Slashdot Mirror
Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary
colonist writes "A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. The panel also cut environment and science programs, but increased funding for veterans' affairs. NASA would get $15.1 billion next year, $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the President's request. Most of the cuts are on new initiatives. The subcommittee is the first step of a long budget process and major changes to the bill are expected."
FTA: A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon.
I believe this happened for a few reasons:
1. War
2. Sympathy
3. Elections
War: The spending on the war has caused so many problems in the US that it's hard to fathom any budget increases for any program, other than a military one. Take into account the huge chunk of cash moved into Iraq and you have yourself some questions. Is it prudent to be offering extra money to spend on space when so much money is going to killing resistance fighters, terrorists and occasional Iraqi civilians? Not to mention the costs of rebuilding the country that was bombed into the stone age, for whatever reason.
Sympathy: Dogbert says that if you want to get more funding, you should have your funding publicly slashed and burned for about a year. The sympathy you get will cause your funding increases to double in the next year, and the year after that. Part of the problem with getting new funding is that the old funding can be perceived as too fat if it hasn't been cut recently. Having funding cut will help obfuscate your motives for even more padding in the years to come.
Elections: By cutting the funding to NASA, this will show people that it's an election year and it's important to vote. I'm not sure which party will benefit from these cuts more, yet it's important for everyone that more people go and vote. People everywhere love NASA for their space exploration because most human beings want to pretend they can be members of a space faring race, like on Star Trek. NASA's human rights injuries, be damned.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Sorry
How does this have anything to do with Apple ?. I thought this was Slashdot news from Apple.
But most likely not any changes that will actually help NASA.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Until they detect signs of oil on Mars, this trend will unfortunately continue.
...is why we'll never make it to the moon or mars with the gov't: we're not prepared to pay the price.
I hold out hope for private enterprise, but that's still decades away.
In other news, Congress is now sponsoring the "Y-Prize", which awards 1M to the first private spaceship that safely lands on Mars surface.
They're also outsourcing NASA jobs to India, I guess.
Face it, during an election cycle, lawmakers would rather be percieved as budget-minded tax cutters than bold visionaries. If any major funding for NASA is to come, it will have to be shortly after the election, when a president is in a better position to advocate major change.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well when taxes are lower, spending has to be cut somewhere. Many programs want more money, many people want more programs, many people (and corporations) want less taxes (there was a story in today's Chicago Trib about some new super-corporate-freeforall-taxloophole bill today, kinda disheartening, our government is 0wn3d).
Like the MS Word issue, where people with unrealistic demands drive software bloat, the unrealistic demands of people drive deficit spending.
And we elect the nice members of Congress to balance these needs. Better them than me.
sorry I support NASA to the end,
but they waste a lot of money, and i dont mean the "toilets, or wrenches" garbage.
I mean they are a large organization and its a government entity, they waste tons of money in managers talking to each other.
I think every government budget should be slashed, from schools to police. FORCE them to be efficient.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I doubt the US would have put men on the moon, if they were not scared to death that the russians would get there first. I saw an interview with Buzz Aldrin last night, where he pretty well said as much, saying that this was an element of the cold war that they had won. How sad. And once this was accomplished, the budget was cut, despite the fact they had the Saturn V's in mass production at the time, and could have finished the planned missions for a relatively small cost. The NRE was over, and next Apollo rocket and crew was primed and ready to go. Go watch "2001 a space odyssey" (released in 1970) to see where it was widely thought we should have been by 2001.
Setting foot on another world was THE #1 defining moment of human civilization. 10,000 years from now, when we are hopefully spread across the galaxy, what historial event will stand out? A revolution in country X, a war in country Y? The raize and fall of empire Z? No, it will be the first steps off our home planet.
I can only hope in the next few years China makes a dash for Mars, and the west feels a need to upstage them. We should have been there by now.
My rights don't need management.
Let's face it, the American people (on average, not your typical US Slashdot reader - I hope) just do NOT get the fact that you have to HAVE money to SPEND money. Apparently being suckled on credit cards has removed that concept from peoples' minds.
With Bush's multiple rounds of slashing taxes, that means we have LESS to spend. We've got record budget deficits and we have to cut spending correspondingly. Period.
So if you like deep tax cuts, quit whining about budget cuts. This is what the results are - the government HAS to spend less or we're simply pissing in our own well.
Whine all you want about "But they could just cut (Program-I-Don't-Care-About) instead!" The problem is that every other program has their own segment of the population screaming about the exact same thing.
