Slashdot Mirror
Debunking the Trillion-Dollar Space Myth
jfoust writes "When the President and NASA announced the agency's new space initiative, including sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars, many news reports claimed that the plan could cost as much as $1 trillion. According to this Space Review article, that trillion-dollar price tag is a myth: it was based on erroneous data and analysis, in large part by a single Associated Press reporter, and propagated by many other reporters too busy -- or too lazy -- to check on the facts. Could this kill the plan before it has a chance to start?"
personally, I eat a trillion dollars for breakfast each morning. If only I could bring myself to go hungry for just one morning...
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees
3,000 people, mostly children will starve to death this year in the US. Do we really need to go to Mars right now? Can't it wait a few years til things are running smoothly down here?
I'm all for boosting our space program, but I think it's a luxary at this point in our history, not a necessity.
They lied to us through "facts" [note the quotes].
Simply astounding..... Next you'll tell me Linux isn't a complete operating system, Germany wasn't annexed in the 60s and Bush is a war criminal!
I mean... shit I need some sleep...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
A none-too-complimentary view of "Bias" can be found at http://www.fair.org/articles/bias-op-ed.html.
Jayson Blair? The reporter who got sacked for making up news? The one that gave the NYT a credibility problem that it still hasn't fully overcome? If anything, he would be a data point in favor of the idea that the media has some interest in reporting the news in a factual manner.
Who released this study? How substantiative was it? Did it get any peer review? Maybe, just maybe, the study didn't get much play because there are more important things than acting as a megaphone for some right-wing think tank with bad science. I can't pass judgment on a study I haven't seen, but you haven't provided compelling evidence that it deserved to get attention.
It may also be that the major news outlets are giving us the news we're interested: The war in Iraq, not global warming. Global warming hasn't been in the headlines much since the furor over the Kyoto Treaty died down. Finally, whether you side with the pro-war or the anti-war side, it's pointless to call all the Iraqi guerillas attacking an invading army on their home soil "terrorists." They have their own political agenda, and they are using force to move it forward, just like we are.
Let's reserve the term "terrorists" for those who target non-combatants.
Finally, you can't think of the number of terrorists as a zero sum game. We can't say, "Okay, there are 100,000 terrorists inside Iraq, so if we kill 60,000 terrorists, we've reduced the threat by sixty percent." More terrorists are created and eliminated by political maneuvers than the U.S. could ever hope to take out with bullets and missile strikes.
Just look at the recent killing of Shiek Ahmed Yassin--a Hamas leader--by Israel. Did he coordinate suicide bombings? Probably. Did he deserve to die? Probably. Can Israel scratch one terrorist off the scorecard? Nope. The public reaction to the killing will probably increase the number and willpower of the Palestinian militants.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Sooo two trillion then?
When everything is said and done, it will likely end up being much more than people can project now. This is the government yes? And a long term project?
Do you think eisenhower would have/could have had the feds take on the Interstate project if they knew how much it costs today to build and maintain them?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.