Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Satellite Programs in Jeopardy of Collapse
smooth wombat writes "A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, headed by Richard Anthens, has warned that 'the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget.' The list of Earth-observing satellite programs affected is a long one and includes satellite programs which observe nearly every aspect of Earth's climate. A delay in launching a replacement satellite or the disabling of a current satellite without a replacement could mean that data necessary to monitor or predict an upcoming event would be severely restricted. For its part NASA says that tight budgets force it to cut funding for all but the most vital programs. 'We simply cannot afford all of the missions that our scientific constituencies would like us to sponsor,' NASA administrator Michael Griffin told members of Congress when he testified before the House Science Committee February 16."
$400 billion for the Iraq war. All of it pissed away and probably actually hurt our efforts on the war on terror. By comparison, NASA's budget is only $16 billion per year.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
The first thing I thought when I read the title was that, yet again, people were cancelling missions because they had no "obvious benefit" or some such nonsense, completely missing the point that science for science's sake has often lead to many of the greatest breakthroughs in science history.
However, I realised that they're not just cancelling missions that are trying to learn more generally, they're cancelling missions that have immediate and obvious benefits: weather monitoring to try and help avoid natural disasters, studying global warming and suchlike.
What ARE the Americans playing at? This seems to me to be a very foolish course of action, these problems will not go away if we're blind to them...
Just lie and say you're using that money to come out with some military weapon...
>>The list of Earth-observing satellite programs affected is a long one and includes satellite programs which observe nearly every aspect of Earth's climate
Don't worry about that pesky climate change thing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Not only the $400B, we have to keep paying into the future - soldier's benefits aren't cheap plus the soldiers wounded are a long-term (rightfully so) expense as well and veteran's benefits make up a significant portion of the yearly budget and is not part of the military budget itself.
All of that, so we could show the world how awesome our toys are. Oh, and spreading democracy throughout the world.
So, we might be losing the ability to track dangerous weather systems, monitor volcanic activity and study the effect of humanity on the planet due to the demands of "scientific constituencies"? What exactly is a "scientific constituency"? The reporter/editor should have clarified this.
Or is this more of a situation where the sexy projects (travel to the Moon and Mars) are taking precedence over real science? And why doesn't that surprise me?
National Healthcare is not acceptable to me -- there is no mandate or power to Congress to provide it. I would rather cut government spending (and the defense budget) 90%, and give U.S. citizens the power to trade with everyone. The most loved countries in the world are those that openly trade without tariffs, embargoes or warmongering.
I'm not sure I could find where in the U.S. Constitution Congress is allotted the money or power to launch golf carts for a billion dollars.
Without even being American, I'm pretty sure that if you restrict the government to only the things expressly allowed in your constitution, you'd end up with being fifteen acres of the poorest hippies ever to own a printing press. You _are_ aware, are you not, that things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC or indeed a standing army are not covered by that constitution of yours?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
All those pesky earth-science satelites keep on reporting that the globe is heating up and stuff. Why would we want to hear that? That doesn't fit with our politics at all!
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
from the US government to involve the private sector in space. There are hell many millionaires who would pay anything for nice moon or space trips. That should generate more than enough revenue than what NASA would need.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
The funding will come, unfortunately it is all how you classify it.
A scientific satellite to help observe global warming? NOT in this administration! They don't even want to acknowledge that global warming is happening, let alone help observe it.
If this upsets you, I suggest you vote for a President that actually cares about Science.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Cost of war in Iraq: 245.727 billion
NASA's 2006 Budget: 16.656 billion
Glad to see my government has no problems blowing 14 years worth of operating expenses on something that by all appearances will never have a positive outcome, while letting vital programs for all of earth collapse.
That will not be a problem because Bush keeps cutting Veteran's benefits, to the tune of over $14 Billion since he took office.
Support our troops indeed.
You say you want a revolution....
Hmmmm... Let me see... There's this...
... We (he) was in it for his Oil buddies. Now that he is a LAME DUCK president he can virtually spout off about whatever...
"the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
AND
President Bush's Jan. 14 speech painted broad brushstrokes of his plan to put humans back on the Moon and send them to Mars.
Oh but that was back in 2004, right, trying to get more "techies" to vote for him...
And NOW, as most of us have always know is TRUE color...
Disgruntled members of a congressional oversight committee objected Wednesday to a White House budget plan that threatens to cripple NASA's unmanned space programs and Earth and aeronautics research, President Bush's plan instead emphasizes sending American explorers back to the moon by 2018.
