Slashdot Mirror


Funding Promised for Trips to Moon, Mars

image77 writes "NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday the space agency will have the necessary funding to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars. Delay states "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go.""

560 comments

  1. who's not reading between the lines here? by professorhojo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday the space agency will have the necessary funding to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars. Delay states "We will provide whatever funding is necessary to get the spotlight off my ethics investigation and possible upcoming criminal proceedings."

    1. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Naikrovek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I doubt he's this smart, but it might not be his idea.. either way DeLay is probably the most evil character in government today.

    2. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delay continued, saying, "This won't cost the taxpayers anything. Since it's travel, I'm going to have my lobbyists front all of the money."

    3. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by SubTexel · · Score: 0

      Nah, that title would go to the Liberal Hippies...

    4. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by natrius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, in this case he's arguably doing what representatives are supposed to do. He represents the suburbs of Houston, the residents of which benefit when there's funding for new jobs in town. Sure, it's pork, but at least it doesn't involve a feeding tube or threatening judges.

    5. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by image77 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This gets modded as "Insightful?" Slashdot needs a new mod category - "Political," so that comments like this can be filtered out....

    6. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Mr.+Ghost · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You gotta be kidding. That isn't Insightful. It is more like Funny or possibly even Flamebait or Trolling but I would stick with funny.

      This is the crap passes for Insightful or on /.?

    7. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right now i feel like i am a big incompetent ignoramus who just cannot get his life in shape. i don't know anything useful, like how to do well at my current job. i don't know why i get sad like this, but its happening often enough and for long enough stretches that i really get really deep into suicidal thoughts before i get happy again.

      You clearly are an incompetent ignoramus, or at least brainwashed by Micheal Moore, which is probably worse. In any case, please don't kill yourself - your retarded comments make Slashdot so much more interesting.

    8. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Skjellifetti · · Score: 2, Funny

      DeLay represents the TX 22nd Congressional District. The district is largely in the Houston suburbs. NASA has a large presence in Houston. His press release is really just the standard Congressional release:

      We will provide whatever funding is required to support $PROGRAM of $AGENCY in order to bring Federal Government cash and jobs to my district.

    9. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded that as a troll is on crack.

    10. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      NASA's Johnson Space Center is in Houston. Isn't that within his Congressional District?

      He's doing exactly what any good congressman would do - appeasing his constituents within his district.

    11. Re:who's not reading between the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      NASA's Johnson Space Center is in Houston. Isn't that within his Congressional District?
      Yes, in the sense that Houston is in the state of Texas. Since he is a senator, the whole state is his district.
  2. Thanks, Tom! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA:


    "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go," the House majority leader said.


    Awfully nice of you to provide the funding for our space initiative, Tom...are you sure you and the other members of Congress can afford it?

    Oh, wait...he's talking about our money...not his...damn.

    Seriously, though, after reading through TFA, and also reading some related articles on President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration", one finds that below the glitz and the sexiness, there's just not much content. Specifically, there's very little mention of turning space exploration into a paying venture, which will be very necessary as soon as the glamour wears off, and the taxpayers get tired of funding such a pricey program.

    There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space...we just need to get up there...and stay up there this time.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Thanks, Tom! by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go," the House majority leader said.

      To the oval office!

    2. Re:Thanks, Tom! by mas5353 · · Score: 0

      They have to distract the American public with something. Does it not seem like space venture is only good for one class of people: the filthy rich? And what do they want expansion into space for? To stake territory and get even richer perhaps?

      This is not a "troll." I'm just suggesting that space expansion only benefits; at the present moment, the government; soon, the richest 0.5% people in the world; in the distant future, the riches 2% richest people in the world. Does that mean we shouldn't back it up? Not necessarily, but I think escaping the mess you've created is a worse policy than fixing it.

      --
      How long must we be a victim of fate and circumstance?
      As long as it takes to change our minds.
    3. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have *anything* substantial to back that ridiculous statement up, or are you just suffering from diarrhea of the brain and hatred of anyone with more money and/or talent than you?

    4. Re:Thanks, Tom! by mas5353 · · Score: 0

      I don't hate anybody, and certainly don't care if someone is richer than me. That should have been clear from the post.

      For examples of what I'm talking about, just look at history, when colonialism/imperialism was the world standard. Who benefited then? The problem is that our tax dollars are being used by an enterprise controlled government and there isn't anything we can do about it.

      --
      How long must we be a victim of fate and circumstance?
      As long as it takes to change our minds.
    5. Re:Thanks, Tom! by MirrororriM · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Griffin said he believes a majority of people "want to make sure that as humankind expands into space the United States is there in the forefront."

      "That is why this is important," he said. "It's about where human beings go and what they do when they get there and what that means to the future of the human race."

      B.S. - I agree with the above poster when they say "There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space...we just need to get up there...and stay up there this time."

      The government is not doing this for "the greater good", but rather to fill their own pockets...and the government wants to be the first to get there to claim all that they can. They'll find one way or another to tax everything in space once they can claim it is theirs.

      I would think that we'll need space exploration beyond all the glitz and glamour for our own survival. I'm not a tree-hugger or anything, but I live in a town completely polluted by a large chemical company. You can't even swim in the surrounding rivers because of dioxin warnings. Not to mention that "coincidentally" that the soft tissue cancer rate is one of the highest in the nation and much much higher than other areas in Michigan.

      So yeah, I see space exploration as a necessity (colonization or the like) and not a money-maker or politician pocket-liner. Unfortunately, it is treated more like the latter.

      --
      Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    6. Re:Thanks, Tom! by mwood · · Score: 1

      Well, a big part of exploration is exploring how to do it. Nobody's going to have all the details until some exploration's been *done*.

      "We choose to go to the moon" was short on specifics too, but it set us on the road to the moon, and a decade later we knew how to do it.

      And if (as I agree) there's really a lot of money to be made in space, in time the biggest problem with government vis a vis space travel will be getting it out of the way of the businesses which are trying to get into space. Just keep that road open long enough and the traffic will become great enough to keep it open.

      If the Congress is going to take my money anyway, I'm glad to see them spending some of it on things I care about.

    7. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Lucractius · · Score: 2, Informative

      There indeed are millions, billions, even Trillions and extillions ( ;) ) of dollars to be made up there . But there are significant problems

      Not the least of which is the UN.

      (dont get me wrong i like the UN )

      The UN space and seafloor treaties. are while good in some ways both a major obstacle for any kind of commercial "exploitation" (to use the correct terminoligy) The sea treaties are all well and good. i dont want the seaflood being used as a comercial landfill at least while im alive. I like clean water :P

      There is a lot of very shaky ground on this but there are full copies available here http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.htm l
      for anyone interested in the laws regarding space in general :)

      and IANAL but to me it seems that the ability to personaly proffit off a celestial body is quite limited under those treaties. Feel free to correct me cause ill be damn happy to find out .. this topic has always been a passion of mine :)

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    8. Re:Thanks, Tom! by mwood · · Score: 1

      "Does it not seem like space venture is only good for one class of people: the filthy rich?"

      Said someone sitting at a personal computer, a thing which likely would not yet exist had not the space program of the 1960s needed significant automatic computation power in a tiny, lightweight package.

    9. Re:Thanks, Tom! by shic · · Score: 1

      There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space...

      I don't "get" your point. I understand why it is extraordinarily expensive to escape gravity and to sustain life in space. I don't see why this is profitable. I'm not saying that space exploration isn't worthwhile (though I can think of many things which I consider more useful.) I do not understand, for example, why anyone would consider another trip the moon or one to Mars an enterprise for profit... The moon landing was valuable only as a "pissing" contest in international politics... what makes the return trip potentially profitable?

    10. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space

      Indeed there is, from the wealth of scientific benefits and knowledge, to mineral and energy resources, essentially limited only by our imagination, to new frontiers and worlds to colonise and grow food crops in.

      The question is, have we got the technology to take advantage of whats out there? Many people are waving the space flag and repeating the moon and mars like a mantra, but honestly, we need to really develop the supporting industries before we go building the rocketships to get us up there.

      For example, robots are going to be essential to expanding and capitalising on space for the forseeable future. They are able to function in environments which are extremely hostile to people, do not require food, water, or a comfortable gravity index or environmental support, and with the nuclear batteries mentioned some time ago on slashdot, can function for years or decades without resupply, except for parts. Also they can be mass produced, where the economics of scale come into play.

      So what we do is we build remotes or semi autonomous drones to go forth and prospect, scout far off locations, dig, refine, and process ores, and build the habitats we need to survive, even setting up full manufacturing plants there, drawing power from readily available sources such as the sun or naturally occuring radioactives, all on a very manageable budget.

      Robotics are only one industry that needs to be developed further before we step off this rock, so lets focus on getting them up to speed before we launch ourselves into the great unknown... Also these technologies will have significant knock-on effects here on earth in the interim. Space isn't profitable yet? If you want private groups to go to space, make the supporting industries profitable first!

    11. Re:Thanks, Tom! by narsiman · · Score: 1

      And if we can't we will make sure that either Abrahamoff's office or the Chinese or other vested interests will pay for it.

    12. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that would be a 'No', then.

      Don't forget to wipe.

    13. Re:Thanks, Tom! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      I do not understand, for example, why anyone would consider another trip the moon or one to Mars an enterprise for profit.

      The Moon as a profitable venture has always been a dubious suggestion...sure, it has raw materials, but does it have enough to make such a venture self-supporting?

      As for Mars, apart from terraforming pipe dreams, I haven't heard anyone claim that that a Mars venture could possibly be in the black.

      Fortunately, we don't need to go to either to realize a profitble space venture...all we need is orbit. The possibilities for industry in orbit are vast, and unlike Mars, it's within easy reach. In fact, the Moon operation (if and when that happens) will probably do little more than refine raw materials for use in orbit.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    14. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Jivecat · · Score: 1
      "We choose to go to the moon" was short on specifics too, but it set us on the road to the moon, and a decade later we knew how to do it.

      And a decade after that, we'd forgotten how we did it.

      --
      "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."--Feynman
    15. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Senobyzal · · Score: 1
      It's not profitable in terms of what you bring back (i.e. physical resources), at least not right away. In the long, long run, there might be asteroid mining and the like.

      I think the OP was getting more at the profits that resulted from developments in technology stimulated by the investment in the space program in the 50s-80s, especially in the Apollo program. Those dollars led to a significant return in terms of advances that could be applied to other areas.

      You can also get tech advances by funding medical research, military R&D, etc., but there are certain features about space exploration (vacuum, very limited space, completely closed systems) that seem to stimulate certain kinds of advances.

    16. Re:Thanks, Tom! by OreoCookie · · Score: 0

      There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space...we just need to get up there...and stay up there this time.

      Bullshit! You must have slept through Econ 101. If that was true there would be one hell of a space race going on right now. Money is a universal motivator.

    17. Re:Thanks, Tom! by shic · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, we don't need to go to either to realize a profitble space venture...all we need is orbit.

      The value of satellites in orbit is obvious, but what is the benefit in supporting humans in an un-natural habitat? In my view the most valuable thing would be technologies to build, launch and manage small featureful cheap unmanned satellites. That doesn't look like where this space program is going.

    18. Re:Thanks, Tom! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      The question is, have we got the technology to take advantage of whats out there? Many people are waving the space flag and repeating the moon and mars like a mantra, but honestly, we need to really develop the supporting industries before we go building the rocketships to get us up there.

      I agree totally...the real problem with Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" is that it's not designed to further our knowledge or technology...it's designed to be sexy. Period.

      Fortunately, we don't need to get to Mars, or even the Moon, in order to start realizing profit...the most profitable locale will be right above our heads, in Earth orbit. There are many industries that would benefit immensely from the wide variation of industrial environments possible in Earth orbit, and countles others that will not even be possible without such exotic environments.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    19. Re:Thanks, Tom! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about simple satellites, but factories capable of generating and maintaining environments suitable for various exotic industrial processes that would be prohibitively expensive, difficult, and/or dangerous on the Earth's surface (if not outright impossible).

      Here's just a few examples:
      • Exotic Alloys
      • Thin Film Production
      • Nanotube Production

      And there are dozens more...as well as industrial processes that have yet to be conceived.
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    20. Re:Thanks, Tom! by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Scientific American ran a piece a few years back, about a fully automated, solar-powered, raw-materials-in factory that could build... a fully automated, solar-powered, raw-materials-in factory.

      Send one of those up to the moon, and wait for ten generations. Make sure you have an "off" switch! Now send a crew up to reprogram the robots. Have the factories build habitat. Or digging machines to build habitat. Now you have a place to live and a power supply.

      Then the moon becomes a much more inviting place.

    21. Re:Thanks, Tom! by mwood · · Score: 1

      I was watching. I remember a bit. I still have the books. The details are all in files somewhere. Much of what was developed is hideously out-of-date today, but we still know in detail what must be done.

      That is, we know what must be done to get to the moon, collect rocks for a few hours, and come home. We still need to develop the stuff we didn't do back then:

      • stay for a long while, eventually a lifetime if we choose.
      • supply our needs from local resources.
      • build a community, much of which will not be pilots or scientists.
      • get along with neighbors from elsewhere.

      The challenge is not what (little) has been forgotten, but how much more there is to learn.
    22. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you worry, last time I checked the US did not see the UN treaties it signed as relevant or binding

    23. Re:Thanks, Tom! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Seriously, though, after reading through TFA, and also reading some related articles on President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration", one finds that below the glitz and the sexiness, there's just not much content. Specifically, there's very little mention of turning space exploration into a paying venture, which will be very necessary as soon as the glamour wears off, and the taxpayers get tired of funding such a pricey program.
      That's unsurprising given that the Goverment doesn't run commercial programs. So far as pricey goes, NASA is cheaper than the welfare for budget for the State of California - compared to the total budget, NASA's is down in the noise. You could zero it without producing a noticeable effect.

      Historically most people have thought NASA is recieving orders of magnitude more money than it actually is. The taxpayers simply don't care, the space program has never been a significant factor in national politcs - something unlikely to change soon.

    24. Re:Thanks, Tom! by halber_mensch · · Score: 1
      Specifically, there's very little mention of turning space exploration into a paying venture

      Well, sure there is a potential for paying ventures, but only if you and your buddies have tons of stock in companies - like, say, Halliburton - that will definitely profit from the investment of our tax dollars into the interplanetary adventures of the United States space program.

      Don't get me wrong, I want to go back to the moon and onward to mars, but I think that there is a certain hidden impetus for a lot of the goings-on in the US government these days.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    25. Re:Thanks, Tom! by witcomb · · Score: 1

      ... some related articles on President Bush's ... one finds that below the glitz and the sexiness, there's just not much content

      Did you just call Bush sexy?

    26. Re:Thanks, Tom! by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Okay, i agree that terraforming mars is a pipe dream in the short-medium run but in the long run its something that has to be done. We might not have an large asteroid hit earth in 100 years, or for that matter ever, and even if we did, i am sure humanity would survive without any serious setbacks other than a 99% population loss, but if there were a habitable environment for a large number of people other than earth, do you think people would pay to get off earth and there before the catastrophy hit them? The chances of something like that happening are minimal, but the benefits as so extraordinarily large that working out an long term expectation based cost benefit analysis could come out to be positive.

      No sensible government would invest heavily however as they would have been out of power for about half a century before the benefits could really be realised, but im sure you get my point

    27. Re:Thanks, Tom! by TGK · · Score: 1

      Orbital Power Stations

      It's not just for Sim City anymore. Solar collectors are inefficient because they have to deal with the earth's atmosphere.

      Planetary life is a stuff rich, energy poor environent.

      Orbital life is an energy rich, stuff poor environment.

      Hauling shit into space -- expensive. Sending energy back to earth -- inexpensive.

      And check it out -- we're about to have an energy crisis!

      There's lots of money to be made in space -- but there's lots of money to be made on earth for less risk (right now).

      But back in the 1970s there was lots of money to be made in computers -- not a lot of people were doing it yet, but that doesn't mean it wasn't true.

      Give it a few years - the corporation is heading into space, it just hasn't gotten there yet.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    28. Re:Thanks, Tom! by TGK · · Score: 1

      You forgot "devlop a sentient computer" and "drop socking great rocks on Earth"

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    29. Re:Thanks, Tom! by mwood · · Score: 1

      I thought the computer developed itself.

      (_The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, in case anyone's wondering what we're going on about.)

      Don't forget "unearth superconducting intelligence-detector monolith near Tycho". Or "bring Terran diseases to the Selenites". Or "find 50,000-year-old deceased soldier from what became the asteroid belt". "Set up lunar dust-cruiser line"...somebody stop me!

    30. Re:Thanks, Tom! by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Fuck em. Tear up the treaties. What are they going to do, anyway?

    31. Re:Thanks, Tom! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      and IANAL but to me it seems that the ability to personaly proffit off a celestial body is quite limited under those treaties

      Read them again. The Outer-Space Treaty doesn't restrict for-profit enterprises, though it does prevent anyone from gaining sole control of any off-Earth sites.

      The Moon Treaty arguably restricts that activities of private citizens in that regard, but the USA hasn't signed onto that one, so it's not an issue (for Americans)

      Note further that those Treaties can be withdrawn from with one year's notice. If we decide we need to withdraw for our own interest, we will.

      Personally, I think it's a non-issue, since even if the USA were bound to not make any money in space, there are enough countries around that haven't ratified either Treaty for shell-corporations....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:Thanks, Tom! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      I do not understand, for example, why anyone would consider another trip the moon or one to Mars an enterprise for profit

      the Moon: Solar Power Satellites can be built far more easily using Lunar raw materials than by boosting the tens of thousands of tons each into orbit from Earth. Yah, big infrastructure is required, but it's still way cheaper than doing it all from Canaveral (or anywhere else down here).

      How much money can be made from Solar Power Satellites? Not sure, but assume $0.05/KWh (close enough to what I pay now), and 5GW per SPS gives you about $2 billion per year per satellite. And no greenhouse gases, so the global warming guys should be happy.

      Mars. Hmm, that's a toughie. But, as was said once upon a time (about the Moon) "There's a WHOLE NEW WORLD out there - if we can't find a way to make a buck on that, maybe we should go back to selling both sides of the same hill in Arkansas" (mangled, no doubt, but original was in "The Man Who Sold the Moon", by RAH).

      Seriously, if nothing else a Mars base can sell carbon and iron to the guys living on the Moon - cheaper to ship it from Mars than from Earth.

      Big picture: one small asteroid (say, 1Km^3) of nickel-iron is about 7 billion tons of metal. We use about 1.5 million tons of nickel a year, so that one rock, if delivered to Earth orbit (or the ground) represents a millenium or so of nickel production. Plus five or six years of iron production. And no mines (strip or otherwise) are required on Earth.

      And there are thousands of asteroids.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    33. Re:Thanks, Tom! by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Spot on target!

      Considering how supportive the Dubya regime has been regarding science and space exploration, and so little interest in the militarization of space, or of creating yet another cash-cow for the benefit of their corporate sponsers, the USA's taxpayers can rejoice over this new golden age of space travel.

      Oh, wait. Wrong alternative universe.

      Considering the Dubya regime's ever-broadening definition of terrorism, one can only draw the conclusion that the Moon will be barely big enough for the expansion of Guantanano Bay's prison facilities. No doubt also the only sure way to avoid IRC inspections, intercession by those pesky "activist" judges, and any more questions about violations of the Geneva Conventions.

    34. Re:Thanks, Tom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what the hardest part about submitting a post like that is? Telling your parents you're gay.

  3. Since this is slashdot... by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...insert completely offtopic and irrelevant DeLay comments here, instead of acknowledging that the current House of Representatives Majority Leader, a legislator with significant power, has publicly pledged the necessary funding for NASA's Mars and Moon missions.

    Note: the funding NASA has received over the last couple of decades is equivalent to the funding it received during the Apollo program in adjusted dollars, so it's not like NASA is the equivalent of the hapless panhandler many slashdotters make it out to be.

    Further, for those who support NASA's fundamental mission of space exploration, we must also acknowledge the US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space, including planning for contingencies that may require us to protect our assets in space from other nations. You had better believe, regardless of any perceived sensibilities, that other nations may lay claim to, e.g., areas of the moon, areas in close proximity to earth, etc. If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us.

    1. Re:Since this is slashdot... by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1
      Don't you think that's rather a change in direction for Slashdot to take? From 'News for Nerds' to 'Steward of Free Access to Space'?

      Or is that not who you mean by 'us'?

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    2. Re:Since this is slashdot... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Oh really?

      And who's it going to be?

      China?

      Yeah, they're a model of freedom!

      LOL!

    3. Re:Since this is slashdot... by gvc · · Score: 1

      Significant power, perhaps, but not in any position to guarantee continued, stable, adequate funding for such a project.

      Or for the other, perhaps more worthwhile, objectives that NASA may have or have had before this neo-grand-challenge was dropped on them.

    4. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 1

      Is this Free as in beer or Free as in Speech. Or Free as in Freedom from terror and oppression.

      Any way you look at it, it seems hypocritical to put weapons in space to support free access to space...

    5. Re:Since this is slashdot... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Any way you look at it, it seems hypocritical to put weapons in space to support free access to space...

      Oh, really?

      And when another nation, such as, say, China, begins disallowing access to certain areas of space, or the Moon, or Mars, or takes aggressive action at another nation's assets in space be they military or commercial (and yes, something like this may very well occur), then what happens?

      You fundamentally have failed to understand that protection of that free access sometimes necessitates, well, actually protecting it, and planning for such a contingency in advance.

    6. Re:Since this is slashdot... by weopenlatest · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...recognize that the audience of the article understands that science cannot be properly directed by hacks that use spending promises from beyond their terms in office to promote programs that are easily exploitable for political gain.

      Note:The cost of a manned trip to Mars would dwarf scientific NASA programs, not to mention most if not all other basic research, especially the kind that offends the Christian Right, so it's not like NASA can just painlessly start shifting all it's money over to the manned program.

      Further, we aren't quick to be scared into military justifications and scare tactics. We remember the (continued) folly of missile defense, and realize that politicians can be easily fooled into throwing money at non existent threats, potential threats, and threats that don't have technical solutions, while sending soldiers in Iraq out in unarmored Humvees. With our forces and checkbooks spread thin at the moment, I'll be blunt and say we couldn't be steward of free access to space regardless of the amount of political hot air that floats around.

    7. Re:Since this is slashdot... by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      Sure - OK. It could be an attempt to divert attention from his ethics troubles, but it doesn't even need to be that for him to be a prick.

      He's from Texas. The major NASA sites are in Texas. This funding (however much it is - I didn't see an amount in TFA) will go to his home state, so it makes him happy. Pretty much all of the senators/congresspersons try to get as many tax dollars as possible spent in their home districts.

      As for the funding levels, remember maintenance. There are a number of ongoing missions (re: Voyager) that take money to run. None of these existed in the early NASA years (though they did have to build facilities, so that may be a wash).

      And, as some other posters have pointed out, he's not sending NASA *his* money, he's sending taxpayer money - *mine*.

      All this probably sounds like I'm against funding NASA, which isn't true. I would love to have NASA research (and scientific education) funded as far as possible. What I can't stand is the stupid politics that go along with it. ("No Child Left Behind" - sounds great, less funding)

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    8. Re:Since this is slashdot... by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that the scandals do have a direct impact on the viability of his plan. If DeLay is brought down out of office by the scandals, then it doesn't matter what he says, he won't have any power or influence to make anything happen. It is that simple.

    9. Re:Since this is slashdot... by mwood · · Score: 1

      "Significant power, perhaps, but not in any position to guarantee continued, stable, adequate funding for such a project."

      It's important to keep that in mind. Also keep in mind, however, that there's nobody else in such a position either. Promises of funding only last until the next Congress amends or repeals them. Believe this one if you will, but believe it will make a difference only when you see the footprints in the dust.

    10. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful
      instead of acknowledging that the current House of Representatives Majority Leader, a legislator with significant power, has publicly pledged the necessary funding for NASA's Mars and Moon missions.

      I acknowledge that Tom DeLay wouldn't give a rat's ass about NASA if the Johnson Space Center weren't in his home district. This just is a typical effort to ladel out pork barrel funds to his constituents, no more, no less.

    11. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 1

      * You fundamentally have failed to understand that protection of that free access sometimes necessitates, well, actually protecting it, and planning for such a contingency in advance. So the point is that America needs to get weapons in space before anyone else does? Whether it is called protecting free access or called a preemptive strike, it's still the same thing. Very similar to America's stand against WMDs. America wants to prevent other countries from having WMDs when America has more WMDs than any other country. I choose not to be deluded by a moral high ground. It is plain and simple that America wants more guns than everyone else.

    12. Re:Since this is slashdot... by mwood · · Score: 1

      "Any way you look at it, it seems hypocritical to put weapons in space to support free access to space..."

      Ask any merchant sailor how he feels about the navies of the world as opposed to pirates, to have your eyes opened. There is no free access to anything without the ability to protect it.

    13. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us."

      To be blunt... the moon already does have free access. ....that is until someone tries to "liberate" it.

    14. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, right now, America's most ardent enemies are small fries. Frankly, al Queda is a small fry. They need to be chased down and prosecuted for their deeds, yes, but they simply don't have sufficient resources to be a threat to the U.S.'s space assets. If we do continue too far, then we'll get bigger enemies.

      I'd rather it be an alliance, somewhat like NATO, that protects access to space than a unilateral effort. The "go it alone" attitude doesn't get far, eventually the others will band to try to balance this power, wasting money all around.

    15. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 1

      "Ask any merchant sailor how he feels about the navies of the world as opposed to pirates, to have your eyes opened. There is no free access to anything without the ability to protect it."

      My mind is having a wonderful time imagining pirates trying to board the space shuttle. Do you think the robotic arm can be equipped with a very long sword?

      This may make a good scene for Episode 0 of Star Wars.

    16. Re:Since this is slashdot... by changcho · · Score: 1

      " US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space" Protect "free access to space"?? From what, may I ask? Hostile ETs?? How can any entity "block" free access to space? You put up a rocket with your satelliet on top and off you go. End of story. "If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us." Nobody is FORCED; this is a false choice. The US goverment is using the so-called "War on Terror" as an excuse to militarize space. Overall, very bad news; we should opposed the Bush regime in its plans to militarize space. If they go ahead with these plans, we'll not only see weapons in space, but soon we may also see orbiting Gulags (don't laugh - check out the latest Amnesty condemnation of the US goverment).

    17. Re:Since this is slashdot... by justforaday · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that we also want to have the right to use them first because "he looked at me funny"

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    18. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Protect "free access to space"?? From what, may I ask? Hostile ETs?? How can any entity "block" free access to space? You put up a rocket with your satelliet on top and off you go. End of story.

      Basic way to block freespace. Develope missle capable of reaching orbit. Doesn't even have to have an explosive, just the velocity and mass will be enough. Ram it into a satelite. Kiss satelite goodbye. Access to space denied.

      As for space being militarized. It was miltarized 40 years ago. Spy satelites, communications satelites, anti-satelite weapons. Both the US and USSR militarized space. It happened decades ago.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    19. Re:Since this is slashdot... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Note: the funding NASA has received over the last couple of decades is equivalent to the funding it received during the Apollo program in adjusted dollars, so it's not like NASA is the equivalent of the hapless panhandler many slashdotters make it out to be.
      Actually, this is an extremely misleading claim - as during the Apollo era (1962-1972) NASA funding swung over quite a wide range. Funding rose sharply from 1962 to it's peak in 1965, as infrastructure was built and completed. It dropped from 1966 to 1969 (even as Apollo 11 was in flight, Congress was trimming NASA's budget), then dropped at a slower rate. By 1972 funding was about 1/3 of what it had been during the peak (1964-1965) years.

      So exactly *which* years are you comparing today to?

    20. Re:Since this is slashdot... by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
      forced to be a steward of free access

      Forced by whom? The only country that seems interested in militarizing space is the U.S., and that is more a fulfillment of the wet dreams of defense contractors than any real threat.

      Maybe other countries would be less likely to follow our lead in the arms race if we didn't always jump before the first signs of danger.

      Some interesting discussion on the relevant international treaties. Not that the current administration shows any interest in that sort of thing...

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    21. Re:Since this is slashdot... by mwood · · Score: 1

      You don't have to imagine it. David Weber has already written it up. The RMN spends almost as much effort against pirates as it does on the Peeps.

      The STS makes some sense for science and the first baby-steps of orbital construction. It is nothing like the needs of commerce. First imagine what commercial uses of space (beyond commo and surveillance) will be like, and then you'll be able to see how to rob it and how to defend it. The shuttle's only defenses are its big engines, and it's not always practical to skim pirates off the hull by immediately deorbiting.

      Anyway the present-day shuttle is probably worth more (in terms of how much money you could get for it) than anything it's likely to carry. The best way to make illicit money from it would be to disable it and hold it for ransom. Boarding's not required. The crew will come out when they don't have any more oxygen and you do.

    22. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any way you look at it, it seems hypocritical to put weapons in space to support free access to space...

      And that is exactly the kind of naive, ideological thinking that gets people in trouble with Mr. Darwin. The rest of the world doesn't share your ideals. It never will. Even if some might share them for awhile, you can't count of them to continue to do so forever. If your ideals are going to survive, you have to be able to defend them when it becomes neccessary, no matter how unfortunate that eventuality is. Well...Unless getting killed like an ignorant twit is acceptable.

    23. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of pirates, imagine a small satellite, several hundred miles ahead, and in the same orbit. Now imagine that this satellite is packed with high explosives and has a shell of BBs, facing primarily in one direction (think of a Claymore mine). Now imagine that this satellite is turned so the front is aiming back, twoards the shuttle. It is set off. Suddenly, there is a cloud of metallic debris which slowly expands, and now has a relative velocity of several thousand feet per second twoards the shuttle. The device could be engineered so that the cloud expands fast enough that the shuttle can't maneuver out of range, so it WILL take damage, probably catastrophic.

      This idea is nothing new. Look up "Brilliant Pebbles".

    24. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends how you look at it.

      If you piss off the right person and he/she kills for family, Darwinian principle's still apply. Or if you're really lucky, piss off a person who'll figure out how to convert a little piece of hydrogen into something a little smaller as it voyages between different oxygen atoms.

    25. Re:Since this is slashdot... by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      If global commerce, the free exchange of culture, and everything other long-term trend tying different nations to one another continues apace, the day may yet come when we don't have to invest in such defensive measures. But I agree with you--that day is not yet.

    26. Re:Since this is slashdot... by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Well, if I want to see spaceflight in our time, then I shouldn't necessarily care about his motives as long as he's genuinely supportive of the program. That said, I hope the motherfucker burns.

    27. Re:Since this is slashdot... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      You had better believe, regardless of any perceived sensibilities, that other nations may lay claim to, e.g., areas of the moon, areas in close proximity to earth, etc. If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us.

      What, like you're the stewards of human rights? Of deciding when the geneva convention applies? Or deciding when a government needs to be overthrown? The arbiters of what constitutes free and reasonable trade?

      Historically I would side with you. Of late, there is no way I want the US deciding they're going to be the stewards of everything. Your current policy makers are all asses.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    28. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Note: the funding NASA has received over the last couple of decades is equivalent to the funding it received during the Apollo program in adjusted dollars, so it's not like NASA is the equivalent of the hapless panhandler many slashdotters make it out to be.

      I applaud you for a troll well done, sir.

      But you had better believe, regardless of any perceived sensibilities, that other posters may lay claim to, e.g., facts and figures, that you're wrong.

    29. Re:Since this is slashdot... by colanut · · Score: 2, Insightful
      To continue from this parent:

      I acknowledge that Tom DeLay wouldn't give a rat's ass about NASA if the Johnson Space Center weren't in his home district. This just is a typical effort to ladel out pork barrel funds to his constituents, no more, no less.

      JSC is only recently in DeLay's district after some fancy, mid-decade district recarving. Mostly I suspect that DeLay wants the lobbying money more than space exploration. Kick backs from contractors is the name of them game. Add this to his "talk to the opposition and you don't get access" style of leadership and you have a nice, little money making district.

      There was a piece on this in The Nation not to long ago. Sounded like the most likely scenario to me. (I'd link, but its subscriber only.)
    30. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you oppose this funding for the sole reason that Tom DeLay said the words, and not someone else.

      That's hypocritical, and retarded. Grow the fuck up.

    31. Re:Since this is slashdot... by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      We remember the (continued) folly of missile defense,

      Bear in mind that the purpose of missile defense was to bankrupt the Soviet economy. Whether or not we ever actually finished the shield didn't matter, as long as the Soviets believed that they had to build one too in order to maintain global parity. They couldn't do it, they knew they couldn't do it, and our government knew they couldn't do it. Soviet economists knew that the Soviet Union's days were numbered by the 1970's. Some within the USSR had predicted the collapse of the Union within 10-20 years. The Soviet Union was basically a third-world country with techology and an enormous military. They were barely able to keep pace as it was. They never did manage to get a shuttle program up and running, and facing the prospect of having to build a missile shield was the final nail in the Soviet Union's coffin.

      So was it folly? I don't think so, it accomplished its end. That our current president is trying to resurrect the program, however, is dubious at best. The threat of the missile shield has served its purpose, and the idea needs to be retired.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    32. Re:Since this is slashdot... by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Right, just as happened with the US Navy enforcing the law of the sea.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    33. Re:Since this is slashdot... by changcho · · Score: 1

      One thing is spying, another quite different is to actually put weapons in space. Please see the good reply by OldManandtheC++ (thanks).

    34. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That our current president is trying to resurrect the program, however, is dubious at best.

      s/USSR/North Korea

    35. Re:Since this is slashdot... by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1

      North Korea won't be bankrupted the way Russia was. Russia wanted to make a shield to maintain parity. There is no parity with North Korea, the USA is clearly a superior military force. That doesn't mean that Korea isn't dangerous. The political situation with Choson isn't analogous.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    36. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people are pointing out that NASA has as much funding now as they did during the moon landing. Why does no one point out that at that time, they were entirely focused on that effort, whereas now they are expected to handle half a dozen large-scale projects from the space station to the Mars rovers, while simultaneously putting up and maintaining hundreds of satellites? I could afford all kinds of things back when I was still single. Now that I have six kids, money is tight.

    37. Re:Since this is slashdot... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the reason why many of the key NASA sites are in Texas is because of the one ledgendary "Fairy God Senator" from Texas:

      Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ)

      He "ruled" the Democratic Senate with an iron fist during the late 1950's and early 1960's before becoming President, and then he was able to wield even more political power. Detractors of G.W. Bush notwithstanding, I don't know of any other recent President who had that kind of personal political power.

      The Manned Spaceflight Command Center was put in Houston, Texas specifically so every time astronauts would talk, the name of the city would come up, as in "Houston, we have a problem here!" This is not coincidence.

      That a former Texas governor is currently President and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is also from Texas will mean that this run of pork to Texas will continue for some time to come.

      Unfortuately, I think you are correct.

  4. What a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just imagine the number (and size) of the public toilets you could build for all this money.

    1. Re:What a stupid idea by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yeah? And what are you going to do if a giant asteroid heads towards the planet? Flush yourself down the drain?

    2. Re:What a stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? And what are you going to do if a giant asteroid heads towards the planet? Flush yourself down the drain?

      Ummm, what would you do in your scenario if you had a moon base, get a better view?

      Remember kids, moonBase != frickenLasers

    3. Re:What a stupid idea by daniil · · Score: 1

      At least he won't wet himself in public over something as insignificant (at least in the cosmic scale) as a giant asteroid.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    4. Re:What a stupid idea by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'd gloat. What else is there to do? Apart from go for regular treatments for calcium deficency and all the other issues from living in a hostile low gravity environment.

  5. Just buy a 7up by c0ldfusi0n · · Score: 1

    I heard they were having a contest to send worthy pop-drinkers in space.

    --
    A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
  6. Way to stay on topic! by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As if the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives of the US Congress has no job, or indeed, any other tasks at all, other than to continually engineer ways to remove the spotlight from alleged ethics violations. Because, of course, once someone is accused of something, their job stops, and they're naturally only trying to erect artificial shields to deflect the allegations.

    1. Re:Way to stay on topic! by Mr.+Ghost · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How on earth can this be Offtopic when the parent was Insightful?

      Either they are both Offtopic or neither of them are.

      Who the crap is getting mod points on this site?

    2. Re:Way to stay on topic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that sarcasm?

      Because if so I don't think you are very familiar with the career of Tom DeLay.

  7. Why? by alewar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is Osama hidding there??

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Thar's oil in them there rocks.

  8. Microsoft Sponsorship? by madaxe42 · · Score: 0

    To get us to where we want to go

    Where do you want to go today?

    1. Re:Microsoft Sponsorship? by angrist · · Score: 1

      Where do you want to go today?

      Back to bed, preferably with an attractive woman.

    2. Re:Microsoft Sponsorship? by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      Back to bed, preferably with an attractive woman.

      Take in context of the article, that's probably what DeLay means. I wonder how much he's willing to pay...

    3. Re:Microsoft Sponsorship? by 3770 · · Score: 1


      Space at your fingertips.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  9. Oh, so now it's BAD to INCREASE the NASA budget? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute. I remember back when the NASA budget had some proposed budget cuts floated, Slashdot went apeshit.

    It's like every other thing they do with the budget. People scream when they increase budgets. People scream when they reduce budgets.Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

  10. Oh, I get it... by graffix_jones · · Score: 0

    They must have found oil on the moon, and the Martians must be suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction.

    After all, Marvin the Martian was determined to blow up the earth in all those old Looney Toons flix... ;)

    1. Re:Oh, I get it... by Deinhard · · Score: 1

      Bush: I must get the Eludium Q 36 Explosive Space Modulator! It is a threat to Americans everywhere!

      CIA: But Mr. President, there's no concrete evidence that the Martians possess such a weapon.

      Bush: Damn the evidence. I watch Looney Toons every day and that little green guys got the weapons. That's evidence enough.

      CIA: Uh, sure. Whatever you say, Mr. President. We'll draw up the documents.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    2. Re:Oh, I get it... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I think you kinda messed up the events

      CIA: Mr. President we have this report for you.
      (hands president loony toons tape)

      Bush: I'll review this and pass it on to congress

      (few hours later)

      Bush: My god Mars is working on a WMD to destroy the earth. We have to get that little Marvin Bin Laden

      Congress: This looks like a major threat. Here is the order.

      Kerry: Go get em.

      (one year later)

      Bush: Ahh well, couldn't really find that Marvin guy. Don't even really think about it any more.

      Kerry: I never wanted to find him anyway.

      Bush: Lets blow up Saturn. .....

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Oh, I get it... by graffix_jones · · Score: 1

      Yowch, modded down to 0... I guess nobody appreciates Looney Tunes anymore... ;)

  11. ...get us to where we want to go? by gerald626 · · Score: 1

    How about back home safely once the mission's done?!?

    1. Re:...get us to where we want to go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just want to send all them "damn liberals" off planet. Then, when elections come around they can claim that 1) they are no longer residents or 2) they lost the absentee ballots.

  12. This is a Good Thing... by igotmybfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...because it just might bring us into another golden age of American science. Think about how many young people were inspired to be engineers and scientists when they saw the Appollo missions as youngsters.

    1. Re:This is a Good Thing... by syntap · · Score: 1

      Think about how many young people were inspired to be engineers and scientists when they saw the Appollo missions as youngsters...

      only as adults to have their positions farmed out to nations that didn't fund any Apollo missions... thanks for the dreams!

    2. Re:This is a Good Thing... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Think about how many young people were inspired to be engineers and scientists when they saw the Appollo missions as youngsters.

      Ah, how apropos to my comments in an earlier thread. I was inspired by Freedom 7.

      Difference is that Apollo wasn't financed by destroying my children's future by borrowing the money from China, whose children have just been inspired by watching their first man go into space.

      Call me a naysayer, but the future does not appear to lie in America.

      "In German, und English, I know how to count down. . . und I'm learning Chineeese," says Werner von Braun. -- Tom Lehrer

      KFG

    3. Re:This is a Good Thing... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      "Call me a naysayer, but the future does not appear to lie in America."

      You're right, the future appears to be an American Lie.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  13. So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm?

    Come on, lets hear some more ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth about exactly how Tom DeLay warrants the label 'evil'. Should be entertaining.

    WTF is wrong with you people?

    1. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...exactly how Tom DeLay warrants the label 'evil'...
      Here you go.

      Just remember...you asked for it.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by MrCopilot · · Score: 0

      It being wednesday, 3 oh wait, He took off for memorial day and ate a soldier.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    3. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, all of that has been proven before committees and/or courts of law, right?

      Wait, no? The petition is a demand that those allegations (figured I'd help you with the big words) be investigated? Huh. Innocent until proven guilty is only for Democrats, I guess.

      Go witch-hunting somewhere else.

    4. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All politicians are filthy disgusting creatures.

      In my ideal government they would all be executed upon leaving office. These wretched beings aren't fit to live.

    5. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by deanj · · Score: 1

      And yet, nothing has happened to DeLay, because none of that is proven. Some of it is freakin' stupid (the "foreign sounding names" thing, for example), but not "evil".

      Have you actually read that article? These are accusations, not proven facts. If people were labeled "evil" just because someone else said they did something, everyone could be labeled "evil".

      By your criteria, based on what's in that article, we should get John Kerry kicked out of the Senate for calling his secret service agent an SOB when Kerry ran into him on a ski slope during the campaign.

    6. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      You gotta love how liberals believe that if you write enough stuff, people will think it is true. They build bad cases upon flawed logic based on opinions. It's all third grade logic.

      --
      This is my sig.
    7. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1, Informative
      Nice try, but no.

      The petition is a demand that Tom be removed from office, period. In fact, the word 'allegations' (of which you neo-cons seem to be inordinately fond) is only used once in the entire petition, to refer to only one reason cited for the demand for removal. Also, there's no mention at all of the word 'investigated'. Nice revisionism, though.

      Here's the text of the petition itself, just to keep you honest.

      To: U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay [R-Texas] has been a disgrace to the United States and the world since he entered Congress in 1984. His latest partisan power grab is to lead the effort to gain more Republican seats in Congress by redistricting Texas - eight years before the state is scheduled to do so again. Texas has been forced to spend millions this year just to satisfy DeLay's lust for more power, while healthcare, education and other needs go unmet.
      DeLay, a former bug exterminator, is known for extortion, illegal fundraising and blackmail. DeLay has obstructed justice for low-paid sweatshop workers on the island of Saipan by taking large campaign contributions from Saipan's chief lobbyist and blocking any Congressional investigation of the appalling conditions there. DeLay has obstructed justice by lying to the FBI when he charged that the reporter who broke the Henry Hyde adultery story in the 1990s had been working with the White House to expose Hyde. DeLay led the campaign in the House to impeach Bill Clinton, while rumors of extramarital affairs of his own continue to circulate.
      DeLay's far-right extreme agenda includes to repeal environmental protection laws by dismantling the EPA and gutting the Clean Air Act, allow big polluting companies to continue to pollute our air, water and other resources, teach creationism in public schools, abolish separation of church and state, and outlaw abortion in all cases. DeLay also opposes campaign finance reform and has taken more money from tobacco interests than any other Texas legislator.
      During a deposition for a lawsuit filed by a former business partner in the pest company in 1994, DeLay lied that he had not been an officer of the company for two or three years. On congressional financial disclosure forms filed in 1995, he listed himself as chairman of the company's board of directors. Allegations included that DeLay illegally used company money to pay political campaign debts. The lawsuit was ultimately settled with an undisclosed amount paid to the business partner.
      In 1997, DeLay actually shoved Rep. David Obey [D-Wisconsin] and called him a "chickenshit" on the House floor. That same year, DeLay tried to impeach federal judges he didn't like.
      In 1998, he said that people with "foreign-sounding names" probably aren't Americans.
      Finally, a story goes that DeLay lit up a stogie in a restaurant, and a waiter told him it was a government building, where smoking was not permitted. DeLay reportedly retorted, "I am the government."
      We need to send a message to DeLay that he is NOT the government and he does NOT represent most Americans as a leader of Congress. We need to remove DeLay from office, without delay.

      Sincerely,

      The Undersigned
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    8. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you still don't know what the term 'allegation' means. I even gave you a link to help you understand it. And he would have to be 'investigated' or 'indicted' as part of the process of proving the 'allegations'. See how that works? The charges are 'allegations' until they are proven in a court of law or a congressional committee or some other kind of official 'investigation'. It's unfortunate that you are unable to comprehend that simple, simple process, but that's something you're just going to have to deal with on your own.

      Has DeLay been convicted of extortion, illegal fundraising, and/or blackmail? No? Then any claim that he has participated in those activities is ... wait for it... an allegation. Same for the rest of it.

      If you can't get past your own bias and hatred, you'll never grow or learn.

    9. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The petition is a demand that those allegations (figured I'd help you with the big words) be investigated?

      Wait, you mean they haven't been proven? You'd never know that watching DeLay, his republican friends and his supporters as they kick up a shitstorm over "persecution" by a "Democratic Witch Hunt" (which EVERY time they mention this they neglect to mention that said DA has prosecuted nearly 3 times as many Democrats as Republicans for ethics violations), as they flip flop on ethics issues and change their rules back and forth between saving DeLay's ass and saving their own. Man, Kerry would be proud, I tell you. Meanwhile, Clinton himself couldn't dance around definitions as well as DeLay did when he started dancing around the definition of "admonishment" and what exactly it means when a representative gets admonished.

    10. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another misinformation-filled rant by another shrill liberal who doesn't even know what the word "neo-con" means.

      I was never much of a Tom DeLay fan, but you people are making me like him more and more every day.

    11. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      You gotta love how liberals believe that if you write enough stuff, people will think it is true. They build bad cases upon flawed logic based on opinions. It's all third grade logic.

      Sorta like the case for the Iraq invasion? Oh, wait, that was the Repub spin machine. IOKIYAR.

    12. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, they haven't been proven. You can foam all you want, it doesn't change anything.

      And this little bit here is interesting: "...DA has prosecuted nearly 3 times as many Democrats as Republicans for ethics violations"

      Where's the outrage about that, eh? Meh, it must be acceptable when Dems do it.

      Sure, let's investigate. Let's see if any of those charges are warranted. But what you can't do is slap a charge on someone and then use that as 'evidence' that they're guilty.

    13. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1
      DeLay led the campaign in the House to impeach Bill Clinton, while rumors of extramarital affairs of his own continue to circulate.

      This needs to be clarified. By golly Clinton was being impeached because he lied in an affadavit, NOT because he was having an affair. How does anybody not understand this? That makes this whole thing just turn into FUD. It's no worse than all the news networks. You sir, failed it.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    14. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Five.

      Six if you count the Alien baby Nasa gave him shortly before the speach. Personally, I find Alien flesh a bit too stringy to really warrant giving anyone funding.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    15. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You gotta love how liberals believe that if you write enough stuff, people will think it is true."

      Yeah, we all know you can only get true information from talk radio.

    16. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by techmeltz · · Score: 1

      Wow, That link was pathetic. Of that entire laundry list the only thing I saw that looked damaging was the part about him being the chairman of a pest control company. There is nothing of substance at all. I also, want to say that I am not familiar with mikehersh's website, but from reading the fine print at the bottum, it looks like anyone with something to gripe about can gripe on that site. that article was written by Jackson Thoreau about Jackson Thoreau. He is nothing more than a blowhard.

      --
      [This space for rent]
    17. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      All Presidents lie about the immediate reasons to get into wars. Bush didn't do any different than any other President did. But Bush also gave prior to the opening of hostilities a list of reasons BESIDES wmd.

      a) To bring about a democratic government in Iraq.
      b) To get rid of Saddam.

      and those were more important than WMD anyway.

      --
      This is my sig.
    18. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was never much of a Tom DeLay fan, but you people are making me like him more and more every day.
      Good to see your political opinions are based on careful analysis and not on emotion or party affiliation.
    19. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

      He lied in an affidavit about something that was not, and is not, a crime. Nor did it lead to a crime, nor cause crimes to be committed. Remember that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", not white lies about extramarital sex. You sir, are a doofus.

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    20. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Gryphn · · Score: 1

      And what do you offer in evidence of this statement?

      Replace "liberals" with "conservatives" and you'll be more likely to find all sorts of supporting evidence.

      Delay is a thief and a thug. Not because liberals write about it. But because of his own actions.

      Changing the house ethics committee rules and removing non-compliant Republican members after he is slapped on the wrist by them should be evidence enough.

      Add the Texas congressional district gerrymandering garbage and you have to wonder how this guy sleeps at night.

      --
      Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
    21. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lying in the affidavit *was* the crime, you nanowit. It's called PERJURY. You should look that shit up sometime.

      And then he lied about the lie. Which just made it worse.

    22. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by rabel · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't worry, Mr. Big Word, we'll get to Tom. The AG in Travis County, Texas is just working his way up the food chain.

      Hey, here's some background information for you. Oh, sorry, it's from CBS News! You'd better kill the messenger, quick!

      Oh, and the choice quote is in the very last paragraph:

      "The problem here is we believe that the law was broken in the process. That's the point. The law was broken." - Ronnie Earle

    23. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you're one of those that believes that evolution is a "theory" too?

    24. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was never much of a Tom DeLay fan, but you people are making me like him more and more every day.

      Good to see your political opinions are based on careful analysis and not on emotion or party affiliation.


      Actually, they are based on the very reasoned and experienced opinion that anybody the whacko left strongly and loudly hates can't be all bad.

    25. Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week? by Yanray · · Score: 1

      You forgot to metion my all time favorite conviction rounds of perjury and obstruction of justice of a Congressional Investigation.

      Now I'll sit back and watch my karma plummet because I knocked down the man who built up the biggest economic bubble since the margin trading schemes of the roaring 20's.

      --
      --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
      DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
  14. But Where Is The Money... by Deinhard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...for science and math education?

    We have suffered significant brain drain over the last two decades and I'm not convinced that the future crop of "rocket scientists" will be able to launch an Estes rocket much less get us to the Moon (let alone Mars).

    Maybe I'm showing my age bias here, but I just don't see the fire and drive in Middle and High School students to do anything of this magnitude. Most of the students I know would rather visit Mars by playing Doom than actually going there.

    --
    Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    1. Re:But Where Is The Money... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Brain drain or not, I imagine the US space programme will continue with the same policy that saw it be so successful in the 50s and 60.

      Hire Germans.

      As an added bonus, this time round they won't be Nazis.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the students I know would rather visit Mars by playing Doom than actually going there.

      Speak for yourself. It is not any worse to play Doom than to read slashdot.

    3. Re:But Where Is The Money... by mwood · · Score: 1

      My property taxes have been increasing by leaps and bounds, so there must be *some* more money for science and math education. If your kids aren't getting what you expect, talk to your school board. Or win an election and take over your school board.

    4. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...for science and math education?

      Actually, it is tied up funding Football, cheerleading, teaching 'intelligent design', and other bullshit.

      That funding happens at the LOCAL level, so you've got no further to look than a mirror if you are unsatisfied with the level or appropriation of that funding...

    5. Re:But Where Is The Money... by bjk002 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you, and others of your generation should have asked this question BEFORE you:

      A) Tapped social security to the point of bankruptcy

      B) Shipped all the high paying and industrial jobs overseas

      C) Forced our college graduates to work for 20 years at McDonalds to pay off their student loans

      D) Created a litigious, fearful society were our children see our culture as draconian and opressive

      E) And frittered away America's prestige throughout the world through the implementation of ridiculous self-intererst policies at the expense of everyone else.

      Geez, I can't think of why most of your so called "future crop" lacks the fire, drive and intensity you are looking for.

      --
      Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
    6. Re:But Where Is The Money... by TheAxeMaster · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, they'll give them all the money they need to get to space, USING THE SAME TECHNOLOGY AS THE APOLLO MISSIONS! I worked directly with a professor who had his hands on the X-43 project, and he told me that they were literally taking things out of museums to figure out how they did it back then. We lost all that knowledge when they canned/signifigantly cut the space program a long time ago. So NOW, they're canning ALL of their aeronautics stuff (the atmospheric experiments like the X-43, among others) to do this space bit. THEN, in 20 years when they want to start the aeronautics stuff back up, they'll be doing the same thing, like bureaucratic idiots. Anyone remember the almost Trillion dollar X-43 program they SOLD FOR SCRAP! Yeah, they're THAT stupid.

      There is no reason to get in a hurry to go to mars, or even the moon for that matter. Neither of them are going to disappear in the next 100 years. What they need to do is steadily work towards anything that will help improve space travel, like programs such as the X-43 program. The more we know, the easier and cheaper it will get. But no, Bush gets a bug up his ass to go to mars, more than likely to take the public's mind off what's happening with the war, and oil, and the economic shitstorm we are in, just to name a few.

    7. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Muppy · · Score: 1

      We'll just do what we did in the past, import scientists from another country like Germany. Werner Von Braun wasn't born in the Big Apple.

      --
      -- uh...
    8. Re:But Where Is The Money... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Most of the students I know would rather visit Mars by playing Doom than actually going there.

      When you old foggey engineers accidently release the demons of hell when you finally get to Mars, you'll be thankful you brought along a high school student!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    9. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm showing my age bias here, but I just don't see the fire and drive in Middle and High School students to do anything of this magnitude. Most of the students I know would rather visit Mars by playing Doom than actually going there.

      I'm 23. I guess I'm close to falling into the group you are talking about. I want off this rock. You'd never know it from talking to me unless the topic came up. Given the chance to work for NASA or go up I'd jump in a heart beat.

      As for the fire? It's there. We just need to bring it out. Keep the naysayers from crushing their hope and it will come alive.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    10. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Deinhard · · Score: 1

      I'm and glad to hear that! I don't think that the students that I'm seeing normally post on Slashdot, though (unless they are trolling or flaming). Also, in point of order, I was thinking about students in the 14-18 age range.

      I hope that the fire that you have is combustable to the point of spreading, erm, like wildfire. When the Apollo program hit (and Star Trek went into syndication) it seemed that everyone wanted to be a scientist. There wasn't a lot of money in it, but the knowledge that they were furthering science was enough.

      Today, most of the young people that I know that actually have any sort drive want to either play professional sports, develop video games, or they want to start a company and go public then retire and play video games.

      Oh, and by the way, even at 40, I'd jump at the chance to get off this rock, too. I think I'd prefer a slow ride in a space elevator to the next gen shuttle, but at least I'd be in orbit.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    11. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Deinhard · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's the generation before mine.

      A) I haven't seen a dime of social security and don't plan to for at least 3 decades.

      B) I'm one of the ones that has lost a high paying job overseas.

      C) I, for one, paid my way through college.

      D) Though I have engineering and law degrees, I've have fought against the "ambulance chasing culture" which pervades our society. Personally (and off topic) legal and pharmaceutical advertising is the root of all that is evil in the US today.

      E) I personally think the US should keep its collective nose out of everyone else's business unless we're asked. We don't have all the answers, but we are big enough to lend a hand when other countries are in trouble.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    12. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Deinhard · · Score: 1

      I never made a claim on federal funding for education. I agree with what you say about money going to the wrong purposes.

      Every time the feds get involved in local initiatives, it gets fucked up. Look at Homeland Security funding. The feds give local governments money to start these initiatives, legislate guidelines for how the programs should be run, then when the money runs out, the local governments have to pony up their own funds to maintain certification.

      The same thing happens to schools.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    13. Re:But Where Is The Money... by jnik · · Score: 1

      How about jobs for the existing science PhD's? Yes, the state of basic math and science education is abysmal; yes, the average person has a very poor grasp, but it's not the average person who drives these programs, it's the trained scientists and engineers. And right now there aren't enough jobs for us. (Ars article)

    14. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Deinhard · · Score: 1

      Granted, that's an issue (even if the article applies specifically to those in the biomedical field).

      I would think that these initiatives would come as welcome relief to those PhDs related fields (and yes, biomedical is an important part of the space program as well).

      However, how many will it take to carry these plans through to fruition? And how long will it take? Through normal attrition you must have sufficient candidates in the pipeline to ensure that you have staff to accomplish your goals.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    15. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but remember: You personally are responsible for everything people other than me do.

      Isn't that what "Only you can prevent forest fires" means?

    16. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...from a taoist/buddhist standpoint, we are all responsible for everyone elses actions.

    17. Re:But Where Is The Money... by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      I salute your bringing attention to the real issue, which is science.

      Al I can respond is
      I hope the the scientists, engineers, thinkers and artists are still with us, otherwise it'll really be a long way to Mars.

      Possibly the fire you're missing could be found in science fairs and competitions. I've seen some good things there.

      As Carl Sagan noted, it is very difficult to get the media interested in real science; they expect it to be "boring" even if it isn't. Ironic when it is the media job to alert us about the lack of funding for science in schools.

      But there are many really successful television shows about forensic investigation... So maybe there are some geeks out there after all. :-)

      In all, we need more money in space and education to develop new materials and new manufacturing techniques. Innovations we'll need to go to Mars.

      We need education to get those, because it is a long-term investment.

      QED
      We need sustained commitment in education to get to Mars!

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  15. Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what about the funding for telescopes, or for keeping irreplaceable projects like Voyager going?

    I seem to remember the last time the republicans proposed a Mars plan (one which they seem to have forgotten about as soon as the election came) the Mars plan was mostly funded by diverting funding away from NASA's science initiatives.

  16. I'm not sure DeLay comments are offtopic by benhocking · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would welcome this comment from almost anyone (including Bush!) except DeLay. Considering the ethics problems he's currently facing, it seems the old adage "with friends like this, who needs enemies?" sounds fitting. Not only that, this is such an easy target for ridicule, as we will no doubt witness.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:I'm not sure DeLay comments are offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/200505 31/ap_on_go_co/delay_congressional_travel_7
      http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/13 /212319.shtml

      Unfortunately, "almost anyone" has pulled the same crap that DeLay has....or worse. I don't like him, but I dislike the double standard being applied by the media even more.

  17. Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Just set up a big prize for the first team to land a man on the moon and safely return him to the earth.

    Cut out all this funding-cycle political crap for crissakes. Yes, yes, I know there are lots of people employed by NASA and its contractors who want the return of the glory days.

    Go get a real job and stop destroying the US's pioneering heritage, and don't you dare lobby my Congressman with your time and travel paid for by my taxes.

    1. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by robindmorris · · Score: 4, Informative
      Just set up a big prize for the first team to land a man on the moon and safely return him to the earth.

      And how big would this prize have to be in order to make someone interested in competing for it? Remember that they have to factor in the chance that they might fail, or that someone else might do it first. Remember that Burt Rutan said that going in to orbit (which is still a long way from the moon) is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than what space ship one did. Looks to me like the prize you would have to offer is on the order of what NASA would spend to do the job themselves.

      Remeber also, that with current costs for access to space, any ideas of commercializing space (other than communications satellites/remote sensing satellites) are non-starters. The cost to get into space, to keep workers alive out there, and to bring back whatever it is you have mined, mean that the economics are just not there.

      The only way this will change is if someone comes up with a whole new way of getting mass into orbit. If they can do that, they won't need any incentive in terms of a prize, because their development expenditure will pay for itself very quickly.

      Face facts. Putting people in space is expensive. It's also a one-off proposition; there will never be lots of companies competing on price to take people into space. Free market economics don't apply here. It's just as economical for the government to do it itself (via NASA) than for a company to do it, and send the bill to the government.

      Go get a real job and stop destroying the US's pioneering heritage, and don't you dare lobby my Congressman with your time and travel paid for by my taxes

      For your information, NASA employees are forbidden by law from lobbying congress, so that's one use of your taxes that you don't have to worry about.

      (Disclaimer: I work for a NASA contractor on-site at a NASA location.)

    2. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Go get a real job and stop destroying the US's pioneering heritage, and don't you dare lobby my Congressman with your time and travel paid for by my taxes.


      Don't worry about it.. things could be worse. I work for a Department of Defense contractor and I ALWAYS lobby congress critters for my livelihood whilst on your dime.
    3. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by harks · · Score: 2, Funny

      We sure can't let the terrorists beat us to the Moon!

    4. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      The people who are killing the pioneering heritage aren't the scientists at NASA. They want to get out there as much as you and I do. The people who are killing it are the profiteers making billions off of cost-plus accounting. Why develop space systems in house when you can develop them for the government and get paid 110% of your investment?

      Want to really see space take off? Eliminate government cost-plus accounting. This will also drastically cut the budget for almost every government program.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    5. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never say never.

      While I think that manned spaceflight isn't currently something that needs a lot of attention and funding, it may well become mainstream within the next few hundered years (assuming human civilization doesn't destroy itself or suffer a massive disaster before that, neither of which is particularly unlikely). Considering the amount of social change the last 100 years, even with considerable deceleration - as long as it isn't catastrophic - we are likely to see stranger things in the relatively near future.

    6. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      And how big would this prize have to be in order to make someone interested in competing for it?

      Prize? How about "we'll get out of the way and let you do your thing"? AFAIK, right now it's legally impossible for a private enterprise to go to the moon. Change that, and I'll bet companies do everything in their power to be the one in the record books.

      You use "prize" as though it has to be monetary. I think Boeing, for example, couldn't care less about some pittance of a governmental bonus compared to the potential trillions of dollars in profit from being the first established extra-terrestrial cargo carrier.

      Face facts. Putting people in space is expensive. It's also a one-off proposition; there will never be lots of companies competing on price to take people into space.

      s/space/The New World/. I think it's a pretty solid analogy.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think a prize will work. Getting anything into outer space is expensive and complicated. The fact that some individual entrepreneurs can get a rocket out of the atmosphere doesn't mean they can do anything useful. They would have to have a few Billion and be positive they could do it first. So the prize would have to be more than what it would cost the government to do it. Which would be the same as just picking the one or two corporations that could do it. Actually, you'd have to either coordinate a dozen companies or build a new company from scratch just to make it to the moon--one that had no product it could sell our current revenue. Sounds a lot like a government to me.

      I see a lot of problems with NASA--but it will also take a government funded entity like NASA to do it. Government is the exact RIGHT entity to take on projects that don't have a pay-off in the near future but that benefit society.

      Businesses are really great. But they are designed to make a profit and not to benefit the most people with the least money. There is a lot of necessary overhead is businesses to manage and procure money.

      Again, NASA is bloated and not as efficient as they could be. But parts of NASA have managed the impossible. You just need to get the political hacks and bureaucrats out of the organization. Many of the greatest engineers and scientists have not been driven by money. An organization like NASA is a haven for them to just work on the thought problems and not be concerned with pushing a resume. Maybe NASA can't be fixed, but you aren't going to get to Mars without the government paying someone to do it. If you make it an external company, then you are picking one company to receive benefits that other companies and taxpayers won't. At this scale, you don't necessarily get any efficiency with a corporation.

      I don't like the Mars mission because it isn't driven by science--and the money could be better spent creating an infrastructure in space first. Also, it's something that Bush wanted, so you know all the money will be missing and it will be somehow, a minor clerks fault who endagered lives by pointing out that the hydrogen tanks are leaking. But don't gripe about the money unless you first speak out about the collosal amounts of funds spent on military and corporate welfare.

      I want to save taxpayer money too. But let's not get all huffy about a Billion $ Mars Rover when we have 25 stealth bombers that are pretty much useless.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Baldrson · · Score: 1
      I agree with you about cost-plus accounting but when you have fiascos like what happened with Northrop financing its own fighter jet with performance superior to the F16 and getting the snub from the government you have to wonder if government is capable of doing anything but performing a positive feedback loop to itself until it devolves like the former Soviet Union.

      Moreover, the real problem is the centralization of capital -- whether in government or private hands. Get things too centralized and the decision makers start making bad choices because they're too far removed from reality. This directly results from subsidizing property rights, a social construct maintained by the government, by taxing things other than assets.

    9. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by justanyone · · Score: 1


      I like the idea of a slightly different Apollo prize:

      Get the government out of the 'just get there and back' mode and into the 'scientific research' mode.

      NASA should just commit to paying:
      * $1 billion to deliver a science package of 1000 Kg to the lunar surface (with restrictions on max G load/g-shock for fragile materials) +
      * $50 million per hour of scientist time on the surface.


      Payments to be made on delivery of the package, and on safe delivery back to Earth of the scientist(s).

      The government supplies the scientist(s) (so Boeing won't hire Bill Nye instead of an actual expert in lunar geology (selenology?), etc.

      Those attempting this would put up collateral of $200 million (or more?) against the loss/death of a scientist. We want a severe downside if they take too many risks.

      After the first x number of deliveries/hours, the price drops by 10%, etc.

      These prizes can be highly effective if we contract with the private sector in very specific ways that don't specify more than we need to specify (we don't care if they fly the scientist there in a oblong fruit basket or a square one, as long as he gets there and back alive).

      -- Kevin

    10. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      There are individuals that control a billion dollars. HP takes in like 20 billion a year (gross) with something like a billion of that as profit.

      And I guestimate more like 1/2 a billion to get there and back, if done by the likes of Rutan. For a crack team of engineers and just plain brilliant people, 500 mill can get a whole hellofa lot done in a hurry.

      But yeah. Who bloody cares? When we are dropping a billion dollars worth of bombs on random countries, why fret over a few billion to get to Mars? Err.. the moon.

      Oh. NASA can be a haven, but many engineers hate (*HATE*) dealing with the politics that exist at almost all levels of NASA. I have heard them bitch about it; some of them are friends of mine :~)

    11. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This directly results from subsidizing property rights, a social construct maintained by the government, by taxing things other than assets.

      Besides the obvious subsidies, this creates a bigger problem - the rush to accumulate assets, take them away from economic, sceintific or other useful activity and fuel them into ... politics. Our politicians know very well what they are doing and whom they are serving.

    12. Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      A company where I used to work created a number of multimedia projects for NASA. I actually got to visit NASA Marshall. A lot of great people are still there. By the way, many are total fans of Von Braun and still regard some of his designs as feasible.

      For NASA to be saved, you'd have to have a powerful politician to take the reigns and build a skunkworks from hand-picked people. Mostly, I think there are a lot of discouraged people who have had nothing GREAT to inspire them for decades--so a racehorse becomes a plow mule because he doesn't see the point in doing anything that will make waves. The problem is, you'd need someone who understood the issue and was a totally dedicated advocate. I know I'll get chaff for this, but we need an "Al Gore" for NASA. Anyone who reads up on the early push would realize that the DotCom boom would never have occured in America without that kind of leadership. The only other alternative is someone like Bill Gates deciding he is through with the daily grind and doesn't care about making money anymore. I think you'd have to burn at least a $100 Billion to just get the ball rolling.

      But we won't have that kind of leader until we get the dead wood out of the White House. Maybe Ross Perot -- does anyone still think that man was spouting nonsense with his conspiracy theories anymore? OK-- I think he's crazy, but he was also right.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  18. yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cause such projects can never happen without federal funding! like the wright brothers for example, without that huge government grant they never would have succeeded.

    or that guy that singlehandedly built the rocket and went to the moon, what was his name... Apollo Creed?

  19. Funding by Threat of Violence by Le+Marteau · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go. ... by forcing other people to give us money on the threat of sending armed men to take them to jail them if they don't 'pay their tax' to fund our fun.

    And they call ours a civilized country.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    1. Re:Funding by Threat of Violence by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      Extortion - The taking of money or goods by threat of force.

      Kinda like taxes.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  20. Lower Labor Costs by lbmouse · · Score: 0

    What are they going to, hire Ralph Kramden?

    1. Re:Lower Labor Costs by sprag · · Score: 1

      # Leela: Wow, I didn't realize the first astronauts were so fat."
      # Fry: "He's not an astronaut. He was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife."

  21. The plan is? by timtwobuck · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the mission plan is similar to this....

    Build a spaceship and accessories that will get us to Mars safely and quickly, but then to test it on trips to and from the moon?

    It seems that developing hardware and software for a Moon trip. Then developing more hardware and software for a Mars trip might be a little cumbersome and expensive.

    IMHO, it would be more beneficial for us to build the Mars equipment, and fly it around space for a few months (simulate a trip to Mars in time duration), but always be within a (relatively) short & safe distance from Earth.

    1. Re:The plan is? by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      Let me guess...

      You're not a rocket scientist.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    2. Re:The plan is? by raptor_87 · · Score: 1

      That would probably be part of a Mars Direct style program.

  22. Please... by sinfree · · Score: 1

    can we not have any comments from republicans raving over it just because he is republican, or democrats hatin' on it just because he is a republican. Just for once can we look at an idea and judge it on it's own merit? Having said all of that, this is probably a big waste of money :-).

    1. Re:Please... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, on the surface this is a big waste of money. In black and white, this will not come to pass. We, as a country, don't have the risk tolerance to go to Mars. There may be funding but it wont be enough and the schedule will slip until they mothball it. We already have $7T in debt and are running a deficit each year which seems to be growing without bound. Nobody is going to find an extra $200B per year for the next decade to properly fund this kind of endeavor. Not even the leader of the majority party. Heck, even W has started to realize that he can't just spend at will.

      Quite honestly, I wish we had a kick-ass space program, a better funded national park system, a more proactive (non-petrolium based) energy policy, and a much more isolationist military philosophy. But I'd still rather have a balanced 3-year budget process and a National Debt that is a fraction of the annual budget.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  23. How is this possibly REALLY a priority these days? by dgrgich · · Score: 0

    I am truly glad that we went to the moon. I believe that the space race of the 1960's brought numerous advantages to our society and helped on the propaganda front of the Cold War. I will be the first to admit that this was the right course of action for our country at the time.
    However, we are not racing with anyone right now. The billion$ that this will cost could be much better used in other things such as developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, helping to fix Social Security, developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, funding better education efforts, developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, and so forth. I just can't see why it would be better to go to Mars and pick up certain ancillary benefits when we could use the money to help produce major benefits.

  24. It would be better to be led from space by SimianOverlord · · Score: 4, Funny

    I fully appreciate Tom DeLays comments, space exploitation has been on the back burner for too long. In these uncertain times, we would sleep a lot better in our beds if we knew there was a second chance out there somewhere, a genuine, self supporting colony that could reseed the earth in case of unavoidable disaster.

    Who better to found this colony than our own elected leaders? As events on september the eleventh showed, no-one is immune to terrorism on our domestic soil, and it would be far better to place our venerated leaders beyond the range of any conventional retaliation. We could always then be sure of leadership from orbit, no matter what happens. By protecting them, we protect ourselves.

    And should, despite their best efforts, some cataclysm overtake us all down below, what gentle knights are better suited to repopulate our world than our saintly leaders? Congress, the judiciary, the President are all exceptional individuals who have risen to the top to command a nation of untold millions through sheer talent and moral determination. Repopulation by such giants could only in fact improve the lot of humanities descendents.

    Yes, invest in NASA. Yes, load them all on a rocket. Yes, by all means let them lead from above, unseen and unvisited. Let noone say we were too afraid to take the sensible step.

    We shall miss them, our leaders, available as they currently are to any stranger in need of a chat or shoulder to cry on, discussion of current policy or challenger of their POV. All that will be lost. No more will I saunter into Cheney's office, will he welcome me with a smile, and gladly spend hours discussing Middle Eastern politics. By this sacrifice, we insure our future.

    I look forward with tears in my eyes to the day when they leave this planet. The correct funding of NASA will bring this day closer yet than we can dream.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
    1. Re:It would be better to be led from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like these leaders are GOD are something. If they die, someone else will take their place. Why is their life more important than anyone else's? It is because of assholes and dickheads and dumb people like you, that the world was ruled by elitist regimes.
      You dumb shit.

    2. Re:It would be better to be led from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please kill yourself before you breed.

    3. Re:It would be better to be led from space by mwood · · Score: 1

      You've been reading "The Marching Morons" again, haven't you.

    4. Re:It would be better to be led from space by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is just so sad. All of a sudden I have an opinion on eugenics and it is not one that is favorable to you.

    5. Re:It would be better to be led from space by bobcave · · Score: 1

      I'm looking here for some sarcasm or SOMETHING that would help me believe that you are not serious. Maybe you're NOT serious and I just don't get the joke.
      Otherwise, I'm going to have to agree with a previous poster and urge you to kill yourself before you have a chance to have children.
      Or maybe you did one bonghit-sprinkled-with-ecstasy too many.
      (not that there's anything wrong with that)

      --

      --
      There is no such thing as 'chocohol' or 'workahol'.
    6. Re:It would be better to be led from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we are sending them on a one-way mission to Mars...

    7. Re:It would be better to be led from space by hey! · · Score: 1

      I'm looking here for some sarcasm or SOMETHING that would help me believe that you are not serious.

      Have you ever felt like people around you know something that you don't? Do you find that sometimes conversations stop dead in their tracks after you make a perfectly reasonable response to something someone else said.

      Well, then, it sounds like you need a subscription to our automatic sarcasm detection service. It's simple to use, and FUN! If you suspect a piece of correspondence might be sarcastic, just forward to our mail autoresponder. After an instantaneous analysis by our proprietary SGEE(TM) (Subscriber Gullibility Evaluation Engine) an automatic reponse will be returned to you informing you that, yes indeed, your leg is being pulled. Armed with that knowledge, you'll be able to join in the buffoonery with a confidence you've felt before.

      Our unique process is guaranteed to work equally well against sarcasm, irony, mordancy,raillery, sardonicism, lampoonery and even the heart break of pasquinade.

      Operators are standing by, so why wait?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:It would be better to be led from space by hey! · · Score: 1

      Whoops. Crud, I didn't mean to actually post that, it could be taken as a harsh personal attack. Hey bobcave, I was just toying with an amusing idea. Sorry if you feel offended, I didn't mean to make fun of you personally.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:It would be better to be led from space by bobcave · · Score: 1

      Don't take this peronally, 'hey!', but...lick my love pump.

      --
      There is no such thing as 'chocohol' or 'workahol'.
    10. Re:It would be better to be led from space by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think the name "B - Ark" would be ideal for the craft that takes our glorious leaders to the place of safety from where they may protect us in our hour of need. :]

    11. Re:It would be better to be led from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll REALLY find Christ up there. It would be a great place for Delay to hide out from those evil Dems who want to crucify him.

    12. Re:It would be better to be led from space by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose doing the right thing is always worth a try, even though you can't expect people to reciprocate.

      So, getting back on topic, the orignial post was satire. Hope this helps ;-)

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:It would be better to be led from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No more will I saunter into Cheney's office, will he welcome me with a smile, and gladly spend hours discussing Middle Eastern politics"

      How could you possibly think he is serious after reading that?

  25. But for how long? by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Informative
    "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go."

    At least for the next 3 years. Reagan said back in '84 that the ISS would be a reality in 10 years. 20 years later it's only partially completed.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:But for how long? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      In '86 the flagship space shuttle blew up. I'm pretty sure that put a damper on things for a bit.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:But for how long? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      At least for the next 3 years. Reagan said back in '84 that the ISS would be a reality in 10 years. 20 years later it's only partially completed.

      The Challenger blew up in 1985 and that put a halt to it. Then shortly after they resumed the shuttle program Bill Clinton got into office and unfortunately seemed to have other priorities. Made the US-Space Station an "international" space station then it all got messed up. Stupid things like worrying over connections because inserting one into the other could be seen as sexual (docking a spacecraft to the station, one American, one Russian - who screws whom?), then there is the Metric and American Standard measurements. There is also budget shortfalls in Europe and Russia on the ISS. We also had an incompetent NASA admin, he was an accountant and he would never think that sending the space shuttle would be worth the risk and expense. With the fighting in Congress, I'm surprised we get anything done. I think it has held us back decades, worrying over who gets brownie points.

  26. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by deanj · · Score: 0

    Why? Because partisan Democrats in Texas are accusing him of things that haven't been proven? Or that he acts as partisan as any Democrat in the Senate or House?

    Labeling someone "evil" just because you disagree with their politics is childish. If DeLay's actions are "evil" so are plenty of Democrats, but I'm sure you won't say the same thing of them.

  27. Another Space Race by wooferhound · · Score: 2, Insightful

    President Bush is not really interested in putting people on the moon or Mars, But recently 3 other countries have announced thier intentions of landing there: China, Russia and India. Well you can be darn sure that president Bush is not going to let another country go to the Moon without the USA going first.

    It's another Space Race to the moon
    but the USA is the Rabbit waiting for
    one of the turtles to get started

    --
    We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    1. Re:Another Space Race by tbuckner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, what with Republican malfeasance draining the treasury, we are not the rabbit any more. The Chinese are going to have a lot more spare yuan to spend in the long run than we will have dollars. There's a real likelihood they'll go a lot of places first now. Why did we cancel the last few Apollo missions? Because Nixon needed the money to spend on bombing Vietnam.

    2. Re:Another Space Race by 3770 · · Score: 1


      If that indeed is the reason then it seems like an awful high price to pay for ones pride.

      I don't think it is, but I definitely think it plays a part.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    3. Re:Another Space Race by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      But recently 3 other countries have announced thier intentions of landing there: China, Russia and India.

      Talk is cheap, and it wouldn't surpise me if the Bush administration actively urged them to announce such intentions to reignite a new space-race hysteria. After all, as a distraction issue gay marriage pretty much fizzled right after the 2004 election, and they probably can't use it again in 2006. So let's throw $xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx at the aerospace industry, some of which it will use to strand someone on Mars, and some to show its gratitude to the Party that threw it. A lot of this cash can come out of NASA's budget for doing actual science, which will please another big constituency to no end because most of this science is heretical anyway.

  28. Oh, I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of acknowledging that the current House of Representatives Majority Leader, a legislator with significant power, has publicly pledged the necessary funding for NASA's Mars and Moon missions.

    Well, that's the interesting thing though. This is terribly relevant. Because if DeLay has proven himself willing to lie to the ethics committee, this neatly demonstrates he is also willing to lie to us. Like, potentially, lie to us about things like, "I will secure funding for trips to the moon and mars".

    Further, for those who support NASA's fundamental mission of space exploration, we must also acknowledge the US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space, ... If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us.

    If you're expecting our fears that the space talk is a Republican political thing to be dissuaded by hyperbolic, blog-buzzword laden implications that we should start to turn our public space program over to the military... then you're horribly wrong.

  29. The geek block of votes by afstanton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is now apparently large enough that they want to buy it with promises of space travel. At last, all the geeks ignored in highschool now have a little influence. How sad they'll be when that money gets shifted to space based military programs, after they've voted. Yeah, they'll put people on the moon and Mars. Soldiers.

    --
    Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
  30. Does this moderation scheme make sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just glad that as soon as we read an article with the words "Tom Delay" that instead of actually talking about the article, the first post (with a rating of 5, no less) goes on and on with a bunch of political horseshit that has nothing to do with the topic.

    Come on, guys. I expect better of you than this. Sure your college professor says all republicans are evil corporate monsters. Now can we talk about the space program?

  31. "Cede the Moon"? by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "If you ask anyone in this country, 'Do you believe that the United States should cede the moon to say the Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whoever?' I bet you the answer would be, 'No,'" he said.
    Interesting choice of words. It sounds like the speaker is implying that the United States owns the Moon because we got there first.
    1. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by killeena · · Score: 1

      I am glad I am not the only one who spotted this. I am all for going to the moon and mars, but as soon as countries start claiming other planets and moons as theirs, it is going to be a huge mess. Imagine both China and the U.S trying to claim the moon. Bleah!

      --
      Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
    2. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      It worked for the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English, French and Russians in the "New World" assuming you discount the people who were already here. The moon can be bought and sold amoung the powers that be and can have it's independence when it fights a good old fashioned war for independence that we aren't interested in fighting or can't afford to fight. That's just the way it's done.

      This is a joke, honestly.

    3. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by mwood · · Score: 1

      Well, we put a plaque up there saying that the moon is for everyone. "We came in peace for all mankind." Making those fine words stick might take more than lofty intentions, though. Having lots of interests up there is probably the best way to keep *any* of them from taking exclusive ownership.

      Didn't the U.S. sign some U.N. declaration about the status of the moon?

    4. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Mithrandir86 · · Score: 0

      You see, that's they want people to think. It really says: "Hands off, bitches."

    5. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      One definition of cede is indeed to relinquish specific ownership. However, there is another, and both have equal weight:

      To yield; grant: The debater refused to cede the point to her opponent.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    6. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Bean9000 · · Score: 1
      I am glad I am not the only one who spotted this. I am all for going to the moon and mars, but as soon as countries start claiming other planets and moons as theirs, it is going to be a huge mess. Imagine both China and the U.S trying to claim the moon. Bleah!

      Sounds to me like the perfect setup for some competition - and competition would lead to faster progress. If US and China were both trying to claim the moon, then that would most likely mean there is something of value to claim. Or at least it would mean that they have the foresight to realize that the moon could be of worthwhile value in the future and it's better that have it claimed than someone else.

      You're right though that if other countries arbitrarily start claiming planets and moons as their own, it'd just be a tax-wasting political mess. But if these claims are backed by actually getting there and making somehow using the moon for gain, then it'd be an interesting and worthwhile competition.

    7. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by killeena · · Score: 1

      I can definately see your point about the competition, and that would be great to see it, as long is it healthy comptetion. I am more afraid of things getting too heated up over some sort of border disputes or something. Look at what is happening/has happened with China and Taiwan, or India and Pakistan. If that happened with the US and China on the moon, I can imagine it could get pretty heated, and politically very ugly. I could see another Cold War coming out of it.

      --
      Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
    8. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      If that happened with the US and China on the moon, I can imagine it could get pretty heated, and politically very ugly. I could see another Cold War coming out of it.

      Cold war, hell. That's a recipe for a ver HOT war, quite possibly one involving fissionable material.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    9. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yes but after the terrorists attack of 9/11 the "world is a different place" (tm). hence that "for all mankind" stuff is old-Europe stuff

      ciao

    10. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason for a self-sustaining lunar base.

    11. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Even if the US has good intentions with the moon, other countries probably do not. Consider Antartica for example-- supposedly neutral and unclaimable. Well, in reality, countries have already claimed all of it. How much of Antartica has the US claimed? None at all. So it doesn't really matter what treaties or promises the US makes; other countries who didn't sign those treaties will greedily do whatever they can to increase their power and wealth. Due to the cost of space travel this won't be an issue with the moon for a very long time. But I'm sure it will be someday.

    12. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Izmir+Stinger · · Score: 1

      "It sounds like the speaker is implying that the United States owns the Moon because we got there first." And we brought a flag!

      --
      ~Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    13. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Interesting choice of words. It sounds like the speaker is implying that the United States owns the Moon because we got there first.
      No, he implies that it's our job to make sure that no one else owns the moon, just like it's our job to make sure no one owns anything else of consequence that doesn't belong to them.

      And you better hope and pray that even though we didn't ask for the job, don't want the job and may not be up to the job, we can some how, some way keep it together for a long, long time, because you don't even want to think about what will happen on planet Earth after we fail.

      -Anonymous Phil (citizen of the USA)
    14. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by griblik · · Score: 1

      By international treaty, no nation can own the moon.

      Whilst it looks like the grandparent believes that the USA should own it, having been the first country to land people on it, as a non-US citizen I have to wonder if the US would abide by the terms of the treaty should you have the chance to claim the moon for your own.

      Given the current US administration's disregard for every other treaty that got in their way, I'd have to say that I don't believe that the USA would adhere to it's treaty obligations.

      Face it; whilst we (the people of the world, cooperatively) have agreements in place which should ensure that any developments on the moon or other bodies in the solar system 'shall be the province of all mankind', the world outside of the USA knows that your government has no respect for said agreements.

      The tone of your post suggests to me that you're a decent human being; that you agree that the moon, mars and anywhere else we can get to shouldn't be owned by any earthly power. I'm heartened by the fact that there are US citizens who feel as you do (and I'm not being sarcastic). But the straight-up fact of the matter is that if there's a profit or military advantage to be had, recent history has shown that the government of the USA will be at the forefront of those trying to work their way around any applicable treaties, simply because you have the muscle to do so.

      And that sucks, because most of the people I've met from the US are people like you, and I'd like to think we, as a species, have a chance.

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
    15. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The International Outer Space Treaty of 196-something prevents any country, group of people, or individual from owning any celestial object.

    16. Re:"Cede the Moon"? by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      The International Outer Space Treaty of 196-something prevents any country, group of people, or individual from owning any celestial object.

      Not to beat a dead thread, but the only way that kind of agreement can be sustained is (a) if people never live on any natural celestial object other than the Earth, which would be a pretty crappy outcome for all of humanity (not to mention the rest of the Earth's biosphere), or (b) if any such colony is autonomous from the start (no Earthly nation, corporation, or individual "owns" any part of the colony--it is entirely autonomous and "owns" itself. This of course raises the question as to whether any company incorporated on the colony can own property on Earth--is the ban striclty a one-way street?). I'd like to think (b) could happen, but it seems unlikely that anyone is going to foot that kind of bill out of altuism.

      Nations and multi-nationalal cooperatives seem unlikely to establish an autonomous colony without some kind of financial or other economic incentive. Perhaps finding such an incentive, or structuring one, with a fully autonomous celestial colony is one of the great unsolved challenges of our time (and I would really love to see it happen. Building positive relationships with fully autonomous societies rather than creating less-than-autonomous extra-terrestrial colonies would be a marvelous thing, but how do you pay for something like that?), but in the meantime, it seems this treaty, while laudable in its intentions, was rather ill-concieved, and has placed very undesirable hurdles in front of establishing lunar and other colonies that would have brought tremendous benefits to earth much more quickly had it not existed and removed a great deal of financial incentive from establishing them in the first place.

      Or, as seems increasingly likely, the nations of the earth will ignore the treaty and belatedly establish less-than-autonomous, but medium and long-term economically beneficial colonies anyway. Unfortunately, with no realistic treaty in place creating an international framework for internatinal equality in the economic exploitation of the moon and other celestial bodies, it will probably end up being a free-for-all, which alas, is a pretty volitile reciple for potential conflict.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  32. Failed sarcasm by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can't tell if you're a supporter trying to be sarcastic, or a detractor trying to be sarcastic.

    Try reading Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.

    1. Re:Failed sarcasm by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is he just sarcastic? Or sarcasticly sarcastic? AHHHH!!!!! Sarcasim overload!!!!

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  33. Slightly worried... by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spending other people's money is a significant issue, not be lightly undertaken.

    Space exploration and colonization is absolutely vital and must be undertaken.

    However, there are many ways to achieve this.

    It concerns me that there seems to be such gung-ho enthusisam for pushing what will be vast amounts of tax-raised money into NASA. NASA I'm sure has an unlimited capacity to absorb funds; but I'm not sure it has an equal capacity to produce results in equal measure.

    Why not just use the same money to place contracts with the major private space companies? why have a State run organisation at all?

    --
    Toby

    1. Re:Slightly worried... by robindmorris · · Score: 1
      Why not just use the same money to place contracts with the major private space companies? why have a State run organisation at all?

      Because a state-run organization is cheaper? Lockheed/Boeing/etc are out to make a profit. That means that they won't accept a fixed-price contract to do this work (too high risk). Instead, they'll insist on the usual cost-plus contract. Which means that now tax money is used to both pay for the space exploration, and also to pay a dividend to the companies' shareholders. Doing it in-house (NASA) means that it's done at cost (not cost-plus).

      (Disclaimer: I work for a non-profit NASA contractor)

    2. Re:Slightly worried... by feronti · · Score: 1

      Um, that's pretty much how NASA works now. Their in-house engineers come up with the requirements, and some of the design work, then bid it out to various contractors to actually build. NASA pretty much just manages the process. Granted, there are significant portions of the work that are done in house (space shuttle control software comes to mind), but most of the really big stuff is contracted out.

    3. Re:Slightly worried... by mwood · · Score: 1

      On NASA's capacity to produce results, please list the other organizations which have made several manned round trips to the moon. I'm sure that that list will grow, and will include private interests, but just now it's mighty short.

      Why have a state-run organization at all? Sure. Let's just pile the money on a streetcorner with a sign saying, "for space colonization". Surely the major private space companies will see it and use it wisely to colonize space. Surely nobody else will touch it. Surely?

  34. Deficit spending is fun!!!! by CyberSnyder · · Score: 1

    "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go."

  35. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by databyss · · Score: 1

    Maybe the terrorists are planning to put anthrax in the polar ice caps on mars...

    We must beat them there!

    --
    Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
  36. This is about turf by maynard · · Score: 1
    "If you ask anyone in this country, 'Do you believe that the United States should cede the moon to say the Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whoever?' I bet you the answer would be, 'No,'" [NASA Administrator Griffin] said.
    This is not about space science or free market economics in space, this is about the United States maintaining hegemony in space. Ultimately, when a nation talks about turf it is talking about military control, whether for tactical or resource reasons. It's interesting that the next quoted statement by Griffin downplays the international power struggle angle by bringing in humanistic rhetoric:
    "If you ask anyone in this country, 'Do you believe that the United States should cede the moon to say the Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whoever?' I bet you the answer would be, 'No,'" [NASA Administrator Griffin] said.
    IMO this is simply smoke for the real military purpose behind the new space initiative. Now the question to ask is: what do we want there? Is this a resource or land grab or are we after a new tactical position? The moon seems like a poor hilltop to take in comparison to lagrange orbits. And Mars? What tactical advantage does Mars offer - other than maybe as a publicity stunt??? --M
    1. Re:This is about turf by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      What tactical advantage does Mars offer - other than maybe as a publicity stunt???

      It's completely out of reach of anyone else, you can do whatever you like there and noone else can do a single thing about it. Stockpile WMD's, store/launch antimatter bombs, genetic supersoldier research etc. 1) get there, 2) develop an easier method of getting lots of stuff there and you're set.
      Have you ever seen the alpha-site concept in stargate? (i.e. military colonisation)

      --
      FGD 135
    2. Re:This is about turf by Mant · · Score: 1

      That also means everyone else is out of reach of you. You could store weapons there, but why? You can store them on Earth, and when you want them you can at least get them in time to be useful.

      See, on Stargate (which is fiction) they have stargates so they can go there straight away so having an off planet backup site makes sense. If in the real word you some "develop an easier method of getting lots of stuff there" (congrats by the way on achieving that small engineering feat) then other people can reach you easily too. So scratch the remote advantage.

    3. Re:This is about turf by vertinox · · Score: 1

      What tactical advantage does Mars offer - other than maybe as a publicity stunt???

      For one, we can finally win a Nuclear war.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:This is about turf by johansalk · · Score: 1

      The advantages of the moon and mars are threefold, (1) keep the military-industrial complex happy, and I've personally heard from NASA insiders about the money already going into contracts (2) introduce a serious money drain that will last decades and effectively strangulate the funding of the NASA science programs and put them in jeopardy, such as Hubble and James-Webb Telescope, as this creationist-backed administration is firmly opposed to science (3) reallocate resources from blue states, such as Maryland that hosts most of the Hubble program, to red states such as Florida and Texas that will benefit most from those Moon and Mars hooplas

    5. Re:This is about turf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That also means everyone else is out of reach of you. You could store weapons there, but why? You can store them on Earth, and when you want them you can at least get them in time to be useful.

      Not really, really think about it. If you can launch enough material to stockpile weapons or build a base on the moon, it is certainly with in your means to have vehciles capable to get it back. The moon's gravity is only about an eigth of the earth's, and once you leave lunar orbit all you really have to do is nudge it towards earth and it will fall down the gravity well. In fact, if not intercepted, sizable peices of rubble or scrapmetal launched from the moon would cause rather large scale damage to the surface of the earth. You wouldn't even need explosives or other forms of weapons, just straight kinectic energy from the fall will do the job.

  37. Re:Oh, so now it's BAD to INCREASE the NASA budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what! That's called discussion and usually aims to find a solution.
    Ban guns, you have people screaming, allow guns, you have people screaming. Raise speed limits, you have people screaming, lower speed limits, you have people screaming.
    Oversimplify enough and your comment always applies.

  38. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by MrTester · · Score: 0

    This is a tired argument that is always used but means nothing. "Im all for X, but now is not a good time" When is a good time? When have things ever been so good that we can spend money on Big Ideas(tm) without taking that money away from Important Things(tm). If we actually lived by this concept nobody would have invented the wheel, because it took time away from clubbing small animals on the head with big sticks.

  39. Not so fast... by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Remember the Golgafrinchams C Ark... If we don't have our politicians to protect us, we may all be buried alive in a massive landslide of unspent lobbying money and political slushfunds.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  40. Haters: It takes a Bush to get us back into space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not a very big fan of GWB, and I voted for the other guy last election, but Bush's push for human exploration and colonization of the Moon and Mars seriously made me think twice.

    A manmade bioweapon -- like a plague specifically designed to target human beings -- could wipe out all human life on this planet nearly any time. We're all very lucky the Unabomber was a math genius and not a disaffected biotech researcher with a loathing for humanity. But who knows? That disaffected biotech researcher could be out there right now, doing his work. As could any number of bad people.

    The point is, until we create a sustainable existence off this planet, the long term survival of our species is highly volatile. And Bush seems to be the only one in power actively promoting a future in which we actually do begin moving into space.

    Will the resurgence of interest in private space flight save us? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet the future of our species on it.

  41. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think DeLay is exactly what the country really needs right now! We've been divided for so long and Tom can really bring us all together. As a registered republican, I like seeing how most of my republican and democrate friends can come togehter and agree DeLay is a disgrace. Between his actions and spewing about judges, I really feel this is a moment where we can begin the heal as a country and feel like one again over our discust with him.

    It really give me hope for the future! Thanks Tom!

    --
    "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  42. 15 billion dollars is just chump change by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Hey, everyone knows Delay for all of his faults has a lot of pull in the US House. If Delay is on board with funding a lot of space, why not let him do it? If NASA does get us back to the moon and mars, and I think they can (they did get us to the moon before, after all), then sure, go for it.

    The fifteen or sixteen billion a year that NASA needs is chump change. Toss it onto the deficit, as space is an investment that will pay for itself.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:15 billion dollars is just chump change by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Indeed, $15 billion is less than a tenth of the money wasted so far on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    2. Re:15 billion dollars is just chump change by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed...just tack it onto the Iraq spending bill...we can even come up with a good reason it should be included in the bill:
      • Space exploration will lead to new technological breakthroughs, just as the Space Race did before.
      • Humans have always shown a remarkable ability to pervert any new technological advance into a weapon.
      • We need better weapons to more effectively fight the War on Terror.

      Nothing to it.
      ^_^
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  43. 2006 by mushupork · · Score: 0

    We'll he's got my vote.

    Not.

    --
    Currently bidding on sig
  44. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The space program and its various branches have made enourmous contributions and benefits to our society, and to the entire world, and has continued to do so.

    We don't need to be in a race to continue reaping those benefits.

  45. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by deanj · · Score: 1

    Using that logic, we should just dump everyone in the Senate and House. It's not like one side or the other has a perfect record. ....You know, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

  46. just like SS "reform" by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go."

    And where the neocons want to go is to kill NASA. They'll distract NASA into bleeding itself to death chasing massive unfunded mandates while ignoring real science. It's starve the beast all over again. And they're being dishonest about how they're doing it. What else are they being dishonest about?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:just like SS "reform" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starve the beast by giving it more money? Huh. New tactic there for the "neocons."

      (P.S. Tom DeLay is a conservative, not a neoconservative. Some of you rubes seem to think that "neo-" means "disliked by the left" or something.)

    2. Re:just like SS "reform" by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      What else are they being dishonest about?

      Much easier question to answer. What are they being honest about ?

      Much shorter and simpler answers available.

  47. This is cool, whether you like it or not by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1

    When I was reading to my son last night (about Space) I was amazed when he ran over to the window and looked up trying to see the stars. I like the idea of space exploration, but I think doing it with robots is the preferred method for a while. I hope that one day my 4 year old will have the option to go into space. Maybe, just maybe, this move by Bush will begin a renewed interest in younger generations.

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  48. We need space robots! by Paul+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with you. Why is there debate about Hubble Space Telescope maintenance? Even crippled and gimpy, the HST is providing useful data to scientists. Why is funding being cut to the Voyager program just when it is approaching the heliopause, the boundary to our solar system? It's the farthest reaching manmade object in the universe, and we are still getting data. It costs $4 million per year, but it is being cut to make room for a manned mission to the moon or Mars.

    Why do we need manned anything? What can we learn with people that we cannot learn with remote controlled robots? The Mars Rover project has outperformed the designers' wildest dreams. It is the scientific equivalent of a bargain. If that were a manned mission, we would have spent all of the budget trying to keep the people alive. When the Mars Rovers finally stop returning data, we will just turn them off and leave them. That is not a convenience we would have with a manned mission.

    Manned space filght is a novelty, not a scientific research subject. How many scientific papers have come out of the International Space Station? When was the last time actual scientific research was carried out on the space shuttle? When was the last time a manned space mission provided a new answer to a scientific question? Go to the library. Do a web search.

    There is a guy who likes to rant about this sort of thing. Go here and click on the "What's New" link. Search for things like "manned space flight" or "space station" or "missile defense sheild". It's some good reading.

    1. Re:We need space robots! by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1
      I agree completely. We just don't need to send manned missions to the moon or mars, right now. If we are looking at human benefit, then we need to be spending the money on sorting out climate change on Earth. If we are looking for scientific advancement, then we have plenty of more interesting things to do - like send a probe to Pluto/Kuiper Belt, or take a better look at Europa.

      While it's nice that there's this money and everything, I'm suspecting that this money is going to find itself taken from other, less PR friendly, fields.

    2. Re:We need space robots! by MxTxL · · Score: 1

      When was the last time a manned space mission provided a new answer to a scientific question? Go to the library. Do a web search.

      Well, that wasn't very hard. January 2003

    3. Re:We need space robots! by Paul+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      The event lasted 250 milliseconds, so it is unlikely that an astronaut saw a flash and aimed the camera. The title of the article is "Columbia crew saw new atmospheric phenomenon". The crew probably never saw it. It was probably a fixed camera photographing the planet for analysis by a technician at a later date, just like we have on so many unmanned satellites. The presence of people on the shuttle was coincidental, not essential.

      It's been over two years and we have had a continuous manned presence in space (aboard the ISS) that whole time. We pour billions of dollars each year into manned space flight, and the best we have is an unexplained flash in the upper atmosphere taken by a camera that could have been mounted on an unmanned satellite and remotely controlled? What a waste of money and human lives.

  49. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Or that he acts as partisan as any Democrat in the Senate or House?

    He's the Senate leader of a political party. He'd damn well better be partisan.
  50. In other news... by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1

    Microsoft today changed thier tagline from:

    "Where do you want to go today?"

    to:

    "How much money do you have to spend?"

    --
    They Live, We Sleep
  51. bitch by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was going to bitch about how spending money on going to Mars was a waste when it could be spent on, say, a strategy for dealing with climate change...

    ...until I thought, maybe going to Mars is Bush's strategy for dealing with climate change?

    1. Re:bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'm kinda pissed people are forgetting that Mars is ALSO going through a period of global warming right now. No matter how hard zealots try, you can't blame the melting of Mars' ice caps on humans. The two operational vehicles on Mars don't even use fossil fuels.

    2. Re:bitch by isorox · · Score: 1

      No need to worry about manmade climate change, we're heading for (arrived?) at peak oil production - oil will be too precious to burn

  52. But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by rben · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the problems with our space programs, one of the problems it's had since the beginning, is that we haven't been building an infrastructure that would give us ongoing access to space at a reasonable price. We haven't been building our capabilities so that we'll be able to do important things like exploit the resources of the solar system. We just do stunts, usually to distract people from some political problem

    I believe we need to go back to the Moon and then on to Mars, but not as one-shot deals. We need a moon base so we can get resources from the moon. There is plenty of oxygen, Silicon and aluminum which could be used to help supply our expansion into space. The oxygen is needed for air. The aluminum can be used to build structures. The silicon can be used to create solar cells.

    It also seems likely that the Moon has water trapped in deep dark craters and crevices at the poles. A base on the moon dedicated to extracting that water would be able to provide that vital resource to space settlements. The water could be decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen to supply fuel for space operations and missions to Mars.

    If you really want to impress me, then develop the technologies to mine asteroids. A single average nickle-iron asteroid could supply the world's need for iron for up to five years. It could also supply plenty of material for building space stations and factories.

    The resources in space could help solve many of the problems we have on our tiny planet. It's time we stopped grandstanding and started focusing on a well thought out plan for securing those resources and exploiting them.

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

    1. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post. You have summed up what is wrong with the our current approach to space exploration.

      Too bad all the stupid, short-sighted space enthusasists here on slashdot don't care enough to actually think through what is needed for a real space exploration program. Theses sheeps just cheer the latest space stunt that is put in front of them.

    2. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by amightywind · · Score: 1

      One of the problems with our space programs, one of the problems it's had since the beginning, is that we haven't been building an infrastructure that would give us ongoing access to space at a reasonable price. We haven't been building our capabilities so that we'll be able to do important things like exploit the resources of the solar system. We just do stunts, usually to distract people from some political problem

      The history of US space exploration in the past 40 years supports your point. But currently there are remarkably many viable options for US space architecture for the post shuttle era. This is because many of the elements of the shuttle can be reused (SRB's, SSME's, ET, ...) and the Atlas V and Delta IV EELV's are on line. The shuttle orbiter has provided valuable and painful lessons about what a spacecraft should be. We just need a few people to make some firm decisions and procede. So far we are getting that leadership from President Bush and Mr. Griffin. Better days may be ahead.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    3. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mining anything in space is pointless until we have fast, cheap and reliable transport.

      We need space elevators, and we need them first. Then we need a replacement for the ISS that can handle serious material processing platforms.

      As for your misdirection theory, you're just way off. Rutan didn't keep ss1 in the hangar until the current administration needed a diversion in the media and NASA doesn't schedule to land rovers on the dates of future political firestorms.

      Ultimately, even news blurbs like this are very ineffective for the purposes of misdirection, since most people just don't care.

    4. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Nobody is thinking long-term because you can't do anything useful with half of an asteroid mining operation. Either you build the whole thing in one shot (how much did Apollo cost again?) or you build small things that are actually feasible.

      And don't forget the field you're working in. If you bring a nickel-iron asteroid into orbit and start dropping chunks of it on the market, the price of iron goes through the floor and there go your profits (and investors).

    5. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by mangu · · Score: 1
      A single average nickle-iron asteroid could supply the world's need for iron for up to five years.


      If the USA wanted to lower steel prices they wouldn't need to go to space, it would be enough to lift the import barriers they keep in place to protect the obsolete American steel companies.

    6. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point. Having a nickel/iron asteroid ALL BY MYSELF is gooooooood. Who cares what the rest of the world is doing?

      This is capitalsm, young fella. *lighting my cigar*

    7. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by rben · · Score: 1

      Of course, it would have been an even better post if I'd spelled the title correctly. I should have been: "But will we ever be able to go back again?"

      Thanks for not dinging me on it.

      --

      -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
      www.ra

    8. Re:But we'll we ever be able to go back again? by rben · · Score: 1

      I hope you are right, but I'll believe it when I see it. I still think our best chance for a solid space program will be provided by forwared thinkers like Rutan. I don't have much faith in a government space program since the projects that really looked like they would change the face of space travel got canceled.

      I Think the Delta Clipper was an excellent idea. It had payload capacity problems, but that's a solvable engineering problem. We seem to create stronger and lighter materials every day. I don't think it's practical to keep using throw away rockets.

      --

      -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
      www.ra

  53. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by deanj · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not saying that he can't do any wrong. What I am saying is that people are forgetting that the main "accuser" of DeLay, that joker down in Texas is a partisan Democrat and hasn't been able to pin anything on DeLay.

    If they actually prove anything on DeLay, I say get rid of him. I wouldn't want him in Congress any more than I would an ex-KKK member (Byrd) or someone that got someone killed and tried to cover it up (Kennedy).

  54. Run it through: by Guano_Jim · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just ran the quote through my Dave Chapelle translator:

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday the space agency will have the necessary funding to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars.

    Comes out:

    We're going to Mars, bitches!

    1. Re:Run it through: by killproc · · Score: 1


      Huh-Whut!?!

      --
      When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
  55. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother with an investigation? You've already convicted him based on allegations and circumstantial evidence. All that's left is the execution..

    Git the rope and some torches, yeehaw! Let's have us a HANGIN'!

  56. just another quaint ideal to be ignored ... by Bearpaw · · Score: 0


    "We came in peace for all mankind."

  57. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 1

    I knew it was only a matter of minutes until someone posted a comment like this about why we don't need to waste money to go to the moon when we have other things that could use the money.

    Here are a couple facts for you. The NASA budget is approximatly $16 billion dollars a year. The great big huge increase that Bush and others are talking about will be less than $1 billion dollars a year. Sounds like a lot of money right? A couple years ago the Space Station had a budget overrun of a couple billion dollars and asked Bush for more money. He told them no, and appointed a bean counter as the head of NASA to get them in shape. You see, the government just doesn't have enough money for an unexpected couple billion dollar overrun.

    For the second consecutive year, however, Bush has asked congress for some additional money for the war in Iraq. This is not budgeted DoD money, this is in addition to what the DoD is already getting, which was supposed to be enough. Both times he asked for around $85 billion. Both times congress gave Bush all he asked for, and a little more.

    For the money overrun being spent in Iraq, we could have 5 more NASAs.

    As for the other ways you want to spend that money, well guess what happens to the money that goes to NASA. It gets used to develop technology in various areas, including your alternative energy. The money goes to support high school and college kids trying to get and education in engineering. It also provides a number of good jobs to help people pay into Social Security.

    Putting money into NASA benefits the US economy. Putting money into Iraq benefits other countries economy, while being a big drain on the US economy.

  58. Re:able to fund vacation on taxpayer dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that this is probably feeding a troll, but the ALLEGATION (i.e., they are unproven) is that DeLay allowed lobbyists to pay for his travel expenses, which is against House Ethics GUIDELINES. Your Micheal Moore inspired attempts at propaganda have failed once again.

  59. Article misquote in third paragraph: by maynard · · Score: 1
    Sorry. That second article quote should read:

    Griffin said he believes a majority of people "want to make sure that as humankind expands into space the United States is there in the forefront."

    Whoops. Still, my point stands. --M

  60. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I'm on board the Tom Delay bandwagon again. Anybody that powerful that wants to fully fund NASA is a great guy, in my book.

    Here's to the re-election of Tom DeLay.

    --
    This is my sig.
  61. Brain Drain? by cosmic-shadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Agreed. In the past few decades we have suffered a large loss in the ability to think, especially considering our technological gain over that time. For example, it took the processing power of two C-64's to take us to the moon on an Apollo capsule. Now we have computer systems with multiple GHz processors, and we are using them now for gaming.

    "What happen?"

    1. Re:Brain Drain? by Bean9000 · · Score: 1
      Well computational power is hardily the limiting factor - its just that we face the exact same problem we did decades ago: we use lots and lots of expensive fuel to lift very heavy objects very high up in the sky. The problem is, and always has been, that the 'overhead' (fuel, delivery system, safety, repairs, etc) for doing anything worthwhile in space is extremly high.

      Faster computers help you analyze data better, but they're not of that much use when it comes to finding a better solution to get to the data in the first place.

      Interestingly enough, the best (or at least most efficient) solution we have created for space travel - nuclear propolution, most commonly represented in the Orion project - was done in a large part on pen, paper and calculators.

    2. Re:Brain Drain? by kwoff · · Score: 1
      In the past few decades we have suffered a large loss in the ability to think,

      Since you feel you're in a position to judge this, show me the proof. I've read the opposite, that over the past several decades our intelligence has been steadily increasing. I think your example of using processors for gaming is irrelevant and stupid.

  62. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by deanj · · Score: 1

    House leader. Frist is the Senate Leader.... and I wish HE were at least as partisan has Reed is proving to be.

  63. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The billion$ that this will cost could be much better used in other things such as developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures,

    Read up on satellite solar power and lunar solar power. In the long term, our planet's energy needs are going to have to be based significantly on space based solar. There's simply no other source of that much energy.

    Seriously, read up on it. A world that runs without burning coal or oil or massive amounts of radioactive waste or dangerously weaponizable plutonium *will not happen* without investment in the space program.

  64. As with any country.... by suman28 · · Score: 1

    This provides a more advantageous position from a military/army/navy standpoint. Many advances in medicine are possible from space based research as well. I can see why Bush administration wants to be the first. When other countries finally arrive on the moon, the US can dictate the rules for staying on the moon. This can be advantageous on many fronts. i.e terrorists, medicine, armed forces and so on.

  65. Mars should be one way by wsxian · · Score: 1

    Economically and to prevent contamination, the trip to Mars should be one way. The astronauts should be given all they need to find out if Mars is a safe place to live as well as to conduct experiments. Another trip would be schedule to bring them back after two or three years, if they survive and if they can produce their own fuel for the trip up from the Martian surface (quite an incentive).

    1. Re:Mars should be one way by johno.ie · · Score: 1

      absolutely. but why bother bringing people back? theres plenty of people who would like to spend the rest of their lifes out there. why double the costs with a return journey. the first settlers could start building infrastructure to support more colonists and if we send 5-6 people every 2 years in 20 years there'll be a sizable village up there. nobody seems to be interested in colonisation at all and thats the real way to explore a new world.

      --
      872835240
  66. What about the return trip? by CyberSnyder · · Score: 1

    "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go."

    So we'll approve the funding to send astronauts to the moon. The retrun trip is on them.

  67. "forgetting" by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Informative
    What I am saying is that people are forgetting that the main "accuser" of DeLay, that joker down in Texas is a partisan Democrat and hasn't been able to pin anything on DeLay.

    How could we forget when DeLay or his spokesdroids take pains to remind us of it every other day?

    Funny though, they always forget to mention that the "partisan Democrat" has a long, solid record of going after corrupt Repubs and Dems. Perhaps it's just hard for them to believe that some people do their jobs without checking party affiliation (or bank accounts).

    1. Re:"forgetting" by Golias · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This whole conversation reminds me a lot of when Ken Starr was accused of being part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in spite of the fact that he was the investigator who brought down Republican Senator Bob Packwood just a few years earlier.

      Attacking the accuser is an old game, and both sides love to play it.

      Regarding the current investigation into DeLay. I don't think there's much there. Certainly less damning than the campaign contributions which Al Gore was alledged to have raised from donors in Communist China back in the 1990s. This will ammount to a tempest in a teapot.

      DeLay will stay in office, Howard Dean will manage to raise a few extra bucks for future campaigns by beating the drum over DeLay's alleged "corruption", and life will go on. Can we get back to talking about NASA?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:"forgetting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attacking the accused is an even older game.

      "Well, just look how many crimes he's accused of, he must be guilty..."

    3. Re:"forgetting" by Golias · · Score: 1

      Attacking the accused is an even older game.

      Well, yes. That's why they call the accused "the accused", because somebody's accusing them of doing something wrong.

      If there is evidence of wrongdoing, an investigation is the right thing to have happen, and partisan action from the other party should come as a surprise to nobody. A lot of people who are full of vitrol over Democratic partisanship right now were equally nasty during the months leading up to Clinton's impeachment.

      The thing about law-makers is, most of them are lawyers. They have the notion of being blindly loyal advocates for "their side" pretty much woven into the fabric of their being.

      It's up to us, as voters, to apply our own sense of reason to their arguments, and not get swept up in this us-vs-them bandwagon (which I like to call the "sports fan" mentality in politics.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    4. Re:"forgetting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, all too often the accusation *itself* becomes the 'evidence of wrongdoing'...

  68. hmm by distantbody · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "...President Bush's vision..." BAHHAHAHAHAH-HA!...HA!

    Need I say more?

    --The slashdot anti-script text confirmation is getting ridiculously hard.

  69. Re:Here come the Liberals... by TyrelHaveman · · Score: 1

    Do people forget that it was JFK, a democrat, who sent us to the moon in the first place? I don't see, and I never have seen, going to outer space having anything to do with political views. It's a shame it has to be that way. I myself am liberal, and I believe extremely strongly that we should go to space (and as much as possible), no matter what the risk is.

  70. Not Just Funding by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
    It's not just all the funding they need. It's all the cost plus funding for large aerospace companies which contribute millions to political campaigns that NASA can have.

    Which wouldn't be so bad if they cancelled the hasn't-worked-yet ballistic missile "defense" system. Or if there was a cap on CEO pay so that most of the money actually went to the workers instead of the CEO shmoozing it up with Hot Tub Tom.

    I'm all for space exploration, but not at the cost of deficit spending. Why not cut the fat from the Pentagon's "no audits because it's too big" budget before we go spending more money that I and my children will have to pay back.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  71. Flawed logic? by isotope23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FWIW, I am a Libertarian, so both dems and reps disgust me. That said, I have to reply to this:
    "You gotta love how liberals believe that if you write enough stuff, people will think it is true. They build bad cases upon flawed logic based on opinions. It's all third grade logic."

    The Reps are not any better. Going into Iraq they lied their asses off....

    "Iraq-911-Al-queda", Iraq may have nukes, they have chemical weapons, we don't care what the UN says. They lied so much that a majority of americans thought Iraq attacked us on 911....

    If ever there was a bad case built upon flawed logic and sold with lies that was it. Funny how the administration stopped talking about finding the weapons eh? They even had the balls to say oh well NOW its about FREEDOM. Forget about all the false claims we made to justify invading.

    Bush even said that if he knew Iraq had no weapons he would have invaded anyway.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:Flawed logic? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Oh every war is sold with a mountain of lies. That's just the way it is. Get over it. Heck, look at how Clinton was running around telling everyone that if we didn't bomb Yugoslavia all of Europe would be destroyed.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:Flawed logic? by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Funny how the administration stopped talking about finding the weapons eh? They even had the balls to say oh well NOW its about FREEDOM.

      It's not and never was about either. It's about reforming the Middle East by eliminating fundamentalist Islam as a viable worldview, which nobody in the government can officially say for obvious reasons. See here.

      Bush even said that if he knew Iraq had no weapons he would have invaded anyway.

      Exactly, although I'm actually surprised he admitted that.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:Flawed logic? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      It's about reforming the Middle East by eliminating fundamentalist Islam as a viable worldview...

      Explain, then, why we invaded arguably the most secular (ie, least religious) Arab nation in the Middle East? Am I stupid for not understanding why this is? Could it in fact be that your bald assertion is wholly without merit?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    4. Re:Flawed logic? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm really getting tired of the "Clinton did it too, so it's okay that Bush did it too" arguement.

    5. Re:Flawed logic? by syukton · · Score: 1

      Well...

      Because Iraq is smack dab in the middle of the world of Islam, making it a nice tactical jumping-off point for further military exercises in the region.

      Because Iraq's citizens were ruled by a tyrant that many of the citizens wanted removed, meaning that the general populace would welcome an incursion.

      Because Iraq's secularity would not preclude establishing a non-Islam system of government.

      Because Iraq, as a nation, produces oil. Oil can be refined into fuel, and Stealth Bombers use quite a lot of fuel. Having a fuel production facility right next to your airbase is pretty convenient, isn't it?

      Prior to occupation, fuel sold for $0.05 per gallon outside of Basra (where a major refinery is located). Yes, that's a nickel a gallon. In some places, fuel was cheaper than water in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Following the occupation, however, the US took over control of the supply lines, monoplized the market, and jacked up the prices to $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon. It still likely costs the same amount to produce the oil, but somebody (read: haliburton; they took over oil operations in Iraq) is making a hell of a profit now...

      So that's another reason: Because there was a fuckload of money to be made.

      Do I need to keep going?

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    6. Re:Flawed logic? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      I agree with all of your points. However, you've missed my point completely. Which was that invading Iraq had very little direct relevance to combatting fundamentalist Islam. Read the grandparent post again -- the one that I replied to.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    7. Re:Flawed logic? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      Oil can be refined into fuel, and Stealth Bombers use quite a lot of fuel. Having a fuel production facility right next to your airbase is pretty convenient, isn't it?

      None of the U.S. strategic bombers need a forward supply depot in Iraq to attack the Middle East. All of these bombers can be refueled in flight. Furthermore, the refueling aircraft can also be refueled in flight, and there have been missions where this has been done.

      The B-2 "Spirit" has a range of 6000 miles (9654 km), and the entire operational fleet of 21 B-2s is based in Missouri. Every mission that it has flown to date has started and ended in Missouri. The one time the B-2 needed a stopover during a mission was to change crews due to the length of the mission (70 hours). These were for the missions over Afghanistan, and the stopover was in Diego Garcia.

      The B-1B "Lancer" also has a range of 6000 miles (9654 km). During the war in Iraq, these planes were dispatched from Guam.

      Finally, the venerable B-52 "Stratofortress" has a range of 7370 miles (11,861 km), and during the Iraq war, these planes were based in the U.K.

      So basically, it may be convenient, but it's completely unnecessary.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    8. Re:Flawed logic? by syukton · · Score: 1

      It's the first step in a long-standing strategy, I thought that was explicitly implied.

      It's not like Iraq's neighbors are going to sit idly by and not see what such a democracy can be like. They will take notice. The women will take notice especially. (in nations governed by systems of fundamental Islam, an unmarried rape victim who becomes pregnant can be and often is put to death in order to preserve family honor.) And then all the US needs is an invitation from "the people" who are "in need of liberation" and bingo, bango, bongo, we're in the middle of Operation Somenewname.

      Social change will be affected simply due to geographic proximity to the proper social system. Think of the general region over there as a pool of water. We just dropped the rock of democracy into that pool, and now ripple will ride its way outward.

      In my post, I was giving some of the reasons for which we chose Iraq over, say, Iran. or Saudi Arabia. Or whatever. Iraq was just a convenient takeover location in the middle of it all. Well, I mean, we started with Afghanistan, but that's a whole other story. Given what's come out lately about the Downing Street Memo and all that business, it's hard to tell how much of an agenda was really had prior to ever starting any new actions in the Middle East. You know, where is the point when/where/how it all "started" ... like I said, whole other story.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    9. Re:Flawed logic? by syukton · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, unnecessary for the aircraft used in my example. I was attempting to conjure imagery of a gas-guzzling beast when I said "Stealth Bomber."

      My point is that having lots of cheap fuel accessible to all of your equipment is really nice when you're undertaking military operations. Aircraft, or otherwise.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    10. Re:Flawed logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      explicitly implied

      What an intelligent oxymoron.

  72. Better uses for my tax dollars by JasonEngel · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Let space exploration be a privately funded endeavor. At a time of unjust war, when far more important issues require money (education, anyone?), this strikes me as a horribly frivolous waste of my tax dollars.

    Spend my tax dollars getting our soldiers OUT of Iraq. Spend my tax dollars educating our children. Spend my tax dollars to make basic health care affordable. Spend my tax dollars protecting the environment. Spend my tax dollars on anything that would improve the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans.

    Going to Mars would be cool. Just don't use my money to get there.

    1. Re:Better uses for my tax dollars by rokzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the cost of war is so much higher than anything like this - THAT should always be the first thing you stop.

      at the moment it looks like NASA is going to shut down the TRACE satellite that is an invaluable source of data about the Sun. probably due to cost, and yet the cost was only about the same as a single cruise missile. surely letting a few more inncoent Iraqi civilians live wouldn't have undermined the shock and awe campaign?

      anyway, the point is you shouldn't bother being careful with how you spend pennies if you're still wiping your arse on $100 bills.

    2. Re:Better uses for my tax dollars by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Interestingly, I have absolutely zero interest in your spending priorities. None. And yet it's likely that I'll pay even more next year to support the programs I don't approve of. This is how nations work - we all chip in for the common benefit, even if we don't individually profit from it.

      Going to Mars would be cool. Just don't use my money to get there.

      Fair enough. However, since it's widely accepted that investments in the Apollo program gave ridiculously high returns, then we'll need to also find a way to keep the money I willingly paid to our space program from coming back to you.

      NASA wants to spend 16.5 billion dollars in 2006, or .14% of America's GDP, in 2006. If you can't stand the idea of even doubling that with a likely return of 1000% on the investment, then you're even worse at finance than you are at public policy.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Better uses for my tax dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cost of war is so much higher than anything like this - THAT should always be the first thing you stop.

      Replace 'war' with 'poverty' where countries like China or India are spending relatively huge amounts for manned space missions. Why should citizens of a country live dirt poor while their government throws money at a manned space program? A country's standard of living should at least not be destitute before attempting trips to the moon or Mars.

    4. Re:Better uses for my tax dollars by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      A country's standard of living should at least not be destitute before attempting trips to the moon or Mars.

      No kidding. This is just another international pissing contest, another Cold War that serves no real function. China and India are in it just as bad. Actually, India has been making some progress on poverty. China is worse.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  73. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the charges are baseless, then why were his business associates indicted? Surely you're not suggesting that the grand jury was rigged by the dems.

    There are also charges beyond those brought by a vengeful dem in Texas. Where there's smoke, there's fire. The fact is that DeLay has long history of ethics problems and the problem is not limited to Delay. Even the repugs on the house ethics committee were caught in ethics violations and forced to resign their seat.

    The house ethics committee has 10 members. 5 dems, 5 repubs. 3 of the 5 repugs were forced to resign their position when it was discovered that they were secretly funding DeLay's ethics legal defense fund. They saw no conflict of interest in providing money to the person they were supposed to be investigating. This sort of 'good old boy' network that has infested the repubs should not be tolerated.

  74. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by dsci · · Score: 1

    Putting money into NASA benefits the US economy. Putting money into Iraq benefits other countries economy, while being a big drain on the US economy. Good point, for the short term. If re-structuring Iraq into a friend proves to be beneficial to the US in the Long Run (tm), it might be better to think of this drain as an investment.

    --
    Computational Chemistry products and services.
  75. Great idea! Oh, wait... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    Hey, it's been a while since we've done any manned missions beyond the earth's orbit, so this is great! Returning to the moon and maybe even going to Mars on a manned mission will be amazing opportunities!

    Oh, wait, Republicans suggested it. Nevermind. It just means that Tom Delay wants to golf on the moon (hey, it's been done before) and Bush wants to drill for oil on Mars. There simply can't be any other reason for their actions...

  76. Things to do to AOL users: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep having this thought that I should get voice tapes of Dave Chapelle and splice together
    "You've got Mail! Bitch!"

    Then get it on AOL users computers.

  77. AC right back at ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Promising lots money and then not actually coming through with the money is a good way to bankrupt someone.

    And in my book, neocon == talks trash about accountability for everybody else while dodging responsibilty for their own actions at every turn. == DeLay.

    1. Re:AC right back at ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So like, everyone on Slashdot would be a 'neocon', then.

      Try again.

  78. Grounded by ndansmith · · Score: 1

    I love space exploration and I think it is a worthy expenditure, but I do not think that now is the right time. With our economy still rocky and our national budget deficit at record levels, it seems like the US needs to do our homework before we go outside to play.

  79. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by stlhawkeye · · Score: 2
    Using that logic, we should just dump everyone in the Senate and House. It's not like one side or the other has a perfect record. ....You know, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

    The problem with politics is that you have to be at least as unethical as your opponent to defeat him. And once you are in office you have to stay unethical to get re-elected.

    I don't doubt that DeLay has a sketchville past and has done some shady things. But if any of you people blasting him and calling for his resignation think that he is uniquely unethical ... wow. Talk about naivete. I wonder sometimes at the "gee whiz..." attitude people have about Washington, and the very earnest belief held by an alarming number of voters that the people in their party aren't unethical, it's only the people on the other side who pull stunts like this.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  80. Ownership by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    "what makes the return trip potentially profitable"

    Standing there with a musket and telling everyone else to f*ck off because you're going to be the one to exploit this particular natural resource is what will make space profitable. Yes it's ugly but guess what, the good old USA is the result of exactly this attitude.

    The "Space is owned by all the people of earth" stuff in the UN treaty has left us with 40 years of no progress. Add to this the national space monopolies like NASA, ESA keeping the costs high.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Ownership by Mant · · Score: 1

      That does nothing at all to make it profitable. It was easy to explore and exploit land, all you needed was a wagon and supplies. Even if you owned a chunk of the moon right now, it gives you no profit. The tech has to be developed to make it profitable to exploit it, until them trying to own and defend it just costs money.

      National space monopolies are going to be the only way forward until tech reaches the point that there is a return on investment in space. Until then private industry will just stay well clear, as they can make much more profit (as opposed to losing money) by not going into space and spending the money elsewhere.

      It isn't like staking out land in the old west where anyone could do it with some everyday supplies, which made it worth doing.

      One day the tech will reach a point that national space agencies aren't really needed, but we are not there yet.

    2. Re:Ownership by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      "One day the tech will reach a point that national space agencies aren't really needed, but we are not there yet."

      Not if the national space agencies have anything to do with it. They have no interest in cheap access to space, they are not developing cheap technology. That technology will come from companies like Armadillo, Scaled Composites because *they* want to make money selling spades to gold diggers.

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:Ownership by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd tend to say that it has a lot to do with it. Why should I spend the money to set up a resource extraction/manufacturing center when I can't be sure that somebody else will set down 10 feet away and start chewing on the ore that I was planning to use?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  81. Let the Eagle soar by guet · · Score: 1

    When your country imprisons enemies indefinitely without trial, exports suspects for torture by third parties, and supports many puppet regimes, I think crowing about Freedom is a little premature isn't it? Or perhaps you meant your freedom at the expense of that of a lot of other people?

    As to your 'they'll get us first' argument (substitute bogey-man of the moment, apparently China, for they), the extension of this to its logical conclusion is of course that to ensure US hegomony you must take over every other nation on Earth. Perhaps you think that would be a good idea if you had the resources; fortunately for the rest of us, you don't and never will.

    Why can't you see through this kind of cheap nationalism? It's only meant to distract you from real economic and political problems at home.

    1. Re:Let the Eagle soar by changcho · · Score: 1

      Hey, couldn't have said it better myself! Your line "...to ensure US hegomony you must take over every other nation on Earth" is basically the neocon mantra; see PNAC's web site (they don't say exactly that, of course, but it comes down to that). The laboratory to test these ideas is, of course, Irak. In any case, to get back on course, let it be said that I generally do support NASA. Unfortunately, it is being taken over by Bush administration officials who care nothing about science and exploration.

    2. Re:Let the Eagle soar by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      It doesn't come down to that at all.

      What it comes down to is using the economic and military strength we have for good, and the spread of Western democratic freedom and ideals, and the encouragement of free markets and the free flow of information. A side effect of this is that free nations are often likely to be friendly with the Western world and its interests.

      Note: this does not mean "taking over every nation on Earth"; this does not mean spreading Western *culture*, though admittedly some of that may occur; this does not mean that the US is perfect. What it does mean is that there are some people who genuinely believe that Western-style democracy is a good model for all nations and peoples. No one is foolish enough to believe it's just as simple as trotting into nations, ousting dictators (whether or not we tacitly supported them in the past is irrelevant; remember Realpolitik and the fact that there were bigger fish to fry), and then propping up democracies. No, really: no one believes it's that simple. No, not even Bush nor any of his minions.

      I find it amusing that people can write this off as a "war for oil", as if that's an indictment. I don't think people understand the suffering that would occur in Western nations if there was a major collapse in our collective ability to obtain energy in the short term.

      There is no doubt that our interests and the interests of much of Europe are at stake here. Further, the people of the mideast itself will be the likely beneficiaries of change, longer term. This then gets into muddier areas of whether it's appropriate to affect cultural change. This isn't about a Christian Crusade and getting multinationals into Iraq. But I don't think many administration officials would shed a tear if some of the anti-Americanism and rabid, fanatical Islam was toned down a bit in the rest of the region. Make no mistake: in the short term, it will be worsened. But as concepts of freedom take hold, the people will take their future into their own hands, no longer at the mercy of dictators and tribal warlords.

      The "laboratory" of Iraq is one of change in the mideast. Of course it will have benefits for the US. It would be ridiculous to suggest it wouldn't. But it will also have benefits for the people of Iraq. There may be instability and difficult times ahead, as those who would fight the Infidel for any number of reasons apparently believe killing innocent Iraqis is the way to sway opinions in their favor. But if we have the will to follow through, the face of the mideast could be changed. As for the reasoning on Iraq? The reasoning presented was simple. Things like "we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region" don't exactly fly when you're trying to build public support for a military effort.

      Lastly, Bush's presidency is more than half over. How can you assert that only now, NASA is being "taken over" by Bush administration officials? Further, NASA will continue to exist as the bureaucratic (not using that term in a derogatory fashion) entity that it is after Bush's presidency. The major shift in its mission is to possible continued manned exploration of the Moon and Mars. There is a significant array of feelings on whether this type of exploration is worthwhile, based only in emotion, guts the rest of NASA's missions, etc, even on slashdot. But the point is that NASA is as well funded now as it was at any other point in its history (in adjusted dollars).

      In closing, if your "care nothing about science" jab is intended to e

    3. Re:Let the Eagle soar by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but I prefer the term "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion." Not to feed this happy flamefest or anything.

    4. Re:Let the Eagle soar by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not that I'm pro-abortion in that I love abortion; rather, in the sense I believe it should be a legal, accessible option. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I'm "not anti-abortion".

      But I don't call myself "pro-choice", because I don't believe abortion is about only about "choice", as the pro-choice camp would have people believe. It's about ending human life in a very specific circumstance for societal benefit.

    5. Re:Let the Eagle soar by TGK · · Score: 1

      Democracy is not an absolute good. Democracy may be the ideal form of government for some peoples, but it is not necessarily the ideal form of government for all peoples. To force a people to adopt a democratic form of government denies them any say in what form of government they feel suits their culture best... and that in and of itself in undemocratic.

      It is also worth noting that Democracy isn't even all its cracked up to be among those that seek it out. Of the governmental systems that have been implemented on this small ball of rock, Democracy has given rise to more brutal and more genocidal dictators than any other.

      Adolph Hitler arose from the Wiemar Government, considered the most democratic of its time.

      Moussolini, Bonepart, and even Saddam Heussain used democratic systems to obtain, compound, or secure their own power.

      It is the classic pattern of neo-conservitive thinking to distil complex issues to black and white absolutes in order to make a snap judgement. Is a fetus alive? The issue of where life begins and ends is a complex scientific, moral, spiritual, and ethical dilema. We can not state that a fetus is alive any more than we can state that a dog has a soul. We can take dogmatic and argumenitive positions -- but ultimately there exists no "right" and "wrong" answer to the question -- there may never be such an answer.

      The war in Iraq may be for oil or otherwise -- personaly I suspect it's simply happening because Bush wanted something to continue the rally round the flag syndrome that followed 9-11. Unquestionably there would be serious consequences if the energy economy dried up overnight -- but I don't see that happening. That said, there is but so much oil out there and it will run out someday -- we need to be investing in alternitive energy sources and the Bush administration has singularly failed in that task.

      Getting back to the topic at hand -- the militarization of space is inevitable. Wars are the defining moments of the relationships between states interacting in an anarchical system. When war breaks out, states seek to acheive security through any means necessary -- be that nuking the opponent into the 4th century or starving him out. Space is the next logical step.

      War is not likely to go away soon. As space technology becomes more accessable and less expensive (as technology is want to do) more countries, some hostile, will have military access to space. The US must therefore seek to protect its own interests there at the earliest possible convenience... to do otherwise would be an abdication of its responcibilities as a government.

      Now you can like that or not -- but ultimately a state must seek security above all else, both for the present and the distant future.

      We will militarize space for the same reason we gave France the bomb, for the same reason the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, for the same reason Germany attacked Russia (twice), and for the same reason that Rome destroyed Carthage -- like any state -- we seek security and will decide upon whatever course of action gives us the best shot at that goal.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    6. Re:Let the Eagle soar by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      It is the classic pattern of neo-conservitive thinking to distil complex issues to black and white absolutes in order to make a snap judgement. Is a fetus alive? The issue of where life begins and ends is a complex scientific, moral, spiritual, and ethical dilema. We can not state that a fetus is alive any more than we can state that a dog has a soul. We can take dogmatic and argumenitive positions -- but ultimately there exists no "right" and "wrong" answer to the question -- there may never be such an answer.

      Note that I make no such judgments. Why, then, is it appropriate for the prototypical "liberal/progressive" position to be staunchly in support of embryonic stem cell research and the right to abortion, as if that is the manifestly "right" position, that there aren't any other logical alternatives, and indeed, completely ignoring the issues about life, etc., that you just brought up?

      It seems that the pro-choice camps and those who disagree with Bush on stem cells have already distilled it down to black and white issues - choice and science, exclusively - just as much as you would say "neo-cons" have.

      we need to be investing in alternitive energy sources and the Bush administration has singularly failed in that task.

      You may be interested in Bush's latest energy policy speech

      Technology is allowing us to better use our existing energy resources. And in the years ahead, technology will allow us to create entirely new sources of energy in ways earlier generations could never dream. Technology is the ticket, is this nation's ticket to greater energy independence.

      [...]

      Over the past decade our energy consumption has increased by more than 12 percent, while our domestic production has increased by less than one-half of 1 percent. A growing economy causes us to consume more energy. And, yet, we're not producing energy here at home, which means we're reliant upon foreign nations. And at the same time we've become more reliant upon foreign nations, the global demand for energy is growing faster than the growing supply. Other people are using more energy, as well. And that's contributed to a rise in prices.

      Because of our foreign energy dependence, our ability to take actions at home that will lower prices for American families is diminishing. Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people. It's a tax our citizens pay every day in higher gasoline prices and higher costs to heat and cool their homes. It's a tax on jobs and it's a tax that is increasing every year.

      The problem is clear. This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight. But it's now time to fix it. See, we got a fundamental question we got to face here in America: Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs, or do we want to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?

      I made my decision. I know what is important for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and that requires a national strategy. Now, when I first got elected, I came to Washington and I said, we need a national strategy. And I submitted a national strategy to the United States Congress. And it has been stuck. And now it's time for the Congress to pass the legislation necessary for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

      [...]

      Our country is on the doorstep of incredible technological advances that will make energy more abundant and more affordable for our citizens. By harnessing the power of technology, we're going to be able to grow our economy, protect our environment, and achieve greater energy independence.

      [...]

      The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources

    7. Re:Let the Eagle soar by changcho · · Score: 1

      Well, Dave Schroeder, thank you for your long, thoughtful and honest reply in defence of the Bush foreign policy. You truly are a neocon believer, and it is rare for one of your kind to be honest about current US foreign policy; I thank you for that. Let's examine your points: "What it comes down to is using the economic and military strength we have for good". You truly are a fundamentalist; YOU and your pals are good and therefore can do no wrong. This is essentially the same logical argument the European colonial powers were using when justifying colonizing, say, Africa in the 19th century. YOu are certainly right that this is not just a "War for Oil"; it IS about Oil, but it is also about much more than that: control. "But as concepts of freedom take hold, the people will take their future into their own hands, no longer at the mercy of dictators and tribal warlords." Assuming that your Neocon pals are successful in Irak (far from certain), people will no longer be at the mercy of dictators or tribal warlords, true. But they'll be at the mercy of mulinational corporations (mostly US) and their corrupt and bought local oligarchs. Technocrats will be using words like 'economic miracle' to express (say) 10% growth and killer corporate profits while most Irakis will be starving; that has happened in other parts of the world (anyone remember the country of Bolivia in the 90's?). Quite a distorted concept of freedom you Neocons have... Next you write "The "laboratory" of Iraq is one of change in the mideast." Obviously; next, "...But it will also have benefits for the people of Iraq". Oh, really? Your powerful armies come with 'Shock & Awe' to invade a country that represented no threat to yours, and the Irakis are supposed to feel grateful? Say that to the 10,000 to 100,000 thousand Irakis that have died as a result of this ELECTIVE war; IMHO that approaches genocide. Not to say anything about the roughly 1,600 American grunts who have died for a LIE. It is true that, internally and among you Neocons the reasons for justifying a war in Irak went along something like "...we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region". This is the kind of distorted reasoning that one can find in the PNAC website, after all. But the US is suppossed to be a democracy, and the reasons above are NOT how the looming war in Irak was presented. The Bush regime lied/exaggerated/gave half-truths (with the complience of the corporate media, BTW) to scare the US public into accepting an ELECTIVE war! Isn't war a serious enough topic that all sides should have been presented into an open and honest discussion by all persons with a knowledgeable point of view? Or perhaps we are at a historical point where people in the US are truly moving away from democracy. Historical examples (Iran, Guatemala, Greece, much of South America during the 60's and 70's; the examples of Vietnam and Venezuela as reader 'willtsmith' pointed out; and yes, Irak under the monstruous Sadam Hussein) show how much the US cares about democracy. The truth is that US foreign policy has little to do with democracy, and much to do with control (of foreign goverments, sources of energy, etc.). Prior to Bush, the US was the reluctant Empire. The Bush regime, on the other hand and under the idelogical advice of the Neocons, is the new proud, planetary Imperial force (sounds like something out of Star Wars, but it is true). Welcome to the concept of "Pax Americana": the US goverment, in its infinte "Good and Wisdom" will unilaterally decide on the fate of people,

    8. Re:Let the Eagle soar by TGK · · Score: 1

      The left has argued to keep the options open. This is largely because the right has argued to close them off. I don't think anyone on the left is cheerleading abortion as a great and wonderfull experiance that every woman should have, but it's an option that I think we should keep on the table.

      Having a choice is fundamentaly a lot more multi-faceted than simply telling people "no"

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    9. Re:Let the Eagle soar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In closing, if your "care nothing about science" jab is intended to echo the SINGLE issue on which there is major contention

      That is not true. There are an array of environmental issues where Mr. Bush only really seems to care about the science corporations and right-wing think tanks pay for. All of the tax payer funded research from around the world, he seems to ignore. Besides generally tarring anyone with a PhD who disagrees with policy as part of some liberal elite.

    10. Re:Let the Eagle soar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have got to be kidding. Compare the numbers being spent on missile defence ($10 billion last year) with what is being spent on alternative energy. Heck, compare the corporate tax credit package which passed last summer ($136 billion) with any of the programs in this press relese. Compare any of the programs with the $8 billion MIA from the Iraqi Provisional Authority.

      Now which do you think is really in the short and long term interests of our country?

  82. This is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will set manned space exploration back, not forward.

    The money would be better spent on developing better ways to get into space and more effective propulsion technologies once there.

    We need intelligently thought out plans that will furher a sustained manned space presence. A Mars mission, at this point in time, is another horse and pony show, much like the ISS and the shuttle.

    Unfortunately I think a Mars manned mission will be the next step. The power of powerful congressmen looking for pork projects for thier districts and the short-sightedness of space enthusasists (such as the ones here on slashdot) will be in full support of a Mars mission, support that comes at the expense of real research and progress on manned space exploration.

  83. It's old politics... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    It isn't to get the spotlight off the ethics investigation - it is to get money into Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

    You have to remember DeLay is from Texas where all the aerospace companies are.

  84. space programs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government space programs are merely weapons programs disguised as happy fun things. NASA should be eliminated.

  85. Re:How is this possibly REALLY a priority these da by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If re-structuring Iraq into a friend proves to be beneficial to the US in the Long Run (tm), it might be better to think of this drain as an investment.

    hhahahhahah.

    Say that again in ten years, the US is not making friends in Iraq. Those big bases the US is building there won't last long in the current climate.

  86. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You obviously don't understand Slashdot. You see, Delay is a Republican. Any post that criticizes Republicans is automatically modded to be insightful. The child post to which you also refer was ambiguous but might be construed as being mildly defensive of Delay, in which case there is no chance in hell that it would possibly be given a positive mod.

    Even pro-Republican posts that are 100% on the mark are given "troll" or "offtopic" because the left-leaning majority on /. can't bear to have a differing opinion from their own. You should know by now that negative mods are only done for censorship purposes, not because of the actual content of the post.

    Anything anti-Bush, anti-Fox, and anti-Republican is immediately greeted with cheers by the intolerant /. mods. Anything pro-Bush, pro-Fox, or pro-Republican is immediately shot down with negative mods, even if it's in reality 100% informative or 100% insighful.

    Welcome to Slashdot - the geek arm of the Democratic National Committee.

    (Wait until you see how quickly this gets modded as "troll" or "flamebait" because I spoke the truth, thus proving my point! Mercy me that Ipost against the /. grain!!)

  87. Re:Haters: It takes a Bush to get us back into spa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. His "space exploration" platform is simply another distraction from all of his failures of foreign and domestic policy.

  88. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Mr.+Ghost · · Score: 1

    You are accurate of course, but sometimes it still amazes me how blatantly obvious it is.

  89. I hope this is true...for the sake of science by mbrother · · Score: 1

    NASA has cut funding to a number of space science programs this year, despite a budget increase, because of the Moon/Mars initiative. I hope there really will be sufficient funding in the future, because right now this space adventure (which I'm not against on its own) is being funding at the expense of fundamental science research.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  90. Politicians are typically corrupt by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Politicians are typically corrupt, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or other. However, it seems that DeLay has taken corrupt to new levels. (Obviously, this is a biased source, however, they do provide detailed information that can easily be contradicted. I do take it with a grain of salt, but what they mention meshes up with bits I've heard from mainstream media recently.)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Politicians are typically corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but what they mention meshes up with bits I've heard from mainstream media recently.

      Not really a credible source in the US. I spent several years as a photojournalist and decided to go into a more ethical career. Editors of the major metro publication almost always pushed the firm's editorial slant in story assignments (e.g. "go get me a story on the new pornography ordinance and show me how the bible thumpers are a bunch of anti free speech nuts") to story placement. Managing editors were just carrying out the political directive of the publisher, who was currying favor with the local party reps and associated interests. Gotta keep feeding the party good stories so access to good stories and political influence can be purchased.

      Anonymous sourcing has also become increasingly acceptable with zero editor diligence - after all, we can always put retractions on page 16 when the damage is done. The result has been an Eason Jorden de facto standard where writers just make up stuff on the fly. It was standard practice when I was there (ever read a story about something you know about and get surprised at all the errors? Now you know why!) - reporters get paid very poorly and are seriously overworked. They don't have time to make sure details are correct, and had better produce writing with the slant their editor wants or else start looking for another job.

      Regarding DeLay, his behavior is disgusting. Unfortunately nearly a dozen Democratic party Senators have engaged in worse behavior, as reported in their recent filings. But when one US party represents domestic business interests, and the other represents international business interests, unions and other special interest lobbys, don't be surprised if both behave in a manner predicted by the design of the system.

      And if you truly want to be objective, you need to figure that the US political system is the most transparent of them all. Doing business in Latin America? Bring plenty of cash with you. EU nations? Ditto. Africa? Cash and young girls. Asia? Cash and nice electronic gifts are expected.

      Politics is universally about what you're going to pay to get the favor you need. DeLay's misbehavior is mild compared to more established political patronage systems worldwide.

    2. Re:Politicians are typically corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we hear about Pelosi or any of the other Democrats pulling a lot of the same stunts? The media may not be outright fabricating stuff about DeLay, but they don't report when others do the same things....even worse. Check out the extent of Democratic involvement in both of the major scandals linked above...had you heard anything about them? Nope. It was 100% "DeLay sucks and must go because he does the same thing these Democrats do, which we'll ignore."

      I don't argue that DeLay isn't a bad person...but he doesn't seem significantly different from most of the other players in Washington, from both sides. Everyone else seems to get a pass for some reason. Odd.

    3. Re:Politicians are typically corrupt by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      "DeLay's misbehavior is mild compared to more established political patronage systems worldwide."

      But why would we care about Haiti or Zimbabwe? We live in is America, and DeLay's behavior is disgusting compared to American politicians. That's ultimately what affects us. New Yorkers don't excuse corruption in City Hall by saying "well, it's worse in Chicago."

    4. Re:Politicians are typically corrupt by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      Howdy Ben! I have to say that I find your comment(s) disturbng on a level not addressed here.

      " Politicians are typically corrupt, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or other."

      Have we as Americans become so accepting of a corrupt government as that? If we truely do believe that most politicians are corrupt, on any level, is it not time for a revamp of the system that they supposedly serve? Once corruption enters any system on such a widespread scale as you suggest, that system no longer serves the purpose to which it was created.

      I agree with your comments. I simply wanted to point out that the majority of us seem to accept these things as widely held truths, and yet we accept them as things we cannot change. That is a sad thing when the work that you created to serve you, returns your work with lies and corruption. Perhaps it is time to clean the slate and start again, for the growth we see now appears to be malignant to the core.

  91. Delayed Reaction by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Delay is just getting Congress to finance his getaway car.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  92. US does not have the most nukes by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    America wants to prevent other countries from having WMDs when America has more WMDs than any other country.

    Err.. hate to burst your buble bud. Russia still has more nukes than the USA. BBC LINK Grand total, Russia has more active nukes than we do and nearly double the total number of nukes we have when including stockpiles.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:US does not have the most nukes by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 1

      "Russia still has more nukes than the USA."

      I stand corrected. I guess if Russia has more nuclear weapons than America then it DOES make sense to invade Iraq.

    2. Re:US does not have the most nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why didn't you invade them instead of Iraq?

    3. Re:US does not have the most nukes by TGK · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but thanks to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, there's real debate in the nuclear engineering community as to wether or not the standard US nuke (name is escaping me ATM) even -=works=-.

      That said, after a certain point, the number of nuclear weapons doesn't matter. The Russians can have 10,000 or 100,000,000.... unless they can find, target, and kill our nuclear subs before they launch, the size of the arsonal doesn't prevent a 2nd strike... that's why nuclear parity is so stable.

      The risk then are people that have 5 or 6 nukes. They are in a "use it or loose it" situation -- game theory states that they, when pressed, should fire their weapons because the consequences of not firing them are the loss of their nuclear deterant and the ability of their antagonist to engage in unlimited nuclear warfare.

      Of course, this is all predicated on them not fighting with someone with a large nuclear arsonal in the first palce. Game theory also states that it's really really stupid to go to war with someone who can turn your whole country into a glass parking lot or a nice warm lake.

      Short and to the point -- systems with small nuclear powers are more unstable than those with big nuclear powers. If Israel and Iran both have a few dozen nukes, the Mid East is a bad place to invest. If they both have a few thousand and 2nd strike capability, the infrastructure isn't going anywhere soon.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    4. Re:US does not have the most nukes by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      The risk then are people that have 5 or 6 nukes. They are in a "use it or loose it" situation -- game theory states that they, when pressed, should fire their weapons because the consequences of not firing them are the loss of their nuclear deterant and the ability of their antagonist to engage in unlimited nuclear warfare.

      One of my roommates up at college had a saying he was fond of. "Fear not he who has 1,000 nukes. Fear he who has 1. For he is most likely to use it." Glad to meet someone else who understands that.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  93. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't be naieve enough to actually believe that he intends to come through with the promised money, do you? This is just an empty promise to buy some goodwill and head NASA in the wrong direction so they can turn around and justify killing it completely.

  94. Yeah, right. There's no money. by Animats · · Score: 1
    What with the deficits and tax cuts, this would require a tax increase. No way is that going to happen. Also, the statement that NASA received as much funding in the last 16 years as in the Apollo era is wrong. It's been observed before that NASA received about as much money in the 30-year post-Apollo era as it did during the Apollo era, and accomplished far less with it.

    NASA hasn't designed a new launch vehicle that works in forty years. And who are they going to get to design one? There aren't that many aircraft designers left. All the key people on the Apollo and Saturn V programs, and most of the top thousand people, had serious experience in experimental aircraft and rocket design. There's no pool of people like that any more.

    About 10-15 years from now, the Ambassador of the People's Republic of China will present the President of the United States with the flag that the Apollo 11 crew planted on the moon in 1969.

  95. There is zero money to be made from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least in the near future. Probably not for a hundred years. When we can travel to moon and ECONOMICALLY mine it for its resources, until then space travel will be only for exploration. That is good in its own right. But it will not be routine or profitable. I will not live to see the day when space travel (real space travel) by humans is routine. My son, maybe, when he is an old man.

  96. A Better Program by $criptah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I got a better program: let's spend billions of dollars in order to provider affordable education, clean up the environment and make sure that nobody is *really* left behind. Maybe then the rest of the world will look up to us again.

    1. Re:A Better Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - Instead of actually accomplishing something, lets make sure that everyone is completly educated, the enviroment is cleaner, and that nobody feels left out. Then the rest of the world will look at the U.S and snicker.

    2. Re:A Better Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Then the rest of the world will look at the U.S and snicker.

      Considering they 'laugh out loud' now, it sounds like an improvement, no?

    3. Re:A Better Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit to call this insitefull. Why does NASA always get this crap? What about the massive waste and mind boggling expense of national "defense" The American version being if we can't kill everyone on the planet 100 times over, we are not safe.

    4. Re:A Better Program by jolande · · Score: 1
      I got a better program: let's spend billions of dollars in order to provider affordable education, clean up the environment and make sure that nobody is *really* left behind. Maybe then the rest of the world will look up to us again.

      And try to feed everybody in the country too. Most choose not to realize it, but almost 10% of the country lives below the official poverty line (which is a very low estimate). So many people in this country are literally starving.
      As much as I love NASA and space exploration, I really can't comprehend how the richest country in the world are leaving so many people behind.
    5. Re:A Better Program by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      The typical "We need to fix our problems at home" response. Are you familiar with "wound licking"?

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    6. Re:A Better Program by don.g · · Score: 1

      How about vaguely decent free healthcare for all, too? All those other first-world countries seem to have it...

      (dons flame retardant suit, hides under rock)

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
  97. Go to the moon, do not pass go, do not collect 200 by part_of_you · · Score: 0

    Let's just go ahead and build the prison there. We can put the criminals on the moon, and build a resort on Mars. That way, when the rich folks go to Mars, they can pass the moon, and "moon" the convicts.

  98. Billions for the boondoggle, but not Voyager by narcolepticjim · · Score: 1

    So they can pony up countless billions for new contracts, but can't come up with $5 million per year to continue monitoring Voyager?

  99. It's 1969 all over again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "If we can put a man on the moon..." we should certainly be able to win a guerilla land war in a foreign land.


    Oh wait, we can't.

  100. That won't do anything by Mithrandir86 · · Score: 0
    Online petitions mean absolutely nothing. The real problem you can't determine actual identity. That aside, it's a very poorily worded petition. I wouldn't sign anything that contained hearsay like:

    Finally, a story goes that DeLay lit up a stogie in a restaurant, and a waiter told him it was a government building, where smoking was not permitted. DeLay reportedly retorted, "I am the government."

    Unfortunately, if you want to actually do something, go to Texas and start collecting signatures. Door-to-door, if necessary.

  101. Re:No more lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mo monies for da womens'

    Women and minorities means women occupy over 80% of the *privileged* population.

    1976 - 1996 there were 51,571 murders by their (ex)lovers
    20,311 were male
    31,260 were female

    A preliminary investigation of a soon to be released survey suggests things are not what they seem. It's base is 50,000 sexually active men and women in the US

    89% of men admit to being victims of domestic violence from women when the question was asked "Have you ever been struck out of anger by your domestic partner.
    60% of men say they've been on the receiving end of unwanted sexual stimulation (50% of that number has said that that stimulation has led to unprotected intercourse).
    See you all in a month or so.

    Women still kill more children at 4 to 1
    Women still make up the majority of sex crimes against children

    Come on boys, open your eyes. If a liberal government gets in before the party is willing to address it's *mistakes* we can expect a lot more of the same.

  102. Oooohhh, that makes sense... by tgd · · Score: 1

    Maybe someone should mention to Bush that we actually have been there before!

  103. 100% pure pork by NatteringNabob · · Score: 1

    While I would dearly love to send Tom DeLay on a one way, all expenses paid trip to Mars, the 'man on Mars' program is 100% pure pork. Let's face it, there are 27 electoral votes to be had in Florida, 34 in Texas, and 55 in CA, and 116 electoral votes gets you better than 1/3 of the way to being President and represents a significant chunk of the votes in the House as well. Anybody interested in science that compared the cost/benefit ratio of unmanned to manned space flight would figure out pretty quickly that the robots deliver much better bang for the buck than human astronauts, and it isn't even close. The robots don't need to eat, they don't need air, they can survive much greater ranges of temperature, and most importantly, you don't need to bring them back.

  104. What do you mean, "back to the moon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. I'm not convinced we've ever been there. And I don't mean because of that goofy video thing a year or two ago. I mean things like camera crosshairs partially *behind* things in moon photos. Things like different missions to different parts of the moon producing photographs with visually identifiable geographical features from other missions' photos.

    It'll be interesting if we ever get "back to the moon" and find there aint no footprints or american flags. Maybe that's why nasa wants to get "back" there first...

  105. Re:Oh, so now it's BAD to INCREASE the NASA budget by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I have a headache from all these screaming people. Life would be so much simpler if it was a dictatorship and I was the dictator.

  106. The heck with NASA... by Edward+Faulkner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... they make nothing but promises. Typical bureaucracy.

    Opening up real space exploration would be simple: make it legal for private companies to build nuclear thermal rockets.

    We're talking real space ships here. With that much power, you can afford to make them big, redundant, safe, and reusable. No more wimpy foam and composites - build it out of steel and have more engines than you need.

    --
    "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
    1. Re:The heck with NASA... by justins · · Score: 1
      ... they make nothing but promises. Typical bureaucracy.

      Yeah, seriously, what the fuck. It's not like they went to the Moon or anything.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    2. Re:The heck with NASA... by Edward+Faulkner · · Score: 1

      It's not like they went to the Moon or anything.

      Yeah, but they don't even have the capability anymore.

      The most basic measure of space capability comes down to energy: how much deltaV can you impart to a given mass? Every practical aspect of exploration depends on this.

      By this measure, NASA has regressed since the moon landings. They couldn't even go back today without starting from scratch.

      Yes, the robotic probes have been interesting. But none of these missions required any fundamental improvement in space transport per se. NASA was able to piggyback on the rapid advances in computers to build some cool robots. But the rockets aren't getting any better.

      --
      "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
  107. Short memories anyone? by 99luftballon · · Score: 1

    Bush senior promised this, then Bush junior and now DeLay. It's one of the best political promises to make - makes the politicians look good and then when the whole thing gets cancelled in a few years they don't care. Meanwhile space progress stalls and the planet gets poorer and poorer.

  108. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Remember that the people who eventually won the X-Prize spent much more than the sum of the prize on creating their vehicles. They were lead by commercial possibilities of the technology, the prize was just a nice icing.

  109. We may not have enough money to bring them back by herbicidal+maniac · · Score: 0

    Will they return.... one way tickets to mars. http://www.dangertheater.com/la.html/ The Lonely Astronauts

  110. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Texas just convicted his political organizaion's fundraiser for illegal fundraising for corporations, and covering up the evidence (as well as all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo to escape justice). That proves that either Delay worked for illegal fundraising, or that he runs and promotes a major fundraising organization, central to his career, without supervising it. Though the latter is obviously just a lie he'll tell in a last resort to escape justice, both are evil.

    How about when Delay coerced a fellow Republican to vote for the Medicare drug bill? The bill itself was a tissue of lies, deliberately underestimating the cost by hundreds of $billions, to miss a maximum Republicans set as a condition for backing it. This serious charge by the Republican leader was proven when even Delay's rigged ethics panel came down on him, a rarity in Congress.

    You want evil? He protected Marianas Islands sweatshops (and sex slavers) at the request of a briber^Wlobbyist, telling his corporate backers there to "Stand firm. Resist evil.". That's evil.

    He diverted funds from a children's charity to fund his parties at the Republican National Convention. Pretty evil.

    And he packed the ethics committee with dependents, to avoid charges that finally were too much for even his majority to suppress. Then purged members who wouldn't stand for the whitewash. Then tried to change the rules so they would no longer "require leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted" - once he was facing indictment. Evil.

    Why are you clinging to this bad guy? Does he bring home the bacon to you, from the pork he carves out of our taxes in Congress? Do you own a pharmaceutical company? Are you a congressmember on his payroll? Or are you just so "partisan" that when the Republican Majority Leader is proven guilty, all you care about is whether "Democrats are just as bad", though of course you have no proof of your codependent jealousy?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  111. Corrected Link by herbicidal+maniac · · Score: 0

    Updated Link http://www.dangertheater.com/la.html The Lonely Astronaut from Twisted Mojo

  112. If there was a ridiculous amount of money in space by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    If there was a ridiculous amount of money to be made in space, private corporations would have done it already.

    See, this is the "new" business model. Make your costs public (on the taxpayers) and privatize the profits (investors).

    I don't want to hear red-herring arguments for fuel for reactors that haven't been invented yet. Nor any nonsense about colonizing a sterile dead world when humans could survive pretty much any catastrophe just by digging deep well-stocked bunkers in the earth at fractions of the cost of Mars colonization.

    If you're concerned about pollution, support the refunding of superfund, not space exploration. Support mandatory mercury scrubbers in ALL coal fired power plants within the next 5 years (as the companies SHOULD have already implemented).

    Space exploration should be left to career professionals ... ROBOTS!!!!

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  113. Here's for the Death Star by tjstork · · Score: 1

    We should just build a Death Star, and if anyone attacks us, we'll blow up the earth.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Here's for the Death Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should just build a Death Star, and if anyone attacks us, we'll blow up the earth.

      No Death Star needed, just ICBM's (Which are space related). I take it you never heard of the Cold War? Part of the reason the worst never happened was because it could really have happened.

  114. Actually, we have heard about Pelosi by benhocking · · Score: 1

    However, even looking for the most partisan sites (against Pelosi), I fail to find anything that measures up to Tom DeLay's exceedingly long list of ethics violations. Granted, most politicians are corrupt. However, the reason that we hear so much about DeLay is that there is so much to hear. Additionally, of course, there is the idea of reinforcing a set of beliefs. Just like with Quayle/stupidity and Clinton/womanizing, once a famous person gets branded a certain way, the news media will be biased towards publishing stories that reinforce those biases.

    Speaking of Clinton, I am certain that DeLay is as innocent of these ethics charges as I was certain that Clinton was innocent of perjury.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  115. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Partisan fool. It is a matter of comical phrasing for an assumed intent, as assumed of Clinton when the second Kosovo War was entered into by the US with similar assumptions of intent at blocking personal investigations. In both cases it is tenuous at best as in each the political situations reached the point at which those decisions would be and have been made. The insightful moderation is the defacto karma beneficial funny moderation since karma stopped being accrued by funny moderations. You are a troll as Slashdot is not the subject of this thread and has no relation to its actual subject. Damned partisans act like foolish kids at every opportunity! China looks damned Utopian in comparison to the US partisan bickering and 9 terms of incompetent leaders. At least Mao accomplished the removal of the imperials. Damned bickering partisn fools.

  116. You haven't figured out the game yet ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Congress funds some fuzzy minded, expensive boondoggle (like Iraq). Than the administrations chronies come in to sweep up pork barrel contracts.

    This is what "Social Security Reform" is all about as well.

    If the space investment will pay for itself, I suggest we start floating "Mars Bonds" and let the free market decide whether the money is there or not. That is, they're not backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury. But rather backed by the credit of the Mars Exploration Company.

    Don't give me all the BS about "What if Columbus had turned around and went home" BS. You want to finance exploration and colonization. Do it the SAME way as those exploring the new world. They formed companies and got private investors!!!! All original 13 colonies were COMPANIES!!! They were there to MAKE A PROFIT!!!

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:You haven't figured out the game yet ... by TGK · · Score: 1

      I think the likelyhood of finding a carcinoginic addictive plant that can be dried, rolled up, and burned, thus generating smoke that we can suck into our lungs to give ourselves various terminal illnesses is fairly low -- at least on Mars.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  117. Distraction or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people feel that Bush's space exploration platform is just a smokescreen, but I'm less interested in discussing his motives than I am in results. It may be that, for all the wrong reasons, Bush still enables humanity to get a foothold on the Moon and Mars. That's good enough for me, and good enough for humanity.

    Whether or not Bush's motives are pure won't really matter if that bioplague occurs. Or runaway global warming, or any number of civilization crashing scenarios with various degrees of likelihood. In the end, the only question that matters will be, did we make it off Earth in time or not?

    I'd prefer it if more liberal politicians had a similar attitude towards the necessity of establishing a self-sustaining human presence off this planet, but I don't know any that do. Do you?

  118. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Fair enough. However, since it's widely accepted that investments in the Apollo program gave ridiculously high returns, then we'll need to also find a way to keep the money I willingly paid to our space program from coming back to you."

    Besides citing Tang, prove this statement.

    There was a LOT of money invested on the space program. What have we really gotten out of it?

    1. Re:Bullshit by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      There was a LOT of money invested on the space program. What have we really gotten out of it?

      As a minimum, the ability to track hurricanes reliably. Once upon a time, hurricanes surprised us - now, we know about them, and can plan for required evacuations/emergency responses days i advance. Of course, I live in down where hurricanes are a problem - people in Nevada might not think so.

      Then there's the whole global warming thing - it is unlikely that we'd have the sensors required to notice it with the space program.

      Commmunications satellites.

      It is arguable that computer technology got a big boost from the space program - the need for smaller and lighter helped a lot of things, but it is not clear whether PC's grew out of the space program or would have been here by now without it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Bullshit by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      The know-how to dock spacecraft

      Experience for safely landing objects on other places

      Refinement of near Earth orbital mechanics (better Jn term values, more precise perturbation observations, etc...)

      International co-operation for maintaining ~24/7 contact with spacecraft

      Moonrocks for analysis

      A sense of accomplishment and pride for most of the country (except, perhaps, people like you?)

      Defeat of communism in a game where we were considered the underdogs

      The Vehicle Assembly building down at Cape Canaveral

      Popularization of velcro

      Astronaut Ice Cream

      Large infusions of cash for programs researching strong, light materials (composites)

      Rapid development of semiconductor technology (ok, that's kind of bogus, who uses semiconductors anyway?!)

      And more.

      High returns can signify something more than numerous physical objects. Technological advancements, scientific advancements, improvements of morale, and the causation of wide-spread adoption of advancing technology should always be included in the cost-benefit analysis of the space program.

      The movement of money greases not only our economy, but advances science and technology as well...in other words, capital investment in a company may appear like a bad idea to stockholders in the short term as you're spending a lot of money and not generating any product. But without capital investment, growth would be difficult/impossible for any company. Money spent in any space program should be considered analogous to capital investment.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    3. Re:Bullshit by Triskele · · Score: 1
      Defeat of communism in a game where we were considered the underdogs

      Hah bloody hah. Now that's pure bullshit. The only people who thought the USA was the underdogs were the Americans - otherwise you wouldn't have put up with McCarthy and all that shit. And yet again you're proving yourselves to be complete tools for your tyrants.

      Shame cos you spoilt an otherwise reasonable argument.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    4. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, Americans were clearly the leaders of the space race from its beginning. It was Americans who sent the first satellite into orbit, the first animal, and later the first human. It was Americans who sent the first probe to the moon, it was American astronaut who performed the first EVA. It was NASA who launched the first space station. Right? Well, wrong. Every one of these things were done by USSR first.

      In fact you have only two "first" achievements - first docking on orbit, and the oh-so-celebrated first man on the moon. That's not so many compared to the USSR list. Especially considering that you got just lucky with moon landing - had the Russian Zond missions not ended in disasters they would have been there first.

      Oh, and by the way - you're perhaps thinking that at least you didn't kill as many astronauts as Russians. Well wrong. Congrats by the way on the pieces of junk you call "Space Shuttles". Russian reusable space vehicle - Buran - could both carry to, and return from an orbit a greater cargo than your "shuttle", had unmanned flight capacity (unlike your oh - so - great shuttle) - which means that you don't risk killing 7 astronauts while trying to put something into orbit. Too bad the USSR fell apart just after first test mission, and the project was abandoned - it would be a far better way to service ISS than shuttles.

      Okay, I'll finish here, because you've probably already inserted fingers into your ears, and started singing "Lalala, I don't hear you, we are, and always were superior!" at the top of your voice.

  119. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the charges are baseless, then why were his business associates indicted?

    I bet Web Hubble is wondering the same thing.

  120. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's the case where is your post verbatim as a response to the original response that criticized Delay in the first place? If you hate partisanship that much, I expect to see the same kind of slamming of the original anti-Delay post immediately. Somehow I doubt that I'll see it.

    But I do see plenty of Funny mods all over. Anyone who posts funny posts as insightful just because funny no longer gives karma should not have moderation privileges in the first place as it is clear that (s)he cannot responsibly dole out moderation.

  121. Not a question of "volume" ... by willtsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful


    It's not a question of "volume". It's a question of "value".

    Does harvesting raw materials on the moon (and or manufacturing) make economic sense. Just look how much it costs to get there and back, and you'll understand why this isn't feasible. All the materials we need are right here on earth.

    If the space elevator concept comes to fruition (doubtless from advaned in long stranded carbon nano-tubes) than orbital enterprises will become a lot cheaper. And even venturing outward to the moon would become cheaper. But I doubt you'll ever see any advantage from harvesting materials from the moon and carting them back to Earth.

    As far as Mars goes. Antarctica is a far more hospitable climate for colonization. Besides a few outposts (supported completely from the outside) no one has colonized Antarctica.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Not a question of "volume" ... by TGK · · Score: 1

      But if you want to do much of anything in space you have to have stuff to do it with (space is noteably lacking in stuff... in fact, it's pretty much empty space... hense the name). You can get that stuff from Earth, but Earth is big, heavy, and has people living on it who don't like to have really big stuff fall out of the sky on them.

      The Moon, in contrast, is smaller, lighter, and doesn't have anyone living on it. Thus, if stuff falls out of the Moon's sky, it's unlikely to land on anyone's house/car/boat/child/garden. Thus, if you need to get stuff into orbit and it can be produced on the moon - it's a hell of a lot cheeper to build it on Luna and ship it from there.

      Colonization has to do with positional advantage. Everyone thought it was easier to find gold in the Americas than it was in Europe, so they went to America. Unless there's suddenly a world ice shortage, there's no terribly compelling reason to go to Anarctica. The moon has a shallow gravity well and lots of stuff (rocks) on it -- that's a good enough reason to go there, provided we have any orbital industry of any significance.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  122. Credit isn't Funding, But Why Bicker? by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funding? Sure, why not? It's all funny-money anyway. As along as the Republican Party wants to do it, they can just do it, since the Democrats can be ignored in the now tyrannical winner-take-all system -- America's one-party state.

    This is the best part of being a dying civilization (as a Republic turned Empire that is now falling apart): you can pay for ANYTHING. All you have to do is whip out the "full faith and credit of the United States", and you can get billions for any stupid fucking thing you want. Why not? You'll never be able to actually honor your debt committments anyway, so flash the plastic and enjoy the good life.

    Why China's buyers of US bonds don't understand this, is just exasperating. It's not like they can invade the United States when the USA defaults on the mega-billions in bonds. Of course, what they CAN do is what Saudi Arabia did (which no one wants to talk about -- shh!): buy up the US enough to be considered an absentee landlord. The question is, for all this unsustainable high-living in America, will the elite tolerate being owned by the Chinese to the same extent that the Saudis own them?

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  123. Isn't that ironic ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... because WE are paying for Chinese space exploration every time we shop at Wal-Mart.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  124. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no need for the exact post. The comment of hatred of partisan fools only applies as the original poster made the joke that otherwise the content of the post made was in explanation of.

  125. What's the point of Space Exploration Anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    I mean, if it's for finding humans a place to live after we destroy earth ... what will earth look like then? A desert with a bad atmosphere? Hmm, that's what the moon and Mars look like. Maybe they should just spend that money on coming up with high-tech ways for humans to survive in the Mojavi Desert. I'm sure it's much cheaper!

  126. Scientific Bang for the Buck by srobert · · Score: 3, Informative

    Though I would like to see humans on the Moon or Mars, it seems to me that money spent for scientific investigation would uncover more knowledge per dollar spent by sending unmanned missions or using the funds closer to home.
    What they are doing is creating the appearance of supporting "science", rather than real science. The difference being that "science" is the action/adventure that the American public raised on science fiction imagines and science is the real pursuit of new knowledge.
    Still, perhaps if the "Buck Rogers" fans are satisfied with the expenditures, more money will become available to NASA for real research.

  127. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by clem9796 · · Score: 1

    "Anybody that powerful that wants to fully fund NASA is a great guy, in my book."

    Anybody that powerful that wants to fully fund NASA and actually does it is a great guy in my book.

    --
    IANALOOA
  128. Re:Programmers tend to notice lack of logic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many people in the U.S. who say they are pro-Republican when they are actually just pro-anger or are "religious" in an extremist obsessive-thinking manner.

    And you can't tell me that Kerry got as many votes as he did because of people believing in him. The Kerry vote was not a vote for Kerry. It was a vote against Bush. Don't you try to make it seem one sided! There is plenty of hate in the American voters to go around.

    For what it's worth, this evil Republican disagrees with the current Flamebait mod on your post.

  129. BULLSHIT!!!! by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Material fabs cost money. The push towards smaller computational devices was ECONOMIC!!!! Smaller means FASTER.

    It's also as simple as making digital calculators that could sit on your desk. That was already in the IBM business plan. They made business machines.

    No doubt the NASA money quickened the pace. But don't think that ANY commercial consumer product would be available without NASA. That's a load of BUNK!!!!

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  130. Space Travel is Overrated ... by malcomvetter · · Score: 0


    C'mon. Everyone knows space travel's main purpose is to find a suitable new place to live after humans turn Earth into a desolate wasteland with an unsustainable atmosphere.

    But, how would Earth be any different then than the moon or Mars? Tell me ... Have you noticed recently that the moon and Mars are desolate wastelands without a sustainable atmosphere?!?!

    I propose we spend the money on learning how to survive on our planet after those idiots destroy it with fossil fuels. Biosphere, desert survival trips. They can be high-tech without a fourth of the expense!

  131. Between nuclear powers ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Between nuclear powers, all bets are off.

    Both countries could annihalate the other. The precludes preventing access.

    If it DID come down to that (which it wouldn't because both governments are run by FASCISTS!!!!) we could simply explode a couple hundred "flack bombs" in orbit that would chew EVERY satellite to smithereens rendering orbit unusable.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  132. The triumph of liberalism ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    The triumph of liberalism is conveyed in it's purity when conservatives hide all their ugly hate filled philosiphies in liberal rhetoric.

    The neo-cons are about as interested in Iraqi Democracy as they were Vietnamese Democracy. Iraq is NOT a Democracy. You cannot have a Democratic election when the candidates are all SECRET!!!

    The Bush administation was not interested in Haitian Democracy when they kidnapped Jean-Betrand Aristede. They weren't interested in Democracy when they attempted a coup against Hugo Chavez. They certainly aren't interested in Democracy in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They most certainly aren't interested in Democratic reforms in the slave state of China where US executives are cleaning up by outsourcing the jobs of free laborers with rights to exploit Chinese troglodites.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:The triumph of liberalism ... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1
      The triumph of liberalism is conveyed in it's purity when conservatives hide all their ugly hate filled philosiphies in liberal rhetoric.

      Um, are you talking about me, here? Because if you are, I think you're failing to make whatever point you're attempting to make. I, any many, many others, believe exactly what I just said, just as I'm sure you no doubt believe what you say.

      The neo-cons are about as interested in Iraqi Democracy as they were Vietnamese Democracy.

      So, very much so, then? Because a lot of people were interested in Vietnamese democracy, even if as a corollary to fighting Communism and the former Soviet state.

      Iraq is NOT a Democracy.

      Iraq is on its way to being more democratic than not. And it's more democratic than it was pre-2003.

      You cannot have a Democratic election when the candidates are all SECRET!!!

      ...

      It's sad that you're actually serious.

      And to your last little rant, have you ever considered there are MORE reasons for things than just one? That the world is more complex than you're painting it? That it's either about democracy, or about profits (for example). Have you ever considered that sometimes our own interests, including economic ones, AND democratic reforms aren't mutually exclusive or even opposing goals? Have you further considered that in military operations, one must also be someone pragmatic and realistic, and realize that we can affect change in the mideast in nation-states like Iraq, but that "attacking"/invading China to affect such change might not be a very good fucking idea, on many levels?

      Wake up. The liberal ideal is not the only one and not necessarily the right one.

  133. Football stadiums and Fieldhouses ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Granted physical education is important, but schools are spending WAY too much money on athletics vs funding teachers and getting classroom sizes down.

    But then again, the local communities LIKE football. And they like cool athletic facilities. So does the school board serve the community or the kids???

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  134. Yea, right.... by xpeeblix · · Score: 1

    "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go."

    Pull this leg, it plays jingle bells...

  135. Liberal bias in the media ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Maybe you have a point ...

    So it's:
    Air America
    Democratic Underground
    The Nation

    vs ...
    Pretty much every tv outlet that is mostly owned by 5 giant media conglomerates run by Republicans.

    I suppose that you're a Christian being oppressed in a Christian run society as well ... huh???

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by Casualposter · · Score: 1

      If you think that the folks that run this society are christians, then your in pretty bad shape. There is nothing christian about the Iraq fiasco, except maybe some of the soldiers. These are evil people doing what evil people do best...lie, cheat, murder, and steal.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    2. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I thought that's what Christians did: lie cheat murder etc. Isn't Christianity just an anti-gay hate group? It seems like it from their actions.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    3. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true. Lie, hate, cheat IS the christian motto. Hell, its the motto for all 3 major religions.

    4. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Christianity, Islam, and ??? (Hinduism?)

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    5. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by javamann · · Score: 1

      Seems like a good definition of 'Christian' too me. Just because a person calls themselves 'Christians' does not mean they follow the teachings oc Christ.

    6. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The three currently dominant monotheistic religions are the missionary religions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Islam replaced what was a greater religion-Zoroastrianism. Hinduism despite its large numbers of adherent and partial adherents in India has failed to expand very far beyond that area and has since Islam's founding been gradually minimised as more converts move to Islam for its greater acceptance. Buddhism might also be a contender of missionary religion with great success as it has vast success through India, China, Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia. It however is not monotheistic and is not theistic except for the cultural inheritance from Hinduism that has been integrated into the Mahayana sect while it has also suffered substantial minimisation since the founding of Islam in Indonesia. Christianity and Judaism developments are convoluted, left to the interested.

    7. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. There are far, far more Hindus than Jews and they live in many more countries than just India.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    8. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not matter with respect to Hinduism's status as a minor non missionary religion as its appeal is not separate from the climates of the Indian subcontinent and cultures thriving in those climates except for the minor and historically insignificant outlying members who selected it as an effectively random choice and not due to inherited culture. In historical trends individuals and small groups without influence are irrelevant in a general overview. I meant to discuss general and principal trends, not be absolutely specific.

    9. Re:Liberal bias in the media ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vs ...
      Pretty much every tv outlet that is mostly owned by 5 giant media conglomerates run by Republicans.


      Yeah! Damn that Dan Rather and CBS News! Republican partisans, every last one of them!

      Oh yeah, and then there's that mouthpiece of the Bush administration, the New York Times. That Paul Krugman can't stop raving about how fucking cool he thinks George W. Bush is! That's okay, though. It's not like it's a widely-read paper or anything.

      I could go on, but honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel with you nut-jobs.

  136. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by smagruder · · Score: 1

    Well, we do know this for sure: The right, having total control of the federal government, still likes to whine and whine and whine about anyone who would dare criticize them about their policies, as if they are still not in power. Yes, the right is so maligned, but perhaps it's because they deserve this, especially after all the documented corruption, especially of Mr. DeLay?

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  137. Get some ritalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And try to stay focused.

    It's pathetic to see grown people so panicked about losing an argument that they have to bring in something else totally unrelated to change the subject.

    "Oh yeah?! Well.. well.. IRAQ!!"

    Feh

  138. Too bad man has never breached the Van Allen belts by JoeQuaker · · Score: 1

    Too bad human have never breached very far past the Earths Van Allen belts. It's quite humorous to read NASA re-telling the lies and saying things like "We can't go as fast as we did in the Apollo missions". I want the Russian landers data which lies on microfiche in a vault somewhere... The massive ammounts of data from our (unmanned) OWN MOON LANDER would be nice too. But I'm not holding my breath on that or NASA to start telling the truth.

  139. Boondoggle by smagruder · · Score: 1

    The right-wing supporters of these efforts know full well what they're doing. Just like how they support high public debt and deficits for the sake of destroying social programs, they want us to throw all the NASA funding at projects that will deflect and drain the funds from any efforts at finding terrestrial planets and extraterrestrial life. This is because they know what will happen once we discovered such life: their power base will go into utter disarray.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  140. Who is the "beast" ... by willtsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Starve the "beast" was supposed to be about SHRINKING the federal government. It was a battle cry of Republicans wanting to paint themselves with a Libertarian stripe.

    As we see, Republicans LIKE deficits, they LIKE out of control spending. They like pointless wars, and they like spending money without ANY accountability.

    So WHO is the BEAST??? Well, upper class taxes were cut. Therefore, the bulk of all these unfunded liabilities will be schewed toward the lower classes. The BEAST is the middle class. Like ALL fascists the beast are an empowered class of citizens with rights that could actually thwart their plans to own and control EVERYTHING!!!!

    The Republicans are at war with the US middle class. They have co-opted liberal rhetoric to lead people down their path of fascism and a 30s economy.

    They have the media in their hip pocket and their own propaganda channel that runs on every satellite and cable plug (Fox News). They are lying about EVERYTHING!!!!

    This space boondoggle is just another way to appropriate TONS of resources that will be gobbled up by administration chronies. The middle class will get stuck with the bill via the deficit. The super-rich will simply export their profits the the Cayman Islands and pay no taxes on it.

    Meanwhile, the IRS will continue their war against poor people inappropriately taking the Earned Income Tax Deduction while ignoring people with lawyers.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  141. Re:Oh, so now it's BAD to INCREASE the NASA budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's not discussion. The OP wasn't worried about finding a solution, he just wanted to slam the shit out of DeLay and NASA.

    There *is* a groupthink here, and it can't make up its fucking mind. It would rather bash Republicans than remain logically consistent.

  142. Voyager by siriuskase · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't forget about the Voyagers, I was in Jr High when they were launched so naturally, there is a special place in my heart for those things and their cargo of peace and love.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  143. "Flamebait" that is supported by 35 books? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Once again, moderators have used mod points to suppress discussion.

    How can a statement that is supported by 35 books from reputable publishers be "Flamebait".

    1. Re:"Flamebait" that is supported by 35 books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That post has been posted several times in exactly this form in other articles. It is a troll post with political lure. The object is to direct efforts otherwise to discussions with validity into it instead in attempts to damage Slashdot.

    2. Re:"Flamebait" that is supported by 35 books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that? An informative and insightful post modded down just because it was anti-Republican?

      Gee, looks like the cries of discrimination are nothing more than persecution complex.

    3. Re:"Flamebait" that is supported by 35 books? by ezeri · · Score: 1

      Just you wait, tomorow I'm going to publish *36* books that say the oposite. Haha, then we will see who is right.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    4. Re:"Flamebait" that is supported by 35 books? by abb3w · · Score: 1
      How can a statement that is supported by 35 books from reputable publishers be "Flamebait".

      The phrase "Re-money-cans" seems clearly Flamebait to me. (No, I'm not Repubican-- I usually vote Libertarian.) Additionally, while the basic points may be sound, your hyperbole is excessive.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    5. Re:"Flamebait" that is supported by 35 books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone is trying to tell you your government is corrupt, and you don't want to hear?

  144. Interesting priorities... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    On the one hand, Mr. Griffin announces that, due to budget constraints, a number of very important scientific missions are being delayed or, worse, possibly outright abandoned (including the supposed Hubble successor, the JWST).

    On the other hand, he announces funding for trips to the Moon and Mars, which, frankly, have dubious scientific value, will cost billions upon billions of dollars, will likely never get off the ground (due to ever-looming safety concerns), but will generate all kinds of lovely PR.

    Well, I guess we know where NASA's priorities now lie...

  145. The Manned Space Exloration Religion and Money by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
    These people (NASA, its suppliers and contractors, their lobbyists, and the politicians being lobbied) are pulling the wool over your eyes yet again. They are exploiting many people's belief that human space exploration is useful or desirable, that humans must be physically present at all times. This is a magical-religious belief. It has no basis in fact, and is monstrously expensive and wasteful. Ironically, its vastly greater cost as compared to robotic space missions actually drastically reduces the amount of exploration that can be done. Look at the successes of the Mars and Titan missions, to name just two examples of what can be accomplished without some bozo there to turn things on and off.

    The great expense of human space exploration is itself the goal, not the exploration. The object of the game is to continue to channel billions of dollars to the same old defense industries that prospered during the Cold War. They are a big lobby. They became used to a roiling river of government money that lasted two generations. They have not gone away, and they are not planning on giving up and joining the ranks of the Average Joe. They want that money, and they want it now.

    If exploiting the magical-religious inclinations of the general public is an efficient way to get their hands in the Federal till, then come to Papa. The astute reader will notice an underlying pattern being applied.

  146. Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Our subjects in Japan and Germany have never recovered from WW2. And those poor Afghanis. Like was so much better under the Taliban when there wasn't rampant kite flying, radio listening, and female school attendance.

    As to your 'they'll get us first' argument (substitute bogey-man of the moment, apparently China, for they), the extension of this to its logical conclusion is of course that to ensure US hegomony [sic] you must take over every other nation on Earth. Perhaps you think that would be a good idea if you had the resources; fortunately for the rest of us, you don't and never will.

    You're a bit confused about the strategy. We don't need to take over other nations. All we need to do is ensure that we have the capability to obliterate any potential threat. We've done an excellent job at this over the last 25 years, and looking forward it appears the current administration is committed maintaining this ability.

    You may not like it, but it's a dog eat dog world. Force, for the foreseeable future, is the ultimate trump card. That your nation is too weak to ensure its survival sucks for you. I just thank Buddha and L. Ron Hubbard that America was given to tools to defend itself and its allies.

    1. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you forgot to read the post to which you were replying.

      You're helping to drag America and the rest of the world into some bloody cesspool of attacks and counterattacks, fighting to "defend yourself" from the entire world that your xenophobic mind fears so much. You only regard freedom as some catchphrase that sounds nice, and works well in your propaganda, but has no place in the real world.

      On second thought, you probably did read the parent post on a superficial level. You are just huddling there in your corner, a scared and vicious animal. Fear can make otherwise good people do some pretty despicable things.

    2. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by glrotate · · Score: 1

      You're helping to drag America and the rest of the world into some bloody cesspool of attacks and counterattacks

      You must be referring to a different world than the one I live on. My planet is relatively peaceful at the moment when compared to the last few centuries.

      Is there a single ongoing hot war between two coutries anywhere on the Earth? The only major conflict is in the Middle East, which is just par for the course of the last 3000 years.

      Most of Asia, Europe, Africa, South and North America are abnormaly quiet.

      I'm sure it embitters you knowing that your country's continued existance depends on the benevolence of the US, but try not to let it warp your thinking.

    3. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My planet is relatively peaceful at the moment when compared to the last few centuries.

      And it would be even more peaceful if you weren't going around starting wars, performing assassinations, and installing new dictators to replace the ones you don't like.

      And you seem to be glossing over the other hypocrisy in your behavior.

      Do you really believe it's a good thing to lock people up without trials? Do you really buy the line that they can't have trials because they're "terrorists"?

      The whole point of trials is for a less-partial party to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. It doesn't matter if you accuse them of stealing bread, killing your hamster, or blowing up the solar system -- the mere accusation does not make them guilty at all. The fact that you go out of your way to prevent them from having fair trials only shows that your mouth is going in one direction and your actions are going the opposite way.

    4. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by glrotate · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe it's a good thing to lock people up without trials? Do you really buy the line that they can't have trials because they're "terrorists"?

      Would it be fantastic if they could be tried, convicted, and thrown in jail forever? Sure.

      Do you refuse to acknowledge that on a planet of 6,444,960,515 that there might be 300 who are violently hostile to the US, were captured or caught in combat, but about whom insufficient evidence exists to convict of a crime? It seems perfectly plausible to me.

      If the US let these people go, and one committed an act of terror against innocents, would you stand up to accept responsibility? Probably not since you won't even stand behind your comments.

      I don't see it as reasonable to believe that the US gov randomly picked up a few hundred people and are keeping them incarcerated for the heck of it.

      However if you are consumed with a pathological hate of the US you may be not be able to see things so clearly.

    5. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be fantastic if they could be tried, convicted, and thrown in jail forever? Sure.

      If they're guilty of such a crime? Yes. If they're innocent? I suppose you'd like them to rot in prison forever on the say-so of their secretive accusers, but I'd like to see them free if they're innocent. Unfortunately, no minimally objective determination of their guilt or innocence will be found when you refuse to give them trials.

      Do you refuse to acknowledge that on a planet of 6,444,960,515 that there might be 300 who are violently hostile to the US, were captured or caught in combat, but about whom insufficient evidence exists to convict of a crime? It seems perfectly plausible to me.

      In America, we have a word for someone about whom insufficient evidence exists to convict of a crime: innocent. You claim to be on the side of the US, but I sincerely doubt it from your arguments.

      If the US let these people go, and one committed an act of terror against innocents, would you stand up to accept responsibility?

      Are you saying we should lock up everybody in the world who so much as looks at us funny? If that's not what you're saying, I'd like to see you stand up and accept responsibility for letting them walk free when it's guaranteed a few will turn out to be murderers. Oh, wait, you weren't arguing rationally, nevermind.

      Probably not since you won't even stand behind your comments.

      If you won't argue your case on its own merits, don't mislead yourself as to its strength.

      I don't see it as reasonable to believe that the US gov randomly picked up a few hundred people and are keeping them incarcerated for the heck of it.

      If you don't see that as reasonable, perhaps you should study a little history. The past 40 years of American history will do, but a longer period will convince you beyond any doubt. When people in power are not required to justify their exercise of power, a certain percentage of them will abuse it. When nobody questions them, they sometimes go far off track believing either 1) their cause is righteous or 2) they can get away with it and profit personally.

      Do you find hard to believe that unethical people exist in government positions as well as in the general population? Or do you have such a worshipful view of them that you would never consider it? I'll say it again and hope it gets through: if there's a reason to imprison someone, prove it. If there's not a reason, let them go.

      If you choose any other option, you are not helping America, and furthermore, you are not really an American.

      However if you are consumed with a pathological hate of the US you may be not be able to see things so clearly.

      I love the US, but not the pseudo-America you seem to be supporting. America stands for liberty and justice for all. That's the America I support.

    6. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by glrotate · · Score: 1

      In America, we have a word for someone about whom insufficient evidence exists to convict of a crime: innocent.

      You seem to be confused. Someone about whom insufficient evidence exists to convict is simply not convicted. Innocence and guilt refer to responsibility for the alleged transgressions, NOT whether or not they have been convicted. This is a common misunderstanding. In our system conviction implies guilt, however lack of conviction does NOT imply innocence.

      Are you saying we should lock up everybody in the world who so much as looks at us funny?

      Argumentum ad logicam

      When people in power are not required to justify their exercise of power, a certain percentage of them will abuse it.

      In the United States the Administration is required to justify their exercise of power during the election. We had one. Bush won. The Administration is required to justify their exercise of power to Congress. Congress, recognizing a valid exercise of power, hasn't wasted the time to require them to do so.

      When nobody questions them

      Once again, what planet are you on? Bush is questioned in print, on TV, on radio, and every corner of the Internet on an hourly basis.

      What people of your mindset won't, or because of cognitive dissonance can't, understand is America wants these people locked up. They don't care if they weren't read their rights in Afghanistan. They don't care if they don't get a lawyer and a trial on Court TV. They don't want them to enjoy the same procedural and substantiative due process rights that citizens enjoy. They want them locked up and the key thrown away.

      I don't worship W. I do however support W's policy of keeping an extremely small number of terrorists locked up, and I understand Constitutional law sufficiently well to know what he is doing is perfectly legal.

      America stands for liberty and justice for all. That's the America I support.

      So you would let the terrorists in Guantanamo free? I suppose I should be glad you're in the minority.

    7. Re:Exactly, just look at Jap, Ger , and Afg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confused. Someone about whom insufficient evidence exists to convict is simply not convicted. Innocence and guilt refer to responsibility for the alleged transgressions, NOT whether or not they have been convicted. This is a common misunderstanding. In our system conviction implies guilt, however lack of conviction does NOT imply innocence.

      Lack of conviction implies innocence as far as the system is concerned. A person who is not convicted is supposed to be treated as an innocent person. It's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing with which you might have some passing familiarity if not particular friendship.

      Argumentum ad logicam

      Perhaps you didn't understand the analogy. You asked me to accept responsibility for potential future crimes of innocent (see definition above) people who are released. I asked you if you would accept the same responsibility to show you precisely what you were requesting.

      In the United States the Administration is required to justify their exercise of power during the election. We had one. Bush won. The Administration is required to justify their exercise of power to Congress. Congress, recognizing a valid exercise of power, hasn't wasted the time to require them to do so.

      Ah, so we have an elected dictatorship and you're happy with it? You believe that trials should be withheld from the accused at the whim of those elected, and we should all just shut up and be happy about it?

      Once again, what planet are you on? Bush is questioned in print, on TV, on radio, and every corner of the Internet on an hourly basis.

      I was specifically talking about you whose arguments show a willful disregard for any line of thought that does question your rulers' messages.

      What people of your mindset won't, or because of cognitive dissonance can't, understand is America wants these people locked up. They don't care if they weren't read their rights in Afghanistan. They don't care if they don't get a lawyer and a trial on Court TV. They don't want them to enjoy the same procedural and substantiative due process rights that citizens enjoy. They want them locked up and the key thrown away.

      I understand all too well that that's what people like you want. I find it pitiful and not a little disturbing that you think you're presenting "good American" views when the simple idea of denying some people trials strikes you as reasonable.

      You're the kind of person who does "want them locked up and the key thrown away" without any of "the same procedural and substantiative due process rights that citizens enjoy." Quite simply, you don't believe in due process for all people. That's pretty sick for someone claiming to be an American.

      One more thing on this subject: "America" doesn't want "these people" locked up. You and your faction do.

      I don't worship W. I do however support W's policy of keeping an extremely small number of terrorists locked up, and I understand Constitutional law sufficiently well to know what he is doing is perfectly legal.

      Well, you may claim to understand it that well, but in my understanding -- which by the same method I claim to exceed yours -- it is quite obviously not legal.

      But let us posit a world where it was legal for the US military to imprison non-Americans at their discretion and without oversight. Even in such a world, I would find it dishearteningly immoral for them to do it.

      So you would let the terrorists in Guantanamo free? I suppose I should be glad you're in the minority.

      Um, no. Maybe you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. I would give each of the accused held in Guantanamo Bay a fair trial, yes, with juries and evidence and all those things that are wonderfully anachronistic in your opinion, and I would then financially compensate those found innocent in their trials. That is what I'd do, and I sincerely hope your opinions don't constitute the majority opinion lest such ethical devolution overwhelm the rest of us.

  147. Why is he modded off-topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is right on target.

  148. The Bush clan didn't CARE about Saddam ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... when Saddam was gassing the Kurds.

    That was when Saddam was on the payroll. Saddam's (and Noriega's) fatal mistake was getting independent minded.

    The Bush Admin could give a rip less about Democracy in the Middle East. They probably care just about as much as they cared about Democracy in Vietnam or all the Socialist Democracies they overthrew and destabalized in Central and South America.

    They didn't care about Democracy in Haiti when they kidnapped the rightfully elected president and forced him into exile. They didn't care about Democracy when they backed a coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in return for him publicly blasting CAFTA and the World Bank.

    The only thing those creeps care about is getting their way. When it comes to foreign relations, it's all about setting up a puppet strongman that they can pay off and carting the resources off in boatloads without compensating the country. The new angle is to take over the water systems and public utilties than jack up all the rates so that they are barely useable.

    In America, we have fascists in our midst. And they have influenced policy for quite some time. Shrub himself is descended from a man who helped finance Hitler's war machine and Moussilini's rise to power (Prescott Bush). The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree.

    Till now, the American fascists have contained their activities to the brown people of the world. Now they're going after America itself. They are exporting our jobs overseas to strip the middle class of it's economic (ergo political) independence. They WANT us dependent on the new fascist China ruled by an authoritarian government.

    They WANT to destabilize the US dollar and our full faith and credit. They WANT the US Treasury to go broke so they can pull the same scheme on the US that they've played on countless countries across the world. We are "restructured" and the international corporations take over.

    THAT is what Bush and his Neo-cons care about. You are just a sheeple in his plan. You are a liberal, but you don't know it. You buy their liberal rhetoric hiding their evil, yet you've been systematically conditioned to hate the very mention of the word. To LIKE Bush you either have to be a cunning rat bastard, or a liberal. REAL conservatives don't like Bush. They're honest.

    Oh yeah, I KNOW Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And I don't like him either. Vietnam was WRONG!!!

    Bush I set up Saddam Hussein by giving tacit endorsement to his plans to re-acquire Kuwait.

    The Grenada "incident" was complete BS cooked up by the Reagan administration.

    Korea was a REAL conflict and a true multi-national effort to stop China from taking over the Korean peninsula.

    WWII was not started on a lie. We were attacked.

    In WWI Germany DID sink the Lusitania.

    Civil War hostilities WERE started with an assault by confederate forces on Federal Army installations.

    The Maine WAS sunk in a harbor by an explosion that was (at the time) indistinguishable from a mine. Modern investigations have shown that the powder magazine went up.

    The British DID start the war of 1812.

    So, not ALL presidents behave the same way.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:The Bush clan didn't CARE about Saddam ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter what you'd like to be true, the "Bush Clan" is not a hive mind or a sole entity. You can't point to something Bush 1 did and then claim inconsistencies in Bush 2's behaviour if said behaviour differs from Bush 1's.

      They aren't the same person. It's really sad that a grown person should have to be told that, but really.. wake up.

    2. Re:The Bush clan didn't CARE about Saddam ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are fairly ignorant-the poster is referring to the commanding role of Sr. in the CIA, his agreement and breech of agreement with Saddam prior to the invastion of Iraqi Kurds, the waging of war specifically by Jr. against Saddam for purpose of imperial ambitions according to the Downing street memo amidst ill-informed denials by McClellan before he was told fo the the content of the memo. Also are listed a number of events that cumulatively provide a general outline of the wars fought with proper justification and specific protestation against those conflicts recognized by that poster as unjustified that might be otherwise assumed included in that list or excluded from complaint; viz. efforts to install military junta governments in desperate effort to limit the successes of Communism, the Operation "Just Cause" that took out Noriega in 1989. The only evident flaw is that no clear distinction was made between the neofeudalist aspect, PNAC, and Bush Family. Generally though you are too damn ignorant to be worth discussing anything with; you are an absolute waste of resources.

    3. Re:The Bush clan didn't CARE about Saddam ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the ignorance of the other who has replied and to whom it was necessary to reply to clarify your message, you are not above it yourself. The use of liberal as an injective is a sign of your insincerity in simultaneously accepting and debunking a degree of the recent ultra-nationalist propaganda that shields the real motivations of the neofeudalists. It is exactly in this situation that persons of liberal persuasion are essential to act and write to educate those without time or inclination to stop their government from heading on a path to its own detriment. This is only possible once the basic prerequisites of food, etc. for those who would act have been satisfied and it is the liberal philosophy that alone can accomplish this without furthering the goals of the neofeudalists by providing it with support and recompense in the long-term rather than the short that would send the masses into destitute poverty on a scale that would otherwise ensure success to the horrendous efforts of the neofeudalists.

    4. Re:The Bush clan didn't CARE about Saddam ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor correction: invective; an error of proofreading.

  149. To the Moon, Alice! by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    I'm torn about the future of Space exploration. On the one hand, I've always been a strong proponent of it because it's always been that great symbol of American "can do attitude" that Kennedy so eloquently spoke of. On the other hand, Space exploration is very, very expensive with the results usually being less than stellar (no pun intended). But then again, I see Space in the same light as the first sea explorers: sure, it would be easy to just stay at home and tell everyone that there's a cliff at the edge of the horizon, but look how wrong we were. And we only found out what was beyond the horizon when we sank some money into it, made a few educated guesses, and just went for it.

    So, even though this may be a diversion away from Tom DeLay as some have suggested, I can over look it for now in the grander scope of getting a viable space program off the ground. Mars could hold much knowledge for us. And yes, if the Chinese and other countries are trying to get to the moon first, shouldn't we be the leaders in that arena? We should be leading the world (by example) not following it.

  150. Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
    "In my judgment, we can go to the moon. We can go to Mars. We can't do them quite as quickly as we did during Apollo, but we can do it."

    We never sent anyone to the moon. Michael Griffin has all but admitted the Apollo missions were a big hoax. Here's the science.

    I usually write-off the "moon landing was a hoax" crowd as nuts and crackpots. But lately I've realized, those nuts do not have to prove we did not go to the moon. The scientific method is never about proving something hasn't or can't be done. Quite the opposite, it's the other party that has the burden of proof to back up and assertions.

    Say you've got a cold fusion reactor giving off 10 times as much energy as it takes in? I don't have to prove you don't; it's your burden to prove it works--repeat your experiments, publish in a peer review journal so others can test your claims, etc. Say you've concocted a serum that cures any cancer with no side affects? I don't have to prove you haven't; it's your burden to run the clinical trials, document the treatment, etc.

    Say you've not only sent people to the moon but gotten them back alive? I don't have to prove you didn't; it's your burden of proof.

    Now think about it, when developing our new moon mission, not only do we have all the advances in technology in the last 30 years--huge advances in computers, sensors, materials, physics, all the biological data on how people react to extended time in space--but we have all the practical experience of the Apollo missions.

    If we've done nothing, if we've had no advancement in technology, worse case scenario would be it takes just as long to get to the moon now as it took to get to the moon then. Add in just the barest advantage of having done it before, and with the most meager goal of just repeating what has already been done, you'd at least have the blueprint of what worked last time.

    Then consider all the incredible developments in all those different areas of science and technology, and there is no farking way it takes longer to get to the moon in the 2000s than it did in the 1960s.

    If the head of Sony came out and said they can repeat the glory of the Atari 2600, but it would cost more and take longer, you'd rightly say, "bullshit." If the head of Ford came out and said they're coming out with a new Pinto, but it will cost more and take longer to design a car that good, you'd rightly say, "bullshit."

    Well, the head of NASA just came out and said they are going to try to reproduce technology they supposedly had 40 years ago, but it will cost more and take longer to develop. I say, "bullshit."

    1. Re:Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll.

    2. Re:Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parent said "moon landing was a hoax, here's the science" yet i fail to see any science in the argument, just a simple declaration that the burden of proof lies on the claim that something happened, not the claim that it didn't happen. this is a fallacy!!! the burden of proof lies on whichever opinion is largely considered to be false and unproven. therefore, since the vast majority beleive we did go to the moon, and all the evidence (which the parent thoughtfully neglected to even mention) corroberates the fact we did land, the burden of proof lands on those who claim that the moon landing was a hoax and the parent failed to meet this burden since they provide no reasoning or evidence pertinant to their claim

    3. Re:Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by speek · · Score: 1

      Wow, after reading that, I'm thinking there has probably never been a point made to you that didn't go over your head.

      I'm that includes this one too.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    4. Re:Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      the burden of proof lies on whichever opinion is largely considered to be false and unproven

      Science is not a popularity contest. Not to a start a flame war, but the example that comes to mind is evolution. Evolution is largely considered to be false and unproven. Those beliefs don't change scientific facts.

      My point is, in the realm of technological achievements, in how many cases can I say "I could do it 30 years ago, but can't do it now" and believed?

      Kennedy gave his speech on the challenge of putting a man on the moon in 1961. Man landing on the moon in 1969. If a round trip to moon was an 8 year endeavor from public declaration to goal in the 1960s, how could it take longer in the 2000s?

      If I told you I spent 8 years in the 1960s developing a car that got 200 miles per gallon of gas, but if you wanted that car now, it would take more time to redevelop, would you be skeptical? With all the advances in computing and engineering, on top of all my notes from the first time around, shouldn't it be a quicker job the second time around? Wouldn't you think, maybe my 60s technology wasn't as advanced as I claim?

      If I told you in I spent 8 years in the 1960s building the world's tallest skyscraper, but to build the same building now would take longer and cost more money, wouldn't you think something fishy was going on? Maybe increased cost could be inflation in material costs, but I'm not starting from scratch. I have all the preparations I did on the first building, plus any knowledge gained during construction, plus any advances in technology in the intervening 30 years.

      So here we have NASA saying, we sent people to the moon in the 60s. We did it multiple times. But to do it again will take longer. Am I the only one that suspects the folks at NASA (or at least the manned mission department) have spent the last 30 years huffing propane and burning their notes? Is the moon that much further away now than it was then? Did they learn nothing from the first trips to the moon that might aid in return trips?

      I do not think the moon landings were faked or a hoax. I do think there is something fishy going on here, and I don't see any one else addressing the issue. Cars in the 2000s are faster, safer, more fuel efficient than those of the 1960s. Cars in the 00s are build on technology advanced from that in the 60s. Airplanes are likewise advanced. Computers, materials, bioengineering, medicine, communications...can you think of any area of technology or engineering where there was a significant milestone reached in the 60s, but we subsequently trashed all the work done, started from scratch, and have not yet caught up to where we were then?

      NASA is further away from putting a man on the moon now than it was in 1961. In those terms, the moon landings in the 60s might as well have been a hoax.

    5. Re:Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I believe that this is mostly about pork, but I take a stab at why it may take longer now. First, we are starting from very different place. In the 60's we were riding a tide of intense development in missile technology. Making one powerful enough to get someone to the moon was more or less along the established development path. At this point in time, we are currently talking about scrapping our current launch system. And nobody want to go back to using big, simple rockets. So at this point we are talking designing a new launch system. Second, where we want to go is very different. They are not proposing simply sending someone to the moon to bounce around a pick up rocks. They want to try to stay up there. Any trip to Mars is going to take some time. So, if the starting points and the ending points are different, I don't know how valid it is trying to compare the two.

    6. Re:Big revelation!! Read the lines!! by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      You have missed the most important detail. In the 60's, America was a society of risk takers, and leaders. The apollo program was the epitamy of that society. People took risks, people died. There were investigations to correct problems, there wasn't a witch hunt, and the program went on.

      Today america is a society of risk adverse citizens, liberally interspersed with ambualance chasing lawyers. They are more concerned with 'chain of blame' than with 'achievements'.

      The Nasa of apollo days was made up of thousands of geeks with a passion to succeed, and a few astronauts with more guts than brains. The public loved it, the geeks gave them technology, and the astronauts gave them heros. The public gave money, the geeks spent that money to 'make it happen'. the astronauts were along for the ride, lots of great photo ops. This crowd built and launched onto a lunar trajectory 9 copies of the saturn+apollo lunar trajectory package. 8 of those vehicles performed the intended mission, and one blew up enroute, altho the crew did ultimately survive. the program was considered a resounding success with an 88% success rate on lunar missions.

      Today, the risk adverse society expects perfection, and will not tolerate a program that operates by exploding 12% of it's missions. Heck, the shuttle program is virtually shut down with a 2% failure rate. A program today is going to take a lot longer, and cost a lot more, because the public today is not willing to accept the kind of risks that were taken during the apollo program.

      With today's technology, all the money in the world is not going to buy a lunar program that has less than 2% chance of mission failure. Humanity just doesnt have the requisite technology. Unless american society re-evaluates the risk management process, and defines a reachable 'acceptable risk' for a lunar program, it's not going to happen, period, no matter how much money is tossed that way. The risk factors in space launches are not going to reduce until we figure out a way to climb out of this gravity well that doesn't include using high explosive chemical ingredients as the main component of a launch vehicle. Until that technological breakthru happens, folks are going to have to accept the risk, or, forget the concept. In the meantime, it's going to cost a lot more than it did in the 60's, and take a lot longer, in a vain attempt to build a 'safe' vehicle powered by some of the most explosive elements known to mankind. the end result will be a lot of pork, but, it wont be a vehicle that can complete a lunar trajectory at a risk level acceptable to american society today.

  151. Faux Christians ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... or as I like to call them "Barabans".

    They worship a false image of Christ that is cast out of war, conflict and dominance. They cannot reach salvation by their own definition because they have no faith in CHRIST. They only have faith in a false image that they project from their own id.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  152. i am sick and tired by Ravenrage · · Score: 1

    i am shocked that alot of the posts here are saying "why do we need manned space flight? just send robots we just want the data." look data is great, but the whole reason the we are attempting to leave earth(as a ppl) is to find a way to put humans on mars/moon/alpha centari we are looking for a place to send the overflow of our planet. earth can only hold so many people. so yes robots can do some of the work but there are a lot of things that robots simply not do right now

  153. So what? by house15 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd rather my daughter didn't have to hock wrapping paper and candy twice year to keep her school solvent.

    1. Re:So what? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      100 million dollars is not going to help schools in the US.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  154. A big DUH on pragmatism ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    The most pragmatic thing would have been to KEEP the sanctions going and keep Saddam in his box. Less Americans would have died (1500 and counting) and less IRAQIS would have died (100,000) and counting.

    Oh, I have no doubt that one has multiple motivations for ones actions. Especially when it comes to national policy. There are the motives you state, and your REAL motives.

    The REAL motives of the Iraq war was to acquire the Iraqi oil resources (it was the ONLY asset protected after the invasion), and to create permanent bases with which to frighten and intimidate Iraq's Arab neighbors.

    Hey, I was FOR the war when it started. I parted from my liberal colleagues because I believe that Saddam was a threat. I didn't believe ANYTHING Bush said. I believed COLIN POWELL. Jeesh, he sure spoiled his credibility with me.

    The only acceptable reason for risking American lives is SAVING American lives. You seem to think this little Iraq excursion is protecting Americans. I think you've been watching too much Fox News.

    There is NOTHING about the occupation of Iraq that will deter terrorist action. To the contrary. The Iraq invasion is only heightening anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. We have effectively EMPOWERED Osama Bin Laden by assuming the role of arch villian that he FALSELY painted the US as.

    The Bush administration is systematically undermining pro-American, pro-Democracy dissdidents in the Arab world. Iran was a country on the verge of liberal Democratic transformation from within UNTIL we invaded Iraq.

    This is not the idiot-savant underming his own efforts. This is PLANNED CHAOS!!! The plan is to stoke terrorist hatred and stoke US fear at home so that Republicans can keep claiming that they are "protecting" Americans from the menacing terrorist threat. The reality is that Republicans have little or nothing to strengthen domestic security. All they have done is spend money on boondoggle projects to enrich their chronies.

    Iraq is NOT on the verge of Democratic transformation. They are on the verge of CIVIL WAR!!! Like it or not, the Kurds, Sunnies and Shiites dislike each other. The Sunnis and Kurds want to rule the entire country. The Kurds just want their own country (and to expel Sunnis from Kirkuk). Until the US leaves, they will kill us instead of each other. Than once WE leave, they will commence to killing each other.

    If space aliens came down from the skies tommorow to impose a benevolent society based on peace, freedom and advanced technology the alleviated all disease and hunger, both you and I would probably be setting off roadside bombs to kick their asses off our planet. One identifies with their own group. And the leader and policy makers of that group (even bad ones) are preferable to leadership under foreign influence.

    As bad as it sounds, I would choose Bush over a benevolent, liberal, enlightened alien. And that's probably the same reason why Iraqis would choose Saddam over US occupation. And it's ESPECIALLY why they would choose civil war over US occupation. How many fighting couples really want the cops to knock on the door????

    The right is as deluded about Iraq as they were Vietnam. We're stuck in the same quagmire of policy. We cannot leave because we will lose face. We cannot win because the people don't want us there. So we will keep sending American GIs to suffer and die there with idealistic notions of "helping Iraqis" and the grim realization that most of the Iraqis resent the "help" so much that they want to kill Americans.

    They will come home angry bitter and confused. Some will blame the war planners. Others will echo the absurd rhetoric of conservatives that somehow a "liberal media" unduly affected and rallied a population without access to mass-media (limited access in Iraq's case).

    You believe your own delusions. In the end we will have another "Nixon Plan". We will forcefully withdraw military aid and let the domestic government collapse.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:A big DUH on pragmatism ... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      The most pragmatic thing would have been to KEEP the sanctions going and keep Saddam in his box. Less Americans would have died (1500 and counting) and less IRAQIS would have died (100,000) and counting.

      If you look at it in a vacuum, sure.

      But what about the approximately 600,000 Iraqis that died (according to various estimates by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) as a direct result of the sanctions process?

      Now that sanctions are over, we have a hope at a quite significant net preservation of Iraqi life when compared to the egregiously abused UNOFP and sanctions process.

      The REAL motives of the Iraq war was to acquire the Iraqi oil resources (it was the ONLY asset protected after the invasion)

      As I said, but I'd say not so much "acquire the Iraqi oil resources" as "ensure that we have continued and future access to the oil resources in the entire mideast region as part of a comprehensive plan to reshape the state of governments in the mideast, and prevent a possible Panislamic empire that would desire the destruction of the US and the West".

      and to create permanent bases with which to frighten and intimidate Iraq's Arab neighbors.

      All in the eyes of the beholder, I guess - YES, to frighten and intimidate Iraq's non-US- and non-West-friendly neighbors! We want them shaking in their boots, and for reformers and modernists to rise up from within and demand change, for example, in places like Tehran.

      Hey, I was FOR the war when it started. I parted from my liberal colleagues because I believe that Saddam was a threat. I didn't believe ANYTHING Bush said. I believed COLIN POWELL. Jeesh, he sure spoiled his credibility with me.

      Since hundreds upon hundreds of tons of Iraq's WMD are unaccounted for to this very day, it wasn't beyond reason to expect to find WMD in Iraq. But even if we did find large caches of WMD in Iraq, that wouldn't have changed the fact that WMD is not the primary reason we went to Iraq, though it was initially the *stated* one.

      The only acceptable reason for risking American lives is SAVING American lives. You seem to think this little Iraq excursion is protecting Americans.

      Actually, I didn't say either, but on this topic, you're falling into the trap I see many succumb to: once again, looking at it as a vacuum:

      1500 lives lost; that's 1500 lives that would have been saved had we not gone.

      It's not that simple or black and white, man! I find this type of black and white reasoning astounding coming from people who usually denigrate that type of reasoning. Iraq, and the overall mideast strategy, is NOT A VACUUM.

      MANY lives will be lost in this effort. The goal, however, is that, longer term (e.g., the next 50-75 years), many more lives will be spared, on BOTH sides.

      Now, I understand the pragmatism of saying "you can't predict the future, but we KNOW that those 1500 would still be alive had we not gone, and we further know we would not be directly responsible for XX0,000 Iraqi deaths". Certainly I agree with that.

      But what of the approximately 50,000-100,000 Iraqis/year who would have died due to inattention under sanctions (as had happened each one of the previous 12 years, according to liberal human rights watchdog organizations, meaning there was no reason to expect it to change)?

      What about the Americans or other Westerners - say, in Europe - that may die from attacks due to the unchecked growth and increasing aggression of Panislamic terrorists?

      I think you've been watching too much Fox News.

      http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm

      "Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these medi

    2. Re:A big DUH on pragmatism ... by changcho · · Score: 1

      'wiltsmith' has given you good, solid arguments and you keep sticking to your doublespeak, not to mention your abundant use of expletives. You're hopelessly stuck in an imaginary world (invented by the likes of PNAC, American Enterprise 'so-called' Institute, Cato 'so-called' Institute, etc.) that has little to do with reality. You and your kind will lose in Irak (not your lives, of course, because you are obviously not brave enough to pick up a gun and fight for your ideals), just as you have lost in Vietnam because of YOUR MYOPIA.

    3. Re:A big DUH on pragmatism ... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      1. I have also given "good, solid arguments", but because you disagree with it or its premise, you call it double speak;

      2. There are over 2500 words in my post. Three are uses of the word "fuck", for 0.001% of the words in the post. I fail to see how that is "abundant"; further, if you feel it significantly alters the meaning of my statements, simply remove the word and reread;

      3. It's amusing how you can denigrate conservative think tanks when you no doubt wouldn't do the same for liberal ones, and indeed probably consider them reputable;

      4. As I've stated numerous times in this and other posts, the LONG TERM goal is preservation of life, and if I didn't believe that was possible, supporting it in principle or in reality would be ridiculous;

      5. I volunteered to join the Air Force, served, and was honorably discharged, which you would have learned had you had given even marginal consideration (e.g., clicking on the web link in my profile or googling my name, etc.) to the question instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion;

      6. Your view (nor mine) isn't necessarily the right one just because you think it is; I'm merely trying to give a reasoned explanation for my position, which you write of as MYOPIA (ironic, since my main concern is the LONG TERM, while indeed yours seems the immediate present).

      Thanks for your insults, instead of a response to my points.

    4. Re:A big DUH on pragmatism ... by changcho · · Score: 1

      1. Yours are not "good, solid arguments". 2. Fair enough. 3. Conservative? Liberal? The issues at hand are too serious to be simply 'binarized' to those those two simple American labels. 4. So basically you're saying that in spite of the destructive policies your 'friends' are causing around the world, it's OK, because of the long-term conequences, as stated by NeoCon foreign policy? No need to answer that, thank you. 5. So, you're naive enough to believe the corporatist propaganda. There is good evidence that brainwashing is still occurring in China, etc., but your case shows that evidently brainwashing is quite prevalent in the USA too. A real American patriot would decry and oppose the policies you promote. 6. Your 'reasoned explanation for my position' is MYOPIC. And BTW, *precisely* because of this your goverment will probably repeat the same mistakes as in Vietnam 30 (!) years ago. Be objective; be honest with yourself. You are not wanted in Irak; get it? No, you don't, and this 'conversation' is a waste of time.

    5. Re:A big DUH on pragmatism ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The most pragmatic thing would have been to KEEP the sanctions going and keep Saddam in his box. Less Americans would have died (1500 and counting) and less IRAQIS would have died (100,000) and counting.


      Your an idiot. Do you not know of the UN oil-for-food program and how it lined the pockets of Saddam and his two thugs he called sons? For christ sake, he was a malevolent dictator that only cares about himself. In fact, that nutcase thinks he's the reincarnation of King Nebuchadnezzar II. But don't let the 200 mass graves get in the way of your rational thinking.


      Fact is, you MUST use military action in these situation were diplomacy fails. Paper pushing doesn't do jack shit to save lives in the long run against people like Saddam. And you can bet your ass that we WILL take care of N. Korea in a military fashion simply because the world knows of NKs track record of breaking treaties and diplomacy (and continue to do so). Last thing western civilization needs is for NK to be selling nukes on the black market to a bunch Islamic militants.


      The REAL motives of the Iraq war was to acquire the Iraqi oil resources (it was the ONLY asset protected after the invasion), and to create permanent bases with which to frighten and intimidate Iraq's Arab neighbors.


      Oil is a natural resource around the world and it's also the life blood for America and western civilization. So yes, ousting Saddam and setting into motion a democratic framework was indeed the goal for national and economic security. As for the bases; they are there to compleate an objective. We will not remove those bases until we purge Islamic militants (terrorists) from that region.


      You seem to think this little Iraq excursion is protecting Americans. I think you've been watching too much Fox News.


      Have I got a tinfoil hat to sell you for $19.95. Act now however, and I will give you not 1, not 2...but 3 tinfoil hats! Wear one yourself and share the others for your family and friends. It's a great bargin, so act now today!!!


      There is NOTHING about the occupation of Iraq that will deter terrorist action. To the contrary. The Iraq invasion is only heightening anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. We have effectively EMPOWERED Osama Bin Laden by assuming the role of arch villian that he FALSELY painted the US as.


      Good, I'm glad! Let those that are and would be Islamic zealots rise to the surface from the Arab population. There are only so many Arabs that can imbue such irrational hatred against us. Rather then letting a wound fester, it's best to pull the poison to the surface and eliminate it while we are able too now.


      The Bush administration is systematically undermining pro-American, pro-Democracy dissdidents in the Arab world. Iran was a country on the verge of liberal Democratic transformation from within UNTIL we invaded Iraq.


      Because of the Bush administration, we are seeing democracy take root all around the world. Just hear of the democratic crys from Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine and yes...still Iran. It was because of Bush and his democratic support that emboldened these people to step out in the open to voice their desire for democracy and freedom.


      The prople with you liberals is that you're all cowards. And because of such, you would rather appease the enemy then fight for what is right and pure in this world. Pefect examples are the war on terror today and Vietnam. Once you start or engage in warfare, you NEVER pull out. Doing so only emboldens your enemy with confidence. Now that North Korea really thinks it can win a war with America today (because of Vietnam), I fear that our only option against them is to drop a few nuclear bombs on them and wipe out the major cities. So congrats to liberalism for making things worse.


      Remember this. You can NEVER have peace without victory. However, you can have oppression and tyranny through appeasement (and often do). Freedom has it's price and that price is a tax on life on a few for the greater quality of life for everyone else. And I personally, would gladly give up my right to life in the pursuit of freedom for myself and neighbors.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  155. All for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just glad the politicians are supporting space developement.

    There are many things I don't like about Bush but I think this administration has the right space policy.

    I'm all for moon, mars and robotic exploration missions in conjunction with human exploration. Replacing shuttle is the correct decision and I like the pressure being put on advancing that replacement schedule.

    There is no doubt in my mind there is going to be a huge space race in the next decade. It would be a better peaceful expresion of national pride.

    1. Re:All for it by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      There are many things I don't like about Bush but I think this administration has the right space policy.

      The best part is, when the naysayers start going on about how "This is costing too much money" or "it's not worth it", the Bush administration has a way of getting around them:

      "We have received recent intelligence that there are terrorist cells on the moon and on Mars that are developing weapons of mass destruction. In addition, our information shows that the Martians have direct links to Osama Bin Laden, and may be in part responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The Martians hate freedom. They are jelous of the American way of life on Earth. We must give NASA funding so they can send weapons inspectors to Mars, and if the weapons inspectors don't find any WMDs, then we need to be ready to invade."

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  156. Relative costs ... by willtsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The earth has the machining and labor, and sustinence capacity to produce the advanced machinery necessary to make spacecraft.

    You would have to duplicate all those mechanisms on the Moon to get things going. Good luck funding that bill of goods when all those materials are available on Mother Earth.

    Every colonization model to date has been based on getting to raw materials. But it also has a component of sustainability. You could bring people off ships to work in the new world. They could farm the land or fish for sustinence.

    It could very well be feasible after spending multiple TRILLIONS of dollars to eventually get something self-sustaining. But ... WHY??? So we can live in boxes on a lifeless rock???

    I think the moonies will have to finance this one. I suggest the formation of extra-terrestrial exploration companies financed by private bonds (independent of the US Treasury). The Terrans would rather concentrate on upkeep and maintenance of the spaceship we already have ... EARTH!!!!

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  157. Re:Slashdot politics not so simple by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Even pro-Republican posts that are 100% on the mark are given "troll" or "offtopic" because the left-leaning majority on /. can't bear to have a differing opinion from their own.

    Please. If you actually read /. then you would know that while there is in fact an obvious liberal bias that does show up in the mods, it is quite common for a factually, intelligent post that goes against the /. "groupthink" to be modded up. That's not how the /. bias works.

    The way the bias shows up is in the posts that agree with /. "groupthink" that get modded up despite not being factual or intelligent. Hell, I think a lot of not-so-intelligent dissenting posts get modded up because there are mods who seek to actively counterbalance the perceived "groupthink" effect.

    I put "groupthink" in quotes because /. has a lot of users and claiming that all of them share a single perspective is pointless. Look at your post, and the GP post in question for that matter.

    None of which is meant to disprove the severe craptacularity of /. mods. I'm just saying your portrayal of the situation is wrong.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  158. I disagree by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "...robots deliver much better bang for the buck than human astronauts,..."

    I disagree.

    All the science that needs to be developed to keep humans alive will have secondary(or "spin off") sciences and business tied with them. The long term economic impacts will be pretty damn good.
    Robotic technology will be driven by market, space exploration can not be because of it's high cost and little or no, immediate profit.

    Also, in order to eventually get people off this rock, we will need to figure out and develop the technolgy to sustain them.

    The explorers should definatly have robots, and use them for gathering some data.
    I also think supplies shoud be sent a head of time and dropped onto the planet, as well as more com. sats.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  159. correction by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "Well you can be darn sure that president Bush is not going to let another country go to the Moon without the USA going first. "

    plesae tell me you ment to say:

    Well you can be darn sure that president Bush is not going to let another country go to the Moon without the USA going again.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  160. please remember that by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the moon landing drove interest in engineering and math.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  161. We had infrastructure... by raptor_87 · · Score: 1

    But we threw it away. We stopped building Saturn Vs and we let Skylab burn up.

  162. Why? There Is No Profit In Space. by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    The reason why the government and NASA have to be involved is because as far as anyone can see there is no profit in space. None. I've posted on this sort of crazy idea that the cures to space travel is privitatazation.

    All of the merials on the Moon or Mars can be harvested here. If the Moon was made of precious material I'd have no doubt that any number of the aerospace companies would be pushing cargo and passenger vehicles to faciliate exploitation of the raw materials. However, the Moon maybe an exotic location but for the most part made of unremarkable stuff. You can get there, pour a foundation, and then...what?

    I'm not against any private company going into space but I'm also a realist: there is no profit in space so therefore governments need to lead the way for now. If the Far East wasn't full of goods Europeans wanted there would have been no reason to sail westwards and find this place. Until we find the our "northwest passage of space" there is no reason for any private company on Earth to go to space.

  163. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA? What's the point? It's launched a few interesting science missions, but what has putting men in space / on the moon actually accomplished, apart from a lot of expensive dick-waving?

  164. And that is just the start. by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    Currently,. And these are just a few of the issues.

    What amazes me is how silent our press is, or willing to move on to the next story.
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  165. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

    I am trying to find some discussion of NASA and not Delay on this page- Anyhow- This seems to coincide with the announcement that the AF wants to put more weapons in space. Note that NASA is chartered under the Dept. of Defense, not as a civilian science fair.
    Not to sound cynical again, but I won't be excited until we are on our way to Mars or the Moon. The gov't promised something? WooHooo! When the promise comes true (if) I will be excited.
    What I am excited about is the possibility of a moonbase, mostly for study of the galaxy/universe from an astronomy perspective- A lot of observation needs to be done from above the Earth's atmosphere (hence the Hubble) so this could be really cool to have manned observation posts on the moon.
    (As long as there is a treaty to make sure that no one puts a giant billboard on the moon.... but thats another story.
    If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

    --
    And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
  166. Re:Haters: It takes a Bush to get us back into spa by MCZapf · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, if we know we have a 'backup' on the moon or Mars, we might feel we can be more careless with planet Earth. Be careful what you wish for.

  167. There was a movie 'bout that but I can't RECALL by crovira · · Score: 1

    the name TOTALly.

    Maybe I could hire somebody who can 'REMEMBER IT FOR ME WHOLESALE.'

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  168. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rock on, Doc. Well said.

  169. Prize Size by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    "Peter Diamandis, originator of the Ansari X-Prize is now claiming private companies may beat NASA back to the Moon: "In the next five to eight years we will have the first private orbital flights occurring. When you're in orbit you are two-thirds of the way to anywhere. I predict that within about three years of private human orbital flights...you'll have the first private teams of people stockpiling fuel on orbit and making a bee-line for the Moon." If Diamandis's math is correct and Bigelow's $50M America's Space Prize is sufficient for orbit, NASA could set up an "Apollo Prize" for a lot less money than they'd spend themselves to return to the moon. Indeed, someone like Paul Allen could afford to endow such a prize if NASA gets too bogged down with funding cycle politics again."

    1. Re:Prize Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really doubt the US government can get to the moon again before the Chinese _or_ a private company. Frankly with the looming issues like social security and the deficit situation in the US, I'd be _real_ surprised if funding commitments made now really last.

  170. Cost of access to space... by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    It wasn't until the X-Prize that you got the sort of private capital and diversity pursuing launch technologies that you had during the late 20s and early 30s pursuing aviation technologies.

    For the last several decades the paradigm has been "Have government pick winners and hope for the best." The result has been no progress.

  171. WTF is he going to outsource there? by crovira · · Score: 1

    There's no labour (except for an occasional bunch of totally dependent astronauts,) and there's absolutely no markets (except for an occasional bunch of totally dependent astronauts.)

    There are also no advantage of resources. There is nothing up there that we can't find here.

    Why the heck do we want to go?

    Because it there...

    But don't try to justify it. (Accountants of the soul need not apply.)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  172. Promises of future funding are impossible to make by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    No one, no president, no congresscritter, can make a promise to fund anything beyond their term in office, if that long.

    The U.S. has a government that is structurally incapable of long term planning. We have scheduled revolutions every 2, 4, and 6 years.

    We are also so bloody broke and in hock thanks to the tax cuts that discretionary spending for the next twenty years is pretty much cleaned out - and that not unintentionally. Some neocon thinker said it best when he said he wanted a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub. Spending and borrowing a few trillion, and scheduling future tax cuts to phase in for the rest of the decade, is going to put us on a military-only diet unless we want to reinstate the proper taxation levels, plus a bit more to pay off the hangover from the 2000's.

    NASA can fund all the research it wants. It's just large sums of money being transfered to major corporate interests. But the will, the money, the vision necessary to figure out a plan and stick to it will not materialize in the next decades.

  173. Hatch Act by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    When the Hatch Act was passed in response to rampant New Deal corruption, the kind of government contracting that exists now did not exist -- or they would have been included. But then if they had existed then the US would have lost WW II.

  174. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go go gadget guilt-by-association

  175. Wrong, and on so many levels, too! by onemorechip · · Score: 1

    It's not and never was about either. It's about reforming the Middle East by eliminating fundamentalist Islam as a viable worldview

    1. If that is in fact the goal then it wouldn't follow that overthrowing a secular government and a non-fundamentalist leader would be a step towards the goal.

    2. The rise in militancy is good evidence that the strategy for meeting this alleged goal is not working and in fact moving things in the wrong direction.

    3. If there really are people who hold this view, then I hope they also want to reform the West by eliminating fundamentalist Christicanity as a viable worldview, because if they don't, then they are hypocrites. No, wait, seeing how successful thier current "reform" has been, I don't want them to try the same to us here. But I can't accept their viewpoint if it is inconsistent.

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    1. Re:Wrong, and on so many levels, too! by bnenning · · Score: 1

      If that is in fact the goal then it wouldn't follow that overthrowing a secular government and a non-fundamentalist leader would be a step towards the goal.

      Iraq wasn't an ideal choice, but it was the only available one. The article I linked notes this; Iraq was the only nation that was actively hostile towards us (as opposed to the covert hostility of other nations who support terrorist groups), and geographically it's an excellent location to exert influence on others.

      The rise in militancy is good evidence that the strategy for meeting this alleged goal is not working and in fact moving things in the wrong direction.

      On the other hand, the elections are evidence that it is working, as are events in Libya and Lebanon. It's still too early to tell.

      I hope they also want to reform the West by eliminating fundamentalist Christicanity as a viable worldview

      Fundamentalist Christianity *has* been eliminated as a viable worldview. That doesn't mean there are no Christians, it means there is no serious support for a worldwide Christian theocracy. The worst the religious right does here is delay gay marriage for a few years and make themselves look like idiots by putting stickers on biology books. Meanwhile in the Middle East imams on government-run TV stations call for extermination of the Jews and a global Caliphate. The Western world had an Enlightenment; the Islamic world needs the same. Not (just) for humanitarian reasons, but because we can't tolerate millions of people with 8th century morality running around with 21st century weapons.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:Wrong, and on so many levels, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been fooled. The elections are nothing. In Iraq for instance the party that would have had majority but for the manipulations and revision at the final moment was given just slightly less than majority in the assembly. Also, they had elections before for a candidate that was not imposed by a foreign power and backed by that foreign power's military capacity, his name was Saddam and he received almost 100% of the votes by mechanisms that are rising again in the manipulation of the results to a less obvious degree to regulate the rise of the populace of Iraq to actually regain control of their nation from that foreign power. Afghanistan has deteriorated since the exposure of the mistreatment of the Koran by US forces and the completion of the Caspian sea oil pipeline. It is your own bigotry that prevents you from realising that the Islamic world is more advanced culturally than the western world but has recently been held back by a few as are the few gaining power in the western world now. Also, recall that a series of violent and devastating wars have been fought in the region using modern weapons since the were first developed.

    3. Re:Wrong, and on so many levels, too! by onemorechip · · Score: 1
      Iraq wasn't an ideal choice, but it was the only available one. The article I linked notes this; Iraq was the only nation that was actively hostile towards us (as opposed to the covert hostility of other nations who support terrorist groups), and geographically it's an excellent location to exert influence on others.

      Not only was it not an ideal choice, it was a counterproductive one. In 2002 those of us who gave this any serious thought predicted that invading that country would be destabilizing. And instability makes a perfect breeding ground for fundamentalism. An analogy to your statement would be a doctor saying "Tequila isn't the ideal medicine for your hangover, but it's the only available one".

      As far as being "actively hostile", what were they doing? Planning an invasion of the U.S.? As Colin Powell said in February of 2001, "frankly they [sanctions] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." This explains why "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" instead of the other way around.

      On the other hand, the elections are evidence that it is working, as are events in Libya and Lebanon. It's still too early to tell.

      Democracy != Elections. Democracy means fair access to government. Iraq is a long way from that. Democracy *could* help make fundamentalism of all kinds less viable (though there's no guarantee of that), but elections by themselves have nothing to do with that.

      Fundamentalist Christianity *has* been eliminated as a viable worldview.

      It has merely been relabeled as "intelligent design" and "culture of life". True, it isn't viable in the sense of "logically defensible", but that hasn't stopped many Americans from calling for certain theocratic views to be imposed on public policy.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    4. Re:Wrong, and on so many levels, too! by Aumaden · · Score: 1
      Also, they had elections before for a candidate that was not imposed by a foreign power and backed by that foreign power's military capacity, his name was Saddam and he received almost 100% of the votes...

      Presumably, you are refering to this election.

  176. Put Berman & Braga in charge of NASA! by Prototerm · · Score: 1

    That way, we can cancel the whole space program in 5 years or so, and get back to spending taxpayer money on the really important pork barrel projects.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  177. Men are from Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    politicians are from Uranus

  178. Perhaps not on any level by benhocking · · Score: 1

    I think corruption tends to increase proportional to the level of government. For example, I'm sure you will find many honest politicians at the local level. Obviously there are also several dishonest politicians at the local level, and perhaps the worst kind of corruption can happen at the local level, but I think you will find mostly honest politicians at the local level. I am mainly extrapolating from my own experiences, as well as using "common sense", so I could be totally wrong.

    At the state level, corruption gets worse. And I suspect the worst corruption happens at the federal level. The one anomalous point in my (imaginary) data is Jimmy Carter. The cynic in me thinks he is more corrupt than he seems, merely because he managed to become president, but the optimist in me thinks that he genuinely is an exception. I hesitate to mention which part of me is stronger.

    However, I don't believe this is at all a new phenomenom. In fact, I think that the information age might eventually lead us to a point where we hold our leaders more accountable. There's that optimist again. Hopefully, he will be right and the cynic will be wrong.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Perhaps not on any level by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      agreed, and agreed. Perhaps technology will close the distance that many politicians percieve that they have from the public when they reach those higher levels of office.

      In response to your local/state/federal politicians corrtuption bias; Perhaps those that have reached that higher level have only learned the 'game' from playing it well on the lower levels of government. It is but conjecture on my part, as I have not participated in those activities myself, but it would seem to be a common sense answer. It doesn't take much faith to believe one learns from past experience.

      I do however feel that we as Americans tend to confuse 'mistakes' with 'corruption' though (I speak out of the context of the article this is in response to). I would sooner trust a man who has tried, failed and learned from that failure than from the person who has never tried or failed. We learn from failure. A success without failure along the way, while sweet, can be tenuous. That success is not fortified against the possible pitfalls that would have been learned as failures were dealt with along the way. A measure of a man is not if he succeeded in the task, for we can all succeed with enough effort, but how much we learned along the way. Corruption is one thing, the purposeful failure with that intent. In politics we seem to apply the same consequences to those who failed as we do to those that excercised corruption. We tend not to elect them again. It is the one who failed and learned that we had ought to place in the the position of authority, not the one who has not even tried.

  179. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

    Only here on /.
    If the senator in question was a corrupt democrat then I am sure your post would have been modded "offtopic", but alas here on /. if your offtopic post is left leaning then it get modded "Informative".
    What does your post have to do with the topic?

    --
    Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
  180. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by KaiLoi · · Score: 1

    What _you_ are forgetting is that /. is not 100% US based. I would be interested to see what percentage of /. are in the US.

    Some of us mod up anti-Bush, anti-Republican posts not because we're democrats (not having any of those down here in New Zealand) but rather becasue Bush scares the hell out of the rest of the world.

    You don't have to be Democrat to hate Bush

    You're accusing the community of /. of being Democratic-centric while at the same time being totally blinded by your America-centrism.

  181. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody that powerful that wants to fully fund NASA is a great guy, in my book.

    I missed the part where he said he wanted to fully fund NASA. I only see that he wants to fund the President's two pet projects, while continuing to gut many the programs we have been investing in for years/decades.

  182. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Anonymous apologist Coward, are you claiming that Delay is merely associated with his guilty Treasurer? Fundraising in exchange for actual published promises to represent their specific corporate interests in Congress, which he then did? Are you also going to claim Delay is merely associated> with the Republican majority that he also directs? What kind of a joke are you? A Delay staffer, scared you'll lose your job when your boss gets the perpwalk?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  183. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    How do you know this would happen with a Democrat? Why even bring it up? Is your sense of ethics partisan? That's not "ethics", it's "moral relativism" - supposedly the bane of Republicans. Where's your outrage at Delay "giving Republicans a bad name", or "hijacking the Republican Party for his personal benefit"? Of course such outrage is a joke, because politics for you consists of trying to find a way to attack Democrats any possible way, even making up desperate examples completely from your selfserving fantasies. Give me the example, or face yourself in the mirror as a hypocrite.

    I mean, breaking the law, ripping of kids' charity, championing sex slavery and sweatshops (which compete with American companies) - none of that gets you mad at Delay. Instead you're outraged that there isn't a Democrat being outed as such a corrupt, evil bastard. That's not "left leaning", it's leaning against Delay, the corrupt, evil Majority Leader. If you want to own corruption and evil as essentially Republican, I can only congratulate you on your sense of proportion. Then I'd have to remind you that corruption isn't partisan, but does attach more to those with more power. And wait for Democrats to get some, and an actual example to come around. Until then, you'll have to be satisfied with just the real thing: Tom Delay.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  184. Money better spent... by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    IANAScientist but I think that money could be better spent by funding pure science research programs, like particle physics (supercollider), materials science & nano-tech, nuclear fusion and other energy research, etc. Our real problem with space is that it's just too darn big, and anything beyond near earth orbit is too far away to make it economically feasible for our current means of transport. We need to shrink the universe a bit first by developing more powerful and efficient propulsion, and more advanced manufacturing techniques and materials. If we want sustainable expansion into space and development of it, straining to send a primitive bucket of bolts and a couple of astronauts to Mars isn't going to do as much for us as more funding of advanced research will.

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  185. Check's in the mail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, really.

  186. Who's paying for this? by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

    A country with a $500 billion dollar federal budget deficit and a $700 billion dollar trade deficit has no damn business pulling stunts like a trip to Mars. That should be left to solvent countries like China. What has been promised is inflation. Thanks a lot.

  187. Slashdot politics by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Welcome to Slashdot - the geek arm of the Democratic National Committee.

    Slashdot seems to be closer to some Libertarian flavors than any of the Democrat varieties. The anti-Bush and anti-Fox I will grant you. (I personally object more to the phonetic than the political tone of FOX-N, myself; they're too loud.) I'd also say the overall Slashdot bias is more theocratiphobic, with a mix of opposition to big business (although in favor of small to mid-sized) and fiscal conservatism added for flavor. There is nowhere near enough Union support and way too much fondness for Big Frigging Guns among Slashdot readers to fully suck up to the Democrats.

    Wait until you see how quickly this gets modded as "troll" or "flamebait" because I spoke the truth, thus proving my point!

    It's about six hours later. 60% interesting, 20% Troll, 20% Insightful. I'd say it looks like your persecution complex, while not completely unfounded, is an overreaction... like many accusations of liberal media bias.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nowhere near enough Union support and way too much fondness for Big Frigging Guns among Slashdot readers to fully suck up to the Democrats.

      Perhaps in fairness, I should not have necessarily used "Republican" and should have used "conservative" as there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans as well. Unfortunately, in this damned two-party system (which even Jefferson said is a bad thing) it's difficult to separate conservative from Republican and liberal from Democrat.

      It's about six hours later. 60% interesting, 20% Troll, 20% Insightful. I'd say it looks like your persecution complex, while not completely unfounded, is an overreaction... like many accusations of liberal media bias.

      ...which - I confess - I find absolutely shocking. There is also the possibility that mods didn't want to give me the satisfaction of proving my point as I predicted.

  188. You forgot... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    "We're gonna smoke 'em out. Smoke 'em outta their caves."

  189. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Though the latter is obviously just a lie he'll tell in a last resort to escape justice, both are evil.

    I'd disagree. The latter is merely criminal stupidity, and evidence of unfitness for public office.

    Mind you, most of the other charges seem to qualify as evil. But let's be precise while whipping up our lynch mobs, shall we? =)

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  190. Hopefully... by linkinp4rk410 · · Score: 0

    We can meet the Mooninites this time and rescue Carl.

  191. How about the return trip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice he didn't mention anything about funding to get our people off the moon...

  192. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I think that dereliction of duty in top leadership is evil, when the ignored acts are evil. And I think that illegally raising money from coroprations, then accepting their agendas - which is what TRMPAC did - is evil.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  193. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by abb3w · · Score: 1
    I think that dereliction of duty in top leadership is evil, when the ignored acts are evil.

    Ah, but we were originally stipulating his claim might be that he ran a fundraising group without proper supervision. Continuing the error after it has been pointed out would indeed be evil in my book, too. Now, I'm not familiar with the details of the case, but if he didn't at least make heads roll for this when the problems were pointed out, then not only is he evil, but even Machiavelli would give him the boot for stupidity.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  194. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Even pro-Republican posts that are 100% on the mark"

    i think you got an oxymoron there as such a thing cannot exsist

  195. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I think we feel the same way about this clown Delay. I'm not sure we disagree about the "Reagan defense". I think that running an organization, and ignoring (thereby having no knowledge of) its evil acts, is evil. Because powerful organizations with power vacuums can be expected to do evil. Of course, once he knew they'd done evil (illegal corporate campaign bribery for corporate Congressional agenda), Delay was evil for defending them. But I think he was evil for ignoring them. TRMPAC isn't a gardening club; it set Delay's legislative agenda, and funded his political cohorts. That's like swinging a firing machine gun around downtown, with your eyes shut. Not as evil as training it onto the courthouse offices, but still evil.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  196. Chunks on the market? by Dhrakar · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you start dropping chunks of the asteroid on the market from orbit, I think that you will have bigger problems than just lost profits :-)

  197. Re:Calm Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK. Read carefuly. The guy you replied to, did not say that the Russians were incapable. He did not say that they were worse in space tech. He said that the US had a lot more resources to win the cold war. BTW, communists destroyed Russia moraly and WW2 brought a lot of physical destruction. The US expirienced none of that. The odds were heavily in US favour. With the communism fading away and with capable people like Putin, I exepect Russia to find a new life and place in the world. God help them do it, and do it fast!

  198. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so you basically just confessed the exact point that was made! "We fear Bush, so we make sure to mod down (read: censor) any post that is in favor of him."

    Oh, yeah. That's a really effective way of using mod points for sure. I believe that a similar individual in history tried to do the same thing by throwing books into a fire. </SARCASM>

  199. Through regulation... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    Anything shipped from planet to planet will have to be high-value cargo; there's never going to be money in shipping iron from planet to planet. But what about, say, Platinum, at roughly $340/ounce? Or the other precious metals?

    The reason why Antarctica hasn't been colonized has little to do with the climate: it has everything to do with economics and politics. Antarctica is politically disputed; several nations claim a chunk of it (or, in the case of the US and Russia, reserve the right to claim a chunk of it), and these claims overlap a lot. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 deferred those claims, and the Protocol on Environmental Protection banned the only for-profit activity (other than tourism) you might conceivably conduct in Antarctica - mining. There is also the problem that most of Antarctica is covered with several kilometres of a material with low economic value - water (well, sort of; fresh water is valuable in large quantities but it would cost far more to ship it to where it's needed than it would be to simply desalinate seawater).

    If something of sufficient economic value is found, people will go to some pretty inhospitable places to get it, from Alaska (for oil, or earlier gold) to the jungles of Papua New Guinea for copper.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  200. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Just because Frist can't get 7 of 55 Republican senators to change the rules, lowering passage requirements to 50% rather than 60%, doesn't make him nonpartisan. Of course it makes him completely partisan, changing the rules to endrun the opposing party, so his party can control legislation unopposed. Like the Supreme Court nominations. Or even these Republican activist judges he's just forced through, unsatisfied with the 95% bipartisan approval rating for hundreds of others.

    I expect Frist to be partisan - he's the majority party leader in the Senate. I don't expect his partisanship to cheat, though maybe I should. Because I sure expect his supporters to pretend that he's not partisan, while claiming that the opposing party is.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  201. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damn you know your shit.. wish i could word my words like that everytime some dumbass was mouthing off about how great the republicans have been lately..

  202. Apparently they think that money ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1
    ... which is not in evidence, is the only thing needed.

    I gotta love the NASA admin's comment,

    "If you ask anyone in this country, 'Do you believe that the United States should cede the moon to say the Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whoever?' I bet you the answer would be, 'No,'" he said.

    I guess they don't mind outsourcing all the work to the "Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whomever", as the way technical employment is going in this country, there will be no US science grads to do the work!

    Or maybe this is the plan to provide boomer techies retirement jobs to keep them going when Social Security is sucked dry...

  203. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

    Why even bring it up? You missed my point. I would like to know why your clearly offtopic post was modded "Informative". But I suppose you are too close to the problem to be able to see it. Slashdot has become so biased that people like you cannot even see it. Your way or modded "Troll" it what it comes down to.

    Then I'd have to remind you that corruption isn't partisan
    I need no reminder of that, both sides of the isle have their corruption, and I like to think I am unbiased enough to realise it. Are you?
    Remember for every Tom Delay(R) there is a Ted Kennedy(D).

    --
    Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
  204. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I've been watching these Republicans a long time. I remember watching Iran/Contra on TV, then watching them get Poindexter's conviction on "lying to Congress" overturned by one of their pocket judges. And now they're all back, after spending 8 years figuring out how they could have lost control. I spent a lot of time reading and quoting other people's insights into their vast rightwing conspiracy, until it's become totally obvious what they're up to. I had to do that, because most people never see how organized they are, how much they hate democracy, or anything else that gets in the way of their rich patrons - in the modern age, enshrined in corporations. And I never wanted to be as confused as those people to whom I could explain it. I felt bad for them, and couldn't be one of them.

    I'm a tech geek, and I'm also a politics geek. If you're not, just do with the politics what we do with tech here on Slashdot: remember how it works, and some keywords (people's names, usually) and search, bookmark, cut/paste & email people. After a little bit, it gets easy. And at least you don't feel like these sick bastards are getting away with *fooling* you, adding insult to the injuries of stealing your country and your money.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  205. Re: "evil" because you don't like them? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Close to the problem? I didn't mod it. But it did include lots of information - that's why someone modded it "Informative". While "the topic" is more subjective - isn't "Tom Delay" the topic? Didn't I refer directly to the topic of the post to which I replied?

    Now, "people like me". Who's that? People who don't think that a complete picture comes from merely setting two opposites against one another? People who don't need to find another such person to excuse the bad actions of one, because two bad people just make it twice as bad? No, it's "people like you" who are really interesting. Your weasel words, your fake indulgence in the styles of "debate", all the lies that exploit the fairness of people you oppose, who have found your heroes to be criminals after giving them a fair review. You're so twisted that you think fairness is weakness, openmindedness is gullibility. You can't even recognize fair consideration, where the facts lead to the conclusions, because all you know is how to game the system, how to start with a foregone conclusion, supplied by someone else, and repeat the talking points or, at most, come up with plausible rationalizations. You know nothing of actually coming to an independent conclusion, so you think your opponents must be just as screwed up as you. You're "unbiased"? Where's your acknowledgement that Delay is a dishonest scumbag, who leads your party in the House of Representatives? Drop the con game, and admit you'll say anything to let your boy off the hook. Even if it doesn't con me, you'll say it to keep conning yourself.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  206. Naive assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I got a better program: let's spend billions of dollars in order to provider affordable education, clean up the environment and make sure that nobody is *really* left behind. Maybe then the rest of the world will look up to us again.

    You're assuming the party in charge cares about the world, or the country even.

    Fact is most of the string pullers in the GOP are foreign lobbyists, or working for foreign agents:
    * Saudi money to blame Iraq for 9-11.
    * India and China lobby money for moving-the-factory-to-Asia tax breaks (something that will occur NATURALLY without US taxpayers FUNDING IT)
    * Fresh tax breaks for US Corporations who "base" out of the Bahamas

    In a few years time, the GOP's "base" of flag waving, blue jean workers will be footing the interest bill, while the brokers of this massive borrowing will be living in the Bahamas (with some cushy title job from the very same banks that are financing Bush's spending spree). The people who are robbing the US are not going to sit here waiting to have it taxes back. Say goodbye to first world nation status.

    Remember, the far-right radical mindset that drives the current GOP were the same people who resent and want to DESTROY Washinton. If they can't do that themselves, they CAN create conditions where the voters INSIST on radical national change. America is a colony again, just in a different way.

  207. Jeez. by Fyz · · Score: 1

    I was going to mod some of your posts in this thread as flamebait, but finally decided that that would be the way of the AC.

    I'll be quick and sum up my gripe against you in three sentences:

    1. I fully agree that Tom deLay is a candidate for biggest asshole in the world, and he makes my blood curl.
    2. Your ad hominem attacks and unilateralist argumentation makes you a candidate too.
    3. Don't be an asshole.

    But keep up the good fight.

    1. Re:Jeez. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I accept ad hominem attacks only in self defense - I have a "no first strike" policy. And they're aleays relevant. I also am not "unilateralist", unless you call refusal to change the subject to an irrelevant "others are also bad" subject "unilateralist". Also, I'm an asshole, but not a very severe one.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  208. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by KaiLoi · · Score: 1

    It would only be censorship if the posts were removed as a result of modding. As it stands it only shows the opinion of the slashdot community of the post made

    If the majority of the /. community is liberal, libertarian or non-conservative then of _course_ conservative posts are going to be modded down.

    If the majority on /. don't like Bush or conservative thought then it's going to get less airtime (without being physically removed i.e censored) than more liberal views.

    You are trying to say that conservative views should get the same ratings as liberal views in a majority liberal forum. Have you the brain worms? This is the equivilent of insisting that the republicans give equal airtime to democratic policies at their convenstions. Ain't going to happen

    Welcome to democracy... we hope you enjoy your stay.

  209. Again liberalism prevails ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Liberalism prevails because you mask all your imperialism inside of liberal rhetoric. You are a liberal without even knowing it.

    The tragedy is that you don't have the courage to be a REAL liberal.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Again liberalism prevails ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Liberalism prevails because you mask all your imperialism inside of liberal rhetoric.


      Your ideology of American imperialism is based on a false premise, thus your argument is moot.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  210. Meet the new boss ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Meet the new boss ...

    dah, dah, dah, dah,

    Same as the old boss ...

    dah, dah, dah, dah,

    The SAME people who are running THIS administration are the SAME people who were peddling power during the first Bush administration.

    The people criticizing deep throat in the media were the ones committing crimes in the 70s on behalf of the Nixon administration. Pat Buchanan gets unlimited airtime to spew his fascisism and somehow the media is "biased" against conservatives.

    Jeesh, if only they gave Hitler admiring fascist ex-FBI felons nationally syndicated radio shows. THAN, there would be fairness. If only defense contracters controlled 1/5 of the nations mass media, than the media would lose it's O so obvious 24 hours of bias against warfare. If only the animated corpse of a popular cartoonist's frankenstein media empire was beholden to the president's brother for tax breaks for a theme park, THAN the media would be fair. If only the "Clinton News Network" would put on countless conservative journalists and shun dissident liberal voices like Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy than the media would be fair. If only a man more conservative than Newt Gingrich who killed his secretary could get his own program on MSNBC, than the media would be fair.

    Oh lord oh mercy, some day their time will come when conservatives will have their own station dedicated to 24 hours of propoganda run by a political hack with no media experience. Oh lord how we pray. Oh lord, if only it would loose 130 million in it's first two years of operation. Oh lord, if only we had the risen christ who ran a right wing conservative paper in the nations capital that has lost 1 BILLION in it's printing lifetime. If only this man would commune with the spirit of Hitler and by a News wire service and then prompty oust Helen Thomas. Oh lordy, lordy, some day we'll have a "Fair and Balanced" media.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:Meet the new boss ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need therapy. Or anger management classes. Or both.

  211. Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    You obviously don't understand Slashdot. You see, Delay is a Republican. Any post that criticizes Republicans is automatically modded to be insightful. The child post to which you also refer was ambiguous but might be construed as being mildly defensive of Delay, in which case there is no chance in hell that it would possibly be given a positive mod. and so forth ...

    Well well I've had a lot of mod points but never knew the rules!

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  212. Sounds like ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    Sounds like you need to register Anonymous Coward.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  213. If gold is found in Antarctica ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    If gold or diamonds were found in Antarctica, people would be down their digging it (for 2 months per year).

    The problem is that the place is so INCREDIBLY inhospitable that prospecting is almost impossible. Life in Antarctica is tenuous at best. Getting in and out of the place in winter is near impossible.

    But as outrageously inhospitable and hard to reach as Antarctica is, it's WAY more hospitable and easy to reach than either Mars or the Moon.

    I'm trying to give you some scale and scope of the problem. You people seem to want to justify space travel with space travel.

    SPACIE: We need to go to the moon.
    TERRAN: Why go to the moon ????
    SPACIE: So we can go to Mars!!!
    TERRAN: Why go to Mars ???
    SPACIE: Because that will justify the cost of building a $200,000,000,000 moon base. Oh and some day the earth will die.
    TERRAN: Yeah, but that's like in 40 million years.
    SPACIE: But we have to be prepared. Best to start early. Besides, what if we get hit by an asteroid. We can survive the impact by living in closed terrariums on mars.
    TERRAN: Couldn't we just dig those terrariums deep underground here on earth to survive a meteor impact???
    SPACIE: UHHH, But we want the space technology to DESTROY the asteroid.
    TERRAN: Well fine, but that's basically just robotics. We can develop that right here on earth. We don't NEED a moonbase to develop an asteroid deflection system.
    SPACIE: What about mining. There is plenty of Helium-3 on the moon that could fuel fusion reactors.
    TERRAN: Well, first of all those reactors don't exist yet. And even if they DO exist, we have plenty of Helium-3 right here on earth.
    SPACIE: Well don't you want to go to the stars.
    TERRAN: Physics tells us that it's currently impracticle to travel between stars due to relavitistic concerns.
    SPACIE: Well, you don't know that. There could be a way.
    TERRAN: Than find the physics first.
    SPACIE: Well we could freeze people.
    TERRAN: That doesn't require a space program, plenty of cryo-biologists are working on this problem for earth-bound applications. And they're failing miserably.
    SPACIE: You're just a luddite.
    TERRAN: No we favor earth bound scientific exploration. We also support space exploration through remote observance and robotic probes.
    SPACIE: Just think of how much we learned about the moon by sending men. Robots aren't nearly as fast.
    TERRAN: How much do you NEED to know about Mars?? Is discovering the geology of Mars somehow going to enhance the standard of living here on Earth. Will it cure disease???
    SPACIE: Yeah, just think of all the derived technologies!!!
    TERRAN: Directed research is far more effective and CHEAPER than "trickle down" research. If we need an application, the scientific and inventing community is usually pretty good at working it out. You act like nothing was ever invented before the Apollo program.
    SPACIE: Well we have to beat the Chinese to the moon.
    TERRAN: Why, what are the Chinese going to do there???
    SPACIE: They're going to build mass drivers and that would give them a military strategic advantage.
    TERRAN: Can their mass drivers knock ICBMs out of the sky??? If not, nothing has changed in the "mutually assured destruction" equation. If they bombard us from space, we destroy their country with nukes. Personally I'm far more worried about Chinese in the Sea of Japan and the Taiwan straights than Chinese in orbit. I'm far more concerned about all that Chinese crap we're shipping into the country every day. If you're worried about the Chinese taking over stop shopping at Wal-Mart.
    SPACIE: Well, space travel inspires Americas youth.
    TERRAN: It must sure inspire Indian and Chinese youth too. And I know their countries weren't launching space shuttles. Perhaps we could put more teachers into classrooms rather than astronauts in space. That might help with the education situation. That or start beating kids with bamboo sticks for poor grades and misbehavior like they do in Asia.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!