Slashdot Mirror
What a Government Shutdown Will Mean For NASA and SpaceX (theverge.com)
Ars Technica reports of how the government shutdown affects federal agencies like NASA, as well as commercial companies like SpaceX: So far, NASA has been keeping quiet about this particular shutdown and has been directing all questions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. But NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, told employees in an email obtained by The Verge to be on alert for directions over the next couple of days. "If there is a lapse in funding for the federal government Friday night, report to work the same way you normally would until further notice, and you will receive guidance on how best to closeout your activities on Monday," he wrote in the email. The most recent guidance from NASA, released in 2017, indicates that all nonessential employees should stay home during a shutdown, while a small contingent of staff continue to work on "excepted" projects. The heads of each NASA center decide which employees need to stay, but they're typically the people who operate important or hazardous programs, including employees working on upcoming launches or those who operate satellites and the International Space Station.
NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.
NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side barely controls everything.
FTFY. The republicans hold 52 seats, and the democrats hold 46. The fact that this measure failed to pass is, I think, a good sign. It shows that both parties are willing to cross ranks when they feel that a given measure violates their personal convictions. That's far better than political flunkies just blindly following whatever their party decides.
For the record, the measure failed 50-49, with 5 republicans opposing it, and 5 democrats supporting it.
This outcome has done more to restore my faith in US politics than anything else has in a long time.
Posting AC.
A: The economy was just as good under Obama, when he left. In fact, Obama presided over the worst economic time since the Great Depression and left with the Dow setting record highs.
B: The jobs are few and far between. For example, Apple's data center is run by a skeleton crew of maybe 15-20 people at most. Lets be real here. These jobs may benefit a few in California, but for 95% of the nation, it does not help them in the slightest. In fact, revenue just gets sucked off and stashed overseas, never to be seen in the US economy again. The people in Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, and other places are still left high, dry, and unemployed.
C: Nope. The issue is more than that, mainly because the Republicans, with the majority they have, are unable to keep the government afloat. The Dems are a minority, and the (R)s and the (L)s masquerading as (R)s are in the driver's seat right now.
As for the economy, it has signs of faltering. The bond market is shaky with bear market predictions. Europe is on the cusp of a trade war, with Merkel denouncing the US, with damage to relations that has not been seen since the aftermath of WWII. The tax "cuts" that are supposedly coming will not be, because the IRS cannot recalculate W4 amounts right now.
Then, there are things like the "shithole" mess. This is one of the first times that a head of state called a sovereign country and its people such names, insulting them. This really fucks up years to decades of diplomacy.
Right now, the country is in free fall. The effects of Trump's idiocy are not felt yet, but when it does, it will be disastrous. The US cannot go at it alone, and Europe is already starting to look at new trade relationships with Russia and China.
tl;dr, the Dow is great now, but 1929 started out as a damn booming year as well.
The Australian government can't shut down in practice, because in a "loss of supply" situation, the Prime Minister must resign or Parliament is dismissed and a fresh election is called for everyone, half term or not. (Or, if the PM chooses to do neither, be sacked as happened in 1975.)
Learn, guys. Politicians aren't so quick to block supply if they are the ones who are going to be stood down.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.
False. Please see the facts at the Federal Government itself. The national debt increased every single year since 1957. How does a debt increase if you have a surplus? Answer: it doesn't. The "surplus" was for a subsection of the entire national budget only. When you look at the entire, actual budget, we spent more than we brought in every single year since 1957. Proof? The national debt has increased every single year since then.
What Clinton did, was essentially ignore some of the spending. It would be like a person spending $7,000 per month, making $6,000 per month, and claiming they are actually cash-flow positive because they ignore the $2,000 per month in rent they pay. Hey, they only spent $5,000 per month on $6,000 revenue - if you ignore that $2,000 per month payment over there...
Smoke and mirrors. Completely false.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!