NASA In Financial Trouble 259
JoeGee writes "And it's not the Russian Space Agency. According to the Associated Press, as reported on Yahoo, NASA is looking at 4 billion US dollars worth of budget over-runs through 2006. This isn't surprising, considering the lack of budget increases, and the continued financial pressure.
Its not just budget cuts (Score:3)
NASA Travel Inc. (Score:3)
Poor NASA (Score:5)
I'm abivalent... (Score:3)
On the other hand, do we really want corporations in charge of space research?
Lawyer 1: Oh, I'm sorry. You can't launch a ramjet spacecraft because we've patented the math you need to achieve orbit.
Lawyer 2: Yeah? Well your Ion booster-jets are based on our technology. We'll raise our rates so that we can afford to sue you.
Lawyer 3: Well you're all screwed because my company has patented any spaceflight using vehicles constructed on the ground or in orbit.
Ummm... (Score:2)
For comparison... (Score:3)
The US spends about 1 billion dollars per day on the military. That's what some drunk guy in a bar once told me, and that's a pretty good source.
Yet another example... (Score:2)
If something doesn't profit right away, AXE it, cut it, or just leave it to stagnate.
Vision is dead.
Screw 3...
'waste of money' ... riiiiight.... (Score:5)
Basic Math... (Score:5)
That just happends to be about how much more money I will see every 2 weeks in my pay check after the "tax break"
I can do without the money if it means human curosity can not be fullfilled....
Space Tourism... (Score:2)
Re:Tax rebate? (Score:4)
Why dont you complain to the people who allocate the money, ie: your congressmen. Bush tells them what he wants, and eventually signs the bill, but they have the opportunity to control and the policy.
Time to go back to the drawing board.... (Score:2)
1. Cut yourself back to two launches a year
2. On each of those launches have at least 1 paid tourist. Instead of having this person pay directly for the trip, have the price of their trip go directly into the coffers of lobbyists to work Congress and the public on your behalf.
3. Spend the next 10 years putting all the money you saved from those launches into R&D. Focus on Single-Stage-to-Orbit and a Manned Mars Mission. These things will save you.
4. Once you put a man on Mars, you're golden, untouchable. Use the momentum gained from that to put us off this single solitary pinprick of a planet forever.
Not surprising.. Bush is a control freak! (Score:5)
Remember that Bush is demanding accurate accounting from the Pentagon now about its needs for the year- it won't budget deliberately expecting supplementary spending bills in the middle of the year. Every agency, including NASA, will have to have tight budgets from here on in.
This is a manner of managerial control; without secret expenditures, there can be no secret activity with government money. The same applies to NASA
Nasa's unprecedented reporting of its true budgetary situation fits clearly into political context here. It's jumping the gun with full financial disclosure as well as pressuring congresspeople and scientists who support it to raise more money for next fiscal year, even if it has to function under a tighter accounting.
Of course, this may be the start of more privatization of space. NASA can do much more with private money than it can with public money. Remember a lot of the funds in Iran-contra affair were originally private money.
Not Russia or Cuts (Score:3)
If you read what scientists could have done in terms of real science it'd make you cry.
Then NASA claims Tito can't visit because of safety concerns, concerns cause by, guess what, their unwillingness to train him for two days because they deceided at the last minute they needed to be re-imbursed training costs. Did they think he wouldn't pay? A naked ploy to keep him off the station, which not only backfired, but damaged whatever remaining reputation they had for honesty. They should have said, "We are not going to train you so that we can say it's too dangerous for you to go." instead of coming up with reams of BS.
Money that in 5 years NASA has flopped on this issue totally.
With the ISS, what makes it worse is that NASA has been blaming the russians, when the delay allowed them to catch some HUGE problems, including a return to earth problem with the gear they were sending up. Mix in the most attrocious budget forcasting imaginable, stir in a touch of arrogance and redacted astronought logs, and spit out giant boondogles.
Of course, all this will luke puny when compares to the fortunes spent persuing technicially infeasible missle defense systems.
Closing the Washington Monument? (Score:3)
This strategy to meet President Bush (news - web sites)'s budget would limit the international space station to a crew of three, its current number, rather than the intended six or seven. That would drastically curtail research aboard a laboratory described by NASA as the most sophisticated one ever flown.
Isn't this like the National Park Service's threats to close the Washington Monument in case of budget cuts? Target the most politically popular programs first, so Congress will restore all the money, instead of cutting less important stuff.
Of course, I would think they should cut back ISS as far as possible and use the savings for more unmanned missions around the solar system. But manned flight is popular, so we keep sending 'em up there to do that oh-so-valuable zero-gravity research.
Mars (Score:2)
First you built a space station, then you built a permanent station on the Moon, and finally you can shoot for Mars.
Guess what. The lunar program just went directly to the Moon, without stopping at an expansive space station.
There are some similar project concerning Mars, but the space station eats of lot of money, so there's any left for such "farfetched" programs.
Even if it can be argued that the scientific fallouts of a Mars program and of the space station station are roughly equivalent, going to Mars is still a lot more exciting (read good PR) than this "just above our heads" station.
Just out of curiosity... (Score:2)
Re:Nasa in Financial Trouble, Send Citizens to spa (Score:2)
Maybe this means that NASA will look into sending citizens into space now
That would be stupid. The total price of the trip (when including its part of the fixed costs) is much more than what he paid. Since these fixed costs have been paid, NASA needs to get as much research and testing done as possible for this money. Space Tourism the Tito way is not the way to go.
