Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
if you vote for mccain or obama this fall, you have failed.
grow some balls
He finds ways to justify all sorts of unconstitutional, unnecessary spending of the American tax payer's dollar (like his proposed $80B/year for international poverty), so why not NASA?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
If you adjust for inflation, NASA's budget is about half of what it was during the space race years in the 60's. You can't go to Mars on that. You probably can't even go back to the moon on that. And a paltry $2 billion isn't going to make much of a difference.
Obama is no more serious about NASA's lofty aspirations that Bush or Clinton. It's just political pandering for Florida. And I am tired of hearing promises from politicians that they know damn well they can never deliver on.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just to give you an idea on how much $2 billion might help NASA, there are some stats for NASA's budget. In 2007 they had a budget of $15.861 billion and for this year they are using $17.318 billion. If you adjust for inflation, NASA has averaged $16.290 billion dollars per year which means this $2 billion would be about a 11.5-12.2% increase in its annual budget.
By comparison, the DoD budget was $439.3 billion in 2007 but my gripe with U.S. fiscal spending is probably a bit off topic here.
My work here is dung.
Let's Put our Astronauts in Shuttles that don't use fuel and go green!
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
Obama news on the frontpage - has somebody done a /. theme for Digg?
"Obama is no more serious about NASA's lofty aspirations that Bush or Clinton. It's just political pandering for Florida. And I am tired of hearing promises from politicians that they know damn well they can never deliver on."
Usually, I'd agree with that, however, I think you're ignoring the "new cold war" aspect here. China is developing an aggressive space program, and if they say they're going to the moon, they mean it.
Frankly, I think McCain is a little more inclined to beef up NASA precisely because of that aspect, and Obama will say damn near anything to win Florida. But it's also possible that he's reconsidered his positions on space because if he becomes President, he knows people aren't going to let him slide on the space race.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It is interesting to me how when one politician changes his stance due to recognition of the will of the people, he is vilified as a panderer or "flip-flopper." Yet it is called evolutionary when the other does the same thing.
Could we not just as easily say that both are listening to the people who would put them in office? Or at least letting us think they are listening to us.
Is Obama's stance really evolving? I think it's clear that his policy on NASA is a result of intelligent design.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
cue the "obama flip-flopped on space exploration" crowd any time now. and probably from people who don't even support (read: care about) it to begin with. his position on space isn't going to be a deal-breaker for me this election, but I would really love to see some more support from him. unfortunately, there are bigger fish to fry this time around.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Yes, because it's much better to tell people we're going to go to Mars, and then not give them sufficient money to do so, resulting in other programs getting cut. Even John Glenn referred to Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" as an unfunded mandate.
And it's not like this is the only unfunded mandate shoved down NASA's throat -- how much is HSPD-12 costing all of the agencies?
Disclaimer : I've been a contractor at NASA, and one of my projects lost their funding for more than year because of the Mars program ... by the time we got funding again, we couldn't get the team back together, because they had been assigned to other projects.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Evolving stance? Is that the PC version of flip flopping.
This is slashdot, so it's the Linux version of flip-flopping.
He changed his mind! It's clearly pandering of the worst sort!
I really wish we could get rid of this ridiculous focus on changing views. Emerson summed it up nicely, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In this case, it would have been foolish of Obama to be consistent -- he was wrong. He was persuaded otherwise. Is this somehow a bad thing, a moral failure? Yeah, it was advantageous of him to come to this conclusion, but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one.
Reading the article, it really just comes across as Obama trying to push the shuttle layoffs to the right so they don't take place during his first term in office.
It's unfortunate, but I would really like to see him and McCain come up with a strong vision for space to spur international and private sector investments with a corresponding push in maths, sciences and engineering.
As trite as they may be, I could get excited about a candidate that pushed:
Note that I don't say "NASA". I think NASA has a very important role to play in the development of space technology but at some point they have to be out of the business of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Evolving stance? Is that the PC version of flip flopping.
This is slashdot, so it's the Linux version of flip-flopping.
I didn't realize that Linux was the opposite of PC. In fact, I thought Linux was software. Maybe this is the reason we don't see the year of Linux on the desktop.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I love how not being able to change your mind or agree with someone else's proposal is now a thing of weakness in a politician.
The thing I like about Obama is that he pushes for compromise, builds consensus, and isn't just out to fuck over the other party.
But no, no, the fact that he is open to funding something that wasn't a priority for him originally, is this HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM because OMFG HE CHANGED HIS MIND~!@!@$#~!
Fucking zombies.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"going to mars" is easier than sayins "leaving iraq"
Good people go to bed earlier.
No, I don't remember that. What part of "news for nerds" is hard to understand?
if we didn't flip-flop, we would still be living in caves
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
U convinced me. Lolcat iz the prez 4 me!
I think the return the US gets for its NASA spending is greatly under calculated. The last space race caused the US to focus on creating engineers and scientists through education. Look around you for the benefits.
Today I sometimes feel we are raising generations of people who will order a "Bud" because they can't read or pronounce Budweiser.
Think Deeply.
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have in this area, to speak authoritatively on it? But my big question would be; Why does NASA expect they *deserve* more federal funding, when it appears they've been making too many mistakes and mis-steps in recent years?
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them. But those who follow NASA a little more closely might remember such things as them accidentally letting a new satellite fall off a transport platform, onto the floor, causing expensive damage. (As I recall, the reason for this mishap was failure to properly secure it before moving it.) Going further back, we have issues like the Hubble telescope not working as designed, and several issues with arms on landers they've deployed, etc.
I realize space exploration, by nature, is a risky endeavor, and accidents will happen with complex technologies. But the problems that developed in the "space race" era felt much more like truly unavoidable situations that the "best and brightest" went to great lengths to resolve in the best manner possible. In recent years, the problems appear to be caused more by incompetence, putting priorities in the wrong order, or just rushing to meet deadlines?
Haha how is this troll? It's exactly what this is.
No, he changed his mind within the context of a campaign. PLEASE tell me how that should not be immediately suspect.
...an evolving stance on ever-increasing taxation. He wants to increase $332 billion in spending and he plans to do that by taxing the top 1% rich people in America. Guess what, the rich can get out of paying taxes in many ways. Equity swaps are lovely vehicles, for instance, there are many other ways though. He won't be able to cancel any of the government programs/handouts because that's the people voting for him, so he'll have to fill in the gap by going after the other 'rich' people in america - the middle class! We're going from a Bush Nation to an Obamanation.
It's perfectly acceptable to waste billions of dollars paying uneducated dolts to sit around and do nothing but create more useless babies.
But it's not acceptable to pay smart eggy headed scientists a whole lot less, people who have to be really fracking smart to actually work and do sciencey stuff using their brains and finding out stuff about the universe and world we live in.
Plus the scientists don't usually have a mess off leech-like children, if a NASA engineer does mate it is usually one child or two, which is below replacement levels. Plus their children are usually made to go to school and actually do somethign with their lives because the smart eggy headed scientist types are usually better at raising children that their child crapping counterparts.
I say, End all welfare programs and shovel all that money to NASA, we may have to worry about not having enough people, but by golly we will damned well have our permanent base on the moon, so when all of the breeding stock left on earth blow themselves up over their little sky god we can at least re-colonize the earth, or at least still preserve the best of humanity.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
He also said he was hoping "to ensure retention of" thousands of NASA workers in Texas and Florida whose jobs are threatened by a possible five-year gap before the beginning of the Constellation initiative to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.
So NASA can become a fucking welfare agency.
...objectively I can't figure out what the heck he actually plans to do. Every couple of weeks the ideas change. I mean, he seems like he has no clear vision about what he wants to actually do besides become President of the United States. This (NASA) being a good example. Factor this in with his relative inexperience in government and I start to feel like that at least with Clinton you would have known what you were getting. Either way, an unwashed chimp would be better than the cretin currently occupying the oval office. What happened to the John McCain of a few elections back? I used to like him too. Now he sounds like just another Republican.
Loading...
Thats what it's called when you really really like the candidate. Its the like fanboyism....
(For the record I had mod points and thought about modding you + but around here it wouldn't have helped)
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
PLEASE tell me how that should not be immediately suspect.
