Slashdot Mirror


What's Getting Cut From Science Part of the Federal Budget

Kristina at Science News writes "As part of the announcement of its proposed fiscal year 2010 budget, the Obama administration released a summary (called 'Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010') that includes which science-related programs are getting cut. Two big programs are the nuclear waste storage project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and a second prototype airborne laser missile-defense weapon." Update: 05/07 23:03 GMT by T : On the other hand, reader Dusty writes, "The NASA budget for 2010 has been announced, up 5% on 2009. Human space flight plans to be reviewed."

46 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. A good thing by dimeglio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every gun, bomber, particle weapon made, means less money for those who need to go to college to make better, smarter bombs.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    1. Re:A good thing by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      STFU, you dumbass liberal wacko. It is those guns, bombers and soon particle weapons that allow you to be able to freely post things on sites like this. Every one LESS of those things is one more step towards a fascist, socialist slave future for all of us.

      [snicker]

      GPP was a take-off on a well-known quote:

      "Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

      Who said that? Well, that would be that well-known dumbass liberal socialist fascist wacko, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:A good thing by dimeglio · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was paraphrasing this guy:

      Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
              Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    3. Re:A good thing by tyrione · · Score: 3, Insightful

      STFU, you dumbass liberal wacko. It is those guns, bombers and soon particle weapons that allow you to be able to freely post things on sites like this. Every one LESS of those things is one more step towards a fascist, socialist slave future for all of us.

      [snicker]

      GPP was a take-off on a well-known quote:

      "Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

      Who said that? Well, that would be that well-known dumbass liberal socialist fascist wacko, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

      The same wacko who spit on the US Constitution and put In God We Trust and Under God on our currency and national anthem. Yea! That wacko is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance Then again the Christian Socialist who spit on the Constitution by having a Pledge of Allegiance made it clear the country was too ignorant to grasp the reasons the Founders insisted on a nation of Secular Law and how blind allegiance of many former nations eventually accelerated their demise.

    4. Re:A good thing by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because eventually nuclear weapons will become sufficiently cheap and readily available that a single person will kill us all.

      The only way to stop it is to remove the possibility of a person considering that course of action.

      That, or provide a robust means of safety against nuclear warheads. As improbable as the first proposition is, stopping a couple dozen nukes from destroying all human life on earth is about as physically sound as me rolling a hundred pound boulder up Mount Everest.

      World peace is at least physically possible, if improbable given usual human attitudes. And in any case, world peace is imperative, since we have surpassed the point where superior physical force truly corresponds to an evolutionary advantage. It only increases the odds of mutually assured destruction, or perhaps worse still, reversion to our former primeval state.

    5. Re:A good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why people still hold this hope for manumission.
      We have had slaves since the beginning of time and to think differently is foolish.
      If we didn't have slaves we would not have built up what we have today.
      Why can't more people just accept the way things are and see the beauty in it?

    6. Re:A good thing by YenTheFirst · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, yes, I remember that part of our national anthem.

      I suppose you've never heard the 4th stanza to the anthem.

      http://www.thenationalanthemproject.org/lyrics.html

      O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
      Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
      Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
      Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
      Then conquer we must when our cause it is just
      And this be our motto: "In God is our Trust."
      And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
      O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

      --
      It's not stupid. It's Advanced.
    7. Re:A good thing by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After all, if you've pledged allegiance to a nation under God, and then it turns evil, it's not really under God any more, so you've got an escape clause.

      This isn't D&D where an alignment change is obvious. Typically regimes or religious people that go corrupt or "evil" will still believe they have "God" on their side. Indeed, their belief of being "under God" can allow them to justify such acts.

      Consider WW2, generally seen as a just war - do you think that the Germans and Japanese weren't praying to God too?

  2. Yucca Mountain by LordKazan · · Score: 4, Informative

    They found a fault runs right under Yucca Mountain anyway.. isn't exactly a good site for storage anymore anyway.

    "n September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the movement of the structures "just-in-time engineering."[8][9]

    In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts"."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_mountain#Earthquakes

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    1. Re:Yucca Mountain by RsG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yucca always struck me as pure NIMBY anyway. The location wasn't chosen because it made sense from a logistic or safety standpoint; it was chosen because it was safely out of everyone else's backyard.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Yucca Mountain by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your quoted section there makes me laugh. As if locating a nuclear waste storage facility "several hundred feet" from a fault line is completely safe.

