NASA Readies Discovery Shuttle For Final Flight 153
gabbo529 writes "After 38 trips, 352 days in orbit and more than 5,600 trips around the Earth, the space shuttle Discovery is preparing for its final launch. Since its creation, it has flown to orbit more than any other craft. It has set a number of precedents including first craft to feature a female shuttle pilot and female shuttle commander (Eileen Collins), the first African American spacewalker (Bernard Harris) and the first sitting member of congress to fly in space (Jake Garn). In its final foray into space, the Discovery will set another precedent when it flies the first humanoid robot to fly in space, Robonaut2."
Can I have it now you are finished with it? (Score:4, Funny)
I would give it a good home!
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't they considering selling the shuttles to private companies as they push for privatization of space travel?
When you think about it, not only is the reusability of the shuttle a plus, it can easily haul cargo both into and out of space, and is the majority component of the launch? (not that a tower, big tank, and two SRBs is chump change, but still)
Come to think of it with the SRBs, the one company that made them said they were making their last one, I wonder if they've considered the possibility of f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
white elephant.
Only a government and the politicians who get their districts the business could love its cost structure.
Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? (Score:5, Informative)
The shuttles are not reusable in any real cost saving sense. They have to have many tiles replaced, the main engines replaced, and numerous other little odds and ends. The SRBs are one of the shuttles main failings, SRBs are cheap but notice that no one else uses them for a man rated launcher.
The Shuttle will not find a buyer, it is not cost effective and never was.
Re: (Score:2)
SRBs are cheap but notice that no one else uses them for a man rated launcher.
No one else but the Russians fly a 'man-rated' launcher with any regularity. So its 50-50...SRB or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at planned man-rated launchers. Not an SRB in sight, unless a congressman was involved in the design.
Good reason for that. Even if they where 100% safe, they mean you have to go out to the pad standing up, which adds huge amounts of cost to current launches. Not saying an SRB without this issue could not be designed, just the shuttle ones suck out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that a shuttle-like stack would require it being assembled and rolled out upright, otherwise there'd be too much weight on the fuel tank from the orbiter... but sure enough, the Soviet-era Buran was assembled horizontally [russianspaceweb.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll give that comment a 50/50 agreement. More details here:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ssme.htm [astronautix.com]
Saying the engines have to be "replaced" is a bit deceptive. "rebuilt and inspected" is more accurate, though they don't say but I'm assuming they have one extra set on hand and simply swap them out while they get to work rebuilding the set they pulled.
(that article above has at least one technical error, so take it with a grain of salt)
Re: (Score:2)
You are indeed correct. I mis-spoke they are rebuilt, and at great cost.
Re: (Score:2)
You know who also rebuilds engines? Engine shops for Professional race car drivers. At least at the top end. I'm sure there are start and park teams that don't bother so much, but if you want to be on top of things, you're willing to take apart your engines, check everything out and then put them back together. I think some of the leagues even have rules limiting how often that can be done in order to level the costs. Heaven knows they put enough other restrictions on building the engines.
Sure, those engines run for a lot longer, but you could make an intensity argument too.
You know who doesn't rebuild their engines every time they use them? Anyone who doesn't want to spend a bunch of money. Professional race car drivers aren't exactly a group of people known for using affordable vehicles, so I'm not sure why you used them as an example..
Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Orion: 1.5bn per flight, $50bn spent on development before cancellation.
Shuttle: 450m per flight, 1.5bn per shuttle to build
Soyuz seats: $45 million each
SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight
For the amount we wasted on the ostensibly "cheaper" Orion program, with disposable components similar to the Apollo program, we could've built *11* new shuttles. The Shuttle also is far more capable, able to transfer a tremendous amount of cargo (the Orion / Soyuz fit in the cargo bay...) and hold nearly twice the number of astronauts for rescue missions.
The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design. (the SpaceShipOne/SpaceShipTwo are just X-15 / X-20 ripoffs and can only get 10% of the altitude needed to reach the ISS, they don't even count)
The Soyuz seats are probably the most cost-effective and time-tested design, but the Soyuz holds three people max, and in the past, two of those have always been cosmonauts.
The Russians developed a pretty nice shuttle of their own -- the Buran -- though the end of the Soviet Union doomed it.
I'm sorry it doesn't have a warp drive, subspace communicator, artificial gravity, or "inertial dampening" (whatever that is)... but the space shuttle is the most advanced spacecraft ever developed, and a very economical one at that. And we let it die. The canceled Orion program was a failure that was uneconomical, and the amount of money we blew on that could've gotten a lot more shuttle flights, or a great many Soyuz seats.
I hope we maintain good ties to Russia, because as of this June, the only way an American is getting into space -- or to the ISS -- is if they let us. Ironically, it will be on a rocket originally intended to deliver a nuclear warhead as an ICBM to us.
Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? (Score:4, Informative)
SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight (...) The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design
At least for the cargo operations, SpaceX will deliver 12 flights for 1.6 billion. That works out to about $133m per flight. And it is tested [physorg.com] so they have a working rocket and a working capsule. How reliable they are can be questioned, but the design works.
Re:Can I have it now you are finished with it? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the figures you have for the Shuttle are low. Endeavor cost $ 1.7B to build from spare components. That does not include the cost to acquire those components, and it assumes the design has been paid for already.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: Roger Pielke has estimated that the Space Shuttle program has cost about US$170 billion (2008 dollars) through early 2008. This works out to an average cost per flight of about US$1.5 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
Per-flight cost: the Wikipedia space shuttle article states the incremental per-flight costs are $60m.
NASA, however, states the total launch costs are $450m: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 [nasa.gov]
I don't know what the
Re: (Score:2)
Bah! "Copied" is more like. And, in copying it, ran into the same problems that plagued the shuttle design.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah! "Copied" is more like. And, in copying it, ran into the same problems that plagued the shuttle design.
The Soviets did do something we've yet to do: their one and only test flight of the Buran was completely unmanned from launch to orbit to landing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would've been interesting to build a Space Shuttle 2.0, taking into account lessons learned with not only the Shuttle, but the Buran.
The Russians are interested in re-launching its development, so it's even something that could have been a collaborative project, which would benefit both of our space programs.
Re: (Score:2)
The Buran was abandoned for the same reason the Americans are now abandoning the Shuttle... it is costly, complicated and not very good at anything
It is far cheaper to launch people in a non-reusable craft, it is far cheaper to launch satellites in a non-reusable craft
The shuttle cannot launch many satellites simply because they cannot fit into the payload bay ....
Re: (Score:2)
The SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines), the three things on the back of the orbiter itself, are free if you pay for shipping.
Aikon-
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but this is one of those eBay scams where they charge you nothing for the product and then nail you with a million dollar shipping charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the "Questions" box now.
GM (Score:2)
goddammitsomuch (Score:3, Interesting)
But once these are on the ground, that's it. They will never rise again. We needed to think of this a decade ago, it's far too late now.
Goddammit....these vehicles would be perfect for future orbital ops.
Re:goddammitsomuch (Score:4, Interesting)
Just how exactly do you think it would stay in orbit next to the ISS with no fuel for station keeping? Or did you think delivering that would be free?
How are they perfect for orbital operations?
They are old, they waste lots of space on stuff not needed on orbit and they are not safe re-entry craft.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how exactly do you think it would stay in orbit next to the ISS with no fuel for station keeping? Or did you think delivering that would be free?
As said, this would have needed several years worth of thought/design to be a viable concept. Far too late to do it now. A couple of small, bolt on rockets and a fuel tank or two. But gee...how to current satellite do station keeping for several years?
Re: (Score:3)
The shuttle has a much higher mass than most satellites. It also leaks air, so you can't use it for humans else you want to be wasting tons of that too. Overall the shuttle was designed for a purpose and it was not this.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is it practically free? Last time I checked a Shuttle launch costs around a hal
Re: (Score:3)
You can't 'park' a shuttle in orbit; the orbit will decay and they'll need a reboost.
And from what I've read they leak air like crazy, so they're useless for long-term space habitation. They only need to survive a couple of weeks in space with a reasonable supply of replacement oxygen, so they're not designed to do any better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.. you'd have to put them at their highest orbit, robotically. It would be about 600km altitude and last centuries.. or until it collided with something else :)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.. you'd have to put them at their highest orbit, robotically. It would be about 600km altitude and last centuries.. or until it collided with something else :)
NASA disagrees [nasa.gov]:
12). How long will orbital debris remain in Earth orbit?
The higher the altitude, the longer the orbital debris will typically remain in Earth orbit. Debris left in orbits below 600 km normally fall back to Earth within several years. At altitudes of 800 km, the time for orbital decay is often measured in decades. Above 1,000 km, orbital debris will normally continue circling the Earth for a century or more.
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of orbital decay is highly dependent on the surface area to mass ratio of the object. Typical debris has little mass and a lot of surface area, so it decays very rapidly when compared to a satellite or other massive object. This PDF [ips.gov.au] explains it well, and you can look at TLE [wikipedia.org] files [celestrak.com] to get a feel for actual decay terms.
The EGRS-3 Sat launched in 1965 is still orbiting in an 894 x 927 km orbit. TIROS-1 [heavens-above.com] was launched into a 693 km x 750 km orbit in 1960 [nasa.gov], and is still merrily orbiting away 51 years later
Lagrangian Points (Score:2)
And doing so will not "kill" space exploration. There are several commercial companies actively involved in putting objects
Re: (Score:2)
At this point there's nothing sexy or special about the shuttle. It's a 20+ y/o technology that served it's purpose but is now outdated and expensive.
The Challenger exploded in 1986 - the shuttles are more than 30 years old (and the actual tech behind them closer to 40).
Re: (Score:2)
http://history.nasa.gov/stsnixon.htm [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
You think things in orbit just stay there based on magic or your hopes and dreams?
Here in reality it costs fuel, meaning more deliveries and more money spent.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be like repurposing SR-71s to be fighters.
You mean very effective but insanely expensive, like the YF-12? I'm not sure that would apply here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all effective. The YF-12 was an interceptor plane concept not a fighter.
That means, fly fast at bombers coming in then launch your missiles against them. Not a whole lot of fighter plane stuff going on there.
Either way ICBMs sorta make that pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a whole lot of fighter plane stuff going on there.
What exactly do you think 'fighter plane stuff' is, if it's not shooting down the bad guys?
I believe the YF-12 had about an 80% kill rate on drones down to 150 feet altitude in tests, which is a lot more effective than flying around in circles hoping that you can shoot the guy in front before he gets on your tail.
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting at people who can shoot back. That is what I would call fighter plane stuff.
The SR-71 was a wonderful aircraft, but the YF-12 was a solution looking for a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to happen. ICBMs and sub launched ICBMs make sure of that.
The Russians have plenty of defense contractor pork too, that is what you are seeing. We both spend too much money on dick waving and pork barrel defense contractor bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second strike capability of sub launched ICBMs do make nuclear attack pretty much obsolete by any form. If you use nukes you will be just as dead as your enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am assuming that the minute you kill one of the enemies ballistic missile subs you give away your hand.
To be able to do what you are talking about you would need to be able to track and kill all their subs, any other form of mobile launcher, and destroy all land based launchers. You would need to accomplish that with in minutes of your attack and your enemy would need to not notice that you are preparing for all this. That sounds just a little far fetched.
This is it (Score:2)
>>> when it flies the first humanoid robot to fly in space
This is the moment they've been quietly planning and waiting for. I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
Nostalgia is good... achievements are better (Score:3)
NASA is making the unpopular but correct call of killing this "ancient" (compare 20+ years of flights to Apollo) program and moving on. NASA's job isn't making social statements... it's to broaden our technical and scientific understanding. They've exhausted the shuttle platform and they're moving on.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems pretty arbitrary to call it "ancient"; both the Soyuz and Proton programs, for example, have been going on since the mid-60s, and are doing quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Russians have been constantly developing & refining those systems since the 60's.
NASA has a working system, then bins it for something else, then bins that and goes off elsewhere - probably because the contractors can make more money that way aswell as using it as a testbed for new technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
"..constantly developing & refining those systems since the 60" ,... and so now have a very good well designed system that is very reliable
The US have the Shuttle, the same as first designed, and now binned with no replacement ready ....
Re: (Score:2)
First "first shuttle pilot" and "first female shuttle commander"? How is that any more different or special then "first female pilot" or "first female commander" both achieved by the Soviets in 1963? First African American is historic for America but not for other countries that came to their senses long before us. Putting a politician in space? People have been dreaming of that _long_ before rockets were even invented.
Had you posted this yesterday, i would have had a big shiny "+1 insightfull" for you
These kind of achievements are the same as ford making a hybrid, and claiming to have achieved the first ford hybrid ever!!!!!!!! never mind the prius/insight who have been around for years or anything...
Re: (Score:2)
Why is even "first African American in space" a category of achievements? Is it harder to get black people into space or what?
Last time, baby (Score:2)
I know it's more a Tomcat tagline, but still.
Robonaut1 (Score:2)
Robonaut1 was cut from the program after an embarrassing incident involving a long drive to Florida and an astronaut diaper.
Terrible firsts (Score:3)
That is a sad list of firsts. First congressman to fly in a space shuttle? Sheesh. People are too concerned with celebrity. There are probably plenty of scientific engineering firsts that should be applauded rather than "First [color|race|profession] to do X."
Eileen Collins actually commanded Columbia first (Score:4, Funny)
First female commander earns praise for "safe, if overly cautious" flying
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (CNN) 7/28/99 - 419SPP
Even before NASA's first female mission commander touched down on the tarmac at Kennedy Space Center late Tuesday evening, investigators were speculating on the possible cause of the fuel leak observed at the launch of shuttle Columbia at the start of its historic 5 day mission.
"At first we thought maybe she left the gas cap off," reported Chief Inspector Gerald Schmitt during a post-mission press conference yesterday. Schmitt was referring to mission commander U.S. Air Force Col. Eileen Collins, who led STS-93 to a complete success despite the glitches that plagued the start of the mission.
However, the inspectors ruled out that scenario after an exhaustive examination of the video launch records. They are now considering alternative theories, as well examining the shuttle engines for possible damage, such as a burned-out clutch. "We'll get in there and take a look," explained Schmitt, "but the real test will come on the next flight for Columbia, when the next mission commander can let us know if the shuttle still handles the way it did before."
Schmitt went on to explain that the launch is usually performed in an "Automatic" mode, but the shutdown of 2 flight computers just seconds into Friday's launch required Col. Collins to switch to "Manual" mode, which she may have had less experience with in the past.
Shuttle failed to reach "nominal" altitude
By the time main engine cutoff, or MECO, took place at the end of Columbia's vault into space, the shuttle was about 7 miles beneath its intended orbit. At the time, NASA had not yet confirmed the fuel leak, so ground control was at a loss to explain this result.
Launch controller Peter "Pete" Castle recalls, "For a few minutes I was beside myself. Did [Collins] fail to advance the engine throttles to 104 percent as called for in the launch sequence? Everyone knows you can drive those engines a little bit over the limit. There aren't any cops in space. Why are we here staying under the limit? We'll never get where we need to go like that."
Fortunately, Columbia had sufficient fuel onboard to boost itself to its full intended orbit, and the mission objectives and the crew were never in danger.
"She really took us by surprise"
Mission controllers at the Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, Texas, were very complimentary of Col. Collins. Third shift controller Michael Childs recalls one incident in particular:
"During orbit 15 of the mission, Col. Collins called down for directions on the next scheduled maneuver. At this point in the schedule we had not expected any communications from Columbia. Past shuttle commanders always ran through this sequence without asking for directions, even if they had lost track of where they were. It is a little known fact that on STS-96 [when shuttle Discovery docked with the International Space Station (ISS)], Mission Commander Kent Rominger reached the station three orbits late, basically because he insisted on 'just flying around in circles until we found it', to quote Mission Specialist Patty Jernigan."
Most call the landing 'flawless'
The touchdown of shuttle Columbia in the final minutes of Tuesday evening was called "flawless" by ground controllers at the KSC. However, U.S. Air Force Col. Jack "Cracker Jack" Jackson, the last mission commander for a Columbia mission, was more critical.
"That's not where I left it," Jackson said of Columbia, noting that Columbia rolled to a stop on the runway over 500 yards earlier than it did when he landed the same vehicle back in February, 1998. "When you take that baby out for a spin, I expect you to put it back where it belongs when you're done." After a moment, Jackson added one final thought, "God, I don't want to think what happened to those brakes."
419SPP - The Associated Press and Reuters did not contribute to this report.
Final flight part four (Score:2)
How many ? (Score:3)
Who wants to bet there will be at least another one ?
Is there a countdown clock somewhere on the net? (Score:2)
It would be a significant link IMHO.
Robonaut2 (Score:3)
Uhm... what exactly happened to Robonaut1?!
Re: (Score:2)
It never left the ground ....(Purely experimental non-flight ready test system)
Countries that stop exploring... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX is almost ready to fly people and to dock with the ISS, which is much farther than any other private organization has done. The Space Shuttle can't go to the moon, so the shuttle's replacement doesn't have to either -- it just has to be able to get people and cargo up into low-Earth orbit. Moon rockets and beyond come later.
Aikon-
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is almost ready to fly people and to dock with the ISS, which is much farther than any other private organization has done.
And they're going to do it a lot cheaper too. Cheaper launches means more launches, and that means more fun stuff in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$20? God, you can't even get on an airplane for that...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right.. by NASA standards they're not ready to launch humans. I'd get on their next flight if they offered me the seat though.
Re:Still unclear what will replace the shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
False. Orion has not been cancelled. The most recent NASA authorization act passed last year authorizes over $3.6 billion in funding to develop the vehicle over the next 3 years. The Ares I/V launch vehicles are what was cancelled.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:3:./temp/~c111kXpLQV:e14982 [loc.gov]:
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, always thought that Ares I was a clusterf**k, but I was (and still am) kind of disappointed that they cancelled Ares V. Nobody has had any sort of heavy lifter like that since the Saturn V.
On top of that, (no pun intended) they put the payload in Ares V on top of the stack where it's safe from any shedding foam (though the payload fairing would probably have dealt with it even sidemounted).
I think the current biggest payload to LEO/GTO is currently Ariane 5 (but I may be wrong).
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has had any sort of heavy lifter like that since the Saturn V.
Have you considered that there might be a reason for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically (which is what you're being), the act doesn't authorize anything for Orion. The authorization is for a crew capsule in the 2016 timeframe.. that might turn out to be Orion, it might not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still unclear what will replace the shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
Working for a DoD contractor that did work for Orion, I can say for certain it was cancelled (even if they do not call it that). There's no more work being done for a very critical portion of the capsule right now that our company was responsible for, and that stuff is now sitting in the corner of the lab, the responsible engineers are off working on other things.
The two words that are a death knell for any project are: "Stop Work"
Gotta post AC, simply because I cannot speak for my company, but I have eyes and can plainly see what is going (or not going) on.
Re:Still unclear what will replace the shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
Orion+Ares 1 wasn't going to be finished until 2017 at the earliest.
The first test-article of Dragon has flown, and its launch vehicle (the long pole of the system) has flown twice. Everything I hear about the Boeing offering is going well, and will probably be on a Delta IV (a flying vehicle). Orion is even still alive, and Lockheed is planning to fly a version on an Atlas V (again flying).
No one is ready to go to the moon yet, but developing a real multi-supplier infrastructure to get to LEO is a critical first step. Even more importantly, if the next administration changes plans again, the infrastructure will remain in place and make it easy to do whatever the powers that be decide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one is ready to go to the moon yet, but developing a real multi-supplier infrastructure to get to LEO is a critical first step. Even more importantly, if the next administration changes plans again, the infrastructure will remain in place and make it easy to do whatever the powers that be decide.
Damn straight, you nailed it on the head.
Getting to LEO is the majority of the delta-v needed to get to the surface of the Moon, or to Mars orbit (and is roughly half the delta-v needed to get to the Mars surface). There are many reasons to go to LEO. There are fewer reasons to go past GEO.
Turning access to LEO into a commodity marketplace will make starting a Lunar or other beyond-earth-orbit mission cheaper and easier because you can do the most expensive part (in terms of delta-v) with COTS launchers, f
Re:We're Broke! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that austerity measures make sense, let's be honest about the numbers. NASA is such a tiny percentage of the budget that canceling their program isn't a realistic way to save money or pay down our debts.
Realistically, the mandatory budget and the defense budget are what will have to be (painfully) trimmed down if we want to stabilize the deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA's budget is about 1.3% of discretionary, non-military federal spending ($9 bn out of $660 bn). I don't think 1.3% is negligible. If the federal b
Re:We're Broke! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, dare I say it, raise taxes on those most able to pay higher taxes.
Gee, that would solve a whole bunch of problems, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's all true, it sounds like we're doing very well!
Re: (Score:2)
We're doing well? We're going broke because we cannot continue the path we've started. Entitlements are what are killing us. Take a look at this [cbpp.org]. Nearly 2/3 of all federal spending is social programs and other entitlements. You figure out how to eliminate the deficit without cutting into any of that and you'll win the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Re:We're Broke! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every state has farmers. And you know what happens when every state produces something? Every senator gets behind them. (Just look at defense companies for an example of this, the disjointed placement of defense industry offices and manufacturing is NOT a mistake.)
Re:We're Broke! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, and don't feed trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing NASA will have essentially ZERO impact on the spiraling US national debt.
Unless the government is prepared to do what no politician is willing to do and to cut from the huge amount spent on the massive military and security machine maintained by the US, the US will never be able to get out of the sinkhole they are in.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing NASA will have essentially ZERO impact on the spiraling US national debt.
Unless the government is prepared to do what no politician is willing to do and to cut from the huge amount spent on the massive military and security machine maintained by the US, the US will never be able to get out of the sinkhole they are in.
Not that some military cuts aren't in order, why is it that everyone goes after this and ignores the elephant in the room. It isn't the 700Billion dollar military budget that will bankrupt the US. It is the projected trillions of dollars in "mandatory" spending for entitlement programs that will only continue to grow and grow and grow. That and interest on the debt. If you want to really talk about choices no politician is willing to make, lets talk about killing the programs that will really do the damage.
Re: (Score:3)
So, aside from the fact that Social Security is on a different income/expenditure stream than the rest of the federal budget, and thus doesn't contribute to the budget crisis...
What you're proposing would lead to an extremely poor quality of life, homelessness, or outright death for millions of Americans. My husband and I would be among those affected. Um, no. I don't think so.
The military is the biggest single money hog, between the official Defense section of the budget ($685B) and the various other pr
Re: (Score:2)
So, aside from the fact that Social Security is on a different income/expenditure stream than the rest of the federal budget, and thus doesn't contribute to the budget crisis...
What you're proposing would lead to an extremely poor quality of life, homelessness, or outright death for millions of Americans. My husband and I would be among those affected. Um, no. I don't think so.
So, simply because we're pulling the money out of a theoretically different bucket that means it is magic money? Any time the government pulls money out of the economy for any purpose it creates drag and loss. No exceptions. Further, as you say below, the supposed trust fund will be totally broke in 20 years, probably less. When that happens, probably sooner, where do you think that money is going to come from? What about the fact that entitlement spending is going to overtake the entire federal budget? Whe
Re: (Score:2)
i'm obviously not sure about the grandparent, but from a foreign (non-US) perspective, the military budget is by far the most visible non-essential activity that the US engages in.I don't see the money being pissed away in bureaucracy in the US (hell, i have to pay attention to see it over here, that's how good those bandits are at hiding themselves), i do however see the US engaging in all sorts of "war on terrorism" military campaigns, with no other obvious goal then securing oil and playing a game of mid
Re: (Score:2)
i'm obviously not sure about the grandparent, but from a foreign (non-US) perspective, the military budget is by far the most visible non-essential activity that the US engages in.I don't see the money being pissed away in bureaucracy in the US (hell, i have to pay attention to see it over here, that's how good those bandits are at hiding themselves), i do however see the US engaging in all sorts of "war on terrorism" military campaigns, with no other obvious goal then securing oil and playing a game of middle eastern sock-puppet theather
Just a thought, but if the US was in it for "securing oil" .. then shouldn't oil be way less expensive now that it is?
Re: (Score:3)
Just a thought, but if the US was in it for "securing oil" .. then shouldn't oil be way less expensive now that it is?
No.
They are securing oil by making sure that some of the world's largest remaining deposits are controlled by governments friendly to the U.S., so when the oil supply begins to dwindle and there isn't enough to go around, the U.S. can be first in line to buy what is left. Ideally there would already be large U.S. military bases in these areas to help ensure that they remain under friendly control, to ensure the military continues to have the oil it needs to function. This is the long-term strategic goal.
I
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you heard it on Rush doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the budget is spent. NASA, if it were a square on here, would be relatively small. With a budget of $17 Billion, it would be a little smaller than "Border and Transportation Security Directorate Activities".
Re: (Score:2)
Do me a favor, and stay out of public policy planning, or at least keep yourself to the local level. Nothing more than a county. You won't be able to screw things up too bad there.
Yes, hopefully this attitude will not reach a level of office beyond that which you can see Russia from.
Re: (Score:2)
i dont know man, but i'll take katee sackhoff over dirk benedict any day...
Re: (Score:2)
Not to rub it in or anything, but seeing a shuttle launch in person is fucking amazing.
My mom was on contract to NASA developing a data management system for the Shuttle's payload telemetry up/downlink. For the first flight of the Shuttle with the new software, the engineers who worked on it were invited out to the forward press bleachers to watch the launch. I got to tag along, and it also happened to be the last time those particular bleachers were populated during a launch. (Ground Safety determined that
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you actually have two more chances after this one if you really want to see a Shuttle launch. It's the last launch for Discovery, but Atlantis and Endeavor each have one more flight scheduled for later this year before the fleet is retired.