff for a tax bracket, and ended up with less money than if they had earned less? I had a friend in college who made $4000 less because she earned $2000 more.
So, a tax cut for the lower classes would not make much difference for many people. But how about the rich? Could they take advantage of them? Hell, yeah! The more money you have, the more likely it is you have a full time accountant working for you. That means they can take advantage of all of the best tax dodges - perfectly legally, too, although they don't always stop there. It's fairly simple for a millionaire to be in a low tax bracket, especially after retirement. Remember it's income tax, not bank account tax.
The point is, it doesn't matter for which tax bracket you intend a tax cut, it is for the rich.
That statistic is quoted from the American's for Tax Justice. As you might imagine, they happen to be a rather liberal partisan bunch. Their projections were done ignoring the fact that Bush changes tax ranges as well, and also the fact that Bush does not change the AMT (which they failed to take into account).
Well, let's assume not. Though I don't approve of government programs in general, I've got to say that the cut programs would be ones on my personal save list. But your comments on taxes betray a real lack of understanding about what is going on. Rich people pay more taxes, so OF COURSE in a straight line cut, they are going to save more. Let's see: If I pay $500,000 in taxes, a 10% tax cut would mean I save $50,000. (Though still paying, please note, $450,000!) Whereas, if I pay 5,000 in taxes, my savings would be $500. Duh. Is this horrible? I think not. People with a large income tend to be the most productive people. What do you want to do, give people a disincentive to be productive? We already do way too much of that, imnsho. Jeez....next you'll be telling us that government actually makes good and efficient use of our money that it takes.....
Ah....but who will Moderate the Meta Moderators?
There are certain endeavors that will necessarily have to be government programs. The military is an obvious example. I would submit that space exploration is another. The reason for this is that there is little about space exploration that is profitable. Now, there are some space-related tasks that are always going to be in demand for example, such as launching satellites. But let's face it -- there's not much innovation involved there. You strap your spacecraft on top of a Delta 2 (which is a Boeing vehicle, BTW) and launch the sucker. It's been done so many times that it's become routine and (relatively) inexpensive.
.. but why aren't these same people complaining about Congress spending billions of dollars on aircraft carriers the Pentagon doesn't even want simply because the contractor building the carrier happens to reside in a key Senator's congressional district?
For other fields related to space exploration, such as the development of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Next Generation Space Telescope or the exploration of the outer Solar System, things are a bit different. I find it hard to believe that if NASA were dissolved tomorrow, aerospace companies would be falling all over each other to spend considerable amounts of money to do research. It's not profitable, and that is the paramount concern when a company weighs the merits (and demerits) of a particular venture. Lockheed-Martin is not going to spend millions of dollars to send a vehicle to study the atmosphere of Pluto. Raytheon is not going to spend millions of dollars to develop space-based instruments to study the effect of gamma-ray bursts.
Now, I would submit that these are important areas of study. Many people would disagree. But the end result is that if we want to do these things, we have to fund them publically. There is simply no profitable way that private companies can do these things on their own. The result of this is people that are unhappy about the way that their tax dollars are being spent, and that's fine. I cannot fathom a government that could spend its tax revenues in a manner that is acceptable to every last one of its citizens. The question is whether or not the expenditure is justified.
In the grand scheme of things, NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the entire federal budget, and it is for this reason that I am continually puzzled by those who make NASA their favorite whipping boy when it comes to government waste. If people want to complain about NASA, fine
Now, I am not claiming that NASA can't do things better. There's a lot of red tape that can be cut. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Bill Gate's net worth is equal to the net worth of the bottom 50% of the people in the united states. Rich people do pay more taxes, but thats because they can afford to do so. Would you rather the government place the same tax burden on everyone and force the poor to starve to death?
Many taxes are not proportionate. The social security taxes are collected primarily from low and middle income people, but these funds are often "borrowed" to pay for other government programs. Property taxes are linear. Sales taxes are linear and often affect rich people less. Use taxes like vehicle registration, fishing permits, park passes are paid mostly by middle class and poor people. Many rich people hire accountants to create tax shelters or divert their funds to non-profit organizations that operate as charities to promote the causes of rich people. Dubaya's daddys rich friends put him in office. This tax cut is for them, the ceos of enron, philip morris and time warner and as a result a larger portion of the tax burden will be shifted to middle and low income people. Rich people are not special people crowned by god, they often got rich because of oportunities they were afforded by living in this nation, because of our system of laws and government infastructure. Its only fair that People who reap the bennifits of our system pay their share.
The worst part about this proposed tax cut is that in the future, when this money could have been used to fix social security and improve education, the poor of our country will be the ones really hurt by this. Bend over america its time to bow down the ruling class.
Thank god dubaya wasnt able to produce a heir to the throne.
We have the best government that money can buy.
But what you don't say is that the top 1% in this country have 90% of the wealth! The bottom 50% have about 5% of the wealth. So if they're paying 4% of the taxes, then they are paying their fair share easy. And the taxes on the top 1% should be quadrupled.
So sorry, but it is not "fair" that the rich should pay so much less in taxes when they have a greatly disproportionate amount of wealth. It is unfair for all the rest of us.
So US where are we now? Where's the Moon base. Where is the permanent all-mighty Space Station? Whereis Man on Mars? Where is the Hypersonic plane? Where are the powerful and dynamic Shuttles, the space robots + probes + telescopes + ++++++ that you promised long ago and which would roam every corner of our Solar System and look further and further into the Universe? Where is the XXI century on the edge of the Future?
/. talked bout masers and Marines... And anti-ICBM whoopla is running full-steam on Pentagon.
Sincerly, the only thing I see from those tons of popular science that you guys gave as "sure" for this time, is the attempt to create the "weapons of the future". No matter the absurd, the danger and the stupidity. Sorry people but I do remember what we had as "promised" by 1975. Masers, lasers, anti-ICBMs and some other stuff was already on study by then, and there were predictions that our damn XXI century would see such weapons. Well, just a little ago
So let's predict what we will see 30 from now...
The remains of ISS rising from a Florida swamp... The budget was to tight to reach the Atlantic and Russia was always cash stripped or Europe din't give a bunch or Japan was to afraid to see falling in the Pacific. Anyway, after so many years the ship was not only fungy but also radioactive. So finally no one will mess with Florida swamps.
A mess of small and useless high-speed rockets for US taxpayers happyness. And to help other taxpayers not to forget their own military.
Shuttleland, the only solution to this piece of technological scrap. Well at least kids will be happy.
A whole trashyard of commercial, subcommercial, protocommercial and ex-commercial satellites. And a few military satellites for commercial purposes (I'm not kidding! That's started to happening now!..). And all debris that come from them.
Man on Space. Man on Space... Man on Space? That's a hoax! And you believed that we got to the Moon? Yeah, and tell me that we reached Mars with space probes...
Star Treck will be a long forgotten series and Star Wars turn to a silly fantasy film. 2001 will just be what it was - some madness from some schizo. Aliens will no longer bother us so we calmly close X-Files and go play basketball.
I have no idea where this misinfomation came from, but, here goes.....
:)
Bill gate's father is a well-known family in Seatle. Bill Gate's had a million dollar trust fund before he even went to Harvard. Of course, before he even went to Harvard, he graduated from a prep school (who's tuition was 3x harvard's). His father was, and is ``one of the richest and most prominent lawyers in the state of washington.''
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
If that's not a privileged family, I'm not sure what is.