Because the world doesn't stop for a campaign. Situations change, attitudes change. Both of these guys are moderates... not exactly known for sticking to their guns for no good reason. That is why people like them.
Though I wish both had stuck to their guns with the "no negative campaigning" bit. These new attack ads are terrible. Neither side is even very accurate, though the Obama ad showing the oil surplus in Iraq and proclaiming it to be "McCain Economics" is a bigger stretch.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Simple oversight or something more sinister?
Perhaps Slashdot.org has achieved sentience and has no need for departments to write stories anymore!
...is Obama-speak for "the focus group results just came in the mail, honey."
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Obama is a known flip-flopper (FISA) who will probably win just because Mc Cain would be a much worse disaster for the USA. If he had balls he'd grab some real big money from the military and spend them for NASA, green friendly energy and other non destructive ways of doing research.
There are better returns on investment. The US can't afford to be space cowboys or world police. How bout this, bring our troops home from around the world, and allocate all those big brains from nasa to the department of energy so we don't end up being the the middle east's bitch? (NASA $17B) + (DoD Iraq $235B) == better energy
As I recall last time I did some Googling, for what we have spent on Iraq so far we could have had something like 16 Apollo programs in today's dollars.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Add it to FISA, Off shore drilling, and the list just goes on and on. Barack Hussein Obama makes John "Waffle King" Kerry look principled by comparison.
At this point, only a complete moron would vote for an unpatriotic racist like Obama. McCain is going to give Democrats everything they want anyways.
...With the Space Shuttle being retired in the next few years, the current tensions with Russia may cause some serious issues with servicing the International Space Station and other missions dependent on the Russian Heavy Lifters.
We need some real strategies for our space program, not empty promises and wishful thinking.
For instance: If they can magically pull billions out of the hat to fund a bogus war in Iraq, why can't the same sort of magic push some significant funding towards something that will reap benefits for all mankind instead of death, misery and instability.
Funny how people complain more about the peanuts the government spends on the space program than the billions spent in Iraq.
As head of the board of the Space Review Board, the head of the Treasury and the head of the department of combustion, he should have no difficulty raising this money, or a week later, not.
The newest extreme sport : Riding the rocket wave! A (often deadly) combination of rocket ravel, surfing and parachuting (hopefully in that order).
Nasa is the USPS with rockets, the US government can't run anything including themselves.
I know this is hard to understand after 8 years of "the decider", but, this is *exactly* when you want him to open his mind and alter his positions. Right now, he is, in theory, pounding the campaign trail and, *gasp*, listening to people. Did it occur to you that, during such bouts of listening, he might've actually changed his mind on one or two things?
but this is a clear case of (2)
Funny, it looked like a clear case of 3 to me. Gotta love those partisan glasses... they colour everything, don't they?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX_687HwX9c
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I mean, it's not like the government is spending real money. Most of it's borrowed anyhow. Might as well just buy what we can since the U.S. will default at some point.
Can't repo spaceships, border walls, aircraft carriers. I say buy BIG physical ticket items. LET the chinese try and take em back :)
You may laugh now, it's a joke....
THose concerns are valid, but the reason the best and brightest went to great lengths is because they had the ability to.
Once you start adding bean counting administrators, political gamesmanship and toying with a diminishing budget, stuff can go sour quick.
It's no different than an IT environment where you're being told what to implement all the while not being given the tools/support to make it happen seamlessly.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Regardless, it's been shown [washingtonpost.com] that Obama's tax cut plans would help the lower income brackets more than McCain's, and tax the rich more. This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do.
A flat tax rate would tax the rich more than the poor (same percent of a higher income is more). Our system with a higher tax rate definitely taxes the rich more than the poor.
At what point does it stop being obvious that you need to take even more money from rich people and even less from poor people? When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I was far more concerned about an acronym which has an impact much closer to home... namely Obusha's complete and total capitulation on FISA.
Had Obusha told us he was going to wimp out to Bush and the other police-staters back in the primaries, we could have voted for Hillary instead. Instead, he talked a good game, then sissied up when it counted most.
For this reason alone, I cannot in good conscience vote for Obusha. I won't vote against him, but at least we already know McCain will a third term of short-selling America, miserable failure, and criminal incompetance. At least we don't have to be disappointed by having the same thing happen under a supposedly Democratic administration.
The fix is in anyway, so it's not like who we vote for actually matters.
Yea, because pandering to the geek crowd who loves NASA wins a lot of elections for people...They know we're a fractured block who are more likely to vote based on privacy/copyright issues.
And don't feed me horseshit about Florida; you could win that state in a second by promising to increase medicare payments.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
From the article:
LOL!!! Bush and "fiscally responsible". I just can't get over it. How does the guy use the term with a straight face?
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Georgia was bear-baiting Russia. It was only a matter of time before they responded. Obama who is likely to be the next pres had the right response. He knew that we are over committed WRT military, and can not take on Russia. More importantly, he had the same measured response that he always has; Russia/Georgia, Please solve this quickly. W, to his credit, has not gone off the deep end. Perhaps that is because he has Gates rather than rumsfeld on board. Considering that EU and America have far too many ties with Russia, and that Russia would quasi partner with China if we do not, then it is VERY likely that we will remain somewhat close. I do doubt that we will trust Russia for our space transportation. I am guessing that within another month, COTS-D will be awarded to both Spacex and Orbital and we will see the shuttle extended for a time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because it's not something that most people care about? NASA is big news here, but 90% of the country couldn't give a shit, and the republicans will be quick to trumpet "Tax and Spend."
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Then take them off. What facts/new information has changed here?
Well, the whole "flip-flopping" tag worked against John Kerry. Why not try it again? If we can get enough sheep repeating it without really understanding the issues, it just might work!
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
And don't feed me horseshit about Florida; you could win that state in a second by promising to increase medicare payments.
He's got you beat: he's going to eliminate income tax on seniors. He's quite the panderer, isn't he?
Oh, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it were only one or two things
So what *other* things has he changed his mind on that make you believe he's simply pandering?
The rest of your post is a non-sequitor. Take it somewhere else, it's off topic.
I'm a staunch Republican, but, I think trying to characterize his policy shifts as a sort of a flip flopper is rather inconsistent with what he's trying to do. Obama is just a left wing pol trying to guide his opinion about how government should be run in response to an evolving set of facts on the ground and I really don't have a problem with him changing his mind as long as he stays consistent with his core beliefs of being a hardcore liberal.
Where Kerry had a problem was that he made a political career out of being a total pacifist, lead anti-war protests across the USA and was instrumental in ending the USA's commitment to Viet Nam, but then he turned around and voted for the Invasion of Iraq in 2002 to get pick up a few votes and then ran not as a Dove but as a Wartime leader during the Democratic convention. That's a huge flip flop.
But what Obama is doing is nothing of the sort. He might, ideally, like, to get rid of NASA because he'd rather spend the money on something else... a lot of Dems feel that way. Walter Mondale famously tried to gut the Apollo moon landings because he wanted bread and butter for the poor. So, its not a big flip flop for Obama to shift on NASA back and forth because the whole left wing has been doing it for a long time.
This is my sig.
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them.
Not poor engineering decisions, poor management decisions. In both cases, engineers warned of the problems, and were cockblocked by management, mostly due to funding issues. NASA is our most important program, and one of our worst funded.
The sad thing is, if the bloated life-sucking tick that is DoD were cut down to size, we'd have plenty of money for both education and Constellation. As I say in my sig, Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars. Even at padded government rates, we could put a team of four scientists and infrastructure for settlement on Mars for about 30 billion dollars. (Zubrin has suggested a private firm could do it for only seven billion.) Space geeks who haven't read The Case For Mars should make it a priority. All of the info is online at the link above; the paperback is almost always on the shelf at my local B&N; and it's only $11 at Amazon.
Zubrin has outlined a straightforward plan to settle an entire other planet at relatively low cost. What the hell is the hold-up? How is it this is not the most obvious project in the solar system?
Can we get a mars.slashdot.org subdomain?
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
Space exploration is just glory science. Imagine that you knew every last detail that space exploration might reveal -- what difference would it make in your life, other than satisfying your curiosity? How could you, your children, or your grandchildren ever make any practical use of that information? What use is knowledge for knowledge's sake, if you can't use it? Let our descendants pay to learn about space. Let's spend our research money today finding cures for major diseases and feeding the world.
I think it's called "Learning". It happens during campaigns, too. Or do you want politicians to not change their stances if they learn something, because they learned during a campaign? That seems like you only care about the outward appearance of a campaign as opposed to what's actually being said. "Candidate 1 hasn't changed his stance, so clearly he's the best candidate. I don't agree with what he says, but heck - he's consistent!". That sounds a bit retarded to me.
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
J. H. Christ. This is almost as bad as the whole "if you don't support Obama, you must be racist" deal. Almost.
The fact of the matter is, Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues. There has been no indication of why he changed his position on the issues. For someone who basically won the nomination based on his oratory skills, don't you think he should at the very least be able to articulate what changed in the course of a week weeks- to months?
And the fact that people who call him out on such things are either labelled partisan or bigoted is outrageous.
are great examples of fuckups by contractors (read: private enterprise), not NASA.
Perkin-Elmer was contracted to make that mirror, and it was one of their employees who improperly assembled the inspection gage leading to the grinding error:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717301.000-the-testing-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html
It was a Lockheed-Martin employee who took the bolts out of the satellite holddown cart, and some more private employees who then moved the thing without following the checklist, dropping the satellite onto the floor:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/04noaanreport/
Both incidents point to the need for greater NASA oversight of outside contractors. Of course, any such action would be portrayed by the "privatize everything" crowd as needless red-tape and protectionism by NASA bureaucrats.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I love Slashdot...If income tax is applied to us, it's unconstitutional, but if it's NOT applied to someone else, it's pandering.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Don't get me wrong, the Republicans have sicked me with their talk of small government while adding huge new programs and jacking up the debt.
HOWEVER, the 9 Trillion number (or 10 or whatever it is now) you see for the debt is a small piece of the overall US debt. This number has mostly gone up under Republican administrations and the Democrats and the MSM like to point to this fact non-stop. But what you don't see in this number is the 53 TRILLION that the US is obliged to pay for future social programs. These social programs were started under Democrats with the New Deal, continued under Democrats with the Great Society, and will balloon under a socialist Democrat like Obama (with ownership of Congress as well) with social healthcare, college education, etc.
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them.
That was entirely caused by a budget cut between 2001 and 2002. There was a well funded program to permanently solve the problem that caused that accident, but NASA decided that since it had never had catastrophic consequences before, it would, along with the majority of other programs, have its solution canceled. The mistake, I suppose, was in choosing to cut that program, but without he massive funding cuts that occurred that year, I don't think NASA would have lost that shuttle.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
First, Obama was absolutely certain that he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained a State legislator, but then he had a change of heart. When Sen. Fitzgerald decided to not run, the Illinois Republican Party ran Jack Ryan. Obama ran against him and it turned out that Mr. Ryan had been at a porn club with his super hot wife Jeri Ryan. Reprehensible as this was, the Illinois Republican Party next mustered the colossal failure of a candidate Alan Keyes. Obama in no small part had the dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party to thank for his political success thus far.
Next he said that he under no circumstances would run for president. He felt he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained the Jr. Senator of Illinois. Then he had a change of heart.
Now he ran for president in hotly contested primaries. During this time he had a number of bright ideas for the liberal base. He had a number of changes of heart during this time, but he finally clinched the presumptive nomination.
A number of things have happened from illegal immigration and marijuana policy to DC vs Heller. All of which he has managed to have a change of heart about.
I am not surprised that he has yet another change of heart with regard to NASA.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
I acknowledge that it "can" happen during campaigns, but I've seen far too often such "evolving" happen ONLY during campaigns. McCain has never towed the party line this much until recently, and I can't see how Obama's changing stances (of course, he doesn't have such a long history, so it's difficult to really see where his core stances were, other than on some situations like Iran).
Any reaction toward a presidential race that doesn't include cynicism for either candidate, IMHO, is idiotic.
Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues.
Such as?
If I were going to be president six months from now, I'd make sure that we returned to the Moon, in force. I'd spend what it takes to put a permanent solar power base there, lasering back to a network of satellites and delivering cheap, clean power around the world. Once the base was staffed and ample power generated, I'd start mining the rare minerals that are going to run out on Earth within the next 20-100 years. I'd give contractors who are majority American owned, and use majority American subcontractors, the highest priority for taking part in the project, and aim at creating a space launch industry as dominated by commercial carriers as are airliners, while keeping a reliable government capacity operating, just like in air travel.
The US would start to look admirable around the entire world again. Except in the boardrooms and war rooms of our worst enemies, who are using our foreign oil dependence to enslave us and the world, who'd hate us as we put them out of business.
It took only 7 years for the US to go from subsonic jets to landing on the Moon, with a nation engaged in the Cold War, a hot war in Vietnam, a much lower economic productivity, a much smaller pool of engineers, much more primitive technology, and no proven example of going to the Moon to reassure us. Even before exploiting the Moon's resources industrially, we've already benefited hugely from the scientific, engineering, industrial and patriotic rewards of the visionary investment. We could return to the Moon, and lead the world out of so many problems we've helped create and are most threatened by.
--
make install -not war
As a Louisianian, I have less of a problem with negative campaigning than most people, but I agree that both sides are being pretty dumb with their attacks. We're living in an era where EVERYTHING can get fact-checked, and quickly. I have yet to see a candidate smart about it.
Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues.
Such as?
Well, for starters, other than NASA, the most egregious one would be the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I'd also have to add the use of public funding for his election.
I don't. All I know is what the trickle-down affects were to the projects I worked on. Although I did go to a meeting (more auditorium style than personal) when Griffin explained to our center what his views were on the NASA advisory council, I had very little to do with any management other than my immediate ATRs.
I don't think you read my comment, or at least, didn't understand what I'm saying. My issue is that NASA was told to do more things, and wasn't given the funding to cover it. I'm not going to say that all NASA projects deserve funding, but they're tied in certain regards due to congressional earmarks and the executive branch's "Vision for Space Exploration" that force funding into specific projects that may not be well justified in the context of NASA's published strategic goals. (I don't know that there are ones that should specifically be cut, but it seems that if the projects were worthwhile on their own, they wouldn't need congressional earmarks)
As for the problems you cite -- not all of them were engineering. Some were administrative, and some were on NASA projects, but not by NASA personnel. In the case of the satellite bolts issue, one of the teams took the bolts from another group's satellite. I've heard rumors that the "failed to follow procedures" came from someone checking off tasks as they were started, and not completed, right as a shift change occurred, so the bolts weren't verified before the satellite was moved. But this didn't happen at NASA -- this happened at Lockheed Martin. Were the contractors held accountable for their actions? I have no idea -- it's well outside of my scope of work. But I do know that it got mentioned quite a bit, so hopefully, others have learned from it.
And would the problems have occurred if there were adequate funding for oversight? I have no idea, but doing things on the cheap and/or rushed can lead to mistakes. If a job's worth doing, it's worth spending money on. (Okay, some things are worth doing at price $X, but not at $X+Y ... it's that whole benefit-cost analysis thing). Now, some projects are intentionally risky -- they spend less money on something that's not yet proven, because the potential payoff is quite high, but they can't dedicate the full funding. And there's a whole 'TRL' (tech readiness level) system and different classes of missions as a result. But if a delay from a contractor results in the delay of a satellite launch (because it costs money to store the satellite in a clean room before launch, etc.), then money is taken from the project's later years ... ie, the satellite's up, but there's less money to actually 'do science' with the data from it.
So in effect, I'm agreeing to a certain degree with your final analysis, but I'd argue that many of the problems aren't all NASA's fault, but the situations that they're put into by the other areas of government and the contractors they go through. I'd personally like to see more focus on the 'advance knowledge of (X)' aspects of the strategic goals, but Griffin is right -- the scientists and contractors all want more money spent on their area, so they might not be the best advisors, even if they do work for other scientific agencies.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
(1) NASA is primarily based out of Florida, California and Texas. (2) Those states have lots of electoral votes. (3) NASA's manned spacecraft stuff is concentrated in Florida and Texas. (4) Obama is trailing in Florida. So suddenly he's in favor of increased man space flights? Color me unsurprised.
Yup, I agree on the public funding issue. That, and FISA, were two ugly, ugly position changes that, while one can rationalize, are impossible to deny. BUT, those didn't happen in "recent weeks", so they hardly apply.
But given the difficulty of the current economic climate, what makes you believe his change of position on the SPR is a flip-flop, and not simply a re-evaluation? I mean, right about now, the *last* person you want in office is someone so completely dogmatic that they're unwilling to evaluate all options, including tapping into the SPR, or some limited amount of offshore drilling (which Obama has also recently said he'd be willing to consider).
If, by recently, you mean the last, oh, two or three years, when, after years of being a "maverick", he started heavily supporting Bush, a trend that has continued to his day.
Contrast this with Obama, and I think you can see the difference. Or, at least, I hope you can.
'course, the real irony, is that McCain selling out to the RNC now makes any position change by Obama, no matter how reasonable or well thought out, suspect...
But given the difficulty of the current economic climate, what makes you believe his change of position on the SPR is a flip-flop, and not simply a re-evaluation? I mean, right about now, the *last* person you want in office is someone so completely dogmatic that they're unwilling to evaluate all options, including tapping into the SPR, or some limited amount of offshore drilling (which Obama has also recently said he'd be willing to consider).
Well, the fact that a month before changing his position, he affirmed that he opposed releasing from the SPR... at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with. He wants to release 10% of the reserve, and then have it filled with less valuable oil that requires more refining-- completely contradictory to the intent of the reserve... the last time it was used, IIRC, was post-Katrina due to the fact that refineries in the Gulf were offline. Now you're going to require more refining in an emergency reserve?? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If this was his re-evaluation, then it just shows that he's not that smart.
Hillary was campaigning since she was elected senator. McCain since 2000. Obama since he saw he had a shot and got some backers, which has been for a few years and since he got in the Senate. "Reasonable, well-thought" position changes are still position changes - see his recent change on possible drilling. He, and most dems, were kowtowing to the environmental whackos for a LONG time, and now there's such an outcry for more drilling (as gas prices most affect Obama's targeted audience than McCain's) that he HAS to come up with a more nuanced reason than "everyone wants it." It's starting to hit the pocketbooks of people he really wants votes from, and Obama needs to throw a bone there. He wouldn't change his position on it if he weren't running for President, I would bet.
Which is the REAL question we need to ask - would they change their stance on --insert issue-- if they weren't running for President?
I would love to see the exact same story with his "evolving" position on giving telecoms immunity for spying on us. He voted for allowing it and he should change his position to oppose it and actively purse having this stopped.
Obama's too smart to be a NASA booster. Yes, NASA's popular. But it is a relic from a distant age. NASA serves today more as a totem of what middle-class people want the society to be rather than what it actually is.
With each story about the coming new age of space exploration that appears on Slashdot, I get this underlying feeling that there is a sharp disconnect from reality at work. The reality is that we are on the edge of a massive involuntary decrease in energy use. And space exploration will be one of the first government programs to be cut as a result.
It's not that space exploration by itself consumes a large amount of energy; it's the vast complex economy that space programs depend on that will be starved for energy. Energy as in oil. Oil that becomes quite expensive as the easy-to-reach light crude is depleted.
As oil becomes increasingly difficult to get out of the ground, everything becomes massively expensive. When food prices triple, gasoline becomes rationed, stock prices tank, and house prices fall by half, people will have to make serious choices on what to buy with the funds that they have left. Space exploration becomes the lowest priority.
Space exploration only appears to be an essential component for the progress of mankind when there is plenty of food, peace, and an economy growing 5-6% a year. When these conditions change, so does the general appeal of space travel. As this appeal goes away; the funding for space disappears. NASA and its programs are more a symbol of a more-prosperous age than a program that delivers real useful solutions to everyday problems. NASA can put a man on the moon, but it can't put gas in his car.
Given this reality, NASA should concentrate only on projects that can be completed with useful results within a short time frame. Certainly no more than five to ten years total. That means no more fantasies about moon bases and Mars manned missions. If NASA commits itself to these long-term hugely-expensive but largely symbolic projects, they will most likely find the funding gone in the middle. With no lasting results to show for all the expense.
Since we are the young technological elite, Slashdot readers should be the vanguard in preparing the general population (and the NASA directors themselves) for this inevitable great change. However we talk and act like over-sugared children. We are at risk of being preceived as completely irrelevant, and incapable of providing technical leadership during the coming transformations.
Slashdot readers to a man believe that technology is going to somehow find a way to transcend the limits imposed from running out of cheap oil. This is not correct. Cheap energy makes technology possible, but technology doesn't make cheap energy possible. When the easy-to-drill oil is gone, technological progress slows to practically nothing. The basic know-how is still available, but there is no investment capital available for the massive projects needed to develop it.
Pure science remains in libaries and labs, but engineering disappears. This is the 21st century reality that is going to be very difficult for current techies to accept. But it is the coming new reality. When the consequences of global warming, oil depletion, and overpopulation become fully manifest in the next ten to twenty years, NASA will disappear faster than the Hummer in the era of $5/gallon gasoline.
Realistically ,Obama is just spouting half baked intentions to gain votes.Once in office,which isn't likely he will continue tough foreign policy stances that his party has historically done.Remember Carters "give up the hostages or die" speech to Iran? How about Bill Clintons surprise bombing obliteration of Bagdad?
Kennedys amazing handling of Cuba?
Neither does anyone else.Promises go out,money stays for vote buying programs while the important issues are left to fend for themselves rather than spend money on anything that won't further the interests of the Demo/Socialicratic party.They can always make up some slobbering humanitarian excuse to improve their image and make problem solving look detrimental to the people they rule..er govern.
Get over this Obama thing,it's dead as disco.
Not that Republicans are much better,but at least they defend our interests.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
So what? That means nothing. Just because gas prices were lower, doesn't mean the problem magically went away. Gas is still extremely expensive, and the problem still requires attention. And in that intervening month, he was convinced that tapping into the SPR was an option to be considered. I still don't see how that's anything but a simple change of position in the face of new facts.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with.
Well, that's your opinion. Good for you. That doesn't make Obama's position a flip flop. It just makes it potentially stupid (I don't know enough about the issue, so I can't really judge... and there's no reason to believe you do, either).
Ok, google helps here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
McCain has also switched positions on several issues, but in general, those have been over the course of years, rather than months. Yes, they're both politicians, and their views have changed.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Which is the REAL question we need to ask - would they change their stance on --insert issue-- if they weren't running for President?
Because they realized they were wrong? Or that they need to compromise their ideals in the face of a difficult economic situation? I know, it's an alien concept, but it does happen from time to time.
>Is that 16 Apollo launches or 16 times Apollo 8 through 17?
As other posters have already cited and said, the current Iraq war could have funded 16 ENTIRE APOLLO PROGRAMS, not launches, in today's dollars.
That means we could have gone to the moon nearly 100 times for the cost.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
A) I don't remember that incident at all.
B) I'm pretty sure that you should respond at the time, rather than starting a war 8 years or more after the fact.
C) Of all the reasons Bush gave for the war in Iraq, I don't remember him giving that as a reason. I do remember WMDs (that were never found), intelligence that was discredited, and a whole lot of lying over what the real reason for war was. I don't pretend to know the real reason, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't to help normal Iraqis.
Whoever owns the moon owns the world. All you need do is toss rocks.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
So what? That means nothing. Just because gas prices were lower, doesn't mean the problem magically went away. Gas is still extremely expensive, and the problem still requires attention. And in that intervening month, he was convinced that tapping into the SPR was an option to be considered. I still don't see how that's anything but a simple change of position in the face of new facts.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with.
Well, that's your opinion. Good for you. That doesn't make Obama's position a flip flop. It just makes it potentially stupid (I don't know enough about the issue, so I can't really judge... and there's no reason to believe you do, either).
Geez louise. You've already decided on the issue, so I suppose this is a waste of my time.
Please cite ONE NEW FACT that would support his COMPLETE flip-flop in the period of one month.
I've explained my reasons why tapping into the reserve is stupid. You have done nothing to counter my reasoning. You just assume that St. Obama must have a good reason, but have no evidence to back that claim. You just assume that he must have a good reason, even though Sen. Obama has yet to articulate it.
You, my friend, are the textbook description of someone who's been taken in by a cult of personality.
Please cite ONE NEW FACT that would support his COMPLETE flip-flop in the period of one month.
Again, I have *no idea* what facts Obama was privy to prior to changing his decision. I have *no idea* what facts or arguments he was given to change his mind. All I know is that he did. Maybe the news that the US has been in recession since Q4 '07 caused him to compromise in order to address inflationary concerns. Maybe someone gave a good explanation of the benefits of tapping into the SPR. Hell, I'm sure I could come up with all kinds of other guesses. But I have no particular reason to assume it's just pandering, particularly given that no one has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that he has a history of such behaviour.
I've explained my reasons why tapping into the reserve is stupid.
And I don't care.
You have done nothing to counter my reasoning.
Because it's completely an utterly beside the point. You're trying to change the dialog, from the issue of flip flopping, to whether the new position is a good one or not. Those issues are tangential, and I'm not going to fall for your attempts to conflate them.
The problem with a politician changing his mind, especially a relatively inexperienced politician, is that few people will be able to understand what he truly believes in. What if you previously supported Obama because of his stance on NASA and now that it's changed, what do you do. Should people that agree with his new stance be at all concerned about his previous stance? Maybe he'll come into some more "new" information that will have him change his stance again. How can people rally around someone that they trust to have their viewpoint when that person's viewpoint continues to change? "Change we can believe in" is certainly holding true for Obama...who knew that he was actually referring to his mind?
> That explains why Spaceship One exploded on launch.
Actually, it explains why Falcon I failed to launch, and Armadillo's lunar lander exploded on the runway. No, wait, it doesn't explain it. Even SpaceShipOne had a roll problem (it didn't blow up because, IMHO, Rutan is a rare daVinci-level design genius, but that's another tale). These things happen not because it's NASA or the Soviets or Private Industry, but because rocket science is hard.
Rockets blow up. A 1/100 change of failure over 100 launch = failure is likely. You can out-design some risk, but not all-- and so you have to do a cost/benefit against risk. With conventional (unmanned) satellite loses, they have it down to actuarial figures: they insure for $X, the policy costs $Y, so a risk reducation that costs more than $Y is unnecessary.
For manned stuff, the US is very risk-adverse and litigious, so I don't think private industry has much of a market advantage for risk management there. I do hope there will be legal and insurance reform to improve that situation. Put simply, people should be allowed to give informed consent to do dangerous stuff.
I'm all for commercial space ventures in addition to NASA. But arguing private industry will either a) cut corners and blow up more or b) be safer and more reliable than NASA ignores NASA's track record, reality, and how rocket science works.
A.
Umm... only two (2) of those issues are recent. The rest date back to '04, so if you're willing to give McCain a pass, you must be willing to do the same for Obama.
As for those two, I agree, his position changes on campaign finance are almost certainly driven by political concerns. His choice to take private funding was, I think, purely a matter of political expediency. His change of position on unions, however, reeks of pandering to me.
So now we have, what, four recent issues: FISA, private campaign financing, his comments on unions, and NASA. Others have included his positions on offshore drilling and the strategic petroleum reserve, but I consider those to be excellent examples of his willingness to compromise for the good of the country, and so don't qualify as pandering or flip flopping.
So... four issues. Four issues, and he's suddenly a pandering politician just like everyone else? Really?
Coal gasification (or just building more clean-coal power plants -- and no, fellow environmentalists, "clean coal" is not an oxymoron, learn what it means first, especially when it comes to carbon capture technology) has to be coupled with a constellation of other efforts to get our energy prices down, including investment in renewables.
I see a future where, if we're smart, the United States can be the world leader in energy technology, provided we innovate in renewables and make full use of our coal and natural gas resources. I just hope we'll be smart enough to do it.
+++ATH0
Ok, citations given. Where are the informative up-mods? Oh, that's right, Slashdot is the biggest den of hypocritical liars that there is.
With fucks like you guys as supporters there is no question in my mind that Obama will do nothing but lie his way through the presidency and on the other side everything will be in such a haze that no one in control will know which way is up.
I'd be willing to bet that McCain will compromise with the left much more the Obama will ever comprise with the right.
If any one else in the world would have changed there position like that they would get immediately critised for flip flopping or it just wouldn't even get a blip in the media.
Mostly though I just like to get Obama supporters all riled... its fun. On slashdot its like fish in a barrel.
Tell me SatanicPuppy how did the Kool-Aide taste?
That is exactly the difference between "liberal" thinking and "conservative" thinking.
A pure liberal thinker does what they think is best all the time, even if it is a bit risky. A pure conservative thinker prioritizes stability over effectiveness. This has been true since the dawn of time.
By branding a politician a "flip flopper", the republicans are attempting to appeal to the conservative side of the swing voters. On the other side, democrats attempt to label conservative politicians as old and stale, with no real ideas for the future.
liberal view:
new=progress
old=stubborn
conservative view:
new=scary
old=wise
I am more on the liberal side of things, so I need to know that a politician can adapt to whatever new situations come up. I get worried when politicians start making absolute promises. Even though the ideas sound good now, by the time they are executed, it might not be the best idea.
"President Bush opposes the $2 billion in funding, saying it would be fiscally irresponsible."
A multi-trillion Dollar boondoggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is somehow a prudent decision that history shall vindicate him for undertaking, yet two billion for NASA is fiscally irresponsible?
It's change in Ubama U can believe in.
Here's what I'd say, but such a nuanced approach would almost certainly fail before evangelicals: Life begins at conception, but the government's interest in a citizen begins at viable birth. So while I might believe that a 2-month fetus is "alive", there is no practical way for the law to treat it independently of the mother...at most you could force a C-section and then it would die anyway.
The government, being a constitutional republic of free people, does not have the legal authority to force mothers to carry the baby until it is viable. If it did, it would ALSO have the power to force mothers to get pregnant in the first place, or to take children from their parents for no reason whatsoever. Abortion is legal not because anyone likes it, but because it is on one side of a bright line that we don't want government to cross.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You guys slashdotted the news website.
Is that one more shuttle mission to launch the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer? Please? Pretty Please?
It would be nice to have experiments for astronauts to work on. (Sex in space experiments can only fill in a portion of the total experiment time allocated.)
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Why does NASA expect they *deserve* more federal funding, when it appears they've been making too many mistakes and mis-steps in recent years?
By your logic, we should start looking at some serious funding cuts to the DoD and CIA, not to mention the office of the president.
An 'evolving stance'? Isn't that the same damn thing as 'straddling the fence' or 'flip-flopping'? When HASN'T a politician had an 'evolving stance'? Listen to any of them talk at different locations and they contridcut themselves more often than not.
Each of these morons is nothing more than the puppet of their respective parties. Neither one is a LEADER in any respect. Although, I give the nod to McCain simply based on the fact that the man fought in a war as a fighter pilot. Obama? What the hell has he done? He's first term Sneator and thinks he can run for President?
Help us all if they are the best we have to offer.
Pax Vobiscum
Evolve - what a nice word for being wrong in the first place and insisting now that you're right?
Change - see above.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The first 30,000$ of anyone's income is not taxed at all. Engineer a flat or slightly progressive (an odd thing to call it) curve beyond that.
Anyone on assistance takes a monthly test. If you have alcohol, tobacco or other drugs in your system, you do not get money that month. Try again next time.
Couple the above with eliminating the silly war on drugs.
I love the responses I got to illustrate the point that most people who are for social programs are against spending money on space exploration.
You create more intelligent people with science minded programs (read, more employable) than you can with a general handout program.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
You say "continues to evolve," I say "flip-flop."
We need term limits in Congress.
Not just term limits, but a restructure because they are always running for office. I want to see single terms of office and increase the years in office. Don't allow them to run for another position while in office with out first resigning from their post. So a congressman wants to be a senator, let him run but he has to resign as a congressman first. If a senator wants to run for president he has to resign as senator first. This will take out the willy nillys...
Congress 5 year single term
Senate 9 year single term
President 6 year single term
Allow that someone could be termed in separate districts but up to state laws and max two terms in Congress. So if a congressman moves from one district to another he can run again but max at 10 years from that state. Also push that the candidate must be a resident of that state for at least 5 years. No more Hilary running in NY when she is from Arkansas.
Fund raising limitations:
Congressional candidates can only raise money in their district.
Senatorial candidates can only raise money in their state.
Presidential Candidates can only raise money in the US.
NO foreign money what so ever.
Limit the number of times you can run for a position. So we don't was time with willy nillys
If you loose 3 times then get a life and get over it.
This puts the government back in the peoples hands a bit and cleans out the rust in our government.
Senator
... alien mind control.
Have gnu, will travel.
Obama. What do I need to say today?
where everyone "gets to keep more of their hard-earned money so that they can create jobs."
Your belief that the market fixes everything fails when people are incompletely or inaccurately educated on what their options are. This goes for everything from health care to purchasing a car to deciding where to send your child to school. NOTHING can guarantee a good education, so your "ultimate free market" fails to be truly egalitarian. Those who have not will continue to have not despite their best efforts; social mobility goes out the window, class stratification becomes worse and worse and the economic population distribution turns more and more from the diamond it was in the 50s and 60s into the pyramid it used to be and is becoming again now. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate because of your precious deregulation and increasingly free market.
We can have public education that seeks to holistically educate people so they truly can "vote with their dollars," but... that's not okay in your book, is it?
+++ATH0
However, I agree with you that our stubbornness in refusing to develop nuclear power is enormously frustrating. Our regulations against fuel reprocessing make no sense ("OMG PROLIFERATION RISK!"). Build it in MY backyard if I get to have electricity for pennies; I am secure in the knowledge that modern plants are less dangerous to live next to than a granite outcropping.
+++ATH0
We need term limits in Congress.
I was for term limits in California when they were first enacted, much for the same reasons as you. That said, they have been a plain and unmitigated disaster for this state because of the many unintended consequences they have produced.
First, there was gerrymandering. Since it was now impossible for an individual to hold a district for 20 to 30 years, the Democratically controlled legislature drew safe districts that would vote Democrat for the next 20 to 30 years. Republicans went along with this because the ones in power also got enough safe districts to hold up approval of the annual budget (which requires a 2/3 vote to pass).
Second, as a biproduct of gerrymandering, politics in the California became highly partisan. Since almost all legislative districts in California consistently vote 60/40 in favor one party, the real election became the primary. Of course, one wins the primary by appearing the fringes of his or her party. Thus, our state legislators and senators started to further toward both the left and right. Most moderates never made it to the general election.
Third, the rank partisanship, led to gridlock in the legislature, especially with the state budget. Democrats refuse to cut spending in tough times, and Republicans refuse to raise taxes, regardless of the need to do so. What should be a process of compromise, is reduced to an annual game of chicken because neither side wants to back down from their ideological rhetoric.
Fourth, these budget problems are exacerbated even further by the increased influence of lobbyist groups in the capitol. This is perhaps the most insidious consequence of term limits. Because legislators and senators are out after 6 and 8 years respectively, they often have very little time to learn the legislative process and become experts on the subjects their committees govern. Thus they have to rely on lobbyist groups for information and viewpoints. Think K Street in DC but much worse.
There are a host of other maladies that term limits have wrought on this state, like the political musical chairs our politicians play, but these four are by far the worst. Term limits is the best example of the law of unintended consequences. For every problem they solved did they created another equally bad or worse one.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
if we didn't flip-flop, we would still be living in caves
True, and if we didn't flip-flop, the first sea creatures to attempt to venture onto land would have died because they couldn't have made it back to water so we'd all still be living in the ocean. Flip-flopping is very important!
The enemies of Democracy are
I think this is something that most people forget. Your vote for a winning candidate doesn't matter when the race isn't close. If you live in California or Texas for example you already know how the results will turn out. So voting for a Democrat or Republican in one of those states is a waste. Whereas voting for a thirdparty candidate can give a voice to your opinions and possibly influence whoever does end up getting elected.
Of course the best solution would be to change the voting system. But it's doubtful that will happen anytime soon.
On FISA. Now he wants to spend more good money after bad on the white elephant called the shuttle.
I find it interesting when a candidate changes his opinion several times on a issue based on random polling data how its refered to by writers who support him as "evolving" when others would refer to this is "flip flopping". He has no core values. He's a politician. He'll say whatever he needs to say to get elected. If he opens his mouth and says something rediculous the press will reinterpret it for him while he "evolves" his position into something resembling coherent thought.
I understand what you mean, but characterizing SS as a Ponzi scheme is specious, ignoring that SS funds are invested in the government. Furthermore, as a pool SS fund returns aren't far off performance for similar (extremely low!) risk investments. I suppose you'd rather *all* our vast debt be owned by China?
anyone running for President can "promise" anything they want because they have nothing to do with passing the budget other than the initial proposal. It is the CONGRESS that actually passes the budget and decides what to spend money on.
Obama can say he will do this or that, but unless the CONGRESS says yes - it is just so much hot air.
Wake Up people.
Then why isn't Delta cutting the middleman and engaging in its own speculation?
Answer: because speculators are giving us all a valuable service: they are allowing us to better allocate oil resources over time. Assume that oil next year will be more expensive. Should we then use less oil today, so that we have more next year? Also, if we use less oil today we can learn how to reduce our consumption, reducing the damage of the coming high prices. Now each of us can't predict oil prices -- but the speculators do. If they think oil will be expensive next year, they buy some now. This raises today's prices, but will have the effect of reducing consumption and lowering next year's prices. Essentially, they moved part of next year's shortage into this year -- without any central planning authority. Conversely, if speculators thought oil was about to become cheap, they would sell oil today (moving towards the present the future benefit of lower prices) and also invest in oil-using industries, giving these industries the capital to prepare for the upcoming cheap oil. In fact, the airlines themselves speculate heavily on oil. If the speculators are adding $30-$60 to the price per barrel, this means that they are expecting the price to go up at least this much. If they are right, then the speculation may have staved off this future. If they are wrong, cheaper oil is just around the corner and they will lose a lot of money. Seems to me like the airlines should be happy.
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire. I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
Individual success and failure are not isolated in an economic system.
Social services (such as social security) are based on a simple equation:
if (cost_of_services <= (cost_of_social_ill)) { provide_services(); }
That's the justification for providing insurance against poverty, even given the inefficiencies and abuses inherent in providing it. As you (theoretically) derive economic benefit from providing these social services, it should not be considered altruism.
http://plausible.coop
He was refering to the Challenger accident in 1984. Perhaps low funding helped contribute to the Columbia accident of 2003. But to say it was "entirely caused" by a budget cut is just wrong. There are two observations to make. First, if the Shuttle had been placed on top of the vehicle rather than on the side, there wouldn't have been an ice strike. Second, if the Shuttle's thermal protection system, the ceramic tiles that line its belly and protect it during atmospheric reentry, were made of something more durable like a heat resistant metal heat shield, Columbia might have survived reentry. Even if not, repairing a metal heat shield would have been a much less risky endeavor than repairing the extremely fragile tiles. The bad scenario here occurs when an astronaut while attempting to repair some tiles causes more damage than they fix. The Shuttle would have needed a lower mass to crosssectional area to use a more physically durable heat shield, but it is feasible.
The Columbia accident was fundamentally a problem caused by long ago design decisions. No matter how much money you throw at the problem, as long as you have the Shuttle mounted where it is and the tiles as delicate as they are, there will continue to be potentially lethal ice strikes. In comparison, the Challenger accident occured as the result of operating outside of mission parameters (ie, outdoor temperature was too cold resulting in brittle o rings in the solid rocket boosters and burn through).
A related problem is simply that the Shuttle was operating outside of the funding environment that it was intended for. There were supposed to be many more orbiters and 40 flights per year. You can get a lot of good safety data from that many flights. But it requires somewhere around $10 billion a year in funding just for the Shuttle in order to meet that launch rate. No reason to expect that NASA would actually see that much funding. At the time that the Shuttle was being designed (in the 70's), the funding cuts were obviously permanent and inevitable. As I see it, lack of funding here is just another design flaw.
Because every politician since the beginning of time has had to change their opinions during a campaign in order to get elected? Moron :/
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
You don't challenge him on his positions though (and by you, I mean the radio pundits and news anchors). They just call him a flip flopper while ignoring the list that is 4x as long that McCain has flipped on. Yet McCain says he is evolving. It is just hypocritical and annoying. You can spin any news any way you want. You want to spin this one? Well, you are being an idiot. And I am not afraid to call you out on it.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
The sad thing is, if the bloated life-sucking tick that is DoD were cut down to size, we'd have plenty of money for both education and Constellation.
The thing to remember is that the US DoD performs a great deal of highly valued tasks. NASA does not. Sure with sensible weapon systems, procurement procedures (including lessened export restrictions), and a bit more military base consolidation, we probably could reduce the US military costs by more than the desired 5%. But most of the costs would remain. The only way to significantly reduce military costs is to reduce the demands placed on the military.
Let's keep in mind also that the US military is the number one funder of space projects globally. They've even attempted to address some of the commercial launch issues (via the EELV program and later ULA), an area in which NASA has long been negligent.
Zubrin has outlined a straightforward plan to settle an entire other planet at relatively low cost. What the hell is the hold-up? How is it this is not the most obvious project in the solar system?
For starters, the Moon is a more obvious target since it can contribute directly to Earth orbit construction and it's short distance from Earth allows for much more effective use of Earth-side labor (eg, via teleoperation).
USPS is the cheapest way to send a package and unlike UPS doesn't expect you to sign for it at 3:00 pm on a fucking weekday.
It's like, hey, jackasses. If I didn't work all day I wouldn't have money to buy the toys you are delivering. So why don't you do us both a favor and either leave my package at the door or deliver it when I'm not at fucking work.
By the way, I don't typically have much trouble when I have to go to the post office either. I think the USPS may have actually taught those angry black women some manners.
Contrast NASA consistantly putting men and space station modules in orbit with Burt Rutan's high altitute airplane flight that the free marketers skew in to a besting of NASA. Defense contractors were flying planes in to space in the fucking 1950s.
I'm 90% with you. But after the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr, I'm having trouble having any faith in the LP.
Yeah, a guy that wrote a "defense of marriage" amendment and supports an amendment to criminalize flag burning.
Let's put that last in perspective: Bob Barr wants to modify the Constitution, so that you will not be permitted to dispose of your private property as you see fit because it happens to have a picture printed on it that means something to other people.
Where has the liberty the Libertarian party once championed gone? What happened to my right to freely use or abuse my own pieces of fabric regardless of what colors are on them? Somehow the Libertarians don't think private property rights matter any more? Do they think that harming the physical embodiment of a symbol somehow magically destroys the principles the symbol represents? They think a pretentious show of patriotism is more important than private ownership? They've lost their way... and their credibility.
I was in Ecuador in '05 and the price of gas was over $3/litre. Yeah, that's well over $10 per gallon. Oh, and the average yearly income was on the along the lines of $3K. Needless to say, there weren't a lot of people driving. Oh, and the military was doing exercises right next to an oil pipeline that was supposedly pulling fuel to send to the US.
Yeah, we all thought something was wrong with the picture too....
So where again was this $1/gallon gas?
If they weren't running for office, I don't think we would care.
The thing is that when Obama hit the national stage back in 2004 he talked about one America and yadda yadda. Well compromising on drilling to get some of his goals accomplished is just the type of thing that happens in a less partisan America.
They aren't so much position changes as acknowledgments that you just aren't gonna get everything you want without giving something in return. Ultimately politicians answer to the people so I have no problem with position changes that put the people's wishes up front when reasonable.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
I don't agree on public financing. Obama said that he would talk about the public funding issue with the Republican candidate to see if a deal could be worked out that would include 527 groups as he didn't want to commit to public funding and get "swift boated" by better funded groups outside of the system. You can argue that this was an unattainable goal as McCain can't control everybody (though apparently the Democratic 527s appear to be willing to follow Obama on this), but that was Obama's position.
More importantly, Obama's bigger position (and, incidentally, the justification for using the public financing system) has always been the idea of getting big money and influence out of politics. The public financing system was one way to do that, Obama's individual donor network just happens to be another - more lucrative - way that also doesn't put the American taxpayer on the hook.
So you can say that Obama could have more vigorously negotiated with McCain - who had an even worse flip flop on campaign finance that could still very well get him into legal trouble - but you can't say that his stance on public financing of campaigns has changed or that he acted in a way counter to his stated principle, and that would have been the questionable deed.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
He changed his mind and is afraid that they'll label him a flip-flopper.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
http://minstrelboy.blogspot.com/2008/08/cross-us-and-we-will-crush-you-warns.html
and, pointing out that the "surprise" war in Georgia was scripted, and Putin was involved from the foundation of it...
http://minstrelboy.blogspot.com/2008/08/russia-georgia-early-take-swj-blog.html
Welcome to the New World Order, and know that the one running the show misses the Soviet Union, and is willing to kill anyone who stands in its way.
Enjoy.
( nice sharp observation at that blog, BTW :)
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml
There are thousands and thousands of them, but here's a few:
What do all the things pictured on this page have in common? They all use technologies or materials that were originally developed for the space program.
TV satellite dish TV Satellite Dish
NASA developed ways to correct errors in the signals coming from the spacecraft. This technology is used to reduce noise (that is, messed up picture or sound) in TV signals coming from satellites.
MRI image of head Medical Imaging
NASA developed ways to process signals from spacecraft to produce clearer images. (See more on digital information and how spacecraft send images from space.) This technology also makes possible these photo-like images of our insides.
Eye chart Vision Screening System
Uses techniques developed for processing space pictures to examine eyes of children and find out quickly if they have any vision problems. The child doesn't have to say a word!
Ear thermometer Ear Thermometer
Instead of measuring temperature using a column of mercury (which expands as it heats up), this thermometer has a lens like a camera and detects infrared energy, which we feel as heat. The warmer something is (like your body), the more infrared energy it puts out. This technology was originally developed to detect the birth of stars.
Fire fighter Fire Fighter Equipment
Fire fighters wear suits made of fire resistant fabric developed for use in space suits.
Smoke detector Smoke Detector
First used in the Earth orbiting space station called Skylab (launched back in 1973) to help detect any toxic vapors. Now used in most homes and other buildings to warn people of fire.
Sun glasses Sun Tiger Glasses
From research done on materials to protect the eyes of welders working on spacecraft, protective lenses were developed that block almost all the wavelengths of radiation that might harm the eyes, while letting through all the useful wavelengths that let us see.
Sport utility vehicle Automobile Design Tools
A computer program developed by NASA to analyze a spacecraft or airplane design and predict how parts will perform is now used to help design automobiles. This kind of software can save car makers a lot of money by letting them see how well a design will work even before they build a prototype.
Dust Buster vacuum cleaner Cordless Tools
Portable, self-contained power tools were originally developed to help Apollo astronauts drill for moon samples. This technology has lead to development of such tools as the cordless vacuum cleaner, power drill, shrub trimmers, and grass shears.
Bicycle Aerodynamic Bicycle Wheel
A special bike wheel uses NASA research in airfoils (wings) and design software developed for the space program. The three spokes on the wheel act like wings, making the bicycle very efficient for racing.
Skier Thermal Gloves and Boots
These gloves and boots have heating elements that run on rechargeable batteries worn on the inside wrist of the gloves or embedded in the sole of the ski boot. This technology was adapted from a spacesuit design for the Apollo astronauts.
Pen Space Pens
The Fisher Space Pen was developed for use in space. Most pens depend on gravity to make the ink flow into the ball point. For this space pen, the ink cartridge contains pressured gas to push the ink toward the ball point. That means, you can lie in bed and write upside down with this pen! Also, it uses a special ink that works in very hot and very cold environments.
Football player Shock Absorbing Helmets
These special football helmets use a padding of Temper Foam, a shock absorbing material first developed for use in aircraft seats. These helmets have three times the shock absorbing ability of previous types.
Ski boot Ski Boots
These ski boots use accordion-like folds, similar to the design of space suits, to allow the boot to flex
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
"Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs."
I didn't know this. At least I didn't know it was this bad. People are getting rich from oil trade while contributing to the problem instead of the solution. Looks like we need to work on a more efficient fuel trade.
God damn, you're a fucking idiot. The SPR is a diplomatic policy tool, not a cookie jar. It exists ONLY to buffer America from the whims of tin-pot dictators like Marmaduke over in Iran, or fat boy down in Venezuela.
No, it's people treating Obama like everything he does is somehow enlightened and above reproach. The Obamaphiles are some of the worst followers I have EVER seen - worse than some of the Bush supporters, who will at least name SOMETHING they don't like at this point.
Oddly enough, Obama was one of the more partisan members with possibly the MOST leftist voting record in the senate. I don't recall him making very many efforts to cross party lines on any votes. Can't say that about McCain.
If it's an unfunded mandate, blame congress...they hold the purse strings.
In the parent comment I mentioned the House vote, but neglected to mention the Senate..
The original senate vote was 77 Ayes (48 republicans and 29 democrats) and 23 Nays (1 republican, 1 independent, and 21 democrats). If the democrats voted together then the vote would have been 48 Ayes and 52 Nays which would have killed the authorization for war with Iraq...
Again another example of one party trying to place the blame on the other when in fact both are to blame...
Now how in the hell did I get the war vote in the conversation? Oh yea, the real power of the president and how third parties need to garner congressional seats first...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I get it now, you're not just ignorant you're a willfully ignorant asshole.
Just because I enjoy making dicks like you feel stupid, that link you didn't click because you knew it proved you wrong leads to John Maynard Keynes. Probably the most important ECONOMIST of the 20th century. He agrees with deficit spending. THAT IS WHY YOU FAULED TO CLICK IT. And you know it.
And your failure to know that Keynes disagrees wth you before you asked me to " find a link to an economist" proves you're too fucking stupid to converse with any further.
I will say that you look like a total fucking boob when you ask for a link to something I've already provided, and you admitted you were too arrogant to click.
I think if your post proves anything it's that you'll lie to save face and lie about who you're voting for and why. Your failure to address my points with anything other than handwaving and "nu uh, REPUBLICANS BAD! I know so!" in the face of evidence that you're wrong demonstrates that.
You're a total lying partisan cunt, and nothing you can say will change that in light of the fact that you openly admitted you wouldn't accept irrefutable proof you were wrong.
Fuck off and die, and stop ruining my fucking country with your stupid partisan garbage.
I wish we had a presidential candidate, that would spend $2 million on our failing health care system, and back a nationwide low-cost healthcare plan, that doesn't have outrageous requirements, like what we have now.
Visit Modern Day Daddy today
Guy, you've proven you're a lying piece of trash, how fucking stupid are you that you think I'd give a fuck about anything you say in light of that.
Ps reread my previous post until you realize how much of an idiot you are for incorrectly thinking I assumed you a Democrat, instead of correctly thinking I said you were partisan.
If you weren't so fucking stupid you'd avoid using straw man like you did because you'd know the difference.
"Bush isn't running this time. HTH."
Please pay attention: Bush is "the old boss"; Obama would be "the new boss".
When the GP typed "there are actual real differences between Obama & Bush.", he/she was referring to the GGP's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." post.
HTH.
Oh, and to the idiots who modded this guy/gal up, why don't you try paying attention, as well?
By the way, I don't appreciate your racist, antisemitic, and terroristic threats. If you keep this up, I will have to report you to the Secret Service and the FBI as well as complain to the Slashdot owners about your behavior.
Here, here. This is the point. I'm not racist but he is not a good candidate. Is white guilt supposed to make me vote for him? Please. I can no more tell what he stands for now than I could any other huckster used car salesman, black white or purple.
Second, if the Shuttle's thermal protection system, the ceramic tiles that line its belly and protect it during atmospheric reentry, were made of something more durable
This is due to the budget cuts I mentioned. Had they not occurred, the tps wouldn't have been the same borosilicate glass on a ceramic tile structure.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Second, if the Shuttle's thermal protection system, the ceramic tiles that line its belly and protect it during atmospheric reentry, were made of something more durable
This is due to the budget cuts I mentioned. Had they not occurred, the tps wouldn't have been the same borosilicate glass on a ceramic tile structure.
No, it's the result of a bad design decision. The budget cuts were expected. What went wrong here was that NASA designed a vehicle that was suboptimal and too big for the funding environment. Then they had to take various steps to fund the vehicle, including grabbing funding from the DoD, expanding the capabilities of the vehicle in order to attract more funding, etc. Frankly, it made no sense back then to run a vehicle that needs around 40 launches a year to be economical, could send seven people into space, or had these high fixed costs. If from the start, they had gone with a smaller and less capable vehicle, with lower mass to crosssectional area, they wouldn't have these funding or safety problems. In other words, design could have solved the funding problem.
It's also worth noting that NASA has chosen to keep the current tiles. I assume this is because NASA doesn't have a facility sufficient to test new tile materials except on a Shuttle itself during reentry. Given there are only three shuttles (funding again) left, NASA can't risk a shuttle to test out a new technology.
To summarize, claiming that Shuttle failures are due to not enough funding ignores that NASA could have developed less ambitious vehicles that better fit the funding environment that everyone knew was coming. So instead of getting vehicles that furthered NASA's goals in space, NASA got vehicles that depleted NASA's budget for its other activities. As the saying goes, the Shuttle sucked the oxygen out of the room. This is why I consider the original Shuttle design the worst mistake NASA has ever made.
I think that's pretty much irrelevant. The crossing party lines thing works for McCain because - according to the American people - the Republicans have dead ass wrong on almost everything. Crossing party lines is an asset when your party is seen negatively.
With that said Obama did get the non-proliferation bill passed with Senator Lugar and worked to pass a significant ethics bill - which is never popular with incumbents. I don't think that he is some sort of super legislator, but I think you're being simplistic in confining bi-partisanship solely to whether he crossed party lines on votes.
Also, I don't really think the way that those "liberal" vs. conservative ratings are made is all that trustworthy. I guess if you think that there could never ever be a good tax or regulation therefore a vote against one is "liberal." I'm as much for the free market as anyone, but I need a little more nuance before I can accept those ratings.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
That's all fine. Similarly, the cause for death in automobile accidents is getting into the car. Or if we don't take your view, we can also say that swerving into the oncoming lane was also a mistake.
In this particular case the cost would have been minimal and was well within the budget as it had been established for the decade before the Columbia disintegration. The replacement had already been tested successfully. The remaining barriers were in manufacturing. Given the number of major aerospace companies that had been competing to make a replacement TPS, at least they thought it wasn't likely that the budget would be cut so drastically that the program would disappear. Then after 9/11, budgets were cut without any attention to detail. There was still an expectation that expensive shuttle missions would continue, but essential programs related to them were cut. It probably would have been more prudent if the shuttle budget had been cut in other areas to keep safety projects alive. This project in particular would have saved NASA a lot of maintenance costs, even ignoring the disaster it would have averted.
You're arguing that the shuttle itself was a poor decision on NASA's part for budgetary reasons. Sure, why not? Given that, I'm arguing that NASA made further budgetary mistakes because of a culture of panic following 9/11, and that those mistakes contributed to the danger to Columbia.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
That's all fine. Similarly, the cause for death in automobile accidents is getting into the car. Or if we don't take your view, we can also say that swerving into the oncoming lane was also a mistake.
Fair summary. I think to extend the analogy, maybe it is decided that the vehicle in question is an extremely high performance humvee. In order to make the humvee fit under budget and weight constraints, they end up taking some equipment off like perhaps the heavy bumpers and some of the internal structure. These decisions in turn increase the harm the driver experiences when they get into an accident. And as you note, the number one cause of automobile accidents is getting into the car. There's an inevitability to accidents. But these accidents don't necessarily result in fatalities.
And yes, I think you've adequately characterized the decision as bad for budgetary reasons. My point here is that budgetary matters are part of the engineering problem for a design. If a design is bad for budgetary reasons that are known at the time, then that is a design mistake just like the other mistakes you can do during this phase.
i say add at least one manned mission to Mars and i move to the states and vote for the man ...
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?