Maybe some nation that understands the concept of debit/credit ledgers can get to Mars instead, and send us a postcard.
Sad.
I am a fervent liberal, but Republicans claim to be about smaller gov, and less taxes. Well, the tax cuts enacted earlier warranted great cuts in programs. I don't like seeing the space and science budgets cut, being a fervent liberal, but hey, they need to do things right, and it's about time. I have an 8 month old daughter and she will be paying for the sins of this administration for a long time after I am (possibly) retired. What they need are massive cuts around the board to protect her. They want to do big tax cuts, it needs to come out someplace. I am of the opinion, however, that the federal government should be nothing more than international relations and international science (these would include space exploration and military), and that would greatly reduce our national taxes. All other things should vary from state to state, and that would enable each state to model its own economy and laws that could overwrite the federal ones. Smoke up!
I think that Congress has the impression that more research should be done by the private sector. I tend to lean toward Libertarian values, but I can see how funding NASA helps us all.
After all, NASA doesn't need to turn a profit on its research. When the private sector pumps billions of dollars into something it's expecting to get billions in return. So why search for things that (seemingly) won't turn a profit right away.
NASA has benefitted this country so much its sad to see Congress shoving it aside. I guess they're hoping to offshore NASA.
Oh, boy. I just know I'm going to get killed here, but in IMHO Nasa has done more to harm space development in the US than anyone else. For decades, they went way out of their way to thwart private space ventures, and frankly, they invested in a lot of of programs that had awfull returns for the money. Do I even need to mention the two downed space shuttles, the hubble mirror, or the the ft vs meter fiasco for the mars mission? IMHO, if you love space, you should hate NASA and all the godawfull bureauocracy that has come with it. They're presence just keeps something better from replacing them.
I live in Huntsville, AL--Rocket City USA.
There's nothing sadder than engineers who've been chomping at the bit for years wanting to do some *real* space work hearing about Bush's Mars plan, maybe even getting to work on preliminaries, and knowing that it's all a political game and nothing will ever actually get off the ground.
"As any economist will tell you, and as all you Linux people know, a monopoly of any kind is bad, and NASA has one on SPACE."
Hi, coward. This is the rest of the world; we took slight umbridge at the implication that NASA is the only space agency, and we'd like to invite you to check out Ariane, Long March and Huygens.
And it's 'monoculture'.
"but in order to do that it must obey the same laws as business and NASA will never do that."
You mean like charging people for satellite launch, repair and retrieval? Yeah, they'd never do that.
OTOH, I really like your thinking. California's never had power supplies this good, Litigation is at an all-time low and the media isn't trying to position itself as a government protected subscription outfit. no siree. None of that happening.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Funny; I'd rather scrap the Man on Mars mission and spend the money on science (as opposed to engineering.)
Not that a man (or woman) on Mars wouldn't be unbearably cool, and certainly capable of doing some great science (a human could walk from crater to crater in hours, not months), but the cost is astronomical (pardon the pun). We put two rovers on Mars for less than a hundred million; people on Mars would cost tens of billions.
Of course if they were talking about sending _me_ to Mars I'd feel differently; I'd love to go. But I don't get real vicarious thrills watching somebody else go, so I'd rather spend the money more carefully.
Forty years ago, we looked to the stars and put flags on the moon.
Now we spend all our time worrying about countries that tend to put the moon and stars on their flags.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
And of course, the vote went along party lines. The 6 Republicans, led by Young, voted for the cuts; the three Democrats, led by Obey, voted against. At least they gave more veterans benefits than the pittiance that Bush requested....
Still, there's no way that this will remain in its current form. I can't imagine even the Republican-dominated house supporting this.
Windmills do not work that way!
In order to pay for Bush's deficits over the past 4 years, NASA would have to have its budget COMPLETELY taken away for about the next 50 years.
So enjoy those tax rebate cheques folks, the money had to come from somewhere.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Read the article carefully... The subcommittee recommended a budget for NASA of $15.1B, which is $229M below last year's budget of $15.329B. That means the subcommittee cut last year's budget by 1.49 percent. They did, however, cut NASA's requested budget, including a requested increase over last year, by 7 percent.
The Big News Page
According to the national debt clock, the U.S. is $7.2 trillion in debt. Even if you ignore the gov't-purchased "IOU" bonds, we're just about half that in debt. And of course, the entire Social Security system is running headlong into disaster. More budget cuts, please. Cut everybody. Defense, Space, Research, Healthcare, Retirement Benefits, Student Funding, Habitat Development, etc. We can't afford this any more. And to everyone here crying about these cuts: you are the problem.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
Your correct, I imagine that Steve Ballmer or his one of his children could be the first person to walk on mars. Privatize the mission so the taxpayers don't wring their hands worrying.
Due to budget cuts, NASA has scaled back it's shuttle replacement program. Snip: 'Our new Space Shuttle design will be based on a modified Geo Metro. We feel using the Metro as a base will increase reliability and safety, while at the same time reducing the cost of production and fuel expenses.'
Apparantly NASA plans to use the Metro's excellent gas mileage to reduce the cost of orbital flights. When asked why they didn't consider using a hybrid vehicle, NASA replied: 'The cost of development is too high for our budget. Plus, those batteries have to be replaced every 10 years at a cost of $2000 a piece. This is simply out of our price range.'
Astronauts are furious at the selection, stating the Metro's horrible acceleration and pathetic top speed. 'It used to take us 8 1/2 minutes to achieve orbit, now it's a 12 hour trip' It's not like there are any rest stops on the way. I'm sure they won't be planning any vacations on the moon anytime soon either.
Now reality sets in. All the talk and good publicity is over. The media has moved on to newer "news" like Jenna Bush sticking her tongue out at reporters and the latest Hollywood romances that has the people back to their glazed over state. Congress gets the job of deciding how to make up for the hundreds of billions we've spent on Iraq and anti-terror efforts and doesn't really have many options for cutting the budget at this point. So NASA gets hung out to dry once more, and Bush suffers little (if any) bad press. After all, he didn't cut the budget!
God...I hate politicians so much. And not just one party either. They'll all say anything to get re-elected.
-Shadow
It's sad to see legions of /.ers using semiconductor-based memory, microprocessors, and advanced networking technology to diss the achievements of the Apollo program.
We got more out of NASA than Tang and some rocks, boys.
(Personal note: my earliest memory that I can date accurately is being five years old, watching Neil and Buzz hop around the LEM on that late Sunday evening.)
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
NASA's human rights injuries, be damned.
There is pleanty to critisize about the government, so lying to support a tenuous point is hardly necessary. The link you supplied discusses abuses foisted on the American public by the Pentagon and a few other government agencies. NASA is mentioned once, in passing, with no direct references or credibile, verifiable sources to support their inclusion. The phrase you chose to reference the link directly implies otherwise.
Yes, Congress has to deal with paying for the outrageousness of the Bush administration's poor decisions regarding Iraq, and personally I think that is the real driving issue, along with the medicare fiasco. The rest is complete supposition. While I don't doubt some find it interesting, there's no need to create contention by being dishonest when we already have more than enough to go around.
You misspelled "billion". IIRC, the total cost for the rovers was around $800 million.
A realistic (i.e. not done by the incredibly bloated NASA bureaucracy) plan to put people on Mars would cost something like $20-40 billion. So for 20 to 50 times as much, you can put actual people there, and probably get at least 100 times as much done, if not more. That's a better return for your dollars. The only trouble is that it's a much higher initial investment, and NASA is completely incapable of thinking about putting people on Mars for less than a trillion dollars.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I would rather have all that money spent to social development within the US. The poverty level, especially in children living in it, is alarming. In fact it compares to Third World country levels.
But then again the Mod-Nazis might find this irrelevant/offensive/antiamerican (freedom hating propaganda) and mod it down in a futile attempt to exorcise the problem (out of their conscience?).
Go ahead teach master teach...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
I personally would take a third option: hard science at current levels, scrap the big showy things like "mars trips", and focus work on cost reduction.
Primarily, cheaper payload to orbit options, cheaper stationkeeping and orbit changing methods, better in-space construction technology (to allow the use of smaller rockets), more materials research (so that payloads and rockets themselves become lighter and sturdier), etc.
Nothing will help the space industry as much as getting costs down far enough to allow for a true space tourism industry to develop, which would in itself help drive down costs further. There's no *technical* reason why it should be impossible to get rocket costs down to, say, 1000$/kg to orbit. It is the current practical limitations that keep even the cheapest rocket costs over 6,000$/kg.