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
Not sure whether this is offtopic or a troll, but it's definitely not relevant to NASA. As someone pointed out, NASA got a 3% funding increase this year--the first in 7 years. I fail to see how Bush's tax plan has anything to do with the cancellation of X-33, X-34.
That said, the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics. First of all, really rich (and even some moderately rich) people will be unaffected by the plan. They already dodge estate and income taxes through tax loopholes and offshore investments, etc. I know this because my ex-girlfriend's parents sheltered a good chunk of money in Luxembourg, and now live happily on their yacht without paying any substantial taxes. If they die, no estate tax will touch any of that money. The only thing affected will be their house. In other words, with an estate tax, if you're rich and you want to leave a fortune to your kids, no problem. If you want to bequeath your farm or family home, tough luck.
So who does benefit from the tax cut? The middle class, primarily, especially professionals earning in the $50K - $150K range. Lower income people do benefit, too, just not as much.
Finally, I suggest you study the Laffer Curve to see why tax cuts can actually increase net tax revenue, as they did during the Reagan years. "What?" the liberals shriek, "the deficit increased during the 80's!" Yes, but that's because spending drastically increased. Tax revenues actually increased in response to tax cuts, just not enough to keep up with spending (Reagan poured tons of money into the military in an effort to win the Cold War). Look up the stats if you don't believe me.
i think you have it backwards. the public isn't interested because we haven't done anything worth being interested in.
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
One word: inflation. A budget increase of 3% is meaningless if inflation has increased by more than that amount over the past seven years (the time span since their last budget increase).
There seems to be a recurring theme in high technology where an already-existing, simple solution that solves annoying problem is passed over for the promise of some ridiculously complex and grandiose scheme that never materializes.
Do your part and start smoking.
Who's been the biggest beneficiary of the US government's actions as of late?
Why that would be those who get subsidized heating oil, food stamps, and diapers for their little brats they shouldn't have had because they knew they couldn't afford them. Based on the amount paid in vs. benefits recieved the lazy, unproductive leaches of society (i.e. the unworking poor) are certainly the biggest beneficiaries.
dividends and increased share prices, which are already taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
BZZT! wrong! 'Capital gains' is taxed at 20%, thats' after the corporation pay's its tax rate of 36%, an effective tax rate of ~50%
When will people like you realize that punishing the productive of society (i.e. the rich) while rewarding the unproductive (i.e. the poor) taken to it's logical conclusion results in a society where everyone is unproductive and society crumbles.
Get a fucking job like the rest of us busting our asses to get ahead.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I expect a number of people will be distressed at this. I am not. The Space Station was an ill-designed nightmare. The US space program desperately needs on-orbit assembly capability. To do that we need space suits that don't require pre-breathing before use. NASA has known this for 20 years, and has had such suit designs available since 1980. I have a signature in my log book of a NASA test subject in a 12 psi above ambient suit, signed after about 6 hours in it, attesting to general comfort. Of course he was a 22 year old rigger not a 45 year old Ph.D. which is what NASA sends up. The whole manned space program is a shambles because we don't have decent suits.
Without on orbit assembly capability -- I mean real work in space done by riggers who can do a day's work -- things have to be pre-assembled and taken up in big chunks, which means shuttle which means a BILLION DOLLARS A FLIGHT for 50,000 pounds or so. What we need is 20 million a flight for 10,000 pounds and that would be achievable but "there is no urgent need for that" because -- well because the stupid space station ate it all. The shuttle and the space station ate the dream. Make no mistake about that. Those monsters need to GO and be replaced by smaller, operations driven, flexible re-usable designs.
- - -
In 1989 Gen. Daniel Graham, Max Hunter, and Jerry Pournelle went to then Chairman of the National Space Council VP Dan Quayle and persuaded him to start a small reusable rocket program. That became the DC/X and the concept was proved with 11 successful USAF flights before NASA took it over and destroyed in on the first flight, thus eliminating any threat to the Shuttle.
A fuller discussion of all of this by the same author is found here, entitled "Why Have NASA?"
But the bottom line is that NASA has gone the way of the boondoggle, and may in fact be committed to a body of technology that is in fact stopping us from getting the show on the road.
Gee, but this sounds very familiar in a slightly different context.
Understand, I want them to get going, and do it right. But are they going about it all wrong?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
As someone who has myself worked on government contracts, I can say I've seen companies screw up royally and then turn around and get the next contract to fix it. In the space business, this is especially a problem because there are so few companies with the necessary qualifications to perform the work.
But it goes even further than that. There are indeed incentives within a government contract situation to do the job "right." There are also disincentives and waste (most of them motivated by politics.) The question is, with those incentives and disincentives, does the federal government on balance do a better job than the private sector does (or would). Look at the astounding successes of the private development of early airplane technology and the relative lack of success of government funded space technology for your answer. The government had the ability to send an airplane into suborbital space over thirty-five years ago (X-15), and now can't duplicate that even with a multi-billion dollar budget.
At any rate, it just irks me when people (not you) try to portray NASA as some sort of Cash Black Hole where the taxpayers' money is sucked in, never to be seen again. The majority of that money is pumped right back out into the private sector.
And if the program were cancelled and taxes reduced accordingly, all of the money would be in the private sector, not just "a majority" of it.
they'll reinstate these NASA programs. Yeah, right. If they keep my tax cut, they'll just shovel my money down the same deep dark hole they're already putting it in.
Post your flip comments about people choosing a tax cut over a NASA program when I actually get some sort of CHOICE over where my money goes.
I don't see anybody on either side of the asile giving a shit about any space programs right now, they're too damn busy pandering and handing out entitlements. Even if they kept my tax cut, they give it to someone else, not to NASA.
Let's post a one-billion dollar prize for the first group to recieve good data back from a probe at Pluto containing XYZ instruments. (One billion dollars may be too high or too low, adjust as needed.) Why wouldn't that work?
:-)
Who pays the one billion dollars?
Or, more succinctly: how is this (conceptually) any different than a government contract?
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Clinton was a wiz at garnering soft money contributions. The Law was passed in 91, he was elected in 92. What else can you say he was a natural. :)
Clinton is the symtom, (not that that obsolves him) soft money is cause. He was just shead of his time
Wave goodbye to the last non-bought politicians. A few more elections and there won't be any non-corrupt politicians left.
I can't wait for nanotech (point out Moores law to people.) in this level of corruption. Well maybe they will think I am smart and not low level format my brain (yea right)
Until Soft money is stopped NOTHING WILL CHANGE! EVERYTHING COMES BACK TO SOFT MONEY!!
If Jesse Ventura(sic?)reruns for Govenor of Minn in 2 years he won't take any monetery contributions. His logic is the prior 4 years are his resume. Do you think Bush or any of the incumbant republicrats can or will say that. Na nobodys that nieve.
Don't blame me I voted for Nader (in NY)
This was test and only a test, if it were a real rant people would listen, get really pisssed of and do somthing about it.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
It's kinda sickening to see obviously intelligent people like yourself going along with the politicians' vote-buying schemes. They are very nearly to the point where a majority of the voting public will pay no taxes at all (the reason Daschle keeps bringing up how a person making $25k will get no cut is because that person, right now, pays *NO* federal income tax. Sounds good 'til you know that, right?).
Once a majority of the public is recieving government handouts and paying no taxes, they're in the pockets of the politicians and lobbyists, and they'll start passing corporate/government control stuff that makes DMCA look tame. There's a very important reason the US was not designed to be a democracy (it's a representative republic), and it's being subverted as we speak.
