New Unmanned Japanese Re-Supply Vessel For the ISS

Joshua writes "JAXA, Japan's version of NASA, has scheduled the launch of its new rocket, the H-IIB, for September 11th, 2009. The rocket will be carrying up the first in a series of unmanned supply vessels for the ISS called the HTV. The new Japanese addition to the international space fleet comes as a huge welcome sign to NASA, who has scheduled the space shuttle to retire in 2010. The HTV will be able to transport vital supplies, equipment, and experiments to the ISS, a job that the US space shuttle has been doing largely up until now. Yearly launches for the H-II2 and HTV are scheduled between now and 2015. Until NASA can finish the next generation Ares I rocket, which isn't likely to be finished before 2017, taking astronauts into space and to the ISS will likely become the job of Russia."

Comments

Yes; But Can It

[Anonymous Coward]

make sushi for the ISS?

Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout

Re:Yes; But Can It

[masshuu]

No but we must welcome our new Japanese Overloads

Re:Yes; But Can It

[Joren]

No, but it can supply America with seasonal workers.

Sure

[Locke2005]

They can build a robotic ISS supply ship, but they STILL can't build a decent sexbot? What the heck is wrong with those people!

Re:Sure

[Nadaka]

I promise you, the full force of Japanese industry is dedicated to the effort, if for no other reason than they have run out of fetishes involving real women.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean 2D women right?

Re:Sure

[mcgrew]

They could build one, but how many people would be able to afford it?

Re:Sure

[jollyreaper]

I promise you, the full force of Japanese industry is dedicated to the effort, if for no other reason than they have run out of fetishes involving real women.

No, you'll only have the efforts of the minority of the Japanese workforce not into anime babes and lolicon.

Re:Sure

[Locke2005]

They could build them, but who would they get to clean them? (Ewww!) At least RealGirls (TM) are somewhat self-cleaning.

Re:Sure

[elrous0]

The sexbots are built. They're just trying to bring down the costs to make them practical. They already compare favorably with a real woman on cost--no ring, no mooching brother-in-law, no screaming kids to put through college. But they still need to be a lot cheaper for mass production.

Re:Sure

[mcgrew]

Not all of them!

Re:Sure

[Gravatron]

Have you ever actually looked at home much women cost? In the long term, the sex bot is probably cheaper.

Re:Sure

[mcgrew]

Will a sexbot cook, clean, and go grocery shopping? The cheapest sex I ever had cost me a draft beer, the most expensive cost me a house, a car, and part of my pension.

I have to ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it turn into a gundam?

Re:I have to ask...

[Icegryphon]

GATTAI!

Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[TorKlingberg]

For reference, there are two spacecraft that can bring crew to and from the ISS:
* The Space Shuttle
* Soyuz
, and two unmanned supply ships:
* Russian Progress
* European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV)
The Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle will be the third. It has less payload than ATV and cannot reboost the station, but the door is bigger so it can carry standard size experiment racks and other big things. Neither of the two launch very often, so both will be needed.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[Bureaucromancer]

We should also have Dragon flying by the end of 2010 if things go as planned, which will amount to another supply ship on par with the ATV, but with payload return capability.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[NoYob]

Neither of the two launch very often, so both will be needed.So much for the Japanese doing it smaller and faster.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[rbanffy]

I think the ATV is somewhat larger than the Dragon. The Dragon shares the larger door with the Japanese H-II and should be able to carry larger loads. It's interesting that the ATV, although much larger than a Progress, docks to the same hatch (a small one) and is thus unable to carry anything that does not pass through the smaller hatch. At least, not in one piece.

As for the H-II, return capabilities are being planned. IIRC, so are the ATV folks.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[Martin Blank]

There seems to be a great deal of attention being paid to the ISS by various countries around the world. As another posted points out, the Dragon may be ready soon, and after the shuttle's retirement, this would make at least four systems that can provide resupply. Construction may come to a halt (at least temporarily), but it doesn't seem that the crews will be short of things to do while there. If construction continues at some point, the ability of multiple agencies to launch could provide for a fairly rapid rotation of equipment and experiments, and eventually crew.