As somewhat of a side topic, does anyone here have any familiarity with propane fuel cells? I've been toying in my mind with the prospect of replacing a traditional rocket turbopump with a completely isolated AC hysteresis motor-driven turbopump (no shaft need enter the fuel or oxidizer lines, and you don't need an extra turbine and rocket engine); with a specific energy of 400W/kg of fuel cell and a specific power of 2000Wh/kg of propane/oxygen assumed, and 50% efficiency in the AC conversion/motor efficiency/turbine, the numbers came out pretty favorable compared to a traditional turbopump approach, so I was wondering how close my estimated fuel cell numbers come to reality.
Windmills do not work that way!
This is just the first of the hard cuts that will have to happen to have social security for the baby boomers as they start to retire.
.12 = 3% of your income) is being used for general spending -- it is a effectly an extra tax people under 80K are paying that those who are making millions don't. If we wanted to "shore-up" social security, we should stop using this money to pay the national debt; and start investing it.
Saying that we have to cut NASA funding to fund baby boomers is pure nonsense. The difference between what the boomers will need (in the trillions of dollars) is far far less than the NASA budget). Now... if you want to cut the military, you could make some headroom. But you mentioned social security; so,
Right now the social security "surplus" (about 25% of your payroll taxes, or 25% *
Where to invest billions of dollars? I'll tell you. In education, especially healthcare and initiatives for keeping care of retires. Why?
Well, its simple economics. In another 10-20 years the demand for retirement services (esp. nurses and doctors who specialize in geriatrics) will be fixed -- determined by the increasing retirement age. At that time, the supply will also be fixed, since it takes several years to "learn" someone a nursing degree (from High school all the way through). So, the price will be fixed, and we will have to raise taxes to cover that price. If we work hard at increasing the supply of services now (since they take many years to build-up), we will still pay a price, but a lower price, and hence we won't have to raise taxes as much. Further, if the money is used for general education, the average american will have more skills, and will need less time (due to productivity) to cover the needs of their parents and grandparents.
In short, we should not be using this 3% tax to pay for revenue lost from the estate tax and lower capital gains. We should be investing this 3% into education for the next generations of Americans. Education is the answer, and one frequently overlooked.
We also have a deficit that is rapidly shrinking as the economy wakes up as a result of the tax cuts.
Just like under Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush tax cuts lead to increased government revenue within 2 years.
The problem I have with Bush is that he won't VETO anything! He spends just like the worst of the liberals he claims are bad.
Oh, our deficits are not record, especially when compared to the GDP.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Can you just imagine if we didn't spend half of the world's total military spending? If we spent merely, say, 1/4 of the world's total military spending, and allocated the savings to NASA, it'd 15x NASA's budget. Now, I wouldn't suggest cutting our military budget *in half*, and wouldn't suggest reallocating *all* savings to NASA, but still, our military spending is just huge. And that ignores our debt, of which most of it was accrued to pay for wars. While certainly some of them were worth it (such as WWII), others (such as Vietnam) certainly weren't.
Windmills do not work that way!
The research and engineering to get to Mars might cost billions - of course there would doubtless be the usual useful spinoffs and breakthroughs that'd make billions.
The actual mission might be quite affordable if the right breakthroughs happen along the way. For instance, what is the total flight time if a .01 G continuous thrust engine is available? Check out:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/documents.html
(Hint: my back of the envelope calculation shows that one month in each direction is about right for a reasonable geometry - quite a bit better than a ballistic trajectory. Perhaps the ship could even be robust enough to include decent radiation shielding.)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Nasa made a _lot_ of promises that weren't really delivered by the shuttle. The X-prize entries have gotten a lot further for the amount of money expended than has Nasa. Now you can argue-well Nasa already built the shuttle. Still, is a politically correct bureacracy like Nasa _really_ the way a society ought to reach for the stars? I'm not sure that greedy corporations doing it for money is quite the right way either. This stuff really doesn't inherently need to be expensive. Thirty years ago, it looked like something was going to happen. What went wrong? Was it simple bad luck or a fundamental societal organizational problem? By now organizations like the National Geographic Society really _ought_ to have a space program. If the nascent Mormon church could organize colonization of Utah 150 years ago, why isn't anyone similarly motivated today? The folks running the USA today seem very, very different than those running the USA 100 years ago.
My guess here: if the USA were to go away, somebody else would pick up the ball-maybe the Russians or Chinese. Hell, I can even believe that if the US government were fundamentally restructured(ala Yugoslavia), it might have a better shot at space than this bunch of looser attorneys/media folks that will spend $1.2 trillion protecting an antique energy source in the Middle East-and not consider having a few hundred billion in prize incentives for a new energy sources to stop that bleeding.