I'm 21, and I've already given up all hope of getting social security. Instead of a tax cut, fix that situation and then the national debt. Everybody is so greedy they don't see they are fucking themselves in the ass in the future!
NASA is inefficient and tends to do things poorly.
.. let's not attempt to marginalize NASA's successes by shining the spotlight on their failures.
I wouldn't say this. NASA has had some well-publicized failures, but how quickly we forget July 4, 1997. The Pathfinder Mars mission was an incredible success, far exceeding the mission parameters and expectations, and it came at a price tag that was a minute fraction of the tremendous cost of the 1970s Viking missions. Humans fuck up from time to time, and because NASA is run by humans, NASA fucks up from time to time. But please
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
What a bunch of shit.
Brav-O. Fascinating response.
But... actually, he's right about the intent of the fraimers, AFAIK. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, though, considering the body of case law that over the years has given us the "liberal myth" that most subscribe to today.
Hey...maybe I can start my own church for tax purposes.
Perhaps so. Let us know how it goes.
--
Tweet, tweet.
"The top 1% in this country pay 23% of the federal tax bill." Which is neat trick considering that the top 1% of the country control 38% of the wealth. (Other sources cite similar or larger numbers, it's admittedly a hard number to measure.) So, when are the rich going to pay their fair share?
Search 2010 Gen Con events
there would be mining colonies on the moon, and human expeditions out to Jupiter by now.
But cutting their budget won't help at all. Higher government has to allow spaceflight without consulting NASA, which has become a hideously bloated incompetent bureaucracy which barely manages a handful of projects through gratuitous spending. Cutting the budget without removing them will only hurt the handful of projects they do manage.
If you have any doubts about NASA, look at the shuttle. Look at it's original purpose as an experimental vehicle, and look how they've ignored the data it brought in and its lousy performance and how they've made it their main launch vehicle.
---
On Wednesday, a nation on Earth slashed its space program, gutting the Pluto, Solar Probe, and X-33 programs.
In retaliation, we have destroyed one of their cities.
Reinstate the space program, or we will be forced to destroy one city per week.
Klaatu barata nikto.
The DC-X got off the ground and flew around. They demonstrated vertical powered landing and crossrange maneuvering with it, and they managed to fly it twice in 24 hours; killing two of the "but that's impossible" objections to VTOL RLV designs.
However, I don't think it even broke the sound barrier; the DC-X was a tiny rocket compared to the Delta Clipper design. The DC-Y was the proposed suborbital follow on, which got beaten by Lockheed Martin's "gee whiz" design for the X-33 contract (you'll notice I'm not arguing with your "NASA == ignorant slut" assertion), and the Delta Clipper was the orbital rocket that would have been built with the lessons learned from DC-Y. The Delta Clipper never got past the initial design proposal phase. In fact, the company proposing Delta Clipper got merged into Boeing shortly thereafter; don't expect to hear anything about it again.
Apart from the Declaration and War of Independence, you mean? :)
I'm sure you understand economics much better than Warren Buffett
It was said earlier, Buffett makes a good deal of money from his Insurance company holdings. Insurance companies that sell 'estate tax insurance'. Thus very obvious reasons for him to oppose the end to the estate tax. No?
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
On the contrary, he's smart -- smart enough to wrap his cynical motives (attempting to squelch rising competition from the next lower class, which in his case is the million-, as opposed to billion-, aire) in Mom and flag and apple pie.
As you say, Buffet (and the other really rich) can cloak their assets fairly easily. The people a few steps down the totem pole are millionaires on paper, but have most of their assets tied up in businesses, land, etc, which will get the anal probe as the owner assumes ambient temperature.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
you shouldn't have posted this as AC. I would like to discuss it. See, the US President is typically the singlemost influential person responsible for the political mood here in the US, and if Nasa is suddenly scrapping a bunch of projects in response to the new administration, who better to blame? and it seems obvious to me that all the recent news about NASA projects facing the axe is more than coincidental to the new administration finally getting a head of steam on.
::I will not moderate my opinions for your stinking karma
I am tired of all the DC-X supporters here: the DC-X was an unbelievably cool idea that was executed well, but had one major flaw: no failsafe, no possibility of recovery in case of failure (parachutes don't work if you're close to the ground) which was demonstrated by the loss of the DC-Y.
Now, the X-33 (I forget LM's moniker pre-approval) could glide back into earth, had craploads of power to get to orbit, and if successful, the technologies that would have been developed around it, would have revolutionized space travel (the aerospike engine would be enough).
The curse of the X-33 was those damn cryogenic tanks and that old foe of aero engineers: center of gravity. The X-33 is basically a triangle, with a CG at about 2/3 of the way back. Now, if those cryo tanks need to work, they need to be big and strong. And where can you fit big, heavy tanks? in the back of the plane of course, which will cause the CG to move even further back, say 70-75% of the fuselage length. That's, for all intents and purposes, unflyable.
However, the X-33 did develop some kick-ass new thermal tiles, it proved the concept of the aerospike engine and it will still give us great technology for the next generation of spacecraft. What was basically disproven (and it was its demise) was lifting-body spacecraft (that CG thing again).
My guess: Rockwell's entry to the old X-33 competition, which was basically an updated Space Shuttle, would have been the prudent, conservative choice. If that idea is combined with what NASA can salvage from the X-33 technologies (aerospike, monocoque design, thermal tiles) the 3rd generation (in effect) shuttle will simply kick ass.
I believe that most people (excluding /.) are not as interested in space anymore. Granted, there are those who salivate over the idea of mining asteroids and getting rich, but the general public really doesn't give a hoot about space. Space used to be a nationalistic thing. The moon landing (which did occur) is probably the one thing that really brought together the US as one nation. Since then, there's been interest in space, but it has been dwindling. Truly, there haven't been any large media events attributed to space, with the exception of the International Space Station.
But go out into the general public (which doesn't include /.) and I'll be you that there'll be more than one person who believes that tax dollars would be better spent on education and civil services than on space.
The government does have some business in space, but as of late, there have been a large number of private corporations that, I believe, will take over getting people and things into space and onto other celestial bodies. The government already depends on private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin), and it very well may relinquish its space influence to legislation.
However, I am all for space exploration, because once we kill Earth off with the various negative global influences, we're going to have to find somewhere else to live.
Getting an accountant to do your taxes once a year does not qualify as full time.
If commercial space flight truly *is* viable then why aren't more companies investing their own dollars into it and not trying to pry open the public purse?
This article from the Dallas Observer tells the story of Beal Aerospace. Billionaire founder Andy Beal put about $200M of his own money into creating a private launch services company. Warning: it's not a happy story.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
He was refering to the technology involved in making the shuttle, and how much electronics technology and industry was created as spinoff from the initial shuttle project(s). Something like 80%, I believe?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
This is just sad; we can see that Bush will put us into a new Dark ages.
Bush should actually be putting more money towards deficate, not tax cuts, and keep the money flowing to science research.
I see now where Bush is getting the money for his "tax" cuts, from science reseach.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
I hate to sounds like a tight wad, but there are a lot of people in this country (US) that can't spare $50. I realize that to you and I $50 isn't really a big deal, but to many people that covers to cost of food for a week (if not more). Maybe you're blind to this side of America. I know that I didn't see it for a very long time. The community where I grew up is/was a nice mid-upperclass community. Kids don't worry about how they're going to pay for college, they worry about what type of car they're parents are going to buy them when they turn 16.
