Obama Team Considers Cancellation of Ares, Orion 870
HanzoSpam sends us this story from Space News, which begins:
"US President-elect Barack Obama's NASA transition team is asking US space agency officials to quantify how much money could be saved by canceling the Ares 1 rocket and scaling back the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle next year. ... The questionnaire, 'NASA Presidential Transition Team Requests for Information,' asks agency officials to provide the latest information on Ares 1, Orion and the planned Ares 5 heavy-lift cargo launcher, and to calculate the near-term close-out costs and longer-term savings associated with canceling those programs. The questionnaire also contemplates a scenario where Ares 1 would be canceled but development of the Ares 5 would continue. While the questionnaire, a copy of which was obtained by Space News, also asks NASA to provide a cost estimate for accelerating the first operational flight of Ares 1 and Orion from the current target date of March 2015 to as soon as 2013, NASA was not asked to study the cost implications of canceling any of its other programs, including the significantly overbudget 2009 Mars Science Laboratory or the James Webb Space Telescope."
Results (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why not just bring back the Saturn series, with updates to todays' technology? It's not like the shuttle was really reusable, not when so much of it had to be rebuilt by hand after every flight.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're facts are quite simply wrong.
The Saturn V costed $2.4-$3.5billion per launch versus $500 million for a shuttle in 2007 dollars.
The Shuttle launches ~ 59,000lbs into LEO while the Saturn V launched ~260,000lbs.
Going by the low estimate of $2.5billion per launch, it costs $9320/lb into LEO for the Saturn V.
For the shuttle it costs $8474/lb into LEO.
Of course those are amortized costs which include the cost of the whole program itself, but that's the only way you can realistically justify a program.
But
Re:Results (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Despite what you may have heard, no they have not been destroyed.
That would be a ridiculous waste of resources as engineers who work on the modern designs tend to look at the older designs to see what worked and what didn't.
So no, we still have the Saturn series blueprints.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have read the contrary... not that this means anything. With out having acutally seen them, it is worthless to srgue.
However if they do exist, they are all on paper. Have fun getting them into a modern CAD system. That alone will take over a year.
Aside from practicality, getting back to useless net based speculation.... what I have also read is that many of the factories that built the Saturn have been torn down, that even with a complete set of prints it would take comtemporary engineers a long time t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious? Do you think the entire aerospace industry has been sitting around doing nothing since the 60s?
There are HUGE differences. With the advent of CNC Machinery, Computational Fluid Dynamics,Finite Element Analysis, Computer Aided Design, etc... designs can be realized with extremely high accuracy and safety compared to what was possible in the 60s.
Re:Results (Score:5, Funny)
Oh man. Now they're sure to get canceled. Showing results for the money makes other government programs look bad.
Stop working so hard NASA!
I'm not suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's presidency is going to be very FDRish. Lots of big 'public works' projects to keep the voting masses coming back, but in terms of actual forward thinking, very little. Well, actually, if you are into the government getting bigger, you won't be disappointed.
(Man, I'm gonna get modded into oblivion for this!)
Re:I'm not suprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Our infrastructure has been underfunded for decades. Our electrical grid suffers from regular blackouts during the summer, and can't support alternative energy developments. Our broadband penetration and speeds are falling further and further behind the rest of the world. Our roads are constantly damaged, and we literally have bridges collapsing. Even our water and sewer infrastructure is aging and falling into disrepair. We haven't made any serious investment in infrastructure since the Interstate Highway System, over 50 years ago.
And here's the thing you need to know about public works. It's an investment. Without a maintained and modern infrastructure, your economy comes to a halt. And maintaining and providing infrastructure has always been one of the primary roles of government. That's because infrastructure simply doesn't happen by itself, especially in today's age of myopic focus on quarterly profits. (Actually that's not true. Private companies have never had in interest in providing infrastructure. Case in point: rural electrification [wikipedia.org].)
I would say actually these problems that have been growing for 20 or 30 years, as opposed to ignoring them as has been the case, is "forward thinking".
Oh and FDR fixed the econom, won a war, and pretty much created the modern United States. We can only hope that Obama can achieve even part of the success of FDR.
Re:I'm not suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention later when it turns out we could use some defense around.
Like any preventative measure, you never know how much its worth until you dont have it.
$17.6 Billion is pocket change (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the incoming administration eliminated NASA they wouldn't recover enough to pay for the various giveaways (e.g., bailouts, economic, stimulus checks, etc.). NASA's budget for 2009 was only 17.6 billion (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08034_FY2009_budget.html). Certainly Obama and company can find better places to trim in this day of multi-trillion dollar giveaways. Let's start by scrapping the economic stimulus packages ($175-500 billion) which have thus far done next to nothing in stimulating anything except perhaps the re-election chances of those that allowed this mess to develop in the first place (yes Congress, that's you).
Re:$17.6 Billion is pocket change (Score:4, Interesting)
Certainly Obama and company can find better places to trim in this day of multi-trillion dollar giveaways.
Maybe it would help them to determine that if they asked NASA for some sort of report on the actual cost savings of scrapping those programs?
Before jumping to conclusions... (Score:5, Insightful)
This might actually be a good thing. I have a friend working at Cape Canaveral who tells me that most of his managers at NASA consider Project Orion a disgrace to the space program. The design is a kludge... it's less elegant than Apollo of 30 years ago, using multiple Ares rockets to handle what Saturn V did on its own. The design's fundamentally flawed, the rocket's so slender it "wants" to fly backwards... the control system has to fight its natural flight mechanics the entire way up to keep it straight. The launch vibrations were large enough to kill the astronauts, leading them to add shock absorbers, because the project's been so rushed and it's too late in the game to instead eliminate vibrations altogether. The whole capsule design is antiquated and relies on an incredibly tough heat shield for reentry, when reentry speeds themselves should be lowered (using a lifting fuselage, like the X-33 [wikipedia.org] and SS1 [wikipedia.org]), vastly reducing reentry heating and eliminating burnup almost entirely as a failure mode (Columbia).
I won't try to just blame Bush, but this hasn't been a methodical, thought-out advance of manned exploration. Mike Griffin's in the wrong here too as the project cheerleader. The project's a mess, with so much modern materials science and computational flight dynamics being thrown at a design that was only good for the 1960s, but completely outclassed today by research since then. If Obama cancels BOTH Ares and Orion, maybe we can have a real successor to the SSTO (PLEASE be the X-33 with composite fuel tanks).
Re:Before jumping to conclusions... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get so full of yourself, the Russians and Chinese seem to be doing fine with capsule designs. A lifting body isn't the best choice just because you like it more. A composite lifting body design is expensive when you can't guarantee resuability. And we all know how the reusability of the Shuttle turned out.
The whole point of using many smaller rockets is some little thing known as the economy of scale.
It's also rather difficult to completely eliminate vibrations from a solid rocket without an advancement in the manufacturing process used to create the fuel.
Re:Before jumping to conclusions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then don't use a solid rocket. Liquid-fueled designs are more complex, but they're throttleable and thus can compensate for thrust irregularities. As an extension of that, you can actually shut them off if needed. They also spew a lot less crap into the air.
The main reason we're using a solid first stage on the Ares I is because Thiokol has good lobbyists, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
X-33 was an unmanned test platform that would never reach orbit. A lot was learned before the project was cancelled, even though it never flew. One big thing that was learned was that we don't have the materials capability to make a composite fuel tank that works; both the O2 and H2 composite fuel tanks failed.
X-33 and SS1 were both sub-orbital vehicles and did not have to deal with orbital re-entry speeds, so comparing to them is not valid. You can't magically lower re-entry speeds; orbital velocity is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, Obama understands the need for a symbol, and this is his signal to NASA. The space program has long been a symbol of American achievement and in a time like this, we need symbols of hope. We need to prove that in spite of everything we can still reach for the stars. It's politically sound. But he also wants NASA to get its act together -- he wants the best, and this is also a message to NASA that average and substandard won't be tolerated.
Don't jump to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
They asked for a cost analysis for various scenarios. Stop assuming the worst case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that is good for space future (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost not fair.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost not fair.. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, thankfully he wasn't in Congress, where all spending bills originate, so he's good and blameless of the current mess. And he and his Party did not have control of the Congress for the last few years, nor were consistent blocks to appeals for oversight into the housing market fiascoes of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. Oh wait...
Granted that Dems are usually regarded as the "spend" party. To characterize the unbelievable growth of the debt over the last 8 yeas as the Dems fault is quite a stretch, the Republicans had complete control for 6 of the 8 years. Also, the only time the debt hasn't been wildly growing out of control since 1980 was during the Clinton Admin.
Priorities, Priorities, Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've been laid off, you've spent your retirement funds, you're car is about to be repossessed, and your house is about to be foreclosed, the *last* thing you want to do is go on that trip to the Bahamas you've been planning to take.
We can not afford to spend all this money exploring space, not right now. We should privatize the whole space program, and let somebody make money off it selling tickets to rich SOB's with more money than sense. Only when it has to make a profit for somebody will it find the efficiency and economy it needs to make real progress. At the moment, it's nothing more than a money pit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Start making economic sense (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a post from Frank in my Pirate's mailing list group:
I think the human race needs to start thinking of space exploration as necessity.
Obama wants to create 2.5 million jobs for 2k+9. But the prob is that we need
1) work that needs to be done
2) negotiate a price that the workers are willing to work for, and the employer is willing to
pay.
Without those two things, it's like trying to use an electric motor to charge its own battery.
The truth is, the earth isn't big enough for everyone. We want to increase wealth for
everyone. To do so we have two options:
1) take it from someone else
2) go where there is unclaimed wealth
The great thing about space is that there is a lot of it. You see, if I have a candy bar, and
the teacher sees me with it says, "are you going to share with everyone?" I have no choice
but to put it away because by the time I divide it up, my piece will be too small.
But if I can go to where there's a truckload of candy, I can truly share with everyone. So it
is with outer space.
So when we think of space exploration as a necessity, we will have:
jobs in space
homes in space
nightclubs in space
shopping malls in space
restaurants in space
In other words, a sustainable economy!
The headline is wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an incredibly pro-space piece of news out of the Obama team, but what gets the focus is the potential termination of the boondoggle Ares program.
This article is far more interesting due to the last paragraph:
"Obama's NASA transition team also appears to be interested in a number of specific projects that have more or less languished in recent years. Among those projects are: the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a mothballed Earth-observing satellite formerly known as Triana; agency efforts to catalog asteroids and comets that could threaten Earth; and the harnessing of space-based solar power for use on Earth."
The article also alludes to a potential expansion of the COTS commercial space program, potential uses for EELV launchers, etc.
If the Obama team is serious about these projects (especially space solar power) it would mean a revolution in space funding and a committment to space development that would make Ares pale in comparison. SSP would mean a real orbital infrastructure that would enable a huge number of possibilities, such as real lunar bases and mars missions, not plant a flag crap which is where Ares is headed.
How about canceling corporate welfare handouts? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be cuts (Score:5, Interesting)
The parent poster and editor did a poor job describing the article. The obvious thing was the questions about cutting Ares 1. As mentioned, they also asked about Ares 5. What's missing, Obama's office also asked about:
What it sounds like to me is they're doing due diligence with the intention of possibly increasing NASA's budget; but, they want to spend the money as wisely as possible.
For once, I with people would read the damn article before jumping to conclusions, even here, on /.
"Space travel is utter bilge" - he was right (Score:5, Insightful)
"Space travel is utter bilge" - Richard van der Riet Wolley, Astronomer Royal, 1955.
He was right. Back in 1955, he crunched the numbers, and realized that you couldn't build a rocket that lifted itself into orbit while carrying much of a payload.
Only by excessive weight reduction and throwing away big chunks of the launch vehicle does space travel work at all. Space travel on chemical fuels will never work much better than it does now. It's an inherent limitation of chemical fuels. After fifty years of trying, it's still only possible to just barely get stuff into orbit, using huge rockets to lift dinky payloads. The vehicles are so weight-reduced that they're too fragile to reuse without a major overhaul after each flight. We'll never get to something with the robustness of a commercial airliner, or even a jet fighter.
We should resign ourselves to launching small satellites and planetary probes. Manned spaceflight is just an expensive ego trip for nations. The ISS turned out to be pointless; people go there, but nothing much gets done there. It's not useful for astronomy, earth observation, scientific research, manufacturing, or even for military purposes.
If we ever get a better power source, like fusion or a nuclear rocket that doesn't make a big mess, this could change. But on chemical fuels, space travel is a dud. It's time to admit that and give it up.
Re:"Space travel is utter bilge" - he was right (Score:5, Interesting)
Only by excessive weight reduction and throwing away big chunks of the launch vehicle does space travel work at all.
And? We can limit ourselves (as we do now) to weight reduction that isn't "excessive". And those parts of the vehicle (especially the propellant) aren't very valuable.
We should resign ourselves to launching small satellites and planetary probes.
This is the kind of silly nonsense you hear from people who listen to nonexperts. Astronomers are notorious in the space industry for making all sorts of poorly thought out claims. The problem is that because they are astronomers, they are seen as having some sort of experise in anything space-related. What's missing is an understanding of economics and manufacture. The launch industry needs a higher launch rate. That's it. All current vehicles have high fixed costs: launch pads, launch crews, and other overhead whether they fly or not. More vehicles means that those costs are divided over more vehicles. Second, with a high launch rate comes greater reliability and safety. That's because the launch crews are more experienced and there's greater knowledge of the vehicle's faults and quirks. Double the launch rate of any existing launch vehicle and you will reduce significantly the cost per launch.
Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that this is the right thing to do 60-days before he actually gets into office -- gather information.
He didn't say he was going to cut anything, he asked for a cost-benefit analysis on various scenarios. If NASA can't deliver that, they don't deserve to keep operating. But I suspect they will give that, and it'll be fuel for the Obama administration to make (hopefully good) decisions.
I hope he's doing the same with every government agency -- identifying their top line-items and looking at whether or not those items are really best done by continuing on the current paths.
Leave the stargate alone! (Score:3, Funny)
Boy.. I hope they don't cut funding for the stargate program... who would stop all the alien attacks?
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather see them simply reduce spending and pay off the national debt.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Interesting)
Link [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that 2.5 million income after expenditures? Running a farm is extremely expensive, and you can easily run through 2.5 million in seed, equipment upkeep, fertilizer, etc. If you like food, maybe complaining about farm subsidies isn't the right way to go...
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Informative)
I second this. IMO, the only way to significantly put a dent in the budget would be to cut back on defense spending.
Then you have no actual knowledge of the Federal budget. Defense spending has decreased as a percentage of discretionary spending every year for the past 42 years, while entitlement programs have ballooned to make up the vast majority of the federal budget. Cutting more defense spending would be cutting a small chunk off of a small chunk.
Now I'm not saying we couldn't/shouldn't cut back on defense spending, but to imply or state that it would be the *only* effective measure in reducing the deficit is just not factual.
http://perotcharts.com/category/federal-budget-charts/page/9/ [perotcharts.com]
2007 Defense spending is approx 20% of federal spending as a whole, so even a 25% cut in defense spending would only have a net effect of a 5% reduction in spending. Not nearly enough to put a 'significant dent' in the budget.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
From Wikipedia:
"For 2009, the base budget rose to US$515.4 billion, with a total of US$651.2 billion when emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending are included.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (~$9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (~$33.2 billion) or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, ~$170 billion in 2007) - the United States government is currently spending at the rate of approximately $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes."
Wars are not included in the defense budget? Nuclear weapons aren't included in the defense budget? I would even count the aid we give to Israel (which is quite a lot) as defense spending, but I'm fairly certain it's not counted that way on the chart. Then you have to remove social security from the chart because you can't count that as a normal expense (it is an investment fund paid for with its own separate tax). Then you have to remove interest from the chart because the goal I mentioned was to pay off the national debt (which you can't do if you don't even pay interest).
So what are we left with? Defense, Medicare, and "non-defense" and "other mandatory" (which includes non-defense items like aid to Israel, the wars we're currently fighting, and nuclear weapons research and maintenance). Do you think the elderly (the most active voters) are going to vote away their health care and simply go off and die quietly to help the rest of us? If not, defense is the only sizable chunk left.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Interesting)
That is, Social Security money goes into the general fund and is spent as fast as it comes in. It isn't invested and it isn't saved for the day Social Security starts paying out more than it takes in (projected to be 2017). So, yes, Social Security is as much a part of the federal budget as national defense spening.
The fun will be, come 2017, when Social Security becomes insolvent. Benefits will have to be cut for the baby boomers (pissing off an entire generation), taxes will have to be raised extraordinarily on the working age people (pissing off multiple generations) or we're going to have to deficit spend until there is no tomorrow, obliterating the value of the dollar. We've been playing games and sticking our head in the sand hoping that the day will never come, but it will... if it isn't 2017, it'll just be pushed back another couple years. The best part is, the people who are responsible for the decades of wasteful spending, appropriating Social Security money for federal spending, refusing to reform Social Security, etc will be dead and gone, having left us with trillions of dollars in debt while they lived it up at our expense.
That's not the only way... cut welfare, social (Score:5, Insightful)
That's definitely not the only way. We have a 3 trillion dollar budget, and to say defense is the only place to cut money in a budget that big is laughable.
Personally, I would like to see us first cut spending by stopping all these ridiculous bailouts. It's been one right after another, to the point where our national deficit next year will likely be 1 TRILLION DOLLARS this year. All these companies and individuals weren't socializing their profits a couple years ago when they were raking in money hand over fist, so why should we socialize their losses?
Next we could start cutting social programs. Welfare could be cut back (rather than increased like the Democratic congress just did), Medicare should be reformed and scaled back, and Social Security should be restructured in a way that will phase it out. The ballooning costs of those programs will absolutely destroy our budget within a decade or two, and that's assuming we continue to have good economic growth. We should be working to phase them out now while we still have time to do it gradually, because the alternative is a massive, sudden slashing of benefits.
After those, you could start whacking a lot of the unconstitutional things the feds are involved with, such as the department of education. We already spend more money per capita on our students than anyone else, with not very good results. However, some states have been having success, so lets just turn the entire job back over to the states and let them experiment and try 50 different systems. And may the best one win and be adopted.
Following this, you could start whacking subsidies that we hand out to everything that moves. The farmers have had subsidies for almost 30 years, so it's time for them to find a way to become profitable or get out. And all the "green" subsidies should go away too. Market pressures will force them to become cost efficient, or they will be knocked out in favor of better technologies. Government subsidies don't provide incentives to drive out inefficiencies.
Next, let's start hammering away at pork barrel earmarks. Barack Obama says they "only" amount to 18 billion, but so what? Let's clean that up. When Minnesota's I-35 bridge collapsed last year, they asked the congress for an emergency 255 million for rebuilding, and the congress responded by passing the massive 8+ billion dollar Minnesota bridge repair bill. Minnesota only wanted 255 million, and they packed it with pork for a butterfly garden in North Dakota, a sports stadium somewhere else and all kinds of other junk. And of course you get garbage like the bridge to nowhere coming out of these earmarks.
