Slashdot Mirror
NASA Faces Major Budget Cuts
jfoust writes "A House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee approved Monday a nearly 10 percent cut in NASA's fiscal year 2000 budget, with most of the cuts in science and aeronautics. If approved, it would mean most of the currently-planned space science projects, including missions to Mars, Pluto, Europa, and comets, plus new space telescopes, would be canceled. Check the details at NASA Watch and SpaceViews. " If you're a US citizen-write your Congressperson. This is idiocy.
People seem to have the wrong impression about NASA. People seem to think that NASA missions typically consist of some multi-billion-dollar spacecraft gallivanting merrily out to Pluto for no reason whatsoever, burning hundred-dollar bills as fuel all the way.
One of the biggest programs that will be affected by these budget cuts is NASA's EOS (Earth Observing System.) This is Earth science (that's right
Data provided by the Landsat program has saved millions of lives. It has saved millions of lives. That tradition will continue (and improve) with other such Earth-observing spacecraft such as the upcoming Terra, with its MODIS and ASTER instruments. The positive results of NASA's Earth science programs alone more than justify the operating costs of the entire agency; ironically, it will be Earth science that is among the hardest hit by these budget cuts.
Beyond that, the space science is worthwhile to mankind as well, even if people don't realize it. Getting to know the inner workings of our sun is worth it. Exploration of the planets and their satellites is worth it. Gaining insight into the operation and origin of our vast universe is worth it (although this tends to chap the collective asses of fundies who feel we're going to burn in hell for having the audacity to be curious.) And doing work and performing experiments on board the shuttle in low-Earth orbit is worth it as well; people who complain about John Glenn's trip back as being a "PR stunt" or a "joyride" rarely forget to mention that that mission had more scientific experiments to perform than any previous shuttle mission.
The bottom line is this: NASA is an island oasis floating in a sea of pork. Sure, some people don't like "the space program." Some people are ideologically opposed to it. Some people just don't understand what NASA really does. But cutting NASA's budget is a Bad Thing (TM). Trust me.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
you know how on tax forms it has a little check box (give $1 to Democratic or Republican election cpagain) I think that all of the major orgnizations that get their funding from the federal goverment should be listed on the tax form (i'd give a buck a year to get us into space --hell, i'd probably give 100 bucks a year for it)
thiis would also allow other groups to get funding based on their popularity (don't like literacy programs or the NEA --don't check that box)
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Well it probably isn't the best idea, but historically in the US there have been some
federal agencies that have been spun out (at least partially)...
- Fannie Mae (used to be Federal National Morgage Association, now a publicly traded company)
- RAND (used to be part of the US air force, now a non-profit corporation)
There are other agencies have turned into corporations, but are still owned by the government:
- USPS (US post office, delivers junk^H^H^H^Hsnail-mail)
- FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, insures money in the bank)
- Ginnie Mae (used to be Government National Morgage Association, government backed morgages)
- TVA (Tennesee Valley Authority, a power company)
One downside to privatization of an agency is the loss of regulatory authority. But since NASA
never had any authority, this doesn't matter.
The other downside is that as a separate corporation, you can't lose money (well at least
not too much), NASA probably wouldn't be able to cut it as a corporation.
But maybe NASA could be restructured into a non-profit model like RAND. RAND sells the
reports they generate for $$$, and they have a huge endowment (get income form the interest),
and lots of companies and the govt donate them money to direct their research. However, the NASA
that exists today is too bloated and non-economically motivated, they are negative-profit.
All it takes is an act from congress and a John Hancock from the president and poof, NASC
(National Aeronautics and Space Corporation) could be born... However, as I said, this probably
isn't the best idea...
If cutting 10% costs you every major mission that NASA is going to fly... don't do it.
Either kill NASA, or disband it. But you won't save any money simply crippling it. You'll throw away a lot of money that will never be useful, because we can't fly those major missions upon which all depends. It's a false economy.
It's time for an asteroid to directly impact Washington DC... a nice, small one... it only has to kill a few thousand people... THEN NASA would get any money they wanted... for a year or two, until the beaurocracy forgot... again... (pardon my spelling of that blasted "B" word)
Yes, we really need this stuff.
Going to pluto has many cool points associatited besides actually getting to pluto.
In the process we will need to discover more about how the human body can tolerate 0g for extended periods of time, including muscle and bone research, which has great impact on earthbound condtions and diseases such as multiple schlerosis, osteoperosis, and other degenerative diseases.
We will have to discover more efficient and advanced power sources, energy and material recycling processes, and better insulations, materials, and armors.
A small sample of some stuff we have because of NASA
Some examples from that page: "Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment."
Where else would we have all this research and development, if not NASA?
Sure private companies might be big enough, now, to do so... but private companies also change, adjust, and re-organize... and NASA is here as long as we believe in it and support it.
NASA, and science research in general, on the surface may seem like a money sink with no results; like particle accelerators, but on the other hand we get superconductors, hardened electronics, insulated electronics, etc. A lot of this stuff is really hot, interesting, and a product of the space program!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I would venture to say that just about every person on planet earth has wondered what it is like on the moon. Similarly the 'is/was there life on mars' question is also publicly interesting. Be it fantasy or not our culture has cultivated the idea of martians over decades and it's an interesting question that people would love to see answered.
/.'ers would have a hard time naming just one shuttle astronaut.
The problem is the average joe isn't interested in pictures from the Hubble, or ion drives, or anything else that does not lead to some form of real accomplishment. So what if an ion drive is more efficient and lasts longer, if it's not landing a man somewhere so we can hear the accounts in the language of a man, who cares? Unmanned missions dont generate heroes. Worse yet, since we've already landed men on the moon how can an average person get excited about something seemingly less bold like a space station.
I understand the benefits of space exploration, since I've been interested in it since I was old enough to read. But unlike the moon missions, NASA isn't doing anything bold, they're not defeating anyone, No heroes are born from their missions. John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, these men are STILL heroes. Other than the 7 who died in challanger, and Sally Ride, I would imagine even most
-Rich
You have just brought up one of the most dangerous aspects of a true democracy. The majoriy is not always right.
If something like what you suggested was done, it would look great in theory, but knee-jerk reactions would play a large role in which boxes (if any) were checked.
Anybody that didn't especially care about space (and there are many) would avoid that box. Like-minded members of congress, seeing this, would draw attention to the disinterest and immediately propose more cuts.
In fact, I doubt if any box would get much checking - there are so many cries in this country of "cut the taxes down to nothing! a small government is a good governmnet! no government is even better!" which is truely a shame. This attitude is extremely short sighted and largely knee-jerk, but it is also the way most of america seems to think. Public works such as the space program are great examples of things that are very valuable, though most can't see how it helps them at all.
There are other government programs that many on slashdot probably don't care much about but have their own support, such as the endowment of the arts, for instance. Remember that many are very valuable and help the economy as well as boost our collective knowledge and boost pride in our country.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
We are in debt. We pay huge amounts of interest on that debt. Why the hell arn't our congress critters looking at paying off our debt rather than lowering taxes? If we pay off the debt we'll have a lot more money for other things AND be able to lower taxes.
It's like someone who is finally able to start keeping up with the interest payments on their credit cards saying that they'll only pay the minimum balance and hence remain in debt for the rest of their lives.
I think our congress critters flunked high school economics.
Yeah, taxes may be high, but the economy is strong. Let's face it, the tax cuts help the rich much more than the poor since the poor don't pay taxes.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I know that NASA has been using Linux a lot, but couldn't they save a good bit of this cut by more completely booting out M$, NT and closed-source Unices? Software costs have got to be a huge part of their budget....
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Do these guys know the meaning of diplomacy?
"We must acknowledge once and for all that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis." (Spock - A taste of Armageddon)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I remember the space program as inspirational and brough at many times brought this nation together and helped us appreciate the pretty skies at night in a special way. Now it may be other countries that will take the lead. The countries that fund this research will motivate their people in ways nothing else can. Its all about reaching for the heavens and advancing the sciences. Its to go where no man and woman has gone before.
Two weeks ago: "Hey, we've got a budget surplus! What will we spend it on?"
Last week: "Thirty years ago, in his greatest moment, man set foot on the moon"
This week: "Hey, let's take some money away from the guys who put a man on the moon."
Muh?!
-F
Considering all of the advances made in engineering and science due to the work done at NASA one would think that Congress would view the money as an investment. Instead Congress has decided to take the short term view once again, this is espeacially troubling considering the budget surplus.
While I personelly am a big supporter of NASA, I just hope that Congress will use the money for something more lasting than a breif tax cut.
I keep hearing this from my gun toting, pick-up truck driving, tax cuts for the rich while we shut down basic government services like primary education (you don't want a school voucher so you can send your kid to a nice, righteous, religious school where they don't teach that unGodly "evolution?" NO! I want a properly funded public school system!) basic health care for our citizens, and low cost housing for the disabled and elderly. Just what the hell am I paying taxes for anyway?
Oh yeah, to pay interest on a debt built up by Republicans during the eighties while they "cut" taxes for the rich so that wealth may "trickle down" to us street rabble; all in the name of creating a "fair" tax system. Right.
So now they're about to eviscerate yet another government agency ("Since when has the government ever done anything right?" Oh yeah? When was the last time you saw a private corporation dig a Panama Canal, design and build a Nuclear bomb, or put a man on the moon? What a bunch of neo-corporate elitist CRAP! ) which has on the whole generated more economic benefit for private corporations across the US than any other government agency (publicly funded University research not withstanding); fruits grown from basic research no private corporation could possibly afford given their per-quarter bottom line, short term or bust, thinking (restrictiveness).
So, the point of all this? My right wing tax cutting, pick-up truck with a rack of shotguns and a 30 ought six in the back, dodging bullets and taxes in one stroke, friends -- they often offer as a response to my distaste for how government has been bought off by private corporate interests, thus forcing middle of the road political norms over to what would have been called "right wing extremism" when I was a child -- they say "You don't like America, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! MOVE!"
Now I think they're right. As citizens we don't stand a chance compared to GE, AT&T, IT&T, Microsoft, or any other huge conglomerates worth more than most third world countries combined. We've lost our country -- it's time to move on. If enough skilled and technically savvy workers just up and emigrated our of the US to other spots, where rent is cheap, taxes at least go somewhere useful (instead of paying interest on the debt and the military budget), and used the net to our advantage -- working anywhere we damn well pleased, the United States might see a noticeable drop in their tax base. And when the congressmen and senators ask, "where did that money go to?" we can answer: "elsewhere"
I'm pretty fed up with my government at this point... I don't think my views will ever be represented in the Legislative or Executive branches, and the Judicial branch is a complete joke given how badly stacked it was in the eighties by Reagan/Bush. If we keep cutting education such that kids can't even learn basic reading and arithmetic skills, while at the same time cutting basic research needed for long term growth, this country's will go down the tubes. If you can't stop it, think ahead and FLEE!
It appears as if the article from SpaceViews was a little slanted . Of course NASA is going to wine if their budget gets cut, I'd wine if mine got cut. In reality do you really think all the programs will be cut that they say will be cut? Origianally anyone flipps and says, "We lost 10% of our budget and now we can't do 90% of what we were going to do". When in reality they actually will probably do some of their own budgeting and end up doing 90% of the projects they claim will be absolutely cut.
...
The next point is, do we really need all this stuff. Yeah, it's really cool and all... To boldly go to pluto, where no man has gone before. Ok, that's great, but if I (as a US taxpayer) am paying for it, I want to know why. It's a great achievement, but what's it for. I think we need to at least consider the validity of some of these projects before we get all flustered that they're getting cut... and maybe they do have some grand purpose, in which case they're worth supporting to some point. What that point is?
Ok, last point. This one really kinda made me chuckle. The article from SpaceViews claims that we got so much surplus that we don't even know what to do with it! hello!? Can anyone say Multi-Trillion dollar debt? Could some one do a bar chart between "dozens of billions of dollars" and our multi-trillion dollar debt? I can at least assure you it would be a very un-interesting chart. I think it's great that the government is finally being respoinsible and starting to resolve this huge debt. Now the question...
What is NASA doing that is beneficial and why is it work 13.? billion instead of 12.? billion. I'm interested on views and info on what NASA is doing and potential benefits. I realize there have been many in the past, but what are the current benefits?
geisel
the guise of the budget surplus was achieved by mis^H^H^Hreappropriating funds that SHOULD have been used to stabilize social security, thus leaving anyone who would be elegible after 2020, out in the cold. I'm not especially FOR or AGAINST social security persay, but I'm steamed that I will continue to pay this tax when it's common knowledge that no one in born after 1970 will be able to collect a reasonable benefit amount.
Same old BS. Congress lies to us. Surprise!
Do you remember the 'strike' against Kosovo?
;((
That costed a lot of money for the US (and other countries), but no one protested. And at the end of the war, the military asked for more money, and I think that they'll get it...
What about NASA? Is the solution crashing an asteroid somewhere in USA? Or waiting for one, to crash...
Short-sightedness sucks
(And we didn't even speak of the rainforests.)
I don't even dare pose the question that says: Where would be we if all military funding was redirected to science research....
Oh I know... Then probably we wouldn't have an A-bomb, and our power plants would operate by using nuclear fission.
In case anyone is interested in why there are so many knee-jerk reactionists around and why they are able to influence others to come around to their thinking, it's easy... ignorance.
I don't mean that they are uneducated necessarily. What I mean is that nobody understands what our government does anymore. Nobody gets the whole story, not even Congress or the President. Between closed-door sessions, backroom deals, and secret projects and agencies, we don't have any idea where all the money goes. Where does one go to get a complete and throrough breakdown of what money went where and for what purpose? Something like this:
Amount____________Agency_____________Purpose
$50,000,000................Secret Agency A...........Head-mounted lasers for sharks
$100,000,000..............White House.................Cat Food
$500............................Dept. Of Trans..............Pot Hole Repair
You get the picture. I wouldn't trust congress to balance my checkbook (I'd prolly end up with a debt nearly that of the National one), let alone the national budget. Until we have a very large measure of disclosure (and a way to verify the information), we won't be able to understand where our money goes or why.
I may be off-base about this, but it's the way I see it. I haven't ever seen any kind of real breakdown of where our taxes go. Only those that are done in the broadest terms. If anyone can point me to something more helpful, I'd be both amazed and grateful.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm a former NASAite, so I've sort of seen it from the inside. My take is that NASA isn't necessarily the best vehicle for Space Exploration anymore, and perhaps, never was.
Don't get me wrong. What NASA did in the 60s with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was magnificant. And the shuttle ain't a bad feat either, considering the effects of politics on the whole thing.
But that's the whole problem. NASA has always been a political creature, and did it's cold-war job of brute-forcing our way to the Moon very well. It's the wrong organization for today, I think.
I suspect that the very presence of NASA hampered other groups from trying alternatives to get into space reliably and cheaply. At least, that seems to be happening now. The need to get to space exists (more than ever!) and the means exists. The systems, organizations and "institutional knowledge" does not, because NASA has pretty much kept it locked up.
The g'ment did a great job bootstrapping space exploration. It's time for private enterprise to carry this burden farther, and although NASA may have some appropriate role in advancing to our goals, our tax money may be better spent elsewhere.
J
Hey, I live in DC so I can't write a Congressperson, even though I'm only 4 blocks from the capitol. I gots yer taxation w/o representation right here, but seriously . . .
I think they should cut NASA's budget. The appropriations bill in which it's funded is facing a huge cut in its allocation this year from fy 1999 funding levels, down 12.9 percent in the House 302(b) allocation. That bill also funds labor, Veterans, housing and community development programs as well as the EPA and other independent agencies. These programs shouldn't carry the load of the cuts so NASA can keep showboating. I mean, NASA has it down with gimmicky space shots (first female commander, big deal, first teacher in space, oops, that one didn't work) timed to launch during the appropriations process. And wasteful space shots as well; we don't need to send a manned mission to launch a satellite. That's a waste of resources. Plus, like any good defense contractor, they've spread their facilities and suppliers across the country so darn near every congresstool can vote for saving jobs in her/his community.
One of the reasons we have a budget surplus is discretionary spending was placed under spending limits in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and those caps get tight this year. In a show of political impotence last year, Congress crumbled under the weight of having to enforce the caps and lost in a last minute spending frenzy label "emergency spending." It will happen again this year and the needed rethinking of NASA's mission will be postponed yet another year. Face it, when it comes down to big roads, shinny guns and tanks, and super dooper spaceships, we have essentially 535 little boys on Capitol Hill who will bend over backwards to buy the latest prettiest toy while needed programs in other parts of the federal government go wanting, but don't get me started on that . . . . .
I've noticed some comments that the government is using the money against the national debt.. let me tell you, that kind of money is going to make no difference in the huge almost bottomless well that is our national debt. Of course, the world owes US so much money that nobody really cares either way..
And of course, what good is a debt-free nation going to do on a burned out used up asteroid that will be Earth if we don't do something about it, or get the hell off it.
I am thoroughly impressed by the government's shortsightedness.. but I suppose I should expect it. Not only was it idiocy to even PROPOSE such a budget cut, it's stark, raving mad to actually approve it.
I hope that this issue creates enough turmoil in the techie pool (because you know that we care and it's hard to say outside of us who doesn't) to get this budget cut reversed. Hell.. I'll pay MORE taxes to get to another planet in my lifetime..
Of course, that's not exactly the right way to look at it. The CEO of the United Way got a multi-million dollar salary a while ago (maybe still does). That seems absurd, right? Millions of dollars to the CEO of a charity? Well, he was good and could have been making lots more than that somewhere else. Sure, they could have gotten someone who would work for $30,000 a year, but they wouldn't have been a very good CEO.
Now, I doubt anyone thinks our Representatives and Senators are particularly good at what they do; it really does take a certain sleaze to go into the business. But think of what they would all be earning if they weren't in Congress. True, many of them are independently wealthy but the point of the salaries is that if some brilliant person (with just enough sleaze!) crawls his way out of the gutter and starts looking for a job, he'll consider being a Congressperson. The salary is much lower than what he might be earning otherwise (thus the perks or love of country has something to do with the motivation), but it is enough to be somewhat enticing. It may not be right, but that is a somewhat valid justification. $130k is nowhere near what most of these people would be earning if they weren't in Congress.
I'm still not sure myself if I'd rather have a moron with his heart in the right place or a genius in it for the money running my country. Who's going to hurt you more?
Firstly, it is time for the government to quit with its virtual monopoly of the space industry.
There are a number of private companies who are capable of handling the deployment of satellites.
There are a number of private companies who are capable of developing reusable launch vehicles.
I'm frankly quite excited about the new emphasis on private investment in space, as oppsed to government investment. Outside of Hubble and John Glenn, NASA has done little to forward the exploration of space in the last ten years anyway.
Its time for change.
I think it's about time that our boys and girls in the House, and the Senate, felt the full brunt of being Slashdotted. Follow those links to immediately find your local Representative and Senators' home page (don't forget each state has two senators, write them both). Email addys shouldn't be but three clicks away.
/.ers, but I expect this is a Republican thing here. Since part of their party platform is tax cuts, they have to pay for it somehow. The surplus is needed for Social Security & maybe Medicare, but if the Repubs want to have a hope at passing the size cut they just did ($700 billion, which Clinton has declared he will veto) the Appropriations committee is likely looking for any way it possibly can to scrape together more funds. The fact that Republicans have never liked any public works doesn't help. Remember when they wanted to slash funding for PBS? They think the private sector (one of their main voting bases) can do everything. I don't agree, which may explain why I'm a card carrying Democrat. If any Democrats on the committee were involved, though, I'm just as disgusted at them.
I'm not talking about flames, mind you. But let's show them how digital democracy can work. If everyone reading my comment were to email their congressman, maybe even send some snailmail (that may actually recieve more attention) perhaps they'd get the message. I suppose non-US citizens could email too, the more the merrier. (My only concern is that such folk aren't their constituents, ie, hold no power over them, but it never hurts to try)
I pay pretty close attention to politics, and not to try and start party wars with other
Just as a closing point, to me this underlies the very reason why nerds need to stop living in such an insular world, ignoring things that aren't directly very techie. This comes as no surprise to me, but perhaps does to others. I wonder how many Slashdotters knew the reasons before I put forth my explination, or how many others have realistic explinations of their own. Perhaps if we all got more involved in politics, then such incidents would occur less often. At the very least, we wouldn't be be bowled over by them.
As for one of the small ways in which basic research at NASA has impacted your life, see the June 1999 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. One of the recipients of the "Excellence in Programming" awards is Don Becker, who works with CESDIS at the Goddard Space Flight Center. The whole article can be found at http://www.ddj.com/articles/1999/9906/9906a/9906a. htm , but here is just a snippet:
t ml), and a distributed shared memory package."
"To implement such a system, however, Becker, who is a staff scientist with the Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences (or CESDIS, part of the University Space Research Association, a nonprofit consortium of universities that sponsors space-related research), had to come to grips with Linux's unstable networking capabilities, and the lack of Linux support for off-the-shelf network cards. Consequently, Becker ended up writing enhancements to the kernel network subsystem to support faster I/O on high-speed networks, device drivers for countless Ethernet cards(see http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/index.h
In short, basic research rarely seems like a good investment in the face of countless current, legitimate priorities because it's payoffs aren't immediate or predictible. However, if we stop doing things just to test our own limits, then we are freezing our current state of advancement as a species and saying that we don't need to progress any further. Where would we be today if we made these decissions 50 years ago, or 100, etc.. ?
Some of these programs have been scrapped entirely, others will probably be abandoned in this round of cuts.
You want to know what NASA could have done that would have been useful? Look at the advanced passanger aircraft they were developing, with a blended wing body. No private company is going to foot the bill for resaearch of that kind. It's cheaper to build things that crash than research new designs that might not.
You want to know why it'd be useful to go to Mars, or Pluto? Because new conditions require new technologies. Your non-stick frying pans, velcro fasteners, and pens that work upside-down weren't made for the fun of it. Those were necessary technologies for space.
New things are invented out of necessesity. ALWAYS. That's why wars tend to spur so many inventions. I'd rather see the world encourage more peaceful incentives. If that means sending men to the furthest reaches of the solar system, so be it!
Then, there are the finite resources of Planet Earth. I don't like seeing entire mountains vanish off the map, forever, because construction workers want a gazillion tonnes of cement to build stuff that's going to get demolished ten years down the road. It would be environmentally, geographically and archaeologically better to mine asteroids than consume the planet we're standing on. But nobody is going to start doing that, if organisations such as NASA don't produce the technology needed to do so. Private companies aren't going to be willing to invest in research like that.
Is it short-sighted to whittle away NASA? YES! Yes, NASA is top-heavy with beaurocracy, which it needs to do something about, urgently, but without NASA and other space agencies leading the way, nobody is going to follow into space. We only have telecom satellites because the Russian space agency and NASA showed that it was possible. Arthur C. Clarke's famous letter was important, but on it's own, would have just been ignored as idle fantasy.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You've all taken time to read/post here, so why not write to your senators and congressmen?
Go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov. Both make it exceptionally easy to write the people representing people. All you need to know is your state and zip code!
For the first time in my life, I've written to Congress. (It took less than five minutes.) I think you all should too, whether you support or hate the proposed cuts. If you choose to write, please be civil (i.e. avoid swears and direct insults.)
>WHERE THE F-- IS ALL THE MONEY????
At least for the U.S. debt, I believe the vast majority is T-bills, Treasury Bonds, and U.S. Savings Bonds. Individuals finance the debt because they make a decent, stable return on their capital, which is represented in the Federal budget as the interest payment on the national debt.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.