It wasn't until highschool, when I went out of county to a better school, that I realized that poor people really do exist... and not in some far away city. You understand this when one friend gives another friend his old pair of worn shoes... and they both feel good about it. You understand that $50 means the difference between a good Christmas and no Christmas. You understand that $50 means the difference between eating for a week and not eating at all.
Perhaps once the poverty problems are solved then more people would be interested in things like the space program. This is a harsh thing to say, but it's reality. I grew up in Brevard County (where Kennedy Space Center is located). I understand what happens when there are budget cuts to the space program (hell, my dad works for a government contractor). But none-the-less, there are more pressing issues than space research.
-Andy
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
From the article:
The decision to terminate both X-33 and X-34 were made internally by NASA and were not a White House decision, Stephenson said.
Just because you don't like the current administration doesnt mean that they are the root of all things evil, hell NASA just got its first budget increase in 7 Years. They felt that the funding nessecarry to fix what was obviously a flawed design from the beginning, could be put to better use on other projects.
NASA should be applauded for wanting to put thier funds where it could be more effective instead of throwing money at a project that doesn't work.
Look... If the government is going to play favorites in an arena as crucial as space technology development, then why don't they just take full responsibility for meeting specific objectives, and if they fail in those objectives -- poof -- terminate the government program in total and let the private sector have at it for a decade without any footsies with the guvvies; and no excuses?
The only thing worse than people wanting government technology development is people who want some government technology development.
Seastead this.
Actually, the tax cuts necessarily benefit primarily the people who pay the taxes. People who are poor pay no federal income tax so they cannot possibly benefit from a tax rate reduction. Since people who earn more than $50,000 a year pay essentially all the income taxes in the United States, people who earn more than this, (the population that people like you tend to define as "rich" in order to make the "only the rich will benefit from a tax cut" statement true,) are necessarily going to reap essentially all of the benefits.
Myself, I'm one of those "rich" people who pays my share of those income taxes and probably a goodly chunk of yours, too, and I'd like to point out that it isn't the government's money, it's mine, and I'd like to be permitted to keep a little more of it.
The selection of Lockheed Martin for the X-33 was contraversial at the time. I believe NASA even stated that it chose that proposal _because_ it was the most technically challenging.
This is starting to sound similar to the XB-70...
If we don't go to space, who will ?
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
The trick to making it cheap was to use existing technologies, far from the bleeding edge and accepting some loss in absolute performance, and small launch teams to fly often. A dozen people launching once a day would be reasonable. This is in direct contrast to The NASA Way of developing high technology to squeeze out the maximum theoretically possible performance for rockets that take tens of thousands of people to launch every month or so.
A prototype vehicle, the DC-X, was built by McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. It flew several times, demonstrating such techniques as vertical take-off and landing, rapid turnaround and operations with a small launch crew. It was highly successful, and Congress was impressed and allocated more money to continue development.
Unfortunately, the money never got there. It turns out that BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization--Star Wars) was developing the DC-X because they had use for getting into space cheaply. This was 1994, Clinton was now in office, and anything that helps Star Wars was inherently evil. The money was choked off by 'the unknown staffer'.
Renegade forces at NASA managed to rescue the DC-X program briefly. But it was a flight test program, things happen, and eventually the test vehicle toppled over on landing (landing gear problem) and burned. That's why you always make two or more flight test objects if you can afford it.
But the demonstration project was so visibly successful that NASA announced a competition to build the next step X-vehicle, the X-33. This would be a single stage vehicle that would not necessarily get all the way to orbit, but would reach certain performance levels (mach numbers, etc.) while demonstrating the technologies needed. It was explicitly stated in the announcement that achieving the goal with the lowest technology risk, staying within the state of the art as far as possible, would be favored.
McDonnell Douglas proposed a follow-on to their DC-X vehicle, using achievable technology. The contract went to LockMart, at a ceremony where Al Gore (remember him?) praised all the technology developments that their version would require.
The LockMart X-33 had quite a few technology requirements that were hard. One of them was developing the large composite cryogenic tanks required for the high-performance (but bulky, low temperature) liquid hydrogen they would use. When people questioned their ability to make the tanks, LockMart said, effectively, 'We can't say--wink wink--that we have ever made tanks like these, but--wink wink--we are a defense contractor with experience in various classified projects.'
They were lying only by implication of course, but the tanks they tried to build delaminated due to shoddy workmanship and their apparent lack of experience with building large composite cryogenic tanks.
To cut a long story short, they were 3 years and about a billion dollars away from high-mach number flight when they won the contract in 1996. Five years and about a billion later, they claim to be within 2 years and a bunch more government handouts to being able to possibly fly at a much lower speed, maybe achieving some of the requirements.
LockMart is raking in the bucks with their current high cost expedable rockets. Some cynics have suggested that they have no interest in developing a vehicle that will cut launch costs by one or two orders of magnitude.
Sometimes, it's best to just cut your losses. Ever hear of the space station (estimated in 1982 to be completed by 1990 for $8 billion)?
Completely fair? Tell me.. Who's been the biggest beneficiary of the US government's actions as of late? The f***ing rich. These are the people who own sizeable chunks of GE, Boeing, the telcos, 'defense' contractors, etc. These companies pay niente in taxes, and occasionally get an obscene refund. Their shareholders receive multiple boons: dividends and increased share prices, which are already taxed at a lower rate than earned income. And the upper management.. Jesus! Stock options... multi-million dollar salaries (which are approaching 500x the pay of their lowest-paid underling, compared to less than 50 (on average) for every other industrialized country)... company perks... and when they 'bail', they get a 'golden parachute' which keeps them swimming in moolah. Don't ask me to pity them. The reason the rich pay most of the taxes is because the top 1% of Americans (by worth) control 90% of the wealth. Why shift their fair share to the backs of the working poor?
Ruling The World, One Moron At A Time(tm)
"As Kosher As A Bacon-Cheeseburger"(tmp)
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
As for the estate tax, let's get rid of that one. My parents aren't rich. They may make about $30k USD a year, but I doubt it. What my father has done, however, is save for his retirement since he was in his twenties. What people don't seem to realize is that the estate tax isn't just on cash monies left to your children, it's on everything from your parents' home to that 300-year-old piano that has been passed down from generation to generation. All of that is the estate. Under those guidelines, my father's estate could easily reach the $675k limit. So is my mother supposed to give up her financial security, forking over the investments and savings in order to keep the roof over her head? HELL no! Why should she be punished because her husband had the presence of mind to prepare for his future so that he wouldn't have to rely on Social Security to put food on his table or Medicare to pay his hospital bills?
The definitions of "rich" and "wealthy" have become far too liberal in this country. It's time we gave them a closer look.
Personally, if I'm ever elected President by the Supreme Court I would slash the military by $100 billion and funnel it directly into NASA. I want to see more microgravity, aeronautics, and biotechnology research. I want to see a plethora of ground-to-space single stage vehicles emerging for high speed supersonic space based intercontinental civil transport. I think it's time we stopped spending so much damned money (to the tune of what.. a quarter of our budget?) building weapons of destruction and concentrate more on science and the arts.
Though remember that a single stage to orbit or sub orbital transport also makes a perfectly good weapons delivery system...
Is anyone going to ask for a cut of
the money Lockheed makes off the
Venturestar spaceplane, considering
that the X-33 was effectively its
prototype? Or has Lockheed just been
given a whole load of free R+D?
