US To Launch Military Orbital Spaceplane

An anonymous reader writes "Not only is the US readying its first 100% military spaceplane for a November launch, but it's going to push NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission til 2009: 'The USAF and Boeing will launch the X-38B — the first military orbital space plane if you discount the secret military shuttle — on top of an Atlas V rocket in November. They want to test its flying features in space and during atmospheric reentry. And probably its anti-matter rays and nuclear bays and hyperspace engines too (but of course, they are never going to tell you that). However, there seems to be a conflict with the civilian space program which may push one of the Moon exploration missions to 2009.' Screw the moon. We have to defend ourselves against all those alien extremists from Mars!"

Comments

Red Planet Mars anybody?

[clickclickdrone]

There was a film back during the 'the commies are under the bed!' phase about communist aliens from Mars that might have inspired this?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[timmarhy]

their called democrats

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[pacinpm]

Isn't space meant to be like demilitarized zone or something?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[dougisfunny]

That's why the Gundams are kept secret

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Kohath]

So what? Paper doesn't stop bullets or missiles or rockets. Treaties are only in effect until they aren't any more.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[q-the-impaler]

The US is insane when it comes to overkill. Half of all taxes go to the military, and our forces dwarf Russia, China, and the "axis of evil" combined.

Wow, you pulled that out of your ass.

2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

21% goes to our dwindling Social Security porgram.
16.6% goes to the DoD
13.3% goes to Medicare
11.2% goes to unemployment
9% pays the interest on national debt
7.2% goes to Medicaid
5% went to the war on terror
2.4% Health and Human Services
etc.

So to summarize: only 21.6% went to the protection of the U.S. whereas well over 60% went to social programs

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[MightyYar]

Half of all taxes go to the military

Minor nit... its 20-36%, depending on how you run the numbers. The only way you can get to 50% is if you remove social security taxes and assign nearly all debt payments as "military debt". If you just take military spending and divide it by total government outlays you get 36%, including the extra war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Talderas]

This guy must not have been alive before WW2, when we spent over 90% of our tax monies on military spending.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but you're not counting all of the money collected as Social Security but then diverted into the military programs...

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[m.ducharme]

So, are you implying that the Ministry of Agriculture really is in charge of Gundam?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[SystematicPsycho]

Communism was only a Red Herring...

However, some people think Super Mario Bros is a communist plot: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/mariocommunist

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[DaveV1.0]

What is it like being a lying asshole?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[cmdr_klarg]

9% pays the interest on national debt

THIS is what concerns me most... if we don't get a rein on spending that number will just grow and grow...

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[rhiorg]

"they're" as in "they are".

were you the guy that proofread the intelligence reports that misspelled the country with WMD's as "iraq" instead of "iran"?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[duffbeer703]

The "official" US budget numbers are misleading, as they are based on "cash" accounting and do not include a couple of key things, like:
  - Special Appropriations (ie. the War)
  - Liabilities from Unsecured IOUs (ie. the surpluses from Social Security which are "invested" in a special series of non-marketable treasury bonds)
  - The NPV of future expenditures, such as Medicare Part D and Social Security

If you re-ran the 2007 budget using the "accrual" method of accounting that corporations must use, the "official" deficit of $163 billion balloons to over $2.4 trillion dollars -- FOR 2007 ALONE!

Don't take my word for it -- read the reports from the US Treasury or read the testimony and presentations given by the former Comptroller of the Currency.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[TheSync]

to summarize: only 21.6% went to the protection of the U.S. whereas well over 60% went to social programs

That's only the Federal side, this site tracks spending by Federal, State, and Local govenments.

Actual FY2007 defense spending was $655 billion, on government spending (at all levels) of $4.9 trillion, or 13.4% of spending by all US governments.

Of course, I'd still prefer defense spending to be less, but clearly the biggest outlays of US governments are Pensions (mainly Social Security), Health Care, and Education, in that order.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[TheSync]

If you re-ran the 2007 budget using the "accrual" method of accounting that corporations must use, the "official" deficit of $163 billion balloons to over $2.4 trillion dollars -- FOR 2007 ALONE!

Indeed, if the US Federal government was a private corporation, it would be considered "insolvent," but on the other hand they have guns and can take as much in taxes from us as they want, which a private corporation can't do (even the oil companies :)

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Mick Malkemus]

What's it like being an anonymous coward that would never speak like that to my face?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Mick Malkemus]

WWII was a war worth fighting, and everyone knew it.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Mick Malkemus]

That's one version, complied by random people on the Net. Here's another compiled by people that are accountable: http://truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php

I stand with what I said originally. Nice try.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Mick Malkemus]

http://truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php

Take a look at the chart, and then let's talk.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Talderas]

There's one little word that I used that you missed.

"before"

Please read a response fully before you talk about the justification of a war which was unrelated except as a point of time reference.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[DaveV1.0]

Sure I would. Unlike you, I am not a coward as you are, nor do I spew out stupid and foolish lies as you do.

Now, go cry to mommy, shithead.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[HiggsBison]

... but on the other hand they have guns and can take as much in taxes from us as they want, which a private corporation can't do yet (even the oil companies :)

(There. Fixed it for ya. ;-))

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[shutdown -p now]

While true, the US military budget is still almost as large as that of all other countries combined, almost twice as much as EU military spending, 10 times as much as China, and almost 15 times as much as Russia.

Even so, I feel somewhat safer knowing that NATO is responsible for 2/3rd of the entire world military spending. I trust that entity more than, say, China or Russia.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[MightyYar]

That chart mirrors exactly what I said - it plots discretionary spending only. Add in Debt service, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. and then the chart looks much different.

We probably spend too much on defense - and it's certainly a reasonable position to take... but there's no reason to distort things.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[GooberToo]

While true, the US military budget is still almost as large as that of all other countries combined, almost twice as much as EU military spending, 10 times as much as China, and almost 15 times as much as Russia.

Even so, I feel somewhat safer knowing that NATO is responsible for 2/3rd of the entire world military spending. I trust that entity more than, say, China or Russia.

I really wish people would stop using this as an example. It's obvious you understand the basic picture but allow me to pull it together. The reality is, most of EU is able to spend so little, despite having the most serious military concerns exactly because the US spends so much; thusly removing the burden from themselves. In turn this means it alleviates tensions while ensuring everyone's safety without additional pressure to create regional arms races.

In short, NO ONE is going to attack a NATO nation simply out of fear for US retaliation. Heck, the US can devastate most industrialized cities and economies without using a single plane or nuke. Would-be enemies of NATA nations are very aware of this fact.

Lastly, don't forget the US also wields its swords for nations outside of NATO, where it still has economic interests; in turn, saving those countries from arms races. People don't like to say it, but it is true, the US IS the world's police force. That fact, combined with the fact the US population demands little to no US causalities, the only solution is a strong technological divide. Now if you want the US to respect life like that of China, North Korea, various middle eastern countries, and even Russia, where loss of life in service to its country is demanded and expected by the population, other options become available.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Danny Rathjens]

There are also several parts of the federal government that fund themselves through various other charges and taxes. For example, U.S. Customs and the U.S. Post Office. If you included the money those departments take in and spend to maintain themselves the total percent of military spending is even less. Also, the U.S. pays our volunteer military a decent salary; some of the countries people are comparing to that spend a smaller part of their gdp on military only get room and board.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[ricegf]

Um, the Executive Office of POTUS (the source linked and credited by the Wikipedia article) is "random people on the Net", while your source (a political action committee seeking to cut military budgets to fund more education projects) are "accountable"? Really? To whom?

You do need to get out more...

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Anonymous Coward]

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg[/url]

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Dun Malg]

Ah, but you're not counting all of the money collected as Social Security but then diverted into the military programs...

What are you talking about? Excess Social Security money is dumped back into the general fund by buying treasury bonds, thus floating part of the deficit. It's all a bunch of bullshit accounting, but it's certainly not being funneled off anywhere that his percentages didn't account for. Idiot.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government tells you what you want to hear. Or haven't you been listening to GWB for the past seven years?

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[ricegf]

I'll accept that you are genuinely distrustful of the government, and if you're American, you certainly have an excellent historical basis going back centuries. So I'll address your accusation seriously rather than humorously.

Politicians lie rather routinely. Some, such as Clinton and Nixon, get caught and pay severe consequences; others less so. Political Action Committees and the major parties are no different - they each have at least one agenda, and are usually more than happy to adjust the facts to whatever benefit their cause can grasp.

The General Accounting Office, on the other hand, is not a political organization but an accounting one. They routinely put out reports that embarrass both major parties, because they reveal the truth about some financial aspect of the federal government - and the federal government's finances are definitely a huge embarrassment!

So while I take what a politician or PAC says with a grain or less of salt, I do believe that the budget figures generated by the GAO are reasonably accurate - certainly far more so than the PAC you reference.

Hope that clears up why your comment was moderated down, and the post quoting GAO figures was moderated up.

Best wishes regardless.

Re:Red Planet Mars anybody?

[Mattsson]

16.6% is one hell of a big chunk to pump into ones armed forces.

Military space-plane?

[Channard]

So does this mean we finally will have the ability to 'nuke it from orbit'? 'It' being the terrorist-sheltering target of the week.

Re:Military space-plane?

[MichaelSmith]

So does this mean we finally will have the ability to 'nuke it from orbit'? 'It' being the terrorist-sheltering target of the week.

Not if the target has a substantial monetary value.

Re:Military space-plane?

[KDR_11k]

Well, technically ICBMs leave the atmosphere on their path to the target so we can do that already...

Re:Military space-plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are being too cynical... no offense.

Re:Military space-plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if Carter Burke and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation have anything to say about it.

Re:Military space-plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to start hogging those Faberge eggs, then.

Greetings from Sweden,
John Q. Pirate

Re:Military space-plane?

[Drathos]

Forget about nuking them. Project Crossbow is real!

Re:Military space-plane?

[DaveV1.0]

We have always had the ability. The problem comes in explaining it.

Re:Military space-plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite.

"Nuke it from orbit" is from Aliens. The company representative balks because the terraforming site has a substantial monetary value associated with it.
So the GP was continuing in the dialog train.

Re:Military space-plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

Yes, I know. That is why I said "no offense", which is what Paul Reiser said to Michael Biehn in that scene after he called him a grunt.

Weird

[SimonGhent]

That is probably the oddest article summary I've ever seen here.

Reads like a promo for the new X Files movie.

Re:Weird

[onco_p53]

Just saw the X-files movie. No spoilers here but it was just like watching one of the old TV episodes. But longer.

Re:Weird

[mlush]

Just saw the X-files movie. No spoilers here but it was just like watching one of the old TV episodes. But longer.

Was that a good thing of like watching StarTrek the (Slow) Motion Picture?

Re:Weird

[johannesg]

Yeah, but at least it follows the SSAS ("Slashdot Standards for Accuracy in Summaries") pretty well! Let's see:

- The summary calls the vehicle "X38B".
- The article calls it "X37B".
- But the article also has a picture of a craft clearly labelled "X40A". Of course that could just be a red herring.

Maybe the editors figured they'd just average the numbers from the article to be on the safe side?

Re:Weird

[onco_p53]

Yeah I liked the old episodes, just go in expecting that and not alien ships emerging from Antarctica.

I can see how some would not like it though.

Re:Weird

[xalorous]

After sorting through the linked article, I found the original article that they're basing their article on. 1. X-37B is correct. 2. X-40A was a 'previous configuration' 3. Perhaps we should add a 'no gizmodo' clause to the posting guidelines?