I wonder if India, China, Ukraine, and perhaps even lesser-known space-capable nations like Brazil will begin working on craft capable of docking with the ISS. Much of the groundwork has been laid; it makes sense to take advantage of it.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[camperdave]

The H-IIB is the launch vehicle. It can launch 16 metric tons of payload to the ISS. The HTV is the actual spacecraft. It is the first automated vehicle that can carry a mix of pressurized and unpressurized cargo. It also has a bigger hatch, allowing bulkier cargo.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[camperdave]

The HTV can carry almost twice the cargo that the Dragon can carry, up to the station. However, the HTV is a disposable craft. It gets jettisoned and burns up in the atmosphere. Dragon, on the other hand, is designed with a crew in mind. It can safely re-enter and splash down. Thus the cargo version can bring equipment and experiments from the ISS back to the ground.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[TooMuchToDo]

I for one welcome open interoperability in the space program =)

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[sexconker]

Russian Progress?
Will they be delivering jumbo shrimp and other oxymorons to the crew?

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[TorKlingberg]

China has (limited) manned spaceflight and has expressed interest in going to the ISS, but the US is against it. I suppose they would dock to the Russian side.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[elrous0]

Once again, NASA throws a childish temper tantrum when anyone dares threaten their own narrow vision of what the ISS should be (i.e. a PR vehicle for NASA).

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[WindBourne]

Construction may come to a halt (at least temporarily), but it doesn't seem that the crews will be short of things to do while there.
Actually, it appears that Construction will not stop. For starters, Italy just paid a bit of money to NASA to leave one of the modules on there. Now, NASA is FINALLY studying the idea of buying one or more Bigelow units and adding it to the ISS. To get it there, they will need to either use the shuttle, OR a tug. If done right, this could fire up the private industry and jump start Bigelow with private space stations, as well as a tug company or two along with the required Fuel depot.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[TorKlingberg]

I don't think it's NASA so much as the Bush administration that opposed it. I don't know if it has come up this year.

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[Martin Blank]

While I welcome that possibility, it's a far cry from the rate of addition of modules originally planned. If Bigelow can add capacity and capability at a reasonable cost, then I'm all for it. However, before something like this gets added to the station, it needs to be determined whether it will work as planned. I looked up the Sundancer and BA-330 modules, and both of them appear to have expanded considerably on the technology in the Genesis modules. This will make NASA wary about attaching one of them to the ISS, and probably require testing of an independent module (which appears will happen anyway from the desire of Bigelow Aerospace to build a commercial space station).

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[hcdejong]

This raises some questions:
1. why design the ATV for the smaller hatch, when a larger one is apparently available and would afford greater flexibility?
2. had the larger hatch been used, there would have been no need for HTV. IMO it's ridiculous to have 2 designs to do basically the same mission.
3. what were they thinking, using 2 different hatch designs on one space station?

Re:Spacecraft visiting the ISS

[TorKlingberg]

I wonder if it's too late to respond now.

This raises some questions:
1. why design the ATV for the smaller hatch, when a larger one is apparently available and would afford greater flexibility?

It connects to the Russian docking system that Soyuz and Progress also use, which has a smaller hatch. The advantage is that it can dock automatically. HTV just flies near the station and has to be picked up manually with the robotic arm and connected. The port the HTV is connected to isn't really intended for spacecraft but for connecting station modules. The hatch is bigger, but more work to connect/disconnect. I think it would also be harder to reboost the station if you aren't docked at the aft, which is a Russian port. The Space Shuttle does it though.

2. had the larger hatch been used, there would have been no need for HTV. IMO it's ridiculous to have 2 designs to do basically the same mission.

Different agencies want to build their own stuff. There is a lot of politics in space. Sometimes redundancy is good too. The ISS would have been in trouble if it completely relied on the Space Shuttle when it was grounded. Also, neither ESA nor JAXA had all that much experience with large spacecraft that humans can enter so one of the projects could have failed.

3. what were they thinking, using 2 different hatch designs on one space station?

The Russian side has its connection and the American side (plus Europe, Japan, etc.) has theirs. There are a lot of differences between the two. The Russian modules evolved from MIR, and they wanted to keep using Soyuz of course. It's still more efficient than each agency send up their own space station which was originally the plan (Mir 2, Space Station Freedom, Columbus Orbital Facility).

Half an hour until launch.

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be launching in half an hour
Live video from JAXA
Live video from NASA

Re:Half an hour until launch.

[Jivecat]

Did anyone see anything from this JAXA webcast feed? All I saw was green, as if they forgot to patch in the signal.

Re:Half an hour until launch.

[jittles]

Oh don't be fooled. That is the green screen they are going to use to fake the launch. Special effects have gotten a lot better since the "moon landing" ;o)

NASA contract with SpaceX

[LS1 Brains]

Don't forget, NASA has already contracted SpaceX for resupply vessels. $3.5 billion contract. This was covered previously.

Has to be said

[DarksideDaveOR]

Of course, in an emergency, the rocket will transform into a giant robot and defend the Earth from alien invaders.

It has launched successfully.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it was clouded and dark, the camera's didn't or couldn't follow the rocket very far.

H-IIB

[natehoy]

Am I the only one who initially read that as "H-1B" and thought "gee, the displacement of American workers has now reached the Astronaut level?" :)

Re:H-IIB

[Mattazuma]

I thought it was named that to show Japan's engineers that there are interesting jobs in Japan and please don't leave and work in the US.

It has reached the orbit

[Hiroto. S]

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn-htv1-countdown-status.html

Say what?

[HangingChad]

Until NASA can finish the next generation Ares I rocket, which isn't likely to be finished before 2017...

What the heck is taking so long? 7 and 1/2 more years for a modified spam can? WTF? It's not like we have no experience with ballistic re-entry vehicles and the lift vehicle design is based on components already in operation. Why is it going to take almost another decade to field a working booster? Okay, it's got problems. Anything that has to go 17,000 mph in space is going to take some work, but come on. We have solved those problems before. We're not reinventing the wheel. That just seems totally ridiculous.

Is it really that hard, are the contractors trying to milk the project, or has NASA become such a bloated bureaucracy that it takes 10 years to field lobster claw technology? Hell, bring the Russian engineers in. They'll weld the doors closed, kick it the butt and boost it up there.

Re:Say what?

[dkleinsc]

What the heck is taking so long? 7 and 1/2 more years for a modified spam can? WTF?

Yeah, it can't be that hard, it's only rocket science.

You're sounding a lot like a PHB setting an "aggressive" timeline on a software project with no clue about what the job really entails.

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really that hard, are the contractors trying to milk the project, or has NASA become such a bloated bureaucracy that it takes 10 years to field lobster claw technology?

All of the above.

Re:Say what?

[Jane Q. Public]

It took only 9 years from nearly zero to putting men on the moon. This amount of time (which is extraordinarily excessive) is just a symptom of how bureaucratic NASA has become.

Re:Say what?

[WindBourne]

Actually, a lot of it is because NASA was underfunded for quite some time (years).

Re:Say what?

[barzok]

It took only 9 years from nearly zero to putting men on the moon. This amount of time (which is extraordinarily excessive) is just a symptom of how bureaucratic NASA has become.

NASA also had much, much more then than they do today, and a real drive to get it done on a very fixed timeline. Today, deadlines are just those things that go "whoosh" as they fly by.

It was also driven very heavily by Cold War-era propaganda, which we don't have now. We aren't exactly challenging "tha terrists" in a race for the moon today.

Re:Say what?

[barzok]

That's "much more funding than they do today"

Re:Say what?

[Gravatron]

you mean (Decades).

Re:Say what?

[WindBourne]

No, not really. It has only been in the last 6-8 years that it was seriously underfunded. Clinton kept it at 1% of budget, but he did not put huge demands on NASA. OTH, both reagan and W put monster requirements (NASP, Space stations, moon, mars, etc) on them while at the same time cutting their budget (partially directly, and other times by inflation). Had W kept it at 8-9% of budget, NASA would be in GREAT SHAPE and we would be heading to the moon NOW. NASA is where it is at because of bad leadership all around.

Hopefully, NASA gets smart and pushes Obama to release funds for private space. With a little bit of INTELLIGENT spending, we can get private space to develop new business in space and create a business boom. I saw that NASA is looking to buy Bigelow's modules and attach them to the ISS. If they do that, AND have a tug/fuel depot contract to haul them, then we will still go for the moon before 2020.

Re:Say what?

[zogger]

I think it was also "much harder working with much less political BS and slacking off" back then. Just a guess though...Nasa is a federal bureaucracy,,it functions the same as all other federal bureaucracies therefore, the nature of the beast. The longer any bureaucracies stay in existence, the slower and less efficient they become, and it inevitably costs more to get the same amount of work done that they did when they first were created. Committees to schedule meetings where they will decide which committees should have a meeting and when and so on.

Not to say no work gets done, obviously it does, but back then nasa was new and exciting and hadn't been around long enough to build up typical government bloat. More workers who really worked, less management and political commissars walking around sucking up budget costs in busywork mc jobs.

Just throwing that out as a possibility, because I see no proof that Nasa is different from other long standing governmental organizations now.

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It took only 9 years from nearly zero to putting men on the moon.

Ummmm NO. "nearly zero" was the end of WWII, we had already spent a great deal of time, money, and other efforts by 1960. At that point it was more about making it reliable enough to carry people without blowing up on the pad (which wasn't exaclty solved by the time they launched). Most of what we did during that 9 years had to do with making a craft that people could survive in space, the suits, the food, and the environmental/navigation systems. Not the rocket tech itself.

Re:Say what?

[barzok]

Just throwing that out as a possibility, because I see no proof that Nasa is different from other long standing governmental organizations now.

Here's one difference: unlike most agencies, they don't get a large enough budget to do what they should be doing.

Re:Say what?

[FrozenGeek]

Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was also "much harder working with much less political BS and slacking off" back then. Just a guess though...
I'd rather say that NASA doesn't have much to do with these difficulties. It's just that Uncle Sam US is waging two useless and very expensive wars, so you don't have enough resources left for space exploration. A matter of choice after all.

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was also driven very heavily by Cold War-era propaganda, which we don't have now. We aren't exactly challenging "tha terrists" in a race for the moon today.

Hush, the idea of sending the terrorists in the Cuba camp into space is not for release to the public.

and coolest of all...

[MickyTheIdiot]

There is a girl with blue hair and big blue eyes wearing a "sailor suit" school uniform with a short skirt that is painted on the side of launch vehicle!

Re:and coolest of all...

[Anonymous Coward]

I demand pictures to prove it.

So stupid

[avtchillsboro]

It is soooo stupid for a major power like the US to not have an operational manned launch vehicle (omlv) available.

This IS the 'Space Age' isn't it?? Didn't we practically invent it? So how does it come to pass that we will spend over 5 years w/out an omlv???

It's crap.

Be careful

[SnarfQuest]

you have to be very careful with these Japanese spacecraft. They have a habit of bringing back monsters from outer space, or crashing and waking up those existing on Earth.

Re:Be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

you have to be very careful with these Japanese spacecraft. They have a habit of bringing back monsters from outer space, or crashing and waking up those existing on Earth.

Obviously JAXA is aware of this and taken the the necessary precautions, specifically the H-II Transfer Vehicles burns-up on rentry so the threat of monsters is minimized.

International !

[Smivs]

With the budget problems faced by NASA and the obvious enthusiasm for space exploration shown by other nations, surely it is time for more co-operation. It is becoming clear that an International Space Agency of some sort is needed although I'm not sure who is best placed to administer this (the UN is the only international body with enough stature to do it, but does not normally concern itself with 'scientific' matters). As things stand, national pride is seriously holding back mankind's ambitions in space, and ultimately all of mankind will lose out if we're not careful.

Russian Progress, not Shuttle, supplying ISS

[SpinyNorman]

I thought it was the unmanned Russian Progress spacecraft that has mostly been supplying the ISS:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/progress.html

Re:Russian Progress, not Shuttle, supplying ISS

[RobBebop]

Check this out for an up-to-date list of all UNMANNED launches past, present, and future to the ISS.

Re:Russian Progress, not Shuttle, supplying ISS

[SpinyNorman]

Thanks - interesting.

So that would be a resounding yes to Progress being the primary ISS supply vessel!

It's interesting to note the docked/undocked dates - each Progress basically stays docked with the ISS until it has to move to make way for the new one. They use the empty ones for garbage disposal - they stuff it with full with whatever they don't want and it all burns up together on re-entry.

Re:Russian Progress, not Shuttle, supplying ISS

[RobBebop]

In addition to a garbage disposal, it's also a pantry where their food is stored since there isn't much sense unloading it when a new one docks.

Launch successful

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Japanese media, the H-IIB rocket has been successfully launched. The HTV is now in its planned orbit, from which it will transition to a rendezvous with ISS on the 18th. (The transition is much longer than usual because the HTV will be going through a series of tests in the meantime.)

Re:Launch successful

[jamstar7]

Anybody got a decent translating page for that link? Babelfish barfs on it bigtime...

We have Liftoff

[ultraexactzz]

Apparently, the launch was successful: Liftoff occured at 2:01 a.m. local time, and the spacecraft proceeded into orbit without incident.

Space.com Reports on the Launch

Cooperation is good, but so is some competition

[JSBiff]

I have to say I can muster no enthusiasm for an idea of a single, monolithic international space program. The nice thing about separate national programs is that, if one of them has bad management, at least there's a chance that one or more of the other programs is being well run. It also encourages trying different technical approaches to problems, which means better chance of finding a 'better way' to do things.

I'm rather happy with the status-quo - cooperation in some things, competition in other things. Seems like it's working well enough - the ISS has been, mostly, successful as an international cooperation between seperate space programs.

Decline of a Superpower?

[reporter]

That Russia and Japan will now be the primary supporters of the International Space Station (ISS) is rife with symbolism. The superpower in the North-American continent declines, but 2 superpowers appear in Asia.

What could explain the phenomenon?

Re:Decline of a Superpower?

[shentino]

In soviet japan, sushi makes you

Re:Decline of a Superpower?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not all only related to N. America, it's all the western hemisphere that went like "retarded" from the beginning of the 2000's - I blame education standards dictated by je^h^h^h^hprivately-held-monetary-funds and the raise of the spoiled good-for-nothing child.

Is not like two superpowers "appear" in Asia, What about india? Someone made a big buck sucking the inventive off the usually smart North American Joe that used to invent airplanes with a mere primary 5th grade education.

You just can't **create** nothing anymore, you just manage stuff, for others:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c4/Look_who's_in_the_green.jpg

theres no other reason for you, after 8 years, to still think 11-9 was made by some cave guy that old, sick and everything still it isn't being found by you mighty satellites - B1's - B2's - bald eagles - U2's - AWAK's - F22^h^h^23's - NO! really! You're becoming the laughing stock of the world just by that mere FACT.

People don't hate USA, they just point a laugh. Which it's a shame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=player_embedded

I think Aldrin has it right.

[Jane Q. Public]

The whole Ares project should be scrapped, and alternatives used instead. Buzz Aldrin had a good plan that would have been simpler, cheaper, and faster.

Re:I think Aldrin has it right.

[drinkypoo]

Buzz Aldrin had a good plan that would have been simpler, cheaper, and faster.

It was excellent in its simplicity... he'd pull back his fist and POW! Straight to the moon!

Re:I think Aldrin has it right.

[master_p]

Mr Aldrin should have known that renting an outdoor filming studio costs a lot more these days...

Good luck to the Japanese

[physburn]

Another nation in on the ISS, from the wikipedia list of future supply flights, they'll be one Japanese cargo flight per year for the next 5 years. This is the same as the number of European Arane/ATV flights. Not that many really, is it even worth designing a craft for that few flights. Russia will be doing 17 Soyaz flights and Dragon/Falcon 9, 12 flights. I hope the ISS mission will get extended 5 years at least, so that we get moneys worth out of all these supply craft.

---

Space Craft Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:Good luck to the Japanese

[GottMitUns]

These supply craft will still be useful for future ISS replacement. It's not a wasteful effort.

Passing the torch

[starling]

Now that the US appears to be giving up on manned space exploration it's good to see other nations step up to the plate.

This is awesome

[hesaigo999ca]

I look forward to hearing more about international interaction for creating a "space" economy in itself, everybody will have their place in maintaining space travel either to the moon or beyond...some could be supplies, others technology, still others manpower etc...
I hope this will help push man more towards a Star trek like existence, rather then the petty democracy we live in today filled with consumerism and "shallow hal" ideologies

Not really

[WindBourne]

It has probably provided the majority of the LIVING supplies. BUT in terms of tonnage carried up there, I think that you will find that the shuttle has taken the bulk up there. For starters, there has been roughly 1 shuttle, 1 progress and 1 souyz per quarter. The souyz and the progress do not match the shuttle.

USA Imperial vs Rest of World Decimal programs?

[fantomas]

Hey maybe the Imperial measurement countries (USA+Liberia+Burma) will go one way and the Decimal countries (Rest of the World) will go another?

Would make it easier all round for the engineers and the construction crews!

New Japanese Motto...

[FrozenGeek]

All your space are belong to us.

Not evrything is a copy of the USA

[identity0]

[quote]JAXA, Japan's version of NASA[/quote]

Would it have killed you to write "Japan's space agency"?

What next, "The bullet train, Japan's version of Amtrak", "2chan, Japan's version of 4chan"?

Re:Not evrything is a copy of the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

It was built in Japan, Japan's version of America.

WHY did it have to be unmanned?!

[TheModelEskimo]

...my brother is an astronaut, and he was TOTALLY looking forward to the air lock door flying open and some taikonauts shouting, "SUPPLIES!"

Which agency....

[zogger]

Which one is it again, which federal agency claims they just slap get too much money? So much that they give a lot of it back and tell congress "please, stop giving us so much money, we have more than enough to do this job"?

Just wondering, because I never heard of any agency claiming they had enough loot. All of them to the best of my recollection have always wanted more money saying they *need* it to "do their jobs".

Re:Which agency....

[barzok]

None are saying they get too much, but how many are getting their budgets cut year after year because administrations simply don't consider the work they do "important"?

Title? Fix it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix the title! There's no such word as "Re-Supply". "-" isn't an operator and "Re" isn't a word!

It's just "resupply".

How many?

[zogger]

I hope near all of 'em. I'm for emergency spending cuts and elimination of several agencies outright (department of education, the endownment for the arts, the BATFE, the DEA just for starters)..and if I was made doofus commander clerk in chief, I'd can the Fed, actually just seize it and nationalize it, and dump the IRS totally and come up with a better way to fund government, such as DIRECTLY and eliminate that insane stupid medieval hold over "tax" BS middleman shuffle they got going on now, which serves as a conduit for carrot and stick social engineering action against the population, and which has nothing to do with "funding government".

  . Just the dang interest on this stupid and not needed *at all* debt is a killer, it's completely out of control, 9 trillion to *13 trillion smackers* in the hole in JUST ONE YEAR, and our entire GDP is only 14 odd trillion. Nuts. And that's only what they admit to..the dang Fed is holding out on releasing info and are scared witless if the audit the fed bill passes. And they should be.

  Nasa I think has some national security and long range practical R&D science value, I wouldn't get rid of it, but they need a bath, a haircut, and a "stern talking to" as well. In the immortal words of Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son"

  Along with the entrenched "war" blood profits industry that Ike warned us about, another out of control rathole to siphon money into. The cold war was over a long time ago, when does the "peace dividend" kick in? Oh ya, that's right, NEVER, hurts profits and political military types careers "in service" then their "botton line" when they go from there directly into working for the defense contractors. Oh, no conflict of interest there, not a bit....

And don't get me going on them treasonous greed soaked big gambling banks they've been funding.. whoops too late, it happened...if EVER some industry needed to eat their own free market capitalist dogfood, they are the ones. Big heaping steenking bowls of it, breakfast, lunch and dinner and for dessert. Again, if I was pen wielding goofball in chief, every big navy ship we got, one big huge chain around manhattan, tow it out to sea and sink that mofo. Start over then with just a touch more rationality...

When it comes to the national governmental budget and this total and complete war on the productive middle class's wallet (what's left of it now)..I'm for the government and their overlord controllers, wallstreet, calling an immediate cease fire, having them apologize profusely and beg forgiveness, and then discussing war reparations, as an alternative to the people winning this war being waged on them, and having war crimes tribunals against those predators (which I would almost rather see happen just for kosmic karma purposes).

HTH