U.S. In Danger of Losing Earth-Observing Satellite Capability 258
New submitter crazyjj writes "As reported in Wired, a recent National Research Council report indicates a growing concern for NASA, the NOAA, and USGS. While there are currently 22 Earth-observing satellites in orbit, this number is expected to drop to as low as six by the year 2020. The U.S. relies on this network of satellites for weather forecasting, climate change data, and important geologic and oceanographic information. As with most things space and NASA these days, the root cause is funding cuts. The program to maintain this network was funded at $2 billion as recently as 2002, but has since been scaled back to a current funding level of $1.3 billion, with only two replacement satellites having definite launch dates."
A perfect example (Score:5, Insightful)
The anti-science crowd will soon be racking up an impressive body count - including their own voting-against-their-own-interest constituencies in hurricane and tornado country.
Re:A perfect example (Score:5, Funny)
A perfect example of Short-Sightedness.
No doubt the free market will step in and launch satellites that are better, faster, and cheaper.
But you'll have to pay for it.
But there's a silver lining to this cloud!.
At least people will stop blaming the government for not predicting hurricanes and tornados!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you lose your observational capacity, it's a perfect example of non-sightedness.
Correction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Public and Scientific earth viewing satellites are dwindling. The military has plenty of money to launch all they need.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still worrying that civilian instruments in space are dwindling. Sure, the military-industrial complex has Congress in their pocket, but science is not a top priority for military satellites.
Re:Correction.... (Score:5, Informative)
You must've missed the article the other day where the Secretary of Defense called Climate Change a threat to national security.
http://www.rttnews.com/1877434/climate-change-a-threat-to-national-security-panetta.aspx?type=usp [rttnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which is true because you'll have nations fighting over resources, especially water.
Thing is though, it's the secretary of defense - so this would be a call for increased military spending. Climate change is real, the only debate is how much of an effect humans are causing (from none to a lot). Climate change deniers are simply stating it's changing not because of human activity, s
Re:Correction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even more worrying that civilian instruments are declining with respect to militarism. If it were just cutbacks across the board that caused this, it would be unfortunate. But what we actually see indicates a (continuing) shift in priorities. Military spending is more important to the powers that run the US than scientific spending. Notably, supremacy of the military and disdain for intellectuals are both defining characteristics of fascist states [secularhumanism.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Military spending is more important to the powers that run the US than scientific spending.
Military spending has a much higher profit and waste margin.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
On an aggregate level, R&D has a much better ROI than war. The problem is that the profits from an investment in basic science are realized by society as a whole, instead of the individuals involved in doing or funding the research.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
civilian instruments in space are dwindling
Are you sure [techcrunch.com] about [makezine.com] that? [oreilly.com]
Re:Correction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Correction.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Public and Scientific earth viewing satellites are dwindling. The military has plenty of money to launch all they need.
Actually, that's incorrect. We (I'm a Signal Officer in the Army National Guard that just returned from a deployment to Afghanistan) have several communications systems that use civilian satellites.
So your statement would more correctly read: The military has plenty of money to rent time on civilian satellites.
To head off the inevitable "it's not secure!", we use NSA-provided end-to-end encryption for all of our tactical communications, especially those going over civilian networks. Including satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he reveal privileged information? They use satellites to transmit data? Perhaps some people think Navy Destroyers tow a really, really long fiber optic cable, or use a very, very big speaker to transmit through the ocean?
Re: (Score:2)
Did he reveal privileged information? They use satellites to transmit data? Perhaps some people think Navy Destroyers tow a really, really long fiber optic cable, or use a very, very big speaker to transmit through the ocean?
The volume-control for those very, very big speakers goes to 11.
No Problem (Score:5, Funny)
We'll just outsource it all to India and China.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. "We" don't have to do anything. If monitoring climate change is important, the free market will do a better job at it than government.
Re: (Score:3)
"Hello, have you tried turning the weather off, then back on again?"
Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
This is a simple problem to solve. All they have to do is label the satellites as "anti-terrorist", or something like that, and they'll get all the funding they need.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Congressman: So this satellite...
