Slashdot Mirror
NASA Readies Discovery Shuttle For Final Flight
gabbo529 writes "After 38 trips, 352 days in orbit and more than 5,600 trips around the Earth, the space shuttle Discovery is preparing for its final launch. Since its creation, it has flown to orbit more than any other craft. It has set a number of precedents including first craft to feature a female shuttle pilot and female shuttle commander (Eileen Collins), the first African American spacewalker (Bernard Harris) and the first sitting member of congress to fly in space (Jake Garn). In its final foray into space, the Discovery will set another precedent when it flies the first humanoid robot to fly in space, Robonaut2."
I would give it a good home!
Orion is cancelled, because it is thought competition between private companies will be better in the long term than huge monolithic government-run organisations. Sure, but err, what has that yielded so far? Are Lockheed-Martin ready to go to the Moon yet?
I don't think that GM has been in space since the moon rover! I was supposed to go see the launch, but it looks like I'll have to wait for the April one.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Launch... :'(
Park one or more of these puppies in orbit, next to the ISS. No, it isn't useful *now*. But it may be in 10/15 yrs. No, the internal systems will not last. Batteries will die quickly, etc. Here are 3 large pressure capsules, all ready for future use.
But once these are on the ground, that's it. They will never rise again. We needed to think of this a decade ago, it's far too late now.
Goddammit....these vehicles would be perfect for future orbital ops.
>>> when it flies the first humanoid robot to fly in space
This is the moment they've been quietly planning and waiting for. I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
what is the blue book value on a space shuttle with only 140 million miles on it?
First "first shuttle pilot" and "first female shuttle commander"? How is that any more different or special then "first female pilot" or "first female commander" both achieved by the Soviets in 1963? First African American is historic for America but not for other countries that came to their senses long before us. Putting a politician in space? People have been dreaming of that _long_ before rockets were even invented.
NASA is making the unpopular but correct call of killing this "ancient" (compare 20+ years of flights to Apollo) program and moving on. NASA's job isn't making social statements... it's to broaden our technical and scientific understanding. They've exhausted the shuttle platform and they're moving on.
While I agree that austerity measures make sense, let's be honest about the numbers. NASA is such a tiny percentage of the budget that canceling their program isn't a realistic way to save money or pay down our debts.
Realistically, the mandatory budget and the defense budget are what will have to be (painfully) trimmed down if we want to stabilize the deficit.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
As many others have pointed out... you can't "park" it in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Station keeping would cost too much. You could park in a Lagrangian Point but the question is why? At this point there's nothing sexy or special about the shuttle. It's a 20+ y/o technology that served it's purpose but is now outdated and expensive. We need to free the funds up for other programs.
And doing so will not "kill" space exploration. There are several commercial companies actively involved in putting objects in LEO and they are there b/c they are cheaper and arguably more reliable than the shuttle. These same companies can deliver supplies to the ISS and will soon be able to deliver people. If we need to do heavy lifting into LEO we have the Delta and Russian heavy lift platforms to fall back on. Which is exactly what we need for deep space exploration.
This is no different than all the explorers we've named our space probes after. They broadened our horizons and then moved on. Let commerce take over the "easy" stuff and let NSA, ESA, etc. go after "the stars".
You know who also rebuilds engines? Engine shops for Professional race car drivers. At least at the top end. I'm sure there are start and park teams that don't bother so much, but if you want to be on top of things, you're willing to take apart your engines, check everything out and then put them back together. I think some of the leagues even have rules limiting how often that can be done in order to level the costs. Heaven knows they put enough other restrictions on building the engines.
Sure, those engines run for a lot longer, but you could make an intensity argument too.
I know it's more a Tomcat tagline, but still.
Or, dare I say it, raise taxes on those most able to pay higher taxes.
Gee, that would solve a whole bunch of problems, wouldn't it?
Robonaut1 was cut from the program after an embarrassing incident involving a long drive to Florida and an astronaut diaper.
That is a sad list of firsts. First congressman to fly in a space shuttle? Sheesh. People are too concerned with celebrity. There are probably plenty of scientific engineering firsts that should be applauded rather than "First [color|race|profession] to do X."
Killing NASA will have essentially ZERO impact on the spiraling US national debt.
Unless the government is prepared to do what no politician is willing to do and to cut from the huge amount spent on the massive military and security machine maintained by the US, the US will never be able to get out of the sinkhole they are in.
If the USA is broke, then might I suggest a few areas to cut? How about farm subsidies. You are paying a bunch of foreigners to take your food, that's just dumb. And if you could get over the idea of being in charge of everything then maybe you could have a UN army do all the global cop stuff. It would mean no more american sons and daughters getting sent off to third world battlefields, or at least not with american flags on their uniforms so it would be harder to spot them. If you transfered half your army/navy/airforce to the UN then the world would split the cost, and you'd only have to pay a little bit of it instead of all of it. That right there would end your budget deficits. If you taxed gas like europe does there would be plenty of money for renewable energy (and the political will to make it work). Oh yes, and if you had cost controls on your medicare system (like everyone else does, with much lower medical costs as a result), you'd save billions a year. There are many places you can eliminate deficit spending, it's not the how that's stopping you- It's lack of political leadership that's sinking your boat. Your country has spent decades letting the politicians/bankers/oil companies run around unchecked, and now you're finally getting the bill.
Yeah, because NASA is such a huge overall expense, doesn't employ anyone or provide funding to contractors (Keynesian economics, ever hear of them?), and doesn't at all create technologies that have implications in civilian and military life, and numerous commercial applications far in excess of NASA's funding.
Just because you heard it on Rush doesn't mean it's a good idea.
NASA technicians investigate fuel leak after rare nighttime landing
First female commander earns praise for "safe, if overly cautious" flying
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (CNN) 7/28/99 - 419SPP
Even before NASA's first female mission commander touched down on the tarmac at Kennedy Space Center late Tuesday evening, investigators were speculating on the possible cause of the fuel leak observed at the launch of shuttle Columbia at the start of its historic 5 day mission.
"At first we thought maybe she left the gas cap off," reported Chief Inspector Gerald Schmitt during a post-mission press conference yesterday. Schmitt was referring to mission commander U.S. Air Force Col. Eileen Collins, who led STS-93 to a complete success despite the glitches that plagued the start of the mission.
However, the inspectors ruled out that scenario after an exhaustive examination of the video launch records. They are now considering alternative theories, as well examining the shuttle engines for possible damage, such as a burned-out clutch. "We'll get in there and take a look," explained Schmitt, "but the real test will come on the next flight for Columbia, when the next mission commander can let us know if the shuttle still handles the way it did before."
Schmitt went on to explain that the launch is usually performed in an "Automatic" mode, but the shutdown of 2 flight computers just seconds into Friday's launch required Col. Collins to switch to "Manual" mode, which she may have had less experience with in the past.
Shuttle failed to reach "nominal" altitude
By the time main engine cutoff, or MECO, took place at the end of Columbia's vault into space, the shuttle was about 7 miles beneath its intended orbit. At the time, NASA had not yet confirmed the fuel leak, so ground control was at a loss to explain this result.
Launch controller Peter "Pete" Castle recalls, "For a few minutes I was beside myself. Did [Collins] fail to advance the engine throttles to 104 percent as called for in the launch sequence? Everyone knows you can drive those engines a little bit over the limit. There aren't any cops in space. Why are we here staying under the limit? We'll never get where we need to go like that."
Fortunately, Columbia had sufficient fuel onboard to boost itself to its full intended orbit, and the mission objectives and the crew were never in danger.
"She really took us by surprise"
Mission controllers at the Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, Texas, were very complimentary of Col. Collins. Third shift controller Michael Childs recalls one incident in particular:
"During orbit 15 of the mission, Col. Collins called down for directions on the next scheduled maneuver. At this point in the schedule we had not expected any communications from Columbia. Past shuttle commanders always ran through this sequence without asking for directions, even if they had lost track of where they were. It is a little known fact that on STS-96 [when shuttle Discovery docked with the International Space Station (ISS)], Mission Commander Kent Rominger reached the station three orbits late, basically because he insisted on 'just flying around in circles until we found it', to quote Mission Specialist Patty Jernigan."
Most call the landing 'flawless'
The touchdown of shuttle Columbia in the final minutes of Tuesday evening was called "flawless" by ground controllers at the KSC. However, U.S. Air Force Col. Jack "Cracker Jack" Jackson, the last mission commander for a Columbia mission, was more critical.
"That's not where I left it," Jackson said of Columbia, noting that Columbia rolled to a stop on the runway over 500 yards earlier than it did when he landed the same vehicle back in February, 1998. "When you take that baby out for a spin, I expect you to put it back where it belongs when you're done." After a moment, Jackson added one final thought, "God, I don't want to think what happened to those brakes."
419SPP - The Associated Press and Reuters did not contribute to this report.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Wow, and I thought I saw a lot of teabagging on XBox Live playing Halo.
Do me a favor, and stay out of public policy planning, or at least keep yourself to the local level. Nothing more than a county. You won't be able to screw things up too bad there.
Yes, hopefully this attitude will not reach a level of office beyond that which you can see Russia from.
It has been my lifelong dream to see a shuttle take-off in-person. I don't have the opportunity to see the Shuttle take its last voyage. For those that have had the opportunity to see a launch how would being in-person to a comparable sized rocket launch be like?
There will likely be future rocket launches for satellites. I'd just like to experience the rumble and hear the sounds. I grew up living near an airforce base and I've always been fascinated in watching planes and space shuttles, rockets by extension. I know this can also be waiting game. If they say they will launch at 9:00 on the 1st of March it might be a week before clear weather patterns show up. But I'd like at some point to budget some time and be able to travel to see a launch.
I swear this is the fourth time I've seen a 'final shuttle flight' story online.
Killing NASA will have essentially ZERO impact on the spiraling US national debt.
Unless the government is prepared to do what no politician is willing to do and to cut from the huge amount spent on the massive military and security machine maintained by the US, the US will never be able to get out of the sinkhole they are in.
Not that some military cuts aren't in order, why is it that everyone goes after this and ignores the elephant in the room. It isn't the 700Billion dollar military budget that will bankrupt the US. It is the projected trillions of dollars in "mandatory" spending for entitlement programs that will only continue to grow and grow and grow. That and interest on the debt. If you want to really talk about choices no politician is willing to make, lets talk about killing the programs that will really do the damage. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all related programs.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Mod parent up, and don't feed trolls.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I'm not worried about them being prosperous so much as US being prosperous. What would gas cost if we didn't have to import any? Probably would cost as much as electricity. I find that my electric rate would power a Chevy Volt for 100 miles (20 KwH) for about $1.60 @ 8 cents / KwH. My current car (20 mpg) costs about $16.25 @ $3.25/gallon of premium (my car's a turbo, needs premium.) Almost exactly 10 times the expense. When gas gets to $7 a gallon, the Volt will be over 20 times more frugal as my current car. But anyway, we need to quit importing oil. Until we can get the Volt to go 300 miles on a charge and recharge in 5 minutes, and can get charging station that can deliver that sort of power, we need the oil. OBTW, 300 mile range volt would require 60 KwH, and to deliver that in 5 minutes would require a 720 Kw delivery rate. At, say, 300 volts, that's 2,400 amps of delivery to charge 1 car in 5 minutes to run 300 miles. Suppose a "gas" station was trying to charge 10 cars at once? Does it need its own nuclear power plant on site? Prolly. How many years until we can build up infrastructure like that? A long time - decades - which is why we need to keep doing oil right now. Which is why the "environmental extremists" (happy now that I didn't say "envirowacko") are the enemies of prosperity in the US because they think that they can just choke off the supply of oil, by opposing everything, and the solution will magically appear. No, it won't. Unfortunately, the envirowackos are all liberal arts students that took course like "photography" and "art appreciation" and don't understand 2 + 2 nor amps and volts. Or, they do understand it, and are simply societal saboteurs. The solution is HARD, and requires a lot of time and money to achieve, and we don't even HAVE the magic battery yet that can be coaxed to hold that much energy in a car without weighing tons and be recharged in that sort of time. No such battery exists, and likely won't for at least another few years.
But anyway, people that bash oil companies, that are simply folks that bring us a commodity that we desparately need, and get all sideways 'cuz they make a buck while doing it, really rub me the wrong way.
If that's all true, it sounds like we're doing very well!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Every state has farmers. And you know what happens when every state produces something? Every senator gets behind them. (Just look at defense companies for an example of this, the disjointed placement of defense industry offices and manufacturing is NOT a mistake.)
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
How many final flights did it have ?
Who wants to bet there will be at least another one ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
So, aside from the fact that Social Security is on a different income/expenditure stream than the rest of the federal budget, and thus doesn't contribute to the budget crisis...
What you're proposing would lead to an extremely poor quality of life, homelessness, or outright death for millions of Americans. My husband and I would be among those affected. Um, no. I don't think so.
The military is the biggest single money hog, between the official Defense section of the budget ($685B) and the various other programs that all fall under the heading of military research, defense, counterterrorism, etc., the government spends somewhere between $1.0 and $1.4 trillion. If you cut these items by 75% across the board, that's around $900 billion, and it still leaves the US as the largest military spender in the world. Trim the Discretionary fund ($660B) back by the same factor, and you're looking at almost $1.4 Trillion. If it weren't for the interest on the existing debt, that would be more than enough. Otherwise, we need to trim another ~$830 billion to get to a clearly break-even status (actually, a slight surplus, if I figure it right). Others have pointed out already that there are tons of other programs that lead directly to money spent with no genuinely worthwhile outcome, so start cutting those back too.
Medicare and Medicaid (part of the Health and Human Services section of the general budget) could be trimmed back some, but only after the ridiculous cost of medical care in this country is brought under strict control, and only with extreme care. Otherwise, too many people will lose critically-needed services.
Expenditures are only part of the problem, as we still need to find ways to increase revenue, or the existing debt is going nowhere. At 8% interest, it takes about $1.13 trillion in what would otherwise be a surplus to cover the $14.1 trillion debt, so $2.4 trillion worth of cuts to the current budget, if that's even possible in a sane manner, would only pay for the interest on that debt. More revenue is needed to avoid excessive budget cuts and to bring the principle part of the debt down in a timely manner. I see four ways to do that, in theory:
* Raise taxes: A bad idea outright, because the low and middle-income folks are the ones who would be hit hardest by such a thing, regardless of which specific taxes get raised, and right now is the worst possible time for such a thing to happen. Besides, the rich will just find ways around it.
* Find ways to increase the number of new taxpayers: Not much prospect there. Short of a population explosion, the only other sources I can see are illegal immigrants, but those folks are hard enough to track, let alone tax.
* Change/enforce the tax laws: All existing citizens (and businesses) who don't already do so should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us do. Rich or poor, pay your fair share, even if it's by withholding $5 a month from your paycheck. For the over $250,000 crowd, make it extremely unpalatable to dodge taxes. We all know such folks manage to find all kinds of ways to avoid paying taxes by way of write-offs, loopholes, offshore accounts, dummy corporations, etc., so eliminate the loopholes and make it really *really* suck for those who try to live above the law.
* Find new revenue streams: I'm sure there are all kinds of legit things that the federal government could do here that people wouldn't mind. Hell, set up theme parks, amusements, etc. where all proceeds go into the general fund. If necessary, raise admission fees on national parks and the like, or establish new fees where appropriate (but without getting stupid, lest you cut off your income stream from those sources entirely).
As for Social Security, everyone including SSA themselves keeps saying Social Security will go broke in 25 to 30 years. You can start by heavily forbidding any government project, program, agency, etc. from dipping into the Social Security budget for things that belong in the
It would be a significant link IMHO.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
i'm obviously not sure about the grandparent, but from a foreign (non-US) perspective, the military budget is by far the most visible non-essential activity that the US engages in.I don't see the money being pissed away in bureaucracy in the US (hell, i have to pay attention to see it over here, that's how good those bandits are at hiding themselves), i do however see the US engaging in all sorts of "war on terrorism" military campaigns, with no other obvious goal then securing oil and playing a game of middle eastern sock-puppet theather
People, what a bunch of bastards
i dont know man, but i'll take katee sackhoff over dirk benedict any day...
People, what a bunch of bastards
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
That's how the budget is spent. NASA, if it were a square on here, would be relatively small. With a budget of $17 Billion, it would be a little smaller than "Border and Transportation Security Directorate Activities".
Discovery will set another precedent when it flies the first humanoid robot to fly in space, Robonaut2
Uhm... what exactly happened to Robonaut1?!
i'm obviously not sure about the grandparent, but from a foreign (non-US) perspective, the military budget is by far the most visible non-essential activity that the US engages in.I don't see the money being pissed away in bureaucracy in the US (hell, i have to pay attention to see it over here, that's how good those bandits are at hiding themselves), i do however see the US engaging in all sorts of "war on terrorism" military campaigns, with no other obvious goal then securing oil and playing a game of middle eastern sock-puppet theather
Just a thought, but if the US was in it for "securing oil" .. then shouldn't oil be way less expensive now that it is?
antipaucity
NASA's budget is about 1.3% of discretionary, non-military federal spending ($9 bn out of $660 bn). I don't think 1.3% is negligible. If the federal budget is going to stop being wildly out of whack, we're going to need to cut lots of these little tiny discretionary items. We need to do that *and* cut military spending drastically *and* get out from under the crushing interest payments. Some politicians like to campaign on promises to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, which is most cases is nonsense, because there isn't that much waste, fraud, and abuse. But NASA's crewed spaceflight programs are pure waste. They don't produce good science in proportion to the money spent, they don't do anything that has to be done by a government monopoly as opposed to private contractors, and they don't have any economic value except as pork-barrel projects.
Find free books.
Just a thought, but if the US was in it for "securing oil" .. then shouldn't oil be way less expensive now that it is?
No.
They are securing oil by making sure that some of the world's largest remaining deposits are controlled by governments friendly to the U.S., so when the oil supply begins to dwindle and there isn't enough to go around, the U.S. can be first in line to buy what is left. Ideally there would already be large U.S. military bases in these areas to help ensure that they remain under friendly control, to ensure the military continues to have the oil it needs to function. This is the long-term strategic goal.
In the short term, oil is still a fungible commodity sold on a world market and whose price involves speculation about the stability of future supplies. The very actions the U.S. takes to secure the oil for the long term will necessarily cause instability and thus rising prices in the short term. Also, the long-term supply of oil is clearly in doubt and so you should only expect the price to go up no matter how much the U.S. secures for itself.
Of course for oil companies, this is fantastic for you especially if they aren't pumping oil from one of the unstable areas, because their oil doesn't cost any more to pump but is selling for much more. You see high prices at the pump, the oil companies see ridiculous profits.
What, you didn't think this was done to benefit you, did you?
The enemies of Democracy are
... become third world countries.
mfwright@batnet.com
Discovery and ISS should be visable in the night sky this week in MN. Saturday 6:45 both will be visable at the same time seperated by a few seconds apart.
So, aside from the fact that Social Security is on a different income/expenditure stream than the rest of the federal budget, and thus doesn't contribute to the budget crisis...
What you're proposing would lead to an extremely poor quality of life, homelessness, or outright death for millions of Americans. My husband and I would be among those affected. Um, no. I don't think so.
So, simply because we're pulling the money out of a theoretically different bucket that means it is magic money? Any time the government pulls money out of the economy for any purpose it creates drag and loss. No exceptions. Further, as you say below, the supposed trust fund will be totally broke in 20 years, probably less. When that happens, probably sooner, where do you think that money is going to come from? What about the fact that entitlement spending is going to overtake the entire federal budget? When that happens, what then? The central issue is that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are simply not sustainable programs and they never were. As to it leading to an extremely poor quality of life, I'm going to be extremely cold and logical and say I don't care. Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part. Just why do you think it is our responsibility to take care of you and yours?
The military is the biggest single money hog, between the official Defense section of the budget ($685B) and the various other programs that all fall under the heading of military research, defense, counterterrorism, etc., the government spends somewhere between $1.0 and $1.4 trillion.
Out of the $3.4T Federal Budget you're really saying that nearly half of it is "Defense"? CBO says no. Even if we cut military spending to $0, it wouldn't stop entitlement programs from wiping out the entire budget in the future.
Medicare and Medicaid (part of the Health and Human Services section of the general budget) could be trimmed back some, but only after the ridiculous cost of medical care in this country is brought under strict control, and only with extreme care. Otherwise, too many people will lose critically-needed services.
Trimmed back some? Define "some"? 10%? 20%? 90%? You speak of the ridiculous cost of medical care, yet it doesn't seem all that insane compared to what you get for the money. There certainly are treatments that are really expensive. They are also often cutting edge and either not available in other countries for any amount of money or doled out on a rationed basis. Can costs come down? Sure, and they should. Tort reform would help with that. From some of your other statements, I'm not sure that is the path you would choose
Expenditures are only part of the problem
Not quoting the rest because it doesn't matter. Expenditures are the problem. The government is too large and spends far too much money across the board, including even the military. Massive budget and program cuts are necessary. Increasing revenue will do nothing but lead to increased spending. When has that not been the case in the past?
The rest of your ideas are equally... unworkable.. to be kind. Never has increasing taxes and burden on the producers ever led to increased prosperity for anyone whose email address doesn't end in ".gov". Again, no exceptions.
I'm not worried for myself. I'm terrified for my future children and their children. I won't lie. If that means tossing those who failed to plan for the future under the bus, so be it. We cannot continue to toss money down the hole in amounts that are truly terrifying simply because many thought that Social Security and Medicaid were "free". I'm sorry for you and others like you. But are you so selfish that you're willing to sell out all our children's and grandchildren's futures simply because you failed to plan?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
We're doing well? We're going broke because we cannot continue the path we've started. Entitlements are what are killing us. Take a look at this. Nearly 2/3 of all federal spending is social programs and other entitlements. You figure out how to eliminate the deficit without cutting into any of that and you'll win the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
God speed boys....Gods speed.
Joe Investor
So, simply because we're pulling the money out of a theoretically different bucket that means it is magic money? Any time the government pulls money out of the economy for any purpose it creates drag and loss. No exceptions.
That money is going right back into the economy in the form of Medicare and Medicaid payouts to doctors and other health professionals, and Social Security paychecks to the various recipients, who then spend it on rent, utilities, food, etc. It isn't as if the government is supposed to be just hoarding the money. Is it working like it should? Probably not exactly. but it isn't completely busted.
Further, as you say below, the supposed trust fund will be totally broke in 20 years, probably less. When that happens, probably sooner, where do you think that money is going to come from?
[...]
What about the fact that entitlement spending is going to overtake the entire federal budget? When that happens, what then?
If the trust fund goes broke, it's because the government is dipping into it periodically to cover other expenses, which means we need to begin filling that pool back up faster than it is being drained. However, whether we have that fund or not is of little consequence, because Social Security is also paid for by incoming tax dollars, not just a one-time fund. For the expenditures to overtake the entire federal budget would be impossible by definition.
Since the population is continuously increasing, new taxpayers are constantly being added, adding money to the Social Security fund, and at the same time new recipients are constantly being added as well, taking money from that fund, and both at an ever increasing rate. If we want to get it back into balance, reduce the number of future recipients by making the qualifications a little more strict (but do so in ways that won't hurt those who truly need it), pay new recipients a little less (and by that I mean, reduce the maximum initial payouts), and consider the entirety of peoples' incomes (instead of only the first $90,000) when taxing them for Social Security purposes. If necessary, raise Social Security taxes slightly to compensate.
Besides all of that, even if you completely and totally kill Social Security, it won't affect the deficit or the existing debt, because those expenditures aren't used to calculate either figure, and the funds for that program come from a second tax stream, deliberately separated on your paycheck stub. Of course you're paying into both it and the general fund, but money paid into the Social Security fund cannot, by law, be used by the government for expenditures that should come from the general fund. Whether that law is obeyed is a matter of some debate - if it isn't, enforce it!
If Social Security revenues increase in some manner and end up with a surplus, the money has nowhere to go but to the recipients or back into the trust fund. On the other hand, if Congress were to kill that program, it would also have to kill its funding source by definition, leaving workers with one less tax item on their paychecks, and leaving the government right back where it started: with a grossly over-blown military budget, along with all the other expenditures, and not enough money in general-fund taxes to cover it all.
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part. Just why do you think it is our responsibility to take care of you and yours?
Let's do some hard math: The average person gets 51 years of work out of his life if he starts at 14 and retires at 65. A 14 year old could theoretically make $8700 a year for their first two years at minimum wage, but he'll be lucky to make half of that. Call it $5000 to be generous. Lets suppose the kid manages to ramp up smoothly to $50,000 a year by age 25. That comes to about $320,000 gross by the end of that year. Let's suppose that he manages to continue making $50,000 a year, despite whatever the econo
BTW it seems most if not all of NASA is on that chart under sub-blocks of the general science block.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I noticed it after I posted it, but thanks for mentioning it. It's additionally broken into two pieces IIRC