Partisan Food Fight Erupts Over NASA, Commercial Space

Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by symbolset · 2012-09-04 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Every new administration we get to keep things fresh by having an entirely new space policy. The incoming administration gets to label the prior efforts a billion-dollar boondoggle and ashcan it, putting their unique stamp on a whole new paradigm that can achieve new heights of replicating prior work until it, too, is ashcanned by the next administration before too much progress is made.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by schnell · 2012-09-04 11:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know you're making a joke, but there is at least one grain of serious truth to it. Given how boneheaded the last few administrations' plans for the manned spaceflight program have been, the fact that they keep getting changed has actually prevented us from spending ridiculous sums of money on the them. Can you imagine - at a time when millions of Americans are jobless and without healthcare - what the public backlash would be against the space program if we were actually spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a manned Mars mission or (to a lesser $$$ figure) Constellation? In the meantime, that indecision and flailing has left the door open for private spaceflight projects to fill the "useful" void of reliable, cost-effective transport to LEO and GEO.
So while on one hand the political ping-pong game over NASA has resulted in billions of dollars in waste and squandered the talents of our best and brightest, on the other hand it has prevented us from spending hundreds of billions on bad ideas. Not exactly the tradeoff you want, but I'm trying to find the upside here...

--
"95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by frosty_tsm · 2012-09-04 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hundreds of billions going to what? People's salaries, government contractors, and some natural resources. The money isn't being burnt (except maybe when a test rocket blows up ;-). One way the government can help the economy is by judicious spending (this is why a sudden cut of spending can cause a recession by itself). Just as we might spend billions on space exploration, we spend multitudes more on defense (for arguably a lesser accomplishment for mankind).
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by ganjadude · 2012-09-04 12:40 · Score: 2

So true, which makes the claim even funnier. From my memory, the previous admin set forth major plans which were all but stripped by this admin, and they changed the course even further with this lovely bit http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/07/07/obama-tells-nasa-to-improve-muslim-relations.htm

how did we go from not being in space - to the moon - in a decade however now we cant even seem to get out of our own way? as a long time space entheusiest, I was even a part of a club that watched the jupiter collision happen live. This past 10 years have been a major disappointment on the manned flight front.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by VortexCortex · 2012-09-04 12:58 · Score: 2

Can you imagine - at a time when millions of Americans are jobless and without healthcare - what the public backlash would be against the space program if we were actually spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a manned Mars mission or (to a lesser $$$ figure) Constellation?
I know, really! Imagine what the public backlash would be against actually spending TRILLIONS of dollars on a needless oil war and secret police regime...
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by MightyYar · 2012-09-04 13:02 · Score: 2

The Bush plan to Mars would have supposedly cost $120 billion over 15 years. Double that, because the government can never come in on-budget, and you still are talking about $16 billion / year. That's an absolute pittance by Federal government standards, and nowhere near the pitchforks-in-the-streets hundreds of billions per year you suggest. Bush's father proposed a plan that would have cost far more, but when NASA ran the numbers it was abandoned.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by Teancum · 2012-09-04 14:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know, really! Imagine what the public backlash would be against actually spending TRILLIONS of dollars on a needless oil war and secret police regime...
Imagine spending tens of billions of dollars on air conditioning for those soldiers serving in scorching tropical deserts to get some respite.
In fact, more money is spent on lipstick in America than is spent on spaceflight. Go figure and try to understand what the priorities really are for the country.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by tsotha · 2012-09-04 14:39 · Score: 1

Bush knew his plan would never actually be implemented. Any plan for NASA that has all the costs back-loaded will never happen, and everyone ought to realize the whole point is a photo op and a few inches of news copy.
I'm no fan of Obama, but for me the one bright spot of his administration has been his stewardship of NASA, which should never have been in the business of LEO operations.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by BenJCarter · 2012-09-04 14:43 · Score: 1

The beauty of Commercial Space is, it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. As a matter of fact, it does the opposite of cost, it generates jobs and tax revenue. The pragmatist in me thinks commercial space corporations need to hurry up and get big enough to graft along with big boys so they can get a place at the troughs of power, and we can get space exploration moving again.
Say what you want about the East India Trading Company, it really tied the planet together...

--
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by symbolset · 2012-09-04 15:35 · Score: 1

The pragmatist in me thinks commercial space corporations need to hurry up and get big enough to graft along with big boys so they can get a place at the troughs of power, and we can get space exploration moving again.
Maybe sooner than you think. And this wallowing at the trough does cost the taxpayer. Not that I mind that. One of the key purposes of government seems to be to deplete the surplus productivity and prevent dangerous excess idleness thereby. The problem with wasting tax money on space research is that left unmolested those darned engineers will actually invent things that improve the average productivity and thereby make the idleness problem worse! Which is why it's important to reorganize them periodically to prevent them from making too much progress. Much better to have people building roads into the wilderness. Roads erode away.
But the British East India Company eventually became so powerful that it raised private armies, waged war, seized territories including most of India, and had to be shut down by the crown. Remember that successful corporate operations in space means that a commercial entity is going to be manipulating vast amounts of mass and energy directly overhead - in a manner that might exceed any terrestrial government's power to shut it down. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by jamstar7 · 2012-09-04 16:35 · Score: 1

Bush knew his plan would never actually be implemented. Any plan for NASA that has all the costs back-loaded will never happen, and everyone ought to realize the whole point is a photo op and a few inches of news copy.
I'm no fan of Obama, but for me the one bright spot of his administration has been his stewardship of NASA, which should never have been in the business of LEO operations.
Pretty much this. Some nice column inches, some great photo ops, and a shitpile of pork to key Congressional districts is all . Let's face it, the only job of a Congresscritter is to get re-elected, and how best to do that than grabbing all the pork he can for his district and maybe create a couple jobs?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by symbolset · 2012-09-04 17:18 · Score: 1

My joke is sad but all good jokes are. We laugh because we dare not cry. Of course there's a grain of truth in it. Otherwise it wouldn't be funny. (It has somehow avoided funny moderation though. Maybe the sadness of it is leaking through).

So while on one hand the political ping-pong game over NASA has resulted in billions of dollars in waste and squandered the talents of our best and brightest, on the other hand it has prevented us from spending hundreds of billions on bad ideas.
The problem is that we've avoided almost all ideas, both good and bad from being followed through. Research might be considered wasteful sometimes, in the sense that oil exploration drills many holes - many of which are dry. But to drill all holes halfway to where the expected oil is before moving your rig to the next site is to guarantee that you'll find no profit except by accident. There's a difference between giving up on a dry hole after you've drilled it, and giving up on all holes after you've drilled them halfway.
Partisanship is great for space policy, as it makes many more space policies than can be implemented, and replication of policies is the point of policy - it is a lifeform unto itself, a parasite on the body politick. It is not so great for space exploration or discovery or science, since we go halfway to everywhere and turn back. But for policy, it's great. We've never had more laws and policies about space than we do right now, and that trend is unlikely to reverse.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by Teancum · 2012-09-04 17:30 · Score: 4, Informative

The previous administration (aka NASA under Mike Griffin in the Bush Administration) proposed a program so horrible that an independent and non-partisan group of industry experts recommended strongly that those programs be immediately terminated. On top of that, they proposed realistic alternatives and laid out the possible directions for future spaceflight initiatives that NASA could consider.
The amazing thing here was that Obama actually listened to that independent commission. If you haven't read that report and still perpetuate the notion that shutting down those programs was a bad thing, at least try to intelligently refute these people who have presented some pretty strong arguments for the current direction of spaceflight in America.
I don't agree with almost any other program that Obama has done and I think he is incompetent as President along with a general dislike of the guy's policies or even governing philosophies. Still, of all of the things he has accomplished, one of the best was to appoint Charles Bolden as head of NASA and to support the adoption of many recommendations from this commission.
My largest gripe against Obama and space policy is that I see his commitment to that policy to be dead last in the USA. Charles Bolden was nearly the last (or may have even been the very last one) of the major departments or agencies to have a director/administrator appointed as its head. I haven't seen Obama really care much about space policy, but he also isn't hurting in this area of expertise either.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by TFAFalcon · 2012-09-04 21:07 · Score: 1

I think it only doesn't cost taxpayers anything if things go well. If there is an accident with lots of collateral damage, then the government has to pay for it (even commercial flights are insured by the government).
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by necro81 · 2012-09-05 00:11 · Score: 1

The beauty of Commercial Space is, it doesn't cost taxpayers anything
I understand the point you are trying to make, but have you forgotten the large development grants and contracts that NASA has been giving to these companies? SpaceX probably would have run out of operating capital it if hadn't landed the ISS supply contracts (starting with the demonstrator missions). SpaceX would also have been hard pressed to get anything off the ground if it didn't have access to Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg AFB. SpaceShipOne/Two/VirginGalactic and some of the other XPrize competitors had access to facilities at Edwards AFB and the (taxpayer subsidized) New Mexico Spaceport.

The companies are still due all credit for their technical success, and I look forward to what comes next. But you need to give props to the taxpayer, too, for fronting a lot of money, equipment, facilities, and experience.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by RocketAcademy · 2012-09-05 03:30 · Score: 1

If there is an accident with lots of collateral damage, then the government has to pay for it (even commercial flights are insured by the government).
No, the FAA requires commercial launch providers to purchase insurance sufficient to cover the Maximum Probable Loss. The government does indemnify certain losses beyond that, but that's sort of a moot point. There's never been an accident that exceeds Maximum Probable Loss, so the government's money has never been touched.
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by whitroth · 2012-09-05 04:58 · Score: 1

Hundreds of billions? When or where has *anyone* in Congress, or elsewhere, advocated that?
Snap quiz:
0. What's NASA's budget, and what percentage is it of the US national budget?
1. Do the techs and engineers who work on the ships, and the companies that build the parts and materials,
have jobs? Do their jobs count?
2. When NASA's budget is irregular, and cut, so that trained people leave, and go elsewhere for other jobs,
when companies aren't spending on space, what does this do to the pool of trained people when we
want to ramp up?
Bonus question: Which party tends to spend more on civilian space, when they can get the money through Congress? (Hint: the Republicans in Congress in the mid-nineties tried to kill the Station completely)
mark
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by lennier · 2012-09-05 10:08 · Score: 1

The beauty of Commercial Space is, it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

You sure it doesn't? Someone's paying the bills for that commercial launch operation, and it's probably the guy who wants the payload launched. That might be your TV company, or your phone company, as long as it's about exploiting already well-developed markets in well-understood technologies. And you know for sure that that launch cost will be included as a surcharge in your monthly bill, which for a ubiquitous service is pretty hard to distinguish from a "tax". But for innovative stuff that might or might not work and certainly won't produce an instant payoff, but might create whole new markets several decades down the track, the client is most likely someone a bit more forward-thinking like NASA, DARPA, the National Science Foundation or DoD.
Remember who invented, built, and services GPS? Hint: it wasn't, and isn't, Google. There wasn't even an Apple or a Microsoft when the system was designed (there was an IBM). But how many dollars a year in commercial services would you say it's worth now? And don't forget the secret history of Silicon Valley. The line between "government", "science", and "private industry" isn't nearly as clear-cut as you might like to think it is; many interesting players in the last century, such as Fred Terman and Alfred Loomis, crossed easily between all three.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by lennier · 2012-09-05 10:09 · Score: 1

I meant to link that. The Secret History of Silicon Valley

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Partisanship is GREAT for space policy by BenJCarter · 2012-09-05 10:26 · Score: 1

I said it doesn't cost TAXPAYERS anything. In other words, we aren't forced to fund it. The people who do pay, do so voluntarily.

--
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius

So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventures? by cpu6502 · 2012-09-04 10:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's how it sounds: They are complaining that the GOP relies too much on NASA, and doesn't provide enough incentives for private space companies. (I wonder if they think the DNC is any better?)

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

but great for page views! by SoupGuru · 2012-09-04 10:52 · Score: 1

Partisanship might not be good for the space program but it sure is good for page views!

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable

Partisanship hurts everything. by noobermin · 2012-09-04 10:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/

You don't need to read it all, the first reason says it all. The entire point of congressional sessions is ot discuss and the whole point of discussion is to change minds. There is none of that from this congress and thus, they don't do their jobs but they get paid anyway.

Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 11:03 · Score: 1, Informative

Apparently you didn't even read your own fucking source fucktard. It is because of the party of "No" as to why congress isn't doing anything. Typical retardican piece of shit.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by ancientt · 2012-09-04 12:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

(This has led to the odd sight of Republicans bringing Obama's budgets to the floor so they can say Democrats voted against them.)
Personally I think there is much the state governments should handle instead of the federal government, so I'm basically in favor of cutting the role of the federal government where reasonable responsiblities can be returned to the state. That's a lot of weasel words to say that state government spending is better than federal government spending, but not all the time.
So I'd rather see a congress locked into limited action rather than the rather abymissal results of a united one. There are exceptions where I think the federal government has a role, but over most of my lifetime, I've been continously disappointed in the "progress" when they do something "productive."
Summary: Please, please give me a "No" party to vote for. The republicans and democrats have both had plenty of examples where they voted for spending and increasing regulation when I strongly wish they had left that to the states, so I'm afraid I can't be happy to vote for either "retardicans" or "demotards" and carefully weigh each vote I make to try to figure out whether voting for somebody without a chance or voting against the slightly less terrible choice has the most impact. I can't remember the last time I was happy to vote for somebody that I thought might win.
It does strike me as slightly hilarious that you can get a situation where Democrats will vote against a Democrat budget and still call the opposition the "party of 'No'."

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by ganjadude · 2012-09-04 12:44 · Score: 1

the way i see it, the federal government is TO involved in peoples day to day lives. There is no need for the federal government to do 90% of the things it does, these things can be (and legally should be) handled at the state level. So when it comes to blocking the government from enacting more laws that give them even more power, I am all for the party of no, whatever party that is

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by guises · 2012-09-04 13:54 · Score: 1

You should read it all though, that was a good article. Thanks.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by noobermin · 2012-09-04 14:10 · Score: 1

I was hinting at that. Dems haven't become any more partisan than they were previously but still, I don't believe it's all because of the part of No. IDK, may be I'm just trying to be "impartial" *shrug*.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by noobermin · 2012-09-04 14:40 · Score: 1

I terribly disagree. Why do you care about who spends or who doesn't? Some of us don't care whether the government or the private sector spends, all that matters is that it gets us out of a recession. People who choose their favorite venue of demand (or supply) are simply singing on extraneous, philosophical things that matter for extraneous, philosophical reasons.
Let me explain with an analogy. There are some religious people who pray for healing of a sickness and perhaps would feel if they went to a doctor it would be a "lack of faith" on their part. Some of us don't care, we just want to live so we go to the doctor and do a subconcious cost-benefit analysis and conclude that they give results at least with a reliable probability so we go.
Now it's fine to believe if you want to but to go in and force your beliefs on everyone else because of their "lack of faith" is unfair.
I don't care about your small government, I don't care about your big government. All I care about is some government that works and actually does things. I know it might be hard to believe but Keynsianism and central banking usually works. It worked since the great moderation till the banking crisis so it has some history. It is costly, perhaps even more risky with the debt we have. But taking up a bill for the doctor is better than death, so be it. Take your idealism elsewhere.
I could rap on liberals too but they don't hold a majority of the house and keep things in disorder (well, Harry Reid kinda irks me but, yeah).
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by noobermin · 2012-09-04 14:45 · Score: 2

It is a good article. It sounds awfully partisan but I somewhat agree with the main point that the tea party holds a large stake in the blame. Still, there are two sides to every conflict so the continued blood spilling owes to dems too. I personally don't worry too much about the Presidency, well, full disclosure, I do lean towards Obama but even if Romney gets elected and shows his more moderate stance from, you know, before this whole shenanigan of moving to the right, I fear the tea party will even block him. I'm more worried about congress this coming election season.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by Stiletto · 2012-09-04 15:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

In what ways did the federal government get involved in your "day to day" life today? Not some hypothetical situation, or something that "affects society in general", but a real, actual "Shit, I'd love to do this, but the damn Federal Government is in the way!!" intrusion into your personal life that happened today?
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by phantomfive · 2012-09-04 15:32 · Score: 1

Some of us don't care whether the government or the private sector spends, all that matters is that it gets us out of a recession.

Problem is, if the government spends, I am paying for it. Now, I am not against taxes, I understand they are a necessary part of civilization, but I want to make sure my money is going towards something good. If the politician is just going to spend it on whatever project suits his fancy, I'm going to say, "no, I'd rather spend that money myself."

Taxes are fine, but make sure that money is being spent on something worth it.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 00:37 · Score: 1

Well, you see, there's this thing I wanted to build, but because it requires a certain type of wood, the EPA says I can't have it.
Also, I really wanted to pirate this game I own rather than dig through my closet to find all the installation DVDs again, but the Federal Government says it's illegal to circumvent copyright protection.
Also, I was looking forward to being able to contact my loan provider to work with me on my student loans, but they were forced to transfer the loan to Sallie Mae, so for all I know, I'll never talk to another human being that is allowed to do jack.
There was this device I wanted to make and sell on my own, but I'm not allowed to because the federal government has placed restrictions on the materials I'm allowed to use in saled goods to such an extent that it's prohibitively expensive(and would not be without those restrictions) to purchase equipment and materials to sell this product even in small numbers.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by IndustrialComplex · 2012-09-05 03:09 · Score: 1

I hear there are a bunch of people in California who have decided to ingest a plant and the Federal Government demands that they shall not ingest that plant.
caveat: I do not want to do that, so it isn't technically 'Shit, I'd love to do.' But it is an example of a specific instance where the Federal Government is involved in the personal lives of the citizenry.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by steelfood · 2012-09-05 04:24 · Score: 1

I wanted to keep all the money I make so that I can spend it on more unnecessary trinkets made in China, but the Federal Government keeps taking a hefty chunk of it from me to spend on things I don't need like roads and hurricane relief and pills for the elderly and poor.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by lennier · 2012-09-05 10:26 · Score: 1

Problem is, if the government spends, I am paying for it.

I'm not sure you realise that when the private sector spends, you're also paying for it. Or do you not pay rent, utility bills, interest and service charges where you live? What do you think a landlord is other than a tiny pocket monarch who collects taxes?
The relevant question to ask is, for any given service, which provider historically has given better quality and cheaper prices, government or private sector? Or a hybrid approach of market plus regulatory oversight? There's no one answer which is automatically "ideologically correct". But for healthcare, for instance, the government approach seems to be doing better in countries like Canada and New Zealand. Stands to reason: if Wal-Mart can get better prices by buying in bulk, why can't a whole nation? And we do; we have this thing in NZ called Pharmac where we buy prescription medicines in bulk, and save. US private drug companies are trying to lobby to make it illegal, because, um. Because customer savings makes them sad.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by ancientt · 2012-09-05 13:17 · Score: 1

The question of which provider historically provides the better value for spending varies greatly depending on which service or product is discussed and what the goals are. Government control can mean that large projects become affordable by virtue of economy of size but government control can also mean that large projects become far more expensive than free market options if the money goes to pay for bureaucratic overhead.
Municipal water supplies tend to be safer and less expensive than private ones so the monopoly situation is well founded in cities, but the opposite occurs in rural areas.
Phone service was more expensive when it was a government regulated monopoly, but it accomplished a valuable goal of creating an infrastructure that made it more universal than it would have been privately, so there was an an appropriate time for government spending and regulation of services and a time for that to taper off.

The relevant question to ask is, for any given service, which provider historically has given better quality and cheaper prices, government or private sector?

I'd certainly agree that it is a major consideration but public safety, infrastructure and freedom are all significant goals as well. Big organization, like Wal-Mart or government may be more effective sometimes, but bigger is not always better and sometimes bigger just means more middlemen to support and usually means less freedom.
You mentioned health care reform and health insurance reform hasn't met your criteria. Massachusetts didn't succeed by that criteria alone. "In just two years under the Massachusetts reforms, from 2005 to 2007, health care spending per capita rose an additional 23 percent." That's not to say it was a failure by every standard though, because "98 percent of all residents were insured last year. [as of 2011]". If the goal is to cost oriented alone, it has been a failure, but if the goal is to make sure those most in need of government intervention receive health insurance it has been a success.
NASA is an example of a strongly debatable expendature. Historically it has accomplished big goals that wouldn't have been accomplished in a free market, but now it is questionable if those big goals are more valuable than the less expensive free market capabilities. You could about double their budget with one percent of the military's, but you could also give a huge incentive subsidy to private companies with that same expenditure. The private companies are probably not going to be able to accomplsh the large goals, but they can accomplish a lot more small goals than NASA would, so the debate really is down to whether lots of significant small achievements are more worthy than a few large ones.
Interesting book reference by the way. I haven't spent much effort in that area of study, but it piques my interest.

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Re:Partisanship hurts everything. by phantomfive · 2012-09-05 13:26 · Score: 1

But for healthcare, for instance, the government approach seems to be doing better in countries like Canada and New Zealand. Stands to reason: if Wal-Mart can get better prices by buying in bulk, why can't a whole nation?
Sure, give me your proposal for healthcare, and we'll see if it's better than what we have now. Saying, "New Zealand has it cheaper, why can't we?" Obama, for example, tries to make it cheaper by paying doctors less.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Teasing me and shit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 10:55 · Score: 2, Funny

I was expecting to see pictures of a huge food fight that broke out on the ISS.

Now I'm disappointed. Assholes.

Re:Teasing me and shit. by dyingtolive · 2012-09-04 11:08 · Score: 2

Yeah. Next time, don't bother calling us unless you have a _REAL_ NASA food fight. With video. :(

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by tresbizzare · 2012-09-04 10:56 · Score: 1

I'm sure we could count on the GOP to under fund a lot of great NASA projects.

Not THIS kind of food fight! by RabidReindeer · 2012-09-04 11:01 · Score: 2

Dang. I was looking forward to flying Tang and freeze-dried ice cream.

Can't the idiotologues leave ANYTHING in peace?

Goodbye to Civilian Space by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 11:01 · Score: 1

So another Big Science project goes down.

Like so many other cases, a bunch of partisans with eyes on the budget of a big project think they can get a part of the pie by killing the project.

So long Civilian Space, it was nice while it lasted.

DNC Versus Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 11:03 · Score: 2, Informative

But NASA Watch points out that the Democratic platform is even less specific than the GOP's.

Yeah, that blogger appears to be right about the DNC. But Obama's got specifics with a track record. What scares me is that Romney says he'll privatize as much as possible. He's quoted as saying:

“I think fundamentally there are some people—and most of them are Democrats, but not all—who really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector And they happen to be wrong.”

He promises to cut non-defense spending and NASA is a non-defense expense that politicians are pushing hard to privatize.

Re:DNC Versus Obama by AK+Marc · 2012-09-04 16:59 · Score: 1

A "sector" doesn't know anything. You might as well argue a cow knows about making cheese and pasteurization because it's from the dairy sector.

If the problem is that the better people stay away from public service, doesn't that point to a different solution? If the problem is the wishy-washy Congress asserting control over agency internal actions, doesn't that point to a different solution?

From where I sit, it looks like the Republicans assert that the government is incompetent, while trying to get elected to guarantee that result. I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic that believed cars were bad for the environment and need to be removed from the roads one car at a time. I take my car to the mechanic who builds race cars in his spare time. He likes what he does. Republicans are running for government to sabotage it. That is their platform, and their statements are consistent with that. So why would anyone ever vote for them?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:DNC Versus Obama by lennier · 2012-09-05 10:35 · Score: 1

the wishy-washy Congress asserting control
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
I have to go now, my lily-livered, weak-kneed, uncertain opponent, who can't make up his mind, is about to decisively crush the world in an iron fist. Or not. Maybe. Perhaps.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:DNC Versus Obama by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 12:02 · Score: 1

Congress is wishy-washy in that the makeup of it changes biannually, leading to frequent and abrupt changes in policy, even if every individual member is consistent (and they are not). Perhaps the issue is that you don't know what it means.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Oink by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-09-04 11:05 · Score: 2

I had been under the impression that for some time a large portion of the political bickering regarding NASA was over whose state got what pork as opposed to toeing the party line.

Re:Oink by tsotha · 2012-09-04 14:43 · Score: 1

As far as Congress is concerned, NASA is there to provide jobs to their constituents. If something science-y happens in the meantime, well, that's great, but it's not the driving motivation.

What is private? by tomhath · 2012-09-04 11:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

If NASA is funding development then it's not private.

If private companies want to develop their own space vehicles and offer their service for hire that's fine, but it's in addition to what NASA does (that's the Republican platform). Democrat platform seems to depend on what state the day's speech is delivered in.

Re:What is private? by Nyeerrmm · 2012-09-04 13:20 · Score: 2

You're right that the nomenclature is confusing. "Private" in this case means that the NASA is attempting to kickstart a competitive market by putting itself out there as a guaranteed customer -- very similarly to how the USPS helped jump-start the commercial airline industry by guaranteeing itself as a customer to use airmail. In the end, an SLS vehicle will be owned by NASA, while a Dragon capsule or Dream Chaser vehicle will be owned by their respective companies, and are free to sell rides to anyone else (admittedly the non-US-government market is unproven).
The problem with the GOP platform is that they support NASA building their own competitor to the commercial options, effectively strangling the goal of COTS/CCDEV. As the supposed party of free markets, the GOP should recognize this and be clamoring to get the government out of LEO transportation -- the SLS program is such a ridiculous example of government waste it calls into question the party's dedication to concepts of deficit reduction and free markets.
Re:What is private? by jonwil · 2012-09-04 13:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its not about "Private" vs "Public". Its about a fundamental shift in the way NASA buys things.
Under the new system (the one Obama is so fond of), NASA is paying fixed amounts of money to private companies for fixed deliverables. This gives an incentive to companies doing the work to reduce costs as much as possible, to not reinvent the wheel if they dont need to, to use as few staff as they need to use to get the job done and generally to do more with less.
The old way (which is how the space shuttle got built and very much like the way the military buys large things like aircraft or tanks) involved the government having a lot more say in exactly how things were built, where they got built, which companies got to make which bits etc. (just look at the pressure from a number of congressmen to get NASA funding bills passed that basically say "whatever NASA builds next, it MUST use the rockets made by ATK systems"). It resulted in a lot of inefficiencies that were bad for the total cost of these projects but got there because someone in congress wanted some factory or facility in their state and wanted the jobs and benefits that come with it.
Re:What is private? by Teancum · 2012-09-04 15:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

There is a time and a place for "cost-plus" contracts that have been traditionally used by NASA over the years (along with the Department of Defense for a great many projects). It is based upon the very successful model used for the Manhattan Project, where a bold goal was established by the government... something seen as critical perhaps even to the survival of the country itself. As to if that was true for building a nuclear bomb or flying people to the Moon could be debated, but the point is that those were set out as significant goals that simply had to be met, and how much it cost to get them accomplished was of relatively minor importance.
It is also important to note that while there were scientists who said that such endeavors were in theory possible, nobody knew at all how to actually get them accomplished. It really is exploring the frontier of human knowledge, where going to the Moon wasn't even conclusively proven to be even possible using any kind of machine on a practical level. Certainly entire new technologies had to be invented from scratch for both the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project. If you asked even well respected contractors how much it was going to cost to build those devices, they would just give you a blank stare. Oh, they might come up with a rough estimate, but the truth is nobody knew how much it was really going to cost. It had never been done before, so there was no possible way to even remotely guess a great many of the costs. Certainly no sane contractor would ever enter into a contract with the government to produce a device or provide a service when they can't even reliably depend upon even the order of magnitude for the costs they will come into.
That is why you need to have the government take the risk of the costs for such significant endeavors, which is the "cost" part of the contracting model. The "plus" is a guaranteed profit that the company will earn simply for participating and getting involved with such a project. That makes shareholders happy, but it also allows us as citizens to receive the benefits of a company which has the skills and equipment necessary to pull off such important national endeavors.
One of the problems after the Apollo project (and the Manhattan Project in terms of DOD contracts) is that it was considered normal to use such a contracting model for everything else, even if they didn't need such a contract. Sending people into space to go and dock with the ISS is something with a long history and a great many rockets that have been developed over the years capable of such a feat. It is indeed possible to estimate fairly well how much it will cost to perform such a launch down to just a few dollars. For that reason, the cost-plus contracts really should have been abandoned a long time ago.
Going to Mars still has a whole bunch of unknowns about it, and for building the actual spacecraft or even the forward logistical supplies that need to be sent to Mars ahead of time is something that isn't really well known. There have been several spacecraft that have gone to Mars already, so there is at least some history there... it doesn't need to be purely cost-plus, but there might still be some role to play for using that model.
The SLS program is one that is using the "cost-plus" contracting model, which is one of the reasons why it will eventually die as a huge embarrassment to the good United States Senators who held advanced degrees in aeronautical engineering and designed the program through legislation in the first place. It shouldn't be all that complicated to send a big rocket into low-Earth orbit from Kennedy Space Center. Heck, the SLS won't even be the largest vehicle sent from KSC into LEO.

Not a fight over food? by Vylen · 2012-09-04 11:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, the headline had me thinking it was about a fight over food supplies in space with issues regarding commercial vendors to supply NASA or something.

Greatly disappointed :(

Re:Not a fight over food? by bananaquackmoo · 2012-09-04 11:23 · Score: 1

You and me both

Um, yeah... by rickb928 · 2012-09-04 11:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Partisanship harms ALL policy. It is inevitable in our system, but for the past few cycles it has been an increasingly more violent atmosphere (blatant space lingo there) that is harming a lot more than just space policy.

The solution? Smarter and more involved voters. Politicians will not change unless we make them. We let this happen.

And while I'm a Republican, space exploration is what government does better, so far, than private industry. We should be doing a LOT more. But I would happily exchange that initiative for an Apollo-style alternative energy program to render fossil fuels largely obsolete in 10 years. A manned mission to mars would ahve impact on our science, engineering, etc, so either project is a drvier for me. But making NASA a political football makes no sense, unless you're just a partisan that needs something to argue over.

ps - Side note, blame the Republicans all you want, remembering that the other parties are not innocent of the same problem - arguing anything for the sake of it.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re:Um, yeah... by artor3 · 2012-09-04 12:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

ps - Side note, blame the Republicans all you want, remembering that the other parties are not innocent of the same problem - arguing anything for the sake of it.
False equivalence. The Democrats have never focused so single-mindedly on the destruction of a president. You're just telling yourself that the Dems are just as bad as a defense mechanism.
Only one party threatened to cut off unemployment benefits for millions if they didn't get a tax cut extension for the rich.
Only one party forced the country to default on its debts in order to force major budget cuts to both military and domestic program, and then even had the gall to try to renege on the military cuts.
Only one party proposed cap and trade as a capitalist alternative to environmental regulations, and then called it socialism when the other guys tried to implement it.
Only one party proposed an individual mandate as a capitalist alternative to single-payer health care, and then screamed about "death panels" when the other guys tried to implement it.
Only one party proposed giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship through military service or college, and then screamed "amnesty!" when the other guys tried to implement it.
The Republicans today are nothing like those of the 90s or 80s or 70s or any other point in time. They're nothing like this country has ever seen. They've realized that politics is just a game, and they can break the game by refusing to negotiate on anything. Our country cannot survive that sort of game-breaking exploit. If people like you don't wise up and punish them for it, we're through.
Re:Um, yeah... by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-09-04 15:17 · Score: 1

Haven't I seen this exact same comment on Slashdot before?
The Democrats have never focused so single-mindedly on the destruction of a president.
Oh now you have got to be kidding. Bu$hitler, 2001-2009? Did we forget so soon?
You're just telling yourself that the Dems are just as bad as a defense mechanism.
You know, it really looks bad when this is used, over and over. Whenever an (R) does something bad, that means (R)s are uniquely and reprehensibly evil. Whenever a (D) does something bad, that means both parties are the same and there's no difference between the two.
So, which is it? Uniquely evil or the same? Because it damn sure can't be both - unless there's some sort of double standard at work.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Um, yeah... by phantomfive · 2012-09-04 15:36 · Score: 2

The Dems really are bad, you just don't realize it because you're so partisan.

Which president filled his staff with ex-Goldman Sachs execs? If you said Obama, you are right. If you said Bush, you are also right. If you said Clinton, you are also right.

The candidate who says, "Any bank that receives a federal bailout will be broken up. Any bank that is too big to fail is to big to exist," will have my vote. I don't care if he's republican, democrat, or independent, I'm voting for that.

Don't fall for the partisan lies that Republicans and Democrats have been feeding you.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Um, yeah... by rickb928 · 2012-09-04 16:17 · Score: 1

"False equivalence. The Democrats have never focused so single-mindedly on the destruction of a president. You're just telling yourself that the Dems are just as bad as a defense mechanism."
You wrote that? Nixon resigned. Despite being guilty, the Democratic Party focused so single-mindedly on Nixon that he left office. Rightly or not, this was the beginning of the politics of public personal destruction. Nixon was guilty. The Democrats destroyed him.
"Only one party threatened to cut off unemployment benefits for millions if they didn't get a tax cut extension for the rich."
So quickly forgotten.
"Only one party forced the country to default on its debts in order to force major budget cuts to both military and domestic program, and then even had the gall to try to renege on the military cuts."
Not that the Democrats are above the same tactic if it suits them.
"Only one party proposed cap and trade as a capitalist alternative to environmental regulations, and then called it socialism when the other guys tried to implement it."
Crony Capitalism serves both sides. The Obama Administration is engaged in it as every other Administration since, what, Reagan?
"Only one party proposed an individual mandate as a capitalist alternative to single-payer health care, and then screamed about "death panels" when the other guys tried to implement it."
No quote here. You are wrong, in that this was never a Republican Party platform plank. But the party is a big tent, and some in it have tried to compromise on this issue of healthcare. Republicans tend to compromise. Democrats tend not to. I'm not at all sure this is a good thing for Republicans to do.
"Only one party proposed giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship through military service or college, and then screamed "amnesty!" when the other guys tried to implement it."
I entered the USAF in 1972, and while in basic training I stood for a wonderful young man from Columbia who was sworn in as a citizen of the US while he was in basic training also. Gaining citizenship via military service is not new. Sadly, neither is illegal immigration into the US. But Alberto came legally. More to the point, I gather you think giving a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is ok, even as we fail to stop the flow. That's what 'changed' the Republicans stand. When they could not get Democrat agreement on taking actual measures to reduce illegal immigration. When the deal changes, do you stick with your initial agreement, or do you change your mind?
"The Republicans today are nothing like those of the 90s or 80s or 70s or any other point in time. They're nothing like this country has ever seen. They've realized that politics is just a game, and they can break the game by refusing to negotiate on anything. Our country cannot survive that sort of game-breaking exploit. If people like you don't wise up and punish them for it, we're through."
You are absolutely right. The Democrats have spent the last 40 years refusing to negotiate on anything of substance. Examples? I want to punish the Democrats also, but I can vote for only one candidate per office. Do your part.
- Reagan's budgets were declared 'dead on arrival'.
- I'm bored with any other examples. Your premise is that the Republicans are 'worse'. You are deluded.
We have one goverment, and anything other than compromise and mutual accomplishment is wrong. The Republican Party is now playing the game like the Democratic Party has been, and now it's wrong? Keep your blinders on. Much easier than dealing with the problem. Just keep focused on the other guys.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Um, yeah... by phantomfive · 2012-09-04 17:13 · Score: 1

Both parties have been bad for at least as long as I've been alive. But the Republicans have gotten much, much worse over the past four years.
See? It's shit like this that shows you've been blinded by the partisan rhetoric. Seriously, you think they are worse now than during the Bush years? I'd say Iraq is a huge mess that was caused by a lot of people who've been thrown out of office now.

Seriously, compare Obama and Romney, and they have a lot more in common than they do that divides them. That's why they have to rely on attack ads to differentiate ("My opponent is racist!" "My opponent hates job creators!"). Seriously, Romney is planning on repealing Obamacare and then implementing his own national healthcare program. Woohoo, what a huge difference. It'll destroy the country etc etc (hate rage anger insult)

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Um, yeah... by artor3 · 2012-09-04 19:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

What a short memory you seem to have. The Democrats crossed the aisle to pass a lot of Bush's proposals.
They passed his massive tax cuts.
They passed his unfunded Medicare expansion.
They passed No Child Left Behind.
They passed that bill designed to gut the Postal Service by forcing them to pay for decades of retirement benefits up front.
Republicans, on the other hand, have voted in lockstep against every Obama proposal, with the sole exception of the stimulus, which got (IIRC) three GOP votes. Even though many of the proposals were identical to their own ideas, they filibustered everything, because they wanted to make him at failure at any cost.
This is unique in the country's history. Never before have politicians taken such a scorched earth approach to destroying their opponent.
Can you really not follow such a simple idea through to its logical conclusion? What happens if we reinforce this behavior by rewarding the GOP for it? They'll keep doing it, of course. Which means that no Democratic congress will ever again pass a law, unless they have a supermajority.
Now, that leaves us with two possible outcomes. Either the Democratics stick to their morals (unlikely!) and we get single-party rule by the GOP. Or the Democrats adopt the same tactics, and no one on either side can pass any laws any more. That outcome would be disastrous.
No partisanship here. Simple logic. Look at what's happening. It's not hard to see where we're headed.
Re:Um, yeah... by rickb928 · 2012-09-04 23:52 · Score: 1

Filibusters are permitted by rules of the Senate, not Constitutional provision. The Senate can change that.
And protection or at least recognition if minorities is traditionally an American value.
Congress needs to be accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Even our President complains about congressional inaction when at times it's hid own party that it's a failing to act. Extremism is a problem for all parties.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Um, yeah... by phantomfive · 2012-09-05 03:44 · Score: 1

So what you are saying is, Republicans are bad because they act like an opposition party, and Obama can't get his stuff passed? Democrats would never act as an opposition party. Oh wait, they did.

Which means that no Democratic congress will ever again pass a law, unless they have a supermajority.
Are you really saying that no laws have been passed in the last two years? What about the repeal of don't ask don't tell?

Your problem is, you don't understand political strategy. A congressperson can only afford to oppose a bill if it doesn't have much popular support in his home district. Thus, a good president will build political support for his program before sending it to congress. Bush understood this, and as an unfortunate result got us into a war in Iraq. Clinton understood this. Obama doesn't seem to understand this, which gives the Republicans a clear opening to oppose him. This is mainly a sign of Obama incompetence.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Um, yeah... by jamstar7 · 2012-09-05 04:41 · Score: 1

Problem is, how do you change the rules for filibustering if the rules debate is itself filibustered? The Democrats put the current rules into place, and damn, it's costing them bigtime now.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Government Space Policy is meaningless... by Nutria · 2012-09-04 11:24 · Score: 3, Informative

until someone both
(a) invents a new and *highly* efficient engine that's both high-thrust and high specific impulse and
(b) and small, high-wattage, long-lasting energy source that doesn't need tons of shielding.

Until then, humans are going no further than the Moon, and even then just for short term National Pride visits.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1

Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by OzPeter · 2012-09-04 13:30 · Score: 2

and even then just for short term National Pride visits.
I just had a vision of a NASA pride rally.. oooh that wasn't good.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by symbolset · 2012-09-04 13:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not really. You can do a lot with LH2/LO2 if you have enough of it on orbit to boost a LEO craft out beyond cislunar space. Planetary Resources has the start of a plan, big-money backing, and they're cash-flow positive. I think they've got good odds of kickstarting something interesting.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by WindBourne · 2012-09-04 14:07 · Score: 1

NERVA. Been there. Done it. Need to bring it back, but using thorium instead.

While It will not serve to launch here (too many idiots here), it can be used for solar system transport of humans and robots, as wells as launches on/off the moon and mars.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by RocketAcademy · 2012-09-04 14:14 · Score: 1

NERVA is probably impossible due to the political difficulties of launching that much nuclear fuel. At least until we start mining uranium on the Moon (not outside the realm of possibility).
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by WindBourne · 2012-09-04 16:38 · Score: 1

Which is why I suggested doing thorium. Plenty of it on the moon and mars as well as on asteroid. And as far as the launch issue goes, we simply take a rocket with a great history and use that. Put the fuel in solid containers and launch it, making sure that it is from a place like Florida.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by jamstar7 · 2012-09-04 17:54 · Score: 1

NERVA is probably impossible due to the fact that it's nuclear. If you were a corporate head with interests in space, would you want to hand over enriched nuclear fuel to some bright guy in orbit who you don't have completely under your thumb? Especially if that guy's got an advanced physics degree? Didn't think so.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by RocketAcademy · 2012-09-05 03:40 · Score: 1

"A rocket with a great history" didn't prevent political protests over Cassini -- and the amount of nuclear fuel in Cassini's RTGs is minuscule compared to what a nuclear rocket requires. It's impossible to get a license to build a nuclear power plant in the US. What makes you think getting a license to launch a reactor will be easier?
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by WindBourne · 2012-09-05 09:03 · Score: 1

You mean the way that we do with naval ships, and power plants? First off, having the nuke engine be designed and built by NASA and put in space as a space tug is not a big deal. And it would be NASA that controls these, not corporations. At least for some time.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by Nutria · 2012-09-05 12:31 · Score: 1

Plenty of it on the moon and mars as well as on asteroid
Except that it takes 45 metric assloads of heavy industry to mine the stuff and then extract it in the quantifies needed.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by WindBourne · 2012-09-05 14:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, it is amazing what X-Prizes can do for you.

In the mean time, I will fill my half full glass with beer, while you are busy crying that your glass is half empty.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by Nutria · 2012-09-05 21:27 · Score: 1

it is amazing what X-Prizes can do for you.
Why do so many geeks think that the phrase "X Prize" is some magic incantation?

crying that your glass is half empty.
I prefer clear-eyed realism.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by WindBourne · 2012-09-06 06:44 · Score: 1

Gee, I don't know why we love it.
Lets see:
1) first private human launcher to space 3 x in a month due to X-Prize.
2) first automated nut and fruit picker developed about 1 year ago, to replace the low costs of imports that use manipulated money and fixed labor costs, rather than succumb to using illegals (which would STILL leave the prices too high) due to X-Prize in California.
3) First none stop crossing over the atlantic via ortiz prize.

