Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget

The AAAS's ScienceInsider confidently reports that NASA is in line to receive $1 billion more next year. Reader coop0030 sends this quote: "President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the Moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars... The president chose the new direction for the US human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency's fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft."

Comments

Hopefully

[Cornwallis]

the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress. One way.

Re:Hopefully

[natehoy]

Should be plenty of room to fit 'em all. You don't need a lot of payload, they'll provide their own forced-hot-air heating system until the oxygen runs out, and you want to make that mercifully (*) quick.

(*) for us, not them.

Re:Hopefully

[magarity]

the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress. One way
 
Let's make it a little more instructive: The congresscritters who submitted the top 50% of earmark spending amendments. Repeat annually until none are selected.

Re:Hopefully

[m0s3m8n]

No, how about giving them front row seats in the flame diverter trench instead. At least they would have NO CHANCE of coming back.

Re:Hopefully

[gandhi_2]

What about the president who promised no earmarks in the stimulus bill, then ensured all the health-care companies and insurers got their pre-socialism hush-money?

Should he also be reserved a seat?

Re:Hopefully

[MrNaz]

Better yet, take congress to Phobos. At least that way the little imps will be with friends.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw in the POTUS and the SCOTUS (just 10 more people) and you've got a deal.

Re:Hopefully

[moogied]

Ah yes, the infamous 'vague political statement that has no sources.'

Re:Hopefully

[Muad'Dave]

"Jaws, Mr. Bond must be cold after his swim. Place him where he can be assured of warmth."

Re:Hopefully

[raddan]

Maybe you can elaborate. Was this the bill in which Republicans called funding for the 2010 Census, airport security, public transportation and new fire stations "earmarks"? Sounds to me like exactly the kind of spending you want a stimulus bill to do. There were also $237 billion in tax cuts to individuals and $51 billion in tax cuts to companies, so I can't think of a legitimate reason why Republicans would be opposed to this, except that they're attempting to build party unity by being contrarian. Sadly, it works with people, but talk about sour grapes, man.

Re:Hopefully

[khallow]

Was this the bill in which Republicans called funding for the 2010 Census, airport security, public transportation and new fire stations "earmarks"?

If the money is directed to specific projects like this stuff is, then yes, by definition the spending is earmarks. I'd go further and call it "pork" since none of those with the possible exception of the Census spending (it is a federal obligation, but depends on who it's spent on) warrant federal money and are just attempts to bring home the bacon.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

He can sit at the top of the nose (outside the ship so he has the best view).

Re:Hopefully

[OrangeTide]

"we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks" - B. Obama, Feb 24. speech to congress.

"new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review." - B. Obama, Jan 6. statement at transition office.

Being against earmarks and pork is sort of Obama's trademark, and you can find dozens of instances where he mentioned something about ending earmarks.

Re:Hopefully

[jo_ham]

Your pejorative, and erroneous use of the word "socialism" betrays your bias.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly makes more sense than a light lift launcher.
But I don't understand where showing your arse and hemorrhoids to a warmonger comes in.

Re:Hopefully

[ArcherB]

Was this the bill in which Republicans called funding for the 2010 Census, airport security, public transportation and new fire stations "earmarks"?

If the money is directed to specific projects like this stuff is, then yes, by definition the spending is earmarks. I'd go further and call it "pork" since none of those with the possible exception of the Census spending (it is a federal obligation, but depends on who it's spent on) warrant federal money and are just attempts to bring home the bacon.

I'd also throw in airport security since most plane trips take you over state lines. But public transportation, fire stations, bridges on non-interstates, or anything else that can be picked up by local and state government SHOULD be picked up by local and state governments.

The federal government should only pay for what only the federal government can pay for. As for everything else, if the people want it, they should have their local and state governments pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for swamp conservation in Florida, a big hole in Boston and E-Coli cleanup in the Michigan when I live in Texas!

Re:Hopefully

[Bobnova]

Well yes, and he also said he wouldn't raise taxes on the poorer end of people, hence calling the money collected by the IRS if you don't buy his health insurance plan a "fine" or "penalty", rather then the tax that it is.

This just in: Presidents lie!

Re:Hopefully

[khallow]

I'd also throw in airport security since most plane trips take you over state lines. But public transportation, fire stations, bridges on non-interstates, or anything else that can be picked up by local and state government SHOULD be picked up by local and state governments.

Ok, airport security is a tough call. But my take is that the airport are by in large state, local, or privately owned. The federal government did an immense power grab back in 2002 when it took over security of airports. I think it should relinquish that power even if it means an greater chance of terrorist attack.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that aerodrome security would fall under the general security and defence of the country provisions.

Re:Hopefully

[decoy256]

This just in: Presidents lie!

So, we just tolerate it? Maybe if we started impeaching these miserable sycophants and hurling them from their exalted station for their campaign lies, we could actually start getting DC cleaned up.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, just fucking machine gun them; and all the other politicians in parliaments, Bundestags, and similarly identified houses of ill-repute; into marmalade.

Oh yeah; include the top thousand richest people in the world plus the top thousand "most scummy" as voted by the world population.

Not a lot of marmalade, but oh! what a blessing 'twould be.

Re:Hopefully

[jgtg32a]

I would love for you to explain how that bias has any bearings on the facts that he presented.

Re:Hopefully

[jgtg32a]

I disagree for a vast majority of Airtravel the start and end will be in different states, making it interstate commerce. I don't actually care whose in charge of the security as long as it isn't security theater.

Re:Hopefully

[snooo53]

Definitely agree that more if not most spending needs to be turned over to the states. It's ridiculous that many arguments for massive transportation spending include that it wont cost as much because they get federal funds. Last I checked I pay a lot more in federal than state taxes. So we send all this money to the federal govt just to argue to get it back for a wasteful project. And congress wastes all their time dickering over who gets what federal money, with absolutely no incentive to reduce spending. Too much of where our taxes go is decided by people too far removed from the voters.

Re:Hopefully

[snooo53]

It is pork. Furthermore, I don't think stimulus money should be going towards things like airport security. The whole point of stimulus money should be to invest in things that will grow our economy. I don't see a very bright future in paying for ever more surveillance of our nation.

Re:Hopefully

[raddan]

So what isn't an earmark, then?

Re:Hopefully

[khallow]

Maybe most of the funds doled out by the National Science Foundation. Congress sets up the criteria for use and the NSF usually does the heavy lifting of deciding who gets the money.

Re:Hopefully

[raddan]

My point is-- what is fair game in a stimulus bill? It seems to me that the point is to spend money, no? There's no other point. You're saying that giving money to NSF is OK as long as you don't specify a purpose? But if you say-- spend this on flu research, it is? I think these distinctions are useless hair-splitting. The point is to spend money, and the bill accomplishes that. The problem you seem to have with it is that there are strings attached to the money.

Now, if we're talking about a fund-the-war-bill, and the Census pops up in that, OK, that's wacky, and you could call it pork, because the aim of the bill is to fund a war. It must pass. But a stimulus bill has essentially limitless scope, no?

Re:Hopefully

[Artifakt]

Possessed Congresscritters all act like Joe Lieberman. Not good, even on Phobos.

Re:Hopefully

[jo_ham]

I would if he presented any facts - where are the citations, where are the figures?

All I can see is a baseless jab at Obama.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you question perfect Republican logic?! You shall feel my righteous and patriotic fury... over the Internet!

Re:Hopefully

[khallow]

My point is-- what is fair game in a stimulus bill? It seems to me that the point is to spend money, no? There's no other point. You're saying that giving money to NSF is OK as long as you don't specify a purpose? But if you say-- spend this on flu research, it is? I think these distinctions are useless hair-splitting. The point is to spend money, and the bill accomplishes that. The problem you seem to have with it is that there are strings attached to the money.

Who said earmarks were bad? The Republicans.

Having said that, how did Congress get the knowledge to decide how to best spend money in a stimulus package? My take is that the old Stimulus bill was laden with all kinds of pork. When Congress can spend money on anything and it all is treated as equally good, then it spends it on its friends, allies, and donors. I think the whole idea of spending money on "anything" in order to generate economic activity is a horrible idea and a perversion of Keynesian economics (which in turn is on shaky ground IMHO).

But a stimulus bill has essentially limitless scope, no?

I think the scope of such a bill should be restricted to spending that has obvious benefits to the economy beyond just spending money to spend money. For example, money for repairing bridges and roads is a obvious choice. Tax cuts for businesses who hire more workers. But at some point even for Congress, you're going to run out of relatively useful things to spend money on. When you reach that point. STOP.

Re:Hopefully

[penix1]

The federal government should only pay for what only the federal government can pay for. As for everything else, if the people want it, they should have their local and state governments pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for swamp conservation in Florida, a big hole in Boston and E-Coli cleanup in the Michigan when I live in Texas!

So that means you are willing to repay the millions in federal assistance Texas receives every year? You would be perfectly happy having no federal assistance the next hurricane that hits your coast? That's a relief that the rest of the nation won't have to foot that huge bill any more.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: Americans see all taxes as fines on living. And then complain when they have incompetent bureaucracies, crappy roads and substandard schools. Greedy bastards.

Re:Hopefully

[Artifakt]

Not that I agree with everything the person you are debating said, but...
There is another point to a stimulus bill. That point frequently gets stated only as one part of a compound point, rather than by itself, so what we often see in the press is something such as "to spend money in ways that boost the economy."
      Spend on infrastructure? A bridge to an area with existing industry is better than a bridge to nowhere. If there's reason to think better access would help an industry grow, or keep one from failing, better still. So, what if we give the money to the NSF to decide if flue research will help the economy grow better than Melanoma research or not, if we trust the NSF experts to do a good job of deciding?
        Better still, the first stimulus package (Bush administration - early 2008), a number was tossed around - that was that 68% of all spending was from consumer demand. So, it would have made sense if you wanted to most greatly boost the overall economy if at least 68% of the money had gone to consumers. There are good arguments for going higher, but none that were made publicly for going lower. In fact, with the schedule 179 acceleration for businesses also in the plan, less than 50% actually went to consumer spending.
        The new stimulus packages are all worse. By the metric everybody in congress and the white house seems to accept (still about 68%), giving 68% of the bank bailout to existing home-owners to pay off their mortgages early or get out from underwater status would have stimulated the economy much more than giving it to the banks. By sub-metrics that show how much of total spending is driven by the poorest, large tax rebates for first time home buyers and new car purchasers would have been better aimed at getting the drivers of rusted out gas guzzlers to upgrade, even if it was only to half decent used cars and not necessarily to hybreds and such.
        In the same way raising the number of children for EIC to 3 this year will benefit the poorest (which is not a bad thing in my opinion, but some of you may disagree with the need for government to use your tax dollars for charity), but raising the child care credit more and EIC less would have benefited the working poor more compared to the non-working poor, and boosted the economy by letting more people get educations as well. If you don't give a damn one way or the other about government based charity with your money, but wanted to stimulate the economy, that was the way to go.

Re:Hopefully

[SBrach]

"Spend this on flu research" is OK. "Give this to Company X to build a research center in District Y to maybe do some flu research" is not.

Re:Hopefully

[khallow]

I'd be perfectly willing to cut the bribes paid to "red states" as part of cutting overall spending. To give an example, Obama's universal health care proposal would be mighty beneficial to me (I currently fall well below poverty though I'm working on fixing that). I'm willing to forgo that for sensible health care policies and lower health care costs for everyone.

Re:Hopefully

[ElSupreme]

Except the Everglades, Big Cypruss, Timucuan, and Biscayne are FEDERAL LAND. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should pay for it. You are also paying for coral reefs off the coast of the Keyes and a bunch of other stuff too. You think that Wyoming should pay for Yellowstone? You think that Wyoming should be able to devolp Yellowstone if they want, to the loss of the rest of the country?

http://www.us-national-parks.net/state/fl.htm
http://www.nps.gov/state/fl/index.htm

Re:Hopefully

[gangien]

And you don't think companies would have a vested interest in not losing a hundreds of millions/billions of dollars if another similiar terrorist attack occured or something? the TSA is worthless and should be abolished and let airlines provide their own safety. not to mention they take it upon themselves to do police work which they shouldn't.

Re:Hopefully

[gangien]

socialism implies government control/ownership. How is it a stretch to call the health care bill socialized? Or the bailouts? Perhaps your own stubbornness betrays your judgment.

Re:Hopefully

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, that's great. Now source some stuff to back up the 2nd half of the statement:

then ensured all the health-care companies and insurers got their pre-socialism hush-money

cherry picking arguments like like saying Obama was perfectly truthful because of:

"We passed the recovery plan" - Barack Obama, Feb 24th in a speech to congress.

So I'd have to agree with moogled; vague political statement that has no sources. Cite something other then Socialist!? RAAAAGE! and I'll think it over, but until then it's just hot air.

Re:Hopefully

[jo_ham]

No, socialism in pejorative terms really means "whatever isn't free market" in American politics parlance.

Socialism itself is quite narrowly defined, and while it features state control for the benefit of a populace as part of it, that is where the similarity with what Obama has done with the bailouts and what he has attempted to do with healthcare.

It's a victory for propaganda machine that anything Obama proposes is called socialism - it's really nothing like it.

Re:Hopefully

[MurphyZero]

I agree TSA is worthless. However even the companies have been known to save a million even if it meant a billion in losses. As long as those in charge have already collected their bonuses.

Re:Hopefully

[gangien]

first 2 definitions of socialism i found via google define: socialism

# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Obama is promoting government controlling health care. We already own a lot of businesses. How is this not socialism?

We're not in a full scale socialist government yet, but geezez, we have CEO's reporting to government officials, how can anyone say that's not socialism, is beyond me. This is not just Obama's fault. This whole mess is causes by in a large group of people. And ultimately, the blame falls upon ourselves.

Re:Hopefully

[gangien]

And with the millions more they could collect by simple security measures, i don't think that's much of a problem.

Re:Hopefully

[jo_ham]

Just because the government owns some businesses and is proposing a private insurance coop backed by the government does not make it socialism.

The US economy is not based on socialism by any stretch of the chalk, nor are other world economies that have large government involvement in various industries - it does not make them socialist systems.

The US government doesn't own large portions of the banking sector and automotive sector for the benefit of the people directly. It has had to step in because the threat of failure of those systems is too damaging to do what they would ideally do: let those systems fail. The whole american economy is based on that: if you don;t make money, you fold up and die.... unless you're "too big to fail". It doesn't make the system socialist unless you want to strictly define any state involvement in industry as socialism, regardless of the underlying economic factors or political structure. If this is the case, then socialism stepped in to save thousands of jobs, billions of dollars and the US economy as a whole because capitalism failed and had no fix it.

Consider the UK - we have an enormous welfare state, universal healthcare for all citizens, and large government involvement in industry and yet we're not a socialist political or economic system. "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" is far too simplistic a definition to accurately categorise the realities of complex countries, policies and economies.

Re:Hopefully

[shutdown -p now]

the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress. One way.

That is biological warfare. I'm sure that we are civilized species, and wouldn't stoop that low.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet, we could finally get rid of Ron Paul.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you didn't know this, but you and I cannot impeach a president. It's not a power that is granted to us by the constitution.

You need 50% of the House of Representatives to get it started. And it has to be something that is actually an impeachable offense (generally only serious crimes)

Re:Hopefully

[OrangeTide]

"pre-socialism hush-money" is not exactly something we can cite. It seems like a subjective inflammatory remark. My internal filters tend to just ignore those comments.

I'm with you and moogied, give up some damn facts or it's just hot air.

I was just making the point that the earmark parts are real at least. even if the second part is likely just fantasy.

Re:Hopefully

[decoy256]

So, I guess our hands are tied, huh? I thought encouraging our congresscritters to impeach was a better suggestion than storming the White House and physically hurling him from his exalted station.

But perhaps you're right... maybe we do need to just have a coup.

NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

For Science !

Re:NASA

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

Space Station is there because of Global Warming and World Leaders can shoot us with clinical precision lasers from outter space. If GW BUSH gets his way when he has sucked out each barrell of oil on earth, You will have Oxygen tax. Nevermind Orwell, this is 2053.

Cool.

[captaindomon]

Cool.

MORE FUNDS?!

[spiffydudex]

All this funding is going to come from where?! More and more printing of money is just going to create a massive hole that will utterly ruin and destroy the US Dollar. I for one did not vote for this President his "Change" was never specified in his campaign. Well, here it is. McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office. Hell, just 2 days ago Obama signed $1.1 trillion more in spending, on a whim. WTF?

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Shakrai]

McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office.

Yeah, a heart attack and President Palin ;)

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[paiute]

Hey man, how ya been? I haven't seen you since we were standing together at the rally protesting the huge deficit spending of the Bush administration.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

All this funding is going to come from where?!

I don't know, they could stop the Iraq war for a day and a half. Get your priorities straight. If you're worried about the Federal budget, don't get in the way of progress and science, just stop the senseless war.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[jedidiah]

Are you kidding? They have more change in the couch cushions over at the Pentagon.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[gandhi_2]

If we put the Iraq war on 4-10's and rotated mandatory furloughs (each unit skips one combat patrol a year), that could help.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[rhsanborn]

It was not 1.1 trillion more in spending. It was several annual spending bills. It increased spending by about 9-10% over last year. An increase yes, a 1.1 trillion dollar increase, no.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Kohath]

The "Iraq war" has been about 1/15th of the Federal budget since the war began. What about the other 14/15ths of the budget?

You obviously don't care about the budget at all and are just repeating anti-war talking-points. You are also off topic.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

The topic is Obama asking for more money for space exploration, and the GGP asked where the money could come from. I suggest the military; compared to what we're spending on war, what we spend on science is chump change.

If you're a cokehead and about to go bankrupt, you don't fix your budget by skipping that $1 McDonald's biscuit and gravy once a week, you stop snorting coke.

As I said, priorities. You need to eat, you don't need to snort coke. We need research, we don't need the Iraq war. Research is cheap, war is expensive.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[spiffydudex]

Thanks for the clarification. Many of the news companies were not exactly forthcoming with what the 1.1trillion was for.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual cost is significantly more than the "1/15th" of the Federal budget you mention. That amount only includes direct expenditure on the war in Iraq.

It doesn't include the healthcare needed for the tens of thousands of soldiers who are coming back injured, nor does it include the losses in taxes due to many of these people never being able to work again, or even just those uninjured citizens who no longer work at their regular jobs because they've being sent on their fifth or six deployment to Iraq.

Don't forget that there's another, soon to be bigger, war going on in Afghanistan. That alone will likely be another 1/15th, if it escalates, of the budget consumed.

As for the other 14/15ths, a significant amount of that budget goes towards programs that support America's warmaking. Think war technology research, the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc., and so forth.

Much of the rest of the budget has been similarly squandered. Instead of going towards socially-useful purposes like education and healthcare, it goes towards bailing out billionaires and corporations.

And really, he's not off-topic at all. America dedicates far too many of its resources towards destroying tents and mud brick huts in third-world countries. Even a small fraction of the money spent there each year could immensely help American society in a great many ways. Space research (which often has many spin-off technologies) is one of the best ways.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a cokehead and about to go bankrupt, you don't fix your budget by skipping that $1 McDonald's biscuit and gravy once a week, you stop snorting coke.

Mcgrew, that is just fucking awesome. I think I'm going to print that out and tape it in my office window.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

Yeah, a heart attack and President Palin ;)

The guy's younger than either of my parents, and my mom (81) plays golf and my dad (78) square dances. Wikipedia says

McCain has addressed concerns about his age and past health concerns, stating in 2005 that his health was "excellent".[217] He has been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and an operation in 2000 for that condition left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face.[218] McCain's prognosis appears favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he has already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years.[218] In May 2008, McCain's campaign briefly let the press review his medical records, and he was described as appearing cancer-free, having a strong heart and in general good health.[219]

To misquote McCoy, "He ain't dead yet, Jim."

Your humorous comment ;) was badly mismodded, but I'm glad they gave you a karma boost (even though I know you don't need it).

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute! 1/15th of TRILLIONS of dollars is A LOT of money! Gotta start somewhere, right? Also, that 1/15th is currently a COMPLETE WASTE and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY and will result in even more money needed for the after affects such as PTSD and other medical necessities that our troops deserve for their sacrifices. (yes, run-on sentence but you get the point)

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Kohath]

The Iraq war is only 1/15th as expensive as everything else the government does. Someone who only spends 1/15th of their budget on an activity has a hobby, not an addiction.

It's not the cause of the bankruptcy.

Anyway, you can relax. We won the war and the combat troops are coming home. We may keep a (relatively inexpensive) forward force there like we have in Korea and Germany, but the combat is essentially over.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Shakrai]

As you correctly deduced I was being a wiseass, but there is some truth to what I said. The thought of Palin as President turned a lot of people off. I think it's legitimate to worry about the VP nominee even if the guy at the top of the ticket is as healthy as an ox. POTUS is the most stressful job on the planet (is it just me or does Obama already have some gray that wasn't there before?) and will take a toll even on healthy and fit individuals.

Plus there's always the danger of some nutjob seeking a lead based solution to his political discontent....

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[glop]

I believe he was on topic as he was explaining that it's a matter of priorities to find 1 billion dollars in the federal budget for NASA.
His priorities obviously differ from yours but he clearly identified a big source of spending (6%) and noted that the amount considered was small compared to that big source of spending.

Really, it's like profiling code, if nobody has ever profiled some code you are going to see big misuses of resource (like 70% of time spent recomputing the same value etc.). But after some people have looked at profiles, you get down to a point where a 6% figure is a big target. I am pretty sure you are not the first one to look at the federal budget so it's likely that 6% is a big juicy target when trying to optimize the federal budget.

So your rhetoric does not really help as the other 14/15ths are composed of hundreds of items that are probably just as hard to assess, prioritize and possibly remove from the budget. the Parent was really just putting the 1 billion in perspective.

Personally I think that spending a billion on NASA is a rather good use of the money as they spend the money on cool stuff (electronics, getting bright people to work together, Linux etc.) and produce cool images, discoveries, stories that really make my days brighter.

 

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Colonel Korn]

Hell, just 2 days ago Obama signed $1.1 trillion more in spending, on a whim. WTF?

I love the scene produced by this evocative statement. Obama's playing Tetris on his cell phone and an aide approaches with a silver platter covered in spending bills. "Sir, congress has prepared for you a selection of the finest budgets." Obama glances quickly away from his screen with a scowl. "Bring them back later. I can't figure out how to pause this thing." "Very good, sir." The aide bows and begins backing away. "Damn it," Obama shouts in dismay. "You made me miss with my T. Whatever, give me a pen." He grabs a bill at random. "I'm only signing this one. Throw out the rest. Tell them that next time they either need to combine all the bills or include a grant to fund research into pausing Tetris."

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[rwv]

McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office.

Bush signed off on the initial Constellation Plan. Bush made space exploration a pro-Republican issue. I don't know McCain's specific position, but the Republican Party line would have been in favor of the $3 Billion plan that the Augustine Commission recommended would be necessary to push human exploration of space ahead at the levels Bush was targeting.

Remember, just because you are arguing your own fiscal conservatism doesn't mean you can pigeon-hole political parties who have historically been associated with that trait.

If anything, Obama is cutting back on the plans presented by the last president. The Democrat is tightening the government purse strings.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

After the first sentence, I thought you were agreeing with him. 1/15th is not at all insignificant, it's over 6%. When you're talking about the entire federal budget, having any one thing take up a full 15th of the resources is pretty serious.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Captain Splendid]

but the combat is essentially over.

Man, you'll believe any old shit, won't you? It wasn't mission accomplished back when Bush said it, and it ain't any closer now with the ironic peace prize recipient.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Bearhouse]

Damn, wish their was a mod '+6 I just shat myself laughing'
Shame posts cannot be modified both 'funny' and 'insightful', because parent is both...

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

The thought of Palin as President turned a lot of people off.

It made me wonder about McCain's decision making abilities.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[AGMW]

Yeah, a heart attack and President Palin ;)

He's not the president, he's a very naughty boy!

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

It doesn't matter as long as it was modded up.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Kohath]

You must have a different source of news on the vast Iraq war combat operations for US troops. Please post a link to this source. I would like to see the video.

Thanks.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[MaWeiTao]

If anything, Obama is cutting back on the plans presented by the last president. The Democrat is tightening the government purse strings.

He's tightening the purse strings in one specific area, if this is what you consider tightening purse strings. Did he reduce the plan from $3 billion down to $1 billion or is he raising that figure up to $4 billion. Either way, I'd argue this is one area where we should be spending as much money as we possibly can given the long term benefits that will from this.

Obama cutting spending is like someone spending thousands a month on car payments, clothing and nightlife and then claiming they're cutting back by no longer buying that $2 cup of coffee every morning.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Idiomatick]

If you look at the US discretionary budget the military accounts for over 60%, over 70% in shitty years. As for total budget war makes up about 25%, non-military defense programs an additional 14%. Veteran's pay an amazing 1.6%. Comparatively, NASA gets around .5% of the total expenses. http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ (discretionary is in the middle, total in the bottom right).

1/15th is 6.6%, parent is outright lying.

And as mcgrew says, war is easier to not have than... Old people? Sick people....?

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Biden is a totally way better candidate.

His gaffes just got shoved in peoples faces to a much lesser degree. That's about the only difference between Biden and Palin I've been able to discern (And I don't mean I have a great, burning desire for Palin to be President).

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[rwv]

NASA's budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 Billion per year to do all the work they do. The plan that Obama is supposedly signing off on will increase that by an extra $1 Billion. An alternative option that was presented was to increase NASA's budget by $3 Billion per year (which would have been the difference needed to fulfill Bush's original timeline).

As it stands, it seems like at some point during the 20's there will be a couple of humans spending a month or more at a time living on the Moon in much the same way that the 90's and 00's had been spent ramping up the ISS for human occupation.

Yes... yes... Obama hasn't "cut" anything. I meant to say "he didn't choose the most expensive option". He certainly could have cut the human space program (a popular option presented by the Augustine Commission) and we should all be thankful that he didn't do that.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[HeckRuler]

Plus there's always the danger of some nutjob seeking a lead based solution to his political discontent....

What is it with conservatives alluding to the assassination of Obama and then trailing off? I've had extended family members do this repeatedly too. It's like they hope for it, but don't want to come out and actually say it.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[bozojoe]

Or we could stop some of the nation charity money

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[dragonxtc]

But I like snorting coke! Especially Vanilla Coke

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[omega_dk]

I believe in this case it was someone alluding to the assassination of McCain and then trailing off...

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[CannonballHead]

And yet war is one of the few things that the Constitution mandates that the federal government "do."

Health care and social programs actually are not mandated. Military forces are.

Priorities, sure. But let's not let our fuzzy good feelings rule here. Some things are more important than being healthy, like being alive. Yes, we can argue whether or not an individual war was necessary, good, etc... but to say that we don't need to have a military or that having a strong military is a waste or that we no longer need wars is, IMO, not only ignorant of history but ignorant of human nature. I don't think you are necessarily saying this, I'm just spouting off on my soapbox while I'm on it :)

I don't know whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary. I do think that there is definitely a problem of anti-western-civilization terrorism. I don't know everything, nor does any other person on earth... but I think we should all agree, at least, that there are some basic things about humans that lead to them wanting to conquer through violence, which subsequently leads to defense by violence.

• Desire for power.
• Hatred.
• Low view of the worth of human life - except their own.
• Desire for power, did I mention that one?

As long as there are people that desire power and are willing and quite happy to kill for it, or desire glory or whatever it is, there will be the unfortunate necessity to protect peace-loving people with war.

If someone thinks everyone is sane and humane enough to talk about differences, I think that someone is very, very, very mistaken and perhaps let the 60s get to them a little too much.

Of course, even the peace-loving hippies in the 60s seemed to get wacko sometime... i.e., Manson...

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[jgtg32a]

It was a good decision Palin was well loved by the Republican a lot more than McCain was; the problem was she couldn't handle the media and was eaten alive.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[JordanL]

While war spending is inherently the worst kind of spending, (since you are borrowing money for something which is expended once such as ordinance, and unlike other spending has the PURPOSE of destroying wealth, instead of even the chance of creating it), actual war spending accounts for a small portion of our budget. It's just the largest item in the "discretionary" budget.

I'm of the opinion however that since Congress saw fit to steal from the non-discretionary budget to pay for the discretionary budget that it's foolish to act as if the budgets are very separate. Yes, to change FUNDING levels would require fundamentally altering programs in the non-discretionary budget, unlike Defense spending. But I take issue with people who point to ANY part of our budget as "the problem". It just displays their ignorance and/or naivety.

Defense spending should be slashed. And so should most other spending. The Federal government spends so much money on things they have no business spending money on.

Incidentally, funding NASA, which consistently brings new technology, advancement and understanding that can be appreciated not just by our citizens but by all humans, is perhaps one of the best places for the government to dump money.

But please, anyone who advocates cutting funding for a single part of the budget is either willfully ignorant, or completely self-serving in their own opinions. The budget is much more complex than that... please don't make yourself sound like a 16 year old rebel without a cause by pretending otherwise.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mh1997]

What is it with conservatives alluding to the assassination of Obama and then trailing off? I've had extended family members do this repeatedly too. It's like they hope for it, but don't want to come out and actually say it.

If you would have read the whole post, it was about the possibility of McCain being assassinated and Palin becoming president.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Zalbik]

You must have a different source of news on the vast Iraq war combat operations for US troops.

Huh? You claimed that "We won the war and the combat troops are coming home."

Well, you got it half right...the troops are coming home:
But the
war is
far from
over

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[raddan]

She was also woefully unqualified for the job, unlike McCain. It's hard-to-impossible to know what would have been had Palin not been chosen as a running mate, but I think that McCain would have beaten Obama had he chosen someone else. Palin energized the Republican base but turned away a lot of moderates. I wouldn't have voted for McCain, but I did feel that, until he chose Palin, he was the best choice from our selection of Republicans.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Kohath]

I looked at your news posts. No battles. No combat. No troops wounded.

A perfect utopia is not needed for "combat" to be "essentially" over.

I hear there are still Nazi sympathizers in some places. And we still have troops in Germany. I guess WWII is still going on ... ?

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[King Coopa]

I suppose any news organization other than Fox News will do...

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[khallow]

What is it with conservatives alluding to the assassination of Obama and then trailing off? I've had extended family members do this repeatedly too. It's like they hope for it, but don't want to come out and actually say it.

I think it's part of the Kennedy legacy. The heroic president has to be martyred by a nutcase or the story just doesn't end right. Oh, why do *conservatives* allude to the assassination of Obama and then... trail off...

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[jnaujok]

You've fallen for one of the classic Washington Beltway tricks. This chart is for "Discretionary Spending," in other words, the spending the Congress gets to decide on every year. The military budget is required, under the Constitution, to fall into this category. On the other hand, it represents less than 1/4 of the overall 2009 budget, which includes all the programs that are required, by law, to be automatically funded each year, including all of the social programs in the United States. If we take into account that the budget for 2008 was about $3.2T, and for 2009, will approach $4.5T, then we have an estimate that the entire discretionary spending (about $1T) is only going to represent about 22% of the total budget. If the Military is 60% of that, then it represents about 13.2% of the total budget.

So, maybe the 6.6% is wrong (although it's correct for direct Military spending, not including the items you added) but it's still not 60% like you claimed either.

Be careful when you read budgeting numbers from Washington, because they like to hide behind the discretionary term, while bemoaning the fact that they can't do anything about the "non-discretionary" budget items. Which is utterly untrue, of course.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[dwiget001]

Frankly, I am more scared with Biden being next in line to become President.

He makes Palin look like an Oxford Scholar.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Idiomatick]

Err, didn't read past my 1st sentence? The bottom right corner of the poster is total budget, not discretionary. In fact ALL of my post minus the first sentence is referring to total budget.

Though I'd also like to point out that this conversation is mostly about discretionary budget. We are talking about things that can be cut relatively easily. So that refers to the discretionary budget.... of which the military makes over 60%.

And no matter how you slice it up, the military still gets 50x what nasa gets (minimum).

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Coren22]

Who has more experience then the President we have in office...

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not insightful. There is nothing practical or actionable here; Wondering where the money will come from is a valid concern and completely separate from anything to do with the wars.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[ArsonSmith]

I know, it was bad then and all the demonstrations haven't done anything! Even electing another party has only made it worse. It's time to start backing a smaller government 3rd party I guess.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[ArsonSmith]

rofl

"War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says"

I say it costs four dollars a week.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Social security, medicare and medicaid make up 40% of the overall budget, with unemployment/welfare/interest payments making up another 20% (they're considered mandatory spending as opposed to discretionary).

Although, you are right that Defense & War spending does make up a majority of discretionary spending (and around 25% of the overall budget including Iraq and Afghanistan).

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[khallow]

Though I'd also like to point out that this conversation is mostly about discretionary budget. We are talking about things that can be cut relatively easily. So that refers to the discretionary budget.... of which the military makes over 60%.

Your side of the conversion, but not his side. My view is that if you're not talking about the whole budget which is a lot bigger than discretionary spending, then you aren't serious. Having said that, current military spending is a big piece of the current overall budget and hence contributes to the budget problems.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

I'm anti-war, but pro-military. Hell, I'm a veteran. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt's assessment that one should "walk softly and carry a big stick". When the Afganistan's Taliban's Bin Laden attacked us, we were right to go to war, although they did two things wrong. The Congress should have actually declared war and they should have just gone in and laid the place to waste and left.

Iraq, otoh, was and is an unnessary, wasteful clusterfuck. Iraq posed no threat whatever to us. There was no real reason at all for us to attack Iraq. That million dollars spent every two minutes fighting that war is a complete waste, and a worse waste is the lives of the servicepeople who died in that godforsaken desert.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

but the combat is essentially over...

Like, 'Mission Accomplished', a-la aircraft carrier over?

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

There's very little of that. $16.5b in TANF (almost all of which is spent on things that get unemployed folks back in the workforce, which is an investment, not an expenditure), $36.4b in food stamps. I'd say having my tax money going to keep people from breaking into my house for money to buy food is a good expenditure.

The charity we should stop is the welfare that goes to big, rich corporations (like IBM and Kodak), which dwarfs what goes to the poor.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[gangien]

I cannot see how much of any republican would have won the 08 election.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Conanymous Award]

Biden? He's goofy, but not stupid. Palin is scary. A she-Bush on steroids. (Or should I say estrogen?)

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

I tried smoking hash once, but I couldn't get the corned beef to light.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition, all wars are wasteful clusterfucks. Unfortunately, the status quo of Saddam and his Ba'ath party could not be trusted to remain non-agressive. Honestly, it only seems to have been an unnecessary because we've sat on our ass for so long. His ass should have been capped long long ago regardless if 911 occurred or not.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[CannonballHead]

If that's what you think, then I'm fine with you thinking that. who am I to decide that this or that war was the right thing to do and that there can not be any possibly reasonable argument against it? We may disagree, but such is life.

The problems I have are with people who think war is NEVER an answer, that violence should never be used, and that wacko people (no matter what their beliefs) who want to kill others for power or glory can actually be reasoned with, that they are just misunderstood, that they had an abusive past, or whatever.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Manchot]

Biden puts his foot in his mouth from time to time, but he was also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee and was widely considered the Senate's foremost expert on foreign relations. I'm legitimately curious: what statements did he make that made him appear ignorant to you?

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Airw0lf]

I'm not sure how "[Biden] makes Palin look like an Oxford Scholar" can be modded insightful. I will agree that Biden makes the odd gaffe but he is unquestionably better informed. He has chaired senate committees on the judiciary and foreign relations which will have exposed him to a whole gamut of issues that Sarah Palin may not even have conceived of. Let's not confuse willful ignorance with an otherwise intelligent person getting caught with their foot in their mouth from time to time!

Disclosure: Note that I'm not American and don't have a particular interest in either the Republicans or the Democrats. From where I sit both parties do little to effect any real improvement over the status quo. And I think Obama has done little to back up his rhetoric of hope and change from the election campaign

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[c6gunner]

The charity we should stop is the welfare that goes to big, rich corporations (like IBM and Kodak), which dwarfs what goes to the poor.

Why? The Big Rich EEEEEVIL Corporations actually produce stuff. If I get a say in whether my money goes to productive people or the ones who produce nothing ... guess how I'm voting?

Of course, given the choice, I'd say screw 'em both. The government shouldn't be involved in wealth redistribution at all, regardless of who's getting the money.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[c6gunner]

Thanks :) That was the same thought I had. I'm not sure how anyone can look at a claim which seems to have been pulled whole from the asses of a bunch of anti-war quakers, and unquestioningly accept it as a proven fact. This is why critical thinking needs to be taught in schools!

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Rycross]

I don't think a lot of people feel that war is never an answer. However a lot of us feel that we spend far, far more on war than we actually need to, and that it'd be prudent to maybe focus on consolidating and reducing our forces to a defensive role.

Its frustrating when people act as if we want to get rid of it completely. Its also frustrating when people respond to nuanced criticism of our military spending with, "Well, funding the military is the federal government's job!" Of course it is, but that doesn't mean we need to spend quite so much.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say NASA rockets is the coke and the military needs of the country is the food.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[jfengel]

Too bad, too, seeing as dealing with the media would have been completely irrelevant to her job as President.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what mcgrew says? He's a senile, shallow, self-involved old coot who thinks he's an expert on any topic you care to name.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[mcgrew]

Corporations actually produce stuff.

Yeah, like multi million dollar bonuses and pay to their executives, while many of these corporations have low level employees that are eligible for food stamps (WalMart). If they're producing something, they should be making a profit. I have no problem with public or private charity for the poor, but I have a big problem with my tax money going to charity for billionaires.

Corporations aren't evil (unless they're headed by sociopaths), that're amoral.

Re:MORE FUNDS?!

[c6gunner]

I have no problem with public or private charity for the poor, but I have a big problem with my tax money going to charity for billionaires.

Look on the bright side: at least you're halfway right.

Politics

[Phroggy]

President Obama asked Congress to fix our health care system, too. Look how well that's working out.

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

No, he asked 60% of Congress to fix it. The other 40% doesn't get any input. That must be the "new kind" of politics he talked about. Partisanship in the opposition direction. Hooray for change!

Re:Politics

[NiceGeek]

You mean the 40% that has vowed to oppose anything Democrat? Why should they bother trying to work with people who won't work with them?

Re:Politics

[jedidiah]

The other 40% doesn't have any interest in fixing it. If they show any interest they will be shouted down by the likes of Limbaugh and Palin and lynched as heretics.

Re:Politics

[jo_ham]

You mean the other 40% who are deliberately excluding themselves by vowing to vote it down regardless of the contents?

Those 40%?

The 40% that just so happen to coincidentally be Republicans. Funny that.

Joe Liberman may be a festering, infected boil on Satan's cock, in the vice-like-employment of the insurance industry, but at least he is coming to the table to discuss how to destroy the bill. The Repubs aren't even doing that.

Re:Politics

[furball]

So why hasn't 60% of the Senate fixed the health care system? Last I checked, 60 senators couldn't be found to support the bill.

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

Why shouldn't they oppose it? The Democrats aren't interested in meeting in the middle. They are interested in pushing their own agenda. The fact that they can't even convince the moderates in their own party to go along with some of the stuff they've tried to pass ought to tell you something. Mind you, this is exactly how the GOP operated when they had control, but the silence coming from the man who promised us a new kind of politics is deafening, isn't it?

I had a phone call from a Democratic fundraiser a few days ago asking me if I would contribute money to help them fight the "Republican obstruction". I asked him why they are blaming the Republicans for their difficulties when they have 60 votes in the Senate and a large majority in the House. He didn't have an answer. Then I told him I would be voting GOP in 2010 just to put a check on Obama's power at which point he proceeded to lecture me on how evil the GOP is until I hung up. Wonder if they'll be calling me again anytime soon?

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, the other 40% do get input. It's just that the only input they have to offer is either shitting on other reps' desks or dangling their nuts in America's face (teabaggers FTL).

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

No, they just don't have any interest in "fixing" it by turning the entire system over to Uncle Sam. Bit of a difference there. If the Democrats want to allow a vote on tort reform (just to pick one issue) I suspect you'd see some Republicans come to the table. No less a right-wing neo-con than Howard Dean has suggested that this is a necessary reform -- funny how we can't get an up or down vote on it, isn't it?

Then there's the cute little stunt the Dems have pulled with drug re-importation. Tell me, where did candidate Obama stand on that issue? Where's the outrage when President Obama cuts agreements behind the scenes with industry groups? If Bush had done that we'd see progressives foaming at the mouth. Why is Obama getting a pass?

Re:Politics

[FatSean]

Indeed. After McCain's douchey 'concession speech' in which he practically demanded that Obama act in a bipartisan manner, Obama tried too hard at bipartisanship. He should have known that the Republicans would never meet him half way. After several months of Democrats giving concessions to Republicans re: health care, and several months of the Republicans not giving concessions, it's about time the Democrats played politics the way the Republican-majority Congress did in the 90's and most of the 00's. No need to turn into total douches, but the Dems really need to stand up to the idiocy coming from the angry (fr)right(end) wing. What are these people so scared of anyway? :P

Re:Politics

[NiceGeek]

"They are interested in pushing their own agenda." - if you think that somehow Republicans aren't guilty of that as well, you are very, very deluded.

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we had it during your favorite Bush years. Instead there you were unAmerican if you didn't vote with the president (terrorists and gays are scary). Now, we have Republicans who refuse to collaborate at all. Obama has tried to get them involved and they won't. Republicans wouldn't even halt their agenda when it violated Americans rights, but I'm sure you support warrantless wiretapping.

Republican definition of bipartisianship: You do what we say or we don't do anything at all. Except whine.

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

Of course they are. But the Republicans didn't run on a centrist bipartisan platform, did they?

And the Dems wonder why Independents are abandoning them in droves.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

I didn't vote for for Obama but your statement is complete bullshit. Period.

That 40% you're talking about has refused to participate leaving Obama no choice but to carry on with the 60% that's interested in doing their job. The 40% you're standing behind has decided they don't want any solution that doesn't allow for massive fraud of the system and forcing people to pay at least 2x-4x as much as they should be paying for a healthy insurance system. And we know for this for a fact because these systems are already working around the world; contrary to the lies by the 40% you're working so hard to defend.

There is absolutely no shortage of things you can bash Obama on but bashing him for Republicans standing in line to abuse and defraud the American people isn't one of them.

Re:Politics

[MindlessAutomata]

Mod parent up to recover his unfair flamebait score, he's not attacking either party, he's attacking both--and he's right. It's true that the Democrats aren't meetinging in the middle, and it's also true that the Republicans aren't either.

'course when they do meet up in the middle good things don't happen there, either...

Re:Politics

[jcr]

The other 40% doesn't have any interest in fixing it

None of them do. Neither side of the Ruling Party has even suggested cutting back the amount of interference by federal and state governments in the medical care and insurance industries. The AMA and the insurance companies have regulations that they've bought and paid for that exclude competition, drive consolidation into larger and larger corporations, prohibit re-importation of their own products from other countries at lower prices, and even prohibit inter-state competition for insurance coverage (which is exactly what the commerce clause was supposed to prevent.)

-jcr

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

'course when they do meet up in the middle good things don't happen there, either...

Yeah, those balanced budgets and surpluses in the 90s really sucked......

Re:Politics

[Aladrin]

Why shouldn't they oppose it?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because this is AN ENTIRE COUNTRY and not some playground fight. They are charged with being reasonable and running this country properly, but instead BOTH SIDES squabble and stick to their own party like it's some kind of moral offense not to.

Re:Politics

[mcgrew]

The Democrats aren't interested in meeting in the middle

Why should they be? They have a majority in the House and Senate, and are in the White House. Clearly, the American voters have spoken. We went so far to the right in the last administration that leaning to the left IS leaning to the middle.

Re:Politics

[furball]

Is this guy part of the 60% interested in doing their job or is he part of the 40%?

Re:Politics

[AGMW]

Of course they are. But the Republicans didn't run on a centrist bipartisan platform, did they?

Yer ... Centrist Bipartisanists! Splitters!

Re:Politics

[jo_ham]

They don't want to fix it by "turning the entire system over to Uncle Sam" - they wanted to introduce a government-provided private insurance option that would compete with other private insurers.

The private insurance companies know that they don't like competition unless they're all on the same side: the side of profits over patients, so they have spent a great deal of money and effort to convince people that somehow adding a new player to the game is somehow "removing choice" and that this is about "socialising healthcare" rather than increasing access to healthcare for more people.

Good lord, if Obama really wanted to push a socialised healthcare system on the US I think Rush might explode with the force of a small atom bomb laced with prescription opiates.

Instead, all the special interests have their hooks into their employees in the senate (on both sides, and the independent "side") to kill anything that gets through until it's been carefully reshaped into something that benefits the insurance industry at the expense of the American people.

It's also very distasteful that so much time is being spent on limiting access to a procedure that is perfectly legal (abortion) because of spurious religious reasons - whatever happened to freedom of religion?

Republicans won't come to the table because they have been told not to, and anyone who would disobey that would be annihilated in the media by the right wing shouty mouthpieces that represent the party.

Re:Politics

[MaWeiTao]

I guess what you consider a compromise is getting everything your way. That's basically the attitude the democrats have taken.

And you're right, the republicans did much of the same when they were in control and look where it landed. Now it's the democrat's turn to be voted out. Your average American wants congress to be more sensible and do what's best for the nation, not push their own garbage agendas and perform favors for friends.

Looking at the corruption in garbage and the crap they're trying to push on us people have plenty to be afraid of.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

That 40% you're talking about has refused to participate leaving Obama no choice but to carry on with the 60% that's interested in doing their job. The 40% you're standing behind has decided they don't want any solution that doesn't allow for massive fraud of the system and forcing people to pay at least 2x-4x as much as they should be paying for a healthy insurance system. And we know for this for a fact because these systems are already working around the world; contrary to the lies by the 40% you're working so hard to defend.

The 40% isn't brain dead. This health care "reform" will probably rank as one of the worst laws ever passed in the US. It doesn't nothing to combat either massive fraud or an increase in health care costs. No such system is already working anywhere in the world. Just because two systems happen to share a single trait, namely, universal health care coverage, doesn't mean they are the same system.

First, it's worth noting that no attempt to combat fraud or excessive health care is actually taken. Second, the only attempt to reduce health care costs is to chop a little money off of Medicare. And to the opposite ends, we have a) universal health insurance coverage which raises the price for everyone, b) a large public entitlement, namely the public funded option, that is by its nature (in the steady state, it'll never charge more for health insurance coverage than it pays out), guaranteed to be a money sink for public funds, c) a panel which can insert new required services for current health insurance plans to cover, d) no change in liability issues, e) no change in supply of medical services, and f) no change in the balkanization of health insurance (namely, in most states, you can only sell health insurance if you are based in the state).

Re:Politics

[camperdave]

vowed to oppose anything Democrat

Political parties should be abolished. If politicians are going to be basing their work on which party suggested an item rather than the merit of the item itself, then they really should not be governing the country.

Re:Politics

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yeah, those balanced budgets and surpluses in the 90s really sucked......

For all those "balanced budgets and surpluses in the 90s", one must remember that the National Debt increased every single year in the 90's.

Oddly enough, I always thought that if your budget was balanced or there were a surplus, your debt would go DOWN, not UP. Silly me.

Re:Politics

[Shining Celebi]

Why shouldn't they oppose it? The Democrats aren't interested in meeting in the middle. They are interested in pushing their own agenda. The fact that they can't even convince the moderates in their own party to go along with some of the stuff they've tried to pass ought to tell you something. Mind you, this is exactly how the GOP operated when they had control, but the silence coming from the man who promised us a new kind of politics is deafening, isn't it?

Are you serious?

The Democrats have made concession after concession to the Republicans on every major bill they've tried to get through Congress, and the Republicans just move the goalposts. This is why we ended up with a watered-down, crap stimulus bill. This is why we're ending up with a watered-down, crap health reform bill. The Republicans are taking obstructionist tactics to new extremes, like "accidentally" losing their voting cards, and filibustering a defense slash war-funding bill in the hopes that the Senate won't even be able to debate the health insurance reform bill. Meanwhile, the Democrats refuse to use the options at their disposal, like reconciliation, to pass the health care bill without bipartisan support or a supermajority. Senator Baucus worked with Republicans for ages on his version of the health care bill, only for them to oppose it anyway. Republican Senators gleefully announce that they intend to break Obama and make health care his waterloo. Republicans previously for health care reform suddenly oppose it for nebulous reasons.

100% party unity is unrealistic for the Democrats on any issue, and the Democrats have 60 members in their caucus in the Senate, not 60 Democrats. Senator Lieberman lost his Democratic primary and garnered more Republican votes than his Democratic opponent, and also more than his Republican opponent. He opposes pretty much every big-ticket Democratic agenda item. That's hardly a party-line Democrat to begin with. Other Democrats are suggesting they will vote against the bill because of a lack of cost-control options like the public option (removed to appease Republicans, despite it's 60%+ support among the public), or because of compromises made to the Republicans, which have garnered no Republican votes and only weakened the bill.

The Republicans don't want to meet in the middle, and the Democrats are fools for trying to act bipartisan. All they get for it is Republicans shrilly insisting that the Democrats are bullying them around any time they want to pass any of the legislation they were elected to pass. The Republicans don't oppose the health care bill on ideological grounds. Plenty of Republicans have supported health care legislation more liberal than what's in the Senate today, such as, say, Richard Nixon. Mitt Romney imposed a very similar plan to the one in the Senate now while he was governor. And so on and so on and so on. It wasn't until the current cycle that Republicans became opposed to plans such as the one now before the Senate. The ideology behind conservatism didn't suddenly change. No, the Republicans made a political decision that it was in their best interest to do their best to attack and bring down any initiatives Obama came up with.

The Republicans aren't opposed to the health care reform bill for any other reason than they were determined to make the Democrats failures. And they're doing an excellent job of it.

Re:Politics

[Abcd1234]

Well, given he's willing to torpedo meaningful healthcare reform just so that he can indirectly limit a woman's right to control their own body, I'd say he's clearly part of the 40%. How is that not obvious?

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

If by working you mean that they pay higher taxes for healthcare, then yes they are working well. I think the biggest issue many of us have is that a large majority of the country already has health insurance, and they are fine with what they have (the polling and statistics support this assertion). So, any "change" may result in those of us with good healthcare paying more for what we already have, in order to support the people who don't have it. I'm not claiming to know what the solution is, but that is the crux of the issue.

Re:Politics

[furball]

So there are now 41 Senators who make up 40% of the Senate and 59 Senators who make up the other 60%? I like your new math.

Re:Politics

[Abcd1234]

It's called rounding, and it's not all that new. Perhaps you've hard of it?

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

Clearly, the American voters have spoken. We went so far to the right in the last administration that leaning to the left IS leaning to the middle.

The American electorate rejected Bush'ism. That's not the same thing as the American electorate giving Pelosi'ism a mandate. Don't believe me? Take a look at the current public opinion polls. Independents are fleeing the Democratic Party like rats from a sinking sink. Why do you suppose that is?

Re:Politics

[NeutronCowboy]

Wait, so you'd be ok if Obama would have channeled Bush Jr and said "I have received a mandate from the people to rule; everyone can go fuck themselves"? Really? How fucked up is your world?

Finally, political self-identification is idiotic when the voting patterns match 1-to-1 with a different party. Beck and O'Reilly are no more Independents than Deng Xiaoping was a capitalist. By the same token, all those independents who vote with a very particular group of politicians and have their same talking points belong to the same party as those politicians.

In other words, stop waving the independent banner. It still has the corporate logo for "Republican" in the corner.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

You've some how entirely missed the point - and even hints you're drinking the koolaid. Insurance companies and that 40% all say they can fix things without drastic changes. They have even said they will change. Given that insurance companies already have 90% of the power required to make sweeping changes and zero changes have been made to date, pretty well supports the insurance companies are enjoying their fleecing and have no intention, in any way, shape, or form, of doing anything other than screwing over idiots that refuse to support change.

And yet, what you're entirely missing is, the entire stated purpose of various bill efforts is to make it pay for it self by removing fraud and increasing efficiency. That's the entire thrust behind it. Insurance companies (and criminals - there is an intersection there) don't want this because the only way you can do that is to critically review what people are being billing and what insurance companies ARE and ARE NOT paying for.

Right now, the phrase, "health care insurance company" is just fancy words for "fraud". Companies who have a vested interest in fraud are not going to change the system. And when that 40% you speak of is basically bought and paid for by these same companies, how do you possibly believe things can improve any other way? So what other options exist?

Like many people, you seem to suffer from short tunnel vision. You need to have a long view on changes like this. Ultimately, it doesn't matter one bit if one of these bills, "rank[s] as one of the worst laws ever passed in the US". Not even a little. Not one bit. The reality is, regardless of the outcome it forces insurance companies to reform, compete, and stop fucking people every chance they get. The reality is, insurance companies ARE DEATH PANELS - but the vast majority of Americans are too stupid to understand; rather they simply repeat the lies FOX News has said.

The only way you're going to change things for the better is to stop supporting fraud - and that means tell the idiot, piece of shits, who has been bought and paid for by the insurance companies to straighten the fuck up and actually help rather than lying about everything while stealing from our pocket. That's the reality of today - and yet you seem happy to maintain that fraud at any cost.

And lets say you're right. Lets say its the worst bill ever passed. If it is, it will be updated or abolished and insurance companies will have been forced to change. There isn't a down side here. Not one.

People forget, if you're working against the good of the people, you're working against yourself. I didn't vote for Obama, but Obama's failure if still you're failure - assuming you're an American. You have a vested interest. Hoping he fails means you're hoping we all fail. And in this case, if he does fail, we absolutely all do fail; no ifs, ands, or buts.

At the end of the day, you continue your fear mongering, supporting of fraud, and paid-for politics, or you can actually try to help improve America. Sometimes things that sound like a cliches, really are true.

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Refused to participate? Pelosi & Reid have literally banned GOP members from all hearing and committee meetings and refuse to publish the actual text of the bill they want to vote on. You really expect republicans to go along with a massive bill that they had no input on creating and haven't even seen?

Re:Politics

[furball]

Do you really want me to list all of the Democrats who pose an obstacle to this bill and see if you still round to 60?

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

If by working you mean that they pay higher taxes for healthcare, then yes they are working well. I think the biggest issue many of us have is that a large majority of the country already has health insurance, and they are fine with what they have (the polling and statistics support this assertion). So, any "change" may result in those of us with good healthcare paying more for what we already have, in order to support the people who don't have it. I'm not claiming to know what the solution is, but that is the crux of the issue.

Nice lies plagiarized directly from Fox News. Nice.

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

And why do you think that is? Its because they've refused to participate in any way, other than enforcing their bought vote. That means their only purpose for participation was to fuck us all. When you work hard to fuck everyone, everyone wants to exclude you. But that happened only AFTER they excluded themselves.

Wow...facts are just shocking. Or perhaps you've not watched any TV or read any papers.

Re:Politics

[furball]

We all want to improve America. What's being questioned is that this healthcare reform bill actually improves America or not.

Something think it is. Others don't.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

Given that insurance companies already have 90% of the power required to make sweeping changes and zero changes have been made to date, pretty well supports the insurance companies are enjoying their fleecing and have no intention, in any way, shape, or form, of doing anything other than screwing over idiots that refuse to support change.

Getting to decide what's in their policy is more than 10% of the power in the industry. Hence, they don't have "90% of the power". The rest of your remarks border on delusional. For example,

People forget, if you're working against the good of the people, you're working against yourself. I didn't vote for Obama, but Obama's failure if still you're failure - assuming you're an American. You have a vested interest. Hoping he fails means you're hoping we all fail. And in this case, if he does fail, we absolutely all do fail; no ifs, ands, or buts.

First, I can still benefit from working against the good of people. You already cited the insurance companies. There are plenty of examples of it every day in the US where someone successfully pursues their personal interest (or the interests of some group that they identify with) at the expense of the general good. If you look, you'll see quite a bit of that in the actions of the Obama administration like the Obama-assisted UAW looting of GM and Chrysler, the bailouts of the banks (Obama kept those going), the cap and trade nonsense in absence of evidence of a need, and of course universal health insurance (wake me when the people who use it pay full price for it). Second, Obama is in my view working diligently against the general good. Hence, it is ok for me to hope he fails - hard.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Others don't.

And how many of those "others" have that position because they've been lied to and been told that the position they should have. It appears, the majority. What's left are largely politicians who receive payola either directly or indirectly from insurance companies.

Re:Politics

[jafac]

The Democrats aren't interested in meeting in the middle.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but if you look at the original healthcare bill proposal, and the completely gutted one we have now, TO APPEASE A RIGHTWING MINORITY who LOST in 2008 because they had complete control for the last 8 years, illegally shut-down input from the minority party by breaking procedural rules, and drove this country off a cliff in the form of a major economic collapse, two wars, the worst domestic security failure in US History (9/11), complete erosion of privacy rights from a massive NSA domestic spying program, and a de-evolution to using NAZI-era "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees who have not even been formally charged with crimes, massive budget deficits driven primarily by tax-cuts for SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, and a long string of massive fraud cases in the banking/investment sector, (not to mention the COMPLETE waste of time that was the Constellation Program - all to SAVE GOVERNMENT JOBS IN A REPUBLICAN'S STATE, rather than looking for a technically appropriate solution to the problem); and you say that the Democrats are unwilling to compromise?

You sir (and I use the term in its loosest possible sense), are living in your own little version of FauxNews-branded reality.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Getting to decide what's in their policy is more than 10% of the power in the industry. Hence, they don't have "90% of the power". The rest of your remarks border on delusional. For example,

You've completely missed the boat. Insurance companies can change today, without a law. Period. But they don't. That's the point. The only reason its not 100% is because they can't stop all the fraud. Thusly, they can literally change the entire problem tomorrow, if only they wanted to. Reality is, they are not going to willingly do anything which cuts their revenue by more than half while at the same time provide the care people have paid for. And yet, that's what the majority of Republicans are fighter for.

People who ignorantly bitch about how much these would-be bills will cost everyone seem completely ignorant of the fact that they are already paying, at a minimum, 50% too much! And in exchange for paying a world premium price, we receive less care. We are literally getting something like 35%-40%, on the dollar, the health care we pay for. And yet you want to fight to maintain the status quo. No wonder so many look at Republican's like idiots.

Once you put your head around the facts, its pretty difficult not to look down on the ignorance everyone is spewing.

Second, Obama is in my view working diligently against the general good. Hence, it is ok for me to hope he fails - hard.

How is improving health care and saving money working against the general good?

Ironically, Obama lied about everything he said he would do on all the major issues. The idiots that voted for Obama are just that - idiots. The fact is, on just about every major issue, Obama has literally followed McCain's plan of attack. There are only two reasons Obama got elected. One, he's black. Two, he lied; and people wanted to hear a lie rather than McCain's truth.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

How is improving health care and saving money working against the general good?

Neither activity is being done by Obama.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

We have a winner!

Amazing how many people seem to have their "information" spoon fed from Fox News.

Re:Politics

[mcgrew]

Because not much has really changed. Where's my bailout?

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Neither activity is being done by Obama.

Factually, how is that statement even close to being true; especially since I've already addressed the issue and your statement alone, appears to be false at every angle. Especially considering the almost sole exception of health care, Obama has followed the Republican plan of action on just about everything that matters. That's the reason Obama's ratings are so low. Its also the reason I can point and laugh at just about every Democrat while saying, "I told you so"; literally.

In short, you're saying Republicans are working hard to be against everything US. Makes one wonder why you're anti-Obama.

Seriously, care to elaborate? Thus far, the only counter argument I've read here are the factually incorrect lies spewed forth from the likes of Fox News. Care to support your position with something other than known lies and irrational fears?

Re:Politics

[khallow]

And how many of those "others" have that position because they've been lied to and been told that the position they should have. It appears, the majority.

It can be easily explained. People don't like moochers. With universal publicly funded health care, people pay for every act of stupidity and human weakness that occurs. At least with current insurance, the companies don't have to cover the really stupid stuff.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

We are already paying for those "moochers." In fact, that's already part of both insurance coverage and taxes.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

You assert he is improving health care. I describe in my first reply to you why that assertion is wrong. And there's absolutely no effort to "save money". First, he continues the idiotic Bush bailout of banks, throws money at failing car companies (who won't fully pay it off for decades, if ever), and he signs off on the Stimulus bill (and several other spending sprees like the "cash for clunkers" bill). He has considerably enlarged future deficits as a result (none of his projected budgets will fall under Bush's 2007-2008 budget). The health care "reform" and "cap or trade" bills are more examples where he's failing to try to save money.

Especially considering the almost sole exception of health care, Obama has followed the Republican plan of action on just about everything that matters. That's the reason Obama's ratings are so low.

That's Obama's tough luck. Or maybe gullibility. Hope it loses him a lot of votes in 2012. Say... you think Hillary has a chance in 2012? No way she could be as bad as four more years of Hope and Change.

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can you just "round up" when it comes to blocking a filibuster? Seeing as that's the only point in talking about "60" Senators, what's the point in saying they have 60 (rounded up) if they don't actually have 60?

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

I also want to add, from an insurance perspective, we're already paying for those moochers at extortion and fraud rate health care costs. The same is also true for tax costs.

In short, the moochers perspective is only an issue for those people who have been lied to by the likes of Fox News.

Net cost between plans - zero! In fact, if anything, its more likely the net cost will actually save us money.

Re:Politics

[east coast]

Hmmm. I heard a lot of jabber back in Nov 08 that said that the Republicans were irrelevant and a dying breed and that the public would get things done in a fashion that suits them without all the baggage that the GOP carries. Now when something doesn't go through you want to blame the Republicans? Huh? I thought that we were liberated from Republican tyranny and that the heavens were going to open up and manna was to pour from the skies. What happened?

Mathematically the Republicans mean nothing. Anyone attempting to use them as a scapegoat is just as irrelevant as they are.

With crap like this going on can't people see why the two party system is a complete fraud that is doing nothing but bleeding the citizen? We hear this same old garbage from both sides and people keep defending it when it's their side looking bad for it. Take the blinders off and join us in the human race where we can learn to resolve these issues when we finally stop doing the Red and Blue goosestep.

Re:Politics

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

Actually Bush DID utter a phrase over and over and over when he ran for prez that was pretty much shown to be a lie when he realized he didn't need the Dems.

"I'm a uniter not a divider"

This transcript
And this one
are two of the many many examples of Bush running on a platform that gave us all the impression he would work with both sides of the isle.

Re:Politics

[Abcd1234]

Who said anything about fillibustering? You're the first person to bring that up, AFAICT.

Re:Politics

[gangien]

OK how have I, as someone who wants government totally out of the medical industry, been lied to? And how has that affected my decision?

Re:Politics

[khallow]

I also want to add, from an insurance perspective, we're already paying for those moochers at extortion and fraud rate health care costs. The same is also true for tax costs.

Unlike government, insurance companies spend considerable effort and money to combat fraud.

Re:Politics

[Phroggy]

Listen to Obama's speech; he clearly asked for bipartisan cooperation and collaboration. It's the Republicans who have been trying to kill the bill, not because they object to its content (although many of them do), but rather because the White House will count the passage of any bill as a political victory for the President, and the Republicans don't want to give him that victory.

Re:Politics

[Shakrai]

The atmosphere in DC was poisoned long before health care became an issue. Whatever good will Obama may have had with the Republicans in Congress was pissed away when the Democrats rammed a $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" bill that wasn't through the Congress. They neither sought or desired input from the minority party.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Unlike government, insurance companies spend considerable effort and money to combat fraud.

which is why, contrary to the lies pushed by the Republicans, the "government option" was always to be a private, for profit, company.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

So you hate Obama for trying to improve things. You hate Obama for doing the only thing he can. You hate Obama for going against his campaign promises (aka lied) and doing things that actually make sense (McCain path). You hate Obama for following the path set by Republicans. The simple fact is, his campaign lies were never an option because only a fucking idiot would act on most of his campaign promises. He said those things to get elected by morons that want to believe lies rather than facts and reality.

So what would you like to actually see done? Millions more out of work? Terrorist attacks in the US and on our allies? Continued insurance fraud? What are the great solutions here?

Re:Politics

[khallow]

which is why, contrary to the lies pushed by the Republicans, the "government option" was always to be a private, for profit, company.

Then it would be unneeded since the US already has private, for profit insurance companies. From what I've seen, the health reform plans backed by Obama all have a public insurance option and they need one in order to implement universal (or perhaps near universal) health care.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

So you hate Obama for trying to improve things. You hate Obama for doing the only thing he can. You hate Obama for going against his campaign promises (aka lied) and doing things that actually make sense (McCain path). You hate Obama for following the path set by Republicans. The simple fact is, his campaign lies were never an option because only a fucking idiot would act on most of his campaign promises. He said those things to get elected by morons that want to believe lies rather than facts and reality.

Nope. I don't hate Obama for anything. And it's not clear to me why you think he's "trying to improve things" or "doing the only thing he can". The first is unprovable (we'll never be sure what his intent is) and the second is laughable. The Democrats control both houses of Congress. They can do a hell of a lot more than they have. Finally, I'm a firm believer in the value of making and holding to campaign promises. I won't vote for someone when I can't figure out what they'll do.

So what would you like to actually see done? Millions more out of work? Terrorist attacks in the US and on our allies? Continued insurance fraud? What are the great solutions here?

None of the above. Let's start with the recession. Sure it's too bad that millions are out of work. But who will rehire them when bad companies don't get swept out of the way for good companies to take over? I believe in economic Darwinism at the business level. When government implements a stream of anti-business regulation and bailouts? When government greatly increases government bureaucracy and takes over parts of the economy?

Whatever else you can say about Bush, no further terrorist attacks occurred in the US on his watch. What is Obama doing that is comparable?

Insurance fraud and other aspects of the health care mess are solvable using rather mundane approaches. For example, reduce malpractice liability, increase supply of doctors and hospitals, reduce or transfer the financial liability that comes from free emergency room care (a valid solution for so-called "universal health care"), reduce the scope and payouts for Medicare/Medicaid, remove the tax writeoff for employer-based medical benefits, eliminate any government requirements and mandates for employer-purchased health insurance, and find a way to allow insurance companies to compete in all states. Oh, and by making insurance a private matter, we make insurance fraud a private matter. Since the insurance companies have both an interest in preventing insurance fraud and the power to act, we need go no further with that problem.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Then it would be unneeded since the US already has private, for profit insurance companies. From what I've seen, the health reform plans backed by Obama all have a public insurance option and they need one in order to implement universal (or perhaps near universal) health care.

There is a difference between profit and raping customers. Seems you prefer the later. At a minimum today, you receiving roughly 35% of the health care coverage for which you actually pay for.

Also, very few of the bills being pushed have had a public option and none of the ones being pushed today have such an option. Rather, the current bills intend to provide x-million additional new customers to existing insurance companies.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

I must say you answers surprise me.

And it's not clear to me why you think he's "trying to improve things" or "doing the only thing he can".

This is a very surprising comment, and in a most negative way. I'm not sure what I can say here that doesn't sound condescending. How is health care reform not, "trying to improve things." You may disagree on his approach but I honestly can't see how you can saw the above with a straight face.

I'm yet further confused because you bash Obama for his policies and then you pat Bush on the back. The confusing part is that you're bashing Obama for following what Bush laid out - in almost every case. This is why time and time again it seems you have an irrational hatred of Obama.

Whatever else you can say about Bush, no further terrorist attacks occurred in the US on his watch. What is Obama doing that is comparable?

Ummm....more of the same? He's literally following McCain's stated campaign plans, which is only slightly different from the path set forward by Bush. In other words, you're very clearly hypocritically bashing Obama for following the Republican path.

The rest of your solutions are completely unattainable or just plain crazy. I assume you don't realize the AARP is one of the largest citizen lobbying groups in the US. Going against them means losing elections for a long time.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

There is a difference between profit and raping customers.

The difference is which label you use to describe the activity. For the public option, the corresponding choice will be "losing money" or "raping customers". So much better.

At a minimum today, you receiving roughly 35% of the health care coverage for which you actually pay for.

That's an interesting opinion.

Also, very few of the bills being pushed have had a public option and none of the ones being pushed today have such an option. Rather, the current bills intend to provide x-million additional new customers to existing insurance companies.

Where is the money to pay for these new customers going to come from?

Re:Politics

[khallow]

This is a very surprising comment, and in a most negative way. I'm not sure what I can say here that doesn't sound condescending. How is health care reform not, "trying to improve things." You may disagree on his approach but I honestly can't see how you can saw the above with a straight face.

"Health care reform" is a label being inappropriately applied by you and others to the bills before Congress.

Ummm....more of the same? He's literally following McCain's stated campaign plans, which is only slightly different from the path set forward by Bush. In other words, you're very clearly hypocritically bashing Obama for following the Republican path.

If Obama were following the path you claimed he were following, then yes, you'd have a point.

The rest of your solutions are completely unattainable or just plain crazy. I assume you don't realize the AARP is one of the largest citizen lobbying groups in the US. Going against them means losing elections for a long time.

The AARP says it is one of the largest citizen lobbying groups in the US. It provides a convenient way to acquire discounts. Its lobbying power is grossly exaggerated.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Nice counter, countering nothing and saying nothing.

You've pretty well confirmed everything I've said.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

Nice counter, countering nothing and saying nothing.

You've pretty well confirmed everything I've said.

I see you lead by example. Well, I'll elaborate. A principle part of the argument I was replying to was the dogmatic assertion that the bills in question were "health care reform". I simply pointed out that I disagree with that earlier in this thread, I explained the reasons why. Anyone who has even the slightest experience with the euphemisms common to titles of legislative bills or other political rhetoric, knows that just because something is called "health care reform" doesn't mean it has anything to do with health care reform.

OTOH, baldly asserting that Obama is "following the path of Bush" is merely ignorant. Bush would not have reformed health care, tried to implement CO2 emissions cap and trade, or a number of other Obama priorities. We know this because he had eight years (six of which supported by a Republican congress) in which to act and didn't do anything significant with these things.

Finally, even a cursory study of the AARP can determine that they claim everyone over the age of 50 as a member. There's no way they have that many reliable members who will vote as directed by AARP.

Re:Politics

[GooberToo]

Great questions considering its all been answered and your assertion is known to false.

Next time, just say you have no clue what the hell is going on, want to irrationally rant regardless of the facts, and have no interest in debating and/or learning. It will save everyone lots of time.

Re:Politics

[khallow]

Great questions considering its all been answered and your assertion is known to false.

Ok, the public option appears to be off the table for now (though it was in the House bill at one time) in both bills passed by Congress. I grant you that, but not your earlier claim that no public option was ever considered. Your assertion that we're receiving 35% of the health care we pay for, is false. Health insurance is too competitive a market to have a 65% profit margin. Going back further, I see more claims of your that I corrected.

Next time, just say you have no clue what the hell is going on, want to irrationally rant regardless of the facts, and have no interest in debating and/or learning. It will save everyone lots of time.

Follow your own advice.

Can't stop spending!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't these d-bags stop even for one year? Jesus Christ, we're spending money we just don't have. Apparently Mr. Obama is not interested in a 2nd term.

This isn't about science.

[Anonymous Coward]

“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs.

This is about jobs; not science. Which means, science will take a back seat - shit will be built for the sake of creating the most jobs regardless of the scientific merits and it means that if a scientifically justified project creates less jobs or no jobs, it will be placed behind a project that creates more jobs.

Folks, this is how Government distorts markets and science. Then when either doesn't live up to its promises, Government passes the buck.

Re:This isn't about science.

[Zarf]

“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs.

This is about jobs; not science. Which means, science will take a back seat - shit will be built for the sake of creating the most jobs regardless of the scientific merits and it means that if a scientifically justified project creates less jobs or no jobs, it will be placed behind a project that creates more jobs.

As long as this involves building a moonbase and getting some sharks with friggin' lasers on their friggin' heads... you won't hear me complain.

Re:This isn't about science.

[Cornwallis]

Exactly. And that is what the first space race tot he moon was about. Science was incidental otherwise WE'D STILL BE THERE!

Re:This isn't about science.

[Tekfactory]

However IF the Jobs program does actually create a new Heavy Lift Vehicle, launch costs should go down.

This stretches your Science dollars further on all future space efforts, manned, unmanned, commercial sattellites, etc.

Re:This isn't about science.

[ColdWetDog]

As long as this involves building a moonbase and getting some sharks with friggin' lasers on their friggin' heads... you won't hear me complain.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but 1 billion isn't going to give you sharks. It's not going to give you mutant sea bass.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if you get a goldfish with a laser pointer duct taped to it's head.

Re:This isn't about science.

[Zarf]

As long as this involves building a moonbase and getting some sharks with friggin' lasers on their friggin' heads... you won't hear me complain.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but 1 billion isn't going to give you sharks. It's not going to give you mutant sea bass.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if you get a goldfish with a laser pointer duct taped to it's head.

You have no idea how low my expectations are right now... I'm totally on board with the gold-fish laser pointer. This will rock so hard!

Re:This isn't about science.

[khallow]

However IF the Jobs program does actually create a new Heavy Lift Vehicle, launch costs should go down.

Absolutely no way is that a given. Launch frequency is a stronger economy of scale than payload size. If they're launching the same total mass in fewer launches, then they're probably increasing costs. For example, suppose I want 1,000 tons in orbit. Launching it all into orbit at once on a massive 1,000 ton launcher is probably the most expensive choice I could make. Well aside from going to the other extreme. For example launching a million 1 kg payloads doesn't make sense. How could you get people up there or any other component larger than 1 kg in mass? But 40-50 launches of a 20-25 ton launch vehicle make a lot of sense (there's even multiple vehicles of that category currently in existence, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Proton, you don't have to waste a lot of money on designing a new vehicle). That's a launch frequency that can even encourage reuse of vehicle components.

Re:This isn't about science.

[tsa]

Yes! Sometimes you do things just to prove that you can. And landing on the moon was by far the coolest thing mankind has ever done.

Re:This isn't about science.

[camperdave]

Launch mass isn't the only factor. Payload volume plays into it as well. For example, a J-130 rocket could put a 15 meter telescope into orbit. A Delta IV would struggle with something that big.

if only

[Vorpix]

while i realize that there are some positives that can be garnered by war spending, can you imagine where we might be if the past 7-8 years of military budget were instead spent on scientific endeavors such as the space program? if those billions were instead going into cancer and aids research?

regardless, i am glad that even in a time of belt tightening, we still have people aiming for the stars (and not just at other people).

New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Tekfactory]

"According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018."

Nothing in the article says what that HLV would be, or who would build it. The article also talks about the fight in Congress over Constellation districts losing aerospace jobs.

The only thing I am aware of is Elon Musk saying NASA has an option for SpaceX to develop an HLV, and I'm not talking about Falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavy. Anything else would be the usual suspects dusting off old blueprints and submitting proposals, or something I'm not aware of, which would be fine too.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Rogerborg]

If they're really watching the budget, then "who would build it" would be "China". It's not always about the bottom line.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[rwv]

Ares V

I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.

The article did open the door wide open for ISS space tourism because it says, and I quote, "And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station."

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not about the bottom line. If China built it, they'd use lead paint on it and supplies made with dried milk products would be loaded with antifreeze. We'd be lucky if the folks that went up in it came back.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[khallow]

If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.

I disagree. The public sector isn't competing with its own money, so why should Musk? In case there are any misinterpretations, yes, I do mean that anyone who has to compete (or even just puts up the illusion of competition in order to get some public funds for free) with a public service should get public funds using the same sloppy rationalizations that the public service uses. It's only fair.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Waste55]

My guess is inline shuttle derived (Direct, Ares V classic, Ares IV\Ares V lite) or (hopefully not) shuttle side mount.

FTA:

The new program would jettison Ares 1. To appease congressional critics like Shelby, the Administration hopes to ensure that research and development work on the new rocket would proceed without significant job losses at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama."

Doesn't sound like SpaceX to me.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Tekfactory]

Well SpaceX already has NASA contracts worth up to $1 Billion so your 'doubt' doesn't really matter. They also have contracts with the Air force for more governmnet money.

If Obama were shifting Constellation's focus from Area I to Ares V I don't think there weould be quite so much fighting in Congress, but again any HLV is a win.

As far as commercial companies taking over ISS resupply, that's old news from SpaceX wiki page;
"On Friday 18 August 2006, NASA announced that the company was one of two selected to provide crew and cargo resupply demonstration contracts to the International Space Station (ISS) under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program."

How that specifically equates to space tourism, well the Dragon module (from SpaceX) when complete and man-rated will carry 7 people to the ISS.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Tekfactory]

You read this http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hla2i5PLLHuXp5CanUH6ygR6M5zA right?

"NASA is ready to cooperate with China in space exploration, the head of the US agency said on Tuesday, as Beijing aims to send a manned mission to the moon by around 2020."

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Idiomatick]

"I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money. "

...
"Big news today was SpaceX winning the NASA CRS contract for an initial $1.6 billion, representing 12 flights to the International Space Station starting in 2010." - http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Yeah I was a bit intrigued by this myself. The entire article discusses a new heavy lift vehicle, but has absolutely no specifications or details. Is it liquid, solid, or hybrid? Will it be developed in-house by NASA or contracted out? What exactly do they mean by 'simpler?'

I checked Spaceflightnow, SpaceFellowship, and ParabolicArc and couldn't find anything but a parent of the original ScienceInsider article. Google doesn't reveal a whole lot at cursory glance either. Hell I don't even see anything on NASA's own website. If anyone digs up some particulars, please post some links, I would be very interested in seeing them.

Also, offtopic, but for those who say Slashdot is behind the news release cycle and doesn't post breaking news, considering it just posted a story that 4 other space news websites haven't picked up yet, I'd say you've just been proven wrong =P

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Rogerborg]

Yes, I read it. All of it, all the nuances. The last time I heard a statement with that much equivocation in it was Sotomayor's confirmation hearings where she explained how she really wasn't kind of always sort of never entirely not unopposed in favour of the principle of equality. Hypothetically.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Double Response, Sorry, but some more digging revealed this discussion of ScienceInsider's story where it is asserted that:

a new heavy lift launch vehicle would be built "to take astronauts to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars" but it would not be Ares V: "the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018";

So I guess the Ares V is not the new HLV, in case anyone was speculating that was the case.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Hythlodaeus]

Don't forget the Ares V. It really would have been nice if the article was clearer about whether there was a specific rocket in mind, or if they are actually going to the drawing board for something totally new.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[blueZ3]

Yes. However, since there is apparently no Chinese word for "quality" and since human lives are at stake, clearly the bottom line isn't the end-all, be-all of this proposal.

Personally, you couldn't pay me to ride in a Chinese-built car at freeway speeds, let alone fly on a Chinese rocket at escape velocity.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Chris Burke]

I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.

So... you doubt that the government would pay a contract for a private firm to develop an aerospace vehicle?

I gotta say that seems to be on pretty shaky ground. Most of the time aerospace firms are given contracts to develop vehicles, as in the funds to develop the vehicle is coming from the contract.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Threre's one very insightful comment by "Briareosdx" under TFA, it's almost the same as I was going to write here, but I'll just cut-and-paste instead:

All this talk about space battles, and no one's linked to the Atomic Rockets page?

Atomic Rocket

Be warned, if you're the sort of person who found this article interesting, you could loose the rest of your day to that site.

As for the analysis itself, I'm surprised that the author didn't say anything about the importance of heat. Not only for how craft get rid of it, but also because the heat sources of energetic rockets and missiles make them very easy to see. If you can see your enemy coming from the other side of the solar system, it changes a lot of things about the upcoming fight.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[khallow]

I agree. Senator Nelson from Florida would be making a lot of noise, if it weren't Shuttle-derived. I imagine the senators from Utah would be complaining, if ATK's SRB wasn't involved somehow. The only person complaining is Senator Shelby. Marshall Space Flight Center gets a lot of money from the Ares I and V design work. I hope his outburst means that a simpler HLV is being considered which would so happen to cut the amount of design work that Marshall receives funding for.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[rwv]

To me SpaceX seems to be more of an airline that builds it's own planes then a NASA supplier like Boeing and Lockheed. This analogy isn't quite straightforward because the industry is brand-new. But it seems like SpaceX has future revenue streams planned that don't include milking NASA's budget. This is a big plus.

But to me it seems like they're playing in a different competitive field than Boeing and Lockheed because they have this advantage and in order to be able to play in that field they shouldn't be given money as easily.

The thing that separates them from the NASA supplier companies is that they report and answer to NASA (accountability). My assumption is that SpaceX wanted a bit more leeway to pursue their goals of commercial space (and that means less accountability).

I think a company that wants less accountability shouldn't get as much funding. Am I mistaken?

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[TheSync]

To me SpaceX seems to be more of an airline that builds it's own planes then a NASA supplier like Boeing and Lockheed.

Ironically, the Air Mail Act of 1934 broke up the original airplane manufacturers from the airlines they built. For example, Boeing Air Transport became United Air Lines. North American Aviation owned what became Eastern Air Lines.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[khallow]

The thing that separates them from the NASA supplier companies is that they report and answer to NASA (accountability). My assumption is that SpaceX wanted a bit more leeway to pursue their goals of commercial space (and that means less accountability).

That "accountability" is just an artificial barrier to entry for new firms. I'm all for SpaceX competing as unfairly in this way as they can manage. That will help bring down the barriers that protect significant parts of the military industrial complex from competition. I'm not against the existence of the "complex". As Eisenhower notes, it's a necessary and vital part of a country that needs a permanent infrastructure for defense and related public concerns (like space development). I just don't think it deserves the protections against competition that it currently has.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Rogerborg]

Funnily enough, I ride a Chinese-made motorycle at freeway speeds. It's surprisingly well built, and I've had it in bits to check. It should be, since most low end "Japanese" and "Italian" bikes and scooters are made in China now. Sure, there's still some crap coming out of China, but they can do decent quality when its in their interests.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[blueZ3]

Hmmm.

The one Chinese-made vehicle I owned (purchased against my better judgment, I admit) was a scooter I bought new for $1200. It lasted approximately four months (~500 miles) before dying. The drum on the CVT went and not only could you not get a replacement, the old one couldn't be removed.

As much as possible, I've stopped buying made-in-China stuff, except for the occasional toys for my daughters.

Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA

[Rogerborg]

Sorry to hear that. Before I bought, I researched spares availability and owner reviews. I have a Huoniao HN125-8, a copy of the Honda CM125, with CG125 running gear. The parts are interchangeable with "genuine" Honda branded parts (all made in China anyway), and it's pretty much idiot proof - I should know, I'm a weapons grade idiot.

China Conquers the Solar System

[Baldrson]

So now China buys SpaceX, turns on its rice-in-manufactured-stuff-out formula to mass produce the Falcon 9 Heavy and conquers the solar system while Obama hands out funny money to his buddies' buddies' buddies'.

Re:China Conquers the Solar System

[MozeeToby]

SpaceX's technology is ITAR controlled, they cannot sell it to the Chinese or anyone else without going through an approval process that they would not be able to navigate given the nature of their technology.

And I love the attitude: congress cuts NASA funding; therefore *Obama* is trying to kill science. Congress (with Obama's backing) increases NASA funding, Obama is handing out money to his cronies. Not saying the same thing didn't happen during the Bush years, I just wish there was some consistency in people's complaints.

Re:China Conquers the Solar System

[Baldrson]

South Africa -> United States -> China

Musk has had to change citizenship before. He can do it again.

Saturn V

[p51d007]

Dig out the blueprints, put them into a CAD/CAM program, and modernize it, and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle soon. NASA really screwed itself when they dropped the SATURN launch vehicle, in favor of the wasteful shuttle. Now, most all of the smart guys that developed the SATURN V, are gone, but the plans remain somewhere. They could tweak the F-1 rocket engine and have a heavy launch vehicle quickly.

Re:Saturn V

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of dropping everything and retooling all the production facilities, the Ares V uses shuttle-derived first stage, instead of the F-1 engine. The second stage uses another shuttle-derived engine, the RS-68. The third stage of the Ares V uses J-2 x, a modernized version of the engine used in the Saturn V second and third stage. The use of shuttle parts and shuttle-derived parts is for two purposes: decrease downtime from retooling, and increase congressional support through increased jobs/job retention. I am not speculating on whether or not this is good.

Re:Saturn V

[Nadaka]

A lot of the blue prints no longer exist. Most of the original engineers have died off. There were a lot of issues that arose during design and construction that were largely undocumented. My stepfathers father as one of the designers of the saturn V's first stage.

Re:Saturn V

[jcr]

Dig out the blueprints, put them into a CAD/CAM program, and modernize it, and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle soon.

It's not that simple. Flying a Saturn rocket today would be much harder than building a new vehicle from scratch. Imagine trying to build the Cutty Sark today: we just don't have the people with those skills anymore.

-jcr

Re:Saturn V

[Andy Dodd]

There's also the fact that a lot of parts used back then are long-EOL.

As I understand it, Constellation recycled many of the key mechanical aspects of the old Apollo-era designs, because they Just Plain Worked.

However, the avionics have to be pretty much designed from scratch, for two reasons:
1) Nearly all components used in the past are no longer available
2) Modern electronics can achieve far greater performance at a fraction of the power/weight
3) Modern space missions have significantly more requirements in terms of communications capability and such

Re:Saturn V

[hazydave]

No, you probably could not build "the Cutty Sark" today. Well, even that's not certain... motivation is a big factor here, too.

"Why" is probably larger than "can". If you're doing it for historical interest, sure. There have been guys working out how to build a pyramid using BCE-Egyptian technology (eg, lots of slaves, not much actual technology). That's about the only reason one would even make the attempt. There may not be experts at this any longer, doesn't mean you can't learn.

More than likely, if you really wanted to make a new square-rigged clipper (again, there's "why"), it's more likely one would create a fully modern version, using CAD, all of the many, many improvements in hull design since 1869, etc.

Also, they actually kind of did [re]build the Cutty Sark today. Ok, not from scratch, but major work, and done in the original ways. In dry dock back in 2007 for what was apparently a major but scheduled restoration, it was seriously damaged by a fire. Total cost of restoration, expected to complete in 2011, is about £35 million. Of course, the ship was only designed with an expected service life of 30 years. The overhaul was designed to last 50 additional years before any major new overhaul would be necessary. See here: http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/

Re:Saturn V

[sjames]

The Saturn was a fine vehicle, but bringing it back isn't the answer. Too many of the parts and materials are no longer available for one. For another, that would be throwing the things we learned (good and bad) from the Saturn and the Shuttle as well as many advances in materials away. In theory, we could start with a Saturn and make all of the changes suggested by new knowledge and new materials, but the result would really be so different that we might as well start from scratch anyway.

Re:Saturn V

[rantingkitten]

They didn't have people with those skills back then, either. Kennedy gave his moonshot speech in 62, and America had almost zero spaceflight experience. Eight years later the Eagle landed on the moon.

We could build something much better today with modern technology and the forty years of experience we now have -- if we bothered funding it.

Re:Saturn V

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the "blueprints" for the Saturn V rocket were on punchcards, many of which were lost or sold when NASA went magnetic. Nope, we can't make them like we used to.

Re:Saturn V

[greyhueofdoubt]

Not to mention that we could do much better using modern materials, computers, and manufacturing. If you sifted through the blueprints, updating everything with modern techniques, you'd end up with an entirely new spacecraft that only superficially resembled the original.

Another reason we don't build another cutty sark today is that we can fill the Cutty Sark's intended role with much better replacements.

I don't see the problem with viewing lift vehicles as commodities. We can purchase a range of lift capacity vehicles from the russians, french, japanese, etc.

-b

Re:Saturn V

[camperdave]

We already have a reliable launch system. It's called the Shuttle Transport System. It has flown far more missions than the Saturn, with far less troubles. Its main flaw is that it is a sidemount rather than an inline system. We all now know what a foam or ice strike against the shuttle can do. The other major drawback that it has is a lack of an abort system. The LAS that is part of the Orion module will take care of that.

Re:Saturn V

[Burdell]

Hey, my father worked on the Saturn V guidance system, and he's still working on Ares; they haven't all left yet!

Anyway, building a new Saturn V would be similar to Ford digging out the plans for a 1967 Mustang and building a new one. We have 40 years of performance, safety, materials, and efficiency improvements that are not reflected in the old plans that would have to be taken into account. The computers are completely different, so things like the guidance and control systems would have to be rewritten (and retested/recertified) from scratch. At that point, you'd want to significantly update the engines for modern materials and construction engineering, which is what was done on a small scale with the J-2X engine for Ares I, but even that was based on post-Saturn work. The Saturn V was in some ways a brute-force solution, and not really economical for the long term. It was also never considered a "production" vehicle; every one that flew was different, with different software (development continued through the life of the vehicle).

Just look at the changes in the Space Shuttle Main Engines and other systems over the life of the shuttle. Now apply that level of change to something that hasn't flown in over 36 years.

Re:Saturn V

[jcr]

No, you probably could not build "the Cutty Sark" today.

I didn't mean to say that it's impossible, just that it's a lot harder than building a modern vessel with a similar capacity. We quit building clipper ships because they don't make sense anymore. It doesn't make any sense to try to build Saturn rockets today, given the decades of technological improvements we've had since they were designed.

-jcr

I've seen too many web ads

[RobertB-DC]

I've clearly seen too many web ads. When I saw the article title "Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget", I immediately conjured up other gems such as "Obama tells moms to go back to school", "Obama backs auto insurance reform, find cheaper rates", and "Obama will destroy us all". (Oh, nvm, that last one was from my daughter's Teabagger boyfriend, sry.)

Re:I've seen too many web ads

[skine]

that last one was from my daughter's Teabagger boyfriend, sry.

Looks like you and your daughter are very open about her sex life.

Re:I've seen too many web ads

[gandhi_2]

Welcome to the government by cult of personality. Like Kim Jung Ill, Stalin, Castro, and Mao you can't go anywhere in your country without your "benevolent dictator" looking down on his loving children.

Those "Teabaggers" have it right.

Obama Backs New Launcher
Get your bigger budget now!

Re:I've seen too many web ads

[jameskojiro]

Which is worse being a TeaBagger or a Fister?

Fister being an Obama bot, google: Ken Jennings if you have no idea what I am talkin' about.

Re:I've seen too many web ads

[mrdoogee]

The Jeopardy! winner?

Smaller budgets

[furball]

Has Obama supported anything with a smaller budget?

Re:Smaller budgets

[Thoreauly Nuts]

Has Obama supported anything with a smaller budget?

Yeah. Your budget. It's now smaller.

Re:Smaller budgets

[jo_ham]

Well, I think he can have this one, since the entire budget is 1 day's worth of combat in Iraq.

If he tells the US military to go on holiday for a week in Iraq he can fund this 7 times over.

Re:Smaller budgets

[MindlessAutomata]

That's probably going to be the funniest thing I've read all week.

Re:Smaller budgets

[mcgrew]

Loose change you can count on! No matter which party is in the White House...

Re:Smaller budgets

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Re:Smaller budgets

[Idiomatick]

Hey! .... It's only half a billion most days! ... :S Ok, point taken.

Re:Smaller budgets

[paintballer1087]

I've been on facebook too much recently, I just went to click the "like" button.

Re:Smaller budgets

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot community has more or less unanimously whined about the fact that more tax money should be spent on space exploration. It is probably right. There are probably more things out there of value, other than the ones we've already found such as satellite imagery. The society that knows how to build the technology to extract those resources will gain power in the future.

My recommendation to angry Slashdot conservatives who want to take a shot at Obama (a proverbial shot, please) would be to accuse him of collaborating with Europe and Japan on a project with such strategic potential.

"Would you have a Frenchman walk on Mars before an American?!"

Is this not Bush's plan?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe O is taking credit for Bush's plan.

Re:Is this not Bush's plan?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe O is taking credit for Bush's plan.

Why not? He's getting blame for Bush's economy.

Re:Is this not Bush's plan?

[khallow]

Depends whether the Ares I sticks around or not. Given the administration's well known allergy to uttering the word "Ares" and given the recent outburst by a distraught senator from Alabama (his name rhymes with "Shelby") who happens to be a huge Ares booster, I'd say that Ares I is going out the door never to return. That's not part of the Bush plan.

Also keep in mind that while I don't think they've yet slid the schedule back for the Ares V, it's unlikely, with the delays to the Ares I, to fly in 2018.

Public Option?

[neurogeneticist]

I can only hope that this heavy-lift launch system will support a public option with early buy-in and that none of this NASA budget will be appropriated to state-supported abortions. Otherwise, it will apparently have a hard time getting through the senate.

Sure.

[FatSean]

The brain damaged failures known as 'federal funding for faith-based medicine' and 'abstinence only sex educaitons' my trollrific friend :)

He's also saving us money by telling the AG to not prosecute pot users in states that make such use legal. I do wish he'd pull every US soldier and asset out of the ME immediately, but military people who know better than I say that would be a bad idea.

Re:Sure.

[aicrules]

Unfortunately no president since I've been alive has really cut spending in a certain area withOUT the spending it elsewhere. Every time they cut and make a big deal about saving money on XYZ they are failing to mention the fact that the huge savings has been wholly applied to new project ABC.

NASA should consider Outsourcing and Offshoring

[Zarf]

We could probably get these items built much more inexpensively in China. In fact we should probably just outsource our science, engineering, and manufacturing of space exploration to China. We might use our own people for Astronauts though. It's all about making sure we're focused on the "true value add" that we have for Space Exploration as a marketplace. We can leverage the synergies of other nations to help us keep our energies focused on our "Core Business Objectives." Our core business in exploring space should be the exploring part. The whole "science" and "engineering" and all that useless "knowledge" stuff is best done by the people who are deeply specialized in those things... and they ain't us. /suit-speak

Article makes no sense

[jollyreaper]

So are they saying a new heavy lift vehicle is replacing the Ares I? My understanding is Ares I is the simple, cheap, manned crew vehicle stack and the Ares V is the bigger, heavier, not man-rated launcher meant for heavy lifting. They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better. So far it isn't. I have a feeling that shuttle reuse was a political decision to make this sound more economical rather than a proposal from the engineers guaranteeing it would be frugal.

Re:Article makes no sense

[gedrin]

Much of the Ares system, that big orage part, isn't a reusable shuttle part. It's recylced tech, but the tanks are one use only, Shuttle or Ares. Eventually, they'll probably want to stop building "spare shuttle parts" for a seperate launch system.
Of course, that's assuming that Ares doesn't do what they want reliably and affordably, and that the purpose of these programs is to produce cheap, easy, and reliable access to space.

Re:Article makes no sense

[Tekfactory]

Don't discount the fact thsat the SRBs were Man Rated, you need a lot of sucessful launches to man-rate an engine or a rocket stack. By reusing the SRBs from the shuttle they were supposed to be able to rely on the safety record of the SRBs and get a new vehicle put into production far faster than a built from scratch new vehicle.

Now include the fact that all Constellation design, testing and building has to go on simultaneously with an operational shuttle program. There was hope to have some overlap, or at least a very small window of time when we didn't have a shuttle or a rocket that could reach the ISS.

Unfortunately over time that window grew larger and larger. People start talking about extending the life of the shuttle program, but that delays the rocket program further.

A lot of times on slashdot we see folks say why can't you do both, pay for science AND education, or any set of programs you wish. In this case two large programs one operational and one development are too much to hope for with the resources they've been given.

This is why I am hopeful for an outsider, an increase in funding can work, because there isn't any resource contention for people or their focus.

Re:Article makes no sense

[camperdave]

They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better.

They were supposed to, but they didn't. They developed a new solid rocket motors for the ARES-I. They're developing new engines, new solids, new tankage, new upper stage engines (as well as needing new crawlers, and nwe launch pads) for the ARES-V. About the only thing that's reused from the shuttle (or so I've read) is the system that ignites the solids.

Re:Article makes no sense

[khallow]

Don't discount the fact thsat the SRBs were Man Rated

No they're not. There's no man rating for the Shuttle and hence, for its components. As a first stage (renamed the "solid rocket motor" or SRM) of the Ares I, NASA still has to figure out a crew escape system that can escape from a SRM rupture (it's faster and hotter than equivalent liquid stage ruptures, hence requires a better escape system than the current design). That escape option is required to man rate the vehicle (using the current standard which is of course, subject to change at the whim and convenience of the NASA leadership).

By reusing the SRBs from the shuttle they were supposed to be able to rely on the safety record of the SRBs and get a new vehicle put into production far faster than a built from scratch new vehicle.

The irony here is that the SRBs aren't that safe. They have a historical failure rate of 1 in 250 or so. Yet the Ares I's SRM is claimed to have a failure rate of something like 1 in 3700. So how do they get that, when their first stage has a demonstrated failure rate more than ten times worse than the rate they claim for it?

Further, the choice wasn't between Ares I and a built from scratch vehicle. It was between a variety of Shuttle derived vehicles and the EELVs, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy. The latter two are much further along in development than anything else and comparable in safety and cost (even using the flawed ESAS as your guide). The Delta IV Heavy even flies now.

Re:Article makes no sense

[Graymalkin]

The Ares I design is not simple, cheap, or even really effective. A good portion of the expense of launching the Shuttle, an Ares I, or anything else is manpower. You have a lot of people that get paid salaries no matter how many launches take place every year. The cost of a launch then becomes (vehicle cost) + (yearly operations and personnel cost/scheduled launches that year). If you launch one rocket a year it's fairly expensive, if you launch six then the price of each launch goes down. You might recognize this cost-production curve an economy of scale which is what it is.

The Ares I was meant to be able to carry a fully decked out Orion capsule capable of carrying four people, long solo flights with an extended service module, a toilet, and the ability to to land on the ground with parachutes and airbags. It turns out the Ares I can't do any of that so the Orion had to be scaled down to only carry three people, no toilet, no air bags for ground landings, and a service module just barely capable of getting astronauts to the ISS or some other vehicle.

The rub with the Ares I is that it is damn near useless without the Ares V follow-on. Because it can't carry much into orbit it is essentially an expensive bus to take three astronauts to the ISS. People bitch about the Shuttle being an expensive tow truck but it can carry seven astronauts in addition to twenty tons of cargo and can survive independently for weeks. Going back to the launch cost problem, the Ares V requires significant changes made to one of the two launch pads at KSC. This leaves only one available for Ares I launches. Only having a single pad available for the Ares I puts a limit on the number of Ares I flights that can be made every year. The low frequency of flights increases the cost of every kilo launched on an Ares I rocket.

The cost per unit of mass problem with the Ares I determines what sort of missions you can afford to use it for. There was an unmanned Orion capsule design that was intended to be used for cargo resupply to the ISS. The low launch frequency put the cost per unit of mass too high for that design to make any sense and the low number of flights even possible for the Ares I meant there were scheduling problems as well. Since the Ares I can't launch a well equipped Orion capsule the only use for it until the Ares V is ready is to ferry people (no meaningful cargo) back and forth to the ISS. Again the low launch frequency means this is really expensive, it would be cheaper to buy assembled Soyuz rockets from Russia and launch them ourselves than it would be to send crews up in Orions via the Ares I.

Re:Article makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

SRB failure? Talking about Challenger? The SRBs vented hot gas and the ET exploded, taking the orbiter with it, but the SRBs kept on flying. They're pretty robust.

Re:Article makes no sense

[khallow]

SRB failure? Talking about Challenger? The SRBs vented hot gas and the ET exploded, taking the orbiter with it, but the SRBs kept on flying. They're pretty robust.

That's a good point. It's certainly not a rupture failure, at least by the time the self destruct was given. But that venting would be enough to cause a "loss of mission" in an Ares I though perhaps not a loss of crew.

Re:Article makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

By reusing the SRBs from the shuttle they were supposed to be able to rely on the safety record of the SRBs and get a new vehicle put into production far faster than a built from scratch new vehicle.

The irony here is that the SRBs aren't that safe. They have a historical failure rate of 1 in 250 or so. Yet the Ares I's SRM is claimed to have a failure rate of something like 1 in 3700. So how do they get that, when their first stage has a demonstrated failure rate more than ten times worse than the rate they claim for it?

Of course, the much of historical failure rate to-date is due to one completely avoidable bad decision to launch made by management at both ATK and the KSC over the objections of one of the engineers at ATK that knew the SRBs the best. If they had listen to the engineer and postponed that launched and inspected it is likely there wouldn't be SRB failures in actual shuttle launches even today (as well as the several NASA astronauts, a grade-school teacher, and the Challenger orbiter would still be around). All this proves is that using the SRBs soon after prolonged exposure to temperatures lower than they were designed to experience causes failure, not that the SRBs are innately unsafe if used within their intended design parameters.

WHAT FUCKING MIDDLE?

[gbutler69]

JUST WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS THE MIDDLE? I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. You are full of shit. All you fucking republicans should be lined up against a wall and shot.

Re:WHAT FUCKING MIDDLE?

[Shakrai]

I'm not a Republican, but since you are trolling allow me to respond in kind:

Good luck with that, you guys don't believe in gun ownership ;)

Re:WHAT FUCKING MIDDLE?

[khallow]

What is the middle? I'd say a compromise. For example, drop universal health care and public insurance. Work on reducing health care costs instead. If for some reason, they really want universal health care, then maybe they can compromise somewhere else, like reversing the car company giveaways to the UAW or suspending "cap and trade" legislation for a decade or two.

Re:WHAT FUCKING MIDDLE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that, you guys don't believe in gun ownership ;)

We don't need to own guns. We have a standing invitation to pry them from your cold dead hands as necessary.

Re:WHAT FUCKING MIDDLE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier said than done when the person who wants to do the prying doesn't have a gun of his own.

Re:WHAT FUCKING MIDDLE?

[raddan]

He might be Libertarian. Plenty of guns to go around there.

Scalia's corpse would burn for days...

[FatSean]

The flame would be visible from space, much like the Luxor's light.

Socialist Military is working great!

[FatSean]

Drug re-importation? Why not have the stones to force the corps to sell us the drugs at a fair price in the first place? You only like socialism once removed?

Re:Socialist Military is working great!

[Shakrai]

I honestly don't know how I feel about the re-importation issue. It just pisses me off to no end that Obama is getting a free pass from the same crowd that would have liked to lynch Bush for his behind-the-scenes deals with industry. The fact that Candidate Obama was for it and President Obama is against it is just icing on the cake.

As far as I'm concerned Obama is just another lying scumbag politician willing to say anything to get elected when he actually knew what he was going to do all along.

Re:Socialist Military is working great!

[MaWeiTao]

If I'm able to freely buy drugs from overseas then these companies will be forced to be more competitive. And the fact is that if people actually bothered to shop around they'd find better prices, even within the US. But the big problem is that Americans are basically subsidizing the rest of the World.

Dumbass!

[gbutler69]

Subject says it all.

DIRECT

[camperdave]

I am glad they are ditching ARES-I. The thing could barely lift the Orion module into orbit, and that's after lopping off all sorts of features (land landing, six person crew, toilet, etc). Then there were the thrust oscillation issues. A solid rocket does not produce a steady thrust. As it burns, chunks of the fuel can come loose and alter the burn characteristics of the engine as a whole. On the Shuttle, there was a flexible beam running through the external tank. The solids were attached to both ends of the flexible beam, and the orbiter was attached to the middle. They had to develop some sort of spring system for ARES-I, which didn't help its already weak lift capabilities.

This makes a lot more sense. Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top. There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years. The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease. In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions. Imagine being able to park one permanently at the ISS, as a lifeboat. The J-130, through the use of a module that mimics the mount points of the shuttle's cargo bay, could lift any payload that the shuttle could lift - including the Canadarm and an airlock for EVAs, something the ARES-I cannot do.

Because it shares so much of the shuttle heritage, the Jupiter system can keep the bulk of the current shuttle workers employed, especially if the current shuttle mission manifest is stretched out, or perhaps a flight or two added. The ARES system would leave a decade-long gap in some areas. Far to long to keep people around "polishing tools".

Re:DIRECT

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Interesting, I have never heard of this system before. Do you know if this system was discussed by the Augustine Commission at all in their recent report by chance?

Re:DIRECT

[Anonymous Coward]

The Augustine Commission did evaluate the DIRECT 3.0 Jupiter rocket, but there were many problems with their analysis. Here are just a few:

1) The had Aerospace Corp only evaluate a single configuration, the Jupiter-241. Thus, the Jupiter-130 was not evaluated for its performance or how long it would take to develop.

2) The DIRECT plan develops the first stage of the Jupiter rocket first, allowing it to be used for LEO much earlier than other options while the Jupiter upper stage is still being developed. This would allow us to use the Jupiter-130 for ISS missions before it splashes down into the ocean, unlike Ares I. Unfortunately, this part of DIRECT, while briefly hinted at in the final report, was never evaluated.

3) DIRECT Jupiter was considered a three-launch system because it couldn't lift as much as two Ares V Lite rockets using two launches. Nevermind the fact that two Jupiter rockets lift more than the Program of Record (Ares V + Ares I). In other words, the Augustine Commission moved the goal posts.

4) Shuttle-Derived launchers (including Jupiter) were considered to be less safe than an Ares V Lite for manned launches. This is almost entirely the result of the additional maneuvers resulting from the extra launch they require. At the same time, the reliability of Shuttle-derived technologies and the extra engines on the Ares V Lite don't seem to have been factored into the safety analysis at all.

Re:DIRECT

[camperdave]

The Augustine panel (or at least, certian members) were aware of it. However, the DIRECT plan was not considered on its own merits, but on ad-hoc mission requirements that bore little resemblance to any missions NASA has plans for. They seemed to ignore the synergies that DIRECT was designed to make use of.

The DIRECT plan revolves around a single rocket, the J-130. Basically, you take the shuttle system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, and the payload on the top. The SRBs are unchanged from the shuttle. The engines (SSMEs) are unchanged from the shuttle. The external tank only requires two changes: first, the pointy end cap is replaced with a blunt end cap, and second there is a manufacturing step that can be skipped. Right now, the walls of the external tank are thinned out to save weight. The centers of the panels are milled down, relative to the edges. This is not necessary, as the J-130 has a lot of margin, and leaving the material there will make the tank that much stronger. (Although prelimiary figures say that it is actually strong enough as is.) The only new pieces that are needed would be the aft thrust structure, the payload fairing, and the avionics ring. The thrust structure and payload fairing are almost trivial. The avionics would be the difficult part, however indications are that it would be ready before the Orion module would be ready. Apparently, there are enough SRBs, external tanks, and shuttle engines already built and in stock to build four or five of these rockets. Because it has so much in common with the shuttle system, both could be made and flown at the same time, preventing a workforce gap.

The J-130 would fill the roll of ferrying cargo and astronauts to the ISS until commercial interests were ready to take over. Aside from that, the spare lift capacity of the J-130 would allow for Hubble service missions, missions to Near Earth Objects, etc. Basically, any payload that a shuttle could lift, a J-130 could lift (not surprising, since they are essentially the same rocket system).

The second phase of the DIRECT plan would be to add an upper stage to the J-130, transforming it into the J-246. The upper stage borrows a lot of the technology from the upper stages used in the current Centaur and Delta lines of rockets. It would use the RL-10 engine, which already has a long history. It is currently not man-rated however, so a significant ammount would have to be spent to bring the engines up to code. (Which apparently would not require much, as these engines are rock solid. They just don't have the sensors on them needed to detect if they are about to fail.) Again, like the J130, the J-246 re-uses a lot of currently functional technology. Develoment costs are kept to a minimum.

The DIRECT plan can do a lot of LEO missions with a J-130, co-existing with an extended shuttle mission manifest to save jobs and eliminate a manned space flight gap. Once the upper stage is developed, the J-130 becomes the J-246, leaving LEO missions to commercial interests. Two J-246 rockets could send 4 people and 80 metric tonnes to the moon (compared to ARES's 4 people and 70 metric tonnes). Either way, it's one rocket system. Parts are interchangeable. They can be launched from the same pad, and you only need one team of expertise.

The Augustine commission report ignored the J-130 altogether (thus trashing any attempt to save jobs through synergy with the current shuttle system). The lunar mission they designed required launching three J-246s, yet the ARES system was fine as is.

Re:DIRECT

[camperdave]

Oh, one more thing. The DIRECT system was not considered on its own. The J-246 was lumped together with a sidemount system (basically replacing the orbiter with a cargo pod). The Augustine report was not the fair, unbiassed look at the options that it was supposed to be.

Re:DIRECT

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Okay so now I am curious, which company or group did the initial design work for DIRECT and when? I poked about their website a bit and found some discussion of talks with The Aerospace Corporation, but I did not see anything as to where the initial design or idea came from. Was this a NASA research project that never took off, or the pet design of a former employee or something? At the very least, it sounds like a very intriguing option for space access and I am curious who, if anyone, is interested in it. Also, who was interested in it enough to design it? There might be a few commercial companies in the next decade or so that could find benefit in buying what is, according to you, a complete design which utilizes existing components, if said components are available for purchase that is.

Re:DIRECT

[camperdave]

It was a NASA design from way back. It was studied after the Challenger accident in 1986. A similar system, called the National Launch System, was investigated as a shuttle replacement in 1991. The DIRECT team is largely a group of NASA engineers working in their spare time. Essentially, it is a grass roots, "open source" rocket project. The figures, and designs, have been worked out on NASA equipment, using NASA protocols. They have also been independently verified by people in the industry.

Re:DIRECT

[DerekLyons]

This makes a lot more sense. Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top. There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.

Paper vehicles are always cheap, simple, and will be delivered on schedule and within budget. Real world vehicles, especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new (like the vehicle you link to) are a rather different kettle of fish.
 

The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease. In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.

Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle, where it's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases... sure. But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real, it will be like any other real launcher, and it's performance will be rather less than the original specs.

Re:DIRECT

[Burdell]

The DIRECT proponents only seem to take into account development costs, not ongoing flight costs. The SSME is one of (if not the most) expensive engine ever built, and DIRECT proposes to use four of them to launch and then let them burn up on re-entry (no re-use). The J-2X is a much cheaper engine, and Ares I only uses one, so the per-flight hardware costs are much lower.

If you build an expensive vehicle, you aren't going to get to fly many of them before the budget is cut.

Re:DIRECT

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You've just insulted every engineer on the planet.

Phobos and Deimos

[TimeElf1]

Are we sure we want to go there? Last thing I need is some demons showing up on my doorstep.

Smart move

[RogueWarrior65]

Probably the only smart decision this man has made. I offer into evidence a line from "From the Earth to the Moon" series. "Pumping that much cash into the private sector could be very popular"...of course, ironically, that's tempered by that douchebag Al Franken who is supposed to be the science adviser but who has less than zero ability to dream.

Re:Smart move

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Franken was portraying JFK's real-life science adviser, Jerome Weisner, who was vehemently opposed to manned spaceflight, going all the way back to Project Mercury.

You may not care for Franken, but the attitude portrayed was accurate.

Re:Smart move

[RogueWarrior65]

Ah...so Franken is a method actor.

LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[tjstork]

Dude, in case you hadn't have noticed, more than 1/2 of the current national debt was from our President Bush and our Republican Party. That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me, when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.

Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting. Here's a hint. If you want to jack up federal spending to support two wars and doubling the defense budget, then taxes have to go up to pay for it. Choke on that with our 500B annual interest payment current administrations have to pay now.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[CrimsonAvenger]

when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.

It must be noted, for completeness, that the Republicans have had control of the government for two years of the last 40.

It should also be noted that the Democrats haven't produced a single balanced budget in the last 40 years.

As to Reagan's budgets, one might remember the Democrat mantra during the Reagan years as regards the Federal Budget - "Mr President, your budget was DOA in Congress".

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[s73v3r]

Except that Republicans controlled Congress for most of Clinton's term, and for all but the tail end of Bush's term.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[hazydave]

Um, that would be over 30 of the last 40. Remember those first five years of the Bush II Presidency, when the Republicans controlled Congress, too. And Bush didn't issue a single veto... the whole machine was just rubber stamping anything the Repubes wanted. That's were about half the deficit came from. The other largely started with Mr. Reagan. Before that, there was a little bit left over from WWII. A tiny drop in the bucket, by today's standards.

Also, Clinton did produce a balanced budget. It took some years of doing to get there, but he did. It was, of course, immediately trashed by the Bush Administration.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Also, Clinton did produce a balanced budget. It took some years of doing to get there, but he did. It was, of course, immediately trashed by the Bush Administration.

Umm, no. National Debt increased every year of Clinton's terms. Yes, I'm aware that popular mythology has the last year (or two) of Clinton's Presidency "balanced", but whatever the budget says about "deficit", if "debt" increases, the budget wasn't really balanced.

Remember those first five years of the Bush II Presidency, when the Republicans controlled Congress, too...That's were about half the deficit came from.

I did indeed forget that the Republicans didn't lose the Senate till 2006. My bad.

That said, the Debt run up in those six years was more like 1/3 of the debt, not half. Though it was (slightly) more than the debt Obama will be running up in his first two years....

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[acoustix]

That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me, when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.

Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting.

You must be forgetting about the GOP Congress in the 90s that had some balanced budgets.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[Anonymous Coward]

And isn't it funny how liberals love to laud the "Clinton surplus" and denigrate the "Bush deficit" when congress (Republican-controlled during most of the Clinton years, Democrat during most of the Bush years) controls spending.

Personally, I think the 9//11 hijackers would have done us all a favor if they'd picked the capitol as a target.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[Martin Blank]

Here are the debts to the penny for 31 Aug of the years where budgets signed by Clinton were in effect (1993 is included for debt increase reference):

1993 - $4,403,247,046,170.58
1994 - $4,691,991,360,873.49
1995 - $4,970,755,679,060.21
1996 - $5,208,303,439,417.93
1997 - $5,404,420,294,885.51
1998 - $5,564,553,479,478.04
1999 - $5,672,386,167,530.41
2000 - $5,677,822,307,077.83
2001 - $5,769,875,781,034.48

All numbers were pulled from Debt to the Penny.

Every year, the debt increased, meaning that borrowing increased every year. The smallest increase was $5.4 billion. It was a very good accomplishment, as the debt decreased dramatically that year, but it still meant that the government spent more than it took in. I have difficulty understanding how it could have been balanced, at least insofar as when it's defined by an entity having more in the coffers at the end of the year than at the beginning. And remember: the government does not have to adhere to normal accounting principles, or else its annual losses would be tremendously higher.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[Anonymous Coward]

Selective memory much?

Republicans have had control of congress for most of the last 20 years.

Also, too bad Clinton had all those surpluses...

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[Coren22]

You mean president Bush and the Democrat congress? Put the blame where it belong, it wasn't the Repubs that passed the spending bills.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not the President, its congress. The President proposes a budget. Congress writes a budget and the President can either sign, veto, or let pass by inaction said budget. All the pork and other bs that makes its way into the budget is the fault of congress. Thats why Presidents have asked for a line item veto, so they can axe some of the bs riders that make their way into spending bills.

Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.

[tjstork]

You mean president Bush and the Democrat congress? Put the blame where it belong, it wasn't the Repubs that passed the spending bills.

WHERE WAS THE VETO?

BOOOOO!!!!!!

[Necron69]

D*mn it. The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way. We don't even NEED another HLV. This is nothing but a government jobs program for the big NASA districts.

Necron69

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[Sir_Lewk]

1) Competition in the private rocketry sector is a good thing, for all of the reasons capitalism at all is a good thing.
2) It would not terribly suprize me if part of this new budget went towards new contracts with SpaceX for a new HLV. They already have numerous contracts with them, hardly "getting in the way".
3) You can't get shit done in space without a HLV.

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[camperdave]

The plan WAS for NASA to get out of the way. They were supposed to use Orion to provide access to the ISS only until the commercial folks like Space-X were ready to take over. Now it's looking like Space-X will be ready before Orion.

Oh, and we DO need a HLV if we ever want to get to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, even if it is just probes.

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[khallow]

3) You can't get shit done in space without a HLV.

If you have access to 20-25 ton payload rockets, then you can 1) build the ISS, 2) deploy any unmanned mission of the past 50 years, 3) build and maintain a propellant depot, 4) do lunar missions, and 5) fly missions to near Earth asteroids. A manned Mars mission may be possible, depends if you can assemble the large heat shield (assuming here that aerobraking is part of how you get into Mars orbit) in space or compose it out of inflatable materials (a 10 meter wide rigid heat shield won't fit on a Delta IV heavy). Nothing aside from a heatshield needs an HLV.

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[Abcd1234]

D*mn it. The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way.

Umm, out of the way of what, exactly? Or are you aware of some as-yet-unannounced private sector effort to build a heavy lift rocket?

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[Sir_Lewk]

By "get shit done" I of course mean "make progress", not "maintain the status quo".

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[khallow]

By "get shit done" I of course mean "make progress", not "maintain the status quo".

Then you shouldn't be supporting an HLV. Medium lift gives you the capability and some money left over for doing things other than maintain the status quo.

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[Necron69]

There is nothing that can be done with an HLV that can't be done cheaper with multiple smaller (and already/soon existing) rockets. On orbit assembly and refueling are the technologies we should be developing expertise in.

On a brighter note, I've read some more analysis today that says this announcement may in fact be the stake through the heart of the boondoggle that is Ares-1. Hopefully, by the time this hypothetical HLV is designed, the commercial sector will have proven that it isn't even needed.

Necron69

Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!

[Abcd1234]

There is nothing that can be done with an HLV that can't be done cheaper with multiple smaller (and already/soon existing) rockets.

Bullshit. We have neither the technology nor the orbital facilities to perform the kind of space-based assembly that would be required if you did away with heavy-lift rockets. And that's ignoring the fact that you need that kind of thrust for interplanetary missions (good like shipping on Cassini on anything but a heavy lift vehicle).

J2-X?

[aapold]

Is this new one going to use the same J2-X engine? Only two years ago NASA awarded a $1.2 billion contract to P&W to develop this engine. It performed fine in all tests so far, and was scheduled for another test in 2010...

Simpler?

[rickb928]

Really? NASA was adding unnecessary complexity to Ares?

This is pretty well hosed-up. They (Congress, Obama, and the commision) think starting over is faster than rinishing Ares?

Mind you, I don't think Ares is so great, but if we aren't going to just build Saturn Vs, we might as well finish the Ares.

Unless you're looking to make more jobs and spend more money, in which this idea might be perfect. But it isn't about getting heavy lift capacity online as soon as practical.

Re:Simpler?

[jo_ham]

It's about getting it right.

The Shuttle worked ok, but it was less than ideal for the task, cost far more than it should have and has never lived up to the design goal (although it was clearly very successful).

Re:Simpler?

[jo_ham]

Incidentally, that sig article is hilarious. Was it written for SNL?

Re:Simpler?

[khallow]

Keep in mind that there are two rockets much further along than Ares I, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. And they're built by people who have experiment designing, building, and flying expendable launch vehicles. If we're going to do things that we "might as well do", then we might as well drop Ares I for these two vehicles.

Re:Simpler?

[rickb928]

It was written to annoy the whackos, and amuse most of the rest of us.

It's not useful to argue that your flavor of Kool-Aid is better.

Re:Simpler?

[TheSync]

The Shuttle worked ok, but it was less than ideal for the task, cost far more than it should have and has never lived up to the design goal (although it was clearly very successful).

One of the problems is that the Shuttle was designed for both military and civilian operations. This lead to significant design compromises in terms of complexity and lower re-usability.

Re:Simpler?

[Taevin]

So you're a "wacko" if you disagree with the poor "science" presented in that article? The author says:

Let's start with CO2. Activists tell us that man-caused CO2 is creating global warming. However, only 3 percent of CO2 comes from people. The rest comes from oceans, animals and Ryan Seacrest.

OK, true enough. However, the conclusion (it's only 3%, obviously that's not enough to do anything) is not only wrong, it has no scientific basis. Since when is it scientific to just say "oh that's a small number, can't be significant?" Seems to me a good starting point for "significant" would be "exceeds the ability of the ecosystem to absorb the increased emissions."

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.
-- http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

Feel free to dance around your Kool-Aid jug if it makes you feel better.

Re:Simpler?

[calidoscope]

As if ATK hasn't had any experience building components for ELV's. For example, there are the SRM's for the original Delta (Thrust Augmented Thor), Titan IV's and Pegasus - not to mention ballistic missile programs such as the Trident.

-1: Strawman

[G-Man]

A lot of folks were uncomfortable with the deficit spending under Bush. Even leaving that aside, and leaving aside the bank bailouts, stimulus, and auto maker bailouts of the past year, the Obama budget deficits will be significantly greater than the largest Bush deficits:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Note how *none* of Obama's deficits will be less than Bush's deficit of '08, by the White House's own admission, and how the Congressional Budget Office thinks their numbers are too optimistic.

Re:-1: Strawman

[Chris Burke]

A lot of folks were uncomfortable with the deficit spending under Bush.

Indeed, including those who generally supported Bush, and I'm not comfortable with this deficit spending either even though I generally support Obama.

However I am comfortable with NASA's meager contribution to that deficit, would very much like for Congress to increase their budget, and am pleased that a Presidential change in NASA's direction might actually come with the funds to accomplish it (my complaint against Bush's "Mars, Bitches!" initiative).

Re:-1: Strawman

[blair1q]

We're paying for what Bush wrought. Learn something about cost accounting before you apportion blame.

Re:-1: Strawman

[G-Man]

Yes, I should clarify that NASA plays little to no role in our deficit/debt. The 'chumpchange' tag on the story could apply to the entire NASA budget.

Re:-1: Strawman

[Chris Burke]

Would this "cost accounting" thing tell me that I can't apportion blame however I wish?

Because if so, I'm not sure I want to learn it.

Re:-1: Strawman

[khallow]

So what do Bush have to do with the budgets in the year 2010 and later? Is he still deciding how much to spend on things even though he's out of office? You might not know this, but a bunch of obnoxious Republican pundits predicted that the standard excuse for the next four years will be "It's Bush's fault". Looks like they're right.

Re:-1: Strawman

[Conanymous Award]

As a side note: banks are already paying back nice chunks of TARP money, and the gummint might actually get back more than they originally gave them.

Re:-1: Strawman

[Dripdry]

I'm willing to bet that deficit under Bush doesn't count the war. Also, we're looking ahead, here, so it's not entirely fair. If that deficit is made up with increases in taxes or or cuts, it may not be a deficit.

Aren't statistics fun?

Re:-1: Strawman

[Ykant]

Why should things be any different? As I recall it, the standard excuse for the last 8 years was, "It's Clinton's fault."

Re:-1: Strawman

[khallow]

Why should things be any different? As I recall it, the standard excuse for the last 8 years was, "It's Clinton's fault."

Heh. Yes, I guess there's tradition to uphold.

Re:-1: Strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do Bush have to do with the budgets in the year 2010 and later?

The problems he caused didn't go away when he left office. So, he has a lot to do with budgets for the foreseeable future.

Re:-1: Strawman

[khallow]

I see the number one problem being he got Obama elected. Past that, I think it's silly to blame Bush for the crazy antics since Obama came in.

Great news!

[modi123]

I have always wanted to work for NASA and the space sector. This gives me renewed hope to start looking into it again! I just gotta keep my conversions between standard US measurements and the evil Metric system right!

ARIES I is bedder then

[angelwolf71885]

NASA is on the right track with ARIES I rather then the retarded Jupiter ideas or the moronic delta lift crap i hope congress vets this crap and DEMANDS the ARIES

Re:ARIES I is bedder then

[khallow]

That's pretty insulting to Ares supporters.

Chill

[HeckRuler]

You specifically, and people like you, need to calm down, take a breath, and then criticize. When you rant like this it only degrades your argument and the only people that will agree with you already share your sentiment. And your criticizm needs more meat. For example, rather then $1.1 trillion on a whim, you could explain what you're talking about. Or maybe provide a link.

Personally, I like the guy. He's not the second coming of Jesus, but he and his ideas aren't nearly as bad as some people portray. I could argue against you, but I just don't see the point if you're just going to blindly spew rage.

-1: Context

[eepok]

Deficit spending in and of itself is not bad. I'm sure most of use will do it at one time or another to buy a car or a house. The crux of any issue regarding deficit spending is whether or not the expenditure will show expected returns. And I'm not talking about dollar-per-dollar returns.

Is spending money on science, discovery, and development worth the expenditure worth it? I'd say yes.
Is universal healthcare worth it? I'd say yes.
Is protecting ourselves from people who want to harm us worth it? I'd say yes.

Now, consider the balance of cost-per-return for each of those and the viability of each implementation of each endeavor. Which is most likely to actually succeed?

Re:-1: Context

[gangien]

The point of me taking a car loan, is it's something in small payments i can pay off easy, while in one large chunk, becomes quite a bit harder, so I take a loan to pay for somethign i need, and in return i give the bank more money over the course of the loan, than i paid for it. Thus we're all happy. Now our deficit is huge. We can't even afford to pay the interest. And the worst part is, so much of our deficit is not for stuff we need.Our deficit spending is for bailouts and health care. It's not investing on stuff that will generate more money. The US economy is a house of cards and it's going to collapse in the not to distant future. Of course, how it actually collapses remains to be seen, it could just mean the dollar loses half it's purchasing power (hello 8 dollars for a gallon of gas) Or it could mean good bye dollar all together (Hello Zimbabwe). and another problem is, our economy is not robust as it has been during past depressions. We are in a huge pile of crap, and having huge deficits is a big part of the problem.

Re:-1: Context

[eepok]

Ok, I understand your prediction for the future if we continue on our current path... but do you have an idea or philosophy that would fix the problem? Moreover, are you saying that spending anything into a deficit is bad?

I hate the health care lobbyists too...

[FatSean]

...but so far lobbying is legal. We need to change the law first before anyone gets thrown out.

Re:I hate the health care lobbyists too...

[decoy256]

And how in the world do you think that law is going to get passed?!?! Do you even know who makes the laws? It's the very sycophants we want out! They aren't going to do anything that weakens their power. We can't wait for them to allow us to do it, we just need to do it. Throw him out in the street and hold a new election.

Oh no you didn't!

[FatSean]

The Republicans constantly said that they would vote for the bill if X was done. X was done, they didn't vote. I see you are trying to change the subject here.

Fiscal Responsibility

[decoy256]

Mr. President, with the United States and the world facing the largest "recession" since the Great Depression, the Dollar continuing to plummet, and an out of control national debt, what are you doing to tighten America's belt to get through this tough period?

POTUS: We're gonna send men to Mars and a couple of asteroids! Plus, we're gonna see if there's anything new on the Moon since we last went up there.

But, um, we already don't have enough money to bail out failing companies, conduct an unnecessary war in Iraq, and all the other projects that costing billions and are working to erode the value of the dollar. Why would you commit us to more non-vital spending?

POTUS: BLAAAAAHHH!!!! It's MARS, man! MAAAAAARRRRRRRSSSSS! Once we find little green men, all of our money problems will be OVER!

That's very... Nikita Khrushchev of you.

Re:Fiscal Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, even Jesus fucking Christ recognizes you're a fucking imbecile. One billion dollars is fucking pocket change. If you gave a fuck about Fiscal Responsibility, you stupid fucking hick, you'd be against both wars and almost all of military pork spending. Fuck your anti-progress/science attitude you uneducated shit-for-brains monkey.

Re:Fiscal Responsibility

[rally2xs]

This is exactly right on. In all acutality, we can't afford NASA at all, and should quit thinking of going into space for pure research. Wx sattelites can be handled by private industry, or not. GPS is the military's baliwick. Communications - private industry.

The hard, cruel fact is that we DON'T have the money and are NOT GOING to have the money, ever again. The country is in decline, as it has been for the last 50 years or so when textiles moved largely overseas, followed by consumer electronics, then big parts of our steel and auto industries, and now intellectual industries such as software.

Eventually it is _all_ going to be overseas save the (generally poor paying) service industry jobs, including the famously poor paying retail jobs with sucky hours to boot. The country is going to be left with the only prosperity coming after 6 years or so in college and a masters degree. Can't benefit from college, or can't afford it? Tough - poverty-level salary for you.

And you can't tax someone with a poverty-level income, so the country isn't going to be able to afford these luxuries, such as NASA, either. Face it, the US's time as the dominant economic and political force is over. Barring a radical restructuring of, say, the tax system which has been the engine of our jobs offshoring all these years, an economic train wreck is virtually certain - unless we see it coming and voluntarily give up these obviously unaffordable things, such as space research. We'll be lucky to have enough resources to defend ourselves successfully, actually.

Re:Fiscal Responsibility

[decoy256]

Yeah, I wish there was a guideline for what government should and should not be doing. Maybe we could write it down and stick strictly to the things laid out in writing. Let's just hope some power hungry jerk-offs don't come along and try to "loosely interpret" (i.e. ignore) our list, 'cause that would defeat the whole idea.

lesser of 2 evils

[recharged95]

unfortunately it will require deficit spending, but Moon-shot programs will create good, profitable jobs, and promote higher education standards. And that's compared to healthcare [of people who did take care of themselves in the 1st place] which likely promotes education at the lowest common denominator due to the corporations/gov'ts thrist for easy money.

TFA is wrong, it won't be Ares V

[Gary W. Longsine]

Go look at the materials from the Augustine Commission. It makes not sense, and it wasn't a presented option to the Obama administration, to build Ares V if the Ares I is getting cancelled (they both use the same 5-segment SRB). What's gonna get built might be *called* the Ares V, to keep the taxpayers confused, but it will be much smaller, with much less lift capability.

Re:TFA is wrong, it won't be Ares V

[flitty]

um... most of the money spend on Ares I already has gone a long way to get Ares V ready. The 5 Segment SRB has already been tested, twice, and is only a modified 4 seg that's been flying for years. What moron would take all of that 30+ years of engineering data and information and then go to a private company who has only tested a few rockets, none of which are ready for manned flight up to the safety standards that are required?

The plan makes no sense

[Gary W. Longsine]

Exactly. But that's the plan. They are pretending like this is a good idea. It pretty much sucks all the way around. It locks the US into an architecture where per-flight costs for people in orbit are much higher than Ares I. It reduces per-flight lift capacity substantially, which will lead to much larger numbers of flights required to do anything interesting, such a a flight to Mars. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except for the high per-flight cost. This plan is a desperate attempt to solve a short term budget problem, by locking us into long term budget constraints. It's worse than doing nothing (e.g. worse than canceling manned spaceflight) because we won't be able to fix the architecture for another 25 years. It's really, really bad news for manned spaceflight.

get zfacts

[Gary W. Longsine]

You are fact-impaired. Start your education, here: US National Debt Graph

You are delusional.

[Gary W. Longsine]

"Bush signed off on the initial Constellation Plan. Bush made space exploration a pro-Republican issue. I don't know McCain's specific position, but the Republican Party line would have been in favor of the $3 Billion plan that the Augustine Commission recommended would be necessary to push human exploration of space ahead at the levels Bush was targeting."

The only part of what you said that bears resemblance to reality was "I don't know". Bush provided to NASA what's known as an un-funded mandate, which led NASA to decide to shut down the ISS immediately after its construction was completed. McCain and Obama, like Bush, don't have much understanding of, nor interest in, spaceflight, as far as can be told from examining their public statements and actions.

Re:You are delusional.

[Waste55]

I dunno, McCain hasn't been very supportive this year or in the past. He voted no on restoring the already cut funding, and has listed 2 NASA projects that were given a boost from stimulus money as pork projects. This included non HSF projects.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00340
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=41c9dff7-2318-4777-ab6a-73a0841cefe0

Will Obama be any better? I don't have my hopes up since when he was campaigning he had on his website delaying CxP for funding education. Only time will tell I suppose.

WTF?

[NeutronCowboy]

Since when is the middle the halfway distance between a complete nutjob and someone who is less of a nutjob? Since when does solving a problem mean taking everybody's opinion, then cutting the differences in half?

Finally, if you think that Republicans in Congress would ever, ever cave in on universal health care, you're thoroughly mistaken. It'd be like Palin suddenly supporting 3rd-trimester abortions. They can't, they don't want to, and enough people oppose those ideas to make that sort of position switch political suicide.

Re:WTF?

[khallow]

Since when is the middle the halfway distance between a complete nutjob and someone who is less of a nutjob? Since when does solving a problem mean taking everybody's opinion, then cutting the differences in half?

Since when has it been otherwise?

Finally, if you think that Republicans in Congress would ever, ever cave in on universal health care, you're thoroughly mistaken. It'd be like Palin suddenly supporting 3rd-trimester abortions. They can't, they don't want to, and enough people oppose those ideas to make that sort of position switch political suicide.

Guess you don't understand what's going on then. Democrats don't need everybody. They just need enough Republican defectors to block filibusters and the like. They can't even get enough support from their own side. What sort of problems do they have when they can't even make deals with fellow Democrat senators?

Re:WTF?

[Taevin]

Since when is the middle the halfway distance between a complete nutjob and someone who is less of a nutjob? Since when does solving a problem mean taking everybody's opinion, then cutting the differences in half?

Since when has it been otherwise?

Argument to moderation (logical fallacy)

They can't even get enough support from their own side. What sort of problems do they have when they can't even make deals with fellow Democrat senators?

Corruption? Greed? The more "moderate" the Democrat, the more easily they will be swayed by other "moderate" views backed up by "moderate" contributions.

A "moderate" [party] member is pretty much by definition someone that mostly agrees with the party, but not on everything. And yet you're trying to claim that Democrats are 100% in unison in general (which is pretty ridiculous, given their history of being rather fractured) but this one issue is just so extreme that they can't even get Democrats to support it.

If you were someone with Republican interests, and had the opportunity to buy a Republican or a Democrat sitting on the fence, which would you buy? Buy the Republican and maybe you get party unity and can say "look, all of the Republicans oppose this, it must be bad." Buy the Democrat on the other hand, and now you can say "look, the Democrats can't even get their own party members to support it, it must be really bad." To uninformed and unthinking viewers of the debate, that sounds right to their gut, so now you've won more mindshare than you otherwise might have. In other words, you get more bang for your buck by buying out your opposition.

Re:WTF?

[khallow]

Since when is the middle the halfway distance between a complete nutjob and someone who is less of a nutjob? Since when does solving a problem mean taking everybody's opinion, then cutting the differences in half?

Since when has it been otherwise?

Argument to moderation (logical fallacy)

That fallacy is incorrectly applied. I'm not arguing the correctness of compromise, but what it is here.

A "moderate" [party] member is pretty much by definition someone that mostly agrees with the party, but not on everything. And yet you're trying to claim that Democrats are 100% in unison in general (which is pretty ridiculous, given their history of being rather fractured) but this one issue is just so extreme that they can't even get Democrats to support it.

That's pretty much accurate except for the claim that it is ridiculous. Democrats have a lot of defection issues, but I see that as a result of the sheer lunacy of the goals rather than "greed".

If you were someone with Democrat interests, why can't you buy some Republicans and the errant Democrats? The Republicans aren't the only ones who know how to play the game. My view is that they can't get the support because the errant senators will lose their seat, if they helped you.

It's not even 0.5% of the military budget...

[jr76]

Yeah, FINALLY spending more money on something that can contribute to humanity, not war. Has anyone ever done the calculations if the US had spent even 1% of their military budget on NASA? We'd have bases on Titan by now.

Re:It's not even 0.5% of the military budget...

[mnewcomb]

Military Budget = 675-ish billion
NASA Budget = 18-ish billion

1% of Military Budget would be 6.75 billion.

So, we are spending 3% of the military budget on NASA.

Phobos Mission

[frank249]

FTFA: the White House is more intrigued by missions to asteroids and Phobos and Deimos as a precursor to a human landing on the Red Planet in the distant future.

This is great news. A mission to Phobos would make a lot of sense. It has a lower delta V than a moon or Mars landing. It is estimated to require half the propellant and hardware weight compared to a mission to the surface, half the mission cost, and significantly lower risk due to the fact that no surface manned lander is required. More importantly, it has less than half the engineering and development cost (and time). The other big plus is that there is no rotation so the mission would be protected from radiation by Phobos on one side and Mars on the other. The only question is whether the Russians will beat the US and get a manned mission there first. They have been looking at going to Phobos for a while now. They have an unmanned mission going there and returning with samples scheduled for 2011.

Re:Phobos Mission

[camperdave]

It's also politically unviable. You won't be able to convince people that you can go a hundred million km to Phobos, and not go the extra ten thousand km to get to Mars itself. That would be like packing up the family, crossing the Atlantic, travelling all the way to Pisa Italy, and then NOT going to see the Leaning Tower. Unless it is a precursor to an actual Mars landing (ie, using Phobos as a staging area) folks won't buy it.

STILL No replacement repair vehicle planned?

[jr76]

Hello, I do know most people seem to forget about this, but one thing the ARES/Orion programs make no plans for is to have REPAIR abilities available for space. While the Shuttle was far from perfect, it has been the best space repair vehicle created, and when it is retired, there will be nothing else out there to fix extraordinarily expensive satellites. I know people talk about "saving money", but do you know how expensive it would be to have launched four replacement Hubble Telescopes? Or, countless other devices they've spent days and months repairing in space? Someone SERIOUSLY has to make this an issue for NASA...

Re:STILL No replacement repair vehicle planned?

[ColdWetDog]

Actually, the only thing that the shuttle can uniquely do in this arena is to take the errant satellite back to earth. Something that has been done infrequently. It has been kludged up to be a pretty good repair box with the arm and all of the space in the bay, but it by no means impossible to create a module that can be orbited separately from the crew capsule that could do the same thing.

Hopefully, they'll do something like that because, as I keep harping, we need routine repair capabilities in space because Murphy Law isn't limited to planetary surfaces.

Re:STILL No replacement repair vehicle planned?

[camperdave]

DIRECT has a plan for a Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module, a frame that fits inside the payload fairing of a Jupiter rocket, and provides all the mount points found inside the Shuttle's payload bay. It can have airlock, the Canadarm, the whole nine. About the only thing it can't do is provide a way to bring cargo back to the planet.

spending != deficit spending

[Sloppy]

[Are] .. science, discovery, and development .. universal healthcare .. protecting ourselves from people who want to harm us.. worth it?

If the people think spending money on those things is worth it, then they can agree to higher taxes. Deficit spending is not required. Especially with the first two items, you can plan it and budget for it. Maybe the third one can have a temporary deficit (e.g. Japs hit Pearl Harbor and you wanna get the war machine running right now instead of after Congress' next budget), but even that deficit can be undone in the next budget.

If it's worth it, then you pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, then that undermines your statement that you think it's worth it.

Re:spending != deficit spending

[eepok]

Completely with you. Which is why the next step should be saying, "OK guys, while we're rebalancing our priorities, we've also gotta tell you something. You pay for all the stuff you want now or you pay more for it later. I think we should pay less and pay now. Taxes are going up for a bit. And we're making sure everyone is actually paying their fair share. Hollywood, we're looking at you!"

Re:spending != deficit spending

[Jammer6502]

That's a little naive don't you think? I agree this is mostly politics but during a recession there are programs that would cause extreme amounts of chaos if they are cut or would cause more of a setback than is responsible. Here's a couple; say that during a recession we cut NASA down to nothing, saying we can't afford "science, discovery, and development" right now but soon as the economy improves they are back in business. The amount of time it would take to get them ramped back to a productive level would be more expensive than just borrowing during the downtime. So it is fiscally responsible to use deficit spending for that because its cheaper than the alternative. Or how about health care, if every time we hit a recession we let people get sick and die how would that help our workforce work out of the recession? So it would make sense to borrow money for that as well. The flip side to this is that when things improve we don't instantly cut taxes because the government is pulling in more taxes than it uses. When Clinton left office there was a surplus and Bush's first action was to cut taxes, it happens over and over again, when things are good we want low taxes but when things are bad we need the governments help to get through it. We have to break out of that mindset.

Re:spending != deficit spending

[Sloppy]

say that during a recession we cut NASA down to nothing, saying we can't afford "science, discovery, and development" right now but soon as the economy improves they are back in business. The amount of time it would take to get them ramped back to a productive level would be more expensive than just borrowing during the downtime.

That sounds like an argument for keeping the taxes in place and not cutting NASA, recession be damned. Or if we can't afford NASA today, then that's a pretty good argument that it's a luxury that we can cut permanently.

Not to mention that if we stop wasting our economic output on interest, we get growth instead of recessions. Debt is destruction.

when things are good we want low taxes but when things are bad we need the governments help to get through it. We have to break out of that mindset.

I couldn't agree more! Break out that mindset by realizing that when things are bad, the government can't help us get through it. It lacks the capacity, just as it always has. It can fool us into thinking it's helping, but at a greater cost than what it pays.

I almost wish we didn't have money, and then it would be easier for everyone to see. Congress would say, "We are having a low wheat harvest, so we're handing out bushels of wheat to everyone," and people would realize that they're either lying about the low wheat harvest (where did they get the bushels they're handing out?) or lying about giving them out (you're not really going to get your free wheat, because there isn't any), or they're borrowing them from a neighboring country with interest, and therefore long term we are going to have less wheat (and starve even worse) than if the government had done nothing. One thing people know, though, is that the government does not create wheat.

Call it dollars, though, and people suddenly think it's credible.

No problem. We'll just put it on the credit card.

[section321a]

While I love the idea of space exploration, sooner or later our stupid government will either: a) Figure out we're broke, or b) Have their credit card declined. That day is coming. I know people have heard for years and years that the national debt is a problem and we've been able to keep going, but unsustainable trends won't. As a nation, we have incurred massive amounts of debts (public and private) with very little to show for it. The debt did not go toward investment in future growth, it was consumed. We can't afford to spend what we spend on space now.

Figures...

[amn108]

Well, since the current Copenhagen climate negotiations aren't progressing well for us all, we might as well part this rock. Of course, as they say, when you immigrate your problems immigrate with you..

anyone interested in the actual program?

[roc97007]

Sorry to interrupt the political sniping. It's interesting to me that TFA says "The new program would jettison Ares 1". Does this mean Jupiter could be considered, or is this a hard reset going back to square one? TFA is unclear.

Re:No problem. We'll just put it on the credit car

[mnewcomb]

Part of the problem is that people think we actually can *get* credit from someone. See, there has been a successful campaign to paint China as our creditor. You need to check out the Federal Reserve. They are the ones that create those things called Federal Reserve Notes... That's right, they *create* them with the push of a button. Guess who is buying our debt right now so that we can continue to spend freely? That's right, the Federal Reserve. Where do they get all that money you ask? They create it from thin air. When you or I create money (counterfeiting) we go to jail, when the Federal Reserve does it, it is called saving the economy.

Why do we need a new design?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did we lose the plans for the Saturn V?

The media is hard to handle...

[Xenographic]

> the problem was she couldn't handle the media and was eaten alive.

Yeah, the media was REALLY tricky when pressing her for answers on all those nasty questions like,"What magazines do you read?" What kind of jerk wouldn't take, "All of them," as an answer? I'm sure that if she were president right now, we'd be having news stories like this one, discussing the depth of her thinking.

Running a country isn't all that hard, after all. Everyone knows that all you have to do is hire a bunch of people who agree with your politics and let them work everything out.

-1: Shifting the Blame

[Noren]

Leaving aside the bank bailouts? That does seem rather convenient, as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed into law by Bush, with most of the money to be spent by the budgets of his successors. It is absurd to place the blame for this legislation on Obama.

Hideous Thread Jacking

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I am not one to typically decry Slashdot antics in general, but I have to say that I am, frankly, appalled at what has come to pass in this thread. This news release, available on very few space news outlets currently, is in regards to the future of a government funded piece of space hardware that Slashdotters have been both decrying and joyously praising since I first started posting on this website more than a year ago. We have discussed every major development of the Ares line of launch vehicles since its inception. We have argued, passionately at times, about how stupid or how great NASA and Congress both are for deciding upon this launch system in the first place. We have followed almost every single news update regarding the Augustine Commission since it was first assigned its task. It seems, to me, that we had quite a bit of interest and excitement for news regarding this particular topic as an online community.

Nonetheless, in the short time since this story has been posted, the number of comments modded up that were completely and 100% offtopic is absolutely atrocious. This story was, by far, the most interesting headline I saw on slashdot today. Rather than getting an interesting look into a group of Nerd's thoughts and ideas regarding this new development, I have watched this thread turn into an absolutely childish monstrosity of political bullshitting regarding everything from healtcare to the fiscal habits of Republicrats and blah blah blah blah blah. If I wanted to know about all that crap I would have turned on CSPAN.

For shame slashdotters. For. Fucking. Shame.

More Tiny Steps

[DynaSoar]

“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House,....

Then we can rule out any significant breakthrough or giant step change, such as a million + pound payload, two stage/two motor with extremely simplified internals, with initial cost per pound to LEO about 25% (at best, possibly as little as 10% of this estimate; 2.5% that of Ares-H) of that of the best optimistic estimate that the Ares heavy would approach after 12 launches. Some of the technical details that were far less complex and more reliable than any in use or planned were panned a 'not interesting' and used as cause to dismiss the design, although some of those same details made it into later designs that flew.

The design was done for Aerojet in 1962 by Robert Truax http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm The revolutionary sea launch aspect was the one portion actually tested in an earlier model. The simplicity of the design would make it possible to take from paper to LEO in 5 years. This is just one such design that could be retrieved from history where it was buried in favor of corporate welfare. This is one of the few actually done by a documented and well respected pioneer of rocketry http://neverworld.net/truax/ .

No gasps, no Salvage 1.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

On Noes...

The past and current administration seems to fail at health care, economics, military/wars and over all worldly policies. I know, lets give NASA funds and start a new race on space..

Shifting publics focus in 3..2..1..

Accounting principals

[tjstork]

And remember: the government does not have to adhere to normal accounting principles, or else its annual losses would be tremendously higher.

The issue isn't that the accounting principals used by that the government are that horrible, in particular, the way all social security debt is valued as an expense today. It's really that FASB rules have gotten to be absolutely absurdly conservative for firms. Yes, there were Enrons out there to guard against, but, the way inventories are valued today, and expenses are handled, is really a giant joke and actually makes companies worse than they really are, and that actually did help provoke the banking crisis.
 

Re:Accounting principals

[Martin Blank]

The accounting used by the Federal budget does not take into account future costs and revenues. Right now, a company can lose billions of dollars in a year but have their bank accounts increase in size if their future revenues will be outstripped by costs. The federal budget uses a much simpler system: how much will be left (or lost) at the end of the budget year? It doesn't care that a new program will result in tens of billions more spending over the next few years, only that this year, it costs a billion dollars. Next year's budget will deal with the higher costs.

All of those Republicans got the boot.

[tjstork]

You must be forgetting about the GOP Congress in the 90s that had some balanced budgets.

Yes, and what did the GOP do with its libertarian plank? The social conservatives gave them the boot. Bob Dole, got the boot. God forbid, he raised the social security withholding tax to balance the trust fund. We had Dick Armey, got the boot. We had Trent Lott, got the boot. We had Newt Gingrich, got the boot. John McCain, got the boos. John Kasich, got the boot. George Voinovich, abandoned by the party.

All of our so-called RINO Republicans were the ones that balanced the budget. The social conservative crop we have out there now is the ones that gave us the fiscal catastrophe we have.