NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs 524
abde writes: "Sad news on Space.com -- NASA has canceled the X-33 reusable launch vehicle program due to cost overruns and severe budget cuts. Looks like we are stuck with the aging Space Shuttle [?] and NASA has relinquished the quest for cheap space launch capability. But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
Bogus figures (Score:2)
NASA's budget has remained approximately constant after adjusting for inflation since 1992; Clinton's budget increase for NASA in FY 01 was the first real budget for NASA since then.
See http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/ca01ag.htm#nasa [aaas.org]
and
http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/funding_2
Re:Bill Gates was born with a million dollars. (Score:2)
You should have read the URL.
Re:NASA = WELFARE FOR SCIENTISTS (Score:2)
SO in a way, yes. NASA is welfare for scientists, but everyone benefits.
In this light, I'd have to say that the budget cuts for NASA were the right thing. The ISS has never been that cutting edge or exploratary, so it is unclear what technological advances it would drive -- the earth is too close and will always be a crutch. A base on the MOON tho. Now that would be cool and useful!
Cheap Access to LEO (Score:3)
Well, there's at least one project that has a better possibility of reducing launch costs to LEO. Check out Scorpius [smad.com] by Microcosm.
Sure, it's not as sexy as new, untested wizz-bang technologies (like aerospike engines, composite H2 tanks, scramjets, etc.). It pretty much follows LEO on the Cheap [genastro.com] by Lt. Col John R. London. After reading this book, you'll start to really wonder why projects like the X-33 and X-34 were funded in the first place. You'll start to see the massive politics behind the space industry.
Re:Rich? (Score:2)
I work 33% of the year to support uncle sam, and yet during tax time i still manage to owe more money then the deductions normally witheld from my paycheck
Buying a condo was my tax break, being able to deduct my interest payments on my mortgage brought me to a manageable tax level
Why should i as a person who has never taken disability, never taken unenmployemnt (althought i have been unemployed) and have my own healthcare and medical insurance be the one fitting such a huge tax burden for the people who actually make use of these services? Why should i pay for people to be unemployed whenever i can pay for my own education to keep myself from being unemployed?
I make contributions to several different societies, from environmentalist to inner city foundations. I have my own life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement plan, savings plan, and cover my liability 100%.
Why again am i working 3 months out of the year to protect someone who doesn't do this for themselves?
Don't tell me they can't! I went to school, i did my work and still do my work and that is why i am here.
I would be more then happy with a 20% tax bracket that allowed 13% more investment in myself and my direct future as well as supporting people who are trying to achieve independance
This is totally off topic, but i'm glad NASA is streamlining rather then spending indefinatly.
Even though i didn't vote for bush, if he can get this tax break through and revive the economy he will get my vote! And if nasa, the military and the general technology aspects of the us increase during his term, i will vote him next time.
Until then, i'm fed up with how much i work to make everyone else life better when there is no one protecting my rights because i'm considered middle/upper middle class.
I'm the one buying shoes, clothes, staying in the hotels, buying the meals, paying for cabs, paying for trains, flying around and spending the cash that supports the economy so why am i being taxed so heavily to let a government dictate who gets my money
okay, offtope but i'm done hehe. some reason the tax part of this topic and postee pissed me off :)
My 5-step plan for developing cheap space launch. (Score:3)
- Set basic parameters for a desired launch vehicle: get x payload to y orbit for under z dollars/lb of payload.
- Guarantee to buy 5-10 launches from ANYONE who can come up with a viable launch vehicle (make them do a test flight first with a dummy payload of journalists). This gives them a chance of generating some cash flow out of the box.
- Provide legal/insurance umbrella for companies.
- Get the hell out of the way.
- There is no step 5.
Jon AchesonBring back Delta Clipper (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with researching bleeding-edge technology, by all means we should do it. But when we're trying to build a "production use" vehicle, it should use proven technology.
The X-33 concept relied on many unproven concepts. They've found that they can't even manufacture fuel tanks for it that will meet the extreme requirements!
This is not surprising to me at all (Score:2)
The reasoning for this move are, although sad, is rather obvious. People are not as interested in the space program anymore. Why?
It is the combination of two things. First, the average American does not find space exploration exciting unless it is just that: exploration. Experiments and equipment testing, although necessary, just does not garner widespread public attention. This is an interesting catch-22 in our American society--the fact that people are so horrified when things go wrong (challenger) and blame lack of safety measurements etc, only to cut funding when not enough "exciting" missions occur in rapid succession. You can't have both, IMO.
More importantly, the American people, and their associated representatives have been brainwashed into thinking that any money given to NASA is a frivolous investment, the funding of which could be better used on other programs. The idea that "space is our future" rarely applies anymore unless people see incredible advancements on a rapid schedule or politicians can find some political reasoning to voice their support.
Which brings me to my second point. NASA has some real problems. Management fads are at the extreme in and around JSC. Politics and "pseudo-marketing" (hard to say NASA really "markets" anything, i hope you catch the distinction) have overrun the opinions and agendas of scientists and engineers. Which is where NASA's slogan of "better, cheaper, faster" becomes the biggest oxymoron in the world. NASA designs what must be some of the most complex, and most advanced machinery in the world. Not only that, but this machinery must withstand and incredible environment few can even fully comprehend. If you have read anything on the problems associated with building and designing the ISS, it is fairly plain to see that the technical achievment is very impressive. However, even with such incredible design potential, corners were cut that seem ridiculous in comparison to the money already spent. Likewise, the idea that "budget overrruns" are anything but to be expected in designing a reusable spacecraft is, IMO, ludicrous. Management yells, "we want safety and perfection!", and at the same time "hurry up!". The X-33 and 34 were great ideas that would have sped up and IMO, revitalized the space program. However, I'm sure that "public opinion experts" and budgeting gurus have stamped out these programs in favor of something more flashy like Mars exploration. Just don't be surprised if that runs way overbudget too.
--rhad
Please get a clue (Score:2)
Whoa. (Score:2)
That's seriously bizarre. Oh well, I guess they can afford it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NASA = WELFARE FOR SCIENTISTS (Score:2)
"But let's be clear, it is a form of sponsorship for scientists, whose results are of interest only to other scientists. The days of NASA providing marketable benefits to the average American citizen are long gone."
Mindsets like yours are extremely maddening! THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE IS ***NOT*** MARKETABILITY!!!!! NASA was never intended to be a market research organization! Congress created NASA to put US space technology on a par with world-leading space technology, following the Soviet launch of Sputnik and the US launch failure in 1957. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE MERCHANDISE!!! NASA EXISTS TO CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC SPACE RESEARCH!!!
It is only the grace of God that any form of science ever results in economic benefits. The fact is, whoever learns how the world around them works, gains a significant advantage in the use of that world. Quite often, that results in a financial benefit--but, that is not the goal of pure scientific research! The idea that all worthwhile science results in immediate economic gratification is a form of brutish ignorance, on a par with people who question the need for a smoke alarm or fire extinguisher simply because they haven't ever needed one.
NASA has a lot of problems, largely caused by people who don't know anything about science telling them what kind of programs they should be pursuing. For example, the United States probably should have a space station. However, the International Space Station is mostly a political and economic excuse, rather than the scientific research tool it might have been without outside interference. That's not to say that scientists always choose the most efficient way to conduct research; but at least scientists have a good idea as to the kind of research that should be conducted!
Re:Migration to space not an option (Score:2)
What's wrong with the Shuttle? (Score:2)
Down here they build something then run it into the ground. Then they start over from scratch! The X-33 was bound to fail from the beginning! The X-34 was not a replacement, it was a test bed. Look at Columbia, its still flying but when they built the others they were able to make them lighter which enable higher orbit or more payload.
What do you prefer, upgrade old PC reusing some parts or buy all new stuff from scratch? When the bloodsucking auto makers build a new model do they start over with completely different brake pads and rotors or due they use the old proven design?
Maybe the shuttle could have evolved over 30 years into the X-33 instead of trying to start from scratch after 20?
Re:The future is Scary (Score:2)
--
Re:STS Problematic (Score:2)
You seem to be right. I couldn't find any reference to that ban. I know I heard space activists complain loudly about things like that 10 years ago, but if there ever was such a ban, it must be gone now.
I'm dissapointed in how the system is currently structured, yes. NASA has always been in a quandry due to it's untenable status. It's funding is completely at the whim of each administration and subject to a great deal of external manipulation & "adjustment". [...] Rather I see changing the status of NASA or some successor agency to a more stable one with a more reliable budget as being an answer.
But every government agency is subject to those whims. It's inherent in the governmental system. I think the difference is that most agencies delivier tangible benefits to large groups of voters, so they're harder to mess with. And you can't restructure that away.
NASA was created with the mission to win the space race part of the cold war. That mission is accomplished, so it's current purpose is pretty vague.
On the other hand as I noted I don't see any supposed "privitization" being preferable. Already many STS services are privately managed yet there seems little cost savings.
Is this odd? No - I don't think going to an extreme, particularly an extreme I consider an innapropriate response to be the optimal solution.
This rhetorical trick of pretending there is only my alternative and a very extreme and scary one is called "false choice". In reality there are of course many different options.
I found this article on a libertarian space policy. It makes a lot of sense to me. An interesting fact it mentions is that around 60% of space spending is already done by private industry.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0005/libsolutions.html
Favorite quote: "no government agency that runs with the efficiency of the Pentagon and the U.S. Postal Service will ever realize the dream of commercially viable orbiting stations or moon bases."
Tell me, do you find it odd that you assert falsehoods, competely disregard the point of much of my posting then misrepresent my position ?
Oh please. Don't be childish.
Area 51 (Score:2)
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:X33 had to be killed (Score:2)
Exactly. The same thing happened to Rotary Rocket. [rotaryrocket.com] The original plan was to build a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, but after problems with the "rotary engine" concept, it was downgraded to a suborbital technology demonstrator.
Single stage to orbit rockets powered by chemical fuels are inherently marginal. Well over 90% of the vehicle weight at launch has to be fuel, so there are terribly restrictive weight constraints on the vehicle. (By comparison, a commercial airliner at takeoff is typically less than half fuel by weight.) This is the basic reason space travel is just barely possible.
In some ways, that's the problem. If chemical fuels with twice the energy density were available, space travel would be straightforward. If the best fuels had half the energy density, chemical rockets would be hopeless, and atomic-powered space travel (which is quite feasable, provided you launch from somewhere isolated enough for atmospheric nuclear testing) would have been tried by now. But because it's just barely possible to do it with chemical fuels, we're stuck with a marginal technology.
Re:STS Problematic (Score:2)
Both developments were underwritten by governments, UK/France for Concorde & US's DOD for 747.
The market went with super-large. Why? Primarily efficiency; Super-large turned out to be more economical in a fleet then super-fast. Cost per passenger-mile was lower as was cost per passenger-hour. As a primary limiting factor is gate access it proved easier to get a (then) gate-and-a-half for a single 747 boarding then three or four for equivalant Concorde flights. Finally after supersonic flight was banned over land many of the planned Concorde routes were closed to it (I remember the Concorde gate at the Kansas City airport sitting empty for years.)
The Soviets did fly their Concordski for many years though I believe they went out of service awhile ago. Aside from that no one has been able to figure out a model that would support wide-spread use of supersonic fight enough to underwrite development costs (Concorde has certianly never paid back it's R&D expenses.) Many countries have done extensive research on next-gen supersonic aircraft but none have shown a compelling economic advantage.
Indeed aside from Canada underwriting Bombardier's progress in mid-size/mid-haul aircraft (& revitalizing that market) the only major development is Airbus's mega-development A380 with 555 seats. Promising to out-jumbo the 747 it has a several customers signed up & is going ahead with production development. Boeing has responded with yet another extension of it's 747 platform but has declined to commit to an entirely new aircraft.
Many of the R&D projects on supersonic flights have now begun to be curtailed. As the industry moves further and further to giant aircraft and the problems of economical supersonic flight remain intractable a next-generation successor to Concorde becomes more & more unlikely. With it EOL'd at 2010 you better start saving now before the era is over.
Re:The thing about tax cuts (Score:2)
Re:An increase is a cut????? (Score:2)
Re:Immoral or dumb? (Score:2)
An inheritance is a particular form of gift that only occurs at death. Now I understand why they do gift taxes so that people can't just get around income taxes by giving and receiving gifts. But an inheritance gift isn't done for income tax avoidance purposes so that's not an issue. On top of that, have you thought of what these kind of financial concerns do to people in the grieving process? The kids want to fulfill dad's wishes to keep his dream alive but they have a very short countdown before they have to pay a crippling tax payment. Unless you are one of the super rich who can afford the expensive attorneys to finesse this, the process dumps a big burden to the grieving family. Now that's really fair and moral isn't it?
Furthermore, the estate tax collects just about enough money to pay for the people who harrass grieving families into paying it. As a revenue generator, it's a wash. So guess what, the money doesn't go to the kids, it doesn't go to the tar-paper shack family on the other side of the tracks, it goes to pay treasury agents who have an upper-middle class income derived from financially pressuring families who have just suffered the loss of a parent. Oh I can see morality written all over this, can't you?
The death tax is a form of institutionalized class envy enforced through state action. The last time I checked, envy, in all its forms, was considered a sin by most moral systems and certainly any system that I'd want to follow.
I suspect that you really don't know the libertarian line here and have a fairly prejudiced idea about what libertarians believe in. Let me give it to you in a nutshell. Libertarians believe that the government is an institiution that survives by applying violence to accomplish societal goals. Libertarians believe that the number of areas where this is appropriate is small and shrinking and we would like to reduce and eliminate the level of government violence from as many areas of societal action as possible.
DB
Re:An increase is a cut????? (Score:2)
. ...or a personal-automobile fanatic who believes that simple maintenance of existing roads is a plot of pot-smoking fuzzy-headed greenniks.
The point is, it's easy to demonize this sort of thinking (that failing to adjust for cost-of-living is a cut in itself). But it's also virtually useless. If you ask the ordinary "citizen on the street", you'll find that, in their heart of hearts, they begin from a status quo assumption: Let's keep everything where it is now, EXCEPT...
Economists have dealt with this paradox for so long, they've come up with mechanisms to cope. For example, things can be quoted in "real dollars" or "constant 2000 dollars" or whatever. This is more than a trick. Since money is just a measurement of your ability to purchase, inflation really does eat into your money supply. This year, with the same $100, you buy less "stuff" than last year. Thus, your $100 is worth less than last year -- and so, you've been given less than last year.
As a child of the late 1970s, I understand inflationg real good... a failure to adjust for cost-of-living is a cut.
Did you actually read the article in detail? (Score:2)
Specifically, recounts conducted by the Orlando Sentinal [orlandosentinel.com] and further discussed in the Kausfiles [msn.com] indicate that the overvote in largely republican counties, ignored by both sides, would have resulted in a win by Al Gore by several thousand votes, even using the most stringent recount standards. The reason turns out to be the unambiguous votes by many first time voters, who voted for Al Gore, then wrote in Al Gore and marked the write-in box as well. As unambiguous votes they would have, by law, been counted for Al Gore. Apparently many people misunderstood the write-in box as a "confirmation" box, a sort of check to make sure the vote was counted correctly (and is a strong indication that voters really do need to be educated in exactly how the ballotting process works).
The upshot is this: If Al Gore had gotten his way (selective recounts of Democratic counties) Bush would have been declared the winner. However, if the entire state had been recounted correctly, current data indicate that Al Gore would have won handsomely. It is an interesting ethics lesson, both that, had Al Gore done "the right thing" he would have won and no one could have reasonably denied him a recount.
By all indications, Al Gore won the election, both in Florida and in the US as a whole. The Bush camp knew (or at least suspected) that this was the case and pressed ahead, taking the presidency without a full and proper accounting of the votes in the state (contrary to every other close election in the country, where recounts were in fact conducted, including hand recounts of ballats unreadable by machine).
The fact that the opposing side behaved in a disengenous manner by not requesting a statewide recount and trying to select particular counties instead does not in any way diminish the fact that the Bush camp has usurped the electorial process and taken office in opposition to the explicit will of the American people. That makes him a usurper as far as I am concerned, and I strongly suspect history will, in time, agree, no matter the amount of spin his supporters may put on the issue in the short term.
Finally, I should note that my point in referring to Dubya as the Usurper is not intended to somehow "drive him from power", but to be in his face that he doesn't belong there, he has no mandate, and he'd better tread softly and not attempt to shove his right-wing agenda down our unwilling throats. It is important that we as a people show as much backbone as we can, in a peaceful manner, lest such behavior be repeated in the future (perhaps next time by the democrats). Our democracy is more important than either of those clowns (and for the record, I didn't vote for either of them), and it does not serve our democracy at all for us to take this sort of thing without comment, nor for our so-called "fourth estate" to curry favor in an effort to enhance their access to public figures by promoting such blatently biased spin.
Re:Estate taxes (Score:2)
In any event, if you read my comments a little more carefully, you would have noticed words such as "shareholders". These, at the very least, imply that the companies are corporations.
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
sad sad sad (Score:3)
In recessive times, sometimes it's not best to go into production, but just stick with r&d.
the X34 and X33 were both fairly close to production, so a lot of r&d is already done.
Here are linx for anyone interested :
X33 [lockheedmartin.com] and X34 [lockheedmartin.com] and more in-depth stuff at x33 (nasa) [nasa.gov] and X34 (nasa) [nasa.gov]
What a shame. The linear aerospike engine was in test, the frame and skin were waiting for the tank, and the launchpad is almost done.
These technologies and programs would have created thousands of jobs as they trickled down through the US economy.
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
Dictionary example of a political pawn.
You Forget... (Score:4)
I'm all for corporations getting involved in space, but without NASA real science will cease. Why? It makes no immediate financial sense. NEAR? Forget it, no one will go to a Gap on Eros. Pathfinder? Forget it, people want the SUVs, not the rover.
Without NASA, we'd have never gone to the moon. We'd not have had Hubble. WE'D NEVER KNOW IF ANTS COULD SORT TINY SCREWS IN SPACE!!!
The very least they could do is send that money to education, instead of spending it on some other frivolous cause.. More than likely that moeny will go to our wonderfully worthless space defense system. I know! Let's void treaties with our allies to protect ourselves against a non-existant threat!!
Re:sad sad sad (Score:2)
The linear aerospike engine was in test, the frame and skin were waiting for the tank, and the launchpad is almost done.
If all that is true, then let NASA release the design to the public domain, and let private companies build it. That would create a lot more jobs.
--
Rich? (Score:4)
While you make a good point, it's just... wrong to use the word rich as you are using it, and the fact the media uses it that way is not an excuse. True rich people don't pay taxes, to any significant degree. They have accountants and lawyers and investments and lots of write-offs and loopholes - they aren't people that work for a good salary, they are people that have so much money IT supports them.
The people that pay the most taxes, and thus the ones that benefit most from tax cuts, are not rich people - they are upper middle-class people that work for a living at well above average wages. They are usually professionals that have worked their way to the top of their field, senior database analysts, network admins, engineers, etc. Lumping them together with people that never need to work, that make far more money than they are likely to ever even see, simply by sitting on their arse and letting their money work for them, is bizaare and I dare say absurd.
Sure, a guy that makes say, 100-160k/year is better off than the guy flipping burgers - but he's a world away from folks like Buffet, Turner, Gates or Bush. And he's the one shouldering the tax burden - not them.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
STS Problematic (Score:5)
Refurbishing the vehicles can only go so far - the original design was a test and we've never moved beyond it. We've learnt a lot about high-performance hydrogen motors, thermal insulation, airframe requirements, etc. but it's all for naught if none of it is ever applied to a version two.
Limiting the Shuttle fleet to 6 flights a year won't help things much. Sure it's less wear & tear but they're still getting long in the tooth and could be greatly improved on. Unfortunately there's been a requirement for some sort of great-leap-forward when really much of what's required is a simple evolution and refinement.
Much of the basic question of course is why we're in space and what our goals are. I (and yes I'm not alone on this, no need for a poll) believe that there's incredible opportunity there. I also believe that a national program is a good because many of the costs are larger then industry is willing to pay (most of the supposed privatization is pay-us-we'll-do-it-for-you.)
I don't entirely believe the folks that claim privatization is the solution-to-all-problems (Ride British railways lately? Electricity in California?) If commercial space flight truly *is* viable then why aren't more companies investing their own dollars into it and not trying to pry open the public purse?
This seems one of those areas that public investment will yield benefits for everyone, much like hydro projects and managed public lands. Too big & long-term for companies to pursue independently but suited to governments.
I don't see it being too long before we'll be able to 'capture' one of the closer asteroids (presumably one whose orbit brings it near to Earth) and eventually steer it someplace convenient. with it in place as a source of material we'd be able to construct nifty things like cost-effective power satellites and tele-operated mining & refining of materials for use on Earth.
All of this requires however that we have a reasonable means of getting reliably and regularly to at least low Earth orbit and that is slowly slipping through our fingers. We know there's something like a .1% chance of an accident every launch, with only 4 aging orbiters we're putting a lot of eggs in very few baskets.
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
They are against repealing of estate taxes, not tax cuts. Two totally different issues.
Oh, I see... When you were talking about millionairs being stupid, you were only refering to millionairs that were opposed to general tax cuts, not just the repeal of the estate tax? Well, then, I guess all your ranting and raving has nothing to do with this article. The article only talks about rich people opposing the repeal of the estate tax.
By the way, if you want to be taken at all seriously by anyone who isn't a rabid Republican (i.e. most of us), you should get rid of that sig.
------
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
of course bush would be pushing that (Score:2)
(The Bushes, incidentally, are a wealthy, well-connected family with roots in the english monarchy many generations back. Their 'status' predates the formation of the USA.)
--
Money's Just Been Redistributed... (Score:3)
Basically, they decided the technology wasn't there to put all there eggs in one basket (the X-33/Venturestar) and do so some more R&D. This is a smart decision and a Good Thing: pumping money into a project that's ahead of its time is exactly how we got stuck with the Space Shuttle.
(In fact, the SLI budget has actually increased 64% in this budget. More money is actually being spend to develop cheap launching technologies.)
Good article at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0103/01x33/in
Sifting Through The Ambers (Score:2)
I noticed that it is generally in the human nature, to be too short sighted when there seems to be no problem in the short range. It has happened numerous times before in the human history, that actions not taken in their due time had to be corrected (if there was such a possibility) when they became real problems.
In the case of NASA, I think they are making a most severe mistake. The X-33 and X-34 were the first steps to opening the space for the rest of us. I believe that humanity strives towards the stars, and a convenient (read: modern and cheap) shuttle system is crucial for our first step outwards.
Machiavelli compared the actions of a prudent man to an archer. The archer can not be sure that the arrow will descend too much during its flight. And the proper solution is not to discard arrows, but send them a bit higher.
Re:sad sad sad (Score:2)
and private companies were building it -- with government support -- the same way airbus is kicking the shit out of boeing.
the USA is going to stagnate heavily in technology if the best we can do is wait for rich people to spend money on high risk projects. historically, it doesn't work.
Re:Nasa as Pork? (Score:2)
Re:Bush's Ideals (Score:5)
I'm hoping that the Military will atleast get its act together and militarize space properly. We need obiting battlecrusiers. :)
The military is what kicked the airline industry into high gear. Before World War II, the airline industry was struggling to stay afloat transporting a few thousand passengers a year in old biplanes, hoping they didn't crash too often.
After WWII, the airlines got to use all the aircraft technology developed during the war. The first post-war airliners were converted bombers, which were larger, faster and more efficient. The airlines were now capable of the holy grail of Making Money! The military is much more interested in efficient development and use of technology, since the consequences of inefficiency are high (being blown to smithereens.) If the military decided they needed a much larger presence in space (for missile defense for instance,) chances are a cheap launch vehicle would be developed in a hurry. A few years later, the military technology would trickle down to the civilian market and we would have cheap spaceliners.
This almost makes me want a good Cold War style arms race between the U.S. and China, if it weren't for the risk of nuclear Armageddon. If Dubya decides to build a missile defense system, China and Russia would respond by building zillions of ICBMs, which would prompt the US to improve the missile defense, creating a higher demand for space launches, thus necessitating the development of a cheap, reusable, reliable, high-turnaround launch vehicle. Hopefully the civilian market for launches, manned spaceflight and colonization will develop before someone presses the Button.
The effectiveness of NASA (Score:2)
Second, these desicions are made within NASA, and with the cost overrun of the space station, there is just less money to spend on these projects. Why would NASA cut this project? Its simple, the technology has been proven, and in order to make something like this a reallity it will take huge sums of money. When the time comes that NASA needs a new reusable launch vehicle, they will recieve the funding to do it, and it will cost more than expected, just like the shuttle and the space station.
NASA does not like to take on more than one project, and have shown themselves to be best when working towards a finite and defined goal, with little distraction and lots of money.
There is also money in the budget for further development on new technologies, and when the time comes that they are needed, they will be given more funding.
This is how NASA has always worked, regardless of the administration.
More Blind Statistics (Score:5)
Myth: The poor pay most of the taxes in America
Reality: The lower classes in america do not pay any taxes. As you go up, the tax burden goes up.
Just look at the tax cut. The bottom run of the tax scheme goes from 15%->10%, a 33% cut. The top rung goes from 36%->33% about a 9% cut. Further realize that only about ~120 million american's even pay taxes in the first place. The others actually get money back, even though they never paid anything.
Myth: But they just deduct everything.
Reality: Ever heard of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax?)The AMT is an amount that you can not deduct under, and as usual, it is a very high number in the higher brackets.
Here is a good argument about the mostly liberal billionairs that spoke up. [time.com] The wealthy are conservitive, but right now, no changes is a liberal position.
BTW, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are about to loose the JSF. GE did make a bonaza on the air market a few years back, but that's clinton's territory, the defense industry is getting ready for another round of base cuts, and budget cuts (Bush's new money goes to get our millitary people off of food stamps... yes you read that right).
BTW, the Economist [economist.com] has a pretty good write up.
BTW, one of the things that Bush is trying to do is get rid of the hump in the tax code between 20k and 27k where there is strangly a 31% tax, surrounding two 16-16% ranges. Oh... yes.. now I remember why that is there, so the poor stay poor.
As for the rest and the entire argument about "payroll taxes" thoose taxes are social security and medicare, programs that are completly seperate. If you don't like that tax, repeal Social Security
Why should there be a tax cut? The percent of the GDP that is being eaten [whitehouse.gov] is the highest it has ever been.
The thing about tax cuts (Score:2)
First, the lower and even middle class do not have the resources necessary to take advantage of tax laws. How many of you have known someone who barely jumped passed a cutoff for a tax bracket, and ended up with less money than if they had earned less? I had a friend in college who made $4000 less because she earned $2000 more.
So, a tax cut for the lower classes would not make much difference for many people. But how about the rich? Could they take advantage of them? Hell, yeah! The more money you have, the more likely it is you have a full time accountant working for you. That means they can take advantage of all of the best tax dodges - perfectly legally, too, although they don't always stop there. It's fairly simple for a millionaire to be in a low tax bracket, especially after retirement. Remember it's income tax, not bank account tax.
The point is, it doesn't matter for which tax bracket you intend a tax cut, it is for the rich.
Re:Your tax-cut comment illustrates your idiocy (Score:2)
Tim...is this a troll? (Score:2)
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
If you look closely, the loudest opponents of the repeal tend to be of two groups: the very rich (who will now get all their income taxed) or the estate lawers and CPA's associations (who would lose their source of income; namely, helping the very wealthy escape government taxation of their assests). Seems these two groups aren't all that concerned about "meritocracy" after all; they're out to save their own fat paychecks.
Ask the farm family from the midwest whose $1 million farm has to be liquidated after the death of the parents simply to pay off this tax. Double-(or sometimes triple)taxing someone's income just ain't right...
-------------
Public vs. private funding for space exploration (Score:2)
For other fields related to space exploration, such as the development of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Next Generation Space Telescope or the exploration of the outer Solar System, things are a bit different. I find it hard to believe that if NASA were dissolved tomorrow, aerospace companies would be falling all over each other to spend considerable amounts of money to do research. It's not profitable, and that is the paramount concern when a company weighs the merits (and demerits) of a particular venture. Lockheed-Martin is not going to spend millions of dollars to send a vehicle to study the atmosphere of Pluto. Raytheon is not going to spend millions of dollars to develop space-based instruments to study the effect of gamma-ray bursts.
Now, I would submit that these are important areas of study. Many people would disagree. But the end result is that if we want to do these things, we have to fund them publically. There is simply no profitable way that private companies can do these things on their own. The result of this is people that are unhappy about the way that their tax dollars are being spent, and that's fine. I cannot fathom a government that could spend its tax revenues in a manner that is acceptable to every last one of its citizens. The question is whether or not the expenditure is justified.
In the grand scheme of things, NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the entire federal budget, and it is for this reason that I am continually puzzled by those who make NASA their favorite whipping boy when it comes to government waste. If people want to complain about NASA, fine
Now, I am not claiming that NASA can't do things better. There's a lot of red tape that can be cut. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Not all taxes are propotional (Score:2)
Many taxes are not proportionate. The social security taxes are collected primarily from low and middle income people, but these funds are often "borrowed" to pay for other government programs. Property taxes are linear. Sales taxes are linear and often affect rich people less. Use taxes like vehicle registration, fishing permits, park passes are paid mostly by middle class and poor people. Many rich people hire accountants to create tax shelters or divert their funds to non-profit organizations that operate as charities to promote the causes of rich people. Dubaya's daddys rich friends put him in office. This tax cut is for them, the ceos of enron, philip morris and time warner and as a result a larger portion of the tax burden will be shifted to middle and low income people. Rich people are not special people crowned by god, they often got rich because of oportunities they were afforded by living in this nation, because of our system of laws and government infastructure. Its only fair that People who reap the bennifits of our system pay their share.
The worst part about this proposed tax cut is that in the future, when this money could have been used to fix social security and improve education, the poor of our country will be the ones really hurt by this. Bend over america its time to bow down the ruling class.
Thank god dubaya wasnt able to produce a heir to the throne.
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
Repealing this tax promotes freedom as anyone who not wishes to pass their wealth "down the lines" can still do so but others who are not willing to go that way are free to do what they want.
Re:Whoa. (Score:2)
people is because estate taxes are doing
thier job. The high "death tax" was intended
to prevent financial dynasties. People of
all walks of life, including those from wealthy
families, are supposed to have to work, or otherwise make their own fortune. Or at
least their children. Or their grandchildren.
Maybe you're rich enough that your estate, divided among Uncle Sam and all your descendents
down to your grandchildren, will be sufficient that your great grandchildren never have to work.
The whole idea of the estate tax is to make that very uncommon. Unamerican, even.
23% of tax bill, 90% of the wealth (Score:2)
But what you don't say is that the top 1% in this country have 90% of the wealth! The bottom 50% have about 5% of the wealth. So if they're paying 4% of the taxes, then they are paying their fair share easy. And the taxes on the top 1% should be quadrupled.
So sorry, but it is not "fair" that the rich should pay so much less in taxes when they have a greatly disproportionate amount of wealth. It is unfair for all the rest of us.
RIP NASA (Score:3)
Sincerly, the only thing I see from those tons of popular science that you guys gave as "sure" for this time, is the attempt to create the "weapons of the future". No matter the absurd, the danger and the stupidity. Sorry people but I do remember what we had as "promised" by 1975. Masers, lasers, anti-ICBMs and some other stuff was already on study by then, and there were predictions that our damn XXI century would see such weapons. Well, just a little ago
So let's predict what we will see 30 from now...
The remains of ISS rising from a Florida swamp... The budget was to tight to reach the Atlantic and Russia was always cash stripped or Europe din't give a bunch or Japan was to afraid to see falling in the Pacific. Anyway, after so many years the ship was not only fungy but also radioactive. So finally no one will mess with Florida swamps.
A mess of small and useless high-speed rockets for US taxpayers happyness. And to help other taxpayers not to forget their own military.
Shuttleland, the only solution to this piece of technological scrap. Well at least kids will be happy.
A whole trashyard of commercial, subcommercial, protocommercial and ex-commercial satellites. And a few military satellites for commercial purposes (I'm not kidding! That's started to happening now!..). And all debris that come from them.
Man on Space. Man on Space... Man on Space? That's a hoax! And you believed that we got to the Moon? Yeah, and tell me that we reached Mars with space probes...
Star Treck will be a long forgotten series and Star Wars turn to a silly fantasy film. 2001 will just be what it was - some madness from some schizo. Aliens will no longer bother us so we calmly close X-Files and go play basketball.
Bill Gates was born with a million dollars. (Score:3)
Bill gate's father is a well-known family in Seatle. Bill Gate's had a million dollar trust fund before he even went to Harvard. Of course, before he even went to Harvard, he graduated from a prep school (who's tuition was 3x harvard's). His father was, and is ``one of the richest and most prominent lawyers in the state of washington.''
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
If that's not a privileged family, I'm not sure what is.
Mod This Story [-1, Troll] (Score:4)
Not sure whether this is offtopic or a troll, but it's definitely not relevant to NASA. As someone pointed out, NASA got a 3% funding increase this year--the first in 7 years. I fail to see how Bush's tax plan has anything to do with the cancellation of X-33, X-34.
That said, the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics. First of all, really rich (and even some moderately rich) people will be unaffected by the plan. They already dodge estate and income taxes through tax loopholes and offshore investments, etc. I know this because my ex-girlfriend's parents sheltered a good chunk of money in Luxembourg, and now live happily on their yacht without paying any substantial taxes. If they die, no estate tax will touch any of that money. The only thing affected will be their house. In other words, with an estate tax, if you're rich and you want to leave a fortune to your kids, no problem. If you want to bequeath your farm or family home, tough luck.
So who does benefit from the tax cut? The middle class, primarily, especially professionals earning in the $50K - $150K range. Lower income people do benefit, too, just not as much.
Finally, I suggest you study the Laffer Curve [vistech.net] to see why tax cuts can actually increase net tax revenue, as they did during the Reagan years. "What?" the liberals shriek, "the deficit increased during the 80's!" Yes, but that's because spending drastically increased. Tax revenues actually increased in response to tax cuts, just not enough to keep up with spending (Reagan poured tons of money into the military in an effort to win the Cold War). Look up the stats if you don't believe me.
Re:The future? (Score:3)
i think you have it backwards. the public isn't interested because we haven't done anything worth being interested in.
My .02,
Re:An increase is a cut????? (Score:4)
NASA, you ignorant slut! The Delta Clipper... (Score:3)
There seems to be a recurring theme in high technology where an already-existing, simple solution that solves annoying problem is passed over for the promise of some ridiculously complex and grandiose scheme that never materializes.
Re:Migration to space not an option (Score:2)
Your retoric shows yours. (Score:3)
Why that would be those who get subsidized heating oil, food stamps, and diapers for their little brats they shouldn't have had because they knew they couldn't afford them. Based on the amount paid in vs. benefits recieved the lazy, unproductive leaches of society (i.e. the unworking poor) are certainly the biggest beneficiaries.
dividends and increased share prices, which are already taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
BZZT! wrong! 'Capital gains' is taxed at 20%, thats' after the corporation pay's its tax rate of 36%, an effective tax rate of ~50%
When will people like you realize that punishing the productive of society (i.e. the rich) while rewarding the unproductive (i.e. the poor) taken to it's logical conclusion results in a society where everyone is unproductive and society crumbles.
Get a fucking job like the rest of us busting our asses to get ahead.
-- Greg
Nasa as Pork? (Score:4)
I expect a number of people will be distressed at this. I am not. The Space Station was an ill-designed nightmare. The US space program desperately needs on-orbit assembly capability. To do that we need space suits that don't require pre-breathing before use. NASA has known this for 20 years, and has had such suit designs available since 1980. I have a signature in my log book of a NASA test subject in a 12 psi above ambient suit, signed after about 6 hours in it, attesting to general comfort. Of course he was a 22 year old rigger not a 45 year old Ph.D. which is what NASA sends up. The whole manned space program is a shambles because we don't have decent suits.
Without on orbit assembly capability -- I mean real work in space done by riggers who can do a day's work -- things have to be pre-assembled and taken up in big chunks, which means shuttle which means a BILLION DOLLARS A FLIGHT for 50,000 pounds or so. What we need is 20 million a flight for 10,000 pounds and that would be achievable but "there is no urgent need for that" because -- well because the stupid space station ate it all. The shuttle and the space station ate the dream. Make no mistake about that. Those monsters need to GO and be replaced by smaller, operations driven, flexible re-usable designs.
- - -
In 1989 Gen. Daniel Graham, Max Hunter, and Jerry Pournelle went to then Chairman of the National Space Council VP Dan Quayle and persuaded him to start a small reusable rocket program. That became the DC/X and the concept was proved with 11 successful USAF flights before NASA took it over and destroyed in on the first flight, thus eliminating any threat to the Shuttle.
A fuller discussion of all of this by the same author is found here [jerrypournelle.com], entitled "Why Have NASA?"
But the bottom line is that NASA has gone the way of the boondoggle, and may in fact be committed to a body of technology that is in fact stopping us from getting the show on the road.
Gee, but this sounds very familiar in a slightly different context.
Understand, I want them to get going, and do it right. But are they going about it all wrong?
Re:Damn right -- it should be cancelled (Score:3)
As someone who has myself worked on government contracts, I can say I've seen companies screw up royally and then turn around and get the next contract to fix it. In the space business, this is especially a problem because there are so few companies with the necessary qualifications to perform the work.
But it goes even further than that. There are indeed incentives within a government contract situation to do the job "right." There are also disincentives and waste (most of them motivated by politics.) The question is, with those incentives and disincentives, does the federal government on balance do a better job than the private sector does (or would). Look at the astounding successes of the private development of early airplane technology and the relative lack of success of government funded space technology for your answer. The government had the ability to send an airplane into suborbital space over thirty-five years ago (X-15), and now can't duplicate that even with a multi-billion dollar budget.
At any rate, it just irks me when people (not you) try to portray NASA as some sort of Cash Black Hole where the taxpayers' money is sucked in, never to be seen again. The majority of that money is pumped right back out into the private sector.
And if the program were cancelled and taxes reduced accordingly, all of the money would be in the private sector, not just "a majority" of it.
Re:23% of tax bill, 90% of the wealth (Score:2)
So if I give up my tax cut.... (Score:2)
Post your flip comments about people choosing a tax cut over a NASA program when I actually get some sort of CHOICE over where my money goes.
I don't see anybody on either side of the asile giving a shit about any space programs right now, they're too damn busy pandering and handing out entitlements. Even if they kept my tax cut, they give it to someone else, not to NASA.
Re:Public vs. private funding for space exploratio (Score:2)
Who pays the one billion dollars?
Or, more succinctly: how is this (conceptually) any different than a government contract?
Re:Whoa(Offtopic, Redundant, Generally antisocial) (Score:2)
Clinton was a wiz at garnering soft money contributions. The Law was passed in 91, he was elected in 92. What else can you say he was a natural. :)
Clinton is the symtom, (not that that obsolves him) soft money is cause. He was just shead of his time
Wave goodbye to the last non-bought politicians. A few more elections and there won't be any non-corrupt politicians left.
I can't wait for nanotech (point out Moores law to people.) in this level of corruption. Well maybe they will think I am smart and not low level format my brain (yea right)
Until Soft money is stopped NOTHING WILL CHANGE! EVERYTHING COMES BACK TO SOFT MONEY!!
If Jesse Ventura(sic?)reruns for Govenor of Minn in 2 years he won't take any monetery contributions. His logic is the prior 4 years are his resume. Do you think Bush or any of the incumbant republicrats can or will say that. Na nobodys that nieve.
Don't blame me I voted for Nader (in NY)
This was test and only a test, if it were a real rant people would listen, get really pisssed of and do somthing about it.
Re:Your tax-cut comment illustrates your idiocy (Score:2)
Once a majority of the public is recieving government handouts and paying no taxes, they're in the pockets of the politicians and lobbyists, and they'll start passing corporate/government control stuff that makes DMCA look tame. There's a very important reason the US was not designed to be a democracy (it's a representative republic), and it's being subverted as we speak.
NOBODY SHOULD GET ANY CUTS! (Score:2)
Re:The thing about tax cuts (Score:2)
You are a moron.
When you jump past a tax bracket boundary, there is NO FUCKING WAY you are going to make less. You see, only the income above the boundary is taxed at the higher rate. Thus you will always get some portion of every marginal dollar regardless if your income is 10,000/year or 250,000/year.
Example: You make $50,000 and pay $10,000 in taxes (a 20% rate). You get a one-dollar raise which brings you to $50,001, putting you in the 50% bracket. Your new tax bill is $10,000.50.
This is just another example of why you should never believe anything that starts with "I had a friend in college that..."
One more thing .. (Score:2)
I wouldn't say this. NASA has had some well-publicized failures, but how quickly we forget July 4, 1997. The Pathfinder Mars mission was an incredible success, far exceeding the mission parameters and expectations, and it came at a price tag that was a minute fraction of the tremendous cost of the 1970s Viking missions. Humans fuck up from time to time, and because NASA is run by humans, NASA fucks up from time to time. But please
Re:Not to mention Church as a Non-Profit Org. (Score:2)
Brav-O. Fascinating response.
But... actually, he's right about the intent of the fraimers, AFAIK. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, though, considering the body of case law that over the years has given us the "liberal myth" that most subscribe to today.
Hey...maybe I can start my own church for tax purposes.
Perhaps so. Let us know how it goes.
--
Re:Your tax-cut comment illustrates your idiocy (Score:2)
"The top 1% in this country pay 23% of the federal tax bill." Which is neat trick considering that the top 1% of the country control 38% [thestandard.com] of the wealth. (Other sources cite similar or larger numbers, it's admittedly a hard number to measure.) So, when are the rich going to pay their fair share?
Without NASA... (Score:3)
But cutting their budget won't help at all. Higher government has to allow spaceflight without consulting NASA, which has become a hideously bloated incompetent bureaucracy which barely manages a handful of projects through gratuitous spending. Cutting the budget without removing them will only hurt the handful of projects they do manage.
If you have any doubts about NASA, look at the shuttle. Look at it's original purpose as an experimental vehicle, and look how they've ignored the data it brought in and its lousy performance and how they've made it their main launch vehicle.
---
Re:STS Problematic (Score:2)
There are the usual government regulations about not putting up things like other nation's spysats & weapons & preventing technology transfers but there's nothing preventing you from going & launching your own vehicle provided you get all the proper paperwork signed (again mostly safety & export regs.)
Indeed there's a number of groups (rapidly dwindling) competing for a series of prizes regaring different types of launches.
As to the US Government protecting some sort of NASA monopoly no, that's not the case either.
NASA has pretty much gotten out of the launch-for-hire business for other gov't departments and indeed doesn't even always launch it's own missions when private industry is cost-effective.
I'm dissapointed in how the system is currently structured, yes. NASA has always been in a quandry due to it's untenable status. It's funding is completely at the whim of each administration and subject to a great deal of external manipulation & "adjustment".
On the other hand as I noted I don't see any supposed "privitization" being preferable. Already many STS services are privately managed yet there seems little cost savings.
Is this odd? No - I don't think going to an extreme, particularly an extreme I consider an innapropriate response to be the optimal solution. Rather I see changing the status of NASA or some successor agency to a more stable one with a more reliable budget as being an answer.
Tell me, do you find it odd that you assert falsehoods, competely disregard the point of much of my posting then misrepresent my position ?
Fix space program ... or else. (Score:3)
On Wednesday, a nation on Earth slashed its space program, gutting the Pluto, Solar Probe, and X-33 programs.
In retaliation, we have destroyed one of their cities.
Reinstate the space program, or we will be forced to destroy one city per week.
Klaatu barata nikto.
Re:23% of tax bill, 90% of the wealth (Score:2)
The top 5% in america make more then 140k per year, and the top 20% make 80k a year. Thoose people pay ~75% of the taxes. Remeber, that is just income.
Then factor in Capital Gains. Heh.
Re:STS Problematic (Score:2)
Aside from that your posting is primarily a political screed - it's fine as such but I don't see any need to elaborate upon it other then "I disagree". I disagree with both your political & your economic analysis.
However I do appreciate The Economist.
No, it didn't. (Score:3)
However, I don't think it even broke the sound barrier; the DC-X was a tiny rocket compared to the Delta Clipper design. The DC-Y was the proposed suborbital follow on, which got beaten by Lockheed Martin's "gee whiz" design for the X-33 contract (you'll notice I'm not arguing with your "NASA == ignorant slut" assertion), and the Delta Clipper was the orbital rocket that would have been built with the lessons learned from DC-Y. The Delta Clipper never got past the initial design proposal phase. In fact, the company proposing Delta Clipper got merged into Boeing shortly thereafter; don't expect to hear anything about it again.
Bringing together the US as a nation (Score:3)
Apart from the Declaration and War of Independence, you mean? :)
Re:Rich? (Score:2)
It's not "the richest 1%" it's "the top 1% of wage-earners." There is a big difference.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
Re:Hollywood elite = Warren Buffett? (Score:2)
It was said earlier, Buffett makes a good deal of money from his Insurance company holdings. Insurance companies that sell 'estate tax insurance'. Thus very obvious reasons for him to oppose the end to the estate tax. No?
Re:Estate Tax and the Space Shuttle Are Stupid (Score:2)
On the contrary, he's smart -- smart enough to wrap his cynical motives (attempting to squelch rising competition from the next lower class, which in his case is the million-, as opposed to billion-, aire) in Mom and flag and apple pie.
As you say, Buffet (and the other really rich) can cloak their assets fairly easily. The people a few steps down the totem pole are millionaires on paper, but have most of their assets tied up in businesses, land, etc, which will get the anal probe as the owner assumes ambient temperature.
/.
Re:this is really bringing me down (Score:2)
Re:X-33 Fiasco: A little history. (Score:5)
Now, the X-33 (I forget LM's moniker pre-approval) could glide back into earth, had craploads of power to get to orbit, and if successful, the technologies that would have been developed around it, would have revolutionized space travel (the aerospike engine would be enough).
The curse of the X-33 was those damn cryogenic tanks and that old foe of aero engineers: center of gravity. The X-33 is basically a triangle, with a CG at about 2/3 of the way back. Now, if those cryo tanks need to work, they need to be big and strong. And where can you fit big, heavy tanks? in the back of the plane of course, which will cause the CG to move even further back, say 70-75% of the fuselage length. That's, for all intents and purposes, unflyable.
However, the X-33 did develop some kick-ass new thermal tiles, it proved the concept of the aerospike engine and it will still give us great technology for the next generation of spacecraft. What was basically disproven (and it was its demise) was lifting-body spacecraft (that CG thing again).
My guess: Rockwell's entry to the old X-33 competition, which was basically an updated Space Shuttle, would have been the prudent, conservative choice. If that idea is combined with what NASA can salvage from the X-33 technologies (aerospike, monocoque design, thermal tiles) the 3rd generation (in effect) shuttle will simply kick ass.
The future? (Score:4)
I believe that most people (excluding /.) are not as interested in space anymore. Granted, there are those who salivate over the idea of mining asteroids and getting rich, but the general public really doesn't give a hoot about space. Space used to be a nationalistic thing. The moon landing (which did occur) is probably the one thing that really brought together the US as one nation. Since then, there's been interest in space, but it has been dwindling. Truly, there haven't been any large media events attributed to space, with the exception of the International Space Station.
But go out into the general public (which doesn't include /.) and I'll be you that there'll be more than one person who believes that tax dollars would be better spent on education and civil services than on space.
The government does have some business in space, but as of late, there have been a large number of private corporations that, I believe, will take over getting people and things into space and onto other celestial bodies. The government already depends on private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin), and it very well may relinquish its space influence to legislation.
However, I am all for space exploration, because once we kill Earth off with the various negative global influences, we're going to have to find somewhere else to live.
Commercial space flight: one data point (Score:3)
This article [dallasobserver.com] from the Dallas Observer tells the story of Beal Aerospace. Billionaire founder Andy Beal put about $200M of his own money into creating a private launch services company. Warning: it's not a happy story.
Read the Damn Article (Score:4)
From the article:
The decision to terminate both X-33 and X-34 were made internally by NASA and were not a White House decision, Stephenson said.
Just because you don't like the current administration doesnt mean that they are the root of all things evil, hell NASA just got its first budget increase in 7 Years. They felt that the funding nessecarry to fix what was obviously a flawed design from the beginning, could be put to better use on other projects.
NASA should be applauded for wanting to put thier funds where it could be more effective instead of throwing money at a project that doesn't work.
Re:Whoa. (Score:3)
The problem with the Estate Tax, as I see it at least, is that it really bites farmers and ranch owners in the arse if they don't prepare well enough before their deaths. They don't have the large cash reserves to pay for ingenious little accountants like the "biggies" such as WillyG do.
Keeping the estate tax is one thing, but making it fair for cash poor, hard working people and towards the uber-rich people it is supposed to affect is something that needs to be done if it is to stay.
====
If all comedy comes out of tragedy, let the killing begin...
'Rich People' & Tax Cuts (Score:5)
So who is this mighty Timothy who deigns us with his apparently oh-so-correct opinion? Is it fair the wealthy pay more % in tax then you? Why? For what earthly reason? Or are we simply assuming they deserve to pay more simply because they must have obtained it through some improper means?
I come from a farm background, and if you look at the balance sheet (including assets) we would probably be classified as 'wealthy' to you. Does that mean it's fair we have to fork over 70% of those assets to the government if my father dies? Is it fair we are paying ~45%+ in taxes compared to your measly ~33%?
I seriously suggest you go somewhere and take your foot out of your ass.. and while you're there consider what actually makes our capitalist sociecty (in the US) actually work. If you continue to punish the wealthy you will stifly any true progress in this country (I would dare say we see some of that currently).
OBPotshot: Go tell Linus he owes more taxes. Doubt he'll give you a peck on the cheek.
.. but I'm only a dumb hick, so what do I know, right?
Re:Damn right -- it should be cancelled (Score:4)
Maybe it's not so bad... (Score:3)
What actually happened today was that NASA refused to add funds to the sinking program from the Space Launch Initiative, which is intended to actually develop viable launch options for the future. There's more in the NASA press release at spaceref.com [spaceref.com]. NASA intends to spend 900+ million over the next couple of years on access to space--that hardly sounds like they are giving up. I suspect that they can find more promising projects to fund than X-33. Of course, there are probably more wasteful ones, as well...
An increase is a cut????? (Score:4)
"The overall budget request is $14 billion, up from the $13.6 billion NASA got last year -- the first increase for the agency in seven years."
See!!! It's an increase, not a cut. Someone needs to go back to school and learn math. Not only is it an increase, it's the first one in 7 YEARS!!!!
But Nasa realized that they need to do a better job of spending their money, so they axed programs that were going nowhere fast.
Re:Damn right -- it should be cancelled (Score:3)
Are you aware that the vast majority of the work done for NASA missions is done by private contractors (i.e., Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.)?
Re:You Forget... (Score:3)
The fact that we've never bothered to return to the moon begs the question of whether there was ever a practical reason for going there in the first place. "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard." It's hard to say if the world is any different because Kennedy uttered those words, but I think it is in ways we utterly take for granted.
Environmentalism; human rights; political union; free trade; the fall of totalitarianism. These are all trends which existed before the space race, but for better or worse needed a fundamental change in the way we view ourselves. The kind of perspective you get by looking at your planet a big blue marble from a qurter of a million miles away.
I also think it is very significant that the US did not claim the Moon territorially in the colonial tradition. Like all acts of great leadership, the moon program worked on many levels: science for the scientists, technology spinoffs for industry, basic research for the military, national pride and dominance for the chauvanists, elevated spirit for the idealists, and a message of transcendence of petty national interest for our allies.
Re:You are correct overall, but wrong on this deta (Score:3)
And that final tally includes all of the Gore votes manufactured by the Democratic canvassing boards.
Re:Damn right -- it should be cancelled (Score:4)
Well, speaking as a private contractor that works very closely with NASA, I can assure you that there is plenty of incentive to "make the thing work right." Beyond the ordinary professional pride, there's also this whole issue about bungling contractors having little chance to get future contracts.
At any rate, it just irks me when people (not you) try to portray NASA as some sort of Cash Black Hole where the taxpayers' money is sucked in, never to be seen again. The majority of that money is pumped right back out into the private sector.
Re:It's not just space... (Score:4)
Ignorant? Why you dad-blasted commie sumbitch faggit! We 'merkans aren't ignorant. We knew enough to come over here and kick the injuns off our God-given land (otta send 'em all back to Africa if you ask me!), and kicked the English off our God-given land (and whooped 'em again in Dubya Dubya 2!) and created the greatest nation in the world. If yer so dern smart, how comes Eye-re-land is still owned by the Russkies!?
Ignorant? That's the dern stoopidest thing I heard since Canada became a state. You otta stay in Eye-re-land with all those other commie pinkos and sit and eat weener schnitzel and surrender to Germans or whatever it is you do over in that sissy part of the world with yer pronography and yer wimmen with hairy armpits and eatin' snails and whatever.
Ignorant? It's a good thing you ain't here, 'cos me a Smith and Wesson got a few words for people like you. At least in 'merka we don't have no sissy king or queen or whatever. We got President Dubya, a real man with real principials and integruity... and if you don't like it we can just shove a noo-cyoo-lar missile up your nose like we shooda done to Saddom an' Kadoffy an' Hitler an' Krooshef an' George III....
Re:The future? (Score:3)
Well, with the X-33 program (VentureStar), NASA got shafted (to put it nicely) by Lockheed-Martin (IIRC, this was the contractor). They approached NASA, hat-in-hand for $900 million, for which they would provide a reusable shuttle that would cut cost-to-orbit by an order of magnitude. This vehicle would use the Aerospike engine and composite fuel tanks to keep vehicle weight down.
This was initiated by the then-CEO of Lockheed-Martin. He also informed NASA that any cost-overruns on the program would be eaten by his company.
Well, not long after that, he retired, and was replaced by a new CEO, who thought that VentureStar was a BadIdea(tm). He decided that if it went over $900 million, that Lockheed-Martin would have to go back on its word as a corporation and ask for more funding from NASA. Which is exactly what happened.
Furthermore, the continual failures of composite fuel tanks forced LM to return to old-style aluminum ones, which jacked the vehicle's dry-weight up, and put them right back where they started.
Clearly, the big aerospace firms regard NASA as a form of corporate welfare. They get some money, they go to work, come up against something, have to quit working, and come back for more money.
It used to be that when the government needed something, they would specify their needs in a document, say "this is what we'll pay, and you can keep any profit you can make." This is how it was done in World War II when new aircraft were needed. This is how it should *always be done* -- but it's not. In the space program, it's the contractor telling the client what they need and not the other way around. This is why a company like Rockwell gets the contract for the Space Shuttle (they were left out of the Apollo program, and this was done to soothe burned egos), and delivered a poorly-realized, over-engineered piece of shit.
If this sort of thinking continues, then there is no future in space exploration, manned or otherwise.
----------------------------------------
Yo soy El Fontosaurus Grande!
Re: NASA, The Constitution, and Tax Cuts (Score:3)
Yes, NASA faces budget cuts. NASA is illegal. It shouldn't have a budgegt AT ALL.
Of course, the legality of NASA clearly has nothing to do with its budget. And the word you're looking for is "unconstitutional", not "illegal".
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 [nasa.gov] justifies the establishment of NASA by stating "The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities."
The Congress was given by the Constitution [cornell.edu] "Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
The tenth amendment [cornell.edu] does not abridge that power.
Here's a transcript of an excellent panel discussion [federalismproject.org] on the concept of federalism, states' rights, and the enumerated powers doctrine; with such gems as:
and and and perhaps most to the point: Here's some notes on the enumerated powers doctrine [findlaw.com].--
Re:Whoa. (Score:3)
And - most of these folks aren't even paying the death tax. They can afford a $1M/y accountant to structure their affairs so that they don't pay a cent.
If Warren Buffett and the other signatories believe it's moral to pay half their net worth to Uncle Sam when they die, they will retain every right to do so whether the death tax is repealed or not -- the IRS will be happy to accept a check from their estates.
As for me and my house, we'd prefer to keep what we managed to purchase (with after-tax dollars, no less!) during our lives, and pass those assets down to our heirs.
For those who don't have kids and don't want any - given the probability that you'll outlive your parents... have you considered naming the EFF or FSF as beneficiaries?
Or to get us back on topic -- how about The Planetary Society [planetary.org]?
This is a GOOD THING. (Score:3)
The cancelation of the X-33 and X-34 doesn't mean the projects were a failure! The amount of data and experience gained on these two project is very large. Hard to measure even.
Remember these are X planes. They are experimental. The goal in these programs is not necesarily to produce a production ready space/aircraft (that's what the next phase called EMD is for.) These were essentially research programs. People throught that the technology and processes to develop this type of spaceplane (in the X-33s case) existed and were solid, but they were not entirely correct. If you recall they had gotten to the point where the original fuel tank design had to be scrapped, they were now carryin fuel in what was originally the cargo space and hauling payloads in external pods, etc. It was turning into a kludge. (IMHO anyway.)
Canceling this program now is good because it means that someone higher up in the management food chain recognizes that continuing at this point would cost more than starting over. They realize that some of their base assumptions for the project are wrong, and think that now they know enough to rethink it and do it right. This must have been a hard decision to make, but I think it was the right one.
In summary, don't think of this as the end of the effort to produce this type of spacecraft, just a slight dip in the slope of the learning curve. (Errr
Sigh. Must now return to doing "real" work. The horror.