Hear hear! Drinkypoo's comment has merit.
And now for a few hundred words to soak the brains of those who like to read.
There are ways things are done in order to make people in power look good no matter what the outcome is. Politics is a team sport in a government controlled by a majority party. In an election year, this more than most, we sometimes don't just see the puppets, but the hairy-wrists and the odd hand controlling some sticks. Sometimes we as an audience are less tolerant of the hijinks. In this instance, checks and balances make for the perfect way to duck and run, a necessary part of talking up something for the kids, while still keeping the peace.
A "War" president isn't necessarily a "space" president. It's nice to evoke two cars in every garage, cheap clean power, a trip to mars, and dead terrorists in every evil country around the world. It makes the press happy to posit more WhiteHouse newscrack, and for the President to record a prepared statement. It's all just part of being in office. I heard the "Mars Initiative" statement and watched the nifty presentation NASA made to go along with it (chicken/egg/whatever). This is something a U.S. President is supposed to do. And for those who must ask why, it's simply a bone to throw the education system, something gradeschool teachers can have kids write about, something science teachers can form a lesson plan on, and something NASA can do to justify their role/budget as a vector for science and engineering in education.
The reality of what our government does is veiled behind bought-and-sold opinion, consented to by businesses that control just about every high-visibility "free" vector short of the local "free as in beer" paper that's printed every week and dropped wholesale in convienience stores and on street-corners. Citizen-criminals in this land of the free-to-shop are encouraged to simply pay attention to the news that's been made for them and to play with their toys, watch their tv-shows, and don't talk back to authority. In our government, the gloves are always on, unless a certain acerbic Vice President gets snippy.
Apparently a moderator was offended that someone would drop so blatant a comment which succinctly approximated the situation.
"Getting those who tell it like it is won't make the problem go away."
-Jello Biafra
What makes the idea that the President (regardless of political affiliation) would do this seem so repellent? This is business-as-usual. It's very insightful for someone to see through the "BS" and say something all the adults in the room know to be true. The parent of this thread isn't a troll or flamebait. It's a pithy statement that is self-evident truth.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
I cannot say that a NASA budget cut is a big surprise. It's only a matter of time before the full effects of our misadventure in Iraq comes home to roost. But there may be a silver lining in here for NASA.
At the core, the scientists and engineers at NASA are very smart and clever people. They've done some incredible work on budgets that seem little more than spit and lint compared to the outlays the military typically gets. I think that they'll do great work no matter what the budget is because in the end they have great passion for their work.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Bush is "hemhorraging money" to folks like Halliburton, which is merely a bizarre sort of multinational nightmare to do with the military industrial complex, not the military itself. The military proper, well, that he's positively decimating -- engaging our soldiers in reckless policy ventures and cutting their bennies at the same moment, and so on.
Even the things the guy says he's about, he's not really about. (As you so adroitly observed of the Mars announcement.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
And which party controls Congress? Oops. There goes your arguement. Bush: Watch me, I got this vision thing, "Go to Mars!!!" Oh, on the other hand, let me cut your funding.
Yes, NASA cancelled the remaining Apollo missions, but I think it's only fair to point out that the cancellation was mainly the result of Congress reducing the FY1971 NASA appropriation. Without the budgetary issue, Apollo 18,19, and 20 would almost certainly have flown.
NASA's main problem now is the same as it's been for many, many years. Support for the space program is "a mile wide and an inch deep". Most people are in favor of having a space program, but few ever let their representatives in Congress know.
Look at what we did with the technology of the 1960's. Can you imagine what we could do our current level of technology??? It would be astounding, if only the funding was available.
Mods: I shoulda used Preview. My bad, mod my other post down if you want. Here's an eaiser-to-read version of my comment:
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you.
How about if someone develops Alzheimers at age 60? That's not really their fault, but should they have been saving like crazy in their younger years, just in case they developed a disease which would eventually require round-the-clock personal homecare?
What about someone who develops diabetes at age 50 because of their genes? What if someone develops it at age 45 because of their poor diet? What if someone gets hit by a bus at age 40, and needs prescription painkillers for the rest of their life?
What about people who develop mental illnesses such as manic depression or anxiety? What about erectile dysfunction? Birth control? Where do we draw the line? To me, clearly the people near the beginning of this rant deserve help through public funding, particularly when they suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that is not their fault. However, it is equally clear to me that I as a taxpayer should not be paying for Grampy's Viagra. You, moreover, appear to believe that no tax dollars should go towards any of these examples, and in that case, all I have to say about that is "Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge." That's not a country I'd want to live in.
So when the people that are say in their 30's now get to be 65, (me) they will have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to put money away.
No matter how "responsible" a person is, they can't possibly save up enough to live out 25-or-so "twilight" years while paying $1200/day for personal homecare due to a catastrophic illness. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States is unexpected catastrophic illness.
Let me ask you this. If you are under the age of 40 and the government offered to lower your taxes by say 15-20%, but you would not be eligable for any social programs later in life, would you take it?
Now that is an extremely dangerous option to give people. The vast majority of people would say "yes," and they'd take it, then they'd not change a damn thing about their lives. They'd take that extra money and spend it. And when the time came that they needed social assistances and medical care, and they didn't have the money, they'd hold their dying hands out, and coldblooded beancounters like you would slap them away and say "tough cookies!" You'd probably smugly pat yourself on the back while you were at it, for being such a good planner and putting away a few thousand bucks yourself, when in reality, all you've done is simply been fortunate enough not (yet) to suffer the same expensive illnesses as those who you snub your noses at.
Given the choice, those people would take the extra cash, and they'd still need help when they got old. If people like you were in charge, and turned them away, or told them, "well, Sicky, I guess you should've saved that money instead of blowing it on rent and groceries, Hmmmmmmmm????" While your smug dismissal may in fact have a grain of truth to it, it doesn't change the fact that at that moment, it would be too late for that person to go back in time and make different decisions, and they still need help now. What do you propose be done? Let them die on the streets because they didn't plan as well as you?
Again, I repeat: That's not a country I want to live in.
Thankfully, I'm in Canada. Most people up here are far, far too civilized to even consider such a barbaric
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I'll readily admit, I had to google for the meaning behind your post. Here's some info for those more lazy.
The spiel mentioned above is the message that the Yucca Mountain design is intended to convey to future civilizations. Namely to those that show up 10K+ years from now. (Yucca being the designated site for the United States' Radioactive waste. It will be quite hazardous for an amazingly long amount of time.) The text is not really supposed to be an inscription per say, but simply the overall concept behind the structure of the entire complex.
The original research was done by Sandia national labs. A significant portion of the document can be found here.
Madcap googling resulted in an easy to read summary here. May god have mercy on the poor soul that gets slashdotted.
BTW Tackhead, kudos on the obscure (?) reference. Forced me to learn. =)
--LordPixie
LAF. Ok, so let me get this straight. We need nuclear missiles, nuclear submarines, a missile shield, and 7 carrier groups to fight people who live among us, hiding in our cities, plotting to destroy things with box cutters; and their colleages who live in caves in the hundreds, and train with hand-held poorly maintained 1970s Soviet equipment; and their financiers who invest in the Carlyle group? Wait, we're supposed to ignore that last group...
Seriously, though: please tell me you're kidding. And if you're not, what has happened to global terrorism since we launched our "war on terror"? And, furthermore, what percent of our troops and eq. did we send to Afghanistan?
Iraq was a real military operation. Afghanistan, even with as broad of a scope as we gave it, could have been accomplished by a military 1/5th our size.
Windmills do not work that way!
But we should spend the most on today, some on tomorrow, and a bit on years from now.
If this is the way humans habitually thought we would still be hunter gatherers. The great thing about space exploration is that the technology we create to get us there sticks around forever once it's invented. Just think about it this way. If you can spend $100 today to invent a technology that will generate you $100,000,000 tomorrow, are you going to really bitch about losing a C note?
The riches that space has to offer are vast beyond all belief. A single iron asteroid could contain more raw material than we can dig up in decades. The output of the sun in any given hour dumps out more energy than the entire human race has ever used up in it's 3 million year history; in a given month more energy than can EVER exist on the planet without the help of anti-matter.
The day that we harness space completely for our own benifit is the day that the entire planet will come as close to utopia as can possibly be realisticlly imagined.
With a nearly infinite amout of energy and raw material available, the entire concept of starvation and poverty will have to be redefined globally. Scarcity will have a new meaning, turning our economy from an exploitive neccessary evil into a wonderland.
We can sit here and focus on the poor, the opressed and teh downtrodden today, and tomorrow, and every day for the next 4000 years... Or we could spend thirty years redefining our destiny and ending up in a candyland world where starving means waiting an extra ten minutes for the all you can eat buffet.