Slashdot Mirror


Political Pressure Pushes NASA Technical Reports Offline

Trepidity writes "The extensive NASA Technical Report Archive was just taken offline, following pressure from members of U.S. Congress, worried that Chinese researchers could be reading the reports. U.S. Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) demanded that 'NASA should immediately take down all publicly available technical data sources until all documents that have not been subjected to export control review have received such a review,' and NASA appears to have complied. Although all reports are in the public domain, there doesn't appear to be a third-party mirror available (some university libraries do have subsets on microfiche)."

140 comments

  1. shitty by Pi+Is+A+Rational · · Score: 0, Troll

    well, that's shitty.

    1. Re:shitty by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      well, that's shitty.

      Pfft. Just mix in some of the bills in the US House every few pages and the Chinese government will become so encumbered and gridlocked they won't know if they are coming or going.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:shitty by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      The lack of third party hosting probably implies nobody cared to begin with BUT possibly the Chinese... who we're supposed to have a good relationship with so they can keep making my nikeys.

    3. Re:shitty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese just have to approach the House bills mix-a-lot with the same attitude like they apply their own legislation, selective reading and application against the enemy in the local business and political wars.

  2. oh no by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The commies are coming!

    It's Joseph McCarthy all over again...

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:oh no by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The commies are coming!

      It's Joseph McCarthy all over again...

      Joseph McCarthy represented a threat to the freedom of United States citizens and their freedom of speech. I fail to see how this is equivalent. The Chinese represent a threat to the United States. The United States is wary of sharing technical data with the Chinese for this very reason ...

    3. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      To be fair, he tried to identify Communists in all walks of life and ran through Hollywood suppressing freedom of speech and using strong arm tactics to destroy the rights of non-state department citizens. Under Joseph McCarthy, Ayn Rand testified in front of congress against film makers to have them fined and jailed. How fucked up is that? He made it illegal to be a Communist no matter how nonviolent or extreme you were. It was the definition of witch hunt and suppressed freedom of speech in American media. It's fine to ferret them out of the State Department but why the private sectors?!

    4. Re:oh no by LateArthurDent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      Even if that's true, it doesn't make McCarthy right. In this country, the government isn't allowed to prosecute people for their political beliefs. The problem with McCarthy wasn't just that there was a witch hunt in place. The problem was that if every single person he accused to be a communist was indeed a communist, the proper response is, "so what?"

    5. Re:oh no by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Like the Chinese haven't already hacked into NASA's computers. This is like shutting the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Export controls just hurt little people by removing our access to knowledge. The big players like China already know how to get access.

    6. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That doesn't necessarily justify his policies.
      Is there any prohibition against Communists being in the State Department?
      Espousing a certain socio-economic or political viewpoint isn't illegal, nor does it disqualify one from employment at the State Department.

    7. Re:oh no by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Got to love those politicians. Unwitting, often clueless but trying their best. God bless em, cause blessings are probably in short order from elsewhere.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the Chinese haven't already hacked into NASA's computers. This is like shutting the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Export controls just hurt little people by removing our access to knowledge. The big players like China already know how to get access.

      Ah yes, the "security through insecurity" defense.

    9. Re:oh no by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      At the time, I believe Communist party membership was illegal, at least in some sense of the word. I'm not sure when or if that ever changed.

      I guess we have more "freedom" in this country than we can handle.

    10. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There really were witches in Massachusetts, too.

    11. Re:oh no by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If McCarthy was right it was entirely by accident. Many innocent people were smeared as Communists simply for advocating policies that McCarthy personally disagreed with. Among the many was George Marshall, the man responsible for the Marshall Plan and thus one of the people most responsible for saving Western Europe from a Communist takeover. The character of the McCarthy-like senator in "The Manchurian Candidate" is uncomfortably close to the truth.

    12. Re:oh no by LaggedOnUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were not just communists, but communist sympathizers of a major hostile foreign power to whom they were transferring valuable secrets, such as nuclear technology, in the middle of the Cold War. I don't think "so what?" quite covers the possibility of treason by State Department employees.

    13. Re:oh no by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Making communist party membership illegal would have been unconstitutional.

    14. Re:oh no by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      The cold war was not a war, so I am not sure how that factors into it.

      They might have been guilty of espionage, I am not sure how it goes to the level of treason unless they also plotted to overthrow the government.

    15. Re:oh no by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      That's a good one.

    16. Re:oh no by Linux+Torvalds · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think "so what?" quite covers the possibility of treason by State Department employees.

      Well, "so what?" seems to covers the reality of treason in the Oval Office, so I don't see why the State Department should be held to tighter standards.

    17. Re:oh no by Rufty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they transfer valuable secrets, prosecute them for that, and if they didn't then leave their political beliefs out of it.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    18. Re:oh no by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

      In this country, the government isn't allowed to prosecute people for their political beliefs.

      Bullshit. Try running for office without a (D) or (R) next to your name and see how far you get.

      You can do it your own way
      If it's done just how I say

    19. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Ayn Rand saw the horrors and bloodshed of Communism up close and personal in Russia.

    20. Re:oh no by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      When your political beliefs include the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, that's where the line is drawn. The 50s Communists believed exactly that. They weren't being persecuted for their political beliefs, they were being persecuted for the fact that they wanted to do the federal government what the Tea Party wants to do today. Do you agree with the Tea Party?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    21. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, I myself have seen the horrors and bloodshed of Capitalism up close and personal in the United States of Amerika.

      On another note, I have been screwed a lot more by Big Business than by Big Government.

    22. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, Ayn Rand saw the horrors and bloodshed of Communism up close and personal in Russia.

      Yes and she left for a better place where her speech would not be suppressed ... how sad that she eventually forgot such notions and then suppressed the speech of those who opposed her ... of course, she was all about hypocrisy as she didn't appear to be above utilizing social programs ...

      Once the oppressed now the oppressor ...

    23. Re:oh no by PlastikMissle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit right back at you. Sure you won't win, but the government doesn't prosecute you if you run as a third party candidate.

    24. Re:oh no by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When your political beliefs include the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, that's where the line is drawn. The 50s Communists believed exactly that. They weren't being persecuted for their political beliefs, they were being persecuted for the fact that they wanted to do the federal government what the Tea Party wants to do today. Do you agree with the Tea Party?

      I don't agree with the Communists, and I don't agree with the Tea Party. I don't want to prevent either of them from being in positions in government, however. Other than by not voting for them, that is. If other people vote them in, that's their right, because I do believe in a representative government.

      The line, by the way, isn't whether your political beliefs include violent overthrow of the U.S. government. It's when your actions support that. The moment you take up arms and try to force the government out and put your own government in place, I expect you to be shot down and arrested. I'm not going to support the government going after you for pre- or thought-crime, though.

    25. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthyism

      No. The vast majority of the victims of McCarthyism were not transferring secrets to the USSR and being homosexual certainly doesn't make people into communist sympathizers.

    26. Re:oh no by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

      That wasn't Joseph McCarthy, that was the Democrats on the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, or don't they teach that part in school? When Ayn Rand testified before HUAC, Joseph McCarthy was in the Senate. The HUAC was controlled by Democrats when Joseph McCarthy was making a name for himself.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    27. Re:oh no by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party does not advocate the violent overthrow of the government today (although some of their more extreme members are beginning to believe that it will be necessary), unlike our current President's political mentor.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    28. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More dangerous and ominous for the country, though, was the number of Republicans in the State Department.

    29. Re:oh no by abirdman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ms. Rand would have had a better time of it in the USA if she hadn't insisted on writing children's books. Eventually her audience grew up. Oh wait, a few stayed back.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    30. Re:oh no by abirdman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you referring to the right Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Because Rev. Wright is an honorable, articulate, educated, honest, and forthright man, who is at least second generation military, served as a Marine and a Navy corpsman, has more academic degrees than most Tea-Baggers have fingers on their right hand, is a college professor and runs a church. The fact that the fucktard-right-- errr, I mean mainstream media-- in this country can't tell the difference between an intelligent man's hyperbole (used to illustrate a point about the history of racial oppression) and violent insurrection-- does not condemn the man.

      And if not Rev. Wright, then who are you talking about?

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    31. Re:oh no by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Still is, technically. The communism control act (50 USC, Chapter 23, Subchapter IV), which outlawed the Communist Party of the United States, was never repealed or struck down, the latter because it was never actually enforced, and thus never went to court.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    32. Re:oh no by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      No, I am referring to Bill Ayers, the man who ghost wrote Obama's first autobiography. If you are not familiar with Bill Ayers violent attempts to start a revolution to overthrow the U.S. government, you should do some research into the matter.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    33. Re:oh no by abirdman · · Score: 2

      Oh, the SDS guy. OK then. And no one has explained how Mr. Ayers was not interested in the violent overthrow of the government, he was interested in resistance to specific injustices, specifically the draft and the Viet Nam war in general. Then as now the arms were nearly always in the hands of the police. He was never charged or convicted of any crime-- his only crime was thinking (and writing and speaking) against the status quo. He's now dragged out as a symbol of violent insurrection by the right because the media knows almost no one will bother to look him up to find out the real story anyway. Besides, no one is interested in Ayers-- he's been a college professor for 30 years-- only in his relationship to Obama, which was slight, and the opportunity to use an unfair and incorrect innuendo to besmirch the President.

      Sorry to nit-pick, but it's important to be informed.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    34. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paranoia of US individuals was somewhat understandable, considering the actions, beliefs and attitude of revolutionary communists in Europe and Americas. Our young home-communists only managed to "overthrow" the local university but the real effects on policies and functions on security and defense and random things like art world with the constant unofficial communication (called spying today) going on with the Russia and East Germany were significant. That might explain why our capital were targeted during the cold war by the US even as we were independent country and not member of the Warsaw Pact.
      The idealization of the Soviet Union and East Germany was at a completely irrational level.

    35. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was the old Democratic party. The one popular in the deep south (yes, I knew McCarthy was from the north). It wasn't until the late 60's and the civil rights fight that the bigots left the Democratic party and joined the Republicans. McCarthy was already dead a decade by that point.

    36. Re:oh no by bware · · Score: 2

      Everything on that website had already gone through document review and export control. It's just part of the process. So taking if offline and asking that it be reviewed again is doubly stupid. And wasteful, given sequestration and travel restrictions and shutdown of awards and...

      This is just political posturing from Congress and CYA from NASA.

    37. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you agree with the Tea Party?

      No, but I'd rather not have them suppressed.

      Have your TSA and eat it too. The terrorist bogeyman is after you!

    38. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the Southwest where we would take all of the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be.

      I asked, "Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate, that are die-hard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they'd have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

      -- FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, on a meeting attended by Obama and Ayers

    39. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a set of credentials that guarantees veracity and candor.

    40. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moment you take up arms and try to force the government out and put your own government in place, I expect you to be shot down and arrested.

      You do realize this is exactly how America started, right?

    41. Re:oh no by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Really? I don't believe that. What about when your political opponents are wrong? Is it not the time for coercive paternalism? "In many cases it would advance our goals more effectively if government were to prevent us from acting in accordance with our decisions."

      So, agree or disagree?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    42. Re:oh no by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Damn, no mod points.

      The 'trade' I was trained for all those decades ago that would 'set me up for life' was obsolete in 10 years. Retraining? Not available, unless you were a displaced auto worker.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    43. Re:oh no by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      All those names of reputed Communists, and only two convictions of reputed Communists for 'treason'. Google up the Rosenbergs sometime. All Tailgunner Joe did was freak a lot of people out and make damned sure that his campaign warchest was filled. Being one of those who lived through those times, I'm not a damned bit surprised the country made a drastic swing to the left in the 60's. Course, in the 70's, it went back to the right and pretty much stayed there til today.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    44. Re:oh no by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      That is interesting that a Republican would cut a deal with the Communist government we were at war with to deny a Democrat an election.

      Interesting thing is, Nixon went to China later, and Kissinger was a pragmatic politician. He regularly flew around the globe with briefcases full of money to buy promises from foreign governments.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    45. Re:oh no by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, her family left Russia because her class no longer could suppress the free speech (and pretty much every other right) of the commoners.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    46. Re:oh no by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      No, your followers, if any, will be relegated to 'free speech zones' and never heard from again. If you're not one of the Big Two, you won't be invited to any presidential debates no matter how many followers you have (They learned that one with Perot).

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    47. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "'When your political beliefs include the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, that's where the line is drawn."
      Yep it's ok to just buy congresspersons and bribe officals.

    48. Re:oh no by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Disagree. Freedom includes the right to make an asshole out of yourself. Preventing somebody from doing that not only violates their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (note the right is for the pursuit, not the attainment!). Hey, if making themselves an asshole makes them happy, who am I to complain? I only worry when the assholes demand that everybody else in government must be investigated on suspicion of being liberal, impeached, and replaced with yet more assholes.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    49. Re:oh no by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      And a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      McCarthy didn't know that was true, and had no reason to think it was true, he just lied about it. It was total coincidence that it happened to be true. And since he had no real information, he was no good at actually ferreting them out. And it's bad counterintelligence to just publicly identify enemy agents -- you're better off feeding them disinformation, turning them, or using them to find more, all very quietly.

      The man was a drunk and a lout and deserves nothing but scorn.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    50. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot more to (the majority) of the crazy things he says than hyperbole.

    51. Re:oh no by abirdman · · Score: 1

      You are right. The man also speaks with caring, integrity, truth, and righteous outrage. Thanks for pointing that out.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    52. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stealing nasa secrets is silly. you can download the ebola virus dna from government websites and make one yourself ... i'm surprised they didn't know this. obviously a stupid knee jerk reaction

    53. Re:oh no by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      Really? I don't believe that. What about when your political opponents are wrong? Is it not the time for coercive paternalism? "In many cases it would advance our goals more effectively if government were to prevent us from acting in accordance with our decisions."

      So, agree or disagree?

      I'm old enough that I've lost count of how many times I've been proven wrong. So, in order to minimize the damage, I try to live my life always allowing for the possibility that the other guy is right, and I'm the one who is wrong.

      That obviously doesn't mean I won't believe I'm right and the other guy is wrong. For example, in this conversation, I clearly think you're the one who is wrong. I've also already said I think the Tea Party has some crappy ideas and that communism can't work. It means that I don't discount the possibility that I'm just not seeing something they (or you) are seeing. What that does is allow me to listen to your arguments and try to find the merits in them, not just try to find how I can discredit you. If your arguments don't convince me, than I'll present my counterarguments. If I can't convince you, and you can't convince me, than one of us is wrong. I may continue believing I'm the one who's right, but I don't know that's true. So I'll vote my way, you'll vote another. If most people are voting against me in an issue I feel strongly about, I'll try to move someplace where more people believe as I do, but I won't try to force everyone else to change to my beliefs because I have no way of knowing for sure that I'm not the one being stubbornly wrong.

    54. Re:oh no by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      The moment you take up arms and try to force the government out and put your own government in place, I expect you to be shot down and arrested.

      You do realize this is exactly how America started, right?

      Not for the lack of the British fighting back. It just so happens the revolutionaries won.

      I like the US government, even with all of it faults. If somebody tries to take it down by force, I expect the government to fight back. I can fight for one side, but I can't control who wins.

    55. Re:oh no by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      The sad part is the space department NASA made this country great. I mean we worked hard to be the first one to the moon and so many great things came out of nasa and now they pretty much can't do anything because they have no funding.

  3. What is that? "National" science or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought science had no borders.

    1. Re:What is that? "National" science or what? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      It doesn't really, but funding does. I hear whining here about politicians passing laws on the internet and computers when they clearly don't understand it, the same is problematic for science. I've heard suggestions that the cancelled superconducting super collider would have been completed had the US government not insisted on funding it exclusively to spite the Soviets. That was in a museum of scientific instruments in France though, so that may have been slightly anti-american. I dunno, I was one at the time it was started and ten at the time it was killed.

      Either way, politicians always have and probably always will use science to their own ends without regard for actual progress, and it's harder to claim ownership of something you don't own if someone else has contributed equally to it.

  4. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Chinese, Russian, North Korean, whoever governments probably all have a complete copy. The only ones this is gonna hurt is ourselves.

    1. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've referred to the NASA archive several times during my own research (based in the US, by the way). The only documents I've downloaded are from pre-1980, and they're all marked as "unclassified". I'm pretty sure that my university doesn't have a microfiche archive of this information, so now my only means to access has disappeared without warning. So, yeah, I'd agree that this is only going to harm ourselves. I find it unlikely that the evil Chinese scientists developing doomsday devices would have much use for 40 year-old, unclassified technical reports.

    2. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've referred to the NASA archive several times during my own research (based in the US, by the way). The only documents I've downloaded are from pre-1980, and they're all marked as "unclassified".

      THIS.in theory all of NTRS is reports that have already been reviewedthe only possible issue is if the review was done wrong, but at this point its too late anyways (the information has beeb up there for decadesor if there are specific new pieces of concern, just pull those down not the whole site).

      I'm pretty sure that my university doesn't have a microfiche archive of this information, so now my only means to access has disappeared without warning. So, yeah, I'd agree that this is only going to harm ourselves.

      Not just your university. Many current folks working Day-to-Day on NASA projects use NTRS regularly to find reports of interest--usually a good general overview, and even if some of the technical details are excluded to meet export control, it at least to identifies who is working in the area to contact for more information

      All this does is put us at a competitive disadvantage to the evil Chinese scientists--who can get their copies directly by going to the meetings that NASA workers can no longer afford to.

    3. Re:lol by hardie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is usually referred to as closing the barn door after the horse gets out.

      Maybe some other country will post the reports so we can have access to them.

    4. Re:lol by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Just when I think that some idiot in Congress can't come up with something even more idiotic....

  5. Fighting a smarter enemy by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Export control", just like DRM, deprives good citizens from the ideas of their own peers, while still allowing malicious types with connections and know-how to have the controlled ideas anyway.

    Both forms of idea control fight a smarter enemy...by making non-enemies even dumber.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Fighting a smarter enemy by steelfood · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the 128-bit encryption "export controls" from back in the day. All this paranoid political hubbub does is make the entire world (including ourselves) poorer.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Fighting a smarter enemy by neonv · · Score: 1

      If you're a citizen, you can have access to it.

      Export control information usually involves technology that can be used to create missiles or others armaments. NASA works with rockets, so some of that material may have information involving missiles. It's a good idea to have some control over where that information goes so it doesn't help a hostile entity and come back to us.

    3. Re:Fighting a smarter enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) that information has already been scoured, not just before it went up the first time, more than a decade ago, but during a complete review during the bush administration.

      2) that information has been up on the site for more than a decade, and there is NOTHING in there that could be used to create missiles that isn't available in many texbooks. If the Chinese haven't already got a mirror server by now, then they have no interest in the information.

  6. There doesn't appear to be a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No doubt the Chinese have that covered.
            Just more security theater, move along.

  7. Barn Door by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Would not the first thing one would do, if interesting in these technical reports, is to download them all. I have done such things in the past with documents sets I wanted to review. Taking them offline does not make all the copies already generated disappear.

    I wonder how much money has been wasted discussing this, making it happen, and how much money will be wasted reviewing the documents. I am glad sequestration hasn't done anything to impair congresses ability to waste money.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Barn Door by dhartshorn · · Score: 1

      sitesucker rules

    2. Re:Barn Door by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      sitesucker rules

      Dammit. now I'm gonna need more HD storage. Thanks?

    3. Re:Barn Door by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Would not the first thing one would do, if interesting in these technical reports, is to download them all

      You mean, like Aaron Schwartz did ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    4. Re:Barn Door by spitzak · · Score: 2

      According to the movies, when you delete a file it vanishes simultaneously from every screen that is viewing a copy of it. I'm sure that is what the people who proposed this are relying on.

  8. Maybe we can ask the chinese to put a mirror up? by leehwtsohg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, we could ask really nicely, no?

    Hey, china, how about it? In the name of humanity? Openness?

  9. There it is AGAIN! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Troll

    There's the party affiliation right in the story! It's an (R) again. Whenever a (D) does something reprehensible, the party affiliation is omitted. Is this a rule or something?

    It's always "both parties are equally bad, there is no difference between them" until the offender is identified as an (R), when the narrative about-faces in pure "we have always been at war with Eurasia" fashion to "those (R)s are uniquely horrid".

    What are the bosses trying to do with these tactics? Divide and conquer? Perhaps we should all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:There it is AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only means as much as you're willing to look into it.
      If you want to see it that way, go ahead, but you've got no one but yourself to blame.

    2. Re:There it is AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always "both parties are equally bad, there is no difference between them" until the offender is identified as an (R), when the narrative about-faces in pure "we have always been at war with Eurasia" fashion to "those (R)s are uniquely horrid".

      You have already admitted that this is a lie.

    3. Re:There it is AGAIN! by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The (Party-State) thing is pretty common for both parties, especially when talking about someone less known. If I were writing about Dick Cheney or Barack Obama or something, I wouldn't put it there, but if we're talking about regular Congresscritters, it seems like useful information to know their party affiliation and where they come from.

      If you're seeing a pattern, perhaps rather than a conspiracy, it's simply that one party is attacking science more than the other one is, at least lately?

    4. Re:There it is AGAIN! by Linux+Torvalds · · Score: 0

      Just another day in the (R-etarded) party.

      Republican politicians are basically the intellectual counterparts of the dead-end Japanese soldiers from WWII, isolated in the jungle for 40 years and cut off from civilization. Eventually, someone will manage to convince them that the war's over, that the radio isn't broadcasting elaborate propaganda to fool them, and that they can stop taking potshots at tourists anytime now.

    5. Re:There it is AGAIN! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm no, I think it's media bias. Quick question: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:There it is AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not compared with most other newspapers.

    7. Re:There it is AGAIN! by cusco · · Score: 2

      Quick answer: No. Longer answer: The NYT has for decades received inside information from intel and military agencies in exchange for printing their propaganda pieces. That newspaper also had the single largest number of reporters involved in Project Mockingbird, even more than the Washington Post where the project was headquartered.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    8. Re:There it is AGAIN! by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      If I had to label The New York Times, I'd say it's a newspaper for whatever type of people it is who like David Brooks and Thomas Friedman.

  10. Monumental naïveté by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    from the American natives.

  11. Brilliant by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reports were on line so we can assume the Chinese have already downloaded all of them. Now we take them offline so that US businesses can't take advantage of the technical data that they contain.

    Then we will add a likely complex and expensive process of vetting the reports which will delay any future releases - except for organizations that are good enough to hack the NASA computers and download them immediately.

    Whose side are WE on????

  12. "There doesn't appear to be a third-party mirror" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course there is - it's in Beijing. We just don't have access to it, nor do we have access to the original anymore.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  13. Context by TubeSteak · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is all in the context of a Chinese national who was arrested at the airport,
    on his way to China, with NASA materials he wasn't supposed to have.

    This isn't some random act of political pressure.
    The reality is that NASA is trying to get its house in order.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Context by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see how taking down an archive of publicly available documents, many of which have been publicly available for decades, is reasonably related to someone stealing documents that aren't publicly available.

    2. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a chinese national who formally worked with NASA is arrested at an airport for lying to investigators (he agreed to be searched, they asked him what computers/storage disks he had with himhe said he had a cell phone/memory stick/external hard drive/and a new computer; when his searching his luggage they found an additional SIM card, old hard drive, and laptop---thus he was arrested for lyingnot for having NASA material).

      Yes--previously an investigation had shown that while working for NIA he had traveled to China with work materials that shouldn't have left, but with knowledge of his supervisors.

      So in response we take down a publicly facing database with thousands of articles that have been online for years and have all been subject to an export control reviewon the chance that some of them were not properly reviewed the first time around?

      Taking away NTRS doesn't keep foreign spies from downloading the exact same information form other technical journals. Nor does it keep someone who had accessand whom the agency knew had accessto data internally from walking out with it.

      No this is just Wolfe's ongoing NASA witch hunt and a fundamental lack of any practical understanding.but wait he has offered to help get congressional approval to transfer money from actual "real" work at NASA to the task of re-reviewing 300,000 documents that are already publically released so they can be put back online.

    3. Re:Context by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does the phrase "absurd knee-jerk overreaction" ring a bell?

      The panic spasms of a bureaucracy discovering they've facilitated espionage are so powerful you could probably do pinch-confinement fusion in their rectums.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Context by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      The bureaucracy didn't come up with this idea of their own accord, unless by "the bureaucracy" you mean the U.S. Congress rather than NASA. The chairman of the Congressional committee that oversees NASA's funding explicitly and very specifically demanded that they take down this archive. And they gave in, and did so.

  14. Re:Now only the Chinese will be able to read them by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    "When guns are criminalized, only 3D printer owners will potentially have colorful guns."

  15. Waste of time by airishtiger · · Score: 2

    If China or any country wanted to study this information they would have already downloaded and saved this stuff. It would have taken them 5 minutes. The information is already in every countries' hands and there is nothing that can be done about it.

    1. Re:Waste of time by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      As a regular user of that site, you are wrong about it taking 5 minutes to download. There are over a million documents there. Amusingly, the DOD equivalent report server, which has twice as many documents, is still online.

    2. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a regular user of that site, you are wrong about it taking 5 minutes to download. There are over a million documents there. Amusingly, the DOD equivalent report server, which has twice as many documents, is still online.

      Apparently exageration is no longer tolerated. It would not take 5 minutes but it definitely has been up long enough for any sensitive information to have already been taken. My thesis still stands. Waste of time. The information is already out there. This is same user from op but posting from my mobile.

  16. Just what NASA needed by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    NASA's still moving? Quick find something to drain its budget!

    How many millions of dollars will have to be spent on this "export control review"?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:Just what NASA needed by cusco · · Score: 1

      Somehow it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that this was the actual motive. I'm not a fan of either of the big parties, but when it comes to science the Rethugs are definitely the worse of the two.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  17. So much random criticism by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    What's wrong with the observation "NASA should immediately take down all publicly available technical data sources until all documents that have not been subjected to export control review have received such a review"? If China already had it, they wouldn't have a spy trying to carry it back to their country.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:So much random criticism by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      If they could get what they wanted from documents that have been publicly available for decades, they wouldn't have a spy trying to carry it back into their country, either. The archive has been online for a long time, and China hardly needs to spend spies into the U.S. to copy it. They probably already made a local archive, anyway. All taking it down does is harm researchers.

    2. Re:So much random criticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because much of the information on NTRS has been subject to review. The only question is can NASA guarantee that all those reviews were done correctly and nothing slipped through.

  18. Sequester-related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NASA also just announced that they're cutting a bunch of other stuff thanks to the sequester. A whole lot of US scientists won't be attending international space conferences this year.

  19. WTF? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 0

    What the fuck were the congressmen thinking?

    What the fuck was NASA thinking when it complied?

    Ok, NASA has been shut off in everything that it was meaningful.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:WTF? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "What the fuck were the congressmen thinking?"

      Evidence for Red-baiting to smear Obama.

      "What the fuck was NASA thinking when it complied?"

      These idiots are in control of the future of our entire space program and get their panties all twisted because of something stupid and trivial, but if we anger them they may start cutting billions out of spite.

  20. It's a little late... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Horse, Barn, Door Open.. No Horse.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  21. Keep out the good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Much of the kind of information on NTRS (the recent stuff that would be a valid export control concern, not the historic archive--which while useful seems to be a much less reasonable concern--"OMG the durn commies might find out about Republic's failed proposal for the X-15") is also available in published journals, or in multiple independent online archives/cache's...just NTRS provides easy access without a paywall and at one place.

    Of course the end result is that those of us who are funded by NASA and find NTRS useful in are day jobs end up spending three times as long to find the information we need (guess it's time to renew those AIAA, AAS, IEEE journal subscriptionsor go to a technical library). BUT, if the Chinese accidentally delete their copy of NASA TN D-683 and all their backups, now we'll force them to walk to a librarythat's sure to slow down their rocket program.

    I have no doubt that in an archive that size/scope, there might of been somethings that slipped through, but everything I've had published over the years has had to go through an export review process before it would even be accepted for NTRS.

    This is just stupid.

  22. No worries by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    All that stuff was only "science".

  23. NASA and secrets by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2

    My father worked at NASA for 30 years. He was involved in guidance and navigation. Worked on the IU on the Saturn V.

    In the '90s, he told me the only thing classified at NASA was the vehicle destruct system details. Don't want someone intentionally blowing up a manned rocket on its proper course. He said that they were denied access to classified gyroscope materials from the spy satellite and ICBM world. Other secrets may have fallen under "trade secret" status as NASA contracted the building of most things.

    However, just the other day I downloaded information about the F-1 rocket engine. At one time the documents I downloaded were classified. I guess they didn't want the Soviets to learn more about our tech.

    Then the DART mission occurred. Within the report, there was information that might make it easier for bad actors (terrorists/states) to use GPS navigation for munitions. That information is restricted as is some more recent information.

    1. Re:NASA and secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classification isn't the issue. Little that NASA does is classified (some but little).

      Many projects touch on ITAR information (a horribly misguided policy, but it is the law).

      Many more deal with SBU (sensitive but unclassified) that include things that aren't classified but can't be released---personal information about individuals, company sensitive information (if you are providing oversight to some commercial contract, you want to know everything about how their vehicle worksbut they might not want publishing it for all their competitors unless you paid them for that privilege).

      BUTthe vast majority of documents on NTRS are published reports/presentations from technical meetings, all of which should already of been reviewed before ever being submitted to NTRS.

    2. Re:NASA and secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He said that they were denied access to classified gyroscope materials from the spy satellite and ICBM world."

      Not so. The Apollo Guidance and Navigation System was developed by the MIT Instrumentation Lab (now Draper Lab) and based on the based on the Polaris missile guidance system, which MIT also developed.

    3. Re:NASA and secrets by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      The same people and companies were involved, but there was separation as I understood it between the black side stuff and the civilian stuff. My father made a comment to the effect of, the classified stuff is better than the civilian stuff, gyroscope wise. Star trackers and such are probably not much different.

  24. Obligatory Simpsons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To shut them down now would be twisted; we just learned this place existed...

  25. All this does is hurt US businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a small business owner in the aerospace field I have a number of times used information in the NASA technical report series. Now Rep. Wolf has removed that ability, and has made my job more difficult.

  26. Mirror by zmooc · · Score: 3, Funny

    So.. anybody in China reading this kind enough to put up a mirror?

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  27. China to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In a bizzare twist today China announce it would begin archiving & mirroring *all* Public Domain materials. US Citizens appauded the move as it meant they might finally be read about the results of the research their tax dollars paid for. /sigh

  28. Re:Right by accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, not an accident. IIRC the man who gave McCarthy his list was (unknown to McCarthy) KGB. Everybody on that list was deemed either expendable (to make it seem more legitimate) or someone they wanted marginalized (like Marshall). It also served to distract people from the agents they had in place in the CIA and DOD by de-legitamizing any real investigations.
    I have heard it said that the one thing the KGB was very good at was spreading dissent. McCarthy served that aim very, very well.

  29. NASA Tech reports and export controls by cyberfringe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have direct experience with submitting a number of my technical reports to the NASA Technical Report Archive, a requirement for reports of research sponsored by NASA. The submittal process included a third party assessment of the applicable technology export control laws. In my case, this was performed by our Office of General Counsel. However, I was also asked whether controlled information was included in the report or not under the assumption that it was my responsibility to know the rules. While I believe I was personally scrupulous, I will wager that many report authors saw the whole process as a poor use of their time and were not so careful. So I believe the archive probably does contain export controlled information. On the other hand, the really interesting work gets published in the relevant journals and professional society conferences, and there is no way to control that except through the classification process.

    --
    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  30. Demand? by marcroelofs · · Score: 1

    Since when is a demand by a mere member of Congress a reason to withold information from the taxpayers? Shouldn't this be put into law or at least made official somehow?

    1. Re:Demand? by cusco · · Score: 1

      This moron is a member of the Appropriations Committee, so he has a major part in controlling NASA's budget. If they had dared say 'No' he almost certainly would have hacked major holes in their most important programs out of petty vindictiveness.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  31. Classified vs. Export-controlled technologies by dtmos · · Score: 1

    You're talking apples and oranges.

    Classified technologies must be kept secret from everyone not authorized to see them, regardless of their nationality.

    In the U.S., export-controlled technologies are technologies that may be freely distributed to anyone in the country -- and indeed, to anyone in most countries -- but not to members of certain "lists." One of the lists is for entities, and includes, "China." Such technologies may be even discussed in public forums -- stadiums, even -- as long as one is assured that no one from the restricted lists is present. Note that one does not have to physically export anything to be in violation of these laws -- discussing the wrong technology with the wrong foreign national is all that is required.

    I'm not an expert in this field, but I seem to remember an exception to the rules in that anything intended for publication is permitted to be exported. That's how technical journals continued to exist. Strange, I know.

    1. Re:Classified vs. Export-controlled technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only everything on that server has been released for public access. That web site has been open access to foreign users for as long as I have used it.

    2. Re:Classified vs. Export-controlled technologies by dtmos · · Score: 1

      The information has been released for public access (it contains nothing classified), but (apparently) not vetted for export control. Many, many so-called "public access" technologies cannot be exported to specific individuals and entities. For example, designs of microprocessors capable of operation at ambient temperatures above 125 C are not classified, but are a controlled technology. See item 3A001.a.2.a in the Commerce Control List.

      We may agree on the utility of taking that server off-line, but it's the law, and woe betide the brave soul that ignores US export control regulations.

  32. Why Have an Archive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why have technical reports that don't... er... get reported to anyone?
    I understand classifying certain things, but holy hell, the whole thing? It frustrates me to no end when I'm researching something and I find a definitive report for the subject... behind a pay-wall. This just takes that to a whole new level.

  33. A review will find what's been leaked. by thebiss · · Score: 2

    Instead of looking at this as a way to stop a leak of non-exportable information, the purpose of a review is to determine what has already been leaked, and therefore, what's no longer really a secret.

    --
    Beware: I believe all are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  34. Hoover was right, McCarthy was a nutjob by decora · · Score: 1

    which is why Hoover cut him off and worked with the president to shut down his hearings.

    meanwhile the guy who wrote High Noon was chased out of the country, as was the guy who wrote Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, as was t he guy who wrote Threepenny Opera,

  35. A soldier is a soldier by jevring · · Score: 1

    With the exception of medics and the like, it doesn't really matter how you are assaulting the enemy.

    --
    Move sig!
  36. Noncompliance With Presidential Mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dozens of requests for Kill By Drone Orders have reached President Obama Desk (yes he is not there).

    Since NASA has taken matters into its own hands (in the absence of Der Fuehrer) and pulled the said reports from publicly accessible
    sites, the Program Managers, as well as the NASA HIGH COMMAND AT CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN HQ are in noncompliance and
    President Obama (Der Fuehrer) is likely to comply with the Kill By Drone requests on the staff of the NASA HIGH COMMAD AT CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN.

    Cheers

  37. I for one am totally fucking outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chinese Nationals" is bullshit. They want to retain control of knowledge. It's the Vatican 2.0. They would ban tax-payers from being able to read if they thought it endangered the plantation.

    I don't normally contact my congressman but I'm getting on the horn for this one. FUCK THIS!

  38. Re:Now only the Chinese will be able to read them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gun is colorful and I don't need no stinkin' 3D printer.

  39. Your history is what a democrat teacher taught you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First, the Republicans were the people (google "Lincoln") who, being whacko religious nutjobs who drag morals into politics, ended slavery (which was legal, but immoral) ... even though doing so required an actual war against the southern Democrats (Historical FACT: No Republican was a slave owner).

    Second, Historical FACT: the Democrats and independents who formed the KKK used to call for the deaths not only of blacks but also of Jews and Catholics and Republicans (disagree? spend more time at the national archives and lose your ignorance)

    Third, The Republicans (a minority in congress at the time) helped LBJ push the civil rights legislation through because LBJ could not get enough of his fellow Democrats to support it. This, too, is well-documented historical fact, rather then blogger drivel.

    Please explain how you get to the bizarre narrative that black-hating-southern-Democrats (who still DESPISED Lincoln and many of whom still call the Civil War "the war of Northern Aggression") abandon the Democrat party (which mostly opposed the civil rights law) and flock to the Republican party (which pushed the law through) in response to... that very civil rights law. Um..... I'll bet your school teacher (almost certainly a member of one of the nation's two giant teachers' unions... both very deeply in-bed with the Democratic party) told you this tale and knew that you, as a kid who was both uninterested and insufficiently bold, would not ask any questions that would expose the obvious lie in this "party line". It was NOT the civil rights bill that drove so many from the south into the arms of the GOP (which they'd been raised to HATE) it was many of the other social matters of the sixties (the sexual stuff, the drugs, the anti-military and anti-establishment stuff). These are, not surprisingly, the VERY SAME ISSUES that keep the south in with the GOP now. There is plenty of evidence for this... you can just take their word for it, or you can actually notice that they flock to support and elect those black Republicans who choose to throw their hat into the ring. It's also telling that it is the Democrats in the media who make all the savage attacks on any black Republican who rises in politics or right-leaning media (Democrats are fine with the blacks they control and who stay on the political plantation).

    While we're on history and McCarthy, please note that not only did the DEMOCRATS control the House Unamerican Activites Committee, but the committee itself never "blacklisted" ANYBODY in Hollywood; No law was passed to ban Communists from acting or writing in Hollywood. Powerful people in Hollywood fell all over each-other in a panic over the idea that the public would find out some of them were Communists and they worried that the box office sales would fall and they'd all lose MONEY... so the people in Hollywood blacklisted their own people. Movie people who wanted to keep raking-in the cash, so they threw their friends under the bus and kept-on making money for themselves without looking back. There were principled guys like Kirk Douglas who while not being a Communist himself, refused to go-along and led to some "blacklisted" people being able to work. The most disgusting thing is that for decades, left-leaning people in Hollywood lied about the "black list" and instead of saying "we never should have put our bank accounts above our peers" they pretended to have "clean hands" and principles and they ranted and raved against Joe McCarthy and against Hollywood people like Elia Kazan (who had answered Congressional questions as all Americans had previously and traditionally done when called to speak to congressional inquiries). During the Oscars immediately following the death of the famous director, when he came up on screen during their "in memoriam" segment, the lemmings of Hollywood all sat on their dirty hands and with false self-righteousness denied him the customary gentle applause. Their false piety and the victim-of-persecution-by-proxy attitute they espouse gets no sympathy from me because I know the history

  40. Re:Your history is what a democrat teacher taught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Surely you've heard of the southern strategy? It's not exactly a fringe theory.

    [posting as A/C because I already modded in this thread]

  41. Well, they'll never come back online now... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    As NASA will never be given the budget to perform the reviews.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  42. A sign Occident has started to die... by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    Once, long ago, there was this supersonic transcontinental aircraft named Concorde.
    Then, after years and years of use, for various good reasons it was halted, and same good reasons explained there wouldn't be other civilian supersonics anymore. (but most of us were considering PROGRESS was continueing, weren't us?)

    By the last years of Concorde, I graduated a space engineer in Europe.
    At that time, when there was a flaw in one of the european spacecrafts or launchers, a commission was created but its results first were hidden for months, and then when published they were so much toned down it was almost ridiculous.
    At that time, the immediate comparison, with reverence, was the US: so wealthy a country that any space crash there was immediately detailed, published, openly criticized and you *knew* the next issue would solve it.

    Thit, was a time where there was the US, and then the others.

    That the US now perform as ridiculously as their lousy followers twenty five years ago, is very telling.

    Telling about the end of a civilisation. Face it. We are all Concorde-ed...

    --
    Herve S.
  43. NASA: "For All Mankind"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...except China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria,...,and United States of America.

    Product of your tax dollars...safely locked away from you.

  44. Re:Your history is what a democrat teacher taught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Historical FACT: No Republican was a slave owner

    Actually the Republican party used to be the 3rd party prior to 1860. They absorbed a lot of the members of the Whig party when that party dissolved around 1860. The whig party had slave owners as members. The downfall of the whig party was the repeal of the Missouri compromise which cause two factions of that party to irrevocably split. Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Whig party. To Lincoln's credit he lost favor with his party when he collaborated with Congressman Joshua R. Giddings to write a failed bill that would have abolished slavery in Washington DC. The only "blemish" being that it did have provisions to reimburse slave owners and allowed for the capture of fugitive slaves in DC, which were most likely "sweeteners" to entice votes. Anyway when the Whig party dissolved around 1860, the Republican party became the second party. While the original republican party was founded with abolitionist principles there isn't any evidence to prove that none of the whig party members who transferred to the republican party were never slave owners.

    Let's not forget. Abolishment of slavery is not the same as equal rights to minorities.

    One more fun fact: The Republicans needed the support of the "War Democrats" in order to win the presidency. So they changed their name to "The Union Party" to court the War Democrat vote. That tactic worked and Abraham Lincoln was elected president. So technically it was pro-union (anti-confederate) forces of both the republican and democratic party that elected Abraham Lincoln who ran as a member of "The Union Party" not as a republican.

    Please explain how you get to the bizarre narrative that black-hating-southern-Democrats (who still DESPISED Lincoln and many of whom still call the Civil War "the war of Northern Aggression") abandon the Democrat party (which mostly opposed the civil rights law) and flock to the Republican party (which pushed the law through) in response to... that very civil rights law. Um..... I'll bet your school teacher (almost certainly a member of one of the nation's two giant teachers' unions... both very deeply in-bed with the Democratic party) told you this tale and knew that you, as a kid who was both uninterested and insufficiently bold, would not ask any questions that would expose the obvious lie in this "party line".

    Well since you asked...

    I'm from the deep south. My family tree happens to have some prominent politicians (one was a confirmed segregationist Dixiecrat). 1964 was the watershed year. The Civil Rights act was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson and a majority of the white southern voters changed parties in protest. Later Richard Nixon's took advantage of southern anger over the civil rights act becoming law and used his "Southern Strategy" to win 70% of the votes in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina. Today in my district, the Republican primary is the de-facto general election due to positions being uncontested or the lack of credible opponent from the democratic party. The votes usually follow racial lines with an overwhelming majority of whites voting republican and an overwhelming majority of blacks voting democrat.

    So I hate to break it to you. You are completely mistaken or just don't want to confront the truth. When it comes to equal rights, the republican party hasn't had the moral high ground in a very long time.

  45. Seriously hinders my work by klic · · Score: 1

    I just learned about this when I went looking for a report, CR-2357, Peter Glaser et. al.'s "Feasibility study of a satellite solar power station" from 1974 . I've downloaded hundreds of NASA reports as part of my research, but not all of them. There are millions of pages of documents there; to review them to ITAR requirements would take everyone working at the agency years to do.

    Sorry I'm late to the party, but I've been busy actually putting this government research to work, creating jobs and healing the environment. With this one heinous act, the politicians (R and D, it took both) just flushed a trillion dollars worth of scientific and technical research down the crapper, and possibly the survival of the U.S. You can bet that the (Name of Current Enemy Here) have already downloaded every one of those reports; all that the Feds have done is deny access to Americans. The really sad thing is that most Americans are such ignorant partisan illiterates that this modern "burning of the library of Alexandria" went unnoticed, perhaps was even applauded when the politicians reported their security triumph to the fools (R and D both) who elected them.

    Any one of those reports, no matter how trivial, is more important to our future than the whole pack of politicians in DC. Let's ITAR house.gov, senate.gov, and whitehouse.gov instead, those maniacs are more dangerous than a nuclear arsenal.

    --
    Keith Lofstrom server-sky.com