      Bob: "This looks like a good place, doesn't it Jim?"
      Jim, checks map: "No, it says there's a fault right through here."
      Bob, walks several hundred feet away, shouts: "How about here?"
      Jim: "Perfect!"

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    3. Re:Yucca Mountain by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That fault was known LONG ago. The information about it was suppressed, which is unfortunate. In the end, I hope that Obama will consider re-starting the IFR to process and use up the nuclear "waste" that we have.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Yucca Mountain by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Next time you go to Las Vegas (if ever) you should go on a tour of the Nevada Test Range- it's really cool. Just don't have kids afterward.

      They take reservations several months in advance (I think it was through the DOE). Basically you'll find yourself on a bus, packed with senior citizens too old to fear radiation, darting from crater to crater past big scary RADIOACTIVE signs poking up from tall weeds. You'll also meet a lot of right wing types during the day.

      They don't allow cameras, which is a damn shame. Go before Ernie the tour guide dies, so you can hear firsthand accounts of all the nuclear tests that went awry. Ernie is big on nuclear power but he probably glows in the dark.

  3. Not on the list? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even though it doesn't appear on the list, I have it on good authority that they are also researching a communications network technology based on a series of tubes...

  4. Disappointing! by Bellegante · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's a very disappointing list! I was hoping for something crazy to rant about. I suppose the elimination of the subsidies to help fund new nuclear power plants isn't something I agree with, but it sounds more like they already subsidized 25 possibles and just aren't looking at any more this year.

  5. At what COST? by dmomo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just pray that the Airborn Laser Missles don't come and attack Yucca Mountain. ... Again.

  6. Lack focus by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I couldn't help but chuckle at this:

    local climate-change grants. Begun last October, the administration found that this program lacks guidance, defined outcomes, and an effective means of targeting funds.

    News about government initiatives seem to revolve around the passing of a bill and the subsequent appointment of a blue ribbon panel or the filling of a key post. We rarely get news of how well the initiatives are doing unless there is a scandal, but I can't help but feel that given how undermanned some agencies are, (1/3 to 2/3 of government bureaucrats don't do noticeable amounts of useful work) most new programs and initiatives lack guidance, defined outcomes, and an effective means of targeting funds.

    --
    Signatures are the new names.
  7. The answer: nothing by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not $17 billion in cuts, it's $17 billion in proposed cuts, 99% of which won't happen. For comparison, last year George W Bush proposed 434 billion in cuts, none of which happened.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  8. what this has to do with science... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    -- annual farm-commodity payouts to no more than $250,000 per person and a phasing out of the direct payment of subsidies to farms with sales exceeding $500,000 per year. Savings: $143 million.

    Why that has something to do with science I'm not sure. But on another level, you don't have to be some big mega farmer to reach $500k on farm sales. We own about 600 acres that was inherited from my grandparents. We rent this out. The farmer that farms it is a family operation, father/son, and they farm about 1600 acres total. End of the year, they may bring home about $50- 60k each. Oh, and don't forget a rainy day fund incase a field floods, or a hurricane comes through and knocks the crap out of the yield.

    They sell in excess of $1 Million worth a crops a year, but farming is expensive. A tractor will cost you $80 - 100k+, need a new combine, those are about $200k. Don't for get grain trucks, chemicals, seed, diesel to power the irrigation systems, repairs, etc..

    It's gotten to the point where the son is debating whether or not to continue after his father gives it up after this year. He can make just about as much working a regular job without the risk. Kill their subsidy, and that is one less family in the farming business.

    $500k isn't a lot when your talking about farming.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:what this has to do with science... by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of these tax cuts are proposed with "marketable" in mind.

      It's very easy to claim that someone with half a million dollars in revenue a year shouldn't be needing precious tax payer dollars. Whether the profit margin is large enough to keep up with the market or, as you say, tide them over for rainy days is a story that these individuals probably don't care about. If it sounds good on paper, then it's probably good enough to pass up the chain.

      --
      Signatures are the new names.
    2. Re:what this has to do with science... by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a new combine, those are about $200k. Don't for get grain trucks

      I was under the impression that there were now independent companies offering these services on an as needed basis to farmers at competitive prices around harvest time. They come in with their combines, grain trucks, and other equipment which they pay to maintain, keep up to date, and run and in exchange for them coming in and harvesting all of your crops at harvest time they take their payment in the form of a cut of the harvest. The individual farmer does not benefit from the economies of scale and specialization enjoyed by the combine, grain truck, and equipment company which specializes in that area and servers many clients. So doesn't it make sense for the farmer to outsource certain "farm services" at competitive prices?

      He can make just about as much working a regular job without the risk. Kill their subsidy, and that is one less family in the farming business.

      Perhaps he should. The farm subsidies of the United States and the European Union are really at the root of a lot of pernicious problems in the world and especially the third world. The farming is mostly done by agribusiness these days anyway and for large scale non-farmers market crops that is probably as it should be. The mythical family farmer gets a lot of attention in Washington, but the continuation of farm subsidies is really quite indefensible from an economic and social policy perspective, it is purely a third-rail political issue not a practical one of ensuring that America has enough cheap food to eat (many of us are obese slobs who are eating ourselves to death on all of the cheap food anyway).

    3. Re:what this has to do with science... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh? I have yet to hear a justification for agricultural subsidies that doesn't amount to: "because I'm from Iowa, and I like money." Why don't they do away with the H1B program and institute programmer subsidies instead? (Sarcasm).

  9. "Terminations, Reductions, and Savings"? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So first they splash out staggering amounts of money in a very hastily drawn up 'fiscal stimulus' package, and then they cut back on the basic, well thought out* spending in the budget? Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't make sense?

    * compared to the fiscal stimulus package anyway

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  10. Yucca Mountain Fault. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative

    The "Fault" in Yucca is a joke. Nearly every place in the USA has a fault near it in some way. The "Fault" at Yucca is just another anti-industrial age strawman cooked up by a bunch of environmentalists. I ran Yucca mountain through the same earthquake simulations used by insurance companies all over the world, and the premiums were pretty damned low.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't much matter anyhow. Nuclear waste becomes no more toxic than a great many other industrial process after being stored for only 5 years or so. Leave it at the reactor site for 5 years, then move it (which is the actual plan in many places).

      We're only storing old fuel because it's valuable, not because it's unusually dangerous. WHy should we care about "safe for 10000 years" storage? It's complete and utter nonsense.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole point of green is creating an Age of Less.

      NO, the whole point of green is creating the Age of Sustainability, and anyone who wants less isn't green.

      It's true that neo-puritans have glommed on to the environmental movement since the early '70's to the extent that they have dominated it until recently, but there are some actual green voices out there, clamouring to be heard amidst the neo-puritan lies.

      The thing that should be stunningly obvious to everyone is: sacrifice is unsustainable. It requires more self-discipline than any large group of humans has ever managed, and in the absence of self-discipline it requires unsustainable (to say nothing of unethical) enforcement measures.

      The neo-puritans are in particular trouble right now because green tech has reached industrial viability--wind farms, solar farms, biodiesel, etc. are all becoming viable industries, and in opposing them neo-puritans necessarily reveal that they don't love the environment, they hate industry. While genuine greens are out there making the world a better place, and making money on the way.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nearly every place in the USA has a fault near it in some way.

      This is why people who aren't delusional or dishonest want to site any American nuclear waste repositories in salt domes, which are geologically stable structures that have lasted quite happily over tens of millions of years without earthquakes or water intrusions (the latter is so obvious that even the neo-puritan anti-nukes aren't stupid enough to argue against it.)

      In Canada we are planning to bury nuclear waste in granite dykes in the Canadian Shield, which have been stable for something like three hundred million years.

      There are plenty of places that are suited to burying waste. The neo-puritans got together with politicians and chose one that satisfied all parties by appearing to do something about the waste disposal problem while ensuring that nothing was actually done.

      The real question is: why are Americans incapable of governing themselves? You guys do so many things so brilliantly, yet you can't put together a decent government for anything. I'm not talking about the crazy partisan things Bush did or Obama might be doing--I'm talking about things like Yucca Mountain, which lasted over multiple administrations and changes in power in both houses of Congress. It's failure is a failure of the entire US governmental system, a monument to the apparent inability of Americans to actually use their government to make modestly intelligent plans and carry them through to approximately timely completion.

      Other people manage to do this kind of thing through their governments all the time. What is is about Americans that they cannot?

      I'm deliberately putting this at the feet of Americans, rather than 'the American government', because I think at some point you have to hold people in a democracy up to ridicule when they continually elect such complete bozos (and I mean that in a bi-partisan manner.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by Ruie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the goal is to make nuke plants impractical and any excuse will serve. Because if we were to build a crapload of the newer safe plants we would have plenty of energy, build enough and somebody would find a way to store it in vehicles. But none of that is green. The whole point of green is creating an Age of Less.

      It is worse than you think. I was at the APS meeting a few days ago and there was a nice talk about fission reactors and energy crisis. The upshot is that the reactors we do have will exceed their safe lifespans in several years (2014 ?) and should really be shut down or require maintenance. New reactors cost a lot of money to build because we lost the domestic industry. Old school nuclear engineers have retired, there are no new ones and we cannot even make large forgings - containment vessels need to be bought in Japan. Thus, at best, fission power could have an impact in 40-50 years, if we start building now.

      The opinion of the presenter (which I consider sensible) is that Yucca was a wrong thing to do anyway. The "spent" fuel is not really spent - it has most of its energy in it, just needs to be reprocessed or deployed in reactors of different type. Reprocessing is expensive and, guess what, USA is spending all of its effort trying to catch up with Japan and France. Interestingly enough, the Japanese reprocessing plant turned out to be extremely expensive that suggests that we should really try an alternate approach.

    5. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by tcolberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe that American culture has been becoming increasingly less capable of self-sacrifice for a greater or national good. For example, despite the large and prominent pacifist movements prior to the World Wars, we still eventually got around to getting involved. We sacrificed for Meatless Mondays and war bonds. These days, there are so many examples of Americans assuming the attitude that unless something directly benefits me or requires me to lose any skin, I will filibuster, lobby, or litigate.

      I'm not saying that all examples of obstruction are bad, but just that it feels like obstruction for selfish reasons takes overriding priority over the public interest -- very general examples being Yucca Mountain or the Land Mine Ban Treaty.

    6. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you call neo-puritans are more commonly reffered to as Luddites, and as a "greenie" since the seventies I totally agree they do not represent enviromentalists, most of whom belive a healthy economy is not only compatible with a healthy environment, it depends on it. Thankfully respected econimists are starting to understand what environmentalists have been banging on about for decades. ie: the current rules of the free market are only half a system and are not much better than the total anarchy of an unregulated market.

      The biosphere can take a lot of abuse and it has done over the course of the industrial revolution but just as the victorians in 19th century London found there comes a time when you can no longer continue to shit in your own nest without an adequate sewerage system there also comes a time when you can no longer pump your waste into the atmosphere. Of course the answer in London was to pipe it into the the mouth of the Thames and let the tide take it out where as modern sewerage systems are based on natural processes so sophisticated they can extract drinking water, fertilizer and energy from shit, demonstrating that pollution is actually a resource out of place. If the industrial revolution does not fall apart before the 22nd century I think our great grandkids will look back at our pollution with the same disgust that we have for cholera infested open sewers. The anti-science, anti-enviroment movement that is rooted in the US will quite possibly be seen as the luddites who refused to give up a lobsided system that rewards people for shitting in thier own (and everyone else's) nest.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Yucca Mountain Fault. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nuclear waste becomes no more toxic than a great many other industrial process after being stored for only 5 years or so.

      Yes. But other industrial processes don't emit powerful radiation that can turn innocent people into mutated, mindless, brain eating hyperzombies. It's basic science!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  11. The Whole Budget? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where can I view (in human-readable form) the whole fucking budget. All of it. I'll streamline that shit like a soft turd in a wind tunnel.

    I'll do it for free, and in under a week, too.

    1. Re:The Whole Budget? by mattack2 · · Score: 2, Informative
  12. I remember working on Star Wars at Boeing by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quite frankly, other than the Hot Rocks project, we never really thought either the NEO or FEO space-borne lasers would work, or even the airframe-based lasers.

    The logistics in a real time battlefield with countermeasures made them pretty unrealistic.

    Hot Rocks is really just throwing pebbles (aka Brilliant Pebbles) or rocks (hence Hot Rocks) at a missile and hoping one of them hit - and had the highest probability of working in battlefield real life conditions.

    Were I the pres, I would have killed both of these programs too.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:I remember working on Star Wars at Boeing by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The first ABL laser prototype worked out prety well, actually. The whole point was to bypass countermeasures by hitting the missile while it was still boosting, which is an unmistakable signature. It's somewhat questionable as an overall strategic defense, since you'd need the have a plane in the air somewhat close to the launch site, but for theater defense it would work great.

      We don't seem to need to defend against the Russians right now, but a crazy dictator who managed to cobble together 1 working nuke warhead and 1 working long-range missile? That sounds like a likely scenario, and the sot of thing where said mad dictator would give us plaenty of warning time to get our defenses airborn near his country.

      Missile defenses don't have to be viable vs a Russian saturation attack with modern countermeasures to be useful this century. Providing solid protection against a low-tech threat with just a few misiles is entirely worthwhile (especially if you live in the major US city closest to N Korea!).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  13. Re:Congressional Districts by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why? what logic is that?

    Other questions:
    Do you know what the different grades of waste are?
    do you know how it's contained?
    Do you know if it's a solid?

    if you can't answer those question accurately and in detail, STFU.

    I am so sick of people that don't know jack driving policy and decisions about scientific decisions.

    I got news for those people:
    "Your opinion does not matter."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. Re:Why don't we cut medical treatment for ... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most people who make it to 75 aren't the expensive people. it's 40-60.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Re:Why don't we cut medical treatment for ... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    most people who make it to 75 aren't the expensive people. it's 40-60.

    Huh? Actually, lifelong medical expenses for healthy people are higher than for people who die younger.

  16. Regarding NASA by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The NASA budget for 2010 has been announced, up 5% on 2009. Human space flight plans to be reviewed."

    I'm quite glad to hear that this review of NASA's spaceflight plans is occurring, and from what I've read seems to be quite good at minimizing outside/political/industry influence and making sure that the recommendations will truly be the best ones possible. The only problem is that NASA and/or the administration might end up ignoring those recommendations for political reasons (e.g. making sure jobs remain in particular congressional districts).

    Evidence has recently been leaked that the NASA's ESAS study which settled on the homebuilt Ares I (based on then-Administrator Mike Griffin's pet design) over the already-existing commercial EELV rockets was deeply flawed. Basically, the flawed 60-day ESAS study (often relied on by certain NASA officials to defend their plans) had a number of major problems:

    (from Selenian Boondocks, with parts of the leaked study available on Wikileaks )

    • Exceptions given in the ground rules and assumptions on maximum dynamic pressures to In-line SRM based crew launch concepts that weren't given to any other vehicles (without the exception, all of the five-segment Stick concepts would've been ruled out from the start).
    • Unrealistically assuming a fixed LAS mass regardless of first stage characteristics (like T/W, max-Q, and whether you can shut them down or not).
    • Inaccurate dry mass numbers for existing EELV upper stages (just as some of the guys on NASASpaceflight.com had been saying for years now).

    As things currently stand, the Ares I has been running into major problems, many believe it to have fundamental design flaws, and projected development costs are running into the $30-$50 billion range. Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago a NASA-commissioned independent study confirmed that the commercial EELVs would be able to fulfill NASA's needs of transporting NASA's orbital and lunar spacecraft, with estimated costs of a few billion dollars (about an order of magnitude less than the Ares program). That's to say nothing of SpaceX and COTS-D, which could do the job for around $1.5 billion dollars of development costs.

    1. Re:Regarding NASA by CheshireFerk-o · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i really think its strange that nobody else thinks NASA is a huge waste of money and should be a private company. rather then fixing the problem of what to do with deadly nuclear waste we'd rather the billions of dollars in space flight? its not like it has done us any good, why not fund to send the nuclear waste into space... theres nobody up there and never will be. other than that i really dont see a reason to be doing so, unless pissing away tax dollars is a concern, in that case GO NASA =P

  17. Re:I highly disagree with General Eisenhower by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to IRS statistics, the bottom 40% of Americans have no income tax liability. They pay no federal taxes. Zip, zero, nada. Yet the warships, guns, missiles, etc, are paid for with federal tax dollars.

