Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

NASA Wants To Fund Space Taxis 136

Posted by samzenpus
from the would-you-like-a-trip-to-the-stars dept.
NASA plans on using $50 million in stimulus funds to seed development of a commercial passenger transportation service to space. Potential space taxi inventors have 45 days to submit their proposals. The proposals will be competitively evaluated and the winners will be announced by the end of September. It is unclear what other Commodore 64 games NASA plans on making a reality, but I hope Arkanoid makes the short list.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Wants To Fund Space Taxis

Comments Filter:
  • NASA plans on using $50 million in stimulus funds to seed development of a commercial passenger transportation service to space.

    ... More stimulus funds that 99% of the middle class will never see. How is this gonna help my 401k?
    • Re:Once again ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:13PM (#29025621) Homepage
      If you invest your 401k heavily in companies building nightclubs in space, this space taxi service will be a major boon for you.
    • Re:Once again ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cthulu_mt (1124113) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:14PM (#29025647)
      Wrong! You saw that stimulus money when the government took it out of your wallet!

      Say thanks to Uncle Sam.
    • Re:Once again ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:28PM (#29025877) Journal

      NASA plans on using $50 million in stimulus funds to seed development of a commercial passenger transportation service to space. ... More stimulus funds that 99% of the middle class will never see. How is this gonna help my 401k?

      Ah, the old "spending money on the space program means ferrying dollar bills into orbit and dumping them there" argument. One day people will get it into their heads that money spent on the space program is spent pretty much exclusively on Earth where jobs are created, new technologies are developed, and countless other economic and social spin-offs are generated. In the meantime, I'll have to keep on posting this reminder.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by nigelo (30096)

        I'll keep posting this, too, I guess:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy [wikipedia.org]

        • Re:Once again ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @02:12PM (#29026627) Homepage

          Remember, the reason the broken window fallacy is a fallacy is that it assumes that breaking a window and having to fix it is the only thing that gets the money moving and thus you're making things better by breaking the window. The observation that this money could have been spent on new development with equal or greater effect on the economy is what nullifies it.

          Investing in space tourism is investing in cheap access to space. That's not anything like digging ditches just so you can fill them in, or breaking a window so you have to fix it, or going to war so you have to spend tons of money blowing things and people up. It's more like (though not exactly like) the U.S. highway system. A public works project that had a huge economic benefit.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nigelo (30096)

            Agreed.

            Then I guess we could argue matters of degree: do we get bigger benefit from space-related research or, say, stem-cell research, investing in social programs or basic education.

            And I'd have to say 'I don't know, so let's find a way to invest in all of them, and hopefully reduce the need for investment in the digging ditches/filling them in, etc.'

            • by Chris Burke (6130)

              Then I guess we could argue matters of degree: do we get bigger benefit from space-related research or, say, stem-cell research, investing in social programs or basic education.

              Yes. This is the correct place for the debate to be.

              And I'd have to say 'I don't know, so let's find a way to invest in all of them, and hopefully reduce the need for investment in the digging ditches/filling them in, etc.'

              Agreed. And from that standpoint, $50mil seems like a pittance compared to the totality of our government's in

              • by lennier (44736)

                "where megalo-corps grow tons of excess corn and then let it rot."

                Call it "ferment" and it's BIOETHANOL! One for me, one for you!

                • by BranMan (29917)
                  Subsidies for food crops are an absolute necessity. There is one thing you do not want the 'market' regulating, and that is the growing of food. I consider the subsidies a relatively cheap insurance policy - prop up the growing of food during good and average years (where the price the market would support would be too low to have many producers survive) so that when a BAD year, or two or three, happen, we don't have a famine here.
                  And believe me - if there is a famine in the US, a
            • by ArsonSmith (13997)

              Or better yet, lets leave the money in the hands of the population and let them decided.

              • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

                by Anonymous Coward

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

              • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

                by Anonymous Coward

                That's right...because 50,000,000 goes so far when splitting it 305,000,000 ways.

          • by stokessd (89903)

            The highway system has a huge benefit because there are, you know, places to go. People can use roads in cars, on bikes, on foot and even busses etc. Is a space taxi or space exploration the most efficient use of technology, and technology transfer?

            There's a lot of technology that can be brought to bear on building the biggest jenga tower too, but is that the most efficient method to get that technology and jobs spread around?

            I suppose if you think there is some sort of future in space, then this may be w

            • Yeah, I'll never meet my great-great-great-great grandkids either, so It's kind of stupid to plan that far into the future... I mean, what's the benefit to me?

              Or did I misunderstand your argument?

            • The things you listed are certainly worthy investments. But then again, everything you listed is ultimately vulnerable, and shortsighted. We have the technology now, at this point in history, to put people in space and insure a future for the human race, and indeed every living being on earth, and everything that has been created as a product of those. You never know when that opportunity will be taken away, be it climate change, nuclear war, disease, apathy, or a collapse of civilization. The time to g
            • by Fluffeh (1273756)

              Even if there is a future in space, I won't see it.

              Your view seems to be REALLY inline with political views and planning. They don't plan/care about anything past the next election horizon. Why not invest in something that won't see big returns for three years like improving mass transit in cities? Oh yeah, because all the cost will be seen with your government and all the rewards might be seen with another government. In the end, no-one gets a better mass transit system.

              Wake the fuck up and stop being so gloriously selfish.

              Just because you won't per

          • by lennier (44736)

            "Investing in space tourism is investing in cheap access to space."

            Yes, and?

            Space is, by definition, a vacuum. A large empty hole filled with a whole lot of nothing.

            What, precisely, do we gain by getting cheap access to cubic giga-miles of nothing?

            Low gravity for manufacturing? Okay. What exactly are we going to manufacture that will justify the cost required to ship it up and down the well?

            Solar radiation unfiltered by atmosphere? Okay. And after transferring to microwaves and building ground stations... w

            • by Chris Burke (6130)

              Space is, by definition, a vacuum. A large empty hole filled with a whole lot of nothing.

              Hehe. Yeah, that's a definition, but another definition includes all the not-nothing stuff that's off the earth. I mean you mention a bunch of stuff that's "in space", or at least you have to go through space to get to it.

              But yeah. What could we get with cheap access to space?

              Solar radiation unfiltered by atmosphere? Okay. And after transferring to microwaves and building ground stations... why not just build solar c

            • The primary complaint will all of you arguments, mind you, is the expense of moving material in to orbit, and to the ground, safely.

              We've already got the technology to do that; we've just stepped away from it. Project ORION [google.com] is achievable using current technology, can move *vast* amount of material into space, and back onto the planet, and would release no more radiation that the various open-air nuclear tests of the previous century, and most likely a good deal less than the various coal burning power plant

          • Except we're not investing in cheap access to space. Using chemical rockets, there are some real, fundamental limits to how cheap (in terms of usage) we can get the cost to orbit, and that is not cheap enough for space flight to be affordable as anything other than an insane luxury or for scientific research. It isn't a matter of getting the early adopters to bring the cost down - they won't bring down the cost of the fuel (if anything, they'll raise it slightly by burning so much of it) and that's where
            • by Chris Burke (6130)

              If you could build a shuttle for free and only have to pay for the fuel then space travel would still be insanely expensive.

              That's simply not true. Fuel costs are a very tiny portion of the overall costs to develop, build, maintain and operate rockets. That's why liquid fuel rockets aren't actually any cheaper to launch than solid fuel even though the fuel itself is much cheaper.

              If fuel costs were the only cost space travel would be orders of magnitude cheaper. But when you're making a tiny fleet of shi

        • I'll keep posting this, too, I guess:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy [wikipedia.org]

          Interesting, but there are people who claim that the New Deal (and the big government spending that went with it) did not pull America out of the Great Depression. They say that instead it was WWII (and the big government spending that went with it), which is a bit of a contradiction.

          The New Deal (or the space program) was not a broken window. WWII on the other hand was a big broken window, and you could have achieved a lot of the same effect by building all those carriers, destroyers, tanks and bombers a

          • by ianare (1132971)

            ... and at the end of WWII the previous superpower (Europe in general terms, though mainly England and France) was devastated by war. The newly created American factories were diverted from the war effort into the rebuilding effort, and a new superpower was born. There was a time when the US produced and manufactured most of the world's goods and food. THAT is what created the after-war boom years. The new deal however, laid much of the groundwork to make this possible.

            Also remember that WWII was a relative

            • ... and at the end of WWII the previous superpower (Europe in general terms, though mainly England and France) was devastated by war. The newly created American factories were diverted from the war effort into the rebuilding effort, and a new superpower was born. There was a time when the US produced and manufactured most of the world's goods and food. THAT is what created the after-war boom years. The new deal however, laid much of the groundwork to make this possible.

              Also remember that WWII was a relatively short war, especially for the US. A short war can have some economic advantage, as long as you win of course. A protracted war will always lead to economic problems, even for the victor (see : the current Iraq war and its role in the economic crisis).

              True. War can have unexpected positive outcomes though. Germany's rail network was obliterated and they were able to build it from scratch to suit current needs. England's came out a bit better, so the current network is stuck with the old bottlenecks that it always had since Victorian times. To this day the Brits have a hard time getting their trains to run on time, the Germans find it a lot easier.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by TheRaven64 (641858)
                The problems with the British rail system started with Dr Beeching's scrapping of most of it. By concentrating on the more profitable lines, and scrapping the rest, he hoped to make British Rail less dependent on government subsidy. Unfortunately, he failed to take into account that a lot of the passengers on unprofitable rural lines were getting trains to larger stations and then getting on the more profitable trains. When the branch lines were scrapped, they had to get cars instead and so didn't use an
      • by lennier (44736)

        "One day people will get it into their heads that money spent on the space program is spent pretty much exclusively on Earth where jobs are created, new technologies are developed, and countless other economic and social spin-offs are generated."

        Are they, though?

        I mean, yes of course that money is spent "on Earth" strictly speaking... but what it is spent *doing*? It's spent paying very specialised engineers to create very specialised one-off hardware which is tossed into space and thrown away. In the case

        • If we employed a bunch of very smart people here on Earth to build a castle made out of cheese, we'd also promote a lot of rapid development in dairy-related construction techniques, and that money would recirculate back into local economies - etc, etc, etc. But we generally expect a bit more from a big project than just "people got paid and it doesn't matter what they got paid to do".

          Building castles out of cheese would be a true "dig a hole and fill it in again" situation. But exploring space is a long te

    • by mc1138 (718275)
      It's going to shoot it to the moon! Or at least low earth orbit...
    • Re:Once again ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wjousts (1529427) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:43PM (#29026171)
      Believe it or not, but the stimulus isn't supposed to pad your 401k, it's supposed to create jobs.
    • by hellfire (86129) <deviladv @ g m a i l . c om> on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:47PM (#29026237) Homepage

      First, engineers and scientists get jobs, and practice their craft. And do you think the scientists and engineers assembled the rockets with Erector sets in their own private labs? No, they had manufacturers build the parts and the craft. You have small manufacturers building the parts, and large ones assembling the pieces, with distributors in the middle moving the material and making sure it's all on time and available when needed.

      And then those people go home and spend their money on stuff...

      The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs. And if you think space taxis are nothing but an idea for the very rich to go into space, just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply. Hey, get people safely and cheaply into space? That means more satellites, more repairs, more tourism for the common man, more economic opportunities.

      • > just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply.

        No, the next thing we need to figure out is why the hell anyone would want to go to space (save the novelty of it). Until we terraform the moon, mine on the asteroid belt or develop cost-effective agriculture on a space station, there is no practical reason to go to space and surely nothing to justify spending my hard-earned $$$ on it. I always been a liberal democrat but this is enou

        • by Yetihehe (971185)

          just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply.

          No, the next thing we need to figure out is why the hell anyone would want to go to space (save the novelty of it). Until we terraform the moon, mine on the asteroid belt or develop cost-effective agriculture on a space station, there is no practical reason to go to space and surely nothing to justify spending my hard-earned $$$ on it.

          If we can't go cheaply into space, how can we terrafo

          • by lennier (44736)

            "If we can't go cheaply into space, how can we terraform moon or mine asteroid belt? "

            CAN we terraform the moon, is the question we should ask before we ask "how".

        • > just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply.

          No, the next thing we need to figure out is why the hell anyone would want to go to space (save the novelty of it). Until we terraform the moon, mine on the asteroid belt or develop cost-effective agriculture on a space station, there is no practical reason to go to space and surely nothing to justify spending my hard-earned $$$ on it. I always been a liberal democrat but this is enough to make me switch sides.

          What is the point of a baby?

        • by jdigriz (676802)
          The moon is too small to terraform, it wouldn't hold an atmosphere. However, self-contained settlements,mining stations and robot outposts are eminently practical. Now yes, anything that we mine would cost more than the equivalent mined on earth, but it would cost far less than the equivalent mined and refined on earth and then launched into space at 20,000 dollars a lb. So the reason to go to space is to build infrastructure to harvest minerals and energy that a) make the subsequent larger missions chea
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by wasabu (1502975)

        The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs.

        Load of nonsense. Bleeding the money from private enterprise (ie taxes) to 'stimulate' parts of the economy only takes money away from other parts. This is called misallocation of capital because the power of the market is stifled, and always leads to LOSS of jobs, because the 'economy' of money is put in the hands of idiots. The desires and needs of millions of people are at the root of a truely free market. A handful of useless beurocrats by definition cannot best allocate capital. "Stimulus" is just a

    • You'll see that money when the engineers who win the contest lay down an Abe Lincoln in front of you at McDonalds.

      Your employer will never see the money they spent on you while you were on slashdot either.

    • Re:Once again ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GameMaster (148118) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @02:21PM (#29026773)

      Of course, 99% of the middle class won't see it. $50 million is a drop in the bucket considering, both, the size of the US budget and the population of the country. Even if it were divided evenly, a dollar each, there wouldn't be enough to go around. However, there is a good chance that, assuming you aren't too old, this might boost your 401k in time for your retirement.

      The US, simply, can't compete against much of the rest of the world at most of the traditional industries. Our quality of life is too high and would have to nose-dive to make us competitive. The places that we've always dominated, since WWII when we really first developed a middle class with above average quality of life, have been high-tech such as computers, pharmaceuticals, materials science, etc. As we move forward, it's inevitable that other countries will start to catch up in some of those places and out population will continue to grow.

      In order to stay competitive we need to continue to advance our most competitive industries and seek out new ones that revolutionize life enough such that they become the next "semiconductor industry". One example is the development of new/economical energy generation/transport methods such as Nuclear/solar/wind/"clean coal"/bio-fuel/wave/geothermal/fuel cells/batteries/etc. Another example, more applicable to this discussion, is commercialized space travel.

      We've reached a point where the price of space travel is withing "spitting distance" of being cheap enough for commercial ventures to develop their own vehicle/stations. There are already a number of start-ups that are flirting with it such as Virgin Galactic developing a sub-orbital vehicle and Bigilow Aaerospace designing fractional size prototype space stations but implementing vehicles capable of re-entry and full size/fully functional stations will be much, much more expensive. Government grants are a way to accelerate the development of this technology and, potentially, open up the field to a broader market faster in the same way the plumitting cost of semiconductors in the 80's made it possible for everyone in the country to have a computer on their desk within a decade or so instead of just big companies/colleges having expensive supercomputers.

      Right now, the only, practical, uses for space travel are communications satellites, military, GPS, and pure research. Sure, there have been a few tourist that have been lucky enough to go to the ISS, but even at the high prices they've paid, they don't represent a realistic "industry". If we could get the cost of entry to drop by an order of magnitude (which is realistic to expect when you take it out of the hands of a military-like organization like NASA, implement the most modern tech, and increase the number of flights to take advantage of economies of scale) then it should open up all sorts of other growth markets for things like tourism, power generation/transmission, commercial materials science development/production, and the mining of things like the moon and asteroids for rare materials.

      So, sinking a mere $50 million (mere in government terms as well as relation to what it takes to get anything of significance done in today's world, of course) is a small price to pay if it can help someone like Burt Rutan produce a low cost vehicle that opens up a revolutionary new industry to help re-grow the economy.

      • The US, simply, can't compete against much of the rest of the world at most of the traditional industries. Our quality of life is too high and would have to nose-dive to make us competitive. The places that we've always dominated, since WWII when we really first developed a middle class with above average quality of life, have been high-tech such as computers, pharmaceuticals, materials science, etc. As we move forward, it's inevitable that other countries will start to catch up in some of those places and
  • Hey! Taxi! (Score:3, Funny)

    by amiga3D (567632) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:18PM (#29025717)
    I fondly remember killing thousands of passengers on my 64.
    • passengers will have to say in a computer voice "pad five, please"

    • by chiefnerd (823986)
      Yes, good times! Brings back memories...
    • Me too. You'd think the word would get around that your flying taxi was a death trap, but yet the fares still lined up anyway.

      I wonder what the insurance rates on a space taxi would be? Probably astronomical...

  • by zorro-z (1423959) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:20PM (#29025747)

    It's worth nothing that, while few people are directly involved w/the space program, the space program has historically had indirect benefits which have benefited society. To list a few (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off [wikipedia.org]):

    Health and Medicine
    Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) (2005)
    Infrared Ear Thermometers (1991)
    DeBakey's Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) (2002)
    Artificial Limbs (2005)

    Transportation
    Aircraft Anti-Icing Systems (2007)
    Highway Safety Grooving (1985)
    Improved Radial Tires (1976)
    Chemical Detection (2007)

    Public Safety
    Video Enhancing and Analysis Systems (2001)
    Land Mine Removal (2000)
    Fire-Resistant Reinforcement (2006)
    Firefighting Equipment (1976 onwards)

    Consumer, Home, and Recreation
    Temper Foam (1976-2005)
    Enriched Baby Food (1996, 2008)
    Portable Cordless Vacuums (1981)
    Freeze Drying Technology (1976, 1994)

    Environmental and Agricultural Resources
    Water Purification (1995, 2006)
    Solar Energy (2005)
    Pollution Remediation (1994, 2006)

    Computer Technology
    Better Virtual Software (2005)
    Structural Analysis (1976-1998)
    Internet-Connected Ovens (2005)

    Industrial Productivity
    Powdered Lubricants (2005)
    Improved Mine Safety (1978-2008)
    Food Safety Systems (1991)

    • Ah yes, I remember the dark time before internet-connected ovens where cooking and looking at porn were separate actives. Thank God for NASA.
    • Most of those 'benefits' have nothing to do with the space program other than they were developed at an agency that also happens to run the space program.

      The NASA PAO is also a past master at making it appear that NASA developed technology, when in reality all NASA did was applied research on already existing technology. (For example, freeze drying - first commercially used back in the 1930's!)

      The magazine reference in your link (Spinoffs) is very aptly titled - because it's mostly spin.

  • This is almost reminiscent of the 5th element with Bruce Willis where he drives a cab in the future, which allows to go into space etc...
    all I can say, is I welcome our Taxi driving overlords

    • by FCAdcock (531678)

      Hey, if I get my own LeeLoo, I don't care how much money is spent!

    • This is almost reminiscent of the 5th element with Bruce Willis where he drives a cab in the future, which allows to go into space etc...

      Well, Bruce certainly drove a cab. But, alas, the cab he drove couldn't go into space. Which was why he had to "win" that contest to get the tickets to go to that other planet. Which were then stolen, restolen, etc....

    • by Holi (250190)

      Did you actually see the movie, because his taxi did not go into space. He used a completely different ship for space travel.

  • Handy (Score:3, Funny)

    by kevinNCSU (1531307) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:26PM (#29025849)

    This will come in really handy all those times I have too much to drink and need to get back to my Secret Moon Base.

    And maybe once they figure this out they can build a working escalator at the Reagan Metro stop. Or maybe the Space Taxi's can just moonlight moving luggage up to the platform.

    • by Chris Burke (6130)

      This will come in really handy all those times I have too much to drink and need to get back to my Secret Moon Base.

      Oh look who's Mr. Responsible, not flying drunk!

      Or are you telling me they have police checkpoints in orbit now? Fuck, I knew it was only a matter of time!

  • My friend Leloo needs one.
  • The important question is: can these taxis make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs?
  • Hailing a Cab when its 5 yards away, and now they want to put them in SPACE?

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:50PM (#29026283) Journal
    This is a minimal amount of money for human rated launchers. Between SpaceX and Scaled Composites, this IS coming (Though to be honest, I would really like to see SpaceDev finish their work on their h-20).

    What really IS needed IS a space taxi AND a tug. Russia has the idea correct. Augustine should be pushing Obama/NASA to buy several Bigelows to attach to the ISS. First buy the sundancer and attach it to the ISS to hold cargo (keep hatch closed except when needing to access). Then buy a BA-330 for human space. That is all that is needed to get them going in orbit. These are perfect for playing space taxis, if we attach a tug to these.
    • Augustine should be pushing Obama/NASA to buy several Bigelows to attach to the ISS.

      You can't buy what doesn't exist.

      • Orion does not exist and yet we buy.
        Dragon does not exist and again, we buy.
        Heck, Tesla Sedan does not exist and ppl are buying.
        So, yes, you CAN buy what does not exists.
        By buying it now from Bigelow, it will push him to start his assembly line. He has slowed it down, waiting for launchers. By combining this with a push on the human launchers and we are looking at the private launches going cheap. Basically, we can continue to throw money all over the place (X-33, Ares I, etc) and constantly shift with
        • There are almost 200 customer delivered Tesla sedans on the road today (one owned by someone about 2 miles from my house, saw it being delivered a few weeks ago). They're all over the roads in Palo Alto if you happen to work here, though some of those are undoubtedly factory test drives.

          It may take a while to get yours if you plunk down your $110,000 today, but it's a real shipping product.

          • No. There are ROADSTERS on the road, not the sedan. And like the sedan, ppl were buying it before even the prototype was produced.
  • by Absolut187 (816431) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:52PM (#29026327) Homepage

    It is unclear what other Commodore 64 games NASA plans on making a reality, but I hope Arkanoid makes the short list.

    C'mon, Caveman Olympics!!
    The wife toss was awesome. I think NASA could make that happen for well under $50 million.

  • Pad one please

  • Dragon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @02:39PM (#29027063)

    Seems like SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a good start in that direction already. It's intended to carry seven to/from the ISS.

    And it has the advantage of being under development already, and under construction already.

  • In space, no one can hear you ka-ching!

  • They came up with this option in case you wanted to get to your job on Klaxon 5 a littler faster than you would by taking the space subway.
  • There are cheaper ways to risk your life for a thrill. Space, everyone seems to forget, is the most dangerous (and expensive) place a human can be. Tourism revenue just doesn't cut it for a reason to do this.
  • The economy is terrible, and some may say "WE'RE SPENDING MONIES ON SPACE TAXIS WTF?!?" But, the fact is, the people need to spend to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, we need to be a LITTLE less frugal in order to help the economy. If NASA can put the ride prices at, say, $50 - less would be better of course, maybe sell 10 tickets at $20 per ride - then hopefully they could convince Joe the Plumber types to go on a ride to space. That is the price of a local venue show ticket, and apparently live music

  • 50 million spend just to get those drunk astronauts safely home. What a waste. Just limit the amount of Vodka they are allowed in their luggage.

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

Working...