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:5)
One problem is that it isn't as easy to answer the "What's the point?" question as it is for funding for life sciences research like fighting cancer, a vaccine for HIV, etc.
Why explore Mars? Personally I haven't a clue. Why try to find a cure for cancer? Because I might get it. When political pollsters get the mood of people I think Space Research is near the bottom of the list.
Another Unit Mishap? (Score:2)
----------------------------------------
Re:US Space Policy (Score:2)
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the former USSR (and present-day, Russia) has had exactly one casualty during a space flight. They are horribly underfunded, and lack a strong central government, like the USians have, but they've been far more successful in their space program.
What does this mean? Well, I'd say that throwing money at something doesn't always make it work. You could also say that Americans are lazy and lack the strong work ethic needed to overcome adversity. Additional funding will not solve NASA's problems.
Re:Maybe instead of building... (Score:3)
The NSA has similar issues in that irregardless of Echalon, they still need skilled analysts to interpret the information, computer filters notwithstanding. Could you perform a vegetation cover auto-correlation with the spatial extent and connectivity of basin drainage? If so, volunteer your computer and expertise.
LL
ummm.... (Score:2)
Passengers Would Easily Pay That (Score:2)
The problem with NASA is that it's a juggernaut. It uses outdated technologies and procedures, and has a spending mentality that goes back to the sixties. Instead of trying to be tight and practical, they're asking for vast quantities of money to throw at poorly-realized projects.
They need to take a lesson from Aerospace corporations who have learned the hard way to slim down their operations and work more efficiently.
Nasa Boondoggles (Score:2)
The end result is that alot of alternatives to payload launchers, etc have been scrapped over the years.
Thus the primary mission of Nasa is to cover their butts and protect their jobs. Then to get something done.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Taxpayers In Financial Trouble (Score:2)
Re:Maybe they should ask for donations? (Score:2)
Bike enthusiasts could send last year's titanium frames.
And if you've got any hydrazine left over from the 4th of July, I'm sure NASA would take it. (Be careful how you ship it though, it's kinda unstable in the back of a UPS truck.)
Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:5)
Fact: Good engineering is EXPENSIVE. Building, testing, and operating a manned spacecraft is a tad more complex than writing a perl script or configuring a linux kernel.
Add to those pressures a dwindling budget (a fraction of what it was during the Apollo era) and very little public support, even from those who would present themselves as forward-thinking technical types, and I'm frankly surprised that NASA's track record in the 1990s was as good as it was.
Alas, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that modern American culture is probably incapable of supporting a serious and useful space program, and I can only hope that I am still alive, and useful, when other nations get their act together to pick up where we left off.
:Michael
Re:Basic Math... (Score:3)
We, in the US, live in a constitutional federal representative republic where every issue (whether it be constitutional, budgetary, envriomental, et al) is decided on some form of majority (50%+1, 60%-Philibuster, 66%). In that that kind of system, at least one person will always be "forced" to spend their tax dollars on something they don't want. My opinion, no matter how stupid you may think it is, matters and if I belong to the majority then you, sir, are shit out of luck.
Re:Closing the Washington Monument? (Score:5)
Working on government dollars, I really feel for NASA's plight.
Despite their desire to "Just Do Good Space Science", their money originates from a political process that is subject to the kind of vicissitudes that would make your stomach feel like its been stapled to a pig carcass in the hot sun. The higher ups in NASA that have to deal with congressional funding authorities are worth every penny you pay them.
I recall many bright idealistic astronomers and physicists from school that I wish could really contribute to the agenda of what they get to work on at NASA.
Imagine getting the ideas of what to do from the bottom up instead of the top down. What a concept!
I know, I know, the public wants bread and circus, so we'll just end up funding whatever contributes to those ends (emotion-ridden manned missions with entertainment value), but allow me to fantasize for a few seconds...
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:2)
-= rei =-
P.S. - I just have to add this - this time, its not the fault of the company I work for that NASA is over budget!!!
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:2)
Given that this is the "Now The Hendersons Have The Bomb" age, thanks to Russian nonchalance towards nonproliferation, we pretty much have a choice between strategic defense or massively building up the nuclear arsenal or surrender.
Communism fell, but everyone forgot to tell the Russians.
Maybe Star Wars will give us a real launcher program. SDIO was the last group working on one, before Clinton killed the group and turned over the launcher to NASA for strangulation and burial.
Space, budget concerns, etc. (Score:3)
Now that group of children have grown up, and as adults, have come to accept space travel as the norm. Nothing special about it, why spend money on it? There arent any more hyped-up goals. There really hasn't been. Closest thing in recent times was the hubble, and most people were too short-sighted to see the benefits of such a device. The IIS isnt generating the kinds of emotions from the public NASA should be looking for.
IMHO, what i think would be nice, to rekindle the "spirt" of the space program - go back to the moon. Go to mars. Send a human bean somewhere beyond the van allen belts, once again. The world has no more great adventures.
Maybe when the children and teenagers of the computer age reach their 30's and 40's, some of their knowledge and wonder generated by their youths will inspire them to create new adventures, and NOT be concerned with the financial aspects of every little thing.
I do agree though with those that say nasa is absorbing a lot of tax dollars - but so is the military (arguably). So are government employee overhead. I bet they all put premium unleaded in their lawnmowers, golf carts, and 400HP marital aids. Space is just one of several budget concerns, but it seems to be the one that always gets the most heat from the public, perhaps since its probably one of the newest broad-categorys of expense, and still considered "newfangled" by 50-something year old people who use GPS mapping, cell phones, satellite television, etc, etc, etc.
Slashdot something useful. [thehungersite.com]
Management is not a tunable parameter.
Re:From the What Did You Expect Department (Score:2)
-= rei =-
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:2)
Probably because NASA is a bloated bureaucracy living on it's reputation from the Apollo era. Most of NASA's budget now goes to maintaining an old and overly complicated space launch vehicle and a shiny new gold-plated toy space station. They finally killed NASA's idea of "low-cost" space access, the X-33, which blew through 6 years and 1.5 billion dollars with almost nothing to show for it.
Yep, I think you'll find most slashdotters support space engineering, science, and research; but NASA sometimes seems more of a high-tech jobs program than a serious force for the advancement of space research.
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:5)
NASA can easily solve their problems (Score:2)
--
apologies: misread as $970 million (Score:2)
And a big *ppbbffttt* to the moderators who don't have more constructive uses for their points than to mark me down. You make what is obviously a mistake and you get slammed. Geesh.
tokengeekgrrl
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Do you, perchance, have stats to back that up?
"Besides which, just because the majority wants something doesn't mean the government should fund it. The majority of the population may like the
Simpsons, but that doesn't mean the government should start sending Fox money."
Of course not. There's interest in the private sector for that. The private sector can't afford to fund things like basic research, etc.
"That kind of thinking is exactly what allowed slavery, or Nazism.Because most people hate Jews/blacks/immigrants/whatever, we have the right to kill or imprison them. Well, asshole, you're wrong."
First off, my commendations on keeping the tone of your post level and not resulting to Goedel's law correlaries
Secondly, while that thinking isn't what established slavery, it is what banned them - on a national level. For all the "leave it to the states, counties, cities, etc" people, this is the reason why not everything is left to the states, OOC. Even in this day in age, some people in the US still support slavery.
-= rei =-
NASA is money (Score:2)
I don't think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Neither side is championing space exploration or more NASA funding in anything other than a token way.
Space exploration really isn't a priority for congress. What is a priority is getting as many government projects for your home state as possible, this is the reason NASA is still in business. NASA has made it a point to spread their contracts all over this nation so that a large number of senators and representatives are benefiting politically. So while no one seems to care what NASA actually accomplishes in space, they care very much what NASA spends here on Earth.
The side effect is that without widespread public support, NASA is just another government program looking to get cut. I wonder how bad of a thing these cuts will be, a drop in budget could cause NASA to stop playing the political game and just focus on unmanned research. I'm all for manned space exploration but there's got to be a better way...
Well allow me to retort! (Score:2)
You forgot three who died on the pad with Apollo 7. The loss of Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee hit hard. That's the American side.
On the Soviet side, you missed no fewer than 170 deaths:
Komarov: 1967 [wineasy.se]
Testers of Baikonur [friends-partners.org] (you've probably seen the film of the explosion)
Gagarin and test-pilot Seryogin, lost in air flight in 1968) [astrologer.ru]
Georgi Dobrovolksy, Vladislav Volkov, Viktor Patsayev, Soyuz 11, June 6, 1971 (died during re-entry) [nasa.gov]
Science is expensive, and pure research even more so. "Pure research" is the attempt to find out something without any other goal than the knowledge itself. That means there's no expected profits. Universities used to be the primary resource for this, but the way things have been the past couple decades, most research is done on behalf of a corporate sponsor, which means that 1) if you can't show a profitable motive for the intended result, you ain't doing it; and 2) If what you find upsets the sponsor, the plug is pulled quickly.
NASA has been incredibly successful, despite having both arms tied behind its back, one leg hobbled, the other knee immobilised, and forced to wear an eye patch AND headphones blaring N-SYNC and Shitney Spears 24/7.
The people who have died through their direct involvement in space programs all knew there were risks involved and were willing to take those risks. We can split hairs and say that no one told Krista McAuliffe that the Challenger was really a 1.5 million pound bomb, or that Apollo 7 wouldn't have burned if NASA read the label and followed the manufacturer's instructions, but they were still better informed than their Soviet counterparts.
Science ain't cheap, but when's the last time you thought about the price of ignorance?
woof.
"Eppur si muove" ("Nevertheless, it moves") -- supposedly said by Galileo after his recanting of his book.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Finally someone who isn't a troll responds...
Alright. You want a good reason for the ISS. With each passing day, the EU is growing more distant from the US. Russian is certainly not on good terms with the US. Closer cooperation between the US, EU, and Russion (among other nations) on even mundane projects is always a good thing. It wasn't long ago, the US sent people to the moon. All they did was pick of some rocks, snap some photos, and record some video. A robot could of done that. We were pround. Now, we are building a science lab in orbit around the Earth in cooperation with countries that are growing distant from the US with each passing day, and it's a waste of money? I don't think so.
Second, people like novelty. We were entertained by Tito. We were entertained by Sen Glenn. We are entertained with nice glossy shots of nebulas that "experts" use to talk about cosomology.
Third, curosity, in and of itself is one of the greatest attributes of Humans. We thirst to learn what appears to be useless information. That's not a bad thing. There is nothing like the sparkle in a childs eye when they figure out that yes, indeed, the square block goes in the square hole.
Re:Not surprising.. Bush is a control freak! (Score:2)
Gee, I wonder why.. Dick Cheney was only the Secretary of Defense. Wonder how he knows the DoD will try it again this year.
Remember a lot of the funds in Iran-contra affair were originally private moneyYet another one of Dick's.. Unyielding supporter of funding for the Contras, vice-chairman of the committee to investigate Iran-Contra, etc..
On a side note, why d'ya think Bush is so hot to get Star Wars up a decade and a half after it was shot down? Well, for starters, Dick never failed to vote for it. That and he was the one in the seat when Dubya's dad killed it..
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
We tried this over 200 years ago before the Constitution was written, we almost degenerated into a bunch of little nations, all of which were bankrupt....
Re:mars! (Score:2)
Welcome back, Reaganomics!
-= rei =-
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:2)
You must not be aware of the tremendous list of technological achievements NASA made towards getting us to the moon, which have drastically improved our lives. Everything from integrated circuits to ketchup packets, from satellite communications technology to Tang. .V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
Re:Maybe they should ask for donations? (Score:2)
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Secondly, I must commend you for pointing out the seldom pointed out issue of tax brackets. Why must we suffer such actions? First off, the concept of a, what, 40% maximum tax bracket, is just insulting; I can't even imagine what people in Europe would think of such a concept! Next off, how dare we let the poor take their income and funnel it all into luxuries, while the rich have to spend all their extra income on necessities! Oy, this is a convoluted nation we live in! What reward do people have to work hard and become rich, when they can only afford two leer jets and a mansion per year, and don't have the pleasure of watching the poor get rickets?
You're right, this is a sad state we're in right now.
-= rei =-
Re:Basic Math... (Score:4)
You're forgetting about the hidden costs of NASA holding back private space launches. Since, oh, around 1975 it can be argued that NASA has done more damage to human exploration than any entity in history.
If you care about humans going to space, as I do, do everything in your power to kill NASA and have it folded into the US military where it belongs.
We don't have cheap airline flight because of the government, my friend.
--
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:2)
Fact: Good engineering is EXPENSIVE.
Fact: Bad engineering is also expensive.
And there is a LOT of bad engineering going on at NASA. Which is not surprising considering their (mis)management culture. In every NASA project I ever worked on, I always ended up spending most of my time and budget going to meetings and writing proposals and making presentations. By the time I'd done all the work to justify the budget for a project, there was hardly any time or budget remaining to actualy do the project.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:5)
The US is still a democracy. It's not a pure democracy, but it's hardly communist or even socialist. Hell, name one nationally socialized institution. Education, transportation, civil services, utilities, etc are all controlled mostly by states. The FAA is the only major federal regulatory body that controls an entire industry and even that has been deregulated quite a bit lately. If you want to see socialism, go check out most of Europe and come back here to report your findings on how evil the US is. Be sure to see how many things simply work better in Europe because they are partly or wholly socialized - medicine, education, transportation. Be sure to look at the skyline of your favorite European city and then compare it to that of the city you arrive at on the way back to see the obvious difference in pollution.
Way to bust out the McCarthyism with all that "anti-American" bullshit too. You are truly a model American - wishing that the homeless rot in the street and our scientists stay anchored to the ground. If science isn't publically funded, then all advances will be hoarded by private corporations. Free-market capitalism could be an excellent system without a pesky thing called greed. I'll agree that some of NASA's projects (namely the Moon landing) were probably of little scientific value. To say that their more recent work lends no benefit to the taxpayer, however, is ludicrous. Knowledge of the universe benefits the entire human race. Besides, once Libertarians take control of America and fuck it up beyond recognition, we'll need to know where to move to.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re: (Score:2)
Why Space? The Enlightened Self Interest Version.. (Score:2)
1) Instead of disturbing the only biosphere we know of in the universe to mine metals and minerals here we could mine the nearby lifeless orbs. But only if we get to space. The environmentalists should be for this.
2) Deconstruction of molicules one atom at a time and the construction of other molicules at all require microgravity or less. We currently have plenty of opportunity to do this *ONLY* if we want to pay attention to one disease/issue at a time and if the correct people, as opposed to the politically empowered people, get to do the research. A large accessable habitat at an Legrange point is needed to address the medical needs of the world today. All the cancer-x vs. cancer-y vs. AIDS people should be demanding space in space for research.
3) Generating power in space is "better". It (again) doesn't impact the biosphere and solar can work nicely and if we could GET OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT the whole "what about when it falls out of the sky" garbage goes away because things don't fall here after a certain distance. So the ecology people and the Californians should be for space right now, with the rest of us to follow.
4) Spending money on space stuff is like getting to spend your money twice or more while shelling it out only once. The thermous bottle, kevlar, and countless things we use every day around the world were invented in the persuit of space. This is a bargan and a half, the budget concious and the cheap should be behind going to space.
5) In space things like air are commidities. For the first time ever air is a comodity (sp?). Think of the new markets for the old products... The business people should be for going into space.
6) Some fraction of everything we make up there has to come down here and be spread around, and some fraction of everything we make down here has to be gathered up and sent up there. The shipping and receiving people and the Teamsters(tm) should be for establishing ourselves in space.
7) Real estate.... need I say more?
8) Space is really big! We would have someplace to put all extra population. The Catholic Church and the anti-choice lobbies should be for space. So should all the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) people on virtually every topic. Once again, if you send garbage high enough it doesn't come back down.
9) Space is really big! (again) So if we had colonies on the moon and mars you would finally have a place to move to or send your inlaws to that is far enough away for them not to be comming by or calling you up on the phone. You know who you are if this one applies to you, and you should be for space exploration.
10) In space vacuum is free and the value of free suction and the varried possible uses for same boggles the immagination.
You think I am joking but I am not. (ok, maybe number 9 and 10 were a bit over the top.) Everything in our entire sphere of experience as a species has to do with occupying and controling space here on earth. It should surprise nobody that space not-here-on-earth and the acqusition, occupation, and control of same is a natural progression, a NECESSARY progression. Not only is the total value of being there quite high, the total value of the work involved in getting there is higher than you might immagine.
Remember, if they do invent a cure to cancer, and it has to be made in micro or near-zero gravity then, if we don't have the manufacturering facilities up there already only a dozen people every six months (or so) will be able to get/afford to be cured. You think AZT costs a nut? Wait till Pfizer(etc) gets to mark up the cost of your colon-cancer treatment pack that has to be made, or god forbid *administered*, at L5.
--
Re:Basic Math... (Score:3)
You might find some interesting reading if you fed "subsidize airline" into your favorite search engine.
--
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:2)
I can only hope that I am still alive, and useful, when other nations get their act together to pick up where we left off.
Or maybe we'll all live to see the nations of the world GET THE HELL OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS and get out of the way of private space launches so we can actually make some progress in space.
Why anybody would want to wait for the government to do anything beyond incompetency is just insane to me.
--
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Considering the ignorance of your signature, I shouldn't be surprised, but in the US at least airlines are not subsidized. Airbus, on the other hand, does get subsidies. And it's taken huge subsidies to get them to be economical with the US.
Subsidized industries almost always collapse. I'm reminded of the Japanese economy, whose industry "partnership" with the government (read: subsidies) was held up by fools in the 80s and 90s as the economical model for the future. Of course, it has decayed into total corruption and mismanagement.
In any case, what are you advocating? That government should be in charge of space forever because they would be so much more efficient than letting private industry into space?
--
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Just curious... Do you ever go to events in stadiums funded by issues of public bonds?
The reason I ask is because I have found that 99.99% of the people posturing as fiscal conservatives -- especially the most vocal ones -- are actually merely "me-firsters", and are more than happy to see the poor taxed to fund entertainment for the middle and upper-middle classes, however outraged they might be when it comes to having to fund programs that they themselves don't like.
Of course, you might be part of that 0.01% of genuine fiscal conservatives. If so, here's a tip of the hat to your spartan philosophical ideals, however much I might disagree with them.
If not, you should think about these things a bit.
--
Re:Nasa's real problem (Score:2)
Now the other major cost is their management structure. Let me inform you their engineers ergo the people really doing the work, are way under-paid. The going rate at Nasa is about 1/2 the industry rate. SO you end up with the older good engineers waiting for retirement being overworked and a bunch of college graduates who can't function without matlab holding their hands.
EXACTLY CORRECT! The easiest way to tell the difference between competent and incompetent NASA engineers: After one year, the incompetent engineers are still working with NASA. Actually, some of the old guys are pretty sharp, but just about any engineer at NASA under 50 years old has to be either really dedicated to space exploration or such a bad engineer they can't get work in the real world.
Before I did projects for NASA, I never met anyone who thought of LabVIEW as an excellent programming language for mission critical embedded controllers. God's own truth. There are "engineers" at NASA who can not do with a $5000 industrial embedded PC running LabVIEW on Windows what can easily be done by a real engineer with a $5 M68HC05.
Re:MODERATORS ON DOPE (Score:2)
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
2. Boeing gets plenty of subsidies from the US government. They get over $130 million a year just in export tax subsidies. Then there's all of the other less direct subsidies they receive from the government.
3. Airlines in the US do receive subsidies. Look up 49 USC Sec. 41734 "Essential Air Service". Countries like Antigua, St. Lucia, and Grenada pay direct subsidies of several million dollars a year to US carriers to get them to fly to those countries. And then there are all the less direct forms of subsidies that corporate welfare brings to the table.
I agree, though, that NASA should be closed down completely.
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:3)
The groaners might do well to read "They Write the Right Stuff" [sinz.org], which includes this notable claim -Compare that error rate to privately owned ventures, where the competitive pressure to turn a buck is routinely cited as if it were a legitimate excuse to produce crappy software.
> Alas, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that modern American culture is probably incapable of supporting a serious and useful space program, and I can only hope that I am still alive, and useful, when other nations get their act together to pick up where we left off.
No problem; China will launch a manned lunar mission some day, and the public will suddenly decide that men on the moon are even more important than tax cuts, and we'll be back to the space race again.
--
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:3)
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
And if he would get down off his soapbox long enough to do the recommended Web search, he would also discover that lots of routes are subsidized at the state and local levels, too.
--
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Yeah, perhaps I underestimate, perhaps there are genuine regional differences, or perhaps I spend too much time listening to the loudmouthed activists on the internet rather than getting out in the real world and seeing what normal people believe.
It just chapped me to no end to hear the election returns at the height of the anti-big-government movement, and see win after win for candidates/issues that focus on spending cuts that affect the poor, and win after win for stadium spending in the same damn election.
I can tolerate a variety of political views; hypocrisy -- including invoking high ideals when it benefits \self and not otherwise -- I cannot tolerate at all.
--
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Sadly, this seems to be the overriding American sentiment towards the arts. "Non-essential." Europe has a long-standing tradition of greatness in the arts precisely because they have been funded in part (or in whole) by the government. A great bulk of work by Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc. was done in the courts of royalty, on their tab. These rulers appreciated the fact that a measure of a society's greatness is measured in the wealth of its artistic legacy.
Look at the cost of putting on even one New York Symphony concert. I'd conservatively guess $500,000/concert when you figure rehearsal space, musician's/librarian's/maestro's salaries, plus the cost of the hall itself, plus advertising, etc. That can't possibly be recuperated in a single night's ticket sales. Support from the government, plus corporate sponsorship, are vital to keeping our society alive. Just as vital as military spending to keep us safe, energy research to keep us warm, etc.
But hey - the arts aren't "mainstream", and therefore non-essential and not worthy of governmental support. So the great irony will present itself. We'll have the world's greatest army protecting the world's safest and most affluent cultural wasteland.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tax rebate? (Score:3)
Both you and the people who modded you up need need to go back and retake some of your high school civics courses.
The President doesn't just "eventually sign the bill", he also has the ability to veto it. He also has the ability to control administrative policy. All of this gives him emormous leverage over Congress, because he can threaten to veto bills that are highly important to the districts (and thus careers) of individual Congressmen, unless they give him what he wants.
Even in the highly divided Congress we have today, Congress gave Bush most of what he asked for. Clinton was even more effective, considering he faced hostile majorities in both houses.
Whether you are cheering for NASA's demise, or reacting in horror to their budgetary problems, this was Bush's decision. (Or someone he delegated it to.)
Re:Article does not explain "misspent..." (Score:2)
Regardless, the whole situation doesn't help NASA's already existing difficulties in securing funding.
- tokengeekgrrl
Re:how about GWB? (Score:2)
References to Goober Bush aside, I think it is an outrage, the way teams have been blackmailing cities with the "buy me a new stadium or I'll go somewhere else" scam.
--
Justification for NASA/Military spending (Score:2)
Plastic, modern ceramics, nuclear power, fuel efficient car engines, wireless anything, teflon, semiconductors and superconductors, transistors, the Internet, microwave ovens, GPS, computers, engine emissions scrubbers, and more and more....
So lets cut research, great idea. Way to invent things that people haven't already thought of, because we all know that we got were we are by improving existing things.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be great if people actually got to choose how their money gets spent? Alas, it doesn't work that way. We get taxed in proportion to our income (what's up with that?) instead of per capita, and then the money gets spent in a way totally orthogonal to our personal values. So you don't get your space exploration, and I'm paying for some aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
---
gee, I thought the point... (Score:2)
As I stated, I misread 97 to be 970 and apologized for my error. I know perfectly well how much is in a billion and the waste of government agencies. NASA is one of the only agencies I had hoped was more careful with their spending since it consists of mainly scientists and academics, and not politicians.
And now we all know you're really an asshole, not like there was any doubt to begin with. Bugger off.
- tokengeekgrrl
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:2)
But it is a legitimate excuse. Taking the time to design things right, audit code, test, etc. costs time which is money. You can have four hours of my work which probably doesn't have a bug (but yeah,it might) for $300. Or you can pay $3000 for the exact same functionality, but where we did some kind of formal design process and someone checked me and then I coded it and double-checked everything and someone else has triple-checked me and someone else tested and we're sure it's perfect. $300 or $3000: you're paying the bill, so choose. If this is a dull insurance payment analysis report instead of rocket control component, $300 might be the best deal.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's neat that they're able to crank out such great code. But quality isn't free, and different circumstances merit different levels of attention. Those commercial programs they're comparing NASA's stuff to, probably don't have peoples' lives depending on them. And they sure as hell have different budgets. Again, I think it's neat to look at the extreme case, but you can't really infer much when comparing apples to oranges.
---
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Free-market capitalism could be an excellent system without a pesky thing called greed
Greed is good. Greed drives people to succeed. Without success for your European governments to tax, they wouldn't have their shine health systems, beautiful skylines, flawless transportation, etc. Take away the greed, you lose the success, your tax base and your "progressive" social programs.
A free-market capitalist society isn't the only place you find greed. Unfortunately, greed is human nature (if you believe otherwise, you have been watching too much startrek), as such it exists in any system. In a capitalist system, it begets Dollars, Euros, and Pesos. In a communist system (and to some extent a socialist system), it begets influence. Power. Which is more sinister? Dollars which are obvious and the exchange of which follow a set of rules, or Power which is non-obvious and defines the rules?
Besides, once Libertarians take control of America and fuck it up beyond recognition, we'll need to know where to move to.
mmmm... stop teasing. A world where it wasn't told what proper social behaviour is. Where I get to keep what I earned instead of being penalized for earning more. Where I had a choice in how 30% of my income was spent. Where I could do what I wanted in the privacy of my own home. Sounds like freedom.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
If an art can't fund itself, then I would argue that there isn't a market for it. If there isn't a market for it, why should it exist?
Because it defines us as a great society? The US is not a great society because of its arts. The US is a great society because of the American Dream. Anyone with ambition can succeed.
Because monarchs of long ago thought it was important? The monarchs were showing off. Vanity, pure and simple. It made them and, by association, their country, look superior. Every dime they spent on the arts should have gone back to the peasant they taxed to pay for it.
If it's important to even a handfull of people, they will pay to see it and it will live. Its called a niche market. They exist everywhere and succeed all the time, without government assistance.
Comment removed (Score:3)
NASA's Budget Did Not Cause Its Budget Overrun (Score:2)
Here's an interesting article:
"I'm on board with them that a supplemental appropriation -- $300 million or so -- is required to maintain value of the ISS project. But I'm coming to think that in exchange, the space industry should be forced to confront reality and see that their problems aren't caused by Bush, they're caused by a consistent policy of make-believe and tolerance of mismanagement. Acknowledgement of that -- and a sound get-well plan -- strike me as a reasonable requirement for approval of the extra moneys. But at the rally there was no trace of any notions that the problems were self-inflicted, or that it wasn't much more fun to blame yet another outsider for the mess NASA finds itself in. That was the saddest part of the event -- that and the pitiful, exploited 8-yr-olds with the anti-Bush posters."
http://www.nasawatch.com/jsc/06.30.01.meeting.note s.html
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:2)
On the other hand, you might do well to read What Do You Care What Other People Think? by Richard Feynman. Much of that book discusses the Challenger accident, and what Feynman found out when he studied NASA. The only part of NASA about which he had anything good to say was the group that did the software for the computers on board the Shuttle.
And, if I recall correctly, some PHBs in NASA management wanted to cut the funds the software guys were getting. "They spend all this money running all these tests, and their stuff never has any trouble, so why do we need all these tests?" Straight out of Dilbert.
According to Henry Spencer, who knows about this stuff, it takes a million signatures to launch a Shuttle. You know, a guy takes a to-do list, checks off all items on the list, and signs that it's done? That, times a million. Henry Spencer says that the payroll costs for the Shuttle are so high that the cost of the Shuttle program is nearly constant, whether the Shuttle actually flies or not. You might as well fly it as often as possible, since it costs about the same not to fly it. Just imagine if the commerical airplane companies operated this way! (True, space is harder than air flight. But it isn't enough harder to justify the incredibly labor-intensive ways NASA routinely does things.)
I also find it hard to forgive that NASA managed to destroy the DC-X prototype on its very first NASA flight. It flew over and over, successfully, before it was assigned to NASA; then boom, it was destroyed. Of course they never built another. Whether it was malice or incompetence, either way it does not speak well for NASA.
I'm not so much hostile as sad. I wish NASA were the "Can Do!" organization it was in the 1960's, but it is more of a red-tape bureaucracy these days.
steveha
No kidding (Score:2)
You've got industrial defense contractors in key Congressional districts being given billions of dollars to build aircraft carriers that the Navy doesn't even want.
And then you've got NASA, whose budget is a fraction of one percent of the total federal outlay, and that's what these "waste-watchers" complain about.
Jesus suffering fuck. Sometimes people baffle me.
Re:more than enough for space bombs though (Score:2)
How is Star Wars going to protect anyone from a suicide bomber with a suitcase nuke?
Half-way on it (Score:2)
NASA's hard times are in part due to it's success, the Gee Whiz isn't there as much as it once was, not the questions hitting NASA are, "So where's the profit in it?" Land on Mars, big deal, it'll be 50 years before anyone's actually commercially exploiting Mars. Americans too often expect instant results and it's just not there, especially with a 2 year trip to the red planet (July 10th news: Launched rocket, August 10th, still going, Sept 10th, everything going fine, January 10th Astronaut invents revelutionary new version of Freecell, March 10th, still going well, July 10th, celebrate halfway there, September 10th , still going...yawn)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
The greatest way to beat an opponent is to allow them to do it to themselves.
And what's this all about? I'm not your opponent. I try to have a discussion on the merits of socialist economic reform and it is automatically a battle? You paradoxically assert the infallibility of the founding fathers and then claim that the 16th amendment is some marxist reform that must be erased from the constitution. I really don't understand what you mean by "un-American," but I think deriding the amending process, the core of the constitution, is about as un-American as one can get. Government will evolve, and it will evolve to help a majority of the people. At least two-thirds of the states had to ratify the 16th amendment, and you are saying that it's creeping socialism? I suppose we should just let other, more progressive countries, evolve their government systems and at the same time reinstitute our 200+ year old constitution and live by it. I like America, but it isn't perfect. I seriously doubt that if left unchecked, corporate America will make it any better. I'd certainly rather elected officials decide what to do with my money than CEOs elected by executive boards. The American government needs to evolve - as all other first world governments have. For me, I think the improvements seen in western European nations more than justify a 30% income tax. Plus, you have to realize that many of the nations went through a massive rebuilding process following World War II and are already light-years beyond America. In transportation, education, health care, etc their governments have succeeded. Not to mention that should I lose the job that pays the 30% income tax (admitedly, there is a higher unemployment rate in all western European nations than in the US), I won't be left to rot in the street as in America.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
For instance, would you give me money to put up a painting that depicts you in a beastial act? - You mean like me growling? I doubt I'd pay for it, but you might be able to put it in an NEA sponsored gallery.
Re:I'm abivalent... (Score:2)
You cite a bunch of example with no analogies to any other form of transport. We have privately owned and operated airlines, shipping companies, road haulage companies, railroads, etc. Why would space be any different? The initial capex is high, but then that was the case for railroads and airlines too.
Privatize Space Operations! (Score:2)
NASA has rejected several attempts in the past to privatize portions of the industry (American Rocket in the 70's and Space Industries in the 80's). In Reagen's Commerce Department, a call went out to the private sector to look at the feasability of making a moon base. The answer came back that yes it could be done with the budget given, but not with NASA! Special Interests put an end to that plan.
NASA is a blight on the space industry and a hinderence to American comercial dominance above the atomosphere. I'm sure the Europeans and Chinese love the thought of NASA crippling itself with cost overruns...
It's time to cut NASA loose, and let private industry do to commercial space enterprises what they did to computing, shipping, airline travel, etc.
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Re:For comparison... (Score:2)
We tried giving up defense spending, twice, what did we get? wwI and wwII. The US spends so much on its military so some uppity country doesnt try to take over the world, because they know we can kick them halfway around the solar system. Oh granted, alot of factors led to the wars, but US military might may have helped prevent them. A US buildup in France in the 30s may have deterred germany, etc. The price of peace is high.
Whats a baby worth? (Score:3)
What good is a baby? they make a mess, they wake you up in the middle of the night, they drain your pocketbook, and all they do is sit there and make noises and mess themselves all day long. I say we kill all the babies, because theyre useless and a huge drain on society. Think of all the other more worthy things people could spend their money on if there werent any babies.
You dont see the value of the ISS now, nobody does, its just been born. The technology will advance, and just as babies grow up to become valuable members of society, the ISS will grow up to become a valuable scientific outpost, if people will keep from offing it.
Our eduaction system is flawed... (Score:2)
Second, why is the Federal government funding education? That is a local/state issue. Federal funding takes more money from the states (in the form of less ability to tax their own citizens) and throws it into the government waste bin, out of which only some 27 cents on the dollar returns to actually be used in schools!
Jonathan Kozol is an education activist and has been a a teacher in some of the poorest schools in the country. What does he say?
More of this speech. [cwru.edu]Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
Oh, and once again, I must compliment you flat-taxers on your excelent grasp of the english language, and not resorting to the lowest common denominator - name calling - to make your argument
-= rei =-
Re:Why are slashdotters so hostile to NASA? (Score:2)
Fact: the prospect of a nationalized American health care system fills most Americans with abiding horror. Two words: Veterans' Administration.
The benefits to medicine alone have made the space program a great investment. Ask the people who built the latest artificial heart if they would have been able to do it without the technology developed for the space program.
Or, look at the computer industry. Or the benefits of satellites, both for global communications and for learning more about the Earth. Or, hell, mylar, which alone saves millions of lives by being used to line grain silos throughout the world and protect against spoilage.
And, hey, mud huts are really underrated, too.
Jon Acheson
Re:Basic Math... (Score:2)
De-Cliche-ification:
"What is your opinion on what people should pay in taxes"?
Inflections applied:
Spite
Taxation is robbery
Answer:
As for an exact percentage, there is no hard coded rule. However, "flat taxes" (or no income tax, other taxes instead which amounted to the same effect) used to be universal, in near every society. Why was the income tax implemented in the first place? As a de-stratification measure. The whole premise being that people still will work hard, if they can become successful. This has proven quite well that it works - in fact, the time since the income tax was implemented was when the US rose from an insignificant nation to the leading world superpower. So, economically, it is quite sound. (BTW, when I reference the early income tax, it was the ultimate of bracketed - only the wealthy, initially, payed it). In short order, the Rockefellers of the time, while remaining rich, lost their "lordly" status. At the same time, poor people dying of all sorts of diseases, living in the worst shanty-town conditions you could imagine in the big cities, shortly went up to a tolerable, survivable existance - far from any luxury, but not dying with an average age of 40. In all likelyhood, this renewed hope of what was effectively our proletariat, is what gave the US its extra industrial boost.
Again, why does this occur? Because you need a base standard of living. People need to eat to survive. People need basic healthcare - immunizations, antibiotics, etc. People need a roof over their heads that will keep the rain out. They need transportation to a job. They need to supply the needs to their children. Education expenses (unless we want the poor to *always* be poor and the rich *always* be rich). Etc. When you look at the poorest people even in the nation as prosperous as it is today, their salary generally isn't enough to cover this. All money given to the poorest goes straight towards necessity. All money given to the richest goes straight to luxury. Unless we want to abandon the poor to starvation and disease, so that the rich can afford an extra Leer jet, this is the solution. Squallor just is not an option.
As to the concept of "taxation is robbery", I'd cut down on your political buzzword usage a bit
I propose an alternate solution to bracketed taxes, if you will. Federal sales tax. No income tax. Sales taxes vary depending on the "luxury status" of the item. Food has no taxes. Gold, jewelry, private aircraft, excessive lodging, etc, are taxed strongly. Drugs are legalized, and taxed like crazy
It effectively is the same thing, but perhaps it would seem more fair to you.
-= rei =-
Re:The doublespeak is thick ;) (Score:2)
Trying? you do realize that the US occupies most of western europe, and all of japan, and the middle east, and the phillipines, and korea. We have military bases all over the place. We rule the world. Just look at what happened when we pulled out of kyoto: Europe made some indignant noises and called on japan and the rest of uerope to sign the treaty on their own, now japan looks like it will pull out too. Any agreement or action by the international community has to have US support if it hopes of getting enacted, end of story.
Re:NASA can easily solve their problems (Score:2)
--
Re: (Score:2)
The chair (Score:2)
I am sorry that we can't execute him today, the chair is solar powered.
Solar powered, when will people learn,,
--------
Re:Star Wars, not Star Bores (Score:2)
--Blair
"The second thing the Nazis did was outlaw guns. The first was to bomb the opposition press. Six years later, they hijacked the government (cf. November 2000). Then they outlawed the guns."
not with bush in office (Score:2)