Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atlantis Lands, Ending the Shuttle Era

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the we'll-miss-you dept.

Early this morning Atlantis landed at KSC in Florida. I've been following the trip intently ever since my trip to Florida to see the launch of the very last Shuttle. This really is the end of an era. Thanks go out to the thousands of NASA employees who made this happen, many of whom have been laid off. A number of them emailed me directly showing me pictures and sharing stories. I wish you all the best. As for America, here's hoping that we return to space soon.

41 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. So long... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and thanks for all the fish.

  2. Not an end, but a beginning by BZWingZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the Shuttle program has ended (and its been a spectacular run), I guess the only things to look forward to are the MPCV, CTS-100, Dragon, DreamChaser, and the New Sheppard.

    I think the future is looking pretty bright.

  3. Irony Not Lost by knirps · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The US manned spaceflight program comes to an ignominious end at the same time the Texas school board votes on whether to teach evolution in science class. And people wonder why we've lost our leadership in science and manufacturing.

    1. Re:Irony Not Lost by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do not taunt Texas' faith based education! We will return the USA to space using "God Pods" developed with our Evangelical sciences.

    2. Re:Irony Not Lost by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no repression of religious expression at schools. Indeed the very ACLU you pan has on numerous occasions defended the rights of students to express their religious beliefs in school: Here's one, here's another. A simple Google search reveals dozens of similar stories. What the ACLU objects to, along with most religious freedom advocates, is the coercive expression of religion in schools. A teacher has no right to lead students in a prayer that some present may not believe in. He or she is representative of the authority of the school and in turn the government, they should not give the impression of coercing students into prayer. Similarly, events like graduations and pep rallies are for everyone, turning them into religious events is neither fair nor constitutional. As a side note, that same teacher would be fine leading a prayer in an FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) meeting, as participation in such a thing implies a certain level of acceptance.

      Long story short, religious expression in schools is fine. Students can wear all the religious jewelry they want, wear the goofy t-shirts they want, talk about God in the hallways and the lunchroom, even have clubs that focus on one religion or another. The caveat to that is that it has to be fair: If Bob can wear a cross, I can wear a pentacle; if Sue can can start a Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter, Sarah can start a Torah study group. It also should not be a part of official school events like classes, assembles, or graduations. At that point it is infringing on the rights of others.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:Irony Not Lost by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      As long as pop quizzes exist, there will be prayer in schools.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Irony Not Lost by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      When I said there was no repression of religious expression in schools, I suppose I should have said that the ACLU and similar religious freedom organization don't advocate such repression. It does exist, largely becasue school systems overreact to legitimate attempts to minimize religious coercion in schools. The ACLU fights such repression as much as it fights the coercion. The OPs implication was that the ACLU is attempting to repress religious expression in schools. It's not true.

      As to the "bogeymen" being present in the schools that these scientists grew up in, that's not an excuse to keep doing it. Jim Crow laws existed in the towns many of those men grew up in, should we continue those? Wernher Von Braun came of age under the Nazis, does that mean that we should have left them alone, becasue they produce awesome rocket scientists? Also worth pointing out is that those men were given the best science education that was available at the time. The fact is that evolution was much less important to a sound biological education at the time. Genetics and biochemistry were the realms of the most cutting edge researchers, but a foundation in biology did not require an understanding much beyond Mendel's peas. A "foundation" in modern biology requires more up to date information on genetics and evolution, because an understanding of those topic is required to understand most current biological theories.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  4. "End of an era," indeed by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that the Shuttle was still flying in 2011 isn't just a testament to its longevity. It's a sad reminder that, at least for now, human spaceflight is at the mercy of the schizophrenia that is the American political process.

    NASA has consistently brought together some of the finest minds in the world to do what the preceding finest minds thought was impossible. Then, because this is America, we take a bunch of mouth-breathers who probably got Cs and Ds in basic high school science courses and make them the bosses and the gatekeepers, the people who decide that it's more important to systematize the abuse of human rights at airports and buy the jokers at the Pentagon their newest murder toy than it is to push the frontiers of knowledge and ingenuity.

    I'm putting my hope for the future of space exploration in private hands. Not because I fetishize the free market, or because I think government is evil, but because human spaceflight is way too important to be put in the hands of the American electorate, which is probably the stupidest and most poorly-informed decision-making body since the Athenian ekklesia.

    1. Re:"End of an era," indeed by taiwanjohn · · Score: 3, Informative

      The SLS is a perfect example of that. It's sometimes called the "Senate Launch System" because of all the design constraints written into the funding legislation. For instance, they require that it use a certain kind of fuel so that a company in somebody's district will be sure to get some pork out of the deal, that sort of thing.

      The first manned flights of SpaceX's Falcon/Dragon craft can't come soon enough for me.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:"End of an era," indeed by Bucc5062 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But in the real world, in the long term, we need to seriously focus on keeping the earth sustainable and survivable. Because it's all we have, now and forever.

      When I read comments like that I am reminded of many similar quotes by limited thinkers. Staying with the tech theme I'll go with "640K ought to be enough for anybody"...Right!

      By now, as a species, I feel we need to realize that never and forever are not terms that apply to limitations of the human mind. What we can think, what we can imagine can become real. Thought, word, and deed lead to creation. The drag on human progress is not our lack of capability, but of commitment. In some cases it takes seeing beyond our lifetime to acheive the goal; that is lacking in today's leaders and populus and a drag on progress.

      Unless we wipe ourselves out (war, natural disaster, pestulence) I know that humans will expand beyond this planet one day. Colony ships? Sustaining enclaves on other planets within our system? However the manner, we will do so because at the core of our being is the need to go past the next hill, the next mountain, beyond the horizon, outside our atmosphere, and more. Someone will choose to take that next step forward. This planet is now too small for our minds, but it is small minds that will chain us here for a long time.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    3. Re:"End of an era," indeed by smchris · · Score: 2

      True. True. True. But as someone who vaguely remembers the concern over Sputnik, I can't stop thinking that this is the first time America can't put a person into space since I was barely 10 and John F. Kennedy was starting his fourth full month in office. I too hope private industry doesn't kill off too many astronauts coming in under a profitable budget but I also wonder whether it's just another symptom of the advancing neo-Dark Ages where some guy in the 25th century will write poetry about the "giants" who jumped to the moon.

    4. Re:"End of an era," indeed by blueturffan · · Score: 2

      I can't stop thinking that this is the first time America can't put a person into space since I was barely 10 and John F. Kennedy was starting his fourth full month in office.

      Apparently you're forgetting the period between Feb 4, 1974 (Skylab 4, the last Skylab mission) and April 12, 1981 (STS-1, the first Shuttle launch).

    5. Re:"End of an era," indeed by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Democratic governments only work well when the populace is educated and informed. That's why there's plenty of small European countries, like Switzerland, that are doing just fine, while other democratic countries like the USA and Mexico are doing terribly and are full of corruption.

      There also seems to be a correlation between population size and internal problems in democracies. When you're a small country (1-10 million), there just isn't as much to fight about as when you have over 300 million people.

  5. Re:Mixed feelings by AlecC · · Score: 2

    While having immense respect for those who worked on the Shuttle program, and certainly honouring those who lost their lives in its operations, I feel that this is the end of a huge diversion. It turned out that the Shuttle was never as good an idea as it was originally made out to be. It certainly never lived up to its name. I feel, but I don't know, that this could have been recognised earlier and the U-turn being made now could have been made twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the "Concorde effect" cut in - nobody would take responsibility for axing a program on which tens of billions had been spend - so hundreds of billions more had to be spend on a flawed, albeit marvellous - project.

    And look ahead: not may years ahead, America may have multiple launchers, some man-rated, some not, to give a broad spectrum capability at much lower cost. Sometimes, backtracking is the wisest thing to do.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  6. NASA's Exorbitant Cost! by jabberwock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... At roughly $60 per capita annually, I think the cost of the space program is justified by its entertainment value alone.

  7. Return to Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Geez kids, get a grip! We haven't 'left space'. We have active missions out there right now (Vesta? ring a bell?), and we'll continue to send people to the ISS on Russian ships. Within 10 years we'll likely have manned capability again, but humans in space return far less than the robotic missions.
     
    We need better robotics to take the next step, which is picking a resource (like a large mostly-metal asteroid), bringing it into orbit and exploiting the shit out of it.
     
    Equating the U.S. space program solely to dicks and tits in space is stupid, childish, and shortsighted. But then no one thinks of Americans as especially visionary these days.

  8. All That Knowledge... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...walking (booted) out the door. In 5 years NASA couldn't launch a shuttle even if they took Atlantis, mothballed it and all the facilities because no one will know how to do it anymore.

    When they started working on Ares they had to send engineers out to look at the Saturn 5 rocket in Houston to try to rediscover its technology because all of the institutional knowledge was gone. And even after that, they killed it.

    Imagine what it must be like to be an engineer at NASA...”work on this, no, work on that. Wait, forget that and do this. Never mind, do this instead”. You've all been there in IT probably.

    If there ever was a time to establish clear, long term goals and technology focus, now is it. But they will drift aimlessly, buffeted by the whims of the Administration and Congress.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:All That Knowledge... by Burdell · · Score: 5, Informative

      The knowledge isn't all gone just yet. My father worked on the guidance and control systems and simulations for all the Saturns except the first test vehicle, the Apollo-Saturn Telescope Mount, the Space Shuttle Main Engines, and Spacelab (as well as helping others in his group with things like Hubble and Gravity Probe B).

      However, your point about the schizophrenic management is correct; since then he's worked on X-33, X-34, Ares I, and Ares V guidance/control systems/simulations, with effectively nothing to show for it. Now he's waiting to see if the White House will ever move on the next heavy-lift vehicle (that Congress already appropriated money for). He's coming up on 50 years working for NASA (45 years in civil service and almost 5 as a part-time contractor).

      NASA's biggest challenge has always been funding and the year-to-year budget process. There really should be some way to budget more than one year at a time; that just doesn't work very well for long-term projects.

    2. Re:All That Knowledge... by ukpyr · · Score: 5

      Hey, tell your dad thanks for putting up with all the garbage and trying to make a difference.

      - A. Taxpayer

    3. Re:All That Knowledge... by Teancum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While NASA might not be able to launch a shuttle, there certainly are several people who can, and are American as well. Just because NASA development efforts are falling apart and it seems like the bureaucracy at NASA is too big for its own good, that doesn't mean the knowledge is being lost either.

      Instead, the real development efforts are now happening with private efforts. Anybody with half a brain and wants to design rockets that really fly, which will carry real cargo and real passengers into orbit are now no longer working for NASA or even many of the major contractors for NASA. Instead, they are working at places like SpaceX, Orbital, Blue Origin, Xcor, or Bigelow Aerospace. They are making things that either have or will shortly go into space.

      The real proof that something has changed is how Boeing is treating spacecraft development. They have essentially ignored any direction from NASA in terms of designs and even they went and built their own spacecraft (the CST-100) that will fit on top of one of their own launchers (Delta IV). The technology to go into space is alive and well, with a whole group of people who know how to do it and are doing it routinely. It just isn't going through NASA centers for direction, planning, or funding any more.

      I think that is a good thing, although the question begs to be asked, why keep NASA around anymore? If the vehicles being designed by NASA engineers or through NASA directorates keep getting canceled and there is no clear focus in terms of what to do next, I certainly wouldn't want to stick around if I was an employee there. The exciting stuff isn't happening at NASA any more, and they aren't even getting into space and doing stuff. Even the science directorates are being cut back.... for what? A big rocket that will never be used for a mission that is irrelevant because the destination that is its only purpose will no longer exist by the time it is built? Yeah, that is real inspiration to me.

    4. Re:All That Knowledge... by Burdell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've been using the same guidance/control system simulation framework since X-33. However, you can't just have a re-usable guidance system for vastly different vehicles. X-33 was a lifting-body (which is an inherently unstable platform), X-34 was a delta-wing (similar to the Shuttle), and Ares I/V were stacked/staged rockets (similar to Saturn, Delta, etc.). They also had vastly different propulsion systems; while the Ares engines were based on existing traditional rocket motors, the X-33 was a linear aerospike, which required completely different control systems.

      It isn't like they started from scratch each time (they didn't); it is just that a lot of customization had to be done for each vehicle and propulsion system. If they get the go-ahead to work on the heavy-lift vehicle, they'll start with work done for Ares and evolve it for the new project.

      You wouldn't expect the same system to work on a Cesna and a B-2; why would you expect the same system to work on vehicles that have even less in common?

    5. Re:All That Knowledge... by Suzuran · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does your father have any Saturn guidance software source code AT ALL, or any knowledge of where it might be?
      We have been desperately searching for the Saturn LVDC guidance software for years now, even to the extreme of obtaining core planes from a LVDC and trying to read them out.
      If your father has any prints at all, or any knowledge of where the software might be, we DESPERATELY need to hear from him!

    6. Re:All That Knowledge... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. Plus, the parts these systems are built from change over time. Just look at how fast semiconductors are obsoleted, or new and better ones come onto the market. You wouldn't want to use a 30-year-old guidance/control system on a brand-new spacecraft. Some or even much of the overall design and software may be the same or similar, but it'll probably be running on updated hardware and take advantage of other newer techniques.

      It's like the Linux kernel. It's 20 years old now, but that doesn't mean a modern Linux system is running 20-year-old software. The people involved have changed and improved so many things in it that it's scarcely the same, however many of the fundamentals are still the same and some of the code hasn't changed because it hasn't needed to. They didn't just quit when they hit 2.0 or whatever; they kept making it better and better.

    7. Re:All That Knowledge... by Teancum · · Score: 2

      How many manned spaceflight rocket designs have been proposed since the Saturn V was slated for retirement? Starting with the "Big G" Gemini II capsule all of the way to the Orion/Constellation program and nearly 20 vehicles in between, I'd say that is a consistent pattern of failure after failure. It certainly hasn't been a lack of trying, but a consistent lack of follow-through to get something built has been a huge problem. Only the Space Shuttle seemed to be the only program to be spared the wrath of budget cuts, even even the Shuttle program didn't get by unscathed. Many of the reasons why the Shuttle program had to end now is explicitly because of design compromises made in the 1970's when it was first being developed. A little more money then could have saved billions over the past 30 years.

      Yes, the unmanned programs launching on stuff like the Delta II, Delta IV, and Atlas V have been going rather well, and the spacecraft themselves seem to work out fairly well. Then again you have stuff like the James Webb Space Telescope that is also spiraling out of control and devouring what is even coming out of the science directorates. This isn't even isolated to just the manned spaceflight efforts, as the bureaucracy is starting to eat away at even the unmanned stuff now. What is worse, the easy low-hanging fruit that could be grabbed by even unmanned missions has already been taken, and now we need to start spending more money for stuff that is more elaborate and thus more expensive.

      If you want to make this a fight between manned vs. unmanned missions, both concepts lose. That is the wrong fight to make. For those who currently are real scientists leading real teams studying other planets, they acknowledge that they would love to get a couple of people to help with the follow-up research that comes from their efforts. There is a role to be played for both manned and unmanned missions, and they need each other both from a conceptual viewpoint as well as from a funding viewpoint.

      I do agree with the issue that programs which go past the current administration and need to be dealt with by multiple presidencies and sessions of congress are unlikely to be continued without some incredibly strong leadership. The real trick, however, is trying to lower launch costs, and that is something which has not even been a goal at NASA. It certainly wasn't a real goal for the Shuttle program.

    8. Re:All That Knowledge... by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      Is that you, Kim Jong Il?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    9. Re:All That Knowledge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When they started working on Ares they had to send engineers out to look at the Saturn 5 rocket in Houston to try to rediscover its technology because all of the institutional knowledge was gone.

      We tried for a while to put the knowledge into Wikipedia, but it was deleted due to "original research".

      No, I am absolutely not kidding.

    10. Re:All That Knowledge... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      If it is missing why not simply print out a nice form letter asking about it and send it to the retired NASA guys? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to get a list of their locations since after all you have to send their pension checks somewhere.

      While I don't know about the LVDC I know that my retired NASA engineer neighbor has some of the late Apollo stuff like one of the books for programming the capsule computer (Sorry I can't think of the technical term for it ATM, I have a major cold) as well as some of the early to mid shuttle stuff. Actually getting to hold some of the original plans for the shuttle's bay and hatches? Very cool.

      According to him most of the guys would take the stuff NASA was throwing in the trash as souvenirs so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if what you seek is in one of their closets somewhere, because according to him NASA threw away a LOT of cool historic stuff and the engineers would take it rather than see it in the dump. Sad to hear NASA was so short sighted, but what do you expect of a government org eh?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  9. Thanks by cbcanb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Atlantis flew a magnificent mission, capping a great career. She, and her sisters, have been great ships and deserve to retire with honour.

    Yeah, they were expensive. Yeah, people think robots are cooler. Yeah, they couldn't go to the moon or Mars. And yeah, in hindsight hanging a somewhat fragile spaceship on the side of a booster probably wasn't the best idea.

    But Atlantis and her sisters' record of achievement is magnificent, and will probably never be matched. They launched space probes, they conducted research into materials, life sciences, earth sciences, astronomy, and countless other fields. They serviced satellites and space stations, and brought tonnes of equipment back to earth for study and reflight. They provided a convenient platform for experiments and payloads that would otherwise have had to construct their own complete satellites. They did all this 133 times successfully, with only two losses, and in the space business you'd take that success rate any day of the week.

  10. lament from a British lefty by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    Although written years earlier, Billy Bragg's "The Space Race is Over" seems appropriate.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  11. Good by blahbooboo · · Score: 2

    Look, it WAS a great achievement. But like most things in the USA, for the last 30-40 years we never move on to something better. I believe with the space shuttle still flying we would never get a new program moving. The shuttle a great technical achievement, but an inherently flawed design for efficiency and frankly BORING at low earth orbit capability. Furthermore, at 0.5 BILLION per launch, it was just a waste of money repeating the same thing (essentially) again and again and again. We could launch two vehicles -- one for humans and one for the cargo for far less than this single shuttle bus.

    Now lets see if we can get more practical MODERN vehicles moving forward now that this 1960/1970 vehicle is finally put out to pasture where it belonged 15 years ago.

    1. Re:Good by daid303 · · Score: 2

      I hope so. I hear very little to nothing about any replacement.

      I'm European, and the USA spaceflight is one of those things that I used to look up to in my young years. I used to build little paper space-shuttles. And without a replacement there this dream is dead.

  12. End of U.S manned space flight capability(?) by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a sad day because I see no realistic plans to replace the shuttle's capability of putting a human in space, even if it's only LEO. It looks like pretty much everything to replace it has been canceled.

    N.A.S.A, another victim of the Iraq war. Such a pity to witness it's demise.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:End of U.S manned space flight capability(?) by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well I don't know what reality you are living in, but here in the real world we have this little bird that was just tested on orbit last Spring. It's scheduled for another couple of test flights later this year. I hear that the development of its emergency abort system (something the shuttle didn't have) is being developed expediantly. Once that item is checked off, we should be able to put people back into orbit in no time.

      But don't let my factually backed optimism rain on your pity party.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    2. Re:End of U.S manned space flight capability(?) by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      That little bird has nothing like the capability of the shuttle. Can you (for instance) go and service the Hubble telescope from it?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Re:The Russians won in the end by thrich81 · · Score: 2

    I have seen this comment so many times lately ... Anyone who was there in 1975 when the last Apollo-Saturn launched could have said the same thing. From 1975 to 1981, between Apollo and the Shuttle, we went into a period where the US had no operational manned space capability and I don't recall near the wailing then about how the US had given up on manned space flight. Now we are probably looking at a similar time period until the US again regains the ability to provide its own manned launch capability. In many ways the 1975-81 period was grimmer than it is now. We still have Americans in space on the ISS, we still have a robust (American and international) unmanned program, we have promising private ventures to provide space launch services -- none of which we had in the late 70's, and we had similar talk then about how in general "America was in decline". The emblematic event of the late 70's in space exploration was Skylab falling uncontrolled out of orbit because was the Shuttle was so late becoming operational. We came through that time OK, though it took a while. The Shuttle != US space exploration, not even close; it's time to move on.

  14. howzabout looking at this rationally for once?!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    wrong!

    We need to fix our budget starting by reducing spending on the biggest parts of the budget first:
    1. medicaid & medicare, 23%- get rid of the inefficiencies of a for-profit insurance and medical system. (I admit, this requires further study on my part),
    2. social security, 20% - adjust the eligibility age to properly reflect changing demographics. Make it so it automatically adjusts in the future. It's supposed to be a safety net to avoid poverty in old age, quit selling it as part of your retirement planning.
    3. military spending, 20% - try being a good neighbor instead of a raging drunken dickhead. Maybe promote Democracy, transparency and accountability instead of propping up the tin-horn dictator de jure just because he hates the guys we hate and can keep the oil flowing. Like NASA, spend the money on what we actually need, don't use this budget as a means to dispense pork.
    4. discretionary spending, 19% - once we get those first three bigger portions straightened out, then we can start looking at the piddling little stuff. With NASA getting like 0.6% of the budget, there's a lot of other things that should be looked at first.

    Anybody that doesn't tackle those items first is just pandering and re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
    Fix it before it corrects itself.

    no, I am not available to run for office. I will however consider calls for me to be made dictator.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  15. NASA history backwards by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone else said it originally, but if you play NASA's history backwards, they start out with no manned space flight capability, develop shuttles, and eventually land on the moon.

  16. Re:Mixed feelings by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Althoguh I am british, I grew up in the 80's, and the spaceshuttle is one of those defining items of that era. I was saddended when chanllenger exploded, and even more upset when Colmbia exploded. I deep down expected it to finish its working life and end up in a Museum. Also to see some "anti-west" groups in the middle east "celebrate" the explosion really upset me.

    Jeremy Clarkson wrote a book once, called "You've got soul". IT describes "machines" that are more than just a hunk of metal/plastic/etc, but have an affect on human psyche that incites adoration, and the impression of "soul". He described Concorde as one such machine. I would say the Shuttle is also one of such machine.

    Congratulations to all involved, and remmber those who lost their lives.

    --
    Have a nice day!
  17. Re:howzabout looking at this rationally for once?! by dainbug · · Score: 2

    >2. social security, 20% WRONG. Social Security is Debt neutral. Or should be. The "Fiscal Conservatives" keep robbing it to hide their irresponsible spending habits. It certainly does need a tweak or two, but it is not part of the federal debt. (its just owed a lot of money by Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, Bush(43), and Obama.
    Oh where is Al Gore and his lockbox when we need him?

  18. Re:Mixed feelings by Teancum · · Score: 2

    While there are a couple of factual errors with this interview (I'll forgive somebody in their 70's who otherwise was actively involved in the development efforts of a great many spacecraft programs) this interview by Jerry Pournelle covers many of the problems that happened with the Shuttle development:

    http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=86&load=5745

    It could have worked, but too many compromises were made on the Shuttle where those compromises compounded on each other to create many of the problems involved, including what ended up killing 14 astronauts.

    I personally think there should have been a Shuttle II program that would have taken the lessons learned and built a new version of the basic design. Sadly, that never happened. What I hope does not get learned from the Shuttle is that reusable lifting bodies should never be used for spaceflight. The real problem with the Shuttle was trading development costs for operational costs, and expecting a government bureaucracy devoted to keeping jobs is going to help lower costs.

  19. Re:howzabout looking at this rationally for once?! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    According to the CBO, the ACA (Obamacare) goes most of the way toward solving the medicare problem. If you revise Part-D to allow negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs, that would put Medicare in the black for... well basically forever. It you remove the "Social Security Cap" that would do the same for SS. (Currently, you only pay FICA deductions -- "payroll" taxes -- on your first $100k or so of income. So the hedge-fund manager who makes $20m pays the same FICA as a guy who makes $100k.) Eliminate or raise that cap, and SS is rock solid as far as the eye can see.

    Heck, just rolling back the "Bush Tax Cuts" on people making more than $500k/yr would wipe out nearly 2/3rds of the deficit. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would come close to matching that.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC