Slashdot Mirror
House Outlaws Obama's NASA Intervention
TopSpin writes "NASA's Constellation Program and Ares rockets appear to have strong support in Congress. An appropriations bill passed by the House includes language that bars 'any efforts by NASA to cancel or change the current Constellation program without first seeking approval of Congress.' The Administration's appointed NASA leadership is being publicly hostile towards its traditional aerospace affiliations. As Charles Bolden put it to industry execs, 'We are going to be fighting and fussing over the coming year,' and 'Some of you are not going to like me because we are not going to do the same kind of things we've always done.'"
It's so very important not to change the carefully crafted pork that these projects tend to be once Congress gets their crusty little fingers on them.
"Our minds are made up, don't confuse us with the facts".
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I wouldn't want there to be any confusion about whether scientists or defense contractors are in charge of the direction of our space program.
First they privatize many Government prerogatives, and now the (current) administration wants to offshore them!
Congress can't restrict the Executive in this manner, at best it is posturing.
It would be so nice if our elected officials understood the Constitution, and would try to govern rather than rule.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
...who refuse to understand how this game works.
as with everything in life. He who pays(Congress), decides. that's why it's very important to know who and why you're allowing other people to pay for your stuff.
The Obama administration still clings to the idea that the world is a friendly place full of pink unicorns and people who want to be all huggy-kissy with everyone else. There's no reason to develop technology more advanced than other countries'; we'll all play nice together like happy socialists are supposed to and not compete like evil capitalists.
But any time Congress does something like this, it's really about protecting the pork.
I'm sure the Constellation has parts built in all 50 states so everybody get's a piece of the action.
The one thing the MIC does incredibly well is fight for every last penny. Odds are, the aerospace companies view this as only the first salvo before the big fight over defense spending cuts hits.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
From http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/approps_proc.htm:
NASA has always been used as a pork barrel, and the engineers who just want to fly birds have both used that shamelessly to get funded, and been victimized by it, in equal turns. It's hard to guess whether they would have created cheaper, simpler designs if feeding billions into the industrial complex (in all 50 states as often as possible) were not the more important goal than flying.
Bottom line, I find it hard to cheer for either side when these spats come up. You always want to take the side of the homies (fund NASA, fly something cool somewhere), but NASA is spending so many millions per kilogram flown that the whole thing will ALWAYS be for a lucky tiny few as long as their big-iron design philosophy is enabled by those who LIVE to spend tax dollars (in their state).
Silver lining though: Americans may have forgotten that their Congress has the power to tell the Executive branch "NO!". That the founders considered the legislature, NOT the executive, the first among three equals, because it directly represents the people on the most frequent election cycle.
Who knows, this "make the executive branch moves illegal" power, now revived for the first time in years, may one day be used to make torture, fake intelligence, and war itself less likely instead of perfectly acceptable.
In the long run, the best way to cut port would be deliberative democracy, meaning a citizens line item veto by jury trial.
You might for example eliminate the presidential veto but say that all laws must pass a jury trial with a large enough jury that you don't need jury selection, like say 100 to 200 people. Any group of 10% of the house or senate or 5% of each could send an advocate to argue for or against all or part of the law, and the president could send an advocate or even appear himself. If the law was substantially modified from it's original form by the jury deliberations, then congress would have an opportunity to veto it, but once spending items were cut by the jurors it'd be pretty hard to reintroduce them.
A well respect president would effectively still have veto power, although not the pocket veto.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Congress can't compel the president to spend money. They went through a round of this under Nixon. While Congress can allocate funds, nothing compels the executive branch to spend them.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Even if this boondongle would cost lives and not work, can't cancel it....it would hurt the pork contracts they have promised their buddies.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
There is only several space groups that NASA is NOT dealing with.
I can already guess which one Obama wants to include in this. Total Garbage.
I am absolutely opposed to W/neo-cons, but this was one place that they had right. If China really wants to join the world, rather than take over, they need to open up their budget, Free their money, and drop their trade barriers. Right now, their money is fixed at ~7 Yuans to 1 dollar. In fact it has not really changed much since they moved to this system. From 8.5 to 7 is not a real change after 4 years of monster growth against the west.
Opening their budget is VERY important. Right now, it is known that their military and space (which is ran by their military) budget can not be even close to what they are obviously spending.
You just repeated the talking points of a Republican and didn't get modded into oblivion.
That's because they apparently don't make 'em like they used to. Nowadays the GOP seems to get the likes of what Eisenhower called "Texas Oil Millionaires."
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
...and there's no ti-i-i-i-ime for fussing and fighting, my friends.
-- thinkyhead software and media
While Congress can allocate funds, nothing compels the executive branch to spend them.
If the president can chose not to follow Congress's direction on spending, then Congress can chose to impeach and remove the president. They can also retaliate in more subtle ways say by gutting some program the president values.
That the founders considered the legislature, NOT the executive, the first among three equals, because it directly represents the people on the most frequent election cycle.
Until the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional. Then no one can do ANYTHING. Good thing we get to elect the Supreme Court Justi. . . Oh, wait. Well, at least their terms expi. . . Oh, wait.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Until the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional.
This itself being unconstitutional.
Then no one can do ANYTHING.
The best possible outcome!
Good thing we get to elect the Supreme Court Justi. . . Oh, wait. Well, at least their terms expi. . . Oh, wait.
Yeah, and still only 9 judges for 330,000,000 people and they never have time to hear many important cases and decide those cases as narrowly as possible? FAIL.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Maybe before you can run for Congress you should prove you've read the Constitution. Of course since this is congress trying to assume powers of the exec branch it will never pass muster.
Well, blocked a.fsdn.com and although the page looks pretty poor, at least the bastard thing DISPLAYS rather than sit on its arse going "Transferring data from a.fsdn.com...".
Because if you don't support Congress making medical decisions instead of your doctor, than you are a bad person.
Feather and bedding.
Nobody's gonna kill this cash cow, now, or any other spaceless time.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
TBT = Troll... But True.
There are two numbers which are not changing: the energy in chemical rocket fuel and the mass of the earth. Those two dictate that about 90% of a rocket's liftoff mass be fuel.
Airbreathing launch vehicles, by using oxygen from the atmosphere, get more energy per kg of fuel.
The Virgin Galactic launcher is a step in this direction, using the carrier plane with jet engines to get part of the way up.
The Ares is actually no improvement over the Shuttle, its the exact same set of rockets (Ammonium Perchlorate/Rubber/Aluminum solid booster, LOx/LH2 upper stage)
(and yes, I was a rocket scientist, with Boeing, in Huntsville AL for many years, but retired now)
Damn, has NASA switched unit systems again!?
... in light of the national budget, I can hardly see how everyone on here can say that Ares is a waste. NASA gets roughly 18 billion of a budget of 3 TRILLION dollars. That is a fraction of a percent. For technological advancement in basic sciences, it is hard to get a better bang for the buck.
Chem rockets can't achieve the efficiency of jet engines because they carry their own fuel and oxidizer. Jets only carry fuel and thus need to propel less weight. Rockets also must generate enough thrust to support the entire vehicle weight. Jets normally fly at thrust-to-weight ratios below one, by having wings that rest on the surrounding medium (air, lift). Rockets must also propel their payloads under these conditions to ~330,000 ft. Commercial airliners reach cruising altitude at 35-40,000 ft. The climb gulps fuel, but the following cruise sips it; rockets are climbing the entire time. This is all scraped from undergrad propulsion, but I think it's right.
One solution is to combine propulsion methods, to use airbreathing propulsion for atmospheric flight and rockets beyond. This could be either a combined-cycle engine (turbine with a rocket in the spindle), or something like SpaceShipOne/White Knight, where a jet-powered platform brings a rocket-ship to altitude. Chemical rocket costs aren't just limited by rocket makers trying to maximize profits on limited launches. They're inherently less efficient than airbreathing propulsion, but aren't limited by the atmosphere.
Don't even try to pull that Troll crap without a quote from your lover with the gaping asshole.
...You are responding to a die hard lefty.
Please tell me you did not type that with a straight face? Impeachment? If condoning the kidnapping and torture of people is not a high crime or misdemeanor, I'm pretty sure that exercising the Executive's rights within checks and balances isn't either.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
You clearly didn't RTFA. They need it to pass the senate, THEN they need Obama's signature.
Yes, the Congress has the power to overrule the Executive, as well as the Supreme court, but they need a super-majority to do it, and that in an extremely rare event.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"Until the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional. Then no one can do ANYTHING."
WRONG. See Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Indians.
Nothing stops you from ignoring Supreme Court rulings if people are willing to support your actions.
I assume you are referring to Johnson v. M'Intosh, where the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans were permitted to sell their land only to the US government, not private citizens. As the Indian Removal Act, and specifically the Treaty of New Echota (since you mentioned Cherokee) ceded their land to the government, it was perfectly legal, and didn't violate any SC ruling. Of course, IANAL, just someone who had to sit through a cultural diversity class on Native American Indians, and I might not be remembering that correctly, in any case.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
I'm pretty sure that exercising the Executive's rights within checks and balances isn't either.
It's not within the Executive's rights. The difference is that torture and similar illegal things do not threaten congressional power. Refusing to spend money as directed by Congress, does threaten congressional power. In the past, the closest vote to removing a president, Andrew Johnson in 1868, happened because the president fired Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton in direct defiance of a law of Congress. It failed by one in the Senate.
Andrew Johnson was not impeached for firing Stanton. The first bill of impeachment against Johnson practically read as "We think you really, really suck. Get out of our clubhouse. Sincerely, Congress."
Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has since ruled many times over that control of decisions taken within the Executive Branch falls exclusively within the domain of the President.
If push comes to shove, Congress can't do shit. Worse, they won't do shit. The political will simply isn't there.
It's not an accident that the only two impeachments of Presidents in American history were essentially efforts to get rid of guys Congress just plain disliked. Impeachment is rarely wielded for good reasons. Even Nixon had to go so far over the line that Congress had to either act or cease to be taken seriously.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Andrew Johnson was not impeached for firing Stanton.
Yes, he was. Read the history. There was a second try that actually passed impeachment.
Yeah, and still only 9 judges for 330,000,000 people and they never have time to hear many important cases and decide those cases as narrowly as possible? FAIL.
Actually, that bit actually makes sense. The courts of appeals (and of course the district courts) are supposed to get it right the first time.
What else can you do, have 14 "supreme courts"? And what happens when various ones of those issue conflicting rulings? Now do we have a "super-supreme" court? At best we could have an extra layer, but that makes things even more astronomically expensive for anybody who actually has a case that needs to go through all the appeals.
One thing that would help is if the court could issue general guidances to the lower courts before a case reaches it. Those should be kept simple, and wouldn't have the full weight of actual decisions. However, if they can see that half the appeals courts are doing it one way and half are doing it another, they could just say - do it like these guys are doing it.
The problem with the current system is that in order to even get an argument before the court you need to be involved in a suit or charged with a crime. That is a huge risk to get yourself into.
Suppose congress passes some unconstitutional law that says I can't do X, but I'd rather do X anyway. Suppose I even think that the supreme court will rule that X is unconstitutional. If I do X and get caught I'll space time in prison, I'll spend money on bail, I'll spend a fortune on lawyers, and I'll spend half of my life for a few years in courtrooms. As soon as the first court rules against me I might be filing appeals from prison, or I'll have paid fines that I don't get interest back on if the ruling is reversed. And, there is a risk that the court will uphold my sentence and I'll get nothing back. So, everybody just keeps their heads down and follows the unconstitutional law.
Then think about how much work goes into creating the perfect "test case" that some special interest wants to go to the court, so that a ruling comes out that is most skewed in their direction. Why not just have the court issue guidances in the absence of a specific case, and then they can still hear appeals if they need to refine things?
The problem with the supreme court isn't size/scale - it is the over-reliance on case law.
But the ultimate goal is to send humans into space not robots.
Sending humans into space isn't the problem. We've been doing that for years. The problem is in sending humans on long distance trips into space. And no rocket program is going to solve the problems inherent in that enterprise: the sheer length of time it takes to travel. No matter what rocket we come up with, until we learn to travel a lot faster, we've got the seemingly intractable problems of keeping astronauts healthy, fed, and supplied in long distance trips. If you're really that concerned about long range manned travel, then I'd suggest concentrating on human suspended animation technologies, not rockets. The rockets we have could get them to Mars just fine. Getting them there and back without starving or physically wasting away is the problem, not the rockets.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Andrew Johnson was not impeached for firing Stanton.
Yes, he was. Read the history. There was a second try that actually passed impeachment.
I suppose on source of confusion in these circumstances comes from both the congressional process its successful result being commonly referred to as "impeachment". So you could say Nixon was impeached (as in the impeachment process against him was started in the US Congress) but he was never impeached (he resigned before the actual vote was cast) and actually be correct!