Budget cuts for 2002
Elsewhere there is talk of a 1% increase in NASA's budget for 2k7 but this is NOTHING compared to the slash to the budget that Bush dealt NASA when he first took office because he "needed" that money for the military we would later use to attach the middle east...
Hmmmm... Nice Logic! Instead of looking FORWARD back then... and looking into alternative fuels, the future, and Space
But that's ok, it's obvious at this point that most Americans have a short attention span and don't really delve deeply. At least the "red" ones.
What ARE the Americans playing at? This seems to me to be a very foolish course of action, these problems will not go away if we're blind to them...
Well, the reasoning is pretty clear, if you accept one premise: anything the private sector might the government ought not do. By this way of reasoning, government weather monitoring, morally speaking, tantamount to theft of potential profits from private parties.
I'd posit, I hope in an impartial way, that acceptance of this precept is the greatest difference between the conservative and liberal theories of governance.
An alternative precept is this: the government should do any activity where, on the whole, the public benefits more from government participation than government non-participation. This is a liberal viewpoint. To represent the conservative viewpoint fairly, conservatives don't say this is false, but it is true only in a tautological sense. They believe that in any case where the private sector participates to some degree in an activity, public sector participation a priori impledes the progress of the public good. This means it is never the case that government activity in spheres the private sector is interested in does the public good, people of a conservative bent can hold both premises consistently.
Of course, these are caricatures of liberal and conservative thinking. Most thoughtful people don't reason exclusively from first principles to specific situations, but make allowances for exceptional circumstances.
In any case, while one might violently disagree with government policies of the left or right, the stupidity if it exists doesn't necessarily lie in the process of reasoning, but the first principles from which that reasoning proceeds.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I hate to tell you this, but not everything is a business, trying to generate profit.
Or, to put it differently: Do you feel that it's okay for your wife to sleep around so that she can find the most efficient lay?
Seriously, you need to go to China. I'm not saying this in a 'get the hell out' sort of way, but they have a government very much like the one you seem to want; no restrictions on business for the most part, very little taxation, cheap labor...
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
These NASA cuts are just the tip of what coming up.
i d=amz.HoNLRL_0&refer=us
Americans have spent way too much money;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&s
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The hilarity of Dubya talking about Mars landings and moon bases, all while mismanaging the federal budget and slashing science programs, was a welcome distraction at the time. I remember thinking, "This guy believes that humans are biologically separate from the animal kingdom, and that at least two-thirds of his constituents are going to Hell after they die, and now he's on the side of science?"
I just wish this expectation of failure made acceptance of the President's failures easier to deal with. Perhaps soon we can put a government in power that works to make America competitive in the science and information-dominated industries of the 21st century, rather than a government that pays lip service to this concept.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
science for science's sake has often lead to many of the greatest breakthroughs in science history.
We are talking about observational science here. What great breakthroughs have EOS missions ever produced?
It doesn't sound like the GOES weather satellites are effected, just some of the more specific Earth Observing System missions. Strange that the scientists quoted in the article don't make the distinction. The EOS boondoggle has survived for almost 20 years and sucked untold billions out of NASA's budget. It is about time it got called to account. How do these rather specialized space missions help to "avoid natural disasters?". We already have realtime imagery of hurricanes and still people don't get out of the way. Satellites can't predict earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanic eruptions. As for global warming, I am sure the state of the art will progress without a few extra missions. Government scientists have too much invested in the hysteria to let it go.
an ill wind that blows no good
I should really write this out as a form letter and paste it in pre-emptively to each NASA thread about budget, since it always turns into Bush-bashing.
The Bush administration has increased funding every year for the past several years. The President of the US does not control how NASA's budget works. Sure he has made a push toward manned space flight being revamped, but why would you complain about re-vamping an outmoded inefficient system?
It is the head of NASA who makes the budget the way it is. There is never enough money to do what you want to these days, no matter who is in charge of the country or what party they belong to. Michael Griffin has a hard job, and what he is saying is true, we need more science money. I am not disagreeing. But this notion that Bush has cut funding is folly, and shows up in every thread.
Guns and butter indeed.
kulakovich
Why should someone in California pay for a highway in Illinois? Why should someone in Miami pay for a fire in Denver?
Because the one thing you rugged rocky mountain individualists, Randroids, and libertarians in love with your own wallets don't understand is that we aren't just Californians or Illinoisans. We are not a Confederacy, no matter how much the Dixiecrats running the country want that to be.
We are Americans, E Pluribus Unum. Helping Californians helps me. If I help pay to fix earthquake damage in California, they help pay to fix tornado damage here. That way neither of our economies is overly strained. And that benefits us all.
Yes, you're right of course. I read somewhere yesterday (but now can't find the link) that when you factor in the cost of looking after veterans and all the additional costs, the war comes to about $1trillion - $2.2trillion over the long term.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Darn. I missed my opportunity to drop the green flag on the bush bashing because NASA has to have a real budget.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
"Asking me to pick up the tab for your toys, against my will, is really not acceptible anymore to me."
So move elsewhere. Or work to get someone else elected.
I never drive, I only use the trains. I therefore think that all funding for highways should be cut. I mean, private industry will pick up the slack, right? Anyone who drives can choose to send a few bucks to their favorite highway maintenance organization, right?
"A great majority of the citizens of the State are so far in debt that there is no likelihood of escaping it in their lifetimes, so the citizens push the debt off to the next two generations."
Personal debt has more to do with people not spending within their means, and being ecouraged to enter into bondage with the credit companies. It doesn't tie in so well with government debt, you are conflating the NASA budget with Social Security, etc.
"I don't see any public interest achievements in NASA, and I definitely don't see why NASA or the U.S. government needs to be handling any scientific research"
Then open your eyes. Or read more history of science. One of NASA's roles is to create new markets -- for example, without NASA, there wouldn't be a market for commerical satellites.
"It is time to just end the program entirely and leave it up to a competitive marketplace. There are enough billionaires with money to spend, let them finance these toys strictly for ego"
What competitive marketplace? There is no market yet. Government has always acted to open new markets, which is what NASA is all about.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The least successful war in U.S. history is probably going to be the costliest too.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Nasa, with those damn satelites controling how the wheater is on the globe predicted that there will be warmth and that the enterprises and cars should controll their emissions. Advising that combustible fuels should not be used anymore. All those things are bad, in the point of view of the Bush Administration, why would he give money to those satelites?
I am certainly not surprised.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
The Iraq war and even budget cuts have nothing to do with this. These satellite programs aren't getting cancelled because the budgets are being cut, they are getting cancelled because they have long since exceeded their budgets and then some.
The US satellite industry has self-destructed. At one time, not very long ago, if anyone in the world wanted to launch a satellite, they went to the US. Now, they go to the Europeans. Why? US companies didn't want to bother with little commercial satellites. They wanted contracts in the $billions. Even if these big government projects fail and get cancelled, they are still more profitable than the commercial contracts.
Increasing funding won't do a thing except waste more money. We need to stop measuring our performance by how much money we spend! How about measuring by how effective we are?
Eventually, of course, the government will wise up and stop bankrolling these billion dollar boondoggles. They will just buy data from the European and Asian satellites. But, of course, that won't happen until at least next quarter, so party on!
Has anyone raised the point that the current NASA director may actually have some very smart advisors? Six months ago NASA was doing the worst possible thing (economically) but the best for short-term job-security: kowtowing to Congress and saying "Oh yes great leaders we will do more with less." Now, someone had the bright idea, and the balls, to stick it to Congress, and announce cancellation after cancellation -- which doesn't mean the programs will actually *be* cancelled. This could all be a massive game of chicken, in which NASA releases press release after press release hitting constituency after constituency until 51% of congress has people set to be directly harmed by the cuts (lost jobs, lost revenue from satellite services, etc), and actually hands over the cash to save the programs. The director will piss off his bosses and may lose his job, but he'll save his organization.
I, for one, am glad that you aren't worried about monitoring the status of the earth when there's a dead planet like Mars beckoning to be "explored." Beside that, we all know you can't possibly subsidize new, profitable, romantic business models on the back of programs that yield nothing but information (that might provide a counterpoint). We, all of us, accept that it's simply a matter of priority. If the investment does't lead US to a more competitive, hegemonic postion internationally, then it really isn't worth supporting.
That's why we support your tax cuts to the wealthy; they make the best decisions (while they are sitting around the pool talking to their stock brokers). I know it might seem unfair to the people who are born into such a world, but that is largely irrelevant to those that believe 16 fiscal quarters is a lifetime are bent on preserving a class structure that ignores the nature of anything but the balance sheet.
I'm saying that the people who put you at the helm shouldn't regret a thing. We should all be thankful that we have a leader who has our best interests so firmly in his grasp. The team with which you have surrounded yourself is professional & well schooled in the theories of upper management that have made this country what it is today. Even if it turns out they were grossly in error, we can all have faith that God will sort it out after the rapture!
Long Life to you Duh-ba-ya!
- nbsp; ) So you live to see what your policies help to accomplish! (
The annual, NASA's budget is in jeopardy and we're going to shut down the Hubble project. We're going to lose all of our weather satellites. We're not going to be able to do any science because of all the Homeland Security / CIA / Secret Government Agency / Bush is the Anti-Christ spy satellites that the budget has been diverted to.
It's another plea for awareness so that Congress can make sure that the NASA pet projects that have gone on for years can continue. Of course there isn't any money in the budget. We've supported projects well past their life cycle because there is percieved benefit. Take for example the Mars rovers. They were supposed to be well finished by now, but since they continue to move around up there, the program continues and takes up some of NASA's budget. Is it science? Yes. Is it necessary? No. Is it interesting and as a tax payer would I vote to support it? Sure. I like to look at the pretty pictures as much as the next geek.
This is the same story from a different angle that came out last year when NASA spoke before Congress about budget concerns. The same story occurred the year before that. The same story will occur next year. Academics will always be begging for money to support their projects. Politicians will never just hand it over when they have their own pet projects to support.
Least successful war? I nominate three others...
Vietnam, which we LOST. Many more allied casualties than this war, war aims not achieved, one million Vietnamese dead.
Korea, which was a DRAW. Also many more casualies than this war, war aims not achieved, barely held on to S. Korea, lots of Koreans dead.
The War of 1812, which we LOST. Washington DC sacked and burned to the ground. More American casualties than this war, and signifiant homeground damage due to British invasion. Oh yeah, and it made Andrew Jackson the indian-killing moron a war hero.
I might also mention the American Civil War, but at least a few good things came out of that one. Also some bad things, like one out of three American males dead. But hey, who's counting?
If you calculate the cost of these wars in constant dollars, some of them, particularly Korea if you include reconstruction (which I assume people are including in the Iraq cost), approaches the current cost of the Iraq War. It is likely that before the end, the Iraq War and reconstruction will end up costing more than Korea, but not by much.
Now, I think that the Iraq War is an expensive and miserable failure, same as the next guy, but hyperbole really weakens the case, don't you think?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Wow.
What I don't understand is why there isn't more alarm in the USA about this situation. From my studies of economics I have come to understand that we don't really understand economics - for every economist that says the debt in the USA is a big problem, you can find another that will say it's not a problem at all. Conclusion - we don't know. However, as a biologist I do understand that graphs like this one generally indicate that a big change is about to happen:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
Thats because you probably have not looked.
For example, you could see how NASA research can benefit you if you are handicapped or as you grow older by reading Robert Heinlein's non-fiction essay "Spinoff", based on his testimony before comittee in Congress. Its found in the collection _Expanded Universe_.
You can read some of it via Amazon.com here.
It starts about page 501.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
From Wikipedia: "Although the water supply has reached prewar levels in some provinces, ageing and poorly maintained equipment combined with looting and vandalism leaves the drinking water system substandard."
From the GAO: "However, electrical service in the country as a whole has not shown a marked improvement over the immediate postwar levels of May 2003 and has worsened in some governorates." Not only is electrical service worse than during Saddam's rule, it's even worse than after much of their electrical capacity was destroyed DURING the war.
From Wikipedia (same link as before): "Untreated waste is polluting the Euphrates River, and many treatment plants require repair. More than 45 pipelines have exploded"
Right. And they're built to inferior standards, and you can't go to them in any case without risking death. I don't need to provide a link, you can see the story every day on CNN.
From Iraqi Body Count: estimates range from 28 - 32K deaths just from coalition military activity since the start of the war. Other estimates, some of which include deaths from lawlessness and terrorist activity, are much higher, ranging up to a quarter of a million.
Way to distort the facts. Maybe you should try getting your news from somewhere other than the Weekly Standard.
Sean
Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water, their first reliable electricity, their first real sewer system, ever. Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years.
That's great. Why should I have to pay for it? Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it? I don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqi people, frankly. There are kids here in the US who aren't getting a decent education or nourishment. I have relatives who can't afford good health care, in the most wealthy society on the planet.
Where are all the islamic countries and their aid? Why is it the job of the US to police the world and free the oppressed people (as long as there is some supposed long-term strategic value to doing so)? Look at what's happening in Sudan. Why aren't we sending in the troops? Oh, right... No strategic interests in that part of the world.
People like you make me crazy. Either you're insulting my intelligence by trying to divert my attention with emotional rhetoric, or you're just stupid. I wish the Bush Administration would just have the balls (hear that Rummy?) to just fucking say what they're doing, and why. "We believe that having a friendly country in the middle east will be in our long-term interests. So we took out an unfriendly despot in a country that wasn't particularly liked by its neighbors (a bunch of slightly more friendly despots). But we didn't do the homework on what would happen, and now we're kinda stuck. Oops! Live and learn!"
No, they have to pull out this stupid "Think of the happy Iraqi children!" bullshit.
Bah.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Griffin used to help run the Star Wars "missile defense" boondoggle. That was a program outlawed by Congress in the 1980s, but whose administrators still found $BILLIONS each year to keep going. A program producing little useful science, and no useful defense products. It's only value was pumping corporate welfare into defense contractors and "trickle down" bribes into the politicians who love them.
But when running NASA, even Griffin can't find money to keep America's most beloved, productive, and strategic science agency alive.
Meanwhile, Bush's support for proliferating nuclear weapons to all the hot wars in Asia is great marketing for the useless Star Wars "missile defense shield".
--
make install -not war
That is expected. The closest that this admin has to war experience (excluding when powell and his people worked there), is cheney's shooting of a friend who had a gun in hand.
I really and truly feel sorry for the American people for what is likely to happen in the future. Considering the increased amount of debt that the US is in, and the trade deficit you guys have to suffer and that China keeps buying your national debt - China will _own_ the US through patience and planning, and there is nothing you can do about it unless the budget deficit is rectified immediately.
/A
Unfortunately, that means cutting the armed forces back by 90-95% and keeping organisations like PNAC under the thumb to the point that they decide to go live elsewhere. It'll probably also mean higher interest rates and harder to get credit for Joe Average.
I do not envy you guys at all right now...
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
That things were bad before the war does not mean the war changed things for the better. I remember looking up life expectancy figures before the war to see if there was any significant difference between Iraq and neighboring Syria and Iran. Life expectancy in Iraq was around two years lower. After reading your post, I checked again.
Accoring to the CIA, the war made no difference; Iraq- 68.7 years, Iran - 69.96, Syria - 70.3.
According to the BBC, "Life expectancy: 57 years (men), 60 years (women) (UN)", or a full ten years lower than the CIA claims. The BBC website claims the UN as source; I haven't checked the UN website.
Score: Saddam 2 years - USA 12 years?
Maybe this "satellite problem" is just a threat to Congress to stop cutting the budget?
If the scientists had been in control, we would have shot the International Space Station and the Shuttle years ago. Together they suck up most of NASA's budget, and return little or nothing in new data.
You are correct, NASA's budget is not being globally cut. However, because most of it is directed towards the ISS and Shuttle, there's not much left for support of small science or new manned vehicle design.
Congress needs to take its lumps for this mess, too. The ISS and Shuttle are popular because they spend money in most of the states.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
... starting with those pesky sciencetitians that keep pointing out the flaws in our ideologically-driven policies.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Thank you... First time I have thanked an anonymous... SO extra thanks.
:-D
You saw exactly what I was pointing out.
No one is thinking about how, when he came into office, he slashed the NASA budget to the BONE.
Then in 2004 mentions, "oh lets do this... Lets go to the moon and Mars, etc. etc." BUT that was all fluff to get voters from the "tech" areana.
And NOW, he is back to the same old same old... The NASA budget is STILL less then the budget it had PRIOR to this President being in office.
Thanks again for "grokking" it.
It's also interesting that someone who posts (ifwm) averages less then one on most everything... Hmmm... And ifwm is condemning you for anonymous???
I bet you did the anonymous route to protect some of your karma. OR you have moderator duty.
>Why should I have to pay for it? Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it?
Because your government chose to bomb and invade Irak, killing tens of thousands of people, reducing the country's infrastructures to a state which is worse than during Saddam reign ?
Frankly, I don't think that Americans are in any position to complain.
Hey, that chart was levelling off. A classic S-shaped curve, exponential growth hitting limits and slowing to a new equilibrium. I'd guess that in mid-2000 things were looking pretty good. Then in 2001 it's up again, and every year since then it's gone up, and up, and up some more.
What the hell went wrong in late 2000, guys? What changed?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
In many cases debt is actually wealth. IF you buy 20,000 worth of goods that can be sold for 40,000 you have good debt. If you commit to a 200,000 mortgage on a home that will sell for 400,000 in 10 years you have good debt. Borrowing $5 to buy a chocolate bar that you then consume.. you have bad debt... unless you need that chocolate to survive ;-p
The US gov can spend trillions and still have good debt if those trillions are an investment in an improved economy, improved export revenues, improved technology, etc. that will return as profits in the long run.. and be trillions in debt for a few years, hundreds of billions a few other years and trillions again... doesn't matter as long as it's invested debt, not consumed debt.
in fact our economy is based on debt and it would fail if we were to ever 'balance the budget' (which Clinton never did, he just showed numbers that proved that it would balance if spending continued the way it was going). Likewise we can never ever pay off the federal deficit... we'd no longer be obligated to anyone and our eocnomy would be floating free with no trade committments either way which would lead to complete chaos and uncertainty in the value of money. Money is backed by debt... it's the IOUs that give it value. Money would be worthless if it didn't represent a colossal promise to pay network.
But you're probably right, change is always right around the corner... especially with an election for a brand new president coming up in 2 years.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
In many cases debt is actually wealth.
You post just convinces me further of belief that we don't really understand economics...
Debt is debt. Saying that a debt is actually wealth, because the thing you have brought might be worth more in the future, is just gambling. It might be worth less. Running an economy on the premise that "the more we spend, the wealthier we are" just sounds foolish to me. One day, the bubble bursts, and I'm afraid that day is coming fast...
Because your government chose to bomb and invade Irak, killing tens of thousands of people, reducing the country's infrastructures to a state which is worse than during Saddam reign ?
Frankly, I don't think that Americans are in any position to complain.
Where in the fuck did you get the idea that I was happy about that? I am mad as hell that we went there to begin with, dummy. It's not my government. I didn't vote for them. I held my nose and voted for the other guys. So did most of the people in my state and my part of the country.
The Iraqi people don't want us there, no matter how many right-wing cheerleaders post pictures of smiling children. If they did, they'd police themselves and settle the fuck down. After the shrine was blown up the other week, there were Iraqi police running around killing Sunnis. There are Shiite death squads (mostly police and army) who've been operating pretty much out in the open for at least a year.
This is not a civilized place, and the people are not ready for democracy. They don't want it. We can't force it on them. We fucked up. We've wasted money and lives. If the islamic world cared about anything besides hating the West, they'd step in and help Iraq help itself.
The US military does not train peacekeepers! They're trained to bring as much death and destruction to an area as they have to in order to achieve a strategic goal. When the military gets involved, people die. I wish our fucking cowboy-in-chief understood that, or cared. Maybe if most of our government officials hadn't gotten deferments in the last big war (oh, sorry, "police action"), they'd understand that.
For the record, lefties annoy me as much as right-wingers. They're two sides of the same (stupid) coin. People don't fucking think for themselves anymore.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Don't forget that many Europeans have much more recent memories of out-of-control totalitarianism than that. Several of the EU member states were part of the Soviet bloc. Spain was a Fascist dictatorship until the 1970s - Hitler and Mussolini were removed, but Franco was left in place because he never made a nuisance of himself. I believe Portugal underwent something similar, and Greece was run by a military junta until not so long ago.
And the Americans wonder why we're beginning to get nervous about the way they've been acting. I recall a joke from Not the Nine O'Clock News years ago, suggesting that it was because they intended to make up for having been late for the last two world wars by being bloody punctual this time...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Of course, I don't see how this jibes with his talk earlier about promoting science, but I suppose that was just empty PR anyway. You don't need fancy satellites to tell you about the world when ID can explain anything for free.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
There's no need to bring inflammatory psychological speculation into it. We tax the rich for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: because that's where the money is. I won't try and argue whether it's morally justified or not, but I will note that the top 0.5% of US citizens hold 25% of the US's wealth. If you were a politician and wanted to be re-elected by popular vote, who would you hand the bills to?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
...for satellite launches because it just isn't economic or safe. It costs a lot more to put a satellite into a parking orbit with the shuttle, then with a traditional launch vehicle. Considerring that you still have to do a hoheman transfer after that, *and* a plane change (launches from Kennedy have a minimum inclination of 28 degrees, completely useless for geostationary satellites) there isn't really any advantage in using the shuttle. There is certainly less risk involved in traditional launchers too. If it explodes at launch, you've lost a satellite and a launcher. If the shuttle is lost on launch/re-entry... well we just have to look at the Columbia for the results. Why take the risk when an unmanned launcher can do the job just as well, if not better? If we take the Arianne launcher for example. It can put a geostationary satellite directly into a transfer orbit, negating a perigee burn and hence saving a *lot* of fuel. Further more, launches from French Guiana have a minimum inclination of 5 degrees, hence a plane change to acheive an equitorial orbit is much smaller, further reducing the fuel requirements. There is even a launcher called SeaLaunch that is launched from the equator, completely removing the costly plane change. Ah, but what if you want to put a satellite into an orbital inclination of more then 28 degrees? That's all well and good until you hit 46 degrees, the Russians can easily undersell NASA. Old ICBMs cost $200,000. A minute fraction of a shuttle launch. With all these vastly cheaper, and often easier (especially SeaLaunch and Arianne) launch methods, it's no wonder NASA doesn't get a heck of a lot of business launching anything other then US military/government/scientific satellites.
Official threat to Homeland Security
University of Surrey - http://www.surrey.ac.uk
No, I'm not talking about government; I'm talking about the posts on this thread. At least 2/3 of the posts on this thread should be marked Off-Topic. Look, the title article is about NASA; could someone at least talk about NASA? Instead, so many are spewing off their political and economic philosophies.
OK, here's the deal: NASA just got a budget increase. Did anyone notice that? That's important, because it means the budget cuts are not to NASA, but to some programs. And, the reason, children, that the satellites are being starved, the number one reason for budget cuts everyone else in NASA, is not because Bush is President or the Republicans control Congress or the U.S. Vietnam War was a stalemate or the U.S. economy is deep in debt. No; the Number One drain on NASA's budget is the space shuttle program, followed closely by the space station program. As in, say bye-bye to 80% or more of whatever money NASA gets. THIS IS THE REASON BUSH IS CUTTING OUR LOSSES ON THE SHUTTLE AND SPACE STATION!! We (in the U.S.) have to get rid of those programs, or we aren't going to have a space program.
Yes, the Earth-observing satellite programs are in bad shape. They have been for a long time. Believe it or not, they were in bad shape before Bush became President. And, unless we cut our losses on the space station and come up with an economical replacement for the space shuttle, the EOS programs are going to be in terrible shape long after Bush leaves office.
Nothing I've said here is secret or novel. This is all common knowledge to anyone paying attention to the U.S. space program. So, how to explain the bulk of the posts to this thread?
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
You know, I was watching a show about the three mile island incident the other day. It showed president Carter going to the site to do a press release to show the public that it was safe. (well, it was sorta safe) That little show really made the local people feel better. "if the president is here, then it must be okay" He was willing to take a personal risk to help ease the concerns the of the people he serves.
How did we go from a president that served in the military, with nuclear physics experience, that was willing to take a risk to fulfill his duties to...well.
There are some complexities that are getting missed in your assessment.
First, the US can't cut military spending by 90-95%. It's simply ridiculous to suggest. The US has so much infrastructure (both in-country and outside) that there's always a significant outlay of cash required to keep it running. The military's strategic and logistical partnerships with other nations span the globe. US bases overseas are part of the socioeconomic framework of the host countries. As much as American towns and cities resist the closure of bases, so do the communities overseas. In Germany, for example, US military bases provide a lot of economic stability and when these bases are closed (as is happening now in the current re-alignment), the effects are just as devastating as they are for American towns. Barber shops, hardware stores, furniture stores, construction firms, grocers, etc. all take a hit when, say, 20% of the town's population picks up and leaves. Also, the US military must have the best of every kind of system. Part of the problem with being the biggest and the strongest is that you have to maintain that state, which is costly. It's safe to say that the military-industrial complex is simply too large and too powerful, but they would not be that way if the US didn't require the best and most advanced equipment.
What I think you may be driving at is the cost of conflict, which is high in wartime. Regardless of where one stands on the reasons for conflict or their validity, Americans are bearing the overwhelming cost of current wartime activity. It's especially so in Iraq, and perhaps less so in Afghanistan, but that may reflect where the international community sees the greatest need. The US is not the only victim of Islamic terrorism, after all. What may also be adding to the current cost of conflict is that a sizable chunk of that money (~400 billion for Iraq so far) is being spent with contractors like Titan, Khaki, KBR (and other Halliburton subsidiaries), Triple Canopy, etc. Military contracts in wartime are not unusual by themselves, but this is the first war for the US in which the profits of contractors and suppliers have not been restricted and tax cuts have been permitted. Furthermore, the American citizenry has not been asked to sacrifice anything for the effort -- there's no draft, there is no rationing of fuel or foodstuffs, for example. If the revenue gets cut and the costs are magnified, the fiscal problem gets bigger.
