And his calling out of Senator Shelby was pretty epic:
"A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!"
A big thank you to America (and yes, Russia too) for getting us started on this whole space thingamajig. I think Europe and Asia can take over now. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Europe - Let's talk when you're able to launch people into space.
Asia - This isn't a country, or even a loose confederacy. If you mean Japan, see above. If you mean China, then I'll be more impressed when you do something post 1965 that isn't bought from the Russians.
Except that our high-tech manufacturing sector is booming and our manufacturing output has been rising since the '50s, dropping only during recessions.
es, those treaties which we can bow out of by giving notice. The ones that George Washington warned us about.
Hold your horses, buddy, I'm on your side here. Self-identified libertarian and all, and I agree with "no entangling alliances." The issue is that, now that we're in some entangling alliances, getting out is complicated if we don't want to trigger some very unpleasant wars.
I don't think its fair to tell nations that we've promised we'd defend that they're on their own all of a sudden. I favor a military stand-down over ten or fifteen years in which our excess military equipment is sold off to allied nations so they can get strong enough to hold off their totalitarian adversaries.
he country's broke. How much further do you want to go into debt for this dick-waving habit of yours?
We're sorta broke. It's complicated. Basically, Japan and our allies are funding us through buying our debt while China is doing it because they needed somewhere to store their surplus, which led to hilarious consequences. It's been clear for a while that if China tries to call in our debt, we'll tell them to go fuck themselves. And then all hell will break loose. Thus, they're in as much of a bind as us.
Though yeah, the less of a debt the better. Though you should recognize that most United States debt comes from our giant entitlement programs. Our military is arguably one of the more cost-effective branches of government, not that that's saying much.;)
Our defense treaties with Britain, Poland, Japan, Kosovo, South Korea, Norway, Taiwan, etc.
These countries are depending on us to protect them from external aggression, mainly Chinese and Russian. We're moving towards reconciliation with the Russians, but so long as they attempt to bully Eastern Europe with military power and energy supplies they'll keep driving countries into our arms. The major threat we're contending with right now is the PRC.
Even if we were morally or legally obligated to do such a thing, maybe it could be accomplished without spending 55% of all the military appropriations in the whole world, don't you think?
Not when the enemy has home-field advantage. The Chinese are a lot closer to Taiwan then we are, and all of our air support has to operate off of carriers we have in the region. That means the Chinese can deploy many more planes and troops than us, meaning we've got be better than them plane-to-plane and man-to-man.
Oh, and you might want to cite the military spending as percentage of GDP. We're at 4.06%, below Greece, Morocco, and Singapore.
Do you enjoy swatting mosquitos with SAM missiles?
First time I've heard upgraded SU30s referred to as "mosquitoes.";) But yeah, the less fair the war the better in my opinion. War isn't a game in which each team has to play fairly - I see no reason for ensuring that China can only kill 1,000 Taiwanese rather than 100,000.
It's reasonable when you're expected to defend a whole range of nations stretching from East Asia to Australia to Western Europe to Eastern Europe to Latin America, while fighting a two-front conventional war (China/Russia) on the enemy's home territory (Taiwan/Eastern Europe) and engaging in counter-terrorism and occupation missions elsewhere (wherever we've invaded recently).
I'd prefer crushing military superiority to losing, personally. I guess you can always move to one of the countries we protect.
Also, recognize that as a percentage of GDP, what we spend is not as insane. Still insane, mind you, but reasonable in perspective.
If you believe in freedom of speech, you should oppose muzzling entertainment as much as muzzling political speech. If your political views are less convincing than mine, working on your policies is better than banning my speech. Likewise, if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States, perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you're unable to compete.
Very high sentiments. Unfortunately, that and $200,000 will get you a flight to suborbit.;)
America was not colonized due to the joy of "being out there." Neither was Australia. Not to say that is not a powerful and important emotion but greed, both personal and national has always been the driving force in human colonization and is the key to the next era.
And are Europe and Russia, literally dying out, doing any better? Or China with massive internal problems not to mention ringed with hostile rivals? India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?
America's been through worse and I'm confident that she'll come out all right in the end. God help us if I'm wrong.
Actually, you just mentioned one of the things I like the most about the American system. The choice is mine. In societies with socialized healthcare, some government bureaucrat is the person who decides how much to spend on my dying wife. In America, she and I decide. It's horrible either way, but I'd prefer for that choice to be in my hands than someone else's.
First, India plans to get man in orbit in 2016. They don't even have a date yet for a manned lunar landing.
Second, why do I care that India and China are doing what we did in the '60s? Good on them, let them build an unsubstainable lunar exploration program. Meanwhile, we'll be lowering the price per kg to orbit and building our domestic launch infrastructure. You know, stuff that actually matters.
The concern is that organizations like the UN are not only powerless, but also incompetent. Leading to the question: Why support a powerless and incompetent organization? I honestly find it difficult to come with an argument for substantial United States support for the United Nations.
The United States government has those attributes, correct. NASA does not. The space agency has a very limited budget, is quite sensitive to adjustments in market prices, and has no control over its income. Indeed, "failures" such as the Challenger disaster tend to be punished with inquiries and funding cuts.
But even if it's not free-market, I approve of it. I like the development of our orbital infrastructure and crewed capsules.
It's not free market capitalism when the government's doing the buying.
That's a common misconception. The introduction of state actors does not suddenly and magically make an economic system less free. When the government is engaging in activities like cost-plus contracting, there's a point to suggestions that this distorts true market prices and encourages suppliers of goods and services to overcharge the government. However, when the government purchases services in the same way that a regular buyer would (ie. Do this and I'll give you x dollars) then its just acting like another buyer. And that's what's happening with this whole privatization shindig.
Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world. It's really not. God willing, it may be the start of a new one.
NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture. Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest. By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.
And yes, I said BUY! This is not cost-plus contracting, which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get. This is a straight purchase of services, cash for deliveries and milestones met. In other words, actual free-market capitalism.
As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot: what cash? Obama is not a dictator, he's a President. His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration. Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable. Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that's sustainable. That's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something.
That lowers the efficiency of the whole system, meaning less gets done altogether. Quoting TV Tropes: "In truth, some countries have a relative productive advantage in some areas, while other countries have different relative productive advantages. Trade allows countries to specialize in whatever production they have an advantage in, thus producing more in total, and then trade with each other. This makes both countries better off. For example, perhaps Country A can produce 4 cans of butter, or 2 cans of butter and 1 carton of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs. Country B can produce 4 cartons of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs and 1 can of butter, or 2 cans of butter. With trade, they can produce at their advantages of 4 cans of butter in A and 4 cartons of eggs in B and then trade so they each have 2 cartons and 2 cans. Making them both better off than if they produced everything in their own country."
As I recall, the price of the goods dropping will make it easier for poor people to get the goods, therefore increasing relative wealth, and will create more jobs in the end.
Starting trade wars with other nations by requiring that jobs stay in the US, while probably satisfying populist sentiment, is probably a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Mars in 20 years? Sounds good to me. Let's do this.
I think Elon Musk may have said it better than anyone else:
http://spacex.com/press.php?page=20100415
And his calling out of Senator Shelby was pretty epic:
"A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!"
Once you're in orbit you're two-thirds of the way to anywhere, energetically.
Why waste time in a stop-over at the Lunar surface? Because it's close?
A big thank you to America (and yes, Russia too) for getting us started on this whole space thingamajig. I think Europe and Asia can take over now. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Europe - Let's talk when you're able to launch people into space.
Asia - This isn't a country, or even a loose confederacy. If you mean Japan, see above. If you mean China, then I'll be more impressed when you do something post 1965 that isn't bought from the Russians.
Except that our high-tech manufacturing sector is booming and our manufacturing output has been rising since the '50s, dropping only during recessions.
Constellation was underfunded, overbudget, and both a technical and a practical failure. Axing it is one of the best things Obama has done so far.
The US neither, by the way.
Space X? Scaled Composites? Bigelow Aerospace? None of these are innovative?
es, those treaties which we can bow out of by giving notice. The ones that George Washington warned us about.
Hold your horses, buddy, I'm on your side here. Self-identified libertarian and all, and I agree with "no entangling alliances." The issue is that, now that we're in some entangling alliances, getting out is complicated if we don't want to trigger some very unpleasant wars.
I don't think its fair to tell nations that we've promised we'd defend that they're on their own all of a sudden. I favor a military stand-down over ten or fifteen years in which our excess military equipment is sold off to allied nations so they can get strong enough to hold off their totalitarian adversaries.
he country's broke. How much further do you want to go into debt for this dick-waving habit of yours?
We're sorta broke. It's complicated. Basically, Japan and our allies are funding us through buying our debt while China is doing it because they needed somewhere to store their surplus, which led to hilarious consequences. It's been clear for a while that if China tries to call in our debt, we'll tell them to go fuck themselves. And then all hell will break loose. Thus, they're in as much of a bind as us.
Though yeah, the less of a debt the better. Though you should recognize that most United States debt comes from our giant entitlement programs. Our military is arguably one of the more cost-effective branches of government, not that that's saying much. ;)
Taiwan is dependent on American military protection, and are some of the most fanatical allies we have.
Also, our manufacturing output is going up. I don't know why Slashdot is obsessed with our growing worker productivity.
http://blog.american.com/?p=12330
Who says we're "expected" to do any such thing?
Our defense treaties with Britain, Poland, Japan, Kosovo, South Korea, Norway, Taiwan, etc.
These countries are depending on us to protect them from external aggression, mainly Chinese and Russian. We're moving towards reconciliation with the Russians, but so long as they attempt to bully Eastern Europe with military power and energy supplies they'll keep driving countries into our arms. The major threat we're contending with right now is the PRC.
Even if we were morally or legally obligated to do such a thing, maybe it could be accomplished without spending 55% of all the military appropriations in the whole world, don't you think?
Not when the enemy has home-field advantage. The Chinese are a lot closer to Taiwan then we are, and all of our air support has to operate off of carriers we have in the region. That means the Chinese can deploy many more planes and troops than us, meaning we've got be better than them plane-to-plane and man-to-man.
Oh, and you might want to cite the military spending as percentage of GDP. We're at 4.06%, below Greece, Morocco, and Singapore.
Do you enjoy swatting mosquitos with SAM missiles?
First time I've heard upgraded SU30s referred to as "mosquitoes." ;) But yeah, the less fair the war the better in my opinion. War isn't a game in which each team has to play fairly - I see no reason for ensuring that China can only kill 1,000 Taiwanese rather than 100,000.
It's reasonable when you're expected to defend a whole range of nations stretching from East Asia to Australia to Western Europe to Eastern Europe to Latin America, while fighting a two-front conventional war (China/Russia) on the enemy's home territory (Taiwan/Eastern Europe) and engaging in counter-terrorism and occupation missions elsewhere (wherever we've invaded recently).
I'd prefer crushing military superiority to losing, personally. I guess you can always move to one of the countries we protect.
Also, recognize that as a percentage of GDP, what we spend is not as insane. Still insane, mind you, but reasonable in perspective.
If you believe in freedom of speech, you should oppose muzzling entertainment as much as muzzling political speech. If your political views are less convincing than mine, working on your policies is better than banning my speech. Likewise, if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States, perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you're unable to compete.
It's actually more like we own each other.
Very high sentiments. Unfortunately, that and $200,000 will get you a flight to suborbit. ;)
America was not colonized due to the joy of "being out there." Neither was Australia. Not to say that is not a powerful and important emotion but greed, both personal and national has always been the driving force in human colonization and is the key to the next era.
And are Europe and Russia, literally dying out, doing any better? Or China with massive internal problems not to mention ringed with hostile rivals? India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?
America's been through worse and I'm confident that she'll come out all right in the end. God help us if I'm wrong.
Actually, you just mentioned one of the things I like the most about the American system. The choice is mine. In societies with socialized healthcare, some government bureaucrat is the person who decides how much to spend on my dying wife. In America, she and I decide. It's horrible either way, but I'd prefer for that choice to be in my hands than someone else's.
Or a successful hegemony.
First, India plans to get man in orbit in 2016. They don't even have a date yet for a manned lunar landing.
Second, why do I care that India and China are doing what we did in the '60s? Good on them, let them build an unsubstainable lunar exploration program. Meanwhile, we'll be lowering the price per kg to orbit and building our domestic launch infrastructure. You know, stuff that actually matters.
Not really. Please examine the details of Obama's budget proposal before commenting on it.
The concern is that organizations like the UN are not only powerless, but also incompetent. Leading to the question: Why support a powerless and incompetent organization? I honestly find it difficult to come with an argument for substantial United States support for the United Nations.
The United States government has those attributes, correct. NASA does not. The space agency has a very limited budget, is quite sensitive to adjustments in market prices, and has no control over its income. Indeed, "failures" such as the Challenger disaster tend to be punished with inquiries and funding cuts.
But even if it's not free-market, I approve of it. I like the development of our orbital infrastructure and crewed capsules.
In other words, actual free-market capitalism.
It's not free market capitalism when the government's doing the buying.
That's a common misconception. The introduction of state actors does not suddenly and magically make an economic system less free. When the government is engaging in activities like cost-plus contracting, there's a point to suggestions that this distorts true market prices and encourages suppliers of goods and services to overcharge the government. However, when the government purchases services in the same way that a regular buyer would (ie. Do this and I'll give you x dollars) then its just acting like another buyer. And that's what's happening with this whole privatization shindig.
Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world. It's really not. God willing, it may be the start of a new one.
NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture. Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest. By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.
And yes, I said BUY! This is not cost-plus contracting, which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get. This is a straight purchase of services, cash for deliveries and milestones met. In other words, actual free-market capitalism.
As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot: what cash? Obama is not a dictator, he's a President. His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration. Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable. Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that's sustainable. That's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something.
That lowers the efficiency of the whole system, meaning less gets done altogether. Quoting TV Tropes: "In truth, some countries have a relative productive advantage in some areas, while other countries have different relative productive advantages. Trade allows countries to specialize in whatever production they have an advantage in, thus producing more in total, and then trade with each other. This makes both countries better off. For example, perhaps Country A can produce 4 cans of butter, or 2 cans of butter and 1 carton of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs. Country B can produce 4 cartons of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs and 1 can of butter, or 2 cans of butter. With trade, they can produce at their advantages of 4 cans of butter in A and 4 cartons of eggs in B and then trade so they each have 2 cartons and 2 cans. Making them both better off than if they produced everything in their own country."
As I recall, the price of the goods dropping will make it easier for poor people to get the goods, therefore increasing relative wealth, and will create more jobs in the end.
Starting trade wars with other nations by requiring that jobs stay in the US, while probably satisfying populist sentiment, is probably a bad idea.