This study is done once very year or two, and people always seem to have forgotten the results by the next time it's done again. The key thing to know is that since the end of Apollo (which barely got NASA above 4% of federal spending) NASA has basically hovered at 0.5%. That's for nearly 40 years now (Apollo funding peaked around 1967), which I think represents an amazingly stable national consensus about how much we want to spend on the civil space program.
The Federal Budget requested by the President for FY2008 came to $1.7 trillion. So that's basically $340 billion for DoD.
That said, the $340 billion is for the basic operation of the military. Funding for the the war is extra and is not counted in the budget total. So yeah, your guess is pretty close.
NASA builds satellites which test new sensors, etc. Of course, these new sensors end up providing good data which climatologists and meteorologists come to rely on, meaning that they become operational in use. QuikSCAT is one of these, if memory serves. But NOAA funds its own operational satellites.
And, just for fun, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Satellite System (NPOESS) is funded by BOTH, along with DoD. Which could explain why its 300% overbudget and rising...
The biggest drawback is dust. We just don't know how lunar dust would behave, or how it would affect the optics. Also, the cost of constructing anything on the moon is quite high, higher even than for a free-flying space mission. Another problem is that it reduces observation time - in space you can pretty much point anywhere except at the sun. On the lunar surface, you have the moon in the way of half the sky or more at any given time - and there is no "dark" side, just the far side... which gets sunlight half the day as well.
It will be a long time before working on the moon is cheap enough that it will outweigh the benefits of free-flying space missions.
"They may still get the sales, but sales have been proven to be a false indicator of market sucess, (halo and madden do well every iteration and neither are particularly excellent)."
makes NO sense what-so-ever. What other indicator of market success is there? Are people making money without selling things?
"No one owns space. People can own things within space, but you can't say "This orbit is mine. Go find another one." "
Not true, I'm afraid. The ITU assigns orbits to commsats in Geo orbits. These rights can be traded, etc. So, in effect, certain particularly valuable orbits are already owned.
Except that Adaptive optics only work at the longest wavelengths. Really only in the near-IR. Getting HST-quality resolution from a single telescope in the optical or UV portions of the spectrum is still a long way off.
True to some extent, but this something more. Griffin is getting rid of the entire "political" level of the agency (the Associate Administrators) and is also reassiging between 30 and 50 SES positions, which are the top level civil service people - people who do not normally get touched by changes of leadership, or even administration. 50 would be pretty close to the entire group of SESers in the agency.
Griffin has been thinking about this for 15 years, since he left during the beginning of the Goldin tenure.
Because the government should not compete with the private sector. It's a simple enough principle, if there's something that the private sector is willing to do for-profit, then the government simply should not compete with them. Unless you want the government to also get into the software development business. Or the car making business. Or any other private venture.
Most of the posts also miss the business model. The government collects the raw data, and that is made freely available. What Accuweather and the like do is turn that raw data into value-added products like maps with pretty colors, icons, etc. They translate the science into a form that average people understand.
Your argument that they don't hold the entire system so they shouldn't hold any of it doesn't make sense. Otherwise the analogy could be extended like this: Microsoft owns Windows, so other complanies shouldn't write software for it. Apple owns the OS AND the hardware, so other companies shouldn't write software for it. These are not sentiments often found on/. Why should weather forecasting be any different?
And if you weren't an ecoterrorist you would have stopped to read his post. What did you do, search the thread for "supply" and then deliver a prepaid rant? He was responding to the poster ABOVE him, not the story. The grand-post asked what would get people out of SUV's. He delivered a response that was a hell of a lot more reasonable than killing people.
I'm just amazed that you can quote Black's Law Dictionary, and then misspell the word when the correct spelling is right there in front of you. Even better, you highlight your inability by putting the misspelled word in quotes!
All hail cut-and-paste. If you can't spell a damn word right, I don't think I trust your interpretation of language...
That's true. But for an iMac you connect two wires and bingo, you're set. No scrounging around, no new installations, no ghosting. If you're trying to set up a box for someone who will never care to get into the guts and who does not live in your house there is nothing simpler and easier than the iMac.
The big bang was not an explosion of stuff out into a pre-existing space. It was an explosion of space itself.
See This link: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html
The important point in this case is that there is no "center" where the big bang happened. Any direction you look, you are looking back to the big bang... which happened EVERYwhere.
The best description I've read of this is in "Wrinkles In Time" by George Smoot, which tells the story of the COBE mission.
Due to a fight on Capitol Hill, NOAA's Space Environment Center (which tracks these events and other 'space weather' items) will not have any funding in 2004. The part of Congress that oversees NOAA does not think NOAA should have to pay for this, and has decided to cancel its funding in hopes that they can force NASA or the Air Force to pick up the tab.
There is a hearing on the situation on Thursday the 30th. http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/108- 128.htm
Apple's service is analogous to, say, buying a car from Nissan. You wouldn't expect that Nissan would have to engineer their car so that it could accept parts from Ford or GM or Kia. This is ok, though, because you can buy a Ford or GM car if you prefer that system.
The problem with Microsoft is the way they tie everything into their OS. Unfortunately, following the same analogy, MS OSes are like the road system. Sure you can offroad in certain areas, especially if you are an enthusiast, but to conduct your normal day-to-day business most people need to at least interface with the roads. This is a monopoly, not one system amongst others.
MS's monopoly on the OS should not be allowed to leverage their position in other areas. For example, their OS should not include a "Buy Music Now" button that forces people into a specific solution.
PS: Apple does not incorporate peripherals into their system... at least, my buslink Ext HD, Canon printer, Canon scanner, Nikon Digital Camera, logitech mouse, SmartDisk External CD drive, Buslink flash memory device, and PNY flash card reader don't seem to think so. And the folks at MicroCenter or online at MacWarehouse would like to think that they are part of the retail sector as well. And while we are at it, you can run linux on Mac hardware. Soooo... it seems that Apple Computer Inc is a hardware company, which supports its hardware with software, but allows you to choose other solutions if you wish!
Jeepers. Let's ask Apple to put their entire catalog on the web, just to save you the inconvenience of a free download and install (which can be undone)? What would the point of putting all the song names on the web be exactly? You still wouldn't be able to get them without installing iTunes... which is Apple's entire reason for doing this.
I'm just curious if you could find me companies outside the U.S. who are not watching out for the "almighty buck." Or is "in the US" just good old-fashioned stereotyping?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/03/which_one_of_yo.html
But you keep talking out your ass.
This study is done once very year or two, and people always seem to have forgotten the results by the next time it's done again. The key thing to know is that since the end of Apollo (which barely got NASA above 4% of federal spending) NASA has basically hovered at 0.5%. That's for nearly 40 years now (Apollo funding peaked around 1967), which I think represents an amazingly stable national consensus about how much we want to spend on the civil space program.
The Federal Budget requested by the President for FY2008 came to $1.7 trillion. So that's basically $340 billion for DoD.
That said, the $340 billion is for the basic operation of the military. Funding for the the war is extra and is not counted in the budget total. So yeah, your guess is pretty close.
Both :)
NASA builds satellites which test new sensors, etc. Of course, these new sensors end up providing good data which climatologists and meteorologists come to rely on, meaning that they become operational in use. QuikSCAT is one of these, if memory serves. But NOAA funds its own operational satellites.
And, just for fun, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Satellite System (NPOESS) is funded by BOTH, along with DoD. Which could explain why its 300% overbudget and rising...
A number of reasons:
The biggest drawback is dust. We just don't know how lunar dust would behave, or how it would affect the optics. Also, the cost of constructing anything on the moon is quite high, higher even than for a free-flying space mission. Another problem is that it reduces observation time - in space you can pretty much point anywhere except at the sun. On the lunar surface, you have the moon in the way of half the sky or more at any given time - and there is no "dark" side, just the far side... which gets sunlight half the day as well.
It will be a long time before working on the moon is cheap enough that it will outweigh the benefits of free-flying space missions.
I'm no MBA, but this:
"They may still get the sales, but sales have been proven to be a false indicator of market sucess, (halo and madden do well every iteration and neither are particularly excellent)."
makes NO sense what-so-ever. What other indicator of market success is there? Are people making money without selling things?
"No one owns space. People can own things within space, but you can't say "This orbit is mine. Go find another one." "
Not true, I'm afraid. The ITU assigns orbits to commsats in Geo orbits. These rights can be traded, etc. So, in effect, certain particularly valuable orbits are already owned.
Except that Adaptive optics only work at the longest wavelengths. Really only in the near-IR. Getting HST-quality resolution from a single telescope in the optical or UV portions of the spectrum is still a long way off.
You are a Grade A moron.
Duck, the black helicopters are coming!
Mod parent up!
Leaving - Sean O'Keefe: Former Secretary of the Navy.
Adm (Ret.) Craig Steidle.
Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Kostelnik.
Most of the military folks O'K brought in are being swept out by Griffin.
True to some extent, but this something more. Griffin is getting rid of the entire "political" level of the agency (the Associate Administrators) and is also reassiging between 30 and 50 SES positions, which are the top level civil service people - people who do not normally get touched by changes of leadership, or even administration. 50 would be pretty close to the entire group of SESers in the agency.
Griffin has been thinking about this for 15 years, since he left during the beginning of the Goldin tenure.
Because the government should not compete with the private sector. It's a simple enough principle, if there's something that the private sector is willing to do for-profit, then the government simply should not compete with them. Unless you want the government to also get into the software development business. Or the car making business. Or any other private venture.
/. Why should weather forecasting be any different?
Most of the posts also miss the business model. The government collects the raw data, and that is made freely available. What Accuweather and the like do is turn that raw data into value-added products like maps with pretty colors, icons, etc. They translate the science into a form that average people understand.
Your argument that they don't hold the entire system so they shouldn't hold any of it doesn't make sense. Otherwise the analogy could be extended like this: Microsoft owns Windows, so other complanies shouldn't write software for it. Apple owns the OS AND the hardware, so other companies shouldn't write software for it. These are not sentiments often found on
And if you weren't an ecoterrorist you would have stopped to read his post. What did you do, search the thread for "supply" and then deliver a prepaid rant? He was responding to the poster ABOVE him, not the story. The grand-post asked what would get people out of SUV's. He delivered a response that was a hell of a lot more reasonable than killing people.
I'm just amazed that you can quote Black's Law Dictionary, and then misspell the word when the correct spelling is right there in front of you. Even better, you highlight your inability by putting the misspelled word in quotes!
All hail cut-and-paste. If you can't spell a damn word right, I don't think I trust your interpretation of language...
Because it's slashdot. Anything that says robots are better than humans gets modded up.
That's true. But for an iMac you connect two wires and bingo, you're set. No scrounging around, no new installations, no ghosting. If you're trying to set up a box for someone who will never care to get into the guts and who does not live in your house there is nothing simpler and easier than the iMac.
oy.
The big bang was not an explosion of stuff out into a pre-existing space. It was an explosion of space itself.
See This link: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html
The important point in this case is that there is no "center" where the big bang happened. Any direction you look, you are looking back to the big bang... which happened EVERYwhere.
The best description I've read of this is in "Wrinkles In Time" by George Smoot, which tells the story of the COBE mission.
Actually, "Great Observatories"... but THANK you for making your point. I'm glad I don't have to.
B
I agree... especially if you misspell the key word in your attempted insult.
I dunno if you fell for a troll, but if you (sic) something you should really make sure that it is misspelled first. :)
"CNN: The Least Trusted Name In News."
Watch yourself! Knees jerking all over the place!
Due to a fight on Capitol Hill, NOAA's Space Environment Center (which tracks these events and other 'space weather' items) will not have any funding in 2004. The part of Congress that oversees NOAA does not think NOAA should have to pay for this, and has decided to cancel its funding in hopes that they can force NASA or the Air Force to pick up the tab.
- 128.htm
There is a hearing on the situation on Thursday the 30th.
http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/108
you mis-understand the concept of a monopoly.
Apple's service is analogous to, say, buying a car from Nissan. You wouldn't expect that Nissan would have to engineer their car so that it could accept parts from Ford or GM or Kia. This is ok, though, because you can buy a Ford or GM car if you prefer that system.
The problem with Microsoft is the way they tie everything into their OS. Unfortunately, following the same analogy, MS OSes are like the road system. Sure you can offroad in certain areas, especially if you are an enthusiast, but to conduct your normal day-to-day business most people need to at least interface with the roads. This is a monopoly, not one system amongst others.
MS's monopoly on the OS should not be allowed to leverage their position in other areas. For example, their OS should not include a "Buy Music Now" button that forces people into a specific solution.
PS: Apple does not incorporate peripherals into their system... at least, my buslink Ext HD, Canon printer, Canon scanner, Nikon Digital Camera, logitech mouse, SmartDisk External CD drive, Buslink flash memory device, and PNY flash card reader don't seem to think so.
And the folks at MicroCenter or online at MacWarehouse would like to think that they are part of the retail sector as well.
And while we are at it, you can run linux on Mac hardware. Soooo... it seems that Apple Computer Inc is a hardware company, which supports its hardware with software, but allows you to choose other solutions if you wish!
Jeepers. Let's ask Apple to put their entire catalog on the web, just to save you the inconvenience of a free download and install (which can be undone)? What would the point of putting all the song names on the web be exactly? You still wouldn't be able to get them without installing iTunes... which is Apple's entire reason for doing this.
I'm just curious if you could find me companies outside the U.S. who are not watching out for the "almighty buck." Or is "in the US" just good old-fashioned stereotyping?