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
You are wrong in the particulars of this situation. The Usurper, for all his faults, is actually increasing spending on the SLI program sixty four percent. NASA has readjusted its spending priorities.
That having been said, you are correct in pointing out that the Usurper is buying off public opinion directly through tax cuts which give everyone a small break (but the wealthy a huge break). It is a popular tax plan with many people (even I like the idea of having a few extra grand in my pocket at the end of the year). Your comparison to the fall of the Republic is interesting, and the parallels quite striking: a man usurping the democratic process, buying off the people with gifts and emerging a popular force despite his despotism.
He has little choice. He and his administration are demonstrably usurping the authority of our democratic process, as press sponsored recounts in Florida have demonstrated. We are stuck with him for four years (at least). What is important is what happens in four years: do we get our democracy back, or suffer more of the same?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
So who is this mighty Timothy who deigns us with his apparently oh-so-correct opinion? Is it fair the wealthy pay more % in tax then you? Why? For what earthly reason? Or are we simply assuming they deserve to pay more simply because they must have obtained it through some improper means?
I come from a farm background, and if you look at the balance sheet (including assets) we would probably be classified as 'wealthy' to you. Does that mean it's fair we have to fork over 70% of those assets to the government if my father dies? Is it fair we are paying ~45%+ in taxes compared to your measly ~33%?
I seriously suggest you go somewhere and take your foot out of your ass.. and while you're there consider what actually makes our capitalist sociecty (in the US) actually work. If you continue to punish the wealthy you will stifly any true progress in this country (I would dare say we see some of that currently).
OBPotshot: Go tell Linus he owes more taxes. Doubt he'll give you a peck on the cheek.
.. but I'm only a dumb hick, so what do I know, right?
-'fester
You do, of course, realize that it was because a private venture failed that the X-33 was canned. Lockheed-Martin couldn't keep its contractual obligations, so NASA cut them off. So much for our savior, the private sector.
I'd argue that it's not so bad as it sounds: "...NASA has relinquished the quest for cheap space launch capability." I'd say instead, they may have taken an important step to get closer to cheap launches. Chances of the X-33 ever flying were slim at this point, and an commercially-viable follow-on funded by LockMart corporate funds (VentureStar) even slimmer.
What actually happened today was that NASA refused to add funds to the sinking program from the Space Launch Initiative, which is intended to actually develop viable launch options for the future. There's more in the NASA press release at spaceref.com. NASA intends to spend 900+ million over the next couple of years on access to space--that hardly sounds like they are giving up. I suspect that they can find more promising projects to fund than X-33. Of course, there are probably more wasteful ones, as well...
"The overall budget request is $14 billion, up from the $13.6 billion NASA got last year -- the first increase for the agency in seven years."
See!!! It's an increase, not a cut. Someone needs to go back to school and learn math. Not only is it an increase, it's the first one in 7 YEARS!!!!
But Nasa realized that they need to do a better job of spending their money, so they axed programs that were going nowhere fast.
Can you demonstrate that a "private effort" would cost "10 times" less?
Are you aware that the vast majority of the work done for NASA missions is done by private contractors (i.e., Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.)?
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
It's not like canceling the projects destroys all of the things that we've learned from them. The X-33 alone gave us new, much-improved thermal tiles, and I believe that both projects made major improvements in the concept of the aerospike engine. We may not have a "cool flying triangle thingy", we do get real knowledege that can be applied to the existing shuttle, and to other projects. As someone mentioned earlier, these projects were canceled in order to save money that will be spent on other NASA projects. I don't think NASA will just give the money back to the Congress.
Nate
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Someone earlier floated the idea of this being a good thing. That the private industry is more capable and better suited for pushing mankind fully into space.
I do not disagree.
The only problem is that right now, there isn't a good enough REASON to go into space. The only reason business will go there is because there is profit to be made. I don't think Zero-G manufacturing is going to be reason enough, concidering the immense ammount of capital that has to be paid up front.
The really big businesses have the resources, but not the guts to expand into space. Smaller companies have the guts, but not the resources.
Perhaps, despite their mismanagement, we still need NASA. For the simple reason that they need to slowly push us forward until an economic space-boom becomes viable, at which time you won't be able to keep private industry rooted to the ground any more.
Mettle may have got us to the Moon, but Money is what will get us to Mars...
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
That's true.
Now how much money do the bottom 50% have?
How about other fixed expenses, like gas and sales tax? What percentage of their income does that take up?
Please Shut The Fuck Up in the future.
Thank you.
I was forwarded a link to this interesting article back in January: After Tight Race, Bush Should Race To Space like JFK. James Pinkerton argues that Bush should use a space initiative, perhaps something like "people to Mars within a decade", in order to give momentum to his presidency that he didn't get by winning in a landslide.
:( It's not clear to me whether Bush is actually doing the opposite and cutting funding, though.
Unfortunately it looks like Bush isn't following Pinkerton's advice
The shareholder is always right.
(Gates Sr., by the way, says his son Bill is "sympathetic" to his cause, but hasn't signed his petition. He ought to.)
Of course he won't sign it. I'm surprised he even admitted that much. The last thing Bill wants to do as his appeal begins is to get off on the wrong foot with the Bush administration.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
See, everybody wanted to build a single-stage-to-orbit spaceship. If you do the math, you'll find that it's just barely not impossible to do this; but to do it you have to cut every possible corner. So, fairly quickly it was determined that the X33 would not actually reach orbit, but would be a hypersonic technology demonstrator.
That would have been fine, if Lockheed had then gone to a more conservative design; but they didn't. The obvious straw that broke the camel's back was the LH2 tanks. Now, these could have been normal aluminum tanks (like the space shuttle uses, say) but Lockheed insisted on making them out of a composite material -- and they failed more or less the way that most experts predicted they would. But, if it wasn't the tanks, it would have been something else.
Single-stage-to-orbit can work; and they will be built. It's will be one of the advantages of living on the Moon or Mars.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I pay a over 37% to the federal government, all because I earn nearly 70k???
...
and that makes me rich?
I don't think so.
Before you go off on your insensible railings against the rich why don't you reach the frigging tax code.
No one should pay a higher percentage than anyone else....
The working poor by the way PAY ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. What they do pay is social security and medicare, let me guess, they should get this free too?
Like hell. My taxes are more than the a third of my pay check, and I have been busting my ass for the last 5 years to get to this payscale only to see more of it disappear to a federal government who the democrats use to buy votes by giving away my tax money.
You want it one step worse, figure this out, all these mega-corps and mega-rich you complain about pass their tax costs down to us in the form of higher product cost. It is estimated that the cost of a new car is more than 60% taxes when you figure in sales taxes, salary taxes of all involved, property taxes on all manufacturing facilities, taxes on energy (electricity, gas), and special local option sales taxes.
According to this wonderful government I CAN NEVER OWN MY OWN HOUSE! Why? Because if I don't pay my yearly 1% tax on its value they can take it. If I don't pay my yearly ad-valorem tax on my car I can't drive it. I paid sales taxes ON BOTH WHEN I BOUGHT THE DAMN THINGS.... and forever will be paying it over and over and over.
Get the damn government off our backs.
One reason the rich have so much money because it costs too much in taxes to spend it... what better thing to do than just keep it
as for the "estate tax" - basically your saying its okay to tax money that was taxed when earned and taxed while intrest built up....
and you don't see where this type of abusive federal government is leading do you????
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Fun fact about the DC-X: NASA didn't build or fly it. All NASA did was get handed a successful program and crash the damn thing!
The DC-X was a program started by the BMDO: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. I don't want to start an argument about whether it's a good idea for Bush to spend $60 billion on anti-missile systems... but if they do get handed $60 billion, wouldn't it be nice if they spent $1 or 2 billion on finishing the Delta Clipper research to put some of those defense systems in orbit?
Actually, Lockheed Martin doesn't count as the private sector. It is dependent on the government for its survival; it's more like a Soviet-era design bureau.
Lockheed basically won the competition for the X-33 program by lying; there's considerable evidence that they weren't serious about building a working X-33 to begin with. They were apparently more interested in the contract so that they could have a government-subsidized contract to serve as a disincentive to other companies starting competing reusable launch systems as well.
The X-33 was originally supposed to cost around a billion dollars, with NASA only paying 700 million of that, and Lockheed the rest. They've now spent about 1.5 billion on the project, and needed an estimated 1 billion to finish it. Which means the project has an approx. 150% overrun.
However, if you think of its purpose as "keeping people from investing in Rotary and Beal" rather than providing cheap launch, X-33 has succeeded marvellously. That may be a good reason for the socialists to support the program, but it doesn't cut the mustard for me.
One of the reasons I voted for Bush was because I hoped he'd cut this program. It's just had a bad effect all-around.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
You might be interested to learn, the reason all these NASA projects are suddenly getting canned might be that the International Space Station (ISS) last year ran 4 billion over budget (monitoting of contractors was non existant) . Given the total NASA budget is ~12 billion (which is capped), some things probably had to be cut to allow this debt to be paid. There are still more cuts to come I believe. I am suprised the main stream media have not picked up this story yet! For years now NASA has been mismanaging the ISS project, wasting billions of dollars that could be far better spent on more directed research projects. Hiring a few decent project managers might be a good idea too.
I think the problem that hurt the X-33 program was the fact the centerpiece of that program--the composite material fuel tank--failed several times in testing. It was going to be too expensive to redesign the X-33 to incorporate a metal fuel tank, anyway.
I think the new Bush Administration may take a new look at the McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing) Delta Clipper design, given that cheap space access is necessary to implement missile defense.
By the way, the Space Shuttle is still a ways from being obselete. NASA has studied the idea of replacing the current solid rocket boosters with either a longer booster (so it can carry more solid rocket fuel for a longer burn) or completely replacing the SRB's with two winged booster stages fuelled by a combination of liquid oxygen and kerosene. I think the winged booster stages could become reality, since that will allow the Space Shuttle to fly high-inclination orbits or carry payloads well above the current 50,000 lb. limit.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
The rich get a larger proportional piece of the cut because they pay a much larger proportion of the federal tax bill. The top 1% in this country pay 23% of the federal tax bill.
hmmm... someone didn't read carefully (from the first page) That proposal, which gives a staggering 43 percent of its largess to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (though they pay *less than a quarter* of the taxes)
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
I grew up more-or-less at the poverty line. I thought then, and still think, that space exploration is a great and necessary thing. Note that I'm discussing space exploration, not microgravity experiments, for the purposes of my argument.
Unmanned space exploration gives us an target. Manned space exploration gives us inspiration. A lot of kids grow up wanting to be an astronaut, regardless of their income bracket. This kind of dream helps propel us to work and try harder at everything we do. I know that much of my early ambition came from this dream.
I'm not an astronaut now, instead I'm a mathematics Ph.D. student. My dad didn't graduate from high school, and my mother wasn't allowed to go to trade school (she had to 'repay' her father by staying on the farm). My academic ambitions sure didn't come from their educations. And it didn't come from tax cuts either, as far as that goes. I wanted to be an astronaut, and I knew that I would have to work hard to get there.
I'm not trying to argue that NASA has always been well-managed and fiscally responsible, or that all space-related research needs to be federally funded. My point is that space exploration is an important part of humanity's dreams and the American social fabric (what little there is).
Reducing poverty, and exploring space, are not mutually exclusive. Giving big tax cuts to millionaires so that they can have better home theaters, and reducing poverty while funding NASA at an appropriate level, are mutually exclusive. I would propose that social goals should take precidence over individual goals, and that America is rich enough as a society to have loftier goals than tax cuts.
-Paul Komarek
And that final tally includes all of the Gore votes manufactured by the Democratic canvassing boards.
If we need space travel for legitimate goals, and I too agree that we do, it should be done realistically:
Figure out what we need. Specify it. Accept bids.
Pay the lowest acceptable bidder exactly what was agreed. If they don't make a profit because of cost overruns, tough shit; should have done a better job of estimating.
Specify in the contract that we get to audit their books. If it looks like they're ripping us off, put the offenders in jail.
Note that I'm not talking about specifying this per project; I mean the WHOLE THING. NASA should be a dozen people in an office in Washington, most of 'em accountants, a couple engineers and scientists.
-
There are no big surprises here. NASA continues to try to build the most technically advanced craft possible, instead of actually building something that works. For a detailed description of how NASA screwed up and why X-33 is dead (written a year ago) see: http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau91.html
The real problem here is that NASA has become an enormous entrenched bureaucracy. They aren't interested in any solution that doesn't require an army of 10,000 engineers and technicians because then they won't be able to justify an legion of bureaucrats. The DC-X craft was built and tested on a shoestring over the objections of NASA. A scaled up SSTO based on that would require a support staff on the same order as a 747 (hundreds of people rather than tens of thousands as is the case for the shuttle) and would fly daily to weekly. For a detailed description of how we could have built such a craft as early as the '70s, see Halfway to Anywhere: achieving America's destiny in space by G. Harry Stine.
Another problem we have run into along the way here is that NASA has done everything it can to squash the independent, privately funded space transportation startups (Rotary Rocket, Beal, Kistler, etc.). NASA administrator Dan Goldin has made disparaging (and untrue) statements about their technologies which have contributed to their funding difficulties. In addition NASA continues to propose initiatives that would compete against these companies.
I still think NASA's planetary/space science programs (Pioneer/Voyager/Galileo/Cassini/etc.) are something to be proud of, but they have had to take a back seat to the "shuttle-station complex" (sing to the tune of "military-industrial complex") and that really disgusts me. What can you do about it?
Don't reply to this post! Instead, write, call, fax, or email your congresscritters (all 3 of them) and demand that we get NASA out of the launch vehicle development business.
You are right, but he's referring to the Estate Tax (or "Death Tax"). And if Warren Buffet doesn't like a tax cut, nothing is stopping him from writing a big fat check to Uncle Sam. Apparently, having billions of dollars is not enough; he wants to control my money, too.
Should we infer from this that the missile defence the Bush administration wants to put into effect lickity-split is going to be boost phase theatre defences only?
I'm not sure this is the peace shield being sold to Amercian people.
If not, it's hard to see the rationality of this decision - surely one stage to orbit reusable vehicles would reduce the cost of placing massive defensive infrastructure in space dramatically.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Irrelevant. Government work done by private corporations is still government work. If Lockheed-Martin had been working on the X-33 with an aim towards using it for profit, rather than using it for getting money from the government, they'd have a much bigger reason to make the thing work right.
:-)
Well, speaking as a private contractor that works very closely with NASA, I can assure you that there is plenty of incentive to "make the thing work right." Beyond the ordinary professional pride, there's also this whole issue about bungling contractors having little chance to get future contracts.
At any rate, it just irks me when people (not you) try to portray NASA as some sort of Cash Black Hole where the taxpayers' money is sucked in, never to be seen again. The majority of that money is pumped right back out into the private sector.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Bravo... The voice of reason.
I'm sure we'll both be flamed mercilessly for our beliefs.
Here's an expansion on your argument. According to my sources, in 1990 the richest 1% of households paid 25% of our nation's taxes. In 1998, the same 1% paid 35%+ of our nation's taxes. With this tax cut (if it goes through), the same 1% will pay 33% of our taxes. So, this ain't a helluva cut.
Our problem isn't that the rich aren't being soaked enough. Our problem is that Congress (who controls spending) throws our money away to buy votes. They subsidize pointless medical treatments through Medicare and Medicaid as a way of padding the pockets of hospitals, they pay farmers to let food rot so they can keep prices high (forgetting that there are people starving in this country and elsewhere), they use the small business funds to help fund small Mom and Pop shops like AT&T and Sony, etc... And to top it all off, they slip pay raises for themselves in on page 534 subsection A paragraph 1.8 of a bill that would approve spraying for killer bees.
All of you out there who think the solution to our problem is to bleed rich people dry, guess again. Until our money is spent correctly, bleeding the rich will just translate into more bad spending policies. Fix Congress. Leave the rich alone.
While I'm off topic, can we dispense with the liberal bickering? I'm really sorry that Nader didn't sweep the nation, but perhaps Slashdot could run a story every day going something like this?:
Posted by CmdrTaco on 02:19 PM March 1st, 2001
from the socialism-works!-really! dept.
An anonymous coward submitted this story: President Bush announced sometime in the recent past that he would put into action a tax cut that some people like and some people dislike but are generally divided about along party lines.Well, being liberal, I'm going to say something opinionated but slightly witty here.
While you're at it, a poll would work:- ---------------------
I like money
I dislike money
I dislike having money, but if everyone else had the same amount of money it'd be like money didn't exist at all, right? What? You mean this isn't a perfect world?
I dislike CowboyNeal having money
------------------------------------------
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey...
-------------------------------------------------
Everybody's got something to hi
Getting bent out of shape over the "multiple taxation" of estate taxes is silly. Practically every dollar you make is taxed multiply. First you have payroll taxes, social security, and medicare, all of which deduct a percentage of the net dollar you earn, so all three "multiply tax" the money. Then you take that remaining 50 or so cents (if you are in the top tax bracket, as I am), and you buy a candy bar with it, and in so doing you pay sales tax on the already-multiply-taxed money. Where's the moral outrage?
Please explain the moral foundation of one's "entitlement to property" after death, because I've never heard a convincing moral argument for the deceased to indeed have a right to property. I think (and I'm in good company, as so did Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith) that of all the possible taxes, the principle of taxing someone who is no longer in existence is perhaps the fairest of all taxes. (A recent Salon.com article makes this point very eloquently).
I'm continually amused by those who claim that social programs to aid the poor should be abolished, that the "American Way" is for everyone to be self-made men and women, yet in the very next breath they feel entitled to wealth (their parents wealth) that they themselves did not earn. What could be more egalitarian than requiring that everyone make his or her way in the world without the privilege of wealth greasing the wheels overmuch? Wealth already buys one's way into the best schools, it purchases face time in the best social circles, it provides one with access to the highest reaches of government. The children of wealth already enjoy numerous advantages over the poor. As well they should--one incentive for parents to work their tails off to become wealthy is to provide for their children in the best way possible, to give them the biggest possible head start in life. However, once their children are no longer children, it is only fair--nay, it's the American Way--for them to make their own way in life. They have the best preparation for success that money can buy. Now let them go contribute to society and build their own fortunes.
No doubt the estate tax needs to be modified so that the family farmer's family, the object of so much pithy rhetoric, doesn't lose the farm just because the hapless farmer fell into his combine. But this is an entirely different matter from setting up a government system that perpetuates an aristrocracy built upon old money. A need for reform is not a call to abolish a system. Social security needs reform--does that mean we should abolish it altogether as well?
>But americans are "ignorant" - they haven't received a good education, they simply don't know stuff, because they haven't been told, or they haven't asked, or whatever.
Ignorant? Why you dad-blasted commie sumbitch faggit! We 'merkans aren't ignorant. We knew enough to come over here and kick the injuns off our God-given land (otta send 'em all back to Africa if you ask me!), and kicked the English off our God-given land (and whooped 'em again in Dubya Dubya 2!) and created the greatest nation in the world. If yer so dern smart, how comes Eye-re-land is still owned by the Russkies!?
Ignorant? That's the dern stoopidest thing I heard since Canada became a state. You otta stay in Eye-re-land with all those other commie pinkos and sit and eat weener schnitzel and surrender to Germans or whatever it is you do over in that sissy part of the world with yer pronography and yer wimmen with hairy armpits and eatin' snails and whatever.
Ignorant? It's a good thing you ain't here, 'cos me a Smith and Wesson got a few words for people like you. At least in 'merka we don't have no sissy king or queen or whatever. We got President Dubya, a real man with real principials and integruity... and if you don't like it we can just shove a noo-cyoo-lar missile up your nose like we shooda done to Saddom an' Kadoffy an' Hitler an' Krooshef an' George III....
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Nope, Clinton has beat Nixon by a long shot. Nixon had one screw up -- a big screw up, but just one. With Clinton, it's just one big long string of corruption.
Actually, Nixon had a very nasty reputation before Watergate. He was one of the most brutal of the McCarthy witchhunters, ran his early campaigns basically on character assassination, became involved in very shady campaign fundraising, lied to Congress about attacks on Cambodia, evaded taxes, used the presidency to line his pockets, and formed the shadow organization that conducted the illegal breakins in the Ellsworth case, and eventually Watergate. And the Watergate affair wasn't just one big screw up; it was a series of screw ups that were each far worse than anything Clinton did. Altering tapes, interfering with the FBI investigation, ignoring subpoenas; the list goes on and on.
And what did Clinton do? Was semi-involved in a fraudulent land deal, the investigation of which found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Every time an accusation came up, Republicans started snivelling about how they wanted an independent counsel. And after investigations into travelgate, Whitewater, filegate, and alleged fundraising abuses, after millions of dollars, what did they find? He lied about sex. That's it. But the right is so consumed with hatred of the man, that they've managed to paint him as some sort of Democratic Nixon. They're scared of him because he's smarter than them, he's more charismatic than them, and he was an effective president. That scares the hell out of them, so they launched an 8 year smear campaign, which the media jumped on.
And, like many Democrats, I didn't really approve of some of those last pardons, but I didn't approve of Bush's pardon of the Iran-Contra conspirators either. But I can live with it.
--
That actually might be enough to get the politicians off their collective asses and get them to fund space development.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Yes, NASA faces budget cuts. NASA is illegal. It shouldn't have a budgegt AT ALL.
Of course, the legality of NASA clearly has nothing to do with its budget. And the word you're looking for is "unconstitutional", not "illegal".
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 justifies the establishment of NASA by stating "The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities."
The Congress was given by the Constitution "Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
The tenth amendment does not abridge that power.
Here's a transcript of an excellent panel discussion on the concept of federalism, states' rights, and the enumerated powers doctrine; with such gems as:
and and and perhaps most to the point: Here's some notes on the enumerated powers doctrine.--
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
The first shuttle was built in 1976. That would make it about 25 years old. The ones flying now are a bit younger and are updated dramaticly between each mission.
I haven't been able to find a shuttle pilot in their 20's. Most are about 35 or 40, it seems. Which ones are you referring to as being younger than the shuttles they fly?
All your event are belong to us.
I hate to respond to this so late in the thread, since it's likely that no one will ever read this ... however I think all of the posts I have read so far have missed a point here.
... or so I hope. :-)
The cancelation of the X-33 and X-34 doesn't mean the projects were a failure! The amount of data and experience gained on these two project is very large. Hard to measure even.
Remember these are X planes. They are experimental. The goal in these programs is not necesarily to produce a production ready space/aircraft (that's what the next phase called EMD is for.) These were essentially research programs. People throught that the technology and processes to develop this type of spaceplane (in the X-33s case) existed and were solid, but they were not entirely correct. If you recall they had gotten to the point where the original fuel tank design had to be scrapped, they were now carryin fuel in what was originally the cargo space and hauling payloads in external pods, etc. It was turning into a kludge. (IMHO anyway.)
Canceling this program now is good because it means that someone higher up in the management food chain recognizes that continuing at this point would cost more than starting over. They realize that some of their base assumptions for the project are wrong, and think that now they know enough to rethink it and do it right. This must have been a hard decision to make, but I think it was the right one.
In summary, don't think of this as the end of the effort to produce this type of spacecraft, just a slight dip in the slope of the learning curve. (Errr
Sigh. Must now return to doing "real" work. The horror.
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
Ok, first let me point out that these rich people are but a small handful of rich people. Second, some are some of them are the richest and most famous, they have the least to lose in many ways. Third, in any group, you're going to find a small percentage that disagrees, but that doesn't mean they're right. Fourth, maybe some people get more enjoyment out of putting their name in the news then they would out of giving their heirs (if they have any that they care about) an extra billion dollars or so.
That said, I don't think you truely understand the situation. The way the estate taxes are currently arranged businesses and farms are at threat. This is not just a myth. I am "rich", or rather my parents are. If either of them were to pass away tomorrow, the IRS would, in essence, demand the present value of their share of the company in cash OR they would be willing to "loan" us the amount, which we would have to pay back later. Neither solution is acceptable. The first essentially demands that a fire sale be done in the company. Both companies are currently privately held and are not in a condition to be sold so rapidly--the assets simply are not that liquid. In effect, this would essentially hurt all of the other shareholders in the company. In other words, it makes the already risky (and very much worthwhile) investment much riskier and forces my parents to do things like buy specialized life insurance policies to cover just this kind of event for the company and herself and consult a great many lawyers. All of these things are horribly inefficient and have the net effect of depriving their startups of valuable resources. (I can only imagine what a family farm or smaller family owned business must go through). The other option, taking the "loan", is totally unacceptable because the interest rate and the manner in which the value is company is appraised do not necessarily compute with what I can sell it for. In essense, if they valued the company at 90m dollars, but I was only able to eventually get, say, 30m for it, I'd be up shit creek.
What's more, I think you lack an appreciation for even the basic mathematics involved here. So I'll give a quick and dirty run down of it (ignoring the previously mentioned issues). Ok, let's suppose my mom just sold her company for 100m dollars. Then she dies tomorrow. That estate would be taxed at 55%. That leaves 45m dollars. Ok, now I am one of 4 children. Assuming that she gives all of her money to us (which would not be true). You now divide that 45m by 4. Which leaves you with about 11.25m per person. But we're not done yet. Now we apply INCOME tax to each of us at about 40% (yes, the total adds up to about 73%). This would leave us each with about 6.75m dollars. Now that may sound like a lot, but it's a far cry from 100m dollars. And that's minimizing virtually everything. In reality, it works out to a much smaller percentage than that. The point being is that it's not enough to live the high life on, even with what sounds initially like an astronomical figure to some. If that money is not properly invested or used wisely, it would disappear very shortly.
Furthermore, even if you figure that we get and keep this money, the only way that would happen is if it is invested. In other words, this isn't a zero sum equation. Just because I have "money", doesn't mean others don't. In fact, it's quite the other way around. When I take that money and use it towards starting my own company (which I probably would), I create jobs directly and indirectly. What's more, I create value for society in the goods and services that I produce. This leads me to another point, I truely don't believe the government is capable of efficiently allocating resources. Put differently, I believe that those extra dollars are better spent in my hands than they are in the governments. (Yes, I believe there is a need for government and taxes, I'm not a libertarian by any means, but there is also a lot of waste).
And yet another point, did it ever occur to anyone that maybe some people have greater aims than just their own immediate consuption? Perhaps their chief incentive is to assure that their children, friends, family, or what have you have the means to live as they see fit. Or perhaps their lifes work is to create a company that benefits their community. In other words, the founder may place a great deal of importance on say, integrity and high quality service. He (or she), the entreprenuer, knows his trust and/or his heirs will see the company through the way he wants. But if the government comes in and demands more than half, the company must either be liquidated or have a bunch of shares change hand, forcing control and such out of the hands of the desired party.
It also comes down to the fundamental question of whether you believe taxes, or indeed the government, should be involved in social programs like this. Taxes were originally designed to generate income. When the inheritance taxes came into being, it was essentially just a social scheme. So where does this end? If we can tax the rich with the intent of making them less rich, why not tax white and/or jewish people for making them less rich? After all, clearly things need to be evened up. So where does it all end? It it _truly_ needed in this day and age? If, supposedly, Bill G. and others want estate taxes, they'd also be willing to give away most of their estates to other causes. So why is it that we assume it would be perpertual wealth? I know a lot of rich people and, by and large, almost anyone that has earned it themselves (which is most) is disgusted by the notion of the decadent existence.
These are just some of the (presently unstructured -- my apologies -- gotta run) reasons why I think estate taxes need to be abolished, or at least, severely adjusted (73% is just too high).
The core of our air force are the B-52 bombers,
now in their fifth decade. Projections have
them running into seventh or eighth decade until
they are cannabalized for structural parts.
At least most of the vacuum tubes have been
replaced by semiconductor electronics over the
years.
Ye gads!
Are you saying that government should be involved in applied research?
;)
I was a student in the early eighties when the ideology of government being involved in basic research only (excepting military projects) really took hold. The problem is that the line between applied and basic is not absolutely clear cut when talking about engineering. Some people I knew were able to turn their research into successful commercial ventures, which I guess supports the argument that government support shouldn't be needed, but a lot depended on the state of their research at the time the Reagan administration began to choke of their air supply.
I now have friends who do basic engineering research in the private sector,so it's not like technology research won't happen. But it's also fair to say that without military funding for technology research, development of jet engines, computers, and computer networking would be far behind where it is now.
I believe that the reason military research is so good for advancing technology is you don't get into fights over whether it is sufficiently basic for government to be funding it. The military can fund, large, long term, cooperative research projects that are out of the reach of private research.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree with you on this one - I understand being religious and such, but destroying such works (two 100+ foot Buddas, from the 4th or 5th century) is a shame to archeology and anthropology studies. It's frustrating to see this occur (mainly because they are another country, and can, and should, be able to do what they please, within limits).
I rank it right up there with the flooding of old temples in China due to the Yangtzee (sp?) river damn project - that is such a beautiful valley, and wonderful old temples - all to be put under a lake for power (if it hasn't happened already)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon