Slashdot Mirror
National Planetary Exploration Car Wash and Bake Sale
An anonymous reader writes "To attract media and Congressional attention to the deep NASA planetary exploration cuts proposed to take place October 1, and the need to restore the planetary budget to present or higher levels, a National Planetary Exploration Car Wash and Bake Sale is being planned for June 9th. Organizations already involved include planetary groups at many universities, research institutions, and Moon Express (Google Lunar X Prize)."
They only need to wash 500 million cars and we can send another probe to Mars.
How about we fire EVERYONE in the pentagon, congress, and washington DC. That should free up a few trillions.
I think it's a good idea to draw attention to the issue, but I dunno how much coverage it will get. I know the news where I live tends to focus on local politics and crime, the weather, sports, and current national stuff.
of course, they might just throw it in as a 'local event,' ignoring the fact that it's going on around the country.
We used to go to the moon. Now we just make moon pies so we can play we afford Lego space shuttles.
But I'm down with this. As long as there is a way for individuals to support a particular government program they believe in, I would support it. In the case of NASA, I'd put my money/time/support where my mouth is.
Damnit, finally a valid reason to sign up for twitter.
I'm not an American, but I gotta acknowledge that never-say-die spirit of 'em Americans.
The "Car Wash 'n Bake Sale" is a stroke of genius !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Hope it has MoonPies :)
Get off my launchpad!
Now imagine if the Department of Defense instead went out and spent their time trying to raise the money they need from private benefactors, rather than this silly attempt at shaming the government into giving them more stolen money. It wouldn't matter how many people don't want to fund them; if they find enough money, even if it comes from just one benefactor, they could go forward with buying guns and stuff.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Now imagine if these people instead went out and spent their time trying to raise the money they need from private benefactors, rather than this silly attempt at shaming the government into giving them more stolen money.
Now imagine that they have been trying that tack, and they're still broke.
Going into space benefits us all. It has already paid dividends. It can pay more. It makes more sense than blowing the money on highways when we could be building rail, which can carry ten times as many passengers per dollar spent in the best case, and achieves parity in the worst case.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In honor of the Twilight Zone episode, they should title the cookbook "To serve man".
Bob.
... It can pay more. It makes more sense than blowing the money on highways when we could be building rail, which can carry ten times as many passengers per dollar spent in the best case, and achieves parity in the worst case.
That hasn't been its record in the USA. Here it has been a sink of massive subsidies resulting in a vastly underused infrastructure that most people will avoid if they have a choice.
NASA should sell beer to raise money. Call it Moon Brew, plaster it in patriotic imagery and tell men it makes them smarter and promotes scientific progress at the same time.
Only 100 billion more barrels to Titan!
I was a head baker of a popular country store in my area. Give me the right equipment and I can make four 8-inch and eight 4-inch pies in two hours or less. I will gladly show my support for this noble, righteous cause and offer my services.
Good Christ, if only the military had this problem... oh wait, they do, AFTER they send their beloved American soldiers home from wars that give them diseases, psychological issues and other stuff they ignore. This country is the greatest, as proven by this song.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
As I recall we ripped out all the passenger rail or sold it to the freight lines long, long ago. Outside of Amtrak (which has to give right-of-way to freight), and light rail, what infrastructure are you referring to?
As for subsidies, only in America do people think that rail should somehow magically "pay for itself"... the equivalent would be roads "paying for themselves", i.e., all toll roads, all the time. No one (outside of crazy libertarians) thinks that is a good idea. Basically, SOME sunk investment into transportation is necessary every year. Personally, I prefer more rail.
As an alternative, I would be ok with a pay-everything-as-you-go system that the libertarians want, IF we put policies in place to squeeze the income distribution into a much narrower range - say a factor of 100 total difference between richest and poorest. Otherwise, I don't see how such a system is anything but extremely unfair.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
We humans would like to think that we're special, but the fact is, we're just another species on this planet.
And 99.99% of the species that have evolved on this planet have gone extinct on this planet.
Doesn't matter if it's failure to compete, a slow climate change, a rapid disease or a near-instant asteroid strike, sooner or later, nearly every species gets wiped out.
If we really want to be special, we need to leave Earth and spread out, because while the Earth's environment is the safest for us *individually* over the short term, it is also a near-guaranteed death sentence for our *species* over the long term.
That hasn't been its record in the USA. Here it has been a sink of massive subsidies resulting in a vastly underused infrastructure that most people will avoid if they have a choice.
That is massively false. That has only been true since the federal government not only permitted but actually actively aided the car companies in buying up and shutting down profitable and active public transportation systems to increase demand for automobiles, which coincided directly with the otherwise unnecessary introduction of the federal highway system, which was deliberately routed in order to destroy some cities and towns and to pursue other political goals. Therefore, the history of public transportation in the USA goes like this: Successful public transportation was actively eradicated by the federal government for the benefit of big auto, but was quite profitable until then.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wet co-eds who like science!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Look, even the Republican Party has realised that the supporters of a Somalia solution for the USA are unelectable. Your dream of a return to anarchy where the guy with the biggest militia rules is just that- a dream. Now waste one of those carefully garnished mod points down-modding this. I really don't care, but I do feel that you should be ashamed of what you're doing.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
pushes out private charity
What does this mean?
It means that when a private person sees another person or group collecting for some issue, the private person is more likely to ignore them and not contribute. This person will usually justify the decision because his taxes are paying for [insert gov't program here]. This is a real issue that economists and charities have spoken about for many decades.
These charities do not lack organization as you suggest. These charities may in fact be far more effective than Washington DC. Many of these charities are local and much better informed about what is going on locally. They can be far more creative and effective than a well meaning but distant person in Washington DC who often thinks in terms of one-size-fits-all national solutions.
Your fire department analogy doesn't really fit. Washington DC is not providing your fire department services. Plus many fire stations are in fact comprised of local volunteers.
Think of the many local charities as the FOSS communities taking on a large project with a distributed network of volunteers, and the gov't based services as the monolithic corporation designing and implementing an application with a committee designed feature set that it expects will meet the needs of all users.
I realize your "bake sale to buy a bomber" comment is a joke but the really funny thing is that stuff like that actually happened in WW2. Groups really did organize and collect money to buy an aircraft for the military.
Which sucks. We spend more money on defense in a year (~680 billion in 2010) than the entire budget of NASA combined ever (~500 billion....again....ever)
Iran needs to colonize moon/mars fast....
We humans would like to think that we're special, but the fact is, we're just another species on this planet.
We are special.
And 99.99% of the species that have evolved on this planet have gone extinct on this planet.
And only one of those species, extinct or alive has built a civilization.
If we really want to be special, we need to leave Earth and spread out, because while the Earth's environment is the safest for us *individually* over the short term, it is also a near-guaranteed death sentence for our *species* over the long term.
So in half a billion years, someone needs to do something. Ok. If you going to claim that we should do something now in space, then you need to have a more compelling reason than something that happens long from now.
A big rock could show up in a month or so and wipe us all out. We've had close calls with big ones that we only saw when they were that close... or already passed us
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A big rock could show up in a month or so and wipe us all out. We've had close calls with big ones that we only saw when they were that close... or already passed us
Sure, it could happen. But makes that miniscule chance compelling?
The main three problems with the Planetary Society's campaign is simply a) That planetary science isn't that valuable to society, b) that basic economics issues, such as economies of scale and the additional risk of concentrating risk, are routinely ignored, and c) they aren't willing to put their own money where their mouth is (the "bake sale" is just a scheme to advocate for additional unaccountable public funding). I can't take them seriously until they figure these things out.
Breaking Bad: The Next Generation
Roads DO pay for themselves through fuel taxes levied on the fuels that people use to power the cars that run on the roads.
Sure, it could happen. But makes that miniscule chance compelling?
Well, it's risk management. If it happens odds are we more or less all die. So if we can do something about it then we should. You try not to worry about what you can't do anything about, but if you can do something and you don't that's lame. Meanwhile we get commercial benefits from it, without blowing anyone up but volunteers. I call it a win.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And only one of those species, extinct or alive has built a civilization.
And if we get wiped out, what difference will all that have made? All the things we've learned and done will be for nothing, save perhaps a step up for the next dominant species.
So in half a billion years, someone needs to do something. Ok. If you going to claim that we should do something now in space, then you need to have a more compelling reason than something that happens long from now.
An asteroid could wipe us out tomorrow.
Evolution never stops. All it could take is one organism able to capitalize quickly and efficiently on the truly huge food supply that is Humanity, and it could all be over for us in a matter of months. That could happen tomorrow, too. Or yesterday, for that matter.
And even if nothing needs to be done for a few hundred years, the fact remains that right now, we *have* the capability. All those hundreds of years from now when things get really grim for whatever remnants of humanity remain after our species-wide catastrophe, it might be impossible to save ourselves.
By acting now, what we're doing is taking out an insurance policy. And in a country where the average person spends about 10% of their income insuring their homes, health and vehicles, it seems odd that we're not willing to go the extra step and insure our Species... But I guess like any other terrifying event, the internal refrain of "It won't happen to me." is hard to contend with.
If it happens odds are we more or less all die.
It'd have to a bit larger than the stuff that's hit us in the past 200 million years or so, for that to be a threat. And we can mitigate the risk of that without leaving Earth to the point that no asteroid collision since life began would be capable of killing all humans on Earth.
I think one should consider instead more mundane and frequent risks. For example, economic downturns are frequent, but they don't affect everyone with equal severity. A space-side economy could help humanity recover from Earth-side recessions.
There's the possibility of nuclear war. While at some point, such wars might be interplanetary in scope, it's likely than most of them won't, just as only a few conventional wars have been global in scale. The more of humanity which is away from the drama, then the more resources that would available to survivors of such wars.
Finally, there's the risk of cultural or political stagnation on Earth. Recreating a frontier may increase the dynamism of human society and give productive outlets to energies that might otherwise be expended on controlling some part of Earth.
And in a country where the average person spends about 10% of their income insuring their homes, health and vehicles,
Against adverse events that happen on average several times during a human life.
it seems odd that we're not willing to go the extra step and insure our Species...
Against 1 in 100 million per year or lower events? What makes you think we should spend more than we already are?
I focus on a rock because we have no plans which could, with short (say, two months') notice, do a goddamn thing to save us. Humans can, at least in theory, avert nuclear war. There's no real risk of cultural stagnation here on Earth unless we actually somehow all become the same. As long as we have differences (which is likely unless we tie ourselves together into a hive mind) we'll find shit to bicker about. But a rock can just show up out of the black and ruin your whole day.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I focus on a rock because we have no plans which could, with short (say, two months') notice, do a goddamn thing to save us.
Throw breeding age populations with food and some equipment on every nuclear sub and deep mine shaft in the world. Easily achievable even for private organizations.
No, they don't -- not by a long shot. According to SubsidyScope, use taxes cover only 51% of the costs of highways -- whereas city streets are paid out of the city's general fund, not by gas taxes at all (so cyclists pay as much for the streets they use as everyone else).
Great, some people can crawl out onto a blasted landscape capable of supporting life in five years at best, if a major impactor lands in the ocean. But if the strike falls on land it could feasibly lead to our extinction even in the case of such preparations.
I think preventing a rockfall is possible but not without more shit in space to detect it in the first place.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They might be going broke, but private space development and exploration companies certainly aren't. NASA is failing because it's an enormous, lethargic bureaucracy staffed by the same caliber of people who work at the DMV or the welfare office, and people know this. I certainly wouldn't give money voluntarily to NASA.
And this justifies forcing everyone to pay for it how?
And, true or not, this misses my point. If you're going to force everyone to pay for it, everyone (either directly, or through their congressman, or whatever) gets to have a say in whether or not space exploration gets paid for. So, if 50%+1 say no, it doesn't get paid for. On the other hand, with private funding, only the people who want it pay for it. People who don't want to pay for it have no input, and no ability to prevent space exploration from happening.
With this in mind, if you support space exploration, how can you possibly think public funding is the better method? Or is it more important to you, on some sort of "principle," to make everyone pay for it because it "benefits us all," even if this makes it harder to raise money?
Yes, it does. What's your point, other than trying to make a false dichotomy? I would vote against these things too, and would support defunding them just as quickly as I support defunding space programs that are coercively paid for.
Liberty in your lifetime
Great, some people can crawl out onto a blasted landscape capable of supporting life in five years at best
In other words, it works. It's not sexy and it sucks compared to space habitation.
But if the strike falls on land it could feasibly lead to our extinction even in the case of such preparations.
I don't see why. On this scale, a few miles of water isn't that significant.