And that is just the first set that comes quickly to mind. So, I would say that it works when allowed to.
Now, the real question is, why are naysayers so short of realism as to avoid looking at facts?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by Nutria · 2012-09-06 08:10 · Score: 1

That's 3 in 91 years. Find some more examples.
(And I haven't forgotten that SS1 cost way more to build than $10M.)

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Government Space Policy is meaningless... by WindBourne · 2012-09-06 09:07 · Score: 1

Nobel prize comes quickly to mind.
However, let me help you.
And that leads to all sorts of cool things.
Oh, here is some more for you.
There now, was that so hard?

Even a new one that comes to mind is the Google lunar prize.
Why do unrealistic ppl have such pessimism when you ignore so many facts?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Obama should... by bmo · 2012-09-04 11:26 · Score: 2

...come out and endorse doubling NASA's budget.

Then the Republicans will do an about-face and claim that Obama isn't supporting private space initiatives and they will claim to double their support for Space-X and whatnot.

Republicanism is party before country and "whatever it is, I'm against it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

--
BMO

Re:Obama should... by bmo · 2012-09-04 12:41 · Score: 1

So many straw men, so little time.
--
BMO
PS - It's not ObamaCare, it's RomneyRepublicare, but the Republicans are against because they're party before country. "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

This isn't partisan by greg_barton · 2012-09-04 11:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's trans-partisan. Obama, supposedly the most liberal human being since the big bang, has reformed The space race to rely more on the private sector. This isn't mentioned in the Democratic platform because the hard core lefties don't like it. It isn't mentioned in the Republican platform because it made the hard core righties' heads assplode.

Meanwhile a middle of the road solution was found that is working fine. Mission accomplished.

I should mod, but this deserves discussion by WindBourne · 2012-09-04 11:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The republicans have continued to gut over and over the private space. In addition, they were the ones that gutted NASA back in the late 90's and stopping them from doing the original COTS program that was suggested in 1994. Worse, they have continued to fight against funding for private space while pushing multiple (3-5 Billion PER YEAR) to their key programs such as Constellation and now the god foresaken SLS.

yes, some dems have joined these dark creatures of the night, but the neo-cons that control the republican party are far more interested in helping themselves and their friends rather than the nation. Even now, I am fully aware that MY representative, Mark Coffman, takes money from a company that he KNOWS is owned by the Chinese gov. The fuck who screams patriotism would rather take money from China than help America. GD pricks.

Sadly, other than O, the dems are absolutely USELESS. They have no sense of loyalty to either nation or party. Instead, they are bunch of fuck-ups. The only reason why they do not sux worse then the neo-cons is that the neo-cons are pretty much committing treason against the nation and have been actively working to destroy unions, etc. IOW, they consider it a higher priority to destroy unions (which they could have self-destructed on their own) then to help the nation.

We need 2 answers: a third party of social moderate/fiscal conservative (nixon was the last time that a republican was a fiscal conservative), and RootStrikers to get amendments on the constitution. We need to kill off all of the dark creatures of the night within the republicans party (or simply stake them all), and re-bury the zombies in the dem party, while creating a new party.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:I should mod, but this deserves discussion by ganjadude · 2012-09-04 12:51 · Score: 1

you do know that obama is borrowing money from china at an alarming rate rather than cut spending, so.... i guess obama is one of them GD pricks you speak of

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:I should mod, but this deserves discussion by WindBourne · 2012-09-04 14:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

First off, he inherited a 3/4 T deficit from W. (the constant .5T / year deficit of W/neo-cons is what cratered our economy in the FIRST place). O cranked it up to 1.2T for the first year due the great depression that we were looking at. Then O did a 1T for the second, while the 3rd year should have been cut, but he did not (which is why I have issues with this last year).
BUT, he is the one that worked with Boehner to do cuts and then cantor came in and gutted it. Then when Cantor did his theatrics of saying that they would cut a deal with the dems, but that O was to be excluded, O simply insisted that if they failed, that automatic cuts happen THIS COMING YEAR. Well, the neo-cons FAILED (yeah, like that is new) and then blamed O for it all.

The fact is, that O has been being gutted by the neo-cons in an attempt to crater him. And THEY are the ones wasting money on building launcher that depend on using manufacturers in their areas wasting 3-5B / year, while screaming about less than 1B/year for a couple of years to get MULTIPLE cheap private space going. No doubt had McCain been in office, private space would have been gutted and the SLS would have been bumped up to 5B/year and still would not be ready until 2024.

As I said, I am not wild about O, but compared to the vampire republicans and the zombies dems, he is at least alive and mostly useful. I really hate the fact that he is pushing for cuts in our nuke warheads as well as that insane cap/trade, not dealing effectively with our lack of nuclear power (we should spend money on thorium power), and the issues with China.

However, even romney has said that the economy is MUCH better off then it was 4 years ago, which is a good sign.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:I should mod, but this deserves discussion by jamstar7 · 2012-09-04 18:00 · Score: 2

El Presidente doesn't hand Congress a budget for consideration, Congress hands him a budget for his approval. And they haven't even done that in the last three years because they want him to fall flat on his ass. Why do you think we ran into the debt ceiling in the first place? The only 'cuts' in spending and 'increases' in taxes in the last three years are ones that were put in place before Obama showed up at the table and Congress couldn't ratfuck.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:I should mod, but this deserves discussion by jamstar7 · 2012-09-04 19:58 · Score: 1

I said cuts in spending and increases in taxes were handed to him. That's stuff that was sunsetted a few years back. Nothing current. Increases in spending were by appropriation bills that got passed because they authorised the various spending the government needed to fund, things like Social Security and defense spending, and there were ammendments to those bills to properly pass out the appropriate pork. They couldn't be flushed back to the House because people would go without their Social Security or military payroll checks. Most of those were passed at the last minute.

Oh, btw, the House starts a budget. It's been RINO for a couple years now, and they had enough votes to block anything they wanted to for about 6 years before that. And there's not a whole lot of control in the Senate when nobody can override a filibuster to shut it down. Some 'control' the Democrats have, yeah, a 'majority' in the Senate, but not enough to get anything done unless they can pry votes from the Republicans and Independents. Sending a budget that makes no sense to the Senate is a guarantee it'll get shot down, so if the House decides to spend 500 billion on donuts for the homeless while defunding things like Medicare, it's gonna get shot down, even though technically it's a 'budget'.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

16 Trillion reasons by nevermindme · 2012-09-04 11:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

16 Trillion reasons not to spend more than keeping life support on for NASA. When there are less than 50% of US citizens are dependent on some type of federal aid to keep above bankruptcy it might be time to go to the moon. And when college students can afford to pay tuition from the earnings of part time job and not finance the basic education until there retirement perhaps mars would be in reach of American Astronauts. We will need to go backwards for a bit to rebuild ourselves.

Re:16 Trillion reasons by ancientt · 2012-09-04 13:52 · Score: 1

You make a good case. I think I'm in favor of government spending on big technology projects and NASA's 0.5% slice of spending makes me feel like we're placing our priorities in the wrong place. When you mention the debt though, and I realize my personal share is $51,147.22 as it stands today, I really want to see us reprioritize. Debt is 103% of GDP right now and that's a pretty shocking figure. When you try to figure out how to deal with a debt like that, you need a growing economy or a shrinking budget, or preferably both.
Most economic theories I hear essentially say that you have to spend government (my!) money to make the economy grow, but there are solid arguments that making business more profitible makes the economy grow. (I won't defend either too strongly but look into the Laffer curve and Hauser's Law to see some of the points.) So I can't really decide. Which is better for most people in a sluggish economy, a shrinking or a growing government spending program?
(Apologies to my economics teachers who tried really hard to make me understand this type of stuff.)

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Re:16 Trillion reasons by symbolset · 2012-09-04 13:53 · Score: 1

Come on. That's just funny money anyway. Nobody seriously believes that debt will ever be paid, do they? Even now we have candidates for national office crowing about how they're each going to reduce the tax burden that doesn't even come close to covering running expenses.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:16 Trillion reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 20:13 · Score: 1

Which is better for most people in a sluggish economy, a shrinking or a growing government spending program?
You're supposed to both: in a sluggish economy, you cut taxes and increase spending, running a budget deficit until it recovers. You pay for this by, in the good times, keeping taxes high and spending low, to pay down your debt.
Unfortunately, the US ran a budget deficit through the good times, too.
Re:16 Trillion reasons by ancientt · 2012-09-05 13:26 · Score: 1

Well said, thank you for putting it so clearly.
It does bias my opinion though. Where is all the money from our strong economic peroids? Spending like crazy during both cycles seems to be the standard for government. If you can't manage your debt because you can't stop spending whether you're in a boom or recession, then you crash, whether as an individual, a business or a government. I don't like crashing. I'm worried now that it is becoming harder and harder to avoid because, with a better understanding of Keynes theory comes a better understanding of how our government has failed to apply it.

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by cpu6502 · 2012-09-04 11:51 · Score: 1

And vice-versa: The DNC to bankrupt the country by overfunding projects. ("I want to redistribute the wealth"..... into billion-dollar tours of space tourist spots.)

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Who is behind the Space Frontier Foundation ? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 12:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

How come we never heard from the so-called "Space Frontier Foundation" when Obama wanted to turn NASA into a zoo ?

Because he didn't. The idea of using NASA as form of interntaional outreach has been there for decades - NASA is a "halo" program for th US and is thus one of our best forms of PR. Reagan even made a speech where he said:

"We can find there's yet undiscovered avenues where American and Soviet citizens can cooperate fruitfully for the benefit of mankind. In science and technology we can launch new joint space ventures."

And BTW, that shit worked too. NASA's outreach programs have paid handsome dividends for America. We would never have had the Ansari X-Prize if Anousheh Ansari hadn't been inspired by NASA as a child in Iran.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Who gives a fuck? by Rockoon · 2012-09-04 12:44 · Score: 1

Clearly those taxes would have grabbed nearly 10% of the entire countries GDP, and without those taxes we obviously created the $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. You are sooooo right that there wouldn't be any deficit without those tax cuts.

Are you picking up what I am putting down?

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re:Who is behind the Space Frontier Foundation ? by jamstar7 · 2012-09-04 16:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bush 2 inherited what could be concievably be called a 'space program'. He looted it for pork, then shut the Shuttle down because it was getting unsafe. Then he got ambitious to provide yet more pork by coming up with the Aries systems. Congress was right to kill them, but wrong to replace them with SLS.

When NASA does hard science, they can't be beat. It's when they get stuck fighting over the scraps that Congress hands them after passing out the pork that they have trouble. And it doesn't help that the bosses they keep assigning are beancounters, either.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Soon it won't matter. by T-Bucket · 2012-09-04 16:35 · Score: 2

Seriously, none of this will matter in a few years. At the rate we're LOSING space capability we won't even be able to use a telescope by the end of the decade. 40+ years ago we could land on the moon, now we're paying the russians to send people into space for us. It's embarassing. What the hell is left to have partisan fights over?!? Where we're going to spend the money they yank from what used to be the space program budget?

Re:Because he DIDN'T ??? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 16:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Or are you saying that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is a liar ?

I'm saying that in the context of the interview it was clear Bolden was only talking about outreach programs. Listen to what he says in the link YOU provided.

1) Re-inspire children to get into science and math
2) He wanted to expand our international relationships
3) Third and perhaps foremost he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the muslim world.

None of those items are about going to space, they are all directions for outreach programs.

That's all he's talking about -- none of this bullshit about "turning NASA into a zoo." Just direction for outreach programs, the kind of thing NASA has been doing practically from day one.

What is it with this fauxbama shit? There's tons of real policy issues to critize the guy on, why do so many people like you insist on going after fairy tales?

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by jamstar7 · 2012-09-04 16:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

The GOP is all about the big business. Boeing, Lockheed, et al would have folded if not for government cost-plus contracts that pay even when nothing is delivered, and have all those nifty cost overruns built right into them. It's The Way It's Done in the aerospace industry. If they manage to get control of both Congress and the White House, expect the 'traditional' aerospace companies to be deregulated and piled in pork while outfits like SpaceX get buried under red tape. Can't have these young upstarts changing The Way It's Done, especially with the next round of elections only a bit over 2 years away...

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by AK+Marc · 2012-09-04 16:49 · Score: 1

So you prefer deficit caused by overspending and taxing the next generation, compared to a deficit caused by overspending.and taxing the current generation. I don't see a difference. And the Republicans are fiscal conservatives like the sun is cold.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Because he DIDN'T ??? by Teancum · 2012-09-04 17:10 · Score: 1, Troll

I have no doubt that after Charles Bolden was appointed by Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, that Bolden had a serious sit down meeting in the Oval Office discussing outreach efforts on the part of NASA.

Other than the hype, I think it was a pretty good idea. There have been Muslims who have flown on the Space Shuttle (including a Saudi prince), and if there could be a way to have the children of the Middle East and other Muslim countries to have a role model which exemplifies the exploration of space and that living in the 21st Century has some benefits worth trying to examine, I think it is a pretty good thing.

I would also agree with you in terms of looking through what NASA has done over the past couple of years under the leadership of Bolden to see what exactly has accomplished that shows any sort of "selling out" or even making such outreach to Muslim countries something that impacts the other programs of the agency.

For myself, I very much like Obama's space policy and those who hate it usually are partisan hacks who can't find anything good to say about somebody they perceive as "the enemy". The real truth is that space policy over the past 40 years (since the Nixon administration) has been nearly a disaster and so screwed up (under both Democrat and Republican administrations... it was an equal opportunity screw up) that almost any change could have been better.

Obama in this case seemed to want to do something that was "not Bush". Literally NASA's policies were so screwed up under Bush that doing the exact opposite was an improvement. Bush inherited an awful program too, but then again so did Clinton.

Re:Fairy Tales? Go ask "Space Frontier Foundation" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 17:50 · Score: 1

What about the people of OTHER RELIGION? Don't they deserve any attention from NASA?

Why that specific religion and not other religion?

Is that your definition of a "zoo" now? Really? As if focusing outreach programs on a third of the world's population is really "turning NASA into a zoo."

But to answer your question, how about the fact they are probably the largest group of people with which the USA could really use an improvement in relations with? Kind of like how we had terrible relations with a certain other group of people during the 80s, you know the entire freaking soviet bloc.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Feel the burn by SuperKendall · 2012-09-04 18:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hundreds of billions going to what? People's salaries, government contractors, and some natural resources. The money isn't being burnt

Yes it is.

That is a MASSIVE opportunity cost from what private industry could have done with the same funds.

For every NASA worker private industry could probably hire two or more people. For every billion spent private industry could have created 10 billion in return for every billion spent, if it had not been taken from them.

I love NASA, NASA did thigns no-one else could have done and has a massive amount of experience on tap. But the age of large government is nearing a close, and we must move to a world where private industry takes on the role NASA once did. Only then will we start seeing real innovation in space travel again, including more actual space TRAVEL.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Feel the burn by asylumx · 2012-09-04 22:40 · Score: 2

For every NASA worker private industry could probably hire two or more people.
Ah, but they won't. That would cut into their profit margins -- something the gov't doesn't have to be concerned with. I have watched plenty of fortune 500, multi-billion dollar companies work with skeleton teams to accomplish their goals. If we're going to be serious about space travel, skeleton crews on the ground are not going to cut it.

So back to your statement... It's possibly true that private industry *could* hire two or more people for every one NASA employs, however it is also highly unlikely they would do that unless they were forced to.
Re:Feel the burn by GNious · 2012-09-05 07:32 · Score: 1

Skeleton crews on the launch-vehicles, shuttles, spacestations - that would work, since they weigh less and store easily for transport!
what?
Re:Feel the burn by asylumx · 2012-09-06 01:31 · Score: 1

skeleton crews on the ground are not going to cut it
Not sure what part of "on the ground" you missed, but most of the launch-vehicles, shuttles and space stations are intended to not be on the ground.

Re:Fairy Tales? Go ask "Space Frontier Foundation" by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-09-04 18:45 · Score: 1

I am responding to the "fauxbama shit", not the "zoo" thing

Can't you read?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Fairy Tales? Go ask "Space Frontier Foundation" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 18:57 · Score: 1

I am responding to the "fauxbama shit", not the "zoo" thing

Can't you read?

Ok, so you are saying that your original point is now indefensible.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Who is behind the Space Frontier Foundation ? by letherial · 2012-09-04 18:59 · Score: 1

I doubt you have any evidence of this, and i seriously doubt your in any position to understand what your talking about.

For a low budget agency, it does some amazing things; or do you not bother keeping up with what your tax dollars are doing?

Re:Who is behind the Space Frontier Foundation ? by symbolset · 2012-09-04 19:02 · Score: 1

Labelling NASA missions as pork is how we deprecate them between administrations so as to prevent them from providing too much progress. Every prior administration's NASA budget is pork. And in4-8 years this one will be too.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Because he DIDN'T ??? by symbolset · 2012-09-04 19:23 · Score: 1

As an ambivalent agnostic pantheistic solistic Christian Buddhist (exploratory Jew and Mormon) I have to still confess that Muslim nations have a considerable history of contributions to science and math. To encourage this aspect of their tradition above their current predisposition for religious extremism seems a good thing since they're proud of this heritage too and not willing to give it up even for the bomb vest.

In case you're wondering what that description of my religion is: I don't know if you exist or I do, if I'm making the universe up by myself or in concert with others, but just in case I am not: Jesus had some good lessons, but "know yourself and let go" is cool too. Keep one day a week (pick one!) to not make iPhones, and lay off the liquor and caffeine unless you're in the company of the forever forgiven incapable of sin.

Did I do that right? Did I forget somebody?

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Because he DIDN'T ??? by symbolset · 2012-09-04 19:29 · Score: 1

What is it with this fauxbama shit?

It's silly season. There's going to be a lot of this on both sides. It's unsavory, but unfortunately it does work for some fraction of the electorate, enough so that both sides must play this stupid game no matter how much they hate it. I regret it as much as you do.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Mixed/non-sensical metaphors by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-04 22:31 · Score: 2

Partisan Food Fight

What does this mean? Is "food fight" a well-known metaphor for something? This situation doesn't sound like good-natured, if creamy, horseplay.

Now, one organization is throwing fuel on the political fire.

Okay, which idiot brought fuel to a food fight?

It's about time everyone put their battleaxes back in the scabbard. They've made their cake, and now they have to lie in it.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Mixed/non-sensical metaphors by RocketAcademy · 2012-09-05 03:45 · Score: 1

"Food fight" is a well-known metaphor for political partisans who are acting like children.
Re:Mixed/non-sensical metaphors by steelfood · 2012-09-05 04:59 · Score: 1

They've made their cake, and now they have to lie in it.
The cake is a lie.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Reduce mercury pollution by $6 million? by sturle · 2012-09-04 23:06 · Score: 2

This sentence from Mitt Romney just doesn't compute:

For example, his “Utility MACT” rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an “m”).

How do you reduce mercury pollution by "$6 million"? Does this guy have any idea what mercury is?

Re:Who is behind the Space Frontier Foundation ? by Teancum · 2012-09-05 00:53 · Score: 2

A multi-billion dollar agency is "low budget"? I think that speaks volumes about the size of the federal government and how it is out of control than necessarily the priority given to the federal government.

Still, look at where all of these projects within NASA are being planned? It is in a central design bureau either at Huntsville Alabama or at NASA HQ in Washington DC. Everything is being done in a top down approach. Sure, an ordinary citizen could have some suggestions in terms of what should happen (and will almost always be ignored with perhaps a polite letter in response) but it is the central planners who are making the decisions. In fact it is seen as "the space program".

Keep in mind that until very recently only government employees ever went into space. There were a couple of employees of space contractors that ended up going through the NASA astronaut training course, but until Dennis Tito (who ended up having to use a Russian Soyuz space capsule because NASA wouldn't let private passengers fly on the Space Shuttle.... oh the irony) there wasn't any way a private individual could go into space on their own. In fact until now the only way to get into space on your own dime has been to pay the Russians as somehow America forgot that free enterprise was even possible.

This is also one of the things that has been holding back the development of space, as government efforts in space have all but shut out private efforts to go into space. Even now, you need special permission from people who are very reluctant to give that permission to even try and get into space in the form of launching Earth observation satellites or doing anything else in space. Very reluctant to the point they laugh in your face if you even suggest you are going to put something into space without government money. That is changing, but too damn slow in my opinion and it is precisely because of this Soviet style central planning bureau which has been running "the space program" in America which is expected to do everything for everybody.

In the 1970's there was a group led by former original Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton (who also was the chief astronaut for NASA for a great many years) that ended up developing a rocket system called the Conestoga rocket. Pretty much they did almost exactly what SpaceX is doing today, but this was the 1970's and not the 2010's. They even sent a few spacecraft into the sky and even passed through the Kármán line more than a couple time.

What ended up killing this rocket system and this company was not the technical capabilities of those involved, but rather because bureaucrats at NASA wanted so bad to prove that the Space Shuttle was a viable concept that they ended up killing the emerging private commercial spaceflight industry before it got going. The Space Shuttle (keep in mind this was designed and operated by government employees at the time.... United Launch Alliance didn't form until the Reagan administration) was seen as the vehicle which would do everything for everybody including the U.S. Air Force and for that matter any other federal agency or even private group. As a part of that effort to prove that the Shuttle was viable, when inquiries were made about how much it would cost to put cargo on the Space Shuttle (or to even ride on the Shuttle as a passenger.... yes that did indeed happen and was promised in the 1970's) some incredibly unrealistically low prices were announced. The price was unrealistic because they were proposing that the Space Shuttle would be having weekly flights to meet this "commercial" demand and that NASA was planning on running the STS system like an airline... just owned by the government (and designed and operated by the government too I might add).

As a practical matter, all of the promises made by NASA (the big central design bureau I should note here as well) simply didn't work out. Not only were the prices unrealistically low (there wasn't r

Democratic platform has specific goals by GoatCheez · 2012-09-05 01:55 · Score: 1

If you look at the responses to the ScienceDebate.org questionnaire, it's clear where each party stands. Romney (and the GOP) want the NASA budget to stay fixed, and want to focus on developing technology that serves for military purposes. Obama (and the Democratic party) have solid goals for space exploration that includes utilizing the private sector to achieve asteroid mining and mars exploration.

Re:Not only... by ganjadude · 2012-09-05 03:18 · Score: 1

Just to be clear, I was as much against bush as I am obama, I dont think "they are the same" I think they equally are bad presidents however. Bush did a lot of stupid things, and living just outside of NYC, I have seen more than most when it comes to the federal government getting in our shit. Bush built up the government, but IMO obama took it to an entire new level. I have not seen anything that i personally find good that he has done. I think we need to shrink the federal government by around 80% and give most of the power back to the states, as was intended

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:Who is behind the Space Frontier Foundation ? by jamstar7 · 2012-09-05 03:39 · Score: 1

Labelling NASA missions as pork is how we deprecate them between administrations so as to prevent them from providing too much progress. Every prior administration's NASA budget is pork. And in4-8 years this one will be too.

Nonono, looted FOR pork, as in, funding they could safely cut away to give to their campaign contributors, though your definitition provides the 'justification' for doing so.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by steelfood · 2012-09-05 04:18 · Score: 1

Boeing, Lockheed, et al would have folded if not for government cost-plus contracts that pay even when nothing is delivered, and have all those nifty cost overruns built right into them.

It also subsidizes the civilian arms of these companies, as well as heavily promotes aerospace research within them. Military research projects can eventually find use in civilian contexts.

Not to say that there isn't a better way, but there are benefits to the general public. My inclination is to see this money go to universities, and knowledge to go into the public domain, since it's government-funded. But government funding some research is better than none.

Of course, given the state of science and technology education in the states these days, in 20 years, these companies will have trouble finding people to do military research (which requires clearance). That, and nobody will want to build anything for fear of "IP" lawsuits, those from patent trolls being the most damaging overall.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by cpu6502 · 2012-09-05 07:46 · Score: 1

Would rather have taxdollars funding aerospace & defense (note I said defense, not offensive war) than the Democrat methodology of funding green companies that eventually go bankrupt (Solyndra was merely the first of several dozen), or building trains that run into the middle of the California desert where nobody lives, or extending subways from the edge of Baltimore to the edge of the mountains (these new extensions average a mere 2 persons per trip). Waste, waste, and more waste. Except they do achieve their primary goal: Win votes for reelection.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by cpu6502 · 2012-09-05 08:16 · Score: 1

>>>So you prefer deficit caused by overspending and taxing the next generation, compared to a deficit caused by overspending.and taxing the current generation.

Strawman argument.
False diochotomy (my only two choices are deficit spending or deficit spending). And just plain lame method of argument. I prefer *zero* deficit spending.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:So GOP doesn't have enough private space ventur by AK+Marc · 2012-09-05 08:42 · Score: 1

So, writing in Mickey Mouse in November?

--
Learn to love Alaska

Slashdot Mirror

Partisan Food Fight Erupts Over NASA, Commercial Space

125 of 164 comments (clear)