The biggest piece of spending, apart from entitlements, goes to service the debt. That piece gets bigger and bigger every year. As it does, other spending gets squeezed out. Entitlements are ripe for squeezing, btw. You can short people on their entitlements, but you can't miss a debt payment.
As for China holding our debt, they're not alone. Lots of nations buy US treasury bonds. What's important to remember is that the US has a very diverse and powerful economy. Even though there is a lot of US paper around, China in particular still finds it wise to peg their curency against the dollar. Yes, there is the risk of interest rate hikes. However, China has no banking system, really -- not in a sense that any western nation would recognize. The national merchant/investment bank is a near-empty building that is staffed by a handful of people who are paid to sit at desks and do nothing. I saw a report on it about a month ago on 60 minutes. (I looked for a link but didn't find one, but you could probably buy the transcript.)
So, yeah the debt's a problem, but it's not quite so dire just yet. In 20 year's time, when the full weight of entitlements are felt and the current trends of the additional debt are played out, then it will be a crisis. Right now, America needs better fiscal leadership. Traditionally, that's been territory claimed by republicans, but it's safe to say that times have changed. I'm not happy with the current situation, either, but I'm optimistic about the prospects for a strong reaction against nonstop spending and war pr
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
A retarded easterner with a fake Texas accent who skipped out on his military duty and sank every business he ever ran? Good question.
PNAC is the Project for a New American Century. They are hawks, think-tanks and move in the shadows normally, but because they have the ear of your current president, they have become bold and don't shy away from the light so much presently. Their manifesto is a cause for concern, whether you are american or not. PNAC argued for invading Iraq two years before 9/11. No wonder the sales of tin-foil hats have shot up.
Okay, so cutting military spending by 90% immediately is not feasible. But cutting military spending so that you have a defence, not an offence, is well feasible, and will save tons of cash. Wars of conquest, as presently in Iraq, are expensive and sap the strength not only of the forces, but also of the people in the conquering nation. It also generates more enemies than is annihilated in the conquest.
As for 'islamic terrorism', while terror can never be excused - no matter who wields it, the individual or the mightiest nation on the planet - the motives behind the actions can be understood. The individual that has lost everything, that sees all they know come under threat by a might they can never compete against, sometimes take action in a way that couch-potatoes watching SuperBowl might never comprehend. Making the ultimate sacrifice to try and gain the freedom of your peers - it was not too many generations ago that a civil war took place in USA, where people made that type sacrifice for exactly the same reasons.
Lastly, any economy, no matter how diverse, can - and will - fall on hard times. Being heavily in debt, with most of that debt owned by a single entity, and being refused credit is a position where ones courage, attitude and honour comes under scrutiny. Time will tell how that test is passed.
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
If I wanted to be reelected by popular vote and wanted to bribe the people of the USA into voting for me, I'd have to buy lots of cheap votes. Think about it, in a democracy, Bill Gates' vote isn't worth anymore than Joe Schmoe's vote. Bill pulls in millions a year, Joe pulls in the nominal $30-40k. which one is going to be swayed cheaper? To Joe $5k is like 1/8th of his yearly income where as bill sneezes on Kleenex worth more than that. So screw the rich, the top 0.1% may hold 25% of the money, but I only need 50.0000001% of the people to vote for me to win an election, and I don't care which of the 265 Millon Americans those are.
-=JML=-
These NASA cuts are just the tip of what coming up. Americans have spent way too much money; http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=amz.HoNLRL_0&refer=us
/ index.html
It's interesting that these cuts focus on earth science and the same satellites that keep us informed about climate changes. One of the thorny issues for this administration has been global warming, and this seems like another case of this administration's approach to problems. Rather than fix the problem, they try to make the problem disappear by attacking or dismantling those who publicize it. Remember Abu Ghraib? The administration's immediate response wasn't, "We're sorry, it'll never happen again." No, it was, "Who were those bastards who released the photos - let's get 'em!" How about the reclassification of thousands of declassified documents? Not to mention the recent censorship of NASA publications by a representative from the White House http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11240405/.
This administration's 'problem solving' and our financial situation highlighted in that article makes me feel like American power is crumbling from the inside out. While continuing to bark, we've lost our bite. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/us.iran.ap