NASA: The "A-TOP" Anti-Terrorist Observation Platform, sir.
Congressman: It says it's for observing terrorists, but it looks like it's for monitoring the weather...
NASA: It's for monitoring terrorist efforts to use the weather as a weapon, sir.
Congressman: They can do that?!?
NASA: They're very clever, sir.
A perfect storm! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the perfect tin-foil-hat scenario!
The "Global Warming Alarmists" will say it's a plot to prevent the study of of anthropogenic climate change by the "Deniers" and prove just how bad it is.
And the "Deniers" will say it's a plot to keep the "Alarmists" evil lie from coming to light.
Pass the popcorn!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think they will. It might be a side-effect of anti-science zealotry in general, but I don't think there's a compelling need to allege a conspiracy to explain this happening.
The argument you present from the other side also seems implausible, as the satellite data has been some of the most damning. On the other hand, who am I to guess at the m
The answer is to CUT TAXES (Score:5, Funny)
1. Cut Taxes
2. ????
3. Jesus Comes
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus will only come back if you also end all corporate regulation. It's in Revelations somewhere.
Re:The answer is to CUT TAXES (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense (Score:3)
After all, the money to pay for F-22s that have never flown a combat mission and cost a year's salary to fly for an hour was FAR more important than trivial things like weather forecasting.
But just you wait and see what gets cut to pay for the F-35s!
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Funny)
Don't knock the F-22. It's a great plane--as long as the person flying it doesn't need oxygen, anyway.
short on detail (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised if 6 new sats designed and launched between now and then could actually do the job of the 18 mission the TFA mentions . TFA was long on hype and short on details.
Geometry (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if 6 new sats designed and launched between now and then could actually do the job of the 18 mission the TFA mentions .
The number of satellites required is more a function of geometry than technology: In close, there's only so much surface visible and only so much area covered per day. Farther out, there's more area covered (albeit at lower resolution) but less per day goes under the eye.
Barring SF-novel grade technology that can count pubic hairs from the orbit of Uranus, there's only so much that you can do to counter those constraints.
It's only natural... (Score:2)
It's only natural that as repeatedly denied, government funded science scandals occur, the public loses faith in government funded science
It's only natural that as government spying increases, people lose interesting funding anything global with surveillence.
Basically, we're f&*$#d.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this curious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the NASA budget as a whole, which as you point out is doing all right by historical standards, particularly given the larger budget situation within the government. The talk of cuts has more to do with allocations within NASA.
Specifically, SLS (the new heavy-lift to nowhere rocket) and James Webb Space Telescope are eating everyone else's lunch. Planetary Science and Commercial Cargo/Crew development, along with Earth Science, are the programs suffering from this.
SLS is the real tragedy,
unfunded mandates (Score:3)
In general, the 'we're going to the Moon, and then to Mars' was the start of it ... Added the stuff that NASA had to do, but no money to pay for it, so other departments got canibalized.
There was a lot of press about the folks in Florida who lost their jobs after the last shuttle lanuch ... but nothing about the people who were let go years before because their discipline had cuts so that the shuttle could continue going up past its planned life without any funding to pay for it.
And for JWST, there was a b
I think we have identified the problem (Score:2)
The U.S. relies on this network of satellites for ...climate change data
'Nuff said.
They don't need that much (Score:2)
It's been demonstrated that the cost of launching small shiny objects into space has dropped drastically. The Mars rovers (Opportunity and Spirit) continued operational cost has cost under a billion dollars total (and that's including the projected 5th mission for them).
Yet, they were launched in 2003 - before Xprize, before UAVs and the many long-run high altitude planes/UAVs, and a myriad of other advancements. They weren't just a payload and delivery system, they were multiple payloads with multiple deli
Re: (Score:3)
YOU aren't Boeing / Lockheed / Northrup-Grumman , et. al.
THEY need lots of money for this sort of thing. Government regulations, security, terrorism and all that.
YOU shut the fuck up. THEY will protect America!
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, UAV's are another option for Earth Observation.
The only problem is the (well deserved) very bad rap they get for being used for surveillance. i.e. how do you tell a climate monitoring drone from a big brother drone?
But, they can pair up quite nicely with satellite's to enhance our gathering of Earth Science data.
Re: (Score:3)
Moore's law applies to integrated circuits. Although satellites use plenty of chips, the cost of ICs isn't the major driver of something like an observation platfo
E.T. = Extra Terrorists (Score:2)
Maybe if NASA said they can use them to track terrorists, they could divert some funding from the DoD.
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, Paul Krugman among others have theorized that a credible threat of extra-terrestrial invasion would in fact do wonders for the world:
1. We'd stop focusing on hating other people, and start focusing on hating those evil aliens. It would go a long way towards making peace on earth possible.
2. World governments which are currently acting mostly as a brake on the economy would start employing absolutely everybody to design and build new weapons designed to stop the invasion. Think along the
Who needs a satellite? (Score:2)
Those are just the U.S. Government satellites (Score:2)
Those are just the U.S. Government satellites. They're ignoring WorldView-1, WorldView-2, GeoEye-1, RapidEye 1 through 5, Spot 2,4, and 5, EROS A and B... This is an area in which the private sector is doing quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure how this works (Score:2)
Reading the comments:
Obama proposes budget.
Nasa takes a hit.
Fault = republicans?
They are short of satellites because... (Score:2)
That's because... (Score:2)
Hey America! So Sorry!!! Nobody had the heart to say... the money is all gone. We print more, but now it doesn't mean anything any more. The several hundred people at the top of the economic pyramid own everything, have all the money, and are now confronted with how to keep the whole damn thing going without actually putting any real amount of wealth back in the system. So until they all get together this summer in the Hamptons, and figure out what they're willing to fund, new satellites are not on the menu
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Funny)
There are 536 people in this 'group'.
Re: (Score:3)
There are 536 people in this 'group'.
Give or take a handful of independents who are likely fed up the apparent inability of either majority party congresscritters to not act like spoiled fucking children.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:4, Informative)
You're not really right about the independents in Congress: Joe Lieberman is probably the ultimate spoiled child. He lost in the Connecticut Democratic primary back in 2006, went whining to the national Democratic leadership, and convinced them to back him rather than the guy who was ostensibly their party's candidate.
The other independent is Bernie Sanders. Like him or not, he definitely sticks to his socialist positions. He's willing to make deals with strange bedfellows though - for instance, he worked with Ron Paul on the Fed audit that uncovered trillions of dollars going to major banks.
Re: (Score:2)
My avoidance of definites was deliberate.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
The other independent is Bernie Sanders. Like him or not, he definitely sticks to his socialist positions. He's willing to make deals with strange bedfellows though - for instance, he worked with Ron Paul on the Fed audit that uncovered trillions of dollars going to major banks.
This is not strange to me. Progressives want government to do more and libertarians want government to do less, but neither wants the corporatism that we have today. At least in the short term, progressives and libertarians should be cooperating. Unfortunately, most people in both groups are too busy hating the other side to think this one through.
Re: (Score:3)
Progressives see libertarians as either Republicans or anarchists, and libertarians see Progressives as big-government people who don't realize they've already w
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, 538, one of which doesn't get to do much unless ther'es a tie.
But I get your point. It's such a big problem that we can no nothing about it.
If only aerospace had more profit potential. Then the Government would be much more interested.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. The Democrats *did* pass Romney's health care plan.
Re: (Score:2)
That was on the state side. His plan was not a federal plan.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
The really sick thing is the first time I remember hearing the mandate as a serious proposal was by some Republicans offering an alternative just after Hillary released her healthcare proposal in the early 90s.
Warped world, that Washington.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah -- Obamacare is really Romneycare is really Bob Dole's 1993 plan.
People like to say there's no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but that's not true. Democrats vote *for* Republican initiatives, Republicans vote against them.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Dems wasted a lot of time trying to reach out to the Republicans by supporting their ideas. The individual mandate, end of life counseling (now called death panels), cap and trade, the DREAM act... all of those were Republican ideas that they turned violently against as soon as the Democrats supported them.