    *ahem*.

    Except for all of the following:

    1: Social Security Tax they pay.
    1a: the SS tax their EMPLOYER pays on their behalf.
    2: Transaction Fees
    3: The FICA they pay out of EITC
    4: The taxes that their EMPLOYER pays on the wealth this employee generates in excess of his wages.

    So, yeah, aside from all those, the working poor pay no taxes.

  18. Re:I highly disagree with General Eisenhower by internic · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to IRS statistics, the bottom 40% of Americans have no income tax liability. They pay no federal taxes. Zip, zero, nada.

    Citation please? The thing is, that as a graduate student I fall into that bottom 40% in income, and I most certainly do pay federal (and state) taxes. Other graduate students I've talked to on the issue pay taxes as well. Given the size of the standard deduction, I can't see how anyone without dependents who made much more than $10,000/yr could avoid paying some taxes (except in select cases, like running a home business in the red).

    --
    "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
  19. That's Not Science by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, storing nuke waste and a big laser weapon require science. But they're not science. They're giant contractor employment programmes, both spawned by the Pentagon.

    Giving the money directly to science programmes is better for science.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  20. News From Nasa by PhotonSphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just caught a local PBS show in which someone from NASA (I didn't catch his name, as I came into the program right after his
    introduction) shared the following bit of bad news that comes with the new Federal Budget:

    "The Shuttle is 30 years old. We've been flying this machine for thirty years. Over the last year and a half, we've been transitioning to a new Constellation program and developing a new launch vehicle as well as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle to take us back to the moon. That's the goal.

    When that shuttle retires, there's going to be a serious change in workforce.

    What are we going to do with all the engineers that were performing sustaining engineering on that shuttle program?

    The idea was to take them and move them over into the part of the Constellation program that develops the Altair, which is a Lunar Lander going back to the moon.

    Today, when President Obama rolled out his detail budget on space, he pulled the Altair and pushed it out three to five years.

    So that's a real concern.

    If you had asked me this morning at 8:00 if there was going to be a problem with the space industry with engineers and moving forward, I would have said no. This afternoon we've got a real concern
    about that and how we're going to fill the gap with those employees.

    And we've still got time. We've got a couple of years to try to convince the present Obama administration to continue to go back to the moon."

  21. Re:I highly disagree with General Eisenhower by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't have a citation, but I do find the comment believable.

    1) As a graduate student, you probably don't *really* know what poor is. Yeah, I know you probably eat nothing but Ramen noodles all week, but you aren't paying for them with food stamps.

    2) "without dependents" - That's probably a big portion of the 40%. People who make 10k/year and have 4 children.

    I bet somebody could whip out a calculator and a W-2 form and figure out what income level corresponds to 0 taxes.

  22. Re:I highly disagree with General Eisenhower by internic · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't have a citation, but I do find the comment believable.

    Which, yours or mine? I've just said that I can state from personal experience that the statement, "the bottom 40% of Americans have no income tax liability" is simply false (based on the US income distribution reported here).

    As a graduate student, you probably don't *really* know what poor is.

    I never said anything about being poor, I only stated the objective fact that I fall below the 40th percentile of income.

    Now if you look at a copy of the 1040 for 2008, you'll see that the standard deduction is $5,450 for those filing as single or married filing separately, $10,900 for those married filing jointly, and $8,000 for head of household. You get another deduction of $3,500 per exemption, which will be 1 (assuming no one can claim you as a dependent) plus the number of dependents. Obviously there are lots of possible permutations and there are there are various tax credits, the possibility of itemized deductions, etc., but it's clear from those numbers that plenty of people making less than the 40th percentile (about $35k/yr) will pay taxes. A single person with no dependents making over $9,000/yr can easily end up paying taxes, and a single parent (head of household plus one dependent) making more than $15,000/yr can end up paying tax.

    So, it's clear that that factoid is bunk. I was legitimately curious where you got it from, because you're not the first person I've heard use it (or something similar). I even heard someone being interviewed on a news show say something similar.

    --
    "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy