MAVEN Mission To Mars Will Proceed, Despite Shutdown 87
necro81 writes "Due to the ongoing shutdown of the U.S. Government, NASA is largely grounded. This is bad for all kinds of reasons, but one particularly bad outcome would have been missing the launch window for the MAVEN spacecraft, due to launch 18 November. The next launch window would not have been until 2016. MAVEN, thankfully, has been given the go-ahead, in large part because this orbiter will serve as a vital communications link for the Opportunity and Curiosity rovers currently on the surface. Currently, these rovers are served by two aging orbiters: Mars Odyssey (launched 2001) and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (launched 2005). Maintaining communications with the rovers is considered essential, hence the preparations and launch will proceed. (NASA's official mission website is currently offline.)"
Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain to older generations that we missed launching MAVEN? I think they will probably be more pissed about abandoning Lunar exploration, the demise of US manned launch capabilities for almost a decade, and the failure to exploit the once in 175 year planetary alignment to explore the ice giants with more than one probe. They might also be pissed that even though NASA shut down temporarily, it had fallen less than 0.5% of the federal spending. Older generations will never know or care if a 2 or 3 year launch window was missed. They will only care about the big things.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely, future generations will ask "What the hell is 'NASA'?"
Re: (Score:2)
And then say, "You mean people really DID go to the moon? Which mining company sponsored that?"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I rather doubt our congresspeople (of either party) can spell "future generations", much less consider it when planning their next campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a sad day we would have to explain to later generations that we missed a launch window because of a childish fight of some politicians.
The good news is that you don't have to explain a thing. If they're not complete idiots, they'll understand because they'll be doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm is duly noted..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It's murky water.
The employees who are essential and are continuing to work, will have their pay delayed until the shutdown is over.
Some employees won't actually be working, but will have their pay delayed.
Others won't be working, but will not be payed.
Still others will simply be laid off.
And finally, people who work with the government(but not for the government) will also get laid off due to their position being moot.
There may be other groups I'm not thinking of, but hopefully this will clear some confusi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If he is *IN* the Navy, he will be paid on time. If he is a civilian, there may be a delay but eventually he will be paid.
At least until the 17th when the debt ceiling arrives.... After that it is anybodies guess what bills will be paid...
This government "shutdown" thing is just a warm up act, the real show will start on the 17th (or whenever the Treasury decides they've run out of money.) To mix metaphors, this whole thing is a game of musical chairs. On the 17th, the music stops for the last time. P
Re: (Score:2)
The military will get paid. Congress is quite aware that they will not be allowed to piss off the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Shutdown is a lie (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but it's generally expected that once congress gets back in order they'll authorised back-pay, as has happened in previous shutdowns. Some of the employees may need to borrow money to get them through the crisis, but they'll get paid. Eventually. Probably.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's generally expected that once congress gets back in order they'll authorised back-pay, as has happened in previous shutdowns. Some of the employees may need to borrow money to get them through the crisis, but they'll get paid. Eventually. Probably.
My cousin and his wife are both sitting at home. They are both pretty sure that this time is different, and they likely will NOT be paid.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/house-and-senate-bills-would-pay-federal-workers-for-shutdown-furloughs/2013/10/03/d2fc8096-2c58-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html
its already happening. So yea, they will get paid like always meaning the shut-down was nothing but a free vacation to the federal employees. The only losers will be the taxpayers who are paying the workers to do nothing. Something I have always wondered, if they are going to get back-pay anyway, why aren't they worki
Re: (Score:2)
Because of a quirk of how the government operates in the US. The federal government cannot spent money without congressional authorisation, even if it has the money to spend. Authorisation has now run out - which means no paying the employees. Nor can they be asked to work for free, as there is no way to promise they will be paid in future - it's almost certain that congress is going to authorise back-pay, but 'almost' isn't good enough.
Re: (Score:1)
so what? two-thirds of the federal govenrment serves no good purpose, they're just parasites on our dime. it would be better if they were working outside the government actually creating wealth and adding value, instead of being a cost sink
Re:The Shutdown is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
so what? two-thirds of the federal govenrment serves no good purpose, they're just parasites on our dime.
... according to your own personal definition of "no good purpose". The problem is there are 316 million people in the USA, and every one of them has a different idea of what parts of the government are worth funding, and which are a waste of money. What you see as worthless I may see as an essential service, and vice versa.
Fortunately, we have a mechanism for resolving these disputes, it's called representative democracy. People vote for representatives who then represent their views in the legislature, and those representatives vote on laws and policy. Through this mechanism, the people's will can be (roughly) reflected by the government's policies.
The problem we have currently is that there is a 20% minority (the Tea Party) that is laboring under the delusion that they are a majority, and therefore they think they have the right to coerce the rest of the nation into doing things their way. Procedural shenanigans notwithstanding, that's not how a democracy works, as the Republicans are quickly finding out.
TL;DR: If the Tea Partiers want a nation with a low-tax/low-service government, they need to convince a majority of American voters to elect Tea Party representatives, at which point they'll have control and they can govern as they see fit. Until then, they need to get out of the way; we've a country to run and their narcissistic bullshit is pointless and destructive.
Re: (Score:2)
how about not mass murdering and maiming people for profit? yes, some people think that's great
we have government in the back pockets of large corporations, sorry to hear you've bought into that "representative democracy" propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem we have currently is that there is a 20% minority (the Tea Party) that is laboring under the delusion that they are a majority, and therefore they think they have the right to coerce the rest of the nation into doing things their way.
Not much of a problem then. If we're going to talk about politics, I imagine things like the decades long declining competitiveness of US labor in the world (and the interesting political inability to address that issue) or the fact that entitlement spending is more than infrastructure spending, would be more useful issues to discuss. Complaining that there's 20% of the US voters who don't want to play ball with you just doesn't make that list.
It's also worth noting here that "getting in the way" is a fi
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to give the Tea Partiers to get out of the way?
Personally I'm just going to roll my eyes at them, since I'm not directly involved in the process.
If I was the Democratic Party, OTOH, I would give them -- absolutely nothing, other than the chance to stop the ongoing self-destruction of the Republican Party, whenever they feel like they've done themselves enough damage.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know - I like that there are people inspecting meat for consumption, guarding our borders, designing missions for space travel, researching cures for diseases, enforcing federal laws, coordinating satellite communication and orbits, collect and distribute taxes/refunds, coordinating infrastructure development, social security and medicare, etc. etc. etc.
There's a million things the federal government does that are useful. Yeah, there's some waste in there - but to randomly attack with "two-thirds of
Re: (Score:2)
a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis have relatives that would disagree with your rosey world view. and some billionaires with an evil government in their pocket who would totally agree it's nice you have such a view
Re: (Score:1)
There's a million things the federal government does that are useful.
Well, if there are two million things that the federal government does which are useless, then the original statement remains true. It's also worth noting here that some of those "million things" would be more usefully done by anyone other than the government.
I almost wish a real shutdown would happen so people like you would realize how many functions the government really does serve.
Careful, we might decide we like it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Pentagon actually sucks up that much of the budget, they're only about half. Of course most of the interest that we pay wouldn't have been necessary to borrow in the first place if it weren't for the military spending, so maybe you're closer than I think.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you don't agree with a democratically elected government doesn't mean that it is corrupt, and it doesn't mean that its policies are unpopular. (By unpopular, I assume you mean that the majority disagree with it.)
I also find it mildly ironic that a person who accuses the government of corruption seems to feel that the current situation is normal, since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legisla
Re:The Shutdown is a lie (Score:4, Informative)
Just because you don't agree with a democratically elected government doesn't mean that it is corrupt
You could read his post. As noted, the Obama administration has decided which parts of the law to delay and which not to, even though they weren't given that option (in other words, illegally). Various waivers of Obamacare provisions have been made to Democrat party allies. And there is indeed an exemption for certain government employees (I just know of Congress and its staff having a specific exemption).
When certain people have to follow the law and other, better connected people don't, that's corruption whether you agree with it or not.
and it doesn't mean that its policies are unpopular
There, I would go by public opinion too. Polls indicate most people don't have a clue. So it's not unpopular as I would see it - yet.
I also find it mildly ironic that a person who accuses the government of corruption seems to feel that the current situation is normal, since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legislature strikes me as corruption.
Why is that corruption? This is how the law is meant to be used. It's incentive for people to compromise rather than not pass some sort of funding legislation (real budgets or the current continuing resolutions) for years on end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The Shutdown is a lie (Score:5, Informative)
"And there is indeed an exemption for certain government employees (I just know of Congress and its staff having a specific exemption)."
Congress does not have an Obamacare waiver. In fact, Congressmen and their staffs are now *required* to purchase health insurance from the new health care exchanges and have lost their existing government health plans. This is a bizarre misconception I hear all the time from the right, so I'm guessing it's coming from talk radio but I have no idea. Yes, the government is subsizing part of their coverage just as most other employers do, but I will repeat: Congress is REQUIRED to purchase health care provided by the ACA.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Congress is a large employer. Many large employers bought health insurance for their workers already and Obamacare mandates that they all do so in future. Congress was one of those large employers.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T LIKE THAT so they pushed for an amendment requiring Congress workers to get their health insurance from Obamacare's non-employer markets, which doesn't make any sense, but they figured when the Democrats said "No, that's stupid" they could spin it as "See, Democrats don't want Obamacare,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
made to Democratic party allies FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's their name. 'Democrat party' was never in use until Rush Limbaugh started spouting it about a decade ago and the rest of the talk radio 'personalities' followed his lead.
Re: (Score:3)
If this bothers you, then good. You are the kind of person I wish to bother by using this term.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes it easy to identify wingnuts, didn't know you wanted to be associated with them. Never mind then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
since misappropriating a law that deals with the government's budgetary process in order to combat a law that would otherwise pass through the legislature strikes me as corruption.
So, you are saying that the ACA would be able to pass if it where suggested today? I think it's fairly clear that it would NOT make it out of the house if they tried to pass it today. When it passed, It was rushed though the Senate because the special election for Ted Kennedy's seat was poised to make it impossible for the bill to get a filibuster proof cloture vote. This bill pretty much got though both chambers by the skin of it's teeth on very partisan votes.
There have been TWO congressional elections
Re: (Score:2)
There have been TWO congressional elections since, and support for the ACA has been clearly down in the house in both of them.
So what? They haven't repealed the law, so it still has to go into effect.
Re: (Score:2)
True that... The law IS in effect and if the president's rhetoric reflects his actual position will remain in effect for at least 3 years and 4 months.
I was addressing the idea that the house should just stand down and let the funding for the ACA flow dispute their objections. As long as everybody is working within their constitutional authority you are free to advance your views using any means available. If the republicans want to go to the mat on this, they have the right (if not the moral obligation)
Re:The Shutdown is a lie (Score:5, Informative)
"to furlough ( that is let federal employees have days off ) with pay"
furlough is UNPAID leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough [wikipedia.org]
a furlough (/frlo/; from Dutch: "verlof", leave of absence) is a temporary unpaid leave of some employees due to special needs of a company, which may be due to economic conditions at the specific employer or in the economy as a whole.
the Affordable Care Act was made LAW last year. get it? LAW. So some politicians are ignoring the LAW and holding the REST OF THE GOVERNMENT hostage.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You speak of LAW when it suits you. It is legal to hold the REST OF THE GOVERNMENT hostage in
Re: (Score:2)
"It is legal to hold the REST OF THE GOVERNMENT "
I never made any claim about the legality of holding the government hostage.. all I said is some politicians are ignoring it. much the same way Colorado and Washington are ignoring Federal pot laws (which is also an 10th Amendment issue)
the great thing about the American Justice system is if you don't like the law, you can change it... unless you don't have the votes.
Boehner is from Ohio. Ohio didn't vote against Federally mandated healthcare... the Speaker o
Re: (Score:2)
Boehner is about as UNDEMOCRATIC as can be. This country is based on Democracy.. you rather live under some other system? MOVE.
I see you don't get it. This is democracy in action. People will not always agree with you on stuff and they'll often get creative in how they try to push their interests.
guards keep unpaid volunteers out of buildings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Especially given all the obviously unnecessary ways in which Dear Leader has been making things inconvenient in ways none of the other shutdowns (and this one too, really) actually allow for. The barricading of an outdoor, unstaffed WWII memorial? The barricades in the part of the Mount Vernon parking lot that are on public land (despite Mount Vernon itself being open and privately owned)? Forcing a tavern where the Founders used to hang out in Philadelphia, a private business leasing a building from the
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a constitutional amendment come out of this shutdown
You'd be the only one. I'd start looking for pod people, if that happened. It doesn't make sense to do so, especially since there's no other valid party to replace Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
it is just a show to try to shame or scare the public into doing a unpleasant thing ( continue to bring on board an unpopular law
Unpopular with the right because they think poor people should just die, fuck 'em, and unpopular with the left who want the insurance industry's parasites completely OUT of the health care and want us to have something sane like Europe and Canada has. But Congress passed ACA, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to repeal it, the Republican candidate for President ran on a platform of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never claimed to be normal.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes they have stopped working. (Score:1)
As much as they are motivated to keep on toiling.
Acquaintances of mine who are NASA employees have been told "do not use your NASA cellphone, do not use your NASA email. If you do, you will potentially be subject to disciplinary sanctions." They've also turned off all the various document servers.
The problem, from an administrative manager standpoint, is that it is illegal to work for no pay (it's related to the whole minimum wage laws thing). If you let someone work, and do not pay them on schedule, you'
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because a small scientific orbiter in Martian orbit would be a great way to spy on people on Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Who says it's for monitoring folks on EARTH?
NSA is a proactive organization you know.. It may be a few years out, but *somebody* must be planning a trip and the NSA KNOWS about it..
Re: (Score:2)
In space no one can hear you WOOSH . . .
pom.xml (Score:2)
We are sending maven to mars? Thank goodness for small mercies.
An engineer at NASA told me it's not really that great at producing something called binaries for CI, assembly:single notwithstanding. No idea what he meant, but he seemed to know what he's talking about.
I imagine the mission will come off without a hitch as long as our network connection to it remains up at all times to receive all the useful verbose reporting it gives us.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't worry, they'd make sure to send mvn -o off to space; download times for dependency updates would certainly not be stellar.
Apache Maven going to mars? (Score:2, Funny)
Why would NASA send Maven to Mars? Are they building Java apps up there or something?
http://maven.apache.org/ [apache.org]
Never believed NASA was a waste.... Until now...
Maven? (Score:1)
from the wiki (Score:1)
Who decides? (Score:2)