NASA's Bolden Speaks On Future Mars Mission, Chinese Moon Landing

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Bolden Speaks On Future Mars Mission, Chinese Moon Landing

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 2, 2012 @08:40AM from the lets-work-together dept.

MarkWhittington writes "During an interview with USA Today on the eve of the arrival of the Mars Rover Curiosity, NASA administrator Charles Bolden had some interesting thoughts on why a humans-to-Mars mission should be international and not American-led, how the world should react positively to the Chinese beating America back to the moon, and what he would do (or rather not do) if NASA were to have an 'unlimited' budget."

154 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:43 · Score: -1

Suck on my gold-plated Jew cock you fucking goyims!
1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  a gold foreskin costs a couple hundred bucks but a flesh foreskin is priceless, have fun with your genital mutilations.
I want to go to there by jhoegl · 2012-08-02 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Space
I want to go to there
But I lack the funds to go to there
When will I go to there?
1. Re:I want to go to there by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:55 · Score: -1
  
  Grow up.
2. Re:I want to go to there by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Worst haiku ever.
3. Re:I want to go to there by crazyjj · 2012-08-02 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  When you've cried
  About the space
  You've been denied
  Don't fret, Chet
  Burma-Shave
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
4. Re:I want to go to there by dyingtolive · 2012-08-02 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, Haiku is 5-7-5. Like this.
  
  Want to go to Mars
  But no cash to spend on gas
  Want road head China?
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
5. Re:I want to go to there by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Urge to see red Mars.
  Eastern way only, so I
  eat noodles in space
6. Re:I want to go to there by antdude · 2012-08-02 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  When you become rich. :P I'd like to go to space too. "I don't want to be on this planet anymore."
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
7. Re:I want to go to there by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-08-02 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  The last line should include an reference to the season.
  Get your ass to Mars!
  No cash for a rocket ship?
  China is in bloom...
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
8. Re:I want to go to there by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Traditional haiku are complex, but I've never heard any definition that requires you to reference the season in the last line. Generally haiku are about nature or possibly a change of season.
  Martian regolith
  under my feet or is it
  Chinese soil? Lost race.
9. Re:I want to go to there by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  Karnac predicts you will go there once you quit electing Democrats, you stooge!
  Quit electing Republicans while you're at it, too.
  Libertarians and others go to space. Repubmocrats stay in place.
On the eve...? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:48 · Score: 1

From the article: In an interview conducted by USA Today on the eve of what is hopefully the successful soft landing of the Mars Rover Curiosity...
Did the meaning of the word eve change or is Curiosity no longer landing on the 6th?
1. Re:On the eve...? by khallow · 2012-08-02 09:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's fluffy language where "eve" has been stretched a bit to indicate that the landing is imminent, not that it is tomorrow.
it really is a great operating system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:50 · Score: -1

i am just so impressed with how responsive and fast windows 8 truly is. and i am so glad they got rid of that pesky start menu, i mean i have never clicked on it once and all it did was sit down there in the corner of my screen staring at me. the new metro ui is the best thing ever invented for the pc! who wants to click tiny little icons? i sure dont!
1. Re:it really is a great operating system by crutchy · 2012-08-02 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  i am just so impressed with how much a virus-infested malware magnet windows has become, whilst linux users don't even need a virus scanner. i'm so glad that microsoft got rid of that pesky start menu, i mean why would they want to retain such a familiar interface element that has been a fairly consistent part of the windows user experience for nearly twenty years? microsoft's training partners must be creaming their pants at the prospect of the whole world needing to be retrained to use a computer all over again. the new metro ui may be the best thing ever invented for the pc, since it may lead to companies reevaluating their dependence on windows and office and giving more consideration to linux and openoffice.org. who wants to keep paying for software when they don't have to? i sure dont!
2. Re:it really is a great operating system by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-08-02 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Standing on "virus free" is a bad idea, as Apple is now learning.
  Criminals look for the biggest target they can find - it was Windows, but now the same basic malware strategies are turning out to work on Mac OS (since most users assume "virus free" means "protected from all malware"). The malware game though has been more or less the only game in software since Vista/7 closed up a lot of holes.
  Widespread Linux (say, Android) is just as vulnerable to those tricks as anyone else.
3. Re:it really is a great operating system by crutchy · 2012-08-05 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Criminals look for the biggest target they can find
  problem with argument is that linux represents a decent portion of the biggest fish... including corporate datacenters and web services, and this has been the case for a long time
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Servers
  
  so what if there is a few million consumer boxes with windows on them?
  at best they represent botnet hosts that can be used to attack more worthy targets
  
  hacking is more of an important issue for linux admins because of its prolific use in server applications. an idiot managing a linux server could easily open himself up to a hacker, but he would still be fairly safe from viruses
  
  linux malware still manages to fit neatly in a small section of a wikipedia page
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Viruses#Threats
Living up to NASA's primary mission... by CajunArson · 2012-08-02 08:51 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Which is not space travel or space science, but making Muslims feel better about themselves (I'm not joking he said it).
With "leadership" like that is it any wonder that China is going to kick our asses?

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
1. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by epyT-R · 2012-08-02 08:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  unfortunately, you're right..
  http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html
  stuff like this is where the right wing gets the whole 'democrats hate america' thing from. this guy should be working towards america becoming 'the' space authority in the world, not by force, necessarily, but by technology and drive.
2. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  If they were so concerned about "getting us [to space] and keeping us there" why do they keep slashing NASA's budget?
3. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things," Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
  ---
  Notice that there is no emphasis on actual science. None. Inspiring children to get into science is nice, but doing actual science should be thr primary goal. I can even see the international thing. But seriously, this is embarrassing.
4. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by epyT-R · 2012-08-02 09:03 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  if we gave them the budgets they want, would they keep us there or spend it on muslim relations? see how stupid politics are?
5. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  Bolden. Jaczko. Holder.
  The hits keep on coming.
6. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  With feigned outraged criticism like yours, is it any wonder that countries that didn't chase after manufactured outrage are going to get ahead?
  Learn to recognize when an administrator and bureaucrat is repeating platitudes and maybe you won't have to go into histrionics so often.
  Anybody with half a brain recognized that it was just puffery during an interview, the only problem is the conservative movement is so dedicated to repeating their lies that some people still think that Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet. And now it's the thing about not building that. You'd think he was promising to kill all humans or something.
  Whereas their own statements they contort and deny their intent. No, no, I wasn't commenting on Palestinian culture said Mitt Romney. No, no, I'm not saying I know Obama is a Muslim, it's just that I don't have proof that he isn't. No, I didn't mean to say Obama isn't an American, he just doesn't seem to be like an American.
7. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by timeOday · 2012-08-02 10:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Perhaps more to the point, the Obama administration immediately corrected Bolden and a NASA spokesman confirmed that Bolden had misspoke:
  
  "NASA's core mission remains one of space exploration, science and aeronautics," Michael Cabbage told SPACE.com. "Administrator Bolden regrets that a statement he made during a recent interview mischaracterized that core mission."
  
  Anybody who still recites this incident as actual policy rather than a gaffe induced by peer pressure, which was immediately retracted, is just trolling. Furthermore I defy you to identify any actual funds that Nasa has spent on Muslim outreach instead of space exploration in the two years since Bolden said that.
  PS I am really looking forward to the most ambitious Mars landing yet, this Sunday.
8. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by spauldo · 2012-08-02 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  stuff like this is where the right wing gets the whole 'democrats hate america' thing from
  No, they get that from their campaign advisors, right-wing "entertainment" media, and carvings in bathroom stalls.
  It's a gaff. Both sides have them.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
9. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-08-02 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Which is not space travel or space science, but making Muslims feel better about themselves (I'm not joking he said it).
  With "leadership" like that is it any wonder that China is going to kick our asses?
  
  This you do not understand
  
  With Muslims feeling better about themselves they won't come and blow up any NASA rocket, so we don't need to grief over another 9/11 episode of our Mars mission
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
10. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Holy shit, I didn't even realize how bad that was, and apparently this came straight from Obama himself. No wonder the right-wingers say Obama is a "closet Muslim"; with directives like this ("reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering") that's all the ammo they need. And what historic contribution anyway? Sure, the people living in those countries 1000 years ago did some pretty neat stuff with mathematics and astronomy, but that was a long time ago; 1000-1500 years before that, the ancient Romans and Greeks were doing some pretty neat stuff with mathematics and engineering too, but I don't see anyone saying we need to reach out to Italy and Greece to make them feel good about their historic contributions (and Italy is still making contributions to engineering, just look at Ferraris). Meanwhile, the Muslim world embraced fundamentalist around 500 years ago and it's been all down the shitter since then; this should serve as an important lesson for other countries, namely the USA.
11. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by khallow · 2012-08-02 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with this. There's no sign that Muslim outreach is sucking money from space-related endeavors. All Bolden did was give a spokesperson a little work to do.
12. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by khallow · 2012-08-02 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Bolden doesn't belong on that list. From what I've read, he seems to be trying to get NASA doing something productive, not Muslim outreach.
  
  And frankly, Holder shouldn't either. There's a good chance he is guilty of a couple hundred counts of accessory to murder in Mexico and the US, including a shooting of a federal law enforcement officer. That puts him in some scarce company, at least in the US.
13. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by epyT-R · 2012-08-02 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  well it's obvious bolden wants to mix politics with space exploration.. I'd rather have someone more results oriented.
14. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  Primary mission? Let me remind you what the first "A" in NASA represents:
  AERONAUTICS
  Not "space"
15. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by TapeCutter · 2012-08-02 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering"
  The people who I have heard saying things like that are simply trying to encourage ME nations to be proud of their heritage the way that (say) Egypt and Turkey are, rather than blowing it up the way the Taliban do. Above and beyond petty religious/political struggles, the ME is the cradle of civilization, it's heritage is ours.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
16. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  If the ME nations need the Americans to make them proud of their heritage, while simultaneously invading and occupying their countries, then they're hopeless. And the ME isn't the only cradle of civilization; there are two more in India and China that arose around the same time.
17. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid Slashdot, no edit function like Reddit....
  Also, more pertinently, this stuff shouldn't be concerning NASA at all. Their mission is (or should be) to pursue space exploration for the USA, and that's it, not to do diplomatic shit. Leave that to the diplomats in the State Department. The only time NASA should be doing anything international is when they're working on projects together with foreign space agencies, which would be JAXA, ESA, the Russians, etc. The Islamic countries don't have any space agencies, so NASA shouldn't be concerned with them in the slightest way. Their budget is already way too small, the last thing they need is any more distractions.
18. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by crutchy · 2012-08-02 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  NASA has sucked at anything space-related since the collapse of the USSR
  
  their measly budget is wasted trying to maintain a hugely overpopulated bureaucracy and academia
  
  there's a lot of oil money in the muslim world, so why not reach out to muslims?
  
  this overreaction is typical american hypocracy, where dropping bombs on other countries is perfectly acceptable, but dropping a religious comment is considered a capital offence
19. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by crutchy · 2012-08-02 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  as far as aeronautics goes, nasa is pwned by the faa, who would be sure to drive up the cost of any aeronautics project 100 fold with regulatory red tape. red tape is what the faa does best.
20. Re:Living up to NASA's primary mission... by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-08-03 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Bolden needs to find a different job.
React positively? by Microlith · 2012-08-02 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the even that China reaches a point that we achieved 40 years ago... and that we haven't been able to do again since? No, I will be disappointed in my government insisting we spend more putting bullets in the heads of children, bombs in jungles and scrub hillsides and bailing out incompetent, greedy industries. All the while idiot Republicans scream constantly that we need to cut even more government spending on irrelevant things while not raising taxes to pay for the debts accrued due to shitty spending policies over the last 30 years.
We could be going "Welcome to Armstrong Base!" to the Chinese taikonauts landing on the moon, and for a fraction of what we've spent slaughtering people and covering for the incompetent. Instead we've squandered what we had with only a death toll and debt to show for it.
1. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  thanks for totally harshing my melow...
2. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Welcome to Armstrong Base!"
  Well we could, yeah... but what for? Other than bragging rights and planting the flag?
  I'd much rather see us spend the same money on robotic probes. You get much more science for the same dollar. We could be driving rovers around on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. We could be saturating Mars with them, so that we could drop some in high-risk high-reward areas even if we lose a few in the process.
  Otherwise, yea agreed we spend massive money on useless things - pork, corruption, etc. - that we could be spending on science that would pay rewards in the long run. Not just space science, but everything.
3. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  "Mellow" contains 2 L's junkie!
4. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  i can only afford the 1 L after obama care took effect
5. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Well put my friend. Been saying this forever. Its a damn shame where the goverments priorities lay.
6. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  The Republicans are right. We should stop spending on irrelevant things. We shouldn't raise taxes, either. Hell, if we do the former the latter won't matter. Of course, my list of irrelevant things is much, much longer than the Republicans' list.
  What the hell is raising taxes going to solve? Less money (i.e. power) for you and me funneled straight to those whose policies you don't agree with... Yay! They'll spend more and our deficit will only get slightly less bigger than it would have otherwise!
7. Re:React positively? by briancox2 · 2012-08-02 09:37 · Score: -1
  
  The best shot one has at getting a Score of 5 Insightful on Slashdot, is to make a far left-leaning anti-Republican rant. Relevance to the actual post is options. Thank you for demonstrating this Microlith.
  
  --
  We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
8. Re:React positively? by Microlith · 2012-08-02 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We should stop spending on irrelevant things
  Like the NOAA? The USGS? Federal funding for NPR/Planned Parenthood? The reason those are targeted, despite being a pittance compared to other things, is purely political. Cutting them will kill extremely useful services while saving precisely shit.
  
  We shouldn't raise taxes, either.
  Well that's genius. Even if we had a balanced budget we'd need to raise taxes.
  
  What the hell is raising taxes going to solve?
  Paying down the massive debt we've accrued?
  
  They'll spend more and our deficit will only get slightly less bigger than it would have otherwise!
  So instead you insist we not raise taxes and... do what, exactly? Nothing? Got it.
9. Re:React positively? by Microlith · 2012-08-02 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  a far left-leaning anti-Republican rant
  I thought my point was quite salient. How is that not what has happened during and after the Apollo program, and particularly in the last decade?
  Am I supposed to have sympathy or respect for the modern Republican party? Why?
10. Re:React positively? by Microlith · 2012-08-02 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Other than bragging rights and planting the flag?
  Surface-based radiotelescope on the far side of the moon, in the giant EM shadow the moon makes of our emissions?
  
  I'd much rather see us spend the same money on robotic probes.
  For what we've burned a moonbase and even more probes wouldn't be out of the cards. We've chosen not to do one and spend as little as possible on the other.
11. Re:React positively? by capnchicken · 2012-08-02 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well we could, yeah... but what for? Other than bragging rights and planting the flag?
  Mining for Helium-3 for the also underfunded, and therefor non-existent, fusion projects.
  A smaller gravity well launchpad for said robotic probes.
  The technological breakthroughs that would come with trying to sustain life long term in a harsh unforgiving environment.
  
  --
  A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
12. Re:React positively? by NeutronCowboy · 2012-08-02 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Apparently, a far left-leaning liberal bias, to boot. And before you complain about how tired the meme is, I wish it wasn't so damn accurate.
  There is nothing in your parent's post that was false. The only inflammatory part was the "idiot Republicans" part: there are too many idiot Democrats to have that moniker be specific to Republicans.
  Your complaint about the moderation system is nothing but a deflective whine about bias that says more about your lack of substantive objections than about the actual state of Slashdot's moderation system.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
13. Re:React positively? by Ruie · 2012-08-02 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well we could, yeah... but what for? Other than bragging rights and planting the flag?
  Mining for Helium-3 for the also underfunded, and therefor non-existent, fusion projects.
  A smaller gravity well launchpad for said robotic probes.
  The technological breakthroughs that would come with trying to sustain life long term in a harsh unforgiving environment.
  I recently heard a very interesting presentation by a scientist working on fusion where he had shown the historical investment in fusion research and made a very good point that instead of saying "fusion is 25 years away" one should really be saying "fusion is $80 billion away".
  Apparently this number has consistently come up in reviews of fusion programs, but the funding was being whittled away year after year.
14. Re:React positively? by Sperbels · 2012-08-02 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it was worded a little "far-left", but the position is hardly far left. Our military is unnecessarily large and expensive.
15. Re:React positively? by JWW · 2012-08-02 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  We should stop spending on irrelevant things
  No, not like NOAA, the USGS, etc.
  but rather
  Things like the insanely large defense budget, and handing the younger generations money to the richest segment of the population (everyone wants Warran Buffet to pay more in taxes, NO ONE is asking what the hell we're doing giving him a social security check every month or paying for all his medical bills).
  You could eliminate the non-defense discretionary budget 100% (elimiate every non-defense segment of the government) and we'd still be running a deficit.
  Social Security and Medicare must be massively reformed to be means based and not handouts to everyone over 65 (who are far far richer as a group than everyone under 30). In addition to this the defense budget needs to be cut by at least 1/3.
  Cutting any other parts of government, while mildly helpful to deficit spending, is smoke and mirrors.
  The sacred cows must be offered up by both parties or we're going to be screwed. The math to fixing the nation's budget problems doesn't work any other way.
16. Re:React positively? by benjfowler · 2012-08-02 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  You are dumb. You don't even know what far-Left is.
17. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  The math to fixing the nation's budget problems doesn't work any other way.
  Dynamic scoring works just fine. With it, I can reduce the tax rate to -1% and thanks to the magic of the Laffler Curve, suddenly the government has infinite amounts of tax dollars.
18. Re:React positively? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-08-02 10:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You could eliminate the non-defense discretionary budget 100% (elimiate every non-defense segment of the government) and we'd still be running a deficit.
  And if you eliminated the defense budget 100%, we'd still be running a deficit.
  In fact, our deficit would still be in the top five of all time....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
19. Re:React positively? by ThermalRunaway · 2012-08-02 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Idiot Republicans? Both parties voted for bailouts of TooBigToFail XYZ. Reps tend to want lower gov spending except on military. Dems tend to want lower spending except on social entitlements of their liking.
  
  I for one would rather see us spend money on another moon mission than trying to convince Afghans about the glories of representative government, or for DHS to research why kids get fat when they eat too much bacon.
  
  Lets not forget about the dramatic shift in social standing of tech/engineers since the 60s. Nowdays people are more about what some dumbass girl from Jersey is doing on sat night in bar than what NASA is doing with JWST or Kepler. People with nothing to their credit other than being famous for being famous for a sex tape or stupid antics are way more popular in mainstream culture than astronauts or engineers. Its quite sad.
20. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  In the even that China reaches a point that we achieved 40 years ago... and that we haven't been able to do again since?
  
  The correct expression is "haven't been willing to do again since" not that we haven't been able to do so. We've never tried. Not even made a serious attempt.
21. Re:React positively? by spauldo · 2012-08-02 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  Social Security and Medicare must be massively reformed to be means based and not handouts to everyone over 65 (who are far far richer as a group than everyone under 30).
  Medicare, maybe. I'm a single payer advocate, so there's no point in arguing that - we won't agree.
  Social Security? It doesn't work that way. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit or government spending - it's a seperate, self-supporting insurance system. It's not currently running a deficit and won't for a few years at least. It costs the government $0 - in fact, the surpluses have been poured into the federal budget (which is why people scream that the feds are raiding it).
  Anyone who tells you Social Security needs to be cut to reduce the budget is trying to pull one over on you.
  Onto making it means based: You seem to have the misconception that Social Security is a type of welfare. It's not. it's federally mandated insurance. The wealthy payed into it - in fact, they payed more into it than poor people. If you pay $20/month for life insurance to Fred's Assurance Co., and some rich guy pays $200/mo for life insurance at the same company, then why would it be right for you to get a larger payout than him?
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
22. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  This post reminds me why I like reddit's moderation system better; I'd give you an up-mod if I could, because you're exactly correct.
23. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get as much science, as fast, with robotic probes as you do with people walking around. You also don't develop technology nearly as quickly; the Apollo program contributed tons of things to our technology, and we're not seeing those contributions with robotic probes. They're nice for exploring far-off things where you're not in as much of a hurry or they're just too far away to feasibly reach with humans with present technology, and for doing so on a small budget, but that's it. If you want to actually develop technology and capabilities that will improve the economy, such as asteroid/moon mining or space-based solar power generation, you have to send humans up there to get it done any time soon. Then, you'll get a bunch of positive side-effects with technological developments, plus you can make money on space tourism.
24. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  The Dems and Reps are both right about certain things; those are their talking points that they use to get votes. The problem is that they're both completely wrong about many more things.
  Yes, we should stop spending on irrelevant things. But space isn't irrelevant; the computer you're using uses electronics technology developed in the Apollo program. However, all this military activity IS irrelevant, and should be cut. Giveaways to corrupt, mismanaged industries is a waste too, and should be cut. Tax breaks to corn and oil companies is a waste, and should be stopped.
  You're right though: raising taxes won't help, because it will only go to wasteful things like wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, to bailouts so companies can socialize their losses while privatizing their profits, and so Obama can shut down airspace in major cities constantly as he flies around for no good reason.
25. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security and Medicare must be massively reformed to be means based and not handouts to everyone over 65
  Social Security is a government-run insurance program. The people getting those benefits (at least, the retirement benefits, I'm not addressing the other things SSI has gotten into) get them based on how much they paid into the system during their (or their spouse's) working years. Pay more in, get more out. It's no different than any private life insurance / retirement program, except the returns aren't as good (but they're guaranteed, and therefore much less risky). If you take that away, you're essentially stealing from those people, because when they paid that extra 15% into FICA, they were promised Medicare and SS benefits when they retired in exchange.
  Are you going to take away peoples' private retirement pensions too, if you think they already have too much money? That sounds rather socialistic of you.
26. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Reps tend to want lower gov spending except on military. Dems tend to want lower spending except on social entitlements of their liking.
  No, they don't. They each talk that way, but when Reps are in office, government spending goes up. And when Dems are in office, government spending goes up (with the possible exception of Clinton, but he also had a giant revenue surplus to work with).
  The Reps were all too happy to bail out the banksters, so any claims about them wanting lower spending are bullshit.
  The Dems have been all too happy to continue to fund the mideast wars as well as the bailouts, and even step up the war in Afghanistan, so any claims about them wanting lower spending are also bullshit.
27. Re:React positively? by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-08-02 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  radiotelescope on the far side of the moon, in the giant EM shadow the moon makes of our emissions?
  The first few millimetres are enough to shield a radio telescope, the remaining 3400+km are redundant.
  But it would have been nice to see a copy of MSL sent to the moon a few years ago. (While they were waiting for the next Mars launch window.) The skycrane rig should have enough delta-v & more than enough thrust to land on the moon. The RTG should have been able to keep the rover warm during nightfall. And since most of the design work was already done, and I bet dollars to donuts they made multiple copies of every part, so it'd be a bargain mission. (Only the RTG would be difficult, plutonium being in short supply.) Near real-time remote control, hi-res cams, nuclear power. What a waste. They do this every time. Build it, throw away the hardware, throw away the development, disband the team, start again from scratch a year or two later. Literally reinventing the wheel.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
28. Re:React positively? by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-08-02 14:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Mining for Helium-3
  He-3 fusion is harder than D-D fusion. Meaning that we'll have D-D fusion decades before we have He-3 fusion. And "harder" means higher temperature, greater pressure, which means if we can develop He-3 fusion, the same technology will make D-D fusion plants smaller and more efficient, which will increase the number of applications (such as ships' powerplants.)
  And one of the waste products from D-D fusion? Helium 3. It will be a century or so after we crack practical fusion before we need outside sources of He-3.
  And even then, given the low density of He-3 in the regolith (it's a trace element), the amount of mining means you'd need a substantial presence on the moon. A full blown mining colony. And guess what their ships and vehicles and bases will use for power? D-D fusion plants. Coz the small amount of waste produced by neutronic fusion is just not an issue in space. And one of the waste products from D-D fusion... oh yeah.
  Calling for mining He-3 fusion today is like calling for airport noise regulations in the middle ages. It just makes you (and space advocacy in general) look stupid.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
29. Re:React positively? by cavreader · 2012-08-02 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the reason the US hasn't gone back to the moon is because they already went several times, had a look around, bounced around, collected some rocks, planted a flag, shot some film, and decided there wasn't really much else you could do on a barren landscape with vacuum for an atmosphere. If China eventually gets to the moon that will guarantee an increase in the NASA budget to go back and make sure China or anyone else doesn't occupy the proverbial high ground. A scenerio like that would turn the project from a scientific venture to a national security matter and funding would come from the blank check military budget. After all the first NASA trips to the moon were driven by the cold war competition between the US and USSR. What we really need to build is an orbital shipyard and docking platform for manned ships. Getting to orbit and de-orbiting are the most expensive, dangerous, and time consuming tasks if you want to expand manned space exploration missions. Until that is done we can continue to use unmanned space exploration probes to collect data about the solar system.
30. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-02 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security? It doesn't work that way. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit or government spending - it's a seperate, self-supporting insurance system. It's not currently running a deficit and won't for a few years at least. It costs the government $0 - in fact, the surpluses have been poured into the federal budget (which is why people scream that the feds are raiding it).
  
  Anyone who tells you Social Security needs to be cut to reduce the budget is trying to pull one over on you.
  Social Security doesn't work that way. It's just another 15% tax on income in addition to the normal income tax. Coupled with that is a pretty retarded pyramid scheme for paying a little bit for everyone's retirement. It's also not break even, even if you pretend to respect the founding myths like the "lockbox". It has been in the red in that sense since 2010.
  
  My opinion is drop the pension part altogether except for some needs based thing to keep Grannie from eating catfood. And either drop the 15% tax or just add it to the regular income tax.
  
  You seem to have the misconception that Social Security is a type of welfare.
  Yes, I do. I wouldn't call it a misconception though.
  
  If you pay $20/month for life insurance to Fred's Assurance Co., and some rich guy pays $200/mo for life insurance at the same company, then why would it be right for you to get a larger payout than him?
  Frankly, it wouldn't be right for either of you to get a payout since the insurer spent the insurance proceeds instead of investing them and is paying (for the moment) insurance payouts with other peoples' payments, milking the con for a little while longer so that they can get as much money out of you as they can.
31. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-02 17:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I like Steven Ruff's take:
  
  Spirit outlived even the wildest speculations about its lifespan, making possible the remarkable discoveries about the igneous, aqueous, and aeolian processes that shaped the landscape that it and we roamed. But despite these successes, I became painfully aware of the shortcomings of robotic exploration of Mars. In a word, it is cumbersome. It took years of painstaking effort to explore just those few square kilometers of Gusev crater. Many tens of humans had to participate to guide the rover along a path that was carefully chosen to maximize both safety and science potential. Although Spirit proved to be much more robust and capable than anyone imagined, its speed and mobility were limiting factors. And despite a science payload exquisitely adapted to the tasks it was designed for, surely we failed to recognize and understand important clues to the geologic history we came to investigate. The experience of exploring a planet with a rover is both incredibly exciting and rewarding and incredibly frustrating. It is science by committee modulated by engineering constraints.
  
  Many on the science team echoed the sentiment that a human geologist could have performed the years of exploration done by Spirit in just a few weeks or perhaps days. It's true that Spirit's amazing toolkit is still unavailable to a terrestrial field geologist. But simple tools combined with the eyes, hands, boots, and brain of a human far outstrip the capabilities of a rover, even those of the next generation Mars Science Laboratory. Given the impossibility of real- time interaction between a human and a robotic surrogate across the millions of kilometers separating Earth from Mars, robotic exploration will never replace what is achievable by humans. Here I am focused on the scientific achievements. The ones that arise from humanity expanding into the solar system, by definition, require humans. Robots should never be viewed as a substitute for humans directly experiencing another world.
  If you are interested in spending dollars well, then the current approach isn't a good one. Above we see a two order magnitude improvement between an instance of unmanned space exploration and the manned equivalent of a single geologist. But the manned mission wouldn't cost two orders of magnitude more (for example, Zubrin's "Direct Mars" approach is thought to cost a few tens of billions, assuming no major innovation in launch vehicle costs) and it'd put down a team for at least a couple of years.
  
  Not everything experiences this sort of improvement (eg, orbital imaging, communcation), but it doesn't make sense to claim that unmanned is strictly better when it's not.
  
  Similar arguments hold for more mundane improvements such as manufacturing batches of probes rather than one-off designs. For example, for the cost of the Mars Science Laboratory which will attempt to land in a few days, one could have built and launched several (I think up to six) more Mars Exploration Rovers. Further all of these rovers could have been operating on Mars for years now. MSL is somewhat more capable, but there was a dear cost, a slowing down of research on Mars.
32. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-02 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Welcome to Armstrong Base!"
  
  Well we could, yeah... but what for? Other than bragging rights and planting the flag?
  Also an alternate platform for putting things in Earth orbit. Currently, it costs around $5-20k per kg to put anything in orbit. Even with vast improvements in cost for launch infrastructure, you're limited by propellant cost. I assume a factor of three over the cost of propellant, which yields $100 to $300 per kg. Economically, anything that you can use now on the Moon is free. So, for example, if you can get some sort of self-replicating factory to the Moon, you can build launch infrastructure and propellant harvesting for the cost of your initial input, management overhead on Earth, and the time-value of however long it takes you to put that all together. You might require people on site or might not which would be another possible cost. But what you wouldn't have is a high marginal cost to orbit.
33. Re:React positively? by spauldo · 2012-08-02 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security doesn't work that way. It's just another 15% tax on income in addition to the normal income tax. Coupled with that is a pretty retarded pyramid scheme for paying a little bit for everyone's retirement. It's also not break even, even if you pretend to respect the founding myths like the "lockbox". It has been in the red in that sense since 2010.
  It's a tax because the government is doing it. If you were buying retirement insurance, it would be a premium. What's the difference? You could mandate everyone get a retirement program of some sort, similar to the health insurance mandate, I suppose. You'd still pay money into it either way.
  The only reason it doesn't break even right now is because of the 1 year 2% reduction in that tax. Without that tax break, it would have stayed nice and solvent right up to the point where the baby boomers all retired. Give it a bit to recover and it'll be solvent again, at least for a while.
  
  My opinion is drop the pension part altogether except for some needs based thing to keep Grannie from eating catfood.
  So you want to replace Social Security with... welfare?
  
  And either drop the 15% tax or just add it to the regular income tax.
  The tax is separate for a reason. Yeah, congress has pillaged the Social Security fund and fed it into the federal budget on too many occasions (that money would have been nice for the upcoming baby boomer retirement), but they have to explicitly do so. Mixing it in with income tax would just make it that much easier for them.
  And really, what's wrong with having it as a separate tax? Most people have both state and federal taxes. At least with FICA you don't have to file a return.
  
  Frankly, it wouldn't be right for either of you to get a payout since the insurer spent the insurance proceeds instead of investing them and is paying (for the moment) insurance payouts with other peoples' payments, milking the con for a little while longer so that they can get as much money out of you as they can.
  It wouldn't be right to get the service you paid for? WTF?
  Your health, life, car, and home insurance works exactly the same way. You think your premiums go into an account just for you? Unless you go around crashing your car every couple of years, your car insurance pays for other people's wrecks. Your life insurance payments go to other people. The whole point is that you get money when you have a legitimate claim.
  If you think that's a scam, you're free to drop all the above (at least until 2014 for health insurance).
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
34. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-02 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's a tax because the government is doing it. If you were buying retirement insurance, it would be a premium. What's the difference? You could mandate everyone get a retirement program of some sort, similar to the health insurance mandate, I suppose. You'd still pay money into it either way.
  Or you could just not have such a program. There's no reason for a society, civilized or otherwise, to have institutionalized retirement.
  
  Frankly, it wouldn't be right for either of you to get a payout since the insurer spent the insurance proceeds instead of investing them and is paying (for the moment) insurance payouts with other peoples' payments, milking the con for a little while longer so that they can get as much money out of you as they can.
  
  It wouldn't be right to get the service you paid for? WTF?
  "From who?" is the question here. The insurer by contract should provide the service, but they're in the act of reneging on that contract. So you shouldn't be able to demand the service from another paying customer. Current recipients of US Social Security (and many other public pensions) get their money directly from other payers. There's no saving or investing of past Social Security payments. That money is long gone.
  
  And when the recipients are also the ones who voted for the current setup, it's a rather blatant theft by older generations from the younger. Why should such contracts be honored when they could have been fixed any time in the past 80 years and weren't?
35. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-02 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Your health, life, car, and home insurance works exactly the same way. You think your premiums go into an account just for you? Unless you go around crashing your car every couple of years, your car insurance pays for other people's wrecks. Your life insurance payments go to other people. The whole point is that you get money when you have a legitimate claim.
  The insurance company has to either keep considerable assets on hand in case of a large scale payout, or reinsure with someone else who does that. They can't just payout by redirecting money from other customers' payments.
  
  If you think that's a scam, you're free to drop all the above (at least until 2014 for health insurance).
  I'm not free to drop Social Security. I'm not free to drop health insurance in 2014. That's how a government-backed scam works. Make it mandatory with a solid voting bloc that benefits, then it doesn't matter how transparent the con is.
36. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-02 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security is a government-run insurance program.
  
  It's not insurance because it pays out for a situation that is extremely likely to happen. But it definitely is government-run. I agree on that.
  
  The people getting those benefits (at least, the retirement benefits, I'm not addressing the other things SSI has gotten into) get them based on how much they paid into the system during their (or their spouse's) working years.
  They should be getting less than they are then. They live too long.
  
  If you take that away, you're essentially stealing from those people, because when they paid that extra 15% into FICA, they were promised Medicare and SS benefits when they retired in exchange.
  It's interesting how it's not theft when someone exploits a political system to get others to pay for their selfish gain, and it is theft when someone doesn't want to pay into something that's they're not going to benefit from. Who made those "promises" that we're all supposed to keep? Why it's the same people who voted themselves all this money!
  
  The hypocrisy is thick enough that you can cut it up and use it as a building material.
  
  Are you going to take away peoples' private retirement pensions too
  That's the next obvious step, huh? Because we all have 15% of our paychecks taken out for those private pensions too! I wonder if you really understand what the problem is here. The problem isn't that old people are getting money. It's that Social Security is a pointless and mandatory redistribution of wealth.
37. Re:React positively? by crutchy · 2012-08-02 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  apollo was a military program. if you really want technological development, start a new cold war with the russians or chinese. you don't even have to go to space.
  
  even from the measly conventional wars going on there is technological development, but as for apollo there is a bit of a delay till such developments make it into consumer goods.
  
  if you ever want to get humans into space, there must be a financial incentive. if anyone ever discovers a valuable mineral on the moon (analgous to gold in the americas or oil in the middle east), you will get corporations and governments alike scambling to get machines there to mine it, and cheap disposable labor to operate those machines. till then, keep dreaming.
38. Re:React positively? by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-08-02 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  You could eliminate the non-defense discretionary budget 100% (elimiate every non-defense segment of the government) and we'd still be running a deficit.
  And if you eliminated the defense budget 100%, we'd still be running a deficit.
  In fact, our deficit would still be in the top five of all time....
  If you paid off the entire US budget deficit, you'd be acting fiscally negligent and giving away revenue/
  The US has absolutely no need, nor should it, hold no deficit. The only thing it needs to do is ensure that GDP grows, on average, slightly faster then the deficit does. If that can be maintained, then the portion of the budget needed to service the deficit will shrink - eventually being eaten up by inflation.
  It would be foolish to try and actually pay off the entire deficit, since it's unnecessary. The only reason to engage in short term deficit reduction is to pull the total more in line with a figure consistent with GDP growth. And then of course you have the business cycle to modulate against: your going to expand the deficit in recessions, so you want to shrink it during boom times.
  You also definitely don't want to cut spending during the recession, since all you're going to accomplish is cause a shrinking GDP to shrink faster.
  The US, at present, doesn't even have a deficit problem. It has a "stupid war" problem. It has a tax problem from the Bush-era tax cuts. And it has economic suicide problem, in the form of the debt ceiling: a concept no other country implements, for good reason. Not raising the debt ceiling causes an immediate default for the worst possible reason: no reason at all. A country perfectly capable of servicing it's debt, that then chooses not to do so for no fiscal reason whatsoever is the worst kind of lending risk.
  A final note on that: even if the US had no net deficit, it would still be necessary to raise the debt ceiling periodically, since the normal operation of business and government requires short term loans to sustain fluid fiscal policy. GDP growth would increase the size of these each year anyway, which means the amount needed over the short term would grow each year anyway. And that's assuming your straight up strangling the economy by refusing to make sound investments over the longer term with borrowed money.
39. Re:React positively? by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-08-02 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  It also would've been suicide to not bail out the banks. Nobody wants that.
  The problem with the bailout was what happened immediately after it: as soon as the bankers got the money, everyone was all too happy that "they'd really learned their lesson" and that new regulation was simply going to starve off the recovery!
  Even if that were true, the only thing it means is that we should've picked a growth target, written some laws and said "these come into effect here, it's about 5 years away, you've been warned".
40. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-03 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Mining for Helium-3
  Don't we have a team of Sam Rockwell clones up there right now doing that for us?
41. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-03 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Glad you have all the industrial applications and processes of theoretical tech down pat. We need more like you that can glean shit off a Wikipedia page.
  I bet you don't come off as an arrogant cunt at parties at all.
42. Re:React positively? by Muad'Dave · 2012-08-03 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security and Medicare must be massively reformed to be means based and not handouts to everyone over 65 (who are far far richer as a group than everyone under 30).
  I once did the math, and found that it would be cheaper to cut a check for $30,000 to every single US family than continue spending all that money on the various 'entitlement' programs.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
43. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-03 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's not insurance because it pays out for a situation that is extremely likely to happen.
  Insurance is still insurance even if it pays out for an extremely likely situation.
  Insurance is really just a bet. Just because you're betting stupidly doesn't mean it's not a bet. Think of that scene from Austin Powers where he choose to stay on a 5 in blackjack.
  
  They should be getting less than they are then. They live too long.
  It's not their fault they live too long. It's capitalism. What with all them scientific discoveries and people working for a profit to increase efficiency and productivity, so now everybody's standard of living and life expectancy is higher.
  
  It's interesting how it's not theft when someone exploits a political system to get others to pay for their selfish gain
  SS is not an exploit. SS was a bet by government. People took on the bet. Government lost the bet. Now government is liable to pay.
  
  and it is theft when someone doesn't want to pay into something that's they're not going to benefit from.
  It is of course theft, as you're trying to renege on the aforementioned bet. See, this is one of those "personal responsibility" things libertarians talk about. Your fathers (or grandfathers or whoever) took on this bet. They lost. Now you, as their descendant, have to pay.
  It's one of the foundations of property rights: when you inherit something, you inherit BOTH the assets and liabilities attached to that something. If you don't want to take on the liabilities of the your government, then please renounce your citizenship (and you'll probably want to move out)
  
  Who made those "promises" that we're all supposed to keep? Why it's the same people who voted themselves all this money!
  It's not a promise. It's a bet. And it wasn't "same people who voted themselves all this money' who made it. It was your own forefathers, your own citizens that came before you. If you want to blame somebody, blame your own parents (or grandparents or whoever)
  
  The hypocrisy is thick enough that you can cut it up and use it as a building material.
  Yes, hypocrisy indeed - YOURS. All you're doing is trying to excuse yourself from the responsibility that comes with inheriting your country.
  Until you announce that you are no longer part of *your* country and you do not bow to *your* government (take a lesson from those folks in the Arab Spring), you are on the hook for what *your* government does.
  
  That's the next obvious step, huh? Because we all have 15% of our paychecks taken out for those private pensions too! I wonder if you really understand what the problem is here. The problem isn't that old people are getting money. It's that Social Security is a pointless and mandatory redistribution of wealth.
  I don't know about pointless (ask your own parents why they voted that way), but you're right it is mandatory, because it's a liability, a responsibility you inherited when you became a citizen of your country. So you're not getting out of it just because you don't want to and go around calling it theft.
44. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-03 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Insurance is still insurance even if it pays out for an extremely likely situation.
  But there are other characteristics of Social Security that preclude it from being insurance. The key one is that not only does it pay out for an extremely likely situation, but the situation in question is not a risk. The payout occurs whether something bad happens or not. And the worst that can happen, namely, you die, actually reduces the payout.
  
  It like other pension schemes is really a variation of an annuity not insurance.
  
  Insurance is really just a bet. Just because you're betting stupidly doesn't mean it's not a bet. Think of that scene from Austin Powers where he choose to stay on a 5 in blackjack.
  A lot of things are bets, including annuities. Not all of those bets are insurance. In investment terms, a primary characteristic of insurance is that it is a hedge. There is some risk that can happen which the insurance hedges or compensates for.
  
  The hypocrisy is thick enough that you can cut it up and use it as a building material.
  Yes, hypocrisy indeed - YOURS. All you're doing is trying to excuse yourself from the responsibility that comes with inheriting your country.
  Well, the irony here is that ending Social Security would fulfill that responsibility in a non-hypocritical manner. No matter what happens, I will sacrifice greatly because of the machinery of Social Security. It is reasonable and just that everyone else sacrifices as well.
  
  Until you announce that you are no longer part of *your* country and you do not bow to *your* government (take a lesson from those folks in the Arab Spring), you are on the hook for what *your* government does.
  There are better strategies to try right now than that. I'll see how the Tea Party fares first in reversing the worst of these abhorrent spending schemes. But it's worth remembering at the national level there is no obligation too great that it can't simply be inflated out of.
  
  I don't know about pointless (ask your own parents why they voted that way), but you're right it is mandatory, because it's a liability, a responsibility you inherited when you became a citizen of your country. So you're not getting out of it just because you don't want to and go around calling it theft.
  Private pensions are not a liability for me because I'm not obligated to pay them. That's what of being "private" means.
45. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-03 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, giving money to people who've proved they can't manage it is stupid, and it rewards the wrongdoers. It never should have been done. If the banks are that important to the economy, they should have been seized by the government, and then broken apart and privatized later. Governments seize critical industries all the time. You don't leave the same morons in charge when things go south, and you sure as hell don't give them a fortune in taxpayer money so they can have a big bonus.
46. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-03 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  apollo was a military program. if you really want technological development, start a new cold war with the russians or chinese. you don't even have to go to space.
  We're in two shooting wars now, and there's almost no technological development resulting from it, except perhaps remotely-piloted aircraft. And what good does another cold war do? At least with space exploration, you actually get a lot of good science, plus you develop space-based capabilities that are good for many things besides military purposes.
  There's tons of valuable minerals in asteroids; we already know this. There's also something even more important up there: energy. We're running out of it down here, and that which we have has a lot of serious downsides (atmospheric pollution, etc.).
47. Re:React positively? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-03 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's not insurance because it pays out for a situation that is extremely likely to happen.
  Wrong. Ever heard of health insurance? Who doesn't need to ever go to the doctor? Insurance, these days, is not only for situations that are unlikely.
  It's interesting how it's not theft when someone exploits a political system to get others to pay for their selfish gain
  Who said that? I never said that.
  and it is theft when someone doesn't want to pay into something that's they're not going to benefit from.
  Who said that? I never said that.
  Who made those "promises" that we're all supposed to keep?
  Simple: your elected leaders made these promises. YOU elected these leaders to speak for you. They've made promises, and now YOU need to back up those promises. Don't like it? Then you should have made better selections at the voting booth. Stop whining that you're being made accountable for your actions.
  It's that Social Security is a pointless and mandatory redistribution of wealth.
  This is an utterly stupid statement. SS doesn't "redistribute" wealth, it gives more money to people who paid more into the system when they were working, just like any retirement fund.
48. Re:React positively? by Tekfactory · 2012-08-03 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  We also use He-3 for medical imaging, today despite its insanely high ($40k a kilo) cost.
49. Re:React positively? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-03 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  But there are other characteristics of Social Security that preclude it from being insurance. The key one is that not only does it pay out for an extremely likely situation, but the situation in question is not a risk. The payout occurs whether something bad happens or not. And the worst that can happen, namely, you die, actually reduces the payout.
  The situation is very much a risk. The risk is "I might live longer than I have money to spend"
  It's a common and often low risk, but a risk nonetheless.
  
  A lot of things are bets, including annuities. Not all of those bets are insurance. In investment terms, a primary characteristic of insurance is that it is a hedge. There is some risk that can happen which the insurance hedges or compensates for.
  Not all bets are insurance, but the bet of SS is an insurance. SS's hedge is people who die early. The people who die early leave money to pay for the people who don't.
  Hindsight says it was a stupid hedge to rely on, but again: Austin Powers stayed on 5 in blackjack
  
  Well, the irony here is that ending Social Security would fulfill that responsibility in a non-hypocritical manner.
  The non-hypocritical thing to do to fulfill your responsibility is to pay off your debts. Ending SS would be the hypocritical thing, as you're just walking out on your responsibility
  Your forefathers bought a bad deal and shoved the responsibility on to you. Sucks that you have to pay for their mistake, but that's reality.
  
  There are better strategies to try right now than that. I'll see how the Tea Party fares first in reversing the worst of these abhorrent spending schemes.
  If by better you mean less responsible, then yes, constantly refusing to paying the debts your forefathers incurred is indeed a better strategy
  
  But it's worth remembering at the national level there is no obligation too great that it can't simply be inflated out of.
  Ah, so then the Tea Party's push of spending cuts can be ignored. We just need to inflate some more to cover it!
  
  Private pensions are not a liability for me because I'm not obligated to pay them. That's what of being "private" means.
  Private is just a description of ownership, nothing about obligations.
  SS isn't your private pension anyway. What's your point?
50. Re:React positively? by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-08-03 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  True, but only in trivial amounts. Even if the price didn't drop, the whole market isn't big enough to fund a single lunar mission. Nor fund the development of the hardware. And even if you could, somehow, get the cost of development and operation down enough to make a profit, you would be talking about small robotic systems, built like current nano-sats. It'd be cool if someone did that, even China, but it wouldn't advance human spaceflight; and it's certainly not a reason to justify humans on the moon.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
51. Re:React positively? by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-08-03 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  We need more [arrogant cunts] like you that can glean shit off a Wikipedia page.
  Wikipedia has this? Which page? It'd be handy to have a central source that I could just link people to, instead of having to repeat the whole spiel every time.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
52. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-03 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  The situation is very much a risk. The risk is "I might live longer than I have money to spend"
  Well, consider why it isn't a problem for anyone else. They just get a paying job and the problem goes away. If they can't work because they're too infirm, then they have a need, which a need-based system could address.
  
  The non-hypocritical thing to do to fulfill your responsibility is to pay off your debts. Ending SS would be the hypocritical thing, as you're just walking out on your responsibility
  
  Your forefathers bought a bad deal and shoved the responsibility on to you. Sucks that you have to pay for their mistake, but that's reality.
  No one buys that. When Social Security is cut (directly or through untracked inflation) or even eliminated, then the above putrid rationalization will be replaced by the new morality and the new doublespeak, which might be just as odious (but at least the budgets will be closer to balancing for a time).
  
  Perhaps society will remember that it is unjust to force people to honor bad contracts that they had no part in? Hopefully, some peaceful resolution will happen before the "you'll be next against the wall" people get a taste of power.
53. Re:React positively? by khallow · 2012-08-03 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  SS isn't your private pension anyway. What's your point?
  You originally spoke at that point of private pensions and not honoring them. I merely pointed out that I had no obligation to honor anyone's private pension.
54. Re:React positively? by spauldo · 2012-08-03 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could just not have such a program. There's no reason for a society, civilized or otherwise, to have institutionalized retirement.
  Do you know why we have Social Security in the first place? Are you aware of the problems it was designed to solve?
  What do you plan to replace it with? "Nothing" is not an acceptable answer.
  
  "From who?" is the question here. The insurer by contract should provide the service, but they're in the act of reneging on that contract. So you shouldn't be able to demand the service from another paying customer. Current recipients of US Social Security (and many other public pensions) get their money directly from other payers. There's no saving or investing of past Social Security payments. That money is long gone.
  Yes. That's because it's insurance. Learn how it works. A good start would be the paragraph you apparently completely missed in my last post.
  
  And when the recipients are also the ones who voted for the current setup, it's a rather blatant theft by older generations from the younger. Why should such contracts be honored when they could have been fixed any time in the past 80 years and weren't?
  Because they weren't broken in the first place. When the current recipients of Social Security were paying in, they were paying for the generation before them. It's part of the basic design of the system, and it works.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
55. Re:React positively? by spauldo · 2012-08-03 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  The insurance company has to either keep considerable assets on hand in case of a large scale payout, or reinsure with someone else who does that.
  And what, would you say, are the assets of the U.S. government?
  
  They can't just payout by redirecting money from other customers' payments.
  They can, and they do. Where do those assets come from in the first place? If you bought a $100,000 life insurance plan and was killed by a drunk driver the next day, where does that $100,000 they pay your family come from?
  
  I'm not free to drop Social Security.
  Sorry if that was unclear, but I was not saying that you were. I was saying you were free to drop life, home, car, and (for another year and a half) health insurance.
  
  I'm not free to drop health insurance in 2014.
  See above.
  
  That's how a government-backed scam works. Make it mandatory with a solid voting bloc that benefits, then it doesn't matter how transparent the con is.
  OK, and how, exactly, is it a scam now?
  You obviously don't like it, but that doesn't make it a scam. You have to register for the draft if you're male, but it's not a scam. You have to pay taxes, but they're not a scam. You have to attend school until a certain age, based on your state, but it's not a scam. Social Security is just mandatory retirement insurance. It's no more a scam than any other insurance.
  Actually, I take that back: there's one way it can be considered a scam, and that's where the retirement age got pushed back. That's shitty of the government to do, since people were expecting benefits at 65. That doesn't make the whole program a scam, though.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
56. Re:React positively? by crutchy · 2012-08-05 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  there's almost no technological development resulting from it
  that's what a lot of bong smoking hippies thought about apollo too - during the apollo program. it was only after apollo that many ofthe benefits trickled out into society.
  
  there will be technological developments being made as a result of the current wars, it's just that society isn't privy to them yet (due to their military/corporate value, classification, etc). think telecommunications, satellite technology, surveillance/cameras, computer software and hardware, materials, etc.
  
  And what good does another cold war do?
  well, the first cold war gave rise to the apollo and soyuz programs. i guess that was good. if i had to guess, the next cold war (perhaps between china and the US) may serve up another space race, with all its associated scientific and technological spinoffs. if you think about it, for all the good that apollo gave rise to, it was ended fairly abruptly after the russians were beaten. the kind of money that was spent going to the moon just doesn't get spent on solely scientific endevours. look at the US defense budget. wars always get fully funded, and the next cold war will be no different. if you hypothesized a cure for cancer, you would get more money to develop it by proposing it to the military as a biological weapon.
  
  tons of valuable minerals in asteroids
  there are valuable minerals under my house too (i live on top of the world's largest lignite reserve, a critical ingredient in currently economically viable base load electricity generation and used to generate about 6500 MW of base load electricity within line of sight of my house) but it doesn't imply the sort of gold rush that occurred in the americas, or the sort of investment in oil that we see in the middle east. the key is that the minerals must be guaranteed to make the investor a crapload of profit (as in revenue less expenses, including those for mining and hauling it). in space, gold may not be enough, but eventually there will be something (in the remotely predictable future it many be uranium). if asteroids were known to have a mineral that could make bags of money that couldn't be more easily made from known deposits here on earth, there would already be asteroids being mined.
  
  regarding energy, there is also potentially enough sources of energy here on earth for a great many years yet. the problem isn't availability, its investment. it costs millions of dollars to build a power station, and many power stations don't get built without significant government backing, and lately governments seem to be pretty crappy at anything related to finances, so leaving the prospect of spending megabucks for new power stations to the next elected government seems like a more politically profitable (however shortsighted) policy. unfortunately the end result is not many new power stations get built.
  
  if push really came to shove, every house (in Australia at least) could be outfitted with solar panels for electricity and hot water and many of our energy woes would be reduced significantly. Australia has some of the largest supplies of uranium, coal, sunlight, etc in the world, so if you find yourself running out of energy perhaps you should come visit :)
57. Re:React positively? by JWW · 2012-08-06 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is old and late, but I have to respond.
  Insurance companies are REQUIRED by law to invest their income in order to have money to pay out claims.
  You are forbidden by law from setting up an insurance company that pays out claims to some policy holders only with money from the other holders. They must hold investments to raise the money over time to pay policies.
  This is where the bait and switch of Social Security comes in. Technically they've invested the money that comes in, but in reality the government spends all of the money that comes in on benefits and if there is a surplus, they spend that on other things the government wants and issues an IOU to Social Security. Payment of those IOUs is supposed to cover future retirement benefits, but that payment will need to be covered by extra taxes or extra borrowing.
  ie. there is no lock box.
  Social Security funds were "invested" in such a way that calling in the IOUs required to pay off the boomers retirement benefits results in a NEGATIVE return on investment of those dollars.
  Again an insurance company that operated this way would either go bankrupt or be brought up on charges of breaking the law.
  I really do not get why progressives are so violently adamant about not means testing Social Security.
  You want to tax the living snot out of the rich to balance the budget, but are unwilling to just stop writing monthly checks to extremely wealthy people who are over 65.
  IMHO Warren Buffet should pay more in taxes AND not be given money every month by a government that is running a deficit.
58. Re:React positively? by spauldo · 2012-08-06 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  I never said Social Security wasn't mismanaged. The surpluses in the past should have been invested for the contingency we're going to face with the boomer retirement.
  That doesn't mean the program is bad, just that the government sucks at not keeping its grubby hands off the stash. The solution? Stop voting for politicians who refuse to raise taxes to support the budget. They're going to get the money somewhere, and for quite some time that somewhere was the Social Security surplus.
  
  I really do not get why progressives are so violently adamant about not means testing Social Security.
  Because Social Security isn't welfare. It's a program you pay into with the expectation of getting benefits later. Warren Buffet paid into it, so he should get his benefits. It's only fair.
  If you want to deny Warren Buffet welfare or housing assistance or food stamps, feel free.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
now free by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:53 · Score: 0

now free market that son-of-a-bitch and pay US those loans back YOU GREEDY FUCKS!
if NASA had an unlimited budget? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:54 · Score: 5, Funny

I'd send all of Congress on a space mission. To land on the Sun. I'll tell them they'll go at night and land on the dark side.
1. Re:if NASA had an unlimited budget? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:37 · Score: -1
  
  And they'd laugh their asses off because they are highly intelligent psychopaths who know exactly what they are doing (accumulating wealth and power).
  You think you're smarter than them? You're a damned insect to them. It's why YOU are under THEIR heel. You geeks think you're so above everyone, but you just another pack of deluded dumbasses to those in power.
2. Re:if NASA had an unlimited budget? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  And now they know you're onto them.
  Better watch the skies for black helicopters.
3. Re:if NASA had an unlimited budget? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  They don't need black helicopters. They can shut him down remotely.
4. Re:if NASA had an unlimited budget? by arthurpaliden · 2012-08-02 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the 'B' Ark.
  
  --
  Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
5. Re:if NASA had an unlimited budget? by Existential+Wombat · 2012-08-03 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is no dark side of the sun.
  As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
The Great Game, now with new levels! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 08:58 · Score: 1

Bolden speaks as though humanity will march toward the stars arm in arm, full of brotherly love. Like Kipling said though "When everyone is dead, the Great Game is finished. Not before." Putting concerns about international cooperation ahead of long term US interests is going to hurt in the future, especially since China and Russia will put their own interests first.
When it becomes feasible to extract resources from space, the space race will never end.
But competition is good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:00 · Score: 1

I think nationalism is one of the stupider elements of human culture, but separate competing organizations would be more a benefit than hindrance.There needs to be different teams, with different methods, and different failures and successes. Without that, people would never learn, and nothing would ever move forward.
1. Re:But competition is good by crutchy · 2012-08-02 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  war is competition; it just happens to be a little more interactive for the competitors, and there's a little more incentive to not lose
That was one small step! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-08-02 09:02 · Score: 1

> How the world should react positively to China beating America back to the moon.
Yes, "We, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords..."

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And this is why America is failing... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:16 · Score: 0

>>The U.S. cannot always be the leader, but we can be the inspirational leader through international cooperation" in space exploration.
And this is why America is failing... We are too worried as a country about Chick-fi-a and Kim Kardashian.
This guy need to be replaced with somebody with a vision of the future.
1. Re:And this is why America is failing... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  This guy need to be replaced with somebody with a vision of the future.
  To do that, you need to first elect some people with a good vision of the future to run the country. We have consistently shown that we are not interested in such a person.
2. Re:And this is why America is failing... by crutchy · 2012-08-02 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  inspirational leader through international cooperation
  america is already a great inspiration... it is the perfect example of what other nations should aim to avoid becoming like
Encouraging noises from NASA by EdgePenguin · 2012-08-02 09:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Its nice to see NASA talking about international cooperation. Perhaps this will make ESA, and certain ESA member states who are notoriously tight fisted with contributions and refuse to participate in any manned flight *coughUKcough*, start to think seriously about how Europe can be involved. I know people who work for ESA and for EADS, and there is no shortage of will in the industry to start pushing out properly.
As far as I'm concerned, any non-international deep space exploration runs the risk of leading to conflict between nations in space, and that is a really dumb idea. We've seen, from ASAT tests and accidental collisions, what even a handful of destroyed satellites can do to the space debris situation. A full-on space war means we lose access to LEO entirely, for a very long time.
1. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Right now NASA is regarded as an unreliable partner; they fucked over IXO, LISA, Laplace and Exomars in short order and were doing the hokey-cokey with Euclid.
  Their passive-aggressive bullshit is beyond annoying.
2. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by EdgePenguin · 2012-08-02 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  This is all true - but it is still the case that ESA will not move on manned spaceflight without a nudge from NASA. The only indigenous European manned space hardware is the ATV - which only exists so that we can have a stake in the ISS.
  Its not like there is a shortage of technical ideas; EADS were quite willing to turn ATV into a proper manned spacecraft, and Ariane 5 shouldn't have been too hard to man rate, seeing as it was designed to be man rated in the first place for the abandoned Hermes shuttle. The problem has always been political will. You need to get the UK, France, Germany and probably Italy and a few others to approve a manned program and stick with it. The UK, I'm ashamed to say, has often been the major stumbling block for this.
  Despite current differences with NASA, most of ESAs best stuff has been done as part of international collaboration - ATV, Columbus module, Huygens - so I can see an international manned exploration project being the only way, realistically, that European citizens are ever going to have a decent, native, manned space program.
3. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that NASA came very close to losing funding for the James Webb telescope too, a project which ESA was a large partner in, having already made significant financial commitments.
4. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by cheesybagel · 2012-08-02 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  With the current economic crisis in Europe? No way. Even before the crisis blew up they were dragging their feet all the time. Remember the ATV derived manned transportation systems proposed by Astrium? Then there is the Vinci engine which is a high-performance upper stage engine capable of multiple restarts. They have tested it to death and have been waiting for years for a Ariane 5 second stage that uses it to be funded.
5. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  With the current economic crisis in Europe? No way. Even before the crisis blew up they were dragging their feet all the time. Remember the ATV derived manned transportation systems proposed by Astrium? Then there is the Vinci engine which is a high-performance upper stage engine capable of multiple restarts. They have tested it to death and have been waiting for years for a Ariane 5 second stage that uses it to be funded.
  Perhaps you should check the overlap between ESA and the countries with connected to the Euro before you jump in and talk about crisis.
6. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by k6mfw · 2012-08-02 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  ITAR. This is a big barrier for other countries to participate with NASA (US space program). Some of these have simply given up on collaboration with NASA, even though they are behind in space technology but with ITAR they are probably better off working on programs that have no NASA involvement.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
7. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by khallow · 2012-08-02 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you ought to check the overlap between the ESA and countries suffering from the financial crisis which is much larger than just the EU. But if you're not so inclined, I'll just note that every member of the ESA experiences some degree of trouble.
  
  In addition, even if your country isn't on the Euro, if you trade with the EU (which every member state in the ESA does), you're connected to the Euro.
8. Re:Encouraging noises from NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  A decade ago this could have worked, but now NASA have lost all credibility as a partner. Everybody knows how the project would go.
  <NASA> Hey everybody, let's go to Mars!
  <ESA> Yeah, alright.
  <Roscosmos> Count us in!
  <Jaxa> Can we come too?
  <NASA> Sure! Everybody's welcome.
  --- 5 years later ---
  <NASA> Uh... Guys, we lost funding for the mission. You'll have to go to Mars without us.
  <Roscosmos> Fine! We'll go by ourselves
  <ESA> Oh for fuck's sake. We've already spent 380M Euros on this project! You are damn well not going to back out now.
  <Jaxa> Russia, all you have contributed so far is Soyuz and a design study for a reactor. You can't bolt a design document to a Soyuz and expect to reach another planet.
  <NASA> We're really sorry guys, but what do you want us to do? We're not being given any money.
  <ESA> Everything we've built will only work if it's bolted to your vehicle, on your launcher. What the hell are we supposed to do with all this stuff?
  <NASA> Find another partner to launch it?
  ***Roscosmos has disconnected
  ***Jaxa has disconnected
  <ESA> ...
  ***ESA has disconnected
  <NASA> :(
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Yahoo News by uhwuggawuh · 2012-08-02 09:19 · Score: 2

...and this is how you repay me:

China is considered a repressive, totalitarian regime and an opponent of the United States on Earth.
1. Re:I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Yahoo News by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  They forgot "Axis of Evil", "The Great Satan", "Evil Empire", etc.
2. Re:I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Yahoo News by crutchy · 2012-08-02 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  opponent of the United States on Earth
  
  not necessarily in space though. they may turn out to be a friendly totalitarian regime in space
  
  i actually think there is a remote possibility that the chinese may open up access to space for the rest of us. not in the next 10 years, but eventually. while the rest of the world struggles with corporate gluttony and government financial incompetence, china with its cheap, smart and hardworking minions (in their billions) may just have the capacity, tenacity and resources to overcome the obstacles of space access
  
  as much as the "free world" may criticise china for being a totalitarian regime, can you imagine trying to govern a population of over a billion people with anything less than at least a somewhat iron fist? the rest of the world most likely can't even imagine such a population. as a simple example, how hard it would be to look after 50 toddlers in a daycare center if you couldn't discipline them without going through a tribunal process? i'm not saying chinese are like toddlers, and i'm not trying to justify inhumane treatment or anything, but there is no doubt keeping control of a nation of 1.3 billion people is no mean feat.
  
  a totalitarian regime government is more likely to achieve results in space than a government which changes its priorities after every election. i'm sure democracy has its pros, but unfortunately achieving long term objectives isn't really one of them. you might think the moon landings contradicts this, but the moon landing was merely a propaganda weapon in a cold war, and was never meant to achieve any long term objectives in space science or exploration.
Original interview link by FleaPlus · 2012-08-02 09:21 · Score: 5, Informative

For anybody who wants to read the actual interview article with Bolden instead of just relying on MarkWhittington's distorted Yahoo summary, you can find the interview here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2012-08-01/NASA-mars-rover/56656270/1
1. Re:Original interview link by timeOday · 2012-08-02 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I apologize for not having the time to watch the video, but I have a question for whoever does: did Bolden really say the US wouldn't lead a mission to mars? That sounds fishy. Or did he instead say we wouldn't "go it alone" to Mars, and then separately say that the US won't be the leader on every single space initiative (which is very reasonable - perhaps obvious)?
  To me this summary and most of the slashdot responses so far sound either biased or trolling, but I'll admit if I'm wrong.
Of course... by argStyopa · 2012-08-02 09:25 · Score: 0, Redundant

OF COURSE a Mars mission shouldn't be American led, regardless of who's funding it, who's launching it, and whose technology is making it happen. Making it American-led might make someone else feel less important.
After all (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/charles-bolden-nasas-fore_n_637854.html) NASAs foremost mission "...Is To Improve Relations With Muslim World..."

--
-Styopa
I hope the engineers know.. by wbr1 · 2012-08-02 09:38 · Score: 1

That you moved up the landing schedule form Monday morning (EDT) to Friday.
It is not the eve of the landing.
I am not playing grammar Nazi. There are likely grammatical errors in my post.
But as a news outlet, can we get facts right?????
By the way, the landing will be shown live on a jumbo-tron in Times Square!
http://www.space.com/16863-mars-rover-landing-nasa-events.html

--
Silence is a state of mime.
1. Re:I hope the engineers know.. by camperdave · 2012-08-02 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, it's not grammar; it's semantics, so you're safe.
  
  Secondly, "on the eve of" can have both a literal and an idiomatic or "poetic" meaning, as in the song "Eve of Destruction". It means "about to happen"
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
What a boring little man... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 09:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Reading the article leads me to the conclusion that Mr. Bolden pretty much represents everything I consider wrong with NASA. Instead of bold or inspiring visions, he appears to be thinking small and doing small, which is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect from a NASA administrator. Yes, sure, resources are always a constraint and not everything that would be cool can be done but he actively avoids even contemplating going beyond his quite limited horizon.
For starters, regarding Mars he says that it should be an international mission, which is not a bad choice per se, however, international projects are very difficult to pull off effectively. There will inevitably be bickering who pays how much, which country gets how many jobs and whose astronauts will be going. It's basically the issue of senators bringing in the pork via NASA but on a bigger (international) scale. Just negotiating the terms of such cooperation can take as long as the project itself and can easily exceed a decade (for comparison, see ITER which has been on the drawing board well over a decade before the international consortium green-lit it).
So, international projects make things more complicated and they take longer. Sure, you get all the feel-good humanity thing and the cost is born by a larger base but the frictional costs are much higher. Nevertheless, I would've given him a pass on it if he hadn't said that the "U.S. cannot always be the leader". I'm sorry, but why not? I'm not even an American but if I were and the resources could be mustered, why not go ahead, saving the decade-long negotiation cycle? To me, this sounded like an excuse not to do it at all by postponing it indefinitely ("We're working on it, look, we're already negotiating the terms for 5 years straight now!")
However, what really shocked me was his answer what he would do given an unlimited budget. That question was a softball to float some bold ideas to the public about what could be done. He could have suggested space habitats, moon/asteroid bases, thousands of robotic missions to map out the solar system, even more modest goals like developing new rockets and other lift capabilities. Instead what we get is literally "nothing". He would "complete Obama's plan" and "not use the extra money". In essence, he has no ideas at all and is only capable to follow instructions handed to him. I'm rather sure even NASA's janitorial staff has more creativity than that.
1. Re:What a boring little man... by geegel · 2012-08-02 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Painful truth
  
  --
  right...
2. Re:What a boring little man... by khallow · 2012-08-02 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, we had a visionary right before Bolden. His vision was give lots of money to ATK. At this point, I think we'll see the real action from the private world. The national programs are all pretty screwed up.
"Back"? by John+Hasler · 2012-08-02 10:05 · Score: 4, Funny

The Chinese are not beating the USA "back to the moon". They are going for the first time. The USA has already beaten them by more than forty years.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
1. Re:"Back"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 11:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Seriously ... who the F cares if you guys went to the moon 40 years ago??? you cant even go back anymore !! These guys will !! ... And thats what you should worry about !! Stop sitting on your ass America... this is exactly why other countries have stopped looking at you for inspiration... i admire the Chinese and sometimes i wonder if my country would be better off bordering them instead of the once Might US of A ...
  Sure you guys USED to be tough and strong... now you're just a bunch of fat-asses with useless trophy's on their shelves... i wouldnt be proud of that !
2. Re:"Back"? by Kozz · 2012-08-02 14:04 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously ... who the F cares if you guys went to the moon 40 years ago??? you cant even go back anymore !! These guys will !! ... And thats what you should worry about !! Stop sitting on your ass America... this is exactly why other countries have stopped looking at you for inspiration... i admire the Chinese and sometimes i wonder if my country would be better off bordering them instead of the once Might US of A ...
  Sure you guys USED to be tough and strong... now you're just a bunch of fat-asses with useless trophy's on their shelves... i wouldnt be proud of that !
  What are you on about with the "you guys" perspective? I don't know who you think you're fooling. It only takes one read of your post and one can deduce from the assortment of grammar and punctuation errors that you're surely a product of the American educational system.
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
United States is on Earth. ok. good boy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 10:05 · Score: 0

"China is considered a repressive, totalitarian regime and an opponent of the United States on Earth."
but not on the moon? sad little reporter should take off that tin foil hat and get out of the house(on Earth) more... lol.
The United States on the Moon resent this statement, and we will forward this article to the People's Republic of China office on Ganymede.
Way to change the subject by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 10:10 · Score: 0

Bolden said it, and he claimed it was Obama's primary wish.
You're simply changing the subject now because it reflects so poorly on our government.
1. Re:Way to change the subject by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  No, that's what you distorted his words into meaning.
  For him as an administrator, a public face, that was part of his mission in terms of outreach. Is that so upsetting to you that you can't conceive of any diplomatic utility to NASA?
  Right-wing pundits confused it, willfully, for changing the entire scientific mission of NASA.
  While completely ignoring how many times the previous administrations had made such claims which they never got upset about. Or even the rest of the interview where he talked about other things NASA was doing.
  http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/07/201071122234471970.html
  Go watch it, transcribe the whole thing. See how overwrought your histrionics really are.
  I am sorry that apparently Charles Bolden is not a perfect speaker and could be misinterpreted, but that doesn't excuse how you are engaging in splicing bits of his words into a caricature of the truth and manufacturing a mountain out of a molehill. That it's part of a larger overall pattern though, shows that it's more than just an errant stroke but a deliberate and intentional course of duplicity that is only used to stir up outrage instead of engage in productive discussion.
  On the other hand, you can't show such a pattern from Charles Bolden, can you? He's not going around saying the same thing every day. No, he's just sorry he said something that could be mischaracterized and corrected it. In contrast, say Mitt Romney, denies saying any such thing at all, even as he repeats what he just said about it.
2. Re:Way to change the subject by Teancum · 2012-08-02 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I have no doubt that Charles Bolden was taken into the White House and that Barack Obama very likely said those things to him. For Bolden's tenure as NASA Administrator, those may even been seen as admirable things for him to accomplish while in that position.
  I do think this is way overblown though. I'll also say that on the whole Bolden seems to be a very competent administrator over the agency in spite of the fact that he gets almost no support from the White House in terms of his agency's direction nor any sort of funding or support from the Democrats in terms of even funding the agency.
  Space policy is dead last in terms of things that the Obama administration is concerned about, where the only thing that the White House is trying to make sure is that they don't lose votes in Florida or make it a clearly partisan issue over space policy. Bolden has been mostly successful in doing that too. About the only thing that the Republicans are doing for that matter is to make sure that Alabama and Utah get to keep their part of the NASA budget (thanks Shelby and Hatch!) I don't see a Romney administration making much of a difference in space policy either, unless he appoints Newt Gingrich as NASA administrator (which would make this gaffe by Bolden seem extremely trivial by comparison to almost anything which would leave Gingrich's mouth).
  Perhaps some day there will be some serious space policy. I expect to wait a decade or more for that to happen though.
3. Re:Way to change the subject by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  I have no doubt that Charles Bolden was taken into the White House and that Barack Obama very likely said those things to him.
  Exactly; what failed was that Bolden wasn't as politically savvy as the Obama Administration would have liked, and he basically repeated verbatim what he was told, and that didn't suit Obama at all, so they had to issue a "clarification". He's lucky they didn't remove him from his post, or worse have him disappeared.
  Space policy is dead last in terms of things that the Obama administration is concerned about
  Exactly. Obama doesn't give two shits about space. And neither does Romney.
  Perhaps some day there will be some serious space policy. I expect to wait a decade or more for that to happen though.
  I don't think so, I think it's all downhill from here, unless the country breaks apart and some section or sections decide to make space an important part of their own new national policy. This country is going the way of the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union. You can't maintain an economy on military adventurism indefinitely.
4. Re:Way to change the subject by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  He's lucky they didn't remove him from his post, or worse have him disappeared.
  Welcome to the conspiracy side.
  Why would they even bother with that kind of egregious stupidity?
  You'd be better off sticking with him getting reamed for putting his foot in his mouth, then you'd look a little less tin-foil hattish.
Well derr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 10:23 · Score: 0

America leads international ventures!!! Look at war! Look at banking! ! No shit some guy that works in America would say that.
I say anarchy in space!
SpaceX by dammy · 2012-08-02 10:31 · Score: 1

More then likely, SpaceX will beat them to Mars.
1. Re:SpaceX by WindBourne · 2012-08-02 16:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And the moon unless the neo-cons continue to try to kill off private space. Even now, the republicans have cut a deal with NASA to fund 2.5 bids. However, the neo-cons are now attempting to tell NASA WHO will win those: ATK's Liberty will get 1, Boeing will get 1, and L-Mart will get .5. IOW, the neo-cons are attempting to cut out ALL of the new space, including SpaceX.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Unlimited budget by ceoyoyo · 2012-08-02 11:56 · Score: 2

Given an unlimited budget, he'd just do what he was told, go to Mars, and not do anything else. No matter what else he's done, that makes it sound like NASA needs a leader with some vision, not an administrator who simply carries out political commands.
China and its genetic manipulation by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-08-02 13:15 · Score: 0

That 16-year old girl from China already demonstrated to us what China can do with its genetic manipulation - at least according to the executive director of the American Swim Coaches Association, Mr. John Leonard.

I shudder to imagine what China could do with their new generation, bug-free versions of genetically manipulated super-Chinese into the space !!

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
again for the first time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 13:42 · Score: 0

wait - china is beating us "back" to the moon? when did they get there the first time?
Bolden Needs A Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 14:54 · Score: 0

Mr Charles Bolden, Administrator of NASA, is one of the ranks of the UnElected Government of the United States of America.
Mr Barak Obama, President of the United States of American has through Secret Executive order claimed the right to kill any human being who displeasures him. As a member of the UnElected Mr Bolden is in need of remembrance that his words can end his life and the lives of those around him on order of the President of the United States of America.
What Police Officer what Rent-A-Cop would turn down a request by the President of the United States of America to kill another American?
And be richly rewarded for the great service.
Mr Bolden reconsider your words.
Retract your words before 6:00 AM EST.
If you do, the President of the United States of America will, refrain, form issuing a kill order on you life and those around you ... for that day.
Time ... is not on Your side.
Given up by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 18:08 · Score: 0

When I read this, I felt sad. It feels like we've just given up. The government has abandoned NASA funding wise, and NASA has lost all of it's fight. As other posters have pointed out, his answer on the unlimited budget question was completely uninspired, defeated, depressing really.
Growing up, I always felt proud of our accomplishments in space, now, well... In the span of a few short years, I feel it has all been ground into the dust and almost like our space program is being gotten rid of in it's entirety.
What will it take for the US to realize that everything that once made them great is being slowly taken from them. We can only rest on our laurels for so long....
No one has said the obvious by ChocNut · 2012-08-02 19:07 · Score: 0

Translation: "America gets to go alone until we don't have the cash - But if someone else has the cash then they should think globally and bring us along"
Bolden forgets his loyalties to the US too easily. by sethstorm · 2012-08-02 20:22 · Score: 0

The only entity for which should even be considered for cooperation is the ESA - and only on the basis that there are no non-EU interests involved.
The only way China has gotten as far as they have is through stealing technology - whether by outright espionage or by luring companies with their pliant workforce. It is more than time for the US, UK, Australia, and the EU to stand up to the threat of China. Or we can continue to let military owned companies like Huawei to continue raiding countries that fail to defend themselves.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
As a UK Citizen by elementik · 2012-08-02 20:51 · Score: 2

I find it incredibly sad that the organisation I looked up to as a UK child (NASA) are pretty much falling from grace due to funding issues, and a lack of imagination by the powers that be. Yes, the North American Space Agency inspired this child from the UK. NASA, back in my day, were something to look up to, the pride of the WORLD - they were my Space Agency too even though they're from the USA, because they were doing stuff that no-one, not even the Soviets, could manage .... and now? Now that NASA have retired the Shuttles, it's as if the worlds space escapades have just been obliterated, at least to this uninformed mind. Noone else can even touch the escapades of NASA from 20, 30, 40 years ago. What's to celebrate now that that is gone? NASA did a pretty good job back in the day of making people like me know about what they were doing, and while it might not have inspired every man on earth, it certainly did me and it's depressing that my kids won't grow up with the same sense of wonder as I did. Shame.

--
--- Stop the world! I want to get off!
1. Re:As a UK Citizen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-03 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  "North American Space Agency"? What's that? NASA is a department of the US government, not a coalition of scientists from the continent.
  It's the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".
Nah, let China try Mars first by bryan1945 · 2012-08-03 04:59 · Score: 1

They'll mess it up royally. And no, I'm not being racist or patriotic or any other thing you'll throw at me. And I'm not hoping anyone dies or anything like that. It's that China wants to make a big push into space for some reason. The US and the Soviet Union did that back in the 60s, and a whole lot of bad stuff happened to both countries. Why? Because we were in "The Space Race." Even Cracked.com did an article on the Soviet's hushed up failures. So let someone else test out the technology before we even try it.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.