Re:Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the same thing. In my mind it was almost way too biased. I get it, folks here don't really dig the military in space, but can we just get a objective summary for once on the subject.

Re:Weird

[dotancohen]

1. X-37B is correct.
2. X-40A was a 'previous configuration'

I don't suppose the next version will be X-34C?

Re:Weird

[shawn(at)fsu]

When I want witty headlines/summaries I go to Fark.

Re:Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia (all hail the mighty wikipedia), the X-37 program chose to build a scaled down prototype without a propulsion system for atmospheric drop tests to verify aerodynamics. That prototype was called the X-40, probably because X-numbers are assigned sequentially as people decide to build X-vehicles. Thus, X-40 flew first, but X-37 is the Real Thing.

Re:Weird

[Hektor_Troy]

I can do better than that. Most channels here (Denmark) have texted programs for translations. The worst wrong-lation I've seen was from Discovery Channel.

They were talking about some kind of ID numbering scheme, and the speaker was explaining what each bit meant while the screen showed the parts with a big fat ring around them. Imagine something like this:

XD25-789-I-575 being translated (in text) as
XD52-798-I-528

And then of course there's the constant idiotic wronglations from US to Metric, like PSI to Kg/2.54 cm. Not even 2.54^2 cm^2 or 6.45 cm^2.

Defense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the possibility of a Goa'uld Ha'tak coming to invade Earth!

Re:Defense!

[NCG_Mike]

Master Bra'tac says, "Draw from the past and don't let the past draw you"...

Re:Defense!

[Oktober Sunset]

That's a nasty cough you have there.

X-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, its probably just part of the military's super-secret mind rays, but just what is this thing called again?

The summary calls it the X-38B, the RTFA link calls it the X-37B, but the photo at the top clearly shows that it is called the X-40A, while the "artist's impression" at the bottom calls it the plain old X-37!

Wait, I've got it, its some kind of bizarre shell game.

Re:X-what?

[antek9]

Bah, that's last century's technology, then. I must know, I'm typing this on a rock(et) solid X-61. Must figure out the 'shooting things out of the sky' feature, though, can't find it in the ThinkVantage menu yet.

Re:X-what?

[Jellybob]

It's clearly X-Com. They're preparing for the inevitable invasion from Mars.

Remember, when the aliens come, don't walk around in circles on the street. They love it when you do that, and since the X-Com teams can't shoot straight, you may be caught by friendly fire.

Re:X-what?

[splutty]

Obviously written by someone with women on the mind.. I mean.. XXX and then they're talking about 38B, 37B and 40A.

What's more obvious!

Admittedly though, I think 40A would be the average man and not a woman.. But hey, nowadays everything's possible.

Re:X-what?

[clickclickdrone]

>It's clearly X-Com
Nah, Gerry Anderson's UFO - Skydiver and the Interceptors looked way cooler than this odd looking ship.

Re:X-what?

[oodaloop]

TFA says the X-40 was the predecessor to the X-37. I'm guessing X-38 was a typo (I know, hard to beleive a /. summary would have a mistake). The X designation is for experimental. Other aircraft receive a letter designation for its role once it goes into production: F for fighter, B for bomber, etc. Maybe this will be the S-37 (space) or O-37 (orbital)?

Re:X-what?

[StarfishOne]

If it was aimed at women, I'd think that they would have named it 'Tarzan' or something along those lines. :')

Re:X-what?

[Ihlosi]

They love it when you do that, and since the X-Com teams can't shoot straight, you may be caught by friendly fire.

Correction - you _will_ be caught by friendly fire so the Chryssalids don't get you first.

Re:X-what?

[rikkards]

Doubt it will be O since that is used for Observation.

Re:X-what?

[der_joachim]

IIRC, S stands for 'sub hunting' (like the Lockheed S3 Viking).

BTW: from orbit you can observe a lot, you know. ;-)

Too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://thepiratebay.org/tor/3231674

Military Space Tests.

[MrKane]

Although there's not much content to TFA,
it is an interesting subject.

Personally I'm not keen to see a militarisation of "Space",
but the technologies that are almost
certain to spring from such areas will surely
feed back into civilian areas.

Besides, it might just be too expensive and
morally difficult (to convince any electorate)
in order to make any serious claims to "Space Ownership"
by any military power.

ps. I'm not trying to fuel the trolls here, just trying to anticipate them ;?)

Re:Military Space Tests.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck are you, e.e. cummings? What the hell is with that formatting?

Re:Military Space Tests.

[DaveV1.0]

Hi, you are dumbass.

This is not 'a militarisation of "Space"'. Maybe you should read up on the other X-vehicle tests that were done by the military to advance aviation.

Stop being a shithead and go LEARN about a subject before commenting.

Re:Military Space Tests.

[MrKane]

My advice is to step away from the internets, and take a stress pill.

Re:Military Space Tests.

[Gabe Spradlin]

While we are not allowed to put weapons in space, a space plane does allow us to demonstrate that we can put weapons in space with modifications to the vehicle. The modifications aren't simple but they aren't that hard. Air power was the path to military dominance in the 20th century and space power is the path in the 21st century. The US signed a treaty and so have other countries. I don't believe for a second that this will prevent our country or any other from putting weapons in space if the advantages (military or economic) are big enough.

just to point out...

[ruffles321]

X-37B not X-38B (there propably is a difference... whatever)

X-38B?

[Caboosian]

The summary refers to the plane as the X-38B, and the article refers to it as the X-37B multiple times. The plane is the X-37B according to NASA's PDF . I just want to know how the subby changed a 7 to an 8 with copy/paste.

Re:X-38B?

[Caboosian]

I'm an idiot. I quickly googled for a NASA confirmation of the name, found the pdf, linked it, posted it, opened it, and checked the date. May 2003. Well... At least the name's right.

Militarization of space ?

[Yvanhoe]

Isn't there an international treaty signed by US and Russia against this ? Is that the start of a new race ?

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Sqityl]

Isn't there an international treaty signed by US and Russia against this ? Is that the start of a new race ?

You'd be referring to the Outer Space treaty, right? Well, it doesn't actually block the militarization of space, just the placement of weapons of mass destruction. So long as they don't fill this thing with nukes they should be fine. While I'm an outright pacifist, it is good to see actual progress in space travel, perhaps the discoveries made by engineering this spaceplane will advance more peaceful spacecraft in the future.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[d_strand]

The treaty relates to weapons in space, not military transports. Anyway, USA and Russia dont exactly have a history of following treaties they have signed.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[DNS-and-BIND]

The treaty that you speak of was signed by the Soviet Union, NOT Russia. As hard as it is to believe, those two political organizations have almost nothing in common.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish nations would finally grasp that an arms race is ultimately at best a zero sum game.

Now that the world has de-facto reached the pax atomia age, nations should realize that this is as much stability they can expect. Any further weapons developement ("peace forces" nonwithstanding) only intends to break this lucky stalemate. And war is space will make atmosphere based weapons look cheap. If this turns into a real arms race it will no longer be states having a military, but the military having a state. And when asked to justify that, they just have to point to the "other power(s)" who do just the same. A "2084" if you will.
I am sure if you look at this problem from a game theoretical[1] point of view this is where one should stop trying to "win" and leave with what you have.

And I just don't buy the "War is good for technology thing". It is funds that limit developement of whatever, not a sudden patriotic zeal in your scientists working harder for victory.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Re:Militarization of space ?

[d_strand]

You are correct. However since the soviet union no longer exists i choose to say Russia instead since it is currently the closest political equivalent.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Larryish]

In Soviet Russia, the treaty signs YOU!

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in common? They have the same national anthem!

But to be fair, it is a pretty cool song. Even drunken sailors can sing it and make it sound impressive.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[DaveV1.0]

No, there is no treaty against this. This is not about weapons in space. Maybe you should look up the rest of the X-vehicle program.

Or, is it to much trouble for you to actually educate yourself before you make stupid comments?

Re:Militarization of space ?

[peawee03]

In exchange for getting the USSR's nukes from the former republics, the Russian Federation agreed to take on all debts and treaty obligations of the USSR, meaning that the treaty applies to Russia (Also See: the uproar over Russia withdrawing from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty)

Re:Militarization of space ?

[DerekLyons]

The treaty that you speak of was signed by the Soviet Union, NOT Russia.

True. But back in the 90's when the Soviet Union became the Commonwealth of Independent States, the CIS explicitly took over the role and responsibilities of the USSR with regards to various treaties and agreements that the USSR was a party to. Which means the CIS, and by extension Russia as a member state, is still bound by the Outer Space Treaty.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The modern Russia considers itself a successor to the Soviet Union.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[h.ross.perot]

The Rooskies had a recoiless AA Gun mounted on a early orbital observation platform... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is the legal successor to the Soviet Union, so it is still bound to all the treaties that the Soviet Union signed.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The treaty that you speak of was signed by the Soviet Union, NOT Russia. As hard as it is to believe, those two political organizations have almost nothing in common.

That is factually wrong. Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union and has held the position that treaties it has signed remain in force, and should be read as though Russia were the signatory. See http://www.dod.mil/acq/acic/treaties/abm/ad_mou.htm

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Beezlebub33]

I wish nations would finally grasp that an arms race is ultimately at best a zero sum game.

[snip]

And I just don't buy the "War is good for technology thing". It is funds that limit developement of whatever, not a sudden patriotic zeal in your scientists working harder for victory.

Ok then, military funding is good for technology. It might not be efficient or get you where you want to go in many areas, but it sure provides the research money in lots of areas. From the internet, to active optics, to computer hardware, to materials research (composites, single crystal fan blades), to weather, to neurobiology (my area), funding from the military has been vital.

You can argue that we should be funding the research directly, through say NSF, but the amounts wouldn't be nearly as much. Saying 'we need it for defending ourselves' works so much better for the politicians than 'we need it for understanding the world' or some other philosophical underlying reason. You can whine about how it just isn't fair or right, but it just doesn't work that way.

So, I'm happy with the military funding X-37/X-38/X-40.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in modern Russia, you drive cars?

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that as a successor-state, Russia has "inherited" the rights and duties of the USSR, including treaty obligations.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't, but a change of local government (the CIS or Russia depending on the time frame) in no way allows a nation to skirt the international obligations of the state it is assuming control over. Those treaties can be renegotiated after power changes hands but are not summarily annulled when a local faction seizes control.

States that do go through a period of local revolution and then neglect their international treaty obligations become pariahs. (Iran vis a vis the US is a good recent case.) The People's Republic of China is a positive example of how this happens. The PRC honored the requirements of the treaty that made Hong Kong a temporary possession of the United Kingdom, even though it was signed some 50 years before the PRC was declared.

If the territory changes hands, however, all bets are off. Generally, the successful invading power has no obligation to honor treaties that the deposed government negotiated. Debt payments being a general exception (especially if the allies of the invading power made the loans). Wide scale war by proxy complicates debt repayment, though. Basically, allies get paid first, neutral powers second and hostile powers don't see anything until the conflict ends (and then only if they are victorious).

So, just because the Soviet Union is now Russia doesn't mean the treaty is annulled.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish nations would finally grasp that an arms race is ultimately at best a zero sum game.

I don't think you know what the term 'zero-sum game' means. It implies a finite resource and a game in which any one player's acquisition of some of that resource is exactly balanced by other players' losses. Arms races are in no sense zero sum, whether you're considering a technological arms race (new capabilities) or just amassing more of a given technology (production). The U.S. didn't have to lose an ICBM every time the Soviet Union made a new one, or vice versa.

Now that the world has de-facto reached the pax atomia age, nations should realize that this is as much stability they can expect. Any further weapons developement ("peace forces" nonwithstanding) only intends to break this lucky stalemate.

Yes. What's your point?

You may take it as a given that there will always be a nation looking to get the upper hand. You cannot prevent this without a global program of repression awful to contemplate, and completely impractical to implement.

And war is space will make atmosphere based weapons look cheap. If this turns into a real arms race it will no longer be states having a military, but the military having a state. And when asked to justify that, they just have to point to the "other power(s)" who do just the same. A "2084" if you will.
I am sure if you look at this problem from a game theoretical[1] point of view this is where one should stop trying to "win" and leave with what you have.

Or maybe you're completely wrong about the inevitability of present and future arms races leading to a "2084". You don't give any logical reason why this should happen, you just handwave.

In the most obvious and recent instance where this has been tested in the real world, excessive military spending (excessive when considered in terms of percentage of total economic output) was a significant factor in the collapse of a major superpower which always had an oppressive government during its rise to power and participation in an arms race -- the very government which was the inspiration for 1984, as a matter of fact! This suggests an inherent self-limiting factor.

In any case, like it or not, the space arms race has been around for a while. It had gone a bit dormant with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but with the Chinese rattling their sabers, you can be guaranteed that it will heat up for a while.

Re:Militarization of space ?

[sir fer]

Anyway, USA and Russia dont exactly have a history of following treaties they have signed.

Yeah, like the Geneva Convention.

Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Something tells me you people would rather blow up the Earth than give up your position on it and I'm not joking.

Cost?

[minhlish]

Didn't read TFA but what was the estimated cost? With inflation adjusted?

Re:First Post

[xalorous]

Re-railing this first thread:

1. The first picture on gizmodo clearly shows a X-40A, not an X-37B.
2. Secret military shuttles?
3. Secret orbital bases?

Kind of hard to have secret anything these days, especially aircraft that fly into space, and more so for things that are in orbit. Any nut job with a telescope can see stuff in orbit. Shuttles lifting off are fairly dramatic, and show up on satellite scans like a turd in a punch bowl. As for secret shuttles, why bother when the DoD just schedules a military launch of one of the shuttles and keeps the payload a secret. And where are 'they' hiding the orbital platforms? Behind the moon?

Seriously, what kind of paranoid lunatics write stories over at gizmodo? They should stick to reviewing the iPhone and keeping tabs on Steve Jobs' not so well hidden agenda to take over the Interweb and make it so only Apple equipment is used.

Sheesh!

talk about hitting a fly with a sledgehammer

[ionix5891]

in this "war of terror"

Save the cheerleader, save the world...

[vorlich]

Obviously that will be the price of freedom! Even with inflation adjustment the price will remain constant.

So how many...

[oodaloop]

UFO sightings does this explain? Military planes take 20 or more years of testing, and TFA says they've flowin it before. So how many times did someone in the Southwest spot one and say, "That ain't no plane. It's movin way too fast!"

Re:So how many...

[icebrain]

If my memory serves me, they've flown this thing in atmosphere, but not orbital yet. Kinda like how Enterprise flew from the back of a 747 (to test approach and landing) before the other orbiters flew in space.

another article

[Woek]

http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

Re:So how many...

[oodaloop]

Kinda like how Enterprise flew from the back of a 747

They flew an AIRCRAFT CARRIER on the back of a 747? How did I miss that?

Military Men and Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Interesting google adsense for this article

Ads by Google
Meet Gay Military Men
Find Military Gay Men Near You. View Profiles 100% Free. Join Now!
www.GayMilitaryDating.com

Re:Military Men and Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... I get stuff about military fitness training.
Haven't there been articles lately about Google tracking the sites you visit to determine your interests for serving you advertisements?

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to shoot the aliens I guess. -- My google notebook

Re:So how many...

[arotenbe]

Yeah, and they had a 747 on the aircraft carrier!

(Karma? Who needs it?)

Re:So how many...

[rarel]

The pilots were blindfolded. If they can't see you, you can't see them. Easy!

Summary and article are full of crap

[YA_Python_dev]

Isn't space meant to be like demilitarized zone or something?

Yes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits military bases, any kind of weapon tests and the permanent placement of WMD anywhere outside the Earth's atmosphere (nuclear ICBMs are OK as long as they stay in space only temporary on their way to their destination).

But the article (and even more so the summary) is mostly sensationalist crap: the real news here is that they are doing a test of the small and unmanned Boeing X-37B technology demonstrator. But I guess yet another engineering step in a slow technology development program doesn't sound as much as newsworthy for people that are not in this kind of thing.

Oh, BTW, there has never been anything like a "secret military shuttle" (you simply can't hide anything like that in space). There where a few NASA Shuttle missions in the 80s dedicated to the deployment of military satellites, but the DoD has for a very long time launched its payloads on Atlas and Delta rockets. If something is broken, it's much chepear to simply launch a new one that to mount a risky STS maintenance mission (and the Shuttle can't reach most of the orbits used by military satellites). So this has absolutely nothing to do with the planned STS retirement in 2010.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[vegiVamp]

> you simply can't hide anything like that in space

Hey, the Vogons hid an entire fleet from us, until they destroyed the planet.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[Quicksilver_Johny]

Isn't space meant to be like demilitarized zone or something?

Yes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits military bases, any kind of weapon tests and the permanent placement of WMD anywhere outside the Earth's atmosphere (nuclear ICBMs are OK as long as they stay in space only temporary on their way to their destination).

There's also the failed Space Preservation Act.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

There's also the failed Space Preservation Act.
Which is about as relevant as the Articles of Confederation

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[moosesocks]

It's not like it's never been violated before.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[Mr_Perl]

Sure, it probably would be harder today to keep launches secret. But there's a good history of this sort of activity.

The USSR had a lot of secret military vehicles and sats sent up under the guise of their civilian program, including a manned spy satellite that was equipped with "small" arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_spacecraft

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[DaveV1.0]

I think it was a stupid and very lame reference to the X-71 military shuttle in the movie Armageddon.

It fits well in the stupid and very lame write up.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[ArcherB]

Would "Rods from God" be considered a WMD?

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[LWATCDR]

"But the article (and even more so the summary) is mostly sensationalist crap:"
I think it was mostly a joke...

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[Eunuchswear]

It's a WMD if you want to pretend the bad guys of the hour are trying to get it. It's legit if we or our "allies" have it.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[Rich0]

I think that WMD means that you spend a million dollars and kill at least 10k people. Rods from God are more like spending a million dollars and killing fewer people than a well-placed grenade. I guess cost doesn't matter as much as impact - a chemical leak isn't that expensive to generate but can kill quite a few people.

They certainly offer certain capabilities that make them attractive but they're hardly WMDs. And that has nothing to do with nationality.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[sir fer]

Oh, BTW, there has never been anything like a "secret military shuttle" (you simply can't hide anything like that in space).

Again, what makes you geeks think you're privy to the governments' secret goings on? I mean, they hid the Manhattan Project for *years*.

I think by definintion that a *secret* program is conducted in *secret* without all and sundry being privy to its progress. Please pull your head out of your arse and realise there are probably numerous *secret* programs going on *right now* that you don't know about, because they are being conducted in *secret*

That, and go look up "secret" some time in a dictionary, if you can even read past a 3rd grade level.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[YA_Python_dev]

Oh, BTW, there has never been anything like a "secret military shuttle" (you simply can't hide anything like that in space).

Again, what makes you geeks think you're privy to the governments' secret goings on? I mean, they hid the Manhattan Project for *years*.

One of the reasons why they were able to keep it secret was because they didn't periodically flight over 100,000 kg of hardware in plain daylight over all the biggest cities of the world. Which is what every Shuttle mission does.

Please pull your head out of your arse

I'm sorry but I don't think I can (mostly because it's not where my head is).

realise there are probably numerous *secret* programs going on *right now* that you don't know about, because they are being conducted in *secret*

I'm aware that if something is secret, then I probably don't know about its existence. My point is that there are things that nobody can keep secret with current or near-future technology.

Re:Summary and article are full of crap

[KingBenny]

Yes, apparently the moon 'belongs' to a group of people? Who are they? I'd like to meet them ????

Re:So how many...

[cnettel]

Not the USS Enterprise, but the OV-101 Enterprise.

Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

I'm pretty much a hardcore Republican that thinks Obama is a sort of Pharonic anti-christ, but, Obama's criticisms of NASA suddenly stand in stark relief when we suddenly see that the USAF is actually building a credible spaceplane and NASA, in its Constellation program, is admitting that it can't do it. Sure, one might argue that NASA is strapped for funds, but I like how the USAF had no problem turning to White Knight to test its stuff out rather than NIH'ing the whole program. Maybe we -do- need to kill NASA's manned space flight program.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Nyeerrmm]

You have to remember, the military has a mission they're focused on and want to get the tools they need to complete. NASA's mission for the most part seems to be making sure they keep their budget. Not saying that military contracting is a paragon of efficiency, but generally having a defined goal that everyone believes in helps a lot to keep you on track.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

I mean, I'm just shocked that NASA threw in the towel on space planes, and the USAF is flying one. I'm just completely shocked.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty much a hardcore Republican that thinks Obama is a sort of Pharonic anti-christ

So, basically you're a racist idiot? Knuckles drag on the ground, do they?

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[4D6963]

Maybe we -do- need to kill NASA's manned space flight program.

Hallelujah, well, mostly. Of course we probably want to keep people in orbit and what not, but at least $100 billion to go back to the moon is plain silly and pointless. That was just the clueless Bush administration's space pissing contest and that thing needs to get killed badly, although a launcher that can get at least as much into orbit as the Saturn V is a great thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the motivation behind that plan was to send American men to the Moon so they could flip off the far side of the Earth all at once.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[JWW]

NASA and the Air Force have different missions here. NASA want to go to the Moon and Mars, and a space plane can't do that. USAF is trying to build something to fly into space around the Earth.

I am content with both missions being done.

As for Obama, his idea of halting work on manned spaceflight in order to increase Science and Technology education is completely backwards. Just using /. as a reference, most of the people interested in Science and Technology are keenly interested in space flight and exploration. Most of us as kids growing up followed very closely NASA and its space program, and most of us (demographically speaking) do not remember man walking on the Moon. Obama's insistence in killing funding for manned space exploration will guarantee the US a backseat in space exploration by the end of this century and all the money he will have spent on Science education will be wasted.

The kids growing up in this country are hammered with the message that to be rich and successful you need to either be a movie/rock star, sports star, lawyer, or doctor. The engineering field is suffering an uphill battle to continue to attract young people to the field. Whether its correct or not, manned spaceflight, and in fact the entirety of NASA's programs is the largest PR engine to fuel the interest of the next generation in engineering disciplines. Without it, no matter how much you spend on education, without the vision provided by the great engineering challenges NASA takes on, the engineering field in the US will slowly die.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[geckipede]

This isn't a spaceplane in itself, it would only deserve the name if it were an SSTO. It's just an aerodynamic upper stage to some ancient missile technology. Perhaps the best way to think of it is as a satellite that can land itself if needed. What NASA can't do is to make a shuttle-like vehicle that is both safe enough to be allowed to carry humans (which the original shuttle wouldn't have done, if the rules weren't ignored at the time) and is also large enough to be used for resupply of the ISS.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[BenBenBen]

"I'm pretty much a hardcore Republican that thinks Obama is a sort of Pharonic anti-christ"

You jest, no? Much as I dislike pretty much all US politicians for being corporatist whores with nothing but the survival of the elite and global imperial hegemony on their mind, please tell me that you have serious policy differences with the Donks but you don't believe OBH is a marxist/the devil/a muslim/trotskyite?

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Anonymous Coward]

It couldn't be that Obama is yet another lying sack of shit. It has to be a race issue. Shut the fuck up, you moron.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[demachina]

Not sure how your rant got scored interesting... and I'm the first one to bash NASA..... but I think this article is talking about the X-37B. The X-37A was DEVELOPED by NASA, though Boeing's Phantom Works actually built it under contact to them. The program was transfered to DARPA in 2004 and the X-37B is a second generation developed by the military. Since the original design is from NASA your venom is somewhat misplaced, at least in this instance.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'm pretty much a hardcore Republican that thinks Obama is a sort of Pharonic anti-christ,

With that kind of statement, why in the world would you expect anything else you say to be taken seriously?

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

Oh, and you write the following, and call yourself something to take seriously?

Conservatism is a failed ideology which has joined communism in the trash heap of history.

George Bush has been the greatest president this country has ever had in decades. If Obama gets in, he's going to put the following jobs onto the trashheap of history.

all the mining
all the steel
all the plastics
all the farms
all the biofuels

so, right there, you've got what, 40 million jobs banned so you can have everyone building windmills for your slavemaster Obama?

What a joke!

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Are you attracted to me?

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

Are you attracted to me?

Nah, its more really about practicing to cash in on Republican political incompetence. I'm just ramping myself up a bit for the election to build my trash Obama web site. 30% of the people in the country actually like Bush and that's a pretty big market out there that has been utterly abandoned.

It's so obvious that McCain could win if he turns "Bush the third term" into an asset. He should go to every state with miners gone up, every state with farmers and be pointing out that the gravy trends when Obama gets elected because all of those "city people" think they have a right to free food. In fact, you could even do a southern strategy and paint it almost like all of these "invaders" in the city are trying to take your farm and your mine and your refinery away, and send them overseas to their buddies back home. You could so totally paint Democrats as the party of Wall Street by pointing out that under Bush, no one gets Wall Street Bonuses, while farmers get raises, but under Clinton, Wall Street got rich, while farmers foreclosed, and a vote for Obama is a vote for foreclosure and your stuff siezed by these city people.

Even though I am a Republican, the mechanical problem, the actual problem of rebuilding the party from its ashes, is such as huge challenge, it interests me. Besides, let's face it, you really aren't cool unless you are Republican, because everyone loves Democrats. We are the ones that the world hates, and that's the way it should be!

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

And the other thing too, that will make it great, is that, Democrats can't genuinely argue against the high prices of commodities because their own green agenda is against so much consumption. That's whole beauty... to go around the country and grab the farmers, miners, the whole middle class of manufacturing and resource extraction, and educate them into Democrats being against them.

Such a stand would probably mean that, Republicans are going to have to change their anti-union tune, and go for a nationalistic tune, and let Democrats become the party of Wall Street. This way, we could let go of the "social issues" that are now harming us more than helping, and focus more on economics versus the environment, and paint Dems as religious nutcakes worshipping the earth.

Politics is such an interesting game.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I am still disappointed that your brother in law wasn't blasted to smithereens by that IED. **smooches**

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

I am still disappointed that your brother in law wasn't blasted to smithereens by that IED. **smooches**

Of course you are, you are a liberal! That's like saying the sky is blue. I wouldn't expect any differently, and honestly, if you would say something about the troops or the working man, we'd know it was just a lie anyway. At least you are somewhat honest about where you really stand, I'll give you that.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

I am still disappointed that your brother in law wasn't blasted to smithereens by that IED. **smooches**

So are about 73 members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, may they rest not so much in peace!

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

KABOOM! whum whump whump aaaaahhhhhh!

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's the whole point. The USAF has a focused mission because we handed it to them straight out of the Constitution: defend the country.

NASA was founded by Congress in 1958. Congress's only relevant power is to "provide for the common defense and general welfare". In the shadow of Sputnik, that seemed like a really good idea at the time. The Soviet military is putting people (and maybe weapons) in orbit, and we need to meet the threat.

But as much as manned spaceflight is cool, the government doesn't have the legal power to spend tax money on things just because they're cool. There's no military threat from space today. Even if you're a fan of manned spaceflight (as I am), commercial aerospace is rapidly catching up (if not passing) NASA already. NASA was a great organization for its day, but its need is no more.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[TheSync]

The kids growing up in this country are hammered with the message that to be rich and successful you need to either be a movie/rock star, sports star, lawyer, or doctor. The engineering field is suffering an uphill battle to continue to attract young people to the field.

According to the Princeton Review, these are the most popular US college majors as of 2006 and their average salary out 10 years:

Business Administration and Management $112,127
Psychology $75,610
Elementary Education $53,100 (there is no split out for Elementary Education in the salaries, but Elementary has higher initial salaries than Secondary)
Biology $143,402
Nursing $74,443
Education $53,100
English $78,159 (assumes you can get a job...)
Communication $81,023
Computer Science $109,393
Political Science $114,366

No engineering is on the "top 10 list" of majors, but 10-year-out salaries for Engineering (in general) is $120,330.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Curlsman]

Since NASA has pissed on Rutan for decades (because I saw them do it in the 1980s when I worked at NASA Dryden on Edwards AFB), the worst thing the USAF can do to NASA is ask for his help.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[nasor]

This is not a manned vehicle. It's a robotic drone/upper stage - basically an upper stage for a rocket that can be recovered.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[iso-cop]

The military is continuing years and years of NASA work on experimental atmospheric and space craft. Many of these concepts were worked and then scrapped because of contractor budget overruns, which can be absorbed by the military and not NASA. The problems that occur in the Constellation program do not say that NASA cannot do it except that any schedule slip or budget overrun is considered ruinous to NASA but is considered the cost of doing business in the military. It is very difficult to build an enormous new system plus do everything that is already being done on a fraction of a fraction of the military (much less the national) budget.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[DerekLyons]

The kids growing up in this country are hammered with the message that to be rich and successful you need to either be a movie/rock star, sports star, lawyer, or doctor. The engineering field is suffering an uphill battle to continue to attract young people to the field.

Kids have been hammered with such messages for decades (stretching back into the mid 19th century at least), yet until fairly recently we engineers a' plenty.
 
 

Whether its correct or not, manned spaceflight, and in fact the entirety of NASA's programs is the largest PR engine to fuel the interest of the next generation in engineering disciplines.

Yet, before the was a NASA, there were engineers a' plenty.
 
 

Without it, no matter how much you spend on education, without the vision provided by the great engineering challenges NASA takes on, the engineering field in the US will slowly die.

Given that NASA doesn't seem to have actually played as much as role as you claim - one doubts your conclusions.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not fair to NASA, beside Apollo, shuttle and ISS, which are incredible technological achievement on their own, NASA also did a huge amount of experimental research on aerodynamic which were often highly classified and very very cutting-edge. Just like you don't just make a computer or build a new OS, years of research with no hope of turning into actual product when it was done lied behind some of the most advanced aircraft we see today . Regardless where you stand politically, if you want more advanced plane in the future, whether it's military or civilian, you should support providing adequate funding for NASA.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I guess we all know why you're over here instead of enlisting, you fraidy cat! It's easier to hit plastic keys than to kill human beings.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Designed or developed != Signed and Delivered

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[ricegf]

I'm pretty much a hardcore Republican that thinks Obama is a sort of Pharonic anti-christ

So, basically you're a racist idiot? Knuckles drag on the ground, do they?

Hate to be the one to break the news to ya, but believing that the only reason not to enthusiastically support Obama is racism is really, really racist. Are you only supporting him because of his race? Really?

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporatist? You really think American politicians are trying to place industries under the control of councils consisting of representatives of government, labor, and capital? Or are you just another clueless fuck that don't know the difference between fascist economic theory and rent-seeking by limited-liability businesses?

(It's really amazing. When Marx's theories had visibly failed, a group of ex-socialists invented a new community-oriented "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism, involved in giving all stakeholders a say in the way companies were run. And then seventy years later, when Marx's theories failed even more spectacularly, a new group of ex-socialists seeking a "Third Way" reinvented fascist economics, and called it progressive. Those who know fuck all about history are doomed to keep trying to get the same proven-stupid ideas adopted.)

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

I'm a terrible soldier, but my contribution to the war effort is a technology, that if it works, will allow the US military to instantly decrypt nearly every kind of communications that there is, and also quickly reverse solve complex patterns to understand the intentions of America's enemies BEFORE they hit. If I can put a squad of guys into a bomb maker's room before he finishes, then, I'll have made some small contribution. And, if I help the Feds read everything -you- write, regardless of your stupid PGP keys, well then, that's just added gravy.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Bullshit. Snake oil. Keep telling yourself that you're contributing if that helps you keep your head up, coward. One thing I'll say for your brother in law who didn't get blown to pieces - he signed up. End of story.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[tjstork]

Dude, you are a traitor who already wished my family dead. By that very act, as if abortion weren't enough, you've already basically made it clear that your liberalism is nothing more than a cheap attempt to steal from other people that which you are incapable of getting for yourself. Hey, if I have to go to the war to support it, how about you go and pay for everyone's health insurance. You want to feed the poor, why don't you go make 40 billion a year and go do it! Have you fed even -one- person? Have you paid even -one- person's medical bills? We both know the answer is no. At the end of the day, all you traitors are is a bunch of baby birds waiting at the nest for big daddy government to bring you a worm and that you are too useless and too worthless to do anything for yourselves. Because, you would have done it, I assume, if you could.

So please, continue on, and say, everyone who supports the war should be over there, because, I'm justing waiting for you to give your right to breath to save the earth from CO2 pollution.

Re:Oh dear god, Obama might be right!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My comment was so nice you replied to it twice!

I need the work you insensitive clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

So they take military back to space - something that USSR and USA has mutually agreed not to do. It looks like 'hawks' broke yet another agreement, provoking new form of arms race - space arms race. It just proves how much these 'agreements' are worth. Good luck, U.S. - I hope your economy can take it. Your friends in 'Space Halliburton' will take good care of you!

My town needs the work building that stuff since the peaceful manufacturing and services have gone to China and Mexico.

Eisenhower's grave seen smoking from the friction from the spinning (Military Industrial Complex - we need it now.)

Way to win asymmetric warfare

[wisty]

OK, your troops are fighting a guerilla war (actually several guerilla wars) against low-tech terrorist cells. Bugger flack jackets and armored vehicles (or better yet, 'educational' aid to Africa to head off the next generation of extremists), you need space superiority.

Re:Way to win asymmetric warfare

[4D6963]

Exactly, we're fighting a guerilla warfare, so what could possibly be the use of remaining the top dogs? Let's just wait until the Chinese get the upper hand on that whole "space" thing to worry about catching up with them. By all means let's make R&D policies based on short/mid-term concerns. If something isn't going to be useful to alleviate our concerns of the hour within the next few years then it's clearly a waste of time and money.

checklist

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Ion engines: No
Laser cannons: No
Photon torpedos: No
Shields: No
Warpcore/hyperspace drive: No
Matter/antimatter reactor: No
Transporters: No
Long Range Scanner: No
Sort Range sensors: Yes
Space capabilities: Kind of.

Buyers advice:

This space fighter doesn't have any of the selling features of other space fighters on the market. The lack of ion engines make this a very dated craft. It is more appropriate for a museum than the space age. Buyers are adviced to look into more complete craft like the X-wing or the TIE-advance. This craft makes the old and very well known to be unsafe TIE-fighter look good.

Re:checklist

[MRe_nl]

This landing-pod doesn't have any of the selling features of other landing-pod's on the market.
This craft makes the old and very well known to be unsafe Quake landing-pod look good.

[Fixed]
http://www.youtube.com/v/1SVVKQlwTUk

Re:checklist

[el_benito]

You kidding?! She did the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs!

Orbital portion of male anatomy

[Kupfernigk]

I will probably get modded troll or flamebait - but what conceivable real strategic benefit is there from this thing? It just seems to be a case of USAF/Boeing willy waggling. In case you hadn't noticed, NASA builds stuff that works, and does some real research. Notice how we have gone in a few years from "is there water on Mars?" to "how much water is there on Mars?" - a huge paradigm shift - as a result of work by NASA and the ESA. Meanwhile this project basically does nothing but ask "can we go really really fast with a winged vehicle?". One is R&D which tells us more about the Universe and, ultimately, about our own origins and destiny: the other is NASCAR without wheels.

Re:Orbital portion of male anatomy

[Ihlosi]

but what conceivable real strategic benefit is there from this thing?

The Terrorists(tm) are going to love it. Think of all the money that doesn't go towards effective means of fighting them.

Re:Orbital portion of male anatomy

[4D6963]

Right, because what could we possibly use in the future of a plane that can be launched to space and come back to Earth when the Shuttle is about to be retired? Oh wait..

Re:Orbital portion of male anatomy

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. The NASA missions are undoubtedly important, but they are not R&D. They are science. This, on the other hand, is R&D. They are doing RESEARCH while trying to DEVELOP something useful. Is there something inherently wrong with trying to go really fast in a winged vehicle? Is there nothing that Boeing (which may have an interest in such things) can learn about materials, aerodynamics, control systems, etc from this experiment? As for your little jab at NASCAR: while the spectators may be there to watch cars go really fast, the engine manufacturers, etc are using it to learn things that may make engines better. Nothing wrong with that either.

Project Bluebeam

[drsmall17]

There are no aliens. Only the one's the government will be creating for Project Bluebeam and the NWO. Having military in space is all part of their big plan.

Re:First Post

[pisto_grih]

TFS says its a X-38B, so everyones wrong.

Can we just like unpublish this post?

[falcon5768]

Or at least replace it with one thats even remotely accurate?

1) They didnt even get the RIGHT CRAFT.

2) There never was EVER a secret military shuttle... there where plans to make military shuttles, but they where hardly secret and never made it past the drawing board AS a military project. You could say some of their ideas went into the STS, but then thats hardly a secret.

This isnt even technically a shuttle... its a test bed system which is something NASA and the military have launched multiple times.. again technically the Air Force can not even launch the thing as a military object, it would go against the treaties in place and while I do not put it past our current government, they likely will not be in power when this thing is supposed to be tested and certainly if it get the green light for production.

Re:Can we just like unpublish this post?

[LWATCDR]

"again technically the Air Force can not even launch the thing as a military object,"
Sure they can.
The only treaty limitation is that you can not put WMDs into orbit or detonate nukes in spaces. I don't know if you forbidden to detonate chemical or biological weapons in space but it would kid of silly.
Russia/the USSR tested and deployed anti-satellite weapons in the 70s and 80s. The US tested on in the 80s. China has tested one so no there is nothing stopping the USAF from launching a military system as long as it isn't a nuke.
"2) There never was EVER a secret military shuttle... "
Yes there is! Don't you watch West Wing! Most of the silly comments where just that. Jokes.

Re:Can we just like unpublish this post?

[Anonymous Coward]

2) There never was EVER a secret military shuttle...

With all due respect, how the fuck would you know? I mean if it was a secret...

Go look up "secret" in a dictionary sometime dumbass.

Re:So how many...

[4D6963]

The problem with UFO sightings is that they don't just go fast, they do what nothing we know of can do, i.e. fly at 70 knots, accelerate for a few seconds to 9 G to reach 600 knots and go up 10,000 feet, that kind of stuff... Besides, UFO sightings didn't exactly start 20 years ago.

The only place Democrats want to drilll:

[Anonymous Coward]

your wallet.

Re:The only place Democrats want to drilll:

[Ihlosi]

your wallet.

Better that than my kids wallets, and my grandkids wallets, etc.

Tax me all you want (and I'll grumble and/or leave the country), but keep your greedy little fingers off my kids future. That makes me mad.

Re:The only place Democrats want to drilll:

[Gilmoure]

Exxon Mobil: Record profits ($1,500/second) for the last quarter. But hey, high gas prices aren't a tax. Nor are higher prices for food and goods a tax. But hey, if it's good for Exxon, BP, and the rest, it's good for America, right? RIGHT?!!!

Re:The only place Democrats want to drilll:

[jdschulteis]

It's good for you if your IRA/401k/pension fund is invested in Exxon, BP, and the rest. To whom do you think those record profits belong?

Re:The only place Democrats want to drilll:

[MJMullinII]

Exxon Mobil: Record profits ($1,500/second) for the last quarter. But hey, high gas prices aren't a tax. Nor are higher prices for food and goods a tax. But hey, if it's good for Exxon, BP, and the rest, it's good for America, right? RIGHT?!!!

Exxon Mobil is an American Corporation, so yes, in the grand scheme of things, what is good for Exxon Mobil IS good for the United States as a whole.

Does that mean I like paying higher gas prices, hell no. However, I'm not going to go whining "Oh it's so unfair, oh it's so unfair, they should give me gas for the price I'M WILLING TO PAY, not WHAT IT IS WORTH."

As an American (and a Capitalist) I would much rather someone come up with something better than gasoline. Then, I could simply tell Exxon Mobil that in a Capitalist Society I have the right to buy my energy from whom ever I choose and this new company is able to provide it cheaper, so, don't call us we'll call you.

But don't bitch just because they are filling the need for mobile energy and no one else is stepping up to the plate.

That's not their fault, that's the American Way.

Re:The only place Democrats want to drilll:

[sumdumass]

You do realize that their profit isn't all from gas and Diesel fuels right? They have wells that produce oil sold on the open market, they own stations or station lands and building and lease them out to private operators, produce and sell natural gas and home heating oil plus a number of chemicals.

In fact, Fivecentnickel did a break down of were the money goes in a gallon of gas. As it turns out, refining and profit is of gas is only about 10% of the price per gallon. This isn't off from other estimates either. And it isn't excessive compared to other industries. Microsoft kept 27.3 cents of every $1 in revenue in its most recent quarter; General Electric, 11.4 cents and McDonald's, 12.3 cents. In fact, Exxon is below the 11-cent average of Standard & Poor's 500 companies, says analyst Howard Silverblatt.

So lets look at this, 10% per gallon. That is 40 cents on $4.00 gas. But wait, 40 percent or more of that goes to income taxes. So in reality, of the 40 cents, they keep around 23 ti 24 cents per gallon. Of course federal highway and state taxes average around 13% depending on the price and location but lets not focus on that. So If Exxon (the countries largest oil company) decided to cut their profits in half to save the consumer, that would only effect gas prices by 5% or 20 cents on a $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Does $3.80 compared to $4.00 a gallon seem like gouging?

The problem is that we only have about 5 major oil companies operating in the US with only 4 of them operating in any given state at a time. This problem is compounded by not being able to develop oil fields in the US because of environmental concerns and not being able to open refineries because of the same problems. This means that with all of the smaller oil companies, the major ones just do enormous volume in sales which is why they make so much. In 2007, the US consumed 142 billion gallons of gas (about 390 million gallons per day).

So if we look at this 142 billion gallon figure, we can do a number of things. Lets multiply it by $4.00 per gallon of gas, thats $568,000,000,000 or 568 billion dollars in sales. Now of the 10% holds true, that is 56.8 billion in profit across the US. Lets divide that into quarters to compare it against profits for Exxon. It comes to around 14.2 billion dollar profit per quarter in the US gas market alone. Now assuming that usage hasn't went down in the US in more then a negligible amount, with Exxon's $11.7 billion profit posted this quarter and forgetting that it makes money in places other then Gasoline sales (about 65 billion gallons of diesel and heating oil in 2007 nation wide )plus natural gas supplies and all, 11.7 billion profit in a quarter at $4.00 a gallon is only about 79% of the market.

Now we know that Exxon doesn't control 79% of the US market. So were did all the extra come from? Well, it isn't a calculation error (even though I rounded some numbers) and it isn't a number error, the 8k sec filing shows us that the US market is a very small portion of Exxon's sales compared to world wide participation. It refined 2,584,000 barrels of liquid product (or 2,584 kbd in case I got my abbreviations wrong) in the second quart in the US where it refined 4,191,000 barrels elsewhere in the world for a total of 6,775,000 (6,775 kbd). And forgetting about all the other areas for profit, Roughly 38% of their profit would be derived from within the US. So if we take 38% of the 11.

Re:First Post

[beardedswede]

Uhhh... the jabs about the secret shuttle (and its anti-matter rays and hyperspace engines) along with the orbital space station (complete with nuclear bays and chemical lasers) were pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. You know, when somebody says something so completely ridiculous that it's taken as a given that the reader won't take them seriously?

Special thanks go out to...

[Darth_brooks]

Art Bell, our guest editor for the day. Art Bell ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!

Re:Special thanks go out to...

[BenBenBen]

Joking aside, AW&ST ran a story about a recently-cancelled TSTO system with a "Mothership" based on the XB-70 (aesthetically at least).

Hangar 18 at Groom Lake is fairly big, no? There's at least 2 pictures of a very large white plane that has no reasonable explanation (I believe this may be one.

Except that it isn't

[Kupfernigk]

Something that has to be launched from an Atlas missile, has no docking facilities, no cargo space...this will replace the Shuttle how,exactly?

Re:Except that it isn't

[RocketJeff]

Something that has to be launched from an Atlas missile, has no docking facilities, no cargo space...this will replace the Shuttle how,exactly?

Because it's a experimental aircraft (hence the 'X' designation). Rather then trying to do everything at once, without testing all of the concepts out, they're refining one piece of the technology at a time.

It's a rather sensible approach - unlike NASA's Space Shuttle which tried to go from the drawing board to production with no real test vehicles for its new technology (very large engines that could be throttled, reusable/segmented solid boosters, etc). NASA tried paper-engineering the shuttle and it didn't live up to most of its design goals.

Re:Except that it isn't

[bws111]

Yup, you're right. I mean, what kind of idiots would use existing facilities just to fly an incomplete vehicle to test minor characteristics such as its "flying features in space and during atmospheric reentry". Everyone KNOWS that the correct way to do it is to build the complete system first, right down to the leather seats, and THEN see if any of your assumptions about flight characteristics are correct.

Re:Except that it isn't

[Gilmoure]

Fine Corinthian Leather!

Khaaaaaaaaaan!!!

Technical orbit, maybe...

[uberdave]

Well, technically ICBMs leave the atmosphere on their path to the target so we can do that already...

Although the fact that they're ballistic (following the path determined only by initial velocity and gravity)) technically means that they are in orbit, most people don't consider a highly eccentric trajectory that intersects the planet's surface to be an orbit. Also, merely leaving the atmosphere does not count as being in orbit.

Re:Technical orbit, maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm a bit confused. So you have to leave the atmosphere AND turn off your propulsion source to be in orbit? Or are you referring to the upper bound where you reach orbital escape velocity?

Re:Technical orbit, maybe...

[apoc.famine]

In more plain language: if you throw it up and it comes back down, it's not in orbit.

Re:Technical orbit, maybe...

[camperdave]

Any object that is moving solely under the influence of gravity (while under escape velocity) is actually following an orbital trajectory. If you were to take a fist sized rock and throw it, it will travel a short distance and then hit the ground. Now imagine the same throw, but this time we concentrate the mass of the Earth down to a point at its center. Now when the rock reaches the point where it previously hit the ground, there will be no ground to hit. It will continue on its downward path, loop around the point mass of the Earth, and return to your hand. It's orbit is a very long, thin ellipse. Fortunately, the Earth is a lot bigger than a point, so this long thin orbit actually intersects with the Earth's surface. So the question is, if the orbit intersects the surface of the planet, is it really in orbit? Most people would say no.

So, even though it gets into space, the using ICBMs does not count as "nuking the site from orbit".

Re:Technical orbit, maybe...

[uberdave]

In more plain language: if you throw it up and it comes back down, it's not in orbit.

Even if you throw it high enough to reach the vacuum of space itself.

Re:Technical orbit, maybe...

[KDR_11k]

Or, in short, "throw something at the ground and miss".

Because high taxes now...

[bobbuck]

always mean lower taxes down the road! Good plan! I love the theory that once politicians get a certain amount of money, they just don't want any more. I'm guessing your kids will only have to pay 1-2% income tax.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[Gravatron]

Way to miss the point. The Above was talking about the republican habbit of spending without raising money first, leaving the nexta dministration or generation of citizens in debt. To cut taxes now, they effectively are leaving the burden to your children.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to miss the point.

He didn't miss the point, he ignored it, and bullied a typical republican response.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[Mr. Firewall]

To cut taxes now, they effectively are leaving the burden to your children.

You are obviously clueless about how taxes work. Cutting taxes RAISES government revenue.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[sumdumass]

The democrats have had congress since 2006 and they have actually increased spending. They also know about the war and the costs associated with it and have done nothing to reduce spending to account for it.

Wake up. Your seeing an illusion. And when you question that illusion, you will find all sorts of excuses about why it is somebody else's fault. Sure, there is a republican administration, but congress makes the budget, passes it, and sends it to be signed by the president. Congress also has the power to override a veto if the administration refuses to do something about it. Sure, there isn't enough democrats to override a veto if the republicans don't join in but they aren't even attempting to look like they would be any different other then insisting we cut and run in our wars.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously clueless about how taxes work. Cutting taxes RAISES government revenue.

UGH! There exist people who still believe this?!? Let's look at some statistics. The following years since 1968 had lower government revenues than the previous year: 1971, 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003. This is before even adjusting for inflation or population growth. Do you really believe that taxes are so high that we are on the far side of the Laffer curve?

Another poster pointed out that revenues went up 35% from 2003 to 2006. This conveniently measures from the bottom of the economic cycle and coincides with the economic bubble that is currently deflating. A longer term comparison reveals that from 2001 to 2007, revenues went up 29%, whereas from 1993 to 1999 (which included the Clinton tax increase), revenues went up 58%.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[Anonymous Coward]

What he doesn't realize is that his tax burden is substantially higher than his parents' and grandparents' tax burden

Utter bullshit. As a percentage of GDP, tax rates have fluctuated between 17% and 20% for the past 40 years. As for income tax rates, the top bracket was taxed at a rate over 70% from 1936 to 1981. Now the top rate is 35%. If you're referring to the tax burden on the middle class, however, you may be correct.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[Ihlosi]

You are obviously clueless about how taxes work.

So are you, quite obviously.

Cutting taxes RAISES government revenue.

You might at least mention the Laffer curve, and that's a _very_ simplified model of a hugely nonlinear system. But since you're clueless about how taxes work, you probably haven't heard about it and are just spewing nonsense you've overheard somewhere.

Re:Because high taxes now...

[bobbuck]

There are long term effects of lowering taxes that take years to manifest. If Indiana lowers its tax rates and Ohio raises, not every business and worker can move out of Ohio to Indiana the next year.

Your point about the Laffer curve makes me wonder if I am the ONLY person that believes taxes should be the minimum required operate the government instead of maximum revenues...

Only a matter of time...

[Oh no, it's Dixie]

...until they start dropping "Rods from God" from these. Anyone know what kind of loophole they could find on the restriction on orbital weapons?

Re:Only a matter of time...

[thedistrict]

Seems to me they might be able to get around the ruling because they were focusing on nukes shot back at earth. Now maybe because it's not in the spirit of the Cold War they'll throw them up there. Who knows, there may already be some floating up there.

Re:Only a matter of time...

[geckipede]

Why would it be necessary to land a satellite carrying kinetic weapons once it had fired off all of its rods? Giving it wings and heat shielding would be a massive waste of effort. A rods from god weapons platform would be just a cheap box to hold the munitions together, with a big hefty booster strapped to the back for changing orbits.

Re:So how many...

[mooreti1]

Oh god, please tell me you're not so young that you don't remember the Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101), or at least don't let me be that friggin' old.

Re:So how many...

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Well, it does explain where the Blackhorse project disappeared to when it went black...

Constitution

[bobbuck]

Defense spending is constitutional. Roads, schools, and social programs are all supposed to be state activities. Do you really think US infrastructure is that bad??

Re:Constitution

[Mick Malkemus]

No, I don't think bridges collapsing and killing people are bad at all...

X-planes

[DaveV1.0]

All you "ohnoes! Militarisating space!!!" dumbasses please look up the X-planes.

Grow the fuck up and try reading an actual history book instead of that anti-military, anti-American, crap your ultraleftist teachers have foisted on you.

Re:So how many...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you're trolling or just unaware, but Enterprise was the name of the first Space Shuttle and it was transported on the back of a 747.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise

Re:So how many...

[jellomizer]

It is more then just an Aircraft Carrier it is Nucklear wessel.

IOW

[hcdejong]

No lasers, less space than a shuttle, lame.

Re:So how many...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless this plane can fly into interplanetary space and can make 90 degree turns pulling >20g's then it won't be confused with the other craft that aren't human built that have been confirmed as existing by military and civilian officials over the past 60 years.

NASA vs. DOD

[Anonymous Coward]

During the Clinton time, NASA was funded for a number of X vehicles. In particular, X-33, X-34, X43, X48, etc. Once W. took over, the X-33 and 34 were kind of killed off, and the other projects turned over to DOD. It turned out that X-33 work continued for a bit until ready to test (with a metal tank) and that is when it was stopped. Sadly, this was the one that the DOD wanted and begged for 6 long years to get it. But W's white house absolutely did not want the Air Force to finish this project. Only 2 years ago, did the air force give up the ghost on it.

Hopefully, Obama will not allow NASA to fall aside. He has made the comment that ppl do not want it. But leadership is knowing where to spend money for the long haul. That was what made Kennedy the best and the brightest, while W. is the worst and the dumbest. Obama will have to decide where he wants to be.

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

and show up on satellite scans like a turd in a punch bowl

Well that's a heck of an analogy to picture at 10AM...

HELP, HELP!!

[ndnspongebob]

The moon is attacking!!!

Re:So how many...

[halivar]

Sure it wasn't the NCC-1701 Enterprise?

Re:So how many...

[roystgnr]

They flew an AIRCRAFT CARRIER on the back of a 747?

You're thinking about a different Enterprise. The one we're talking about was an Aircraft CARRIEE.

Re:First Post

[smellsofbikes]

For the record, the secret military shuttle, if it's not just put in there to be hip, is probably a reference to the purported project blackstar which got some press coverage about two years ago. Aviation Week claimed that further developments of the old B-70 Valkryie were carrying small winged rocketships that could make LEO, much the way that Rutan's SpaceShipOne works. I submitted it as a slashdot story in 2006 but it was rejected, and within two months a lot of other informed sources tore the story apart.

Still, it's pretty cool to consider that there might've been an alternate military space program.

Re:So how many...

[dpilot]

My family recently took a trip to Washington DC, and on our itinerary we visited both Air & Space museums, the one on the Mall and the one out at Dulles. Both Enterprises are there.

The NCC-1701 - the original 11 foot model, is on display on the lower level in the gift shop. The surprising thing about it is that the right side is fully painted, and the left side is mostly blank, with only a little detail as if they ran out of time or budget.

Out at Dulles is the "real" Enterprise, the first 747 piggyback and drop-test article.

Anti-matter rays are REAL!!

[knarfling]

Anti-matter rays are real, and they are being used on people today!! It really is an apathy ray that is used on people to make them lose foc...
What was I saying? Never mind, it doesn't matter.

Re:Anti-matter rays are REAL!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains a lot behind the 2004 election!

Re:First Post

[larpon]

Seriously, what kind of paranoid lunatics write stories over at gizmodo? They should stick to reviewing the iPhone and keeping tabs on Steve Jobs' not so well hidden agenda to take over the Interweb and make it so only Apple equipment is used.

Sheesh!

Hey it's just a typo..

TFA should say XBOX and not X-38B

So they're absolutely entitled to write this story

it is bankrupt already

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments in the US are more or less bankrupt already, and because there is such a wide range of political realities across the nation at smaller than federal levels it is easy to see it is not a D or R issue, merely a society in general issue, there is equal blame to go around. This economic bankruptcy coming, by insisting that wealth can be mandated out of thin air, will effect all of us, this generation, the next, and the next.

    The total unfunded mandates for retirees pensions is more in the short time frame now future than can be taxed out of the citizenry without economic collapse.

    Want a good indicator, look at the wealthiest state, california, and see what is looming for them shortly. Now imagine the poorer states. It simply cannot be done. Neither can most private pension plans be funded in the future. It cannot be done. The boomers will be wanting to retire, some will, but those governmental workers who get pensions (some are double dippers with two pensions) will be retiring by the millions, once you look at all the federal, state and local employees out there, and they can't just "go to the private workplace" because those sorts of busywork jobs just don't exist in any numbers, there not enough justifiable busywork jobs out there now as it is, let alone tens of millions more currently working governmental workers to have them not retire and just switch.

    It is already a burden to states and municipalities and every year it gets worse. How many governmental units in the US are running in the red now? It is most of them. The only conceivable way to pay these sorts of sums would be to inflate the currency levels from beyond ludicrous like it is now into starting to look like zimbabwe levels, or declare bankruptcy and default, which would have exactly the same effect of systemic wide scale and extremely rapid collapse once it starts in earnest, which is something like any day now relatively speaking, we see the signs of it already. Well, some of us do anyway.

It's just simple math. Really, that's it, and it goes beyond an R or D partisan political level. A huge economic collapse is coming soon, followed by social collapse.

      You simply can't have only around 5% of the total population in a nation actually creating wealth and think the other 95% can exist on that.

  If the numbers seem extreme, just do this: You remove non working minors, governmental employees, the already retired, and those jobs that are only wealth servicing jobs and not wealth creation jobs, and you have *zilch* for any real productivity.

    We have gotten by so far in the US by the rest of the planet taking our printed up paper notes as "wealth" for a long time, and giving us valuable assets for those pieces of paper or computer generated bits, and by putting the next generation into debt with bonds and treasuries paper, IOUs, but that is changing fast. They massage the stats to try and make it look better than it is, but it won't work for long.

Re:it is bankrupt already

[sumdumass]

I agree with you all except California being the wealthiest state.

I don't like Wikipedia but it is convienient right now because there are groups of information I have seen other places that appear to be accurately represented there. But California is actually 13th by a per capita income. California comes in around 12th when ranked by household income. There are a lot of poor people in California pulling their ranking down.

I believe that Connecticut is the wealthiest. However, I don't dispute your outlook on California. It is going to happen much like you said. I just wanted to clarify that California looks better of then they are.

Re:it is bankrupt already

[originalTMAN]

you need to also look at the Gross State Product. This is basically a measure of the size and relative health of the states economy. California is number 1 in the US and number 8 in the World.

Re:So how many...

[jellomizer]

They probably did, They tend to only have it facing one direction in the show and relatively few closeups. So you didn't need it to be fully painted. It normally has a side view with it angled to one spot or an other. The rest of the time the full shots it was either very small or moving very fast and in days before VCR or TiVo no one would really notice it. Today a person would pause every frame and examine every detail. Not back in the 1960's they were just happy it was in color and they could see the difference between captain Kirks gold and green shirt.

Say what?

[Grashnak]

I thought that once we mastered the technology of the Ancients, we'd just use star gates for that kind of thing. Why we still building space planes?

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Any nut job with a telescope can see stuff in orbit.

Not if it's cloaked.

Re:starwars, here we come

[MachineShedFred]

Why worry that the Outer Space Treaty to which you allude only refers to the stationing of WMD in orbit, when you've got some US bashing to do?

Re:So how many...

[dpilot]

I was surprised to see that the back side was partly detailed. It's as if they started out to do a complete job, then changed their minds.

Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[bobbuck]

Revenues were up 35% from 2003 to 2006. Bush raised taxes by lowering rates and growing the economy. Tricky to do with the 9/11 attacks, housing melt-down, and the global warm-mongers jacking up fuel and food costs, but he did it.

When people in politics talk about raising federal taxes it's not about balancing the budget or even raising revenues. It's about punishing groups that didn't give enough to their campaign.

The idea that more money coming into Washington DC will go towards the debt (helping the children) instead of finding new ways to burn cash is laughable. There are too many voters that have to be bought.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have facts and figures to back up your claims? If that were true, every Republican would be talking about the Bush miracle rather than avoiding comparison; McCain would be pushing it rather than attacking Obama for 'being cool'. You guys are just a bunch of lying bullies; hoping that somehow you'll benefit while many others suffer. Life isn't a zero sum game.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[sumdumass]

The facts are there, you just need to look for them. However, the idea that revenues are up can easily be counters with "and if taxes were X we would have X more" or "you don't know that the tax cuts caused that increase" when it is obvious from every other tax cut in a weak economy that it brings motion that increases revenues. The vast majority of people wouldn't know the difference and we wouldn't be any worse off.

The bottom line is that the republicans are in a tight situation. There is so much fud going around that they couldn't win if they wanted to. The Major pains if the gas prices started after the dems took control of congress in 2006, we didn't even have $3 gas back then. But they seem to be the "popular ones who can fix? it somehow. The federal budget has increased after they took office too yet the republicans are getting the blame for the deficit spending because of the two wars. It isn't like the democrats don't know what will be spent or what is being spent on the wars and that they don't have the opportunity to cut spending so a surplus budget could cover the costs of the war. But as the great GP just said, tax and spend now instead of taxing their kids.

I mean hell, you will even hear about how the dems ballances the budget in the 90's even though republicans controlled congress, set spending, and made the budget that was passed and sent to Clinton. Forget about the funding wars where Clinton vetoed budgets because there wasn't enough for a certain program or because there was too much in another. Forget about the dot come buble that increased revenue which was completely unique to the times and tied closely to the Capitol gains tax cuts. Forget about all the Roth IRA conversions where someone who has saved 2 million dollars for retirement was able to pay taxes on the 2 million then and not when they withdrew it at retirement. Forget about being able to spread that out over four years time, which had the effect of encouraging people to convert thereby giving the government a surplus tax income that should have been paid out 10 or more years in the future. But all that doesn't matter as long as the democrats take credit for it. It doesn't matter at all that there was 3 maybe 4 specific and non-repeatable situations that happened that increased the federal revenue quite a bit for a real short time.

As another person in this thread mentioned, the problems are both parties. Both of them know how much the war is costing and neither of them are cutting spending to ease the deficit. The numbers are there, the sources are scattered all around and it won't be hard for you to find what the parent said about the tax cuts raising revenues, but it isn't exactly black and white and neither party can take advantage of it.

BTW, McCain has already pledged to not remove the tax cuts. Obama, after finding out how many lower income-non-rich people would be effected by it has changed his stand from removing the Evil Bush Tax Cuts to removing part of them if you make more then $250,000 a year. He now wants to decrease or lower taxes on those same non-rich people who benefited from the Bush Tax cut for the Rich. This is probably why he almost all but gave up on pushing his health care initiatives. He can't cut taxes and pay for that at the same time if we were to believe what he originally said about both. None of these issues is cut and dry because of all the FUD surrounding all of them.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[MJMullinII]

The facts are there, you just need to look for them. However, the idea that revenues are up can easily be counters with "and if taxes were X we would have X more" or "you don't know that the tax cuts caused that increase" when it is obvious from every other tax cut in a weak economy that it brings motion that increases revenues. The vast majority of people wouldn't know the difference and we wouldn't be any worse off.

The bottom line is that the republicans are in a tight situation. There is so much fud going around that they couldn't win if they wanted to. The Major pains if the gas prices started after the dems took control of congress in 2006, we didn't even have $3 gas back then. But they seem to be the "popular ones who can fix? it somehow. The federal budget has increased after they took office too yet the republicans are getting the blame for the deficit spending because of the two wars. It isn't like the democrats don't know what will be spent or what is being spent on the wars and that they don't have the opportunity to cut spending so a surplus budget could cover the costs of the war. But as the great GP just said, tax and spend now instead of taxing their kids.

I mean hell, you will even hear about how the dems ballances the budget in the 90's even though republicans controlled congress, set spending, and made the budget that was passed and sent to Clinton. Forget about the funding wars where Clinton vetoed budgets because there wasn't enough for a certain program or because there was too much in another. Forget about the dot come buble that increased revenue which was completely unique to the times and tied closely to the Capitol gains tax cuts. Forget about all the Roth IRA conversions where someone who has saved 2 million dollars for retirement was able to pay taxes on the 2 million then and not when they withdrew it at retirement. Forget about being able to spread that out over four years time, which had the effect of encouraging people to convert thereby giving the government a surplus tax income that should have been paid out 10 or more years in the future. But all that doesn't matter as long as the democrats take credit for it. It doesn't matter at all that there was 3 maybe 4 specific and non-repeatable situations that happened that increased the federal revenue quite a bit for a real short time.

As another person in this thread mentioned, the problems are both parties. Both of them know how much the war is costing and neither of them are cutting spending to ease the deficit. The numbers are there, the sources are scattered all around and it won't be hard for you to find what the parent said about the tax cuts raising revenues, but it isn't exactly black and white and neither party can take advantage of it.

BTW, McCain has already pledged to not remove the tax cuts. Obama, after finding out how many lower income-non-rich people would be effected by it has changed his stand from removing the Evil Bush Tax Cuts to removing part of them if you make more then $250,000 a year. He now wants to decrease or lower taxes on those same non-rich people who benefited from the Bush Tax cut for the Rich. This is probably why he almost all but gave up on pushing his health care initiatives. He can't cut taxes and pay for that at the same time if we were to believe what he originally said about both. None of these issues is cut and dry because of all the FUD surrounding all of them.

Sounds to me like we have a WHINER in the house.

There are two types of people in the World, winners and losers. THAT is the ONLY thing the American people care about (myself included).

Just like my granddaddy used to say (and it looks like the Republicans are proving him right), "Winners laugh and tell jokes, losers say 'Let's deal".

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[bobbuck]

You'd whine louder than anyone if you actually went to work and paid taxes!

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[MJMullinII]

I work 40 hours a week, just like yourself.

Doesn't change the fact that you're whining and I'm not, that's all I'm saying.

I like the country just the way it is. I like the fact that NO ONE party is in a position to rubber stamp every dumb ass idea that comes into their head.

That is PRECISELY why things were better in the 90s. The Republicans and the Democrats WERE FORCED TO WORK TOGETHER.

This idea that one or the other can solve all our problems is ludicrous.

You should be angry with George Bush who basically says "my way or the highway".

He is a PRESIDENT. Not a KING.

If he had learned that lesson in 2006, we would be in the mess we are now with EVERYONE grandstanding.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[sumdumass]

Ohh.. It look like we have a troll in the house too.

And no, that wasn't whining. It was responding to an AC who was wondering why something wasn't be used to the republican's advantage. I was pointing out the problems with politics and showing how they surface all the time because of people's ignorance and deceptive usages by the politicians.

Of course your smart enough that you knew all that already and just wanted to troll right?

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[MJMullinII]

Ohh.. It look like we have a troll in the house too.

And no, that wasn't whining. It was responding to an AC who was wondering why something wasn't be used to the republican's advantage. I was pointing out the problems with politics and showing how they surface all the time because of people's ignorance and deceptive usages by the politicians.

Of course your smart enough that you knew all that already and just wanted to troll right?

Why am I a troll?

Because I don't agree with you or the original poster?

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[sumdumass]

You are a troll because your response wasn't that "I disagree with something" or "I don't agree". Your response was an inflammatory accusation of whining then go on to inflate them without ever maintaining anything about anything in either posts.

If you would have addressed something specific instead of resorting to name calling and jokes about your dad, it might be different. But you didn't and you acted like a damn troll attacking the messenger without any context of the message.

And to the point of the whining accusations, if you would have read the post, you would have noticed is wasn't a whine. I didn't complain that anything was unfair or claim that anyone has an advantage. In fact, far from it, I simply stated the situation surrounding politics and explained why it isn't that easy as the post I replied to suggested. Stating facts and observations isn't whining at all. But ignoring the content of a post and jumping straight to name calling is definitely a troll. We will have differences in opinions, if you would have addressed any of those differences, it would have put an entirely different outlook on your post. But you chose ridicule and insults over substance and after reading a few of your other posts, I can see why with your lack of informed opinions.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[MJMullinII]

You are a troll because your response wasn't that "I disagree with something" or "I don't agree". Your response was an inflammatory accusation of whining then go on to inflate them without ever maintaining anything about anything in either posts.

If you would have addressed something specific instead of resorting to name calling and jokes about your dad, it might be different. But you didn't and you acted like a damn troll attacking the messenger without any context of the message.

And to the point of the whining accusations, if you would have read the post, you would have noticed is wasn't a whine. I didn't complain that anything was unfair or claim that anyone has an advantage. In fact, far from it, I simply stated the situation surrounding politics and explained why it isn't that easy as the post I replied to suggested. Stating facts and observations isn't whining at all. But ignoring the content of a post and jumping straight to name calling is definitely a troll. We will have differences in opinions, if you would have addressed any of those differences, it would have put an entirely different outlook on your post. But you chose ridicule and insults over substance and after reading a few of your other posts, I can see why with your lack of informed opinions.

So by definition, you consider you're opinions "informed"?

Whatever. I post under my name, not under some candyass AC and I stand by what I write.

YOU didn't say anything in your response to rebut it, btw.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[sumdumass]

I consider it informed but not by definition but because I comment on thing I know something about. However, I put substance in there which isn't anything you did.

Whatever. I post under my name, not under some candyass AC and I stand by what I write.

Umm yea whatever. I'm not exactly posting under an AC either. Oh, you mean the moniker, well who the hell cares, it isn't like anyone can track you down or anything without a court order or inside knowledge of something contained on this site..

YOU didn't say anything in your response to rebut it, btw.

What the fuck are you talking about? To rebute what, that I'm a whiner? I spoke to that effect twice now. Are you daft or something? You have said nothing of any substance to rebut at all to me. Perhaps you need to ask you mom how this thing works. You can also hit the button right beside the reply that says Parent and follow this thread back to where I made my comment. PLease show me where you said anything worth looking at.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[ericspinder]

The facts are there, you just need to look for them.

You made an outrageous claim that Bush performed an economic miracle, and you back up that claim with what? More of the same bluster? for example:

[Obama] now wants to decrease or lower taxes on those same non-rich people who benefited from the Bush Tax cut for the Rich

It's an old saying that "Two third of the economy is consumer spending"; who spends all of their income? The poor. They also are more likely to spend extra money on local services (dining out, manicures, etc). Sure government needs to be careful not to overtax anyone, but 'undertaxing' the poor has (I believe) the best return.

Investment money on the other hand will pour in from the rest of the world; that's the advantage of having the best capital market. Business owners don't hire people becuase they have extra cash in their pocket, they hire people to make money off their work, besides salaries are an expense and are deducted before taxes are assessed. These assertions seem to escape 'trickle down' people like yourself.

Forget about the dot come buble that increased revenue which was completely unique to the times and tied closely to the Capitol gains tax cuts.

How can you make that assertion? Those companies never made any money to distribute, and much of it was just pushed into more investments, and 'hidden' in hedge/mutual funds. Sure, there were some economic benefit as some smart people cashed out before the bubble burst, of course they then seemed to push the money into housing, and ran up a basic need to record levels. The Bush administration even turned a blind eye to poor lending practices, and badly bundled securities. Now oil speculation has run up to record highs. More investment money isn't always a helpful thing, in particular when combined with people who foolishly slash regulations and oversight carefully developed over decades. Conservative used to mean resistant to change, now it seems to mean reckless abandon.

But all that doesn't matter as long as the democrats take credit for it.

Clinton did sign the bills, and bipartisan support carried them though the legislative branch (the Senate takes 60%, usually). That's the problem the country is that people such as yourself do little more than whine about the Democratic party. Scott Mcclellan had it right calling it the permanent campaign, and it wouldn't work without mean spirited people, stuck on even decade old talking points. Congratulations you are part of the problem, please for the love of our country, try to appreciate the liberal viewpoint. You might find that we aren't so far apart.

Re:Bush raised taxes 35% 2003-2006

[sumdumass]

You made an outrageous claim that Bush performed an economic miracle, and you back up that claim with what? More of the same bluster? for example:

I didn't make the claim, someone else did. The claim I made was that you could look around and find places that support that claim with evidence. I also went on to say/show how the evidence to the claims are highly opinionated.

And yes, [Obama] now wants to decrease or lower taxes on those same non-rich people who benefited from the Bush Tax cut for the Rich. If your not aware of that, then I'm sorry that you have your head in the sand not paying attention and only pick up on what "they" tell you. Obama originally claimed he was going to undo the Bush tax cuts. Then after people complained that the poor were benefiting from the tax cuts, he claimed that it only benefited the rich. So some agency/group/whatever found that the Bush tax cuts for a family of 4 making $40,000 a year (certainly not rich) would have to pay $2000 more in taxes a year if the Bush tax cuts weren't there. So obama had his groups of thinkers run the numbers and now he only wants to raise taxes on the $250,000 or more a year groups and provide tax breaks for anyone making less whon get sucked into the sloppy tax code.

It's an old saying that "Two third of the economy is consumer spending"; who spends all of their income? The poor. They also are more likely to spend extra money on local services (dining out, manicures, etc). Sure government needs to be careful not to overtax anyone, but 'undertaxing' the poor has (I believe) the best return.

The government doesn't pull revenue in from spending. Sure, some places have sales taxes but the governments for the most part rely heavily on income taxes. You may not like it but we are structured so that the more income Americans make, the more the government gets. Tax cuts effectively lower risks on investments and maximize a return compared to without them. This allows more investments at lower return rates which equals more income and hence more income taxes that the government uses to fund itself and programs.

Investment money on the other hand will pour in from the rest of the world; that's the advantage of having the best capital market. Business owners don't hire people becuase they have extra cash in their pocket, they hire people to make money off their work, besides salaries are an expense and are deducted before taxes are assessed. These assertions seem to escape 'trickle down' people like yourself.

I don't think you understand. A business can reach a point of maximum production capabilities and cannot hire anyone else. So they get investment money and expand which creates more jobs, keeps people employed and so on. Investment money also goes to the form of a loan for Joe Sixpack so he can buy the house or car he wants and needs. Investment money also goes to start new business opportunities which translates to more jobs and more income taxes. But, the benefit of increasing investment is that the government gets the opertunity to tax twice, first when the jobs are created and the income is paid, and then when the return on investment is calculated and returned to the investors which counts as income.

You basically looking at it from an inside bottom up position. Don't do that. Step back and look at it from an outside in position that doesn't favor either concept of lowering taxes or raising them. You will quickly see that to a certain point, lowering taxes and maintaining a maximum movement in the economy compared to a maximum revenue input from income taxes. There is no doubt that there are extremes on both sides too. If you don't have taxes at all, you don't pull any receipts in. If you tax too much, well, look at Michigan were they can't attract new business into the state and are in a position now where they have to raise taxes because they drove (not just because of

Bridges

[bobbuck]

That was terrible but overall our infrastructure is among the best.

Spy satellite refuelling?

[petes_PoV]

> If something is broken, it's much cheaper to simply launch a new one

It might make economic sense to launch a $100M unmanned mission to "in-flight" refuel a $1B spy satellite, than to launch a new one. It would also mean they could be deployed lower for longer, and the extended fuel budget would allow more changes in orbits to cover different areas.

X15B

[hachete]

It's the X15B 50 years too late ... but the X15B had *class*. This has the class of a fat turd. Bastards.

secret shuttle = joke

[Ritorix]

"2) There never was EVER a secret military shuttle."

Its Gizmodo; its a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Re:So how many...

[whopub]

Kinda like how Enterprise flew from the back of a 747

They flew an AIRCRAFT CARRIER on the back of a 747? How did I miss that?

I missed the whole thing because I was hidding under my desk. You know, just in case the 747 crapped out or something...

Manditory ./ reply

[Anonymous Coward]

And where are 'they' hiding the orbital platforms? Behind the moon?

That's no moon....

Why should taxes grow with GDP????

[bobbuck]

What sense does that make? The government should improve efficiency like everyone else!

gaetano marano

[Anonymous Coward]

.

scrap the Shuttles & launch the X37B = LOSE time & BURN money

the Shuttle flights have a fixed annual budget around $3.2 billion, so, each Shuttle launch has a "price" around $650 million if launched four times per year

the X37B could be cheaper since we can evaluate a "price" per mission around $300 million including the expendable Atlas V 501

BUT, while each Shuttle is able to carry up to 24 mT of cargo (AND up to eight astronauts!) to 400 km. of altitute, each X37B should carry just 5 mT of cargo (and NO astronauts!)

not forgetting the Shuttles' exclusive ability (that, both, X37B and Orion lack) to accomplish several astronauts' EVAs (thanks to its Airlock) Space assembly/disassembly/repair/upgrade (thanks to its Canadarm and the cargo-bay's toolbox) and to bring back to Earth two dozens tons of cargo (if necessary) for repair or experiments turnover

then, the "price per mT" carried in Space with an X37B will be (at least) TWO-THREE TIMES HIGHER than the "price per mT" carried in Space with a Shuttle (that WITHOUT the GIANT advantages of the latter vehicle!)

that's why I think that, scrap the Shuttles for the X37B, is a GIANT WASTE OF MONEY and a BIG LACK of abilities (the new Orion and/or X37B will NEVER have!)

and that's why, already THREE YEARS AGO (and still now!) on my website (and, in several threads/posts/comments on Space forums and blogs) I've suggested to MODIFY the Shuttles to fly CREWLESS until (REALLY) better vehicles will be (REALLY) available:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html

also, a fully CREWLESS Shuttle, may carry from (at least) 30-32 mT of cargo (saving on the astronauts' weight, life support, etc.) since the Shuttle can always carry 28 mT but was limited to 24 mT max (due to "safety reasons") after the Challenger accident

why did you not write a full article about this argument and (maybe) MY (three years old) proposal about a CREWLESS Space Shuttle?

so, IF (maybe) "someone" will listen you, may help the US government budget to SAVE lots of money... :)

just to rembember, that, after the Shuttles retirement, the 30 mT cargo-Ares-1 will be available only after 2016 and the the 130+ mT Ares-5 will be available after 2020-2022, so, after the last Shuttle launch in 2010 (both) USA and NASA (and the military too) will face, not only a 6+ years manned vehicles' GAP, but, ALSO, a 6-12 years BIG cargo launchers' GAP !!!

.

It's on my blog

[tjstork]

By the way, progress that I make towards my goal, is, in a lagging fashion, on my blog. http://www.storkyak.com./

In my own papers, I'm much farther ahead. At this point, I know that I can either prove or disprove whether or not P=NP but its a matter of connecting some dots. Even if P!=NP, I can still build a computer that automatically translates the inverse of nearly any polynomial time computer algorithm to SAT. This would allow the my triumphant American patriots in the NSA to at least have a single and consistent algorithm to recover the key of any kind of algorithm cryptosystem for which they have the algorithm, which, in and of itself, is a useful tool. Couple with the statistical analysis at which they excel, and a studly bank of computers, it could certainly help in the monitoring of the communications of enemies and traitors such as yourself.

Re:It's on my blog

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Now I KNOW you're full of shit. I also realize that you are not what I thought I was originally dealing with. You'll wind up wandering the streets yelling at the clouds someday, which makes me happy.

Re:It's on my blog

[tjstork]

Even if I do not succeed, I will have at least tried, which is more than you will ever have done.

Re:It's on my blog

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I think your word are self-explanatory. Don't go off your meds. It's better to stay level than to constantly go manic and then crash from that. Talk to the clouds!

Re:It's on my blog

[tjstork]

I think your word are self-explanatory. Don't go off your meds. It's better to stay level than to constantly go manic and then crash from that. Talk to the clouds!

Go ahead and ramble on little man. You won't ever get there because you don't have the nerve to try. But of course, if I do succeed, you'll be the first in line, no doubt, arguing that somehow you are entitled to a piece of my success, just as you do everyone else that is successful.

Re:It's on my blog

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The only reason you might succeed (and you won't) is because I told you what a worthless shit you are, and it motivated your lazy ass to actually finish something you started. All the success you might have (and you won't have any) will be completely attributed to me. Without me, you'll just spend all day masturbating and looking at Slashdot. Now get to work, you worthless fuck, and make sure that if you do something important (and you won't) that you mention me in whatever pathetic acceptance speech you might give.

Remember, if it weren't for me, you wouldn't be worth anything.

Re:It's on my blog

[tjstork]

Everyone knows that in secret you stand naked and desperately chip a statue to my brilliance out of corian chips, only wishing that you could trade your food stamps in for real marble.

Re:It's on my blog

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Not true. I do it on my front lawn, hardly a secret.