Follow this up by cuts to foreign aid. Should we really be giving tons of money away when we can't even keep our government in the black at home? That's a recipe for disaster. Plus we keep giving money to failed terrorist states/entities, like the Palestinians, numerous African and Middle Eastern nations and Pakistan.
And for everything else in the budget, cut it by 10% but demand they provide the same level of service. I GUARANTEE you that could be done. In the private sector, companies are always having to drive out costs to remain competitive and profitable, especially in down times like this when their revenues drop. Why do we buy the line all these government workers give us when they say, "We can't have a budget cut! We'll have to close down! Reduce services!" Bull. The private sector goes through revenue reduction all the time. The problem we have is that government NEVER has a recession and NEVER takes a budget cut like all the rest of is. This means waste and inefficiencies aren't forced out of the system. After decades of nothing but budget increases, there has to be at least 10% waste in every single agency, and they will need a good sharp pay cut to have the incentive to get it under control.
That would be
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmental studies are important, and swamps are there for a reason (protect the non-swamp areas against hurricanes, act as habitat for species that we use (directly or indirectly), etc.). The government is now spending even more money to fix swamps that they fucked up 50 years ago because they didn't do the environmental studies in the first place!
Line-item vetos are dumb anyway. If that's what you want, then just encourage the President to veto the whole thing, all the time, until Congress gives him a version without the line items! You don't need a special new power for it; you just need the President to grow a pair!
What Surplus? (Score:4, Informative)
Lets not forget which president ended his presidency with a surplus.
Not Bill Clinton, that's for sure. The debt never dropped under his watch. Chart [brillig.com]
Mod down misinformation (Score:4, Informative)
1) A budget surplus does not imply that the debt is decreasing. Read a book.
2) Even by your own chart you can see that the Clinton was the only fiscally responsible President in recent history. Furthermore, he improved every year he was in office. So what's your point? That Clinton doesn't deserve any credit for being fiscally prudent because he wasn't marginally more prudent where he actually achieved a surplus that exceeded the interest on the debt? Because that's a very dumb point.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Informative)
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14 [perotcharts.com]
The tumorous growth of entitlements grows unabated.
http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ [pensiontsunami.com]
Here is a crowning look at doom:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/supercycle [wordpress.com]
So, we're all kind of baked.
Cheers,
Smitty
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not going to happen, Obama is already planning an end run around the constitution by establishing a Civilian National Security Force
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called providing for the common defense
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is, are the F-22 and F-35 (a) addressing the real needs of our military forces, and (b) are they cost-effective ways of doing that (particularly the F-22, which costs upwards of 100 million per plane)? Currently, the United States Air Force has air superiority, and few nations have anything (or plan to build anything) that can t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why it's called air superiority, not air just-a-little-better-than-everyone-else. Its purpose is to ensure that the air can be used at will by the commander - not that he might-or -might-not be able to use the air, if the enemy doesn't try too hard, and he got a mother may I
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:4, Informative)
Currently, the United States Air Force has air superiority That's why it's called air superiority, not air just-a-little-better-than-everyone-else. Its purpose is to ensure that the air can be used at will by the commander - not that he might-or -might-not be able to use the air, if the enemy doesn't try too hard, and he got a mother may I ...
I think you are speaking of air supremacy - i.e. we would be able to destroy any ( perhaps several :-) ) air force(s) that dared to take to the skies.
Air superiority is merely having a significant advantage in the air.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the reality is that many of the wars of the next 20-30 years will probably look a lot more like Afghanistan and Iraq
You only need to lose one conventional war on your home turf to realize how important defense spending really is.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! Thats why the French, the Germans, the Italians, and the Polish spend a vast majority of their national budgets on defense! God dude, you're fucking brilliant, you should be the SecDef!
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
The US could cut its military budget in half and still be the largest, most powerful military on the planet.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because while the US is more than capable of "bombing Iraq back to the stone age", as many people were very fond of pointing out back then, and your comment about levelling the place reflects, the problem in Iraq is political, and turning Iraq into a smoking crater wasn't a solution to that problem. The US knows how and has the ability to do that very well, what it struggles with is with understanding politics.
I remember what it was like back then quite well. The general american impression was that the US
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could put a platoon on every block in this country, and I could tell you how to blow up a building. Defence against a small one shot attack is impossible in the long run. And while money is poured into the problem endlessly, it's simply a no-fix situation.
Even when we sort out the fact that half the world thinks we're satans bastard children, even when the world is singing and dancing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine you have the most amazing collection of hammers in the world in your toolbox. If you don't have any screwdrivers or wrenches then a lot of tasks are going to be awkward.
The US military is poorly equipped and organized for the kind of thing we were trying to do in Iraq. A lot of the money goes into things that are force multipliers: making individual soldiers more deadly, making units of force agile and able to move in a precisely coordinated way. In a way, we made our military a powerful instrume
Who the hell do you think you are? (Score:5, Funny)
What gives you the right to tell the rest of us what government is "supposed" to do?
Libertarians and their totalitarian fantasies can fuck right off. If people want the government to give everyone rainbows and blowjobs, you have no business telling them it shouldn't.
Re:Who the hell do you think you are? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Although if we can make these part of the new healthcare program, I'm willing to go for a constitutional amendment.
Okay, as budget-conscious concession, I'm willing to forgo the rainbows.
Re:Who the hell do you think you are? (Score:5, Funny)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - US Constitution
You stupid hippies can fuck right off. Nowhere in there do I see anything about social security, Medicaid, Medicare, or socialized medicine, whereas the common defense is explicitly mentioned. And before you even start, 'promote the general welfare' != 'ensure/provide the general welfare'. People should be given the ability to achieve, not the assurance that they will achieve.
Re:Who the hell do you think you are? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is not very different from the one used to decide that the theory of evolution must be wrong because Genesis does not mention any of it.
The fact that you do not seem to consider even the possibility that the guys who wrote that text, in a completely different age, with completely different problems, while holding firmly to ideas that appeared to them self-evident and to which we can now react with little less than disgust and historical perspective---I say, the fact that you do not consider that they were probably not omniscient and perfect while writing that, is simply scary.
Re:Who the hell do you think you are? (Score:5, Interesting)
When the times required it amendments have been made to the US constitution, do you really think that (a constitutional amendment) is the only way to include healthcare in the list of things the federal government has the right to promote as part of the general welfare?
Please have a look around, the rest of the world is screaming past you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for sufficiently negative values of screaming, perhaps so.
Re:Who the hell do you think you are? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I consider myself a libertarian (and carry a Cato-issued pocket Constitution), and agree with the notion of the government existing for the common defense, with all due respect your language and tone of voice hinders "our" argument.
First, "liberal" in a classical sense means something very different than what you seem to think it means. Note that we strive to be a "liberal democracy" and that free market principles constitute "liberal market economy." When people use the word as a slur I cringe - not only for the lack of "decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind," but for the bastardization of the English language.
Second, I remain unclear as to what exactly you are trying to achieve by calling people "stupid hippies," or telling them to "fuck off." It's been my observation that when interlocutors resort to name-calling it is because they are unable to articulately engage their opponents. Classical liberalism ("libertarianism") exists within a strong intellectual framework; you do disservice to the thinkers of the ages when you blatantly insult those with whom you disagree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're going to nitpick, you could make the same argument against the common defense. It merely says provide for the common defense. It does not say provide the common defense. So giving everyone a shotgun would fulfill its obligations. But it doesn't give everyone a shotgun, it chooses the more effective method of a professional army.
And promoting the general welfare... well welfare does just that. The intention of the text isn't to decide how these things should be done, it's to say that they should be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly is libertarianism a totalitarian fantasy? Libertarians by definition believe the state should control almost nothing, which would be the exact opposite.
If people want the government to give everyone rainbows and blowjobs, you have no business telling them it shouldn't.
Even as a libertarian, I agree with you. If that's what the people want, then great. Except I'd add that those who want these things can go through the proper channels - constitutional amendment. Then, after that, the libertarian in me wants to see only those interested in rainbows or blowjobs be charged (perhaps at a group discount rate) for
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
"supposed to be doing" according to who?
if the majority of Americans want public research into space exploration, medical research, and fundamental research, then it is the government's duty to carry out these wishes. the only hard rule about what a government ought to be doing is protecting the interests of its constituency. even in a world without military conflict (and thus with no need for "common defense") government will still be a necessity, just not in its present form.
believe it or not, not everyone is paranoid about a Soviet/German/Chinese invasion or terrorist attack. defense is far from the only common interest shared by a society. certain things like road systems, public education, communications networks, power grids, and other vital public infrastructure cannot be built by a lone individual. they require the collective efforts & resources of a community to develop.
likewise, law enforcement, emergency services, courts, etc. are all public services that a modern society needs to function. because most people don't want to live in a dog eat dog world where might makes right, we establish social institutions to ensure law and order and promote social justice. these institutions do far more for public safety on a day to day basis than a ridiculously expensive military.
and because most people have the foresight to see that fundamental research, space exploration, ecological conservation, and the arts all serve the long-term interests of a society, the government also has the responsibility of funding these admittedly loftier endeavors. if you want to live in a country whose government is only interested in military defense, then move to a nation under military dictatorship. you don't need a democratic government that protects free speech, free press, ensures due process, regulates health standards, and ensures their nation is at the forefront of science & technology, etc. to have an armed forces.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If we're talking defense, being able to at-will remove the people others spent a fortune putting into orbit would be a double-plus
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with you in principle; Obama should definitely validate the actual need for existing programs (military and domestic), and kill those we can live without. I disagree, though, that the F-35 [jsf.mil] is "bleeding edge" (its focus has always been on affordability as an export fighter set to compete with the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen, and the multi-national Eurofighter rather than "performance at any cost"), or that it can be replaced by "incremental upgrades" to the existing fleet.
The F-35 has strong international support from US allies who have helped fund and execute the program (including the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel, and Singapore). It is the only potential replacement for the badly aging AV-8B Harrier II, and will also replace the F-16, A-10, EA-6B, and F/A-18 (except the Super Hornet model, for which it serves as a stealth-capable adjunct).
in favor of re-capitalizing with incremental improvements to exiting proven systems
This argument just doesn't work well for the F-35. While we could arguably replace existing F-16 inventories with the F-16 Block 60, and just buy more F-18 E/F Super Hornets for the Navy, we'd be left with two problems that make your suggestion impractical.
"Incremental improvements" to the Harrier II would be cost-prohibitive, and likely wouldn't solve the major supportability issues it faces. Remember, a STOVL aircraft lives or dies on weight. Cutting weight is hard. Adding weight in a mid-life upgrade is easy. Cost-wise, an "incremental improvement" to the Harrier II is equivalent to a re-design - and we've already paid for a redesign in the F-35. (Same basic problem in the long run with the A-10, though we have more time in that aircraft's instance.)
Second problem is more severe - you can't "incrementally upgrade" an existing aircraft to stealth. Other than the (expensive and non-exportable) F-22, the F-35 is the only fifth generation stealth fighter available to the allied military. The value of stealth has been proven thoroughly and repeatedly; GIYF.
Just as you have to eventually forsake upgrading your beloved IBM XT and buy a new freaking machine, it's time to replace Harrier II's and their generational cohorts with a new platform for the next 50 years - which explains the strong international support behind the F-35.
The F-35 is already in low-rate production after 12 years of competition and detailed design work, and is only 4 years from initial deployment in the USA and UK. Killing it now would be incredibly foolish - and I don't think Obama is foolish in the least.
(All of the F-35 info above I pulled from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], of course.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you mean manned jets?
You'll find the answer fighting any AI creatures in any FPS game on the planet. Computers still lack the tactical depth and flexibility of the human mind, and a remote link suffers from temporal, tactile and reliability shortcomings on the battlefield.
Perhaps in 20-50 years we'll be able to replace soldiers on the battlefield (land, air and sea), but in the meantime, wetware in the loop will win almost every battle.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to make the army cheaper is to lessen the value of the human soldiers in it. China's army is twice the size of the USA's. FCS and all those high tech devices are designed to allow the military to do more with less overall resources. The F-22 and F-35 are designed to use the same support systems, and similar components to allow faster and ultimately less expensive in field repairs.
While the whole land warrior system has been stripped back, squad leaders are still carrying the communication systems and real time mapping aspects to allow them to better coordinate forces. As it stands the US military is one of the most efficient militaries in the world(an oxymoron if there ever was one). While realistic assessments of the tech, and future upgrades to the systems themselves are required it can be doen more easily as the basics of the design has been completed.
The F-22 was the R&D test bed for the F-35 While the per unit cost of the F-22 is high because of this the per unit cost of the F-35 is far far smaller.
You can't make the army cheaper unless your willing to kill more of your own soldiers to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This can be logically extended to, "every tax dollar you don't spend on the army means killing more of your own soldiers". So, should we cut down on everything else, and redirect any gains to the army, to "support the truth"?
Of course, it is a fallacy. If you're not willing to see more your fellow countrymen in your armed forces die, just stop fighting in pointless wars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if you don't want to lessen the value of human soldiers, then the best thing to do isn't to waste money on exorbitant defense projects, but to deploy the armed forces only when it is absolutely necessary. that is, if you value the lives of soldiers you won't put them in harm's way unnecessarily.
our defense budget is far and beyond that of all other nations, but i very much doubt that Canada, France, Sweden, Japan, etc. value the lives of their soldiers any less than we do.
as much as I like an aggressive space program... (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that we can't have it all. That's part of the reason we're in the mess we are now, we're overspending pretty much across the board. I'd be a hypocrite if I said we need to cut spending on ABC but don't touch my XYZ. Here's hoping he has a sensible, balanced plan.
I'd like to know how he plans to combat pork though. I get the impression that's the biggest budget bleeder.
Do a cost/benefit anaylsis (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do a cost/benefit anaylsis (Score:5, Insightful)
What benefit does man space travel provide?
Agreed, but to be specific.
Manned space travel equips us with the tools to spread humanity off the planet eventually. Getting humanity off the earth and in as many self-sustaining redundant locations as possible is the only defense against the annihilation of the species due to a cataclysmic event on earth. The probabilities are such that given a long enough time-frame, the earth WILL be destroyed or failing that the biosphere such that humans can survive will be changed.
The only defense against this is to get our eggs into more baskets.
Manned space travel is one of the few advances that is actually possible to maintain our species in the very long run rather than just having us be a "eh, they had a good run, they made it to 100 episodes!" kind of ending. Add to that the possibilities of mineral/resource exploitation off planet, the research possible from different vantage points and frames of reference, and the exposure to all that we dont know because it does not exist on earth.
That's a big possible RoI compared to the budget imo. Plus, on a slightly darker but no less important note, the group with the keys to the tools will be the one who controls who goes where, when, and how in space.
Re:Cut taxes, then (Score:5, Informative)
Many people here on
Don't take my word for it.
http://www.beowulf.org/overview/history.html [beowulf.org]
http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm [about.com]
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/spinoff.html [nasa.gov]
Engage brain before moving mouth.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Interesting)
These programs are the SDI of Nasa, although SDI turned out to be useful strategically. Basically the money for these programs would be pork. Why not give it to the NIH and the NSF ?
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - John F. Kennedy
Money invested in NASA does come back to us (Score:3, Insightful)
Money invested in NASA DOES come back to you dumbass, hint the I.C.s in the computer you are typing your Slashdot posts on were very much incubated by NASA for use in the space program.
And above and beyond those practical materialistic considerations is the joy and wonder of expanding human knowledge. Or we could let some self proclaimed pseudo Libertarian keep the money to "invest" in more landscaping for their pretentious mini mansion. I know which choice I'd make, sigh.
And yes it's very legitimate to d
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Currency has never had 'intrinsic' value. What would you do with Gold that is valuable? Currency has whatever value we all agree it has. Gold would be no different and it's physical nature would not stop this effect from happening - you'd just see massive inflation of the value of Gold which would make it impossible to use in any technology or science or art.
It's much better to base currency on work units directly rather than some arbitrary physical medium which is scarce until it's not... or abundant until someone decides to hoard it all.
I do some work, I get paid for it. Who cares what the medium used to record the work is... whether it be a printed piece of paper with a unique serial number or a metal coin with a unique serial number... or a digital notation on a computer attached to my unique SSN.
I then take that work unit I was paid with and use it to buy someone else's labor, the same way the company I did the work for paid for my labor.
Personally I don't even have cash.. I rarely use it, except to pay for gas at stations that charge for ATM use (usually the cheapest prices though).
I'd rather keep my work units in a money market account so that they can earn decent interest while I'm not using them (aka I loan them to other people for use in trading on the stock markets). If I've collected enough work units I put them in a CD so others can borrow them more long term - which gives me a better return. Sometimes I loan them out to companies for a very long term - by purchasing stock - with an even better return potential.
Re:Obama is definetly NO JFK !!! (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't enough challenges facing us already? Personally, fixing the economy, changing the entire world energy landscape, averting a global climate disaster, and avoiding WWIII will be quite enough to occupy and challenge us for the next decade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you may be too young to realize it but most of the really useful technology we use today has come out of Space and Military research - a vast amount of spin-offs from going to the moon have probably done more for energy efficiency than any research by independent companies and doing the research and the task provides jobs and stimulates the economy, as we ll as generating national pride - I would much rather my tax dollars go towards this than paying of someones mortgage who shouldn't have been given one i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(well, at lest the "space" part. Seriously, that brought very very little. not even the teflon pan.)
You've heard of satellites, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obama is definetly NO JFK !!! (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen the heat shield they started putting on/in houses in southern climates? Where do you think that was developed originally? This heat shield keeps heat out in summer; and retains heat in the winter. This is one of the most obvious applications of NASA developed technology towards greater energy conservation.
Microwaves -- are these a myth? Think these were developed by a commercial entity just so they could sell you a different type of oven?
Integrated circuits -- of course lighter weight, cheaper to manufacture electronics were not created by the space industry. When lifting loads into orbit, you don't need lighter weight electronics.
Here is a better list you can ignore [thespaceplace.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Developing whole new sets of technology seemed to be a very good thing for the U.S. economy before. The Apollo program produced a lot of new technology (including Tang! yum!). The only reason we are 'first world' is that we had things to sell that the rest of the world didn't, and we were the only ones that had them. Of course now, we would likely lose that advantage immediately when those running things outsource all the work overseas once the technology is established. Then the overseas companies will
Re:Obama is definetly NO JFK !!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the psychiatrist who only works with disturbed people all day who thinks all people have some sort of mental malady, if our society only focuses on societal issues we will become too self involved. And very probably self destructive.
As someone else posted, for the money spent, NASA is a gem in our national investment portfolio. A good portfolio manager don't divest themselves of the promising ventures to focus their funds on only the largest financial ventures.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only private enterprise I am currently aware of that has any chance at the moment is SpaceX. However SpaceX's dragon capsule is not designed to get us back on the Moon or to reach Mars.
Re:That was one of the reasons why I voted for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa there... he hasn't done anything yet. He isn't even the president! His people are just gathering information. Calm down... Geesh.