The whole reason NASA is even being cut is because the GOP took the country hostage last summer over the debt ceiling. Nevermind that most of the debt comes from the wars they supported and the tax cuts they demanded.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. The Dems wasted a lot of time trying to reach out to the Republicans by supporting their ideas. The individual mandate, end of life counseling (now called death panels), cap and trade, the DREAM act... all of those were Republican ideas that they turned violently against as soon as the Democrats supported them.
The whole reason NASA is even being cut is because the GOP took the country hostage last summer over the debt ceiling. Nevermind that most of the debt comes from the wars they supported and the tax cuts they demanded.
Sorry, but the $2-3 trillion in war funding over 10 years doesn't make a dent in the $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit every year.
Try again. Your boogie man is a lie.
Re: (Score:3)
"Under current law, CBO projects, budget deficits will drop markedly over the next few years—to $1.1 trillion in 2012, $704 billion in 2013, and $533 billion in 2014."
And that's without letting the Bush tax cuts expire, or raising taxes on the 1%.
Re: (Score:3)
"It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before."
Like there's a cause and effect? That also happens to be the period during which the financial sector ran amok and banks and mortgage lenders encouraged people to cash in -- and spend -- their home equity.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
I would buy this argument if the Dems (or the GOP) were trying to even attempt to balance the budget. That way we could look to the future with hope for stopping fund cuts like these.
Instead, both sides - and 99% of Americans, for that matter - aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary.
The lower income people who aren't paying a penny in income taxes but getting thousands back each year as Earned Income Credits... (Ask some of them what they do with that money... "It's vacation time, baby!"... GUILTY
The corporations shielding their billions in income overseas... GUILTY
The Dems that won't lower the corporate tax rate and at least get a large chunk of the money being held overseas... GUILTY
The politicians who keep giving the 99% their cash "they deserve" by simply having a pulse... GUILTY
The GOP for invading Iraq without good evidence and dropping a cool trillion plus on it... GUILTY
The Defense Department's never-ending war machine (the amount spent on four or five F-22s - that will never see combat, BTW - would cover the satellite funding difference)... GUILTY
The Dems who do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants from coming here to cut local costs (violent crime, ID theft, social program costs) - possibly because they see a giant block of future, loyal Dem voters - all in the name of "stopping racism", of course - GUILTY
The American public as a whole, for not giving a crap about others, all while lying/cheating/stealing a little more than the day before and saying, "the banks did it - why not us?", and ignoring the imminent destruction of the dollar and/or the American economy... "Just keep the time bomb going somehow, and I don't care how..." GUILTY
It's really sad to watch our American empire slowly dying as it has been for decades now, with us - the American people - doing all the wrong things (or nothing at all) to stop it. We might as well rename our country The Neo Roman Empire (or for you Asimov fans, Trantor)...
The real solution is for people to really start caring about each other again, but anybody talking all "faggy and shit" like that is laughed out of town...
Re:Important to remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
The Dems who do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants from coming here to cut local costs (violent crime, ID theft, social program costs) - possibly because they see a giant block of future, loyal Dem voters - all in the name of "stopping racism", of course - GUILTY
You said some stuff I agree with, and some stuff I don't. This one, though, annoys me.
What the hell have the Republicans done? Building a very expensive, and completely ineffective, wall doesn't count. The Republicans even adopted a very nonsensical policy of "We must keep them all out, before we can do anything about the ones that are here".
Both sides LOVE illegal immigrants. Democrats love the idea of the eternally-forthcoming, yet never coming, wave of Latino liberal voters. Republicans love them because they are an infinite font of cheap labor, which can suppress wages and break unions. No one wants to kill illegal immigration.
our American empire
For some reason this phrase doesn't fill me with the glee I suppose it should.
Re: (Score:3)
It is worse than that. There is a group of people in the US Congress who just hate anything that the "other side" supports. It does not matter what it is they will work against anything that they think the other side wants to support. They care more about the success of their party than they do the country they swore to serve. The sad thing is that it has gone on long enough that two such groups have formed. We just have a bunch of obstinate dick heads now due to gerrymandering and an absent media.
Close. The media isn't absent, it's just serving its corporate masters which causes the "obstinate dickheads" in the "'two such groups" to pretend to be gerrymandering. Example: You have two friends. Friend A is a close friend and you also do some limited business together, which you like and the extra cash comes in handy. Friend B is a friend and has been there for you, but there's no real advantage to this friend, other than the occasional pat on the back. Friend A and B know each other, but aren't
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Important to remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I've always seen it as the "fiscal conservatives" want us to quit "wasting" money in space so instead things have to be billed under the military to get anything done.
Find me a liberal who opposes NASA funding based off of it going to military purposes, cause I think you are full of shit.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations, on the other hand, get free rein.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very difficult to look at the Bush presidency - some of it including control of both houses of congress - and come away with a feeling that the Republicans represent fiscal discipline.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very difficult to look at the Bush presidency - some of it including control of both houses of congress - and come away with a feeling that the Republicans represent fiscal discipline.
Deficits [usgovernmentspending.com]:
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
I don't think it's that difficult. You are just not trying.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Informative)
The really hilarious thing isn't that you cherry-picked data. It's that you linked back to the un-cherry-picked table:
Obama Deficits
FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2012*: $1,327 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
Bush Deficits
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
Now, I won't ding Bush too badly for the bailout-derived deficit... but of course I'd have to give Obama the same latitude there. Now compare him to Clinton:
Year GDP-US $ billion Federal Deficit-fed $ billion
1990 5800.5 221.03 a
1991 5992.1 269.24 a
1992 6342.3 290.32 a
1993 6667.4 255.05 a
1994 7085.2 203.18 a
1995 7414.7 163.95 a
1996 7838.5 107.43 a
1997 8332.4 21.89 a
1998 8793.5 -69.27 a
1999 9353.5 -125.61 a
2000 9951.5 -236.24 a
2001 10286.2 -128.23 a
2002 10642.3 157.75 a
2003 11142.2 377.59 a
2004 11853.3 412.73 a
2005 12623 318.35 a
2006 13377.2 248.18 a
2007 14028.7 160.71 a
2008 14369.1 458.55 a
2009 13939 1412.69 a
2010 14526.5 1293.49 a
2011 15094 1299.59 a
2012 15601.5 1326.95 b
Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy13 budget
Clinton gets the blame for 1993-2001. His maximum deficit was 255 billion, his first year. His best year was 2000 with a 236 billion surplus. Now look at those Bush years again...
Now to be totally fair, Clinton did benefit from a tax and cost cutting package that cost Bush I his 2nd term. He also had a nice dot-com bubble at the end there.
Of course, Bush inherited an actual surplus and benefited from a much larger housing bubble.
So yeah, Bush cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative. Republicans have zero claim to that title right now.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be so, but very few Republicans these days are fiscal conservatives. Many more are only social conservatives, like Rick Santorum: ready and willing to tell other people how to live their lives.
Corporations, on the other hand, get free rein.
That's because as soon as a group tries to steer the Republican party to being "fiscal conservatives", they are labeled "racists" by Democrats. Take THIS [teaparty.org] group for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Fiscal conservatives want us to quit wasting money. Space has nothing to do with it other than it is one place that can be cut easily. If you ask most conservatives, we would rather spend money on space exploration than social wellfare programs. Unfortunately, those programs can't be cut without much pain to the folks who need/want to depend on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I've always seen it as the "fiscal conservatives" want us to quit "wasting" money in space so instead things have to be billed under the military to get anything done.
Find me a liberal who opposes NASA funding based off of it going to military purposes, cause I think you are full of shit.
Really? I wonder because it has not been the "fiscal conservatives" in charge of the White House and Congress these past few years. Hell, back in 2006 when Republicans held both houses and the White House, the shuttles were still flying and there was a funded plan to replace them, and the deficit was 1/5 of what it is today.
It makes me wonder, though. If liberals don't oppose NASA, as you say, and I know that conservatives don't oppose NASA, then why the cuts? I think the difference is that conservative
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is the Left that is big on NASA cuts, as NASA is under mostly military spending.
Odd... If NASA were military, someone would just say it's to fight the TERRORISTS! and it would receive unlimited funding.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/faqs.html [nasa.gov]
Is NASA a part of the Department of Defense?
NASA is not a part of the Department of Defense, nor of any other Cabinet-level department. NASA's administrator reports directly to the White House.
Re:Important to remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
The LEFT is all about funding NASA, the problem is the RIGHT's obstinate blocking of anything related to INVESTMENT in our future. Why don't we have a Shuttle program? Yet give out more than NASA's ENTIRE budget to the oil industry EVERY YEAR?
The LEFT is not the problem.
On a more rational note, gerrymandered districts are a major problem on both sides of the aisle. But that's a more fundamentally broken part of our government.
Re: (Score:3)
From 1991 on, NASA's budget has steadily gone down, through Democratic controlled congresses AND Republican controlled congresses. I think this is more of a reflection of the US becoming lax after the fall of the Soviet Union than some destruction committed by your anti-science boogeyman. Consider that the ISS began in the early mid 1990s and continued to be funded through consecutive Republican majorities from 1995 onwards, one cannot reasonably put all the credit on the LEFT and all the fault on the RIGHT
Finger-pointing is The Answer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, finger-pointing is the answer. Just look at nearly every comment on this news story. The consensus solution for NASA's problems is clearly finger-pointing and trying to find someone to blame.
Religion-haters are sure it's the fault of the religionists. Military-haters aren't sure whose fault it is, but did they mention they hate the military? Ditto for the banker-haters and the millionaire-haters. Leftists are sure it's the fault of the right. Rightists are sure it's the fault of the left. The "use Science as a wedge issue" crowd are sure it's because of the War on Science (tm). No one has mentioned the War on Women (tm) yet, so I guess NASA doesn't poll well with women.
Here's an alternate idea -- NASA isn't getting funded for three reasons:
1. NASA doesn't have very many votes to sell
2. There's a lot less uncommitted money in the GDP. The money that is there is already over-committed to retirement spending, health-care spending, and repayment of debt. Investments in the future are hard to justify because ROIs are down.
3. The US no longer has a culture that can unify. On anything. Ever. So all government spending is either for "our side" or "their side", never for the common good. This leads some (including me) to the conclusion that very little money should be spent by government -- until the culture swings back to where we can unify on some things again.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA is a civilian agency and does not fall under the auspices of the department of defense. Its budget isn't a part of the Defense budget; it's its own separate line item.
NASA does get some money from the military whenever NASA launches or services DoD hardware, but that's from the DoD side of the ledger, not NASA's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The right hates science and it's conclusions, and the problem with these satellites is that they promote science and the conclusions scientists reach.
The right doesn't mind science R&D (i.e. the fraction of research that private companies can get an immediate ROI on.) It's just the pesky fundamental research with no foreseeable application and no quarterly profit that gets them upset; but without the fundamental research, there are no more breakthroughs.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is bad has been the mantra of the GOP for a long time. Now they're complaining that China has all the manufacturing of solar panels. Well, uh, if you'd invested in what the ENTIRE WORLD was clamoring for instead of denying global warming we might actually be the leading producer.
And the GOP call themselves the party of 'business' - it's laughab
Re:Important to remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
Truly spiritual christian types do not have a lot of time or room for hate.
You seem to have a lot of room for ad hominem, though. Nice troll.
Re:Like it or not (Score:4, Insightful)
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to the super wealthy.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to big bankers.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to military contractors.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to maintaining certain industries failed business models.
Either find a way to make everyone play by the same rules, or expect repercussions from the serfs.
Re:Like it or not (Score:5, Insightful)
People with brains, and a sharp sense of reality.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.econdataus.com/outgdp04.html [econdataus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why are the Medicare and 'health' series separated? If they were combined, as they should be, the line would show the dramatic climb the parent claims regarding 'health care.'
The parent is wrong about the military. As the graph shows it has been trending down for half a century. You wouldn't know that listening to the malcontents on the left, however.
So that the chart could reflect the point the poster wanted to make.
Re: (Score:2)
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to taking care of senior citizens.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to health care.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to the military.
Either find ways to spend less on the above, increase income dramatically or deal with decreasing other services. Fourth option is a combinationation of the first three. I see no other choices.
Stick it on the credit card. Easy!
Re: (Score:2)
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to taking care of senior citizens.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to health care.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to the military.
Either find ways to spend less on the above, increase income dramatically or deal with decreasing other services. Fourth option is a combinationation of the first three. I see no other choices.
You've done most of the heavy lifting for me so thank you for that. My solution would address all three issues you cited simultaneously.
Reinstate the draft for anyone over 65 and put them on the front lines of any major conflicts.
Many will see the humor...many more will be appalled at the notion...but the truly "touched" will be marketing this to their representative.
Re:Adam Smith (Score:4, Insightful)
"Perhaps the GOP-dominated Congress will soon suggest"...
Congress has been DNC dominated from what? 2008 until 2010? STRONGLY dominated? And the GOP had slight majorities before then... This report is from 2007 with just a recent update...
Your dig at the GOP just doesn't sound reasonable...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the Dems bow down to any 'nuclear' reaction by the GOP. So it's the GOPs fault!
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps the GOP-dominated Congress will soon suggest"...
Congress has been DNC dominated from what? 2008 until 2010? STRONGLY dominated? And the GOP had slight majorities before then... This report is from 2007 with just a recent update...
Your dig at the GOP just doesn't sound reasonable...
That depends on your definition of "domination." The time period you list did include a majority of Dems; however the filibuster allows the minority party to dominate anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference is the Dems when in the minority didn't pull what the GOP has done since 2010. They allowed votes on controversial issues except for a few judges they opposed. The GOP on the other hand has issued more filibusters in the last 2 years than the previous 30 years COMBINED.
If Harry Reid had the balls to change the rules in 2010 this wouldn't have happened and we'd be a d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not your fathers GOP anymore. The Tea Party folks insisted on cuts, and they got them, including funding for tsunami warning systems and weather programs. This days before the Japan quake and tsunami, as I recall.
Shipping, airlines, agriculture, the military, all depend on accurate weather forecasting.
We'd have never made it to the moon if these guys had been around back then, and if they have their way, we'll soon be losing passenger planes, cargo ships, and wars.
Panem et circenses (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the decline of the holy roman empire 2.0
The US is rapidly becoming a has-been, and at this point it may be irreversible. The tea-party and other opportunists wanting bread and circus are just a symptom of the decline, not the cause.
Once people are more interested in preserving what they have and not risk wasting anything than taking a risk at investing in the future, then the decline has already started.
Re:AC In Danger of Losing First-Posting Capability (Score:5, Funny)
We don't need no fancy satellites -- I bet they were dreamed up by some liberal thinker at a UNIVERSITY.
Jesus and the Bible tell us everything we need to know about climate changes, and that's that the world is going to burn. Judgment Day is approaching and those who aren't saved are going to burn to death forever.
USA! USA! USA!
Re:Funding? No (Score:4, Interesting)
Much like the early voyages of discovery that put America on the map were a waste, right? Why waste money on exploration when there are petty tribal wars to be fought?
NASA's budget is a rounding error compared to the military's budget, and yet I would put "landing a man on the moon" far higher than "My Lai" on the list of things America can be proud of. If exploration of space is a waste, then count me and millions of others as an ardent supporter of that kind of waste.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. Now that companies have their own satellites it would make more sense to privatise weather stuff. NASA is there for the long term research that is too risky for the corporate sector. You know, Mars missions, Moon missions in '69, that kind of thing.
Re:NASA isn't NASA any longer (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently everyone forgot that NASA doesn't exist any longer. It's now MASO - Muslim Aeronautics and Space Outreach. How could we forget that? It's what our Dear Leader decreed after all.
Massive flamebait. My god what happened to you as a child?