×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA To Continue Funding Canceled Ares Project Until March

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-even-firing-money-into-space dept.

Government 229

wooferhound passes along this quote from the Orlando Sentinel: "Thanks to congressional inaction, NASA must continue to fund its defunct Ares I rocket program until March — a requirement that will cost the agency nearly $500 million at a time when NASA is struggling with the expensive task of replacing the space shuttle. About one-third of that money — $165 million — will go to Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, which has a $2 billion contract to build the solid-rocket first stage for the Ares I, the rocket that was supposed to fill the shuttle's role of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. ... The odd scenario, in which NASA is throwing money at a canceled rocket program but can't fund a modernization program, is because of several twists in the legislative process that started a year ago and came to a head this month. At the root of the problem is a 70-word sentence inserted into the 2010 budget — by lawmakers seeking to protect Ares I jobs in their home states — that bars NASA from shutting down the program until Congress passed a new budget a year later. That should have happened before the Oct. 1 start of the federal fiscal year. But Congress never passed a 2011 budget and instead voted this month to extend the 2010 budget until March — so NASA still must abide by the 2010 language."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

229 comments

NASA modernization program? (3, Interesting)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685236)

Seems odd that the US space agency needs a "modernization program". Obviously, it should be called something else since NASA still plans on using Russia's own antiquated hardware to keep the ISS going.
Anyhow, I don't understand why we should be so happy that NASA is funding a program that it's not planning on using---regardless of where the funding is coming from.
Well, it's only money. After all, it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685274)

Anyhow, I don't understand why we should be so happy that NASA is funding a program that it's not planning on using---regardless of where the funding is coming from.

I'm not sure where you are getting this sentiment from; TFA is saying exactly that. Check the title of the article from TFA:

"NASA's Ares rocket dead, but Congress lets you pay $500 million more for it"

And this is coming from someone in Florida. You would think that an indirect recipient, out of anyone out there on the net, would be happy about the program going forward.

Oh wait, from TFA:

Indeed, ATK plans to continue work at its Utah plant.

Maybe the article writer would have a different tone if the 500 million dollars in funding was going on in Florida, not in Utah. :)

Funny the way it works out sometimes.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685390)

>>>it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

No they are taking money out of the Chinese government's wallet (and other lenders like Saudi Arabia). The people who will eventually repay that money won't be us, but our children and grandchildren. Jefferson or maybe Madison (forget who) said it is immoral to borrow money from future generations, which is why they bent-over backwards to pay off the government debt as soon as possible. WE should do the same.

Current national debt == ~$130,000 per US home, plus another ~$90,000 in personal debt per home == a not rich country

Re:NASA modernization program? (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685428)

Well, it's only money. After all, it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

Pork -- welfare for the rich. Will no one think of the rich children?

I'm fine with feeding and housing the poor, but most welfare in the US goes to the rich, who get the lion's share of everything government supplies.

Re:NASA modernization program? (3, Insightful)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685564)

I'm not sure you meant to use the word "welfare". I've been on both ends of that spectrum: On welfare and paying into the system that supplies the money. And it's a complete fucking racket, for sure, but one thing it doesn't help is The Rich. Go down to your local welfare office and look around the waiting room and tell me how many "rich" people you see down there. Maybe you meant that the rich get so many tax breaks and incentives that come out of the same government money that welfare does, but I promise you that welfare wouldn't suffer if that pool dried up. If you were to cut even one recipient's food stipend by $5/month you would have an all-out riot on your hands...those guys don't mess around. Instead, they will take money away from Social Security, medical research and, yes, NASA.

Re:NASA modernization program? (3, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685742)

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there. Apparently, if you're part of the small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running, you shouldn't get any special treatment. That's his idea of "fairness".

Re:NASA modernization program? (3, Insightful)

dasunt (249686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685882)

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there. Apparently, if you're part of the small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running, you shouldn't get any special treatment. That's his idea of "fairness".

If there wasn't a large wealth disparity in the US (Gini index for reference [wikipedia.org]), perhaps the majority of taxes wouldn't come from such minority of people.

Probably that wasn't the fix you were looking for though...

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685972)

Imagine that - a small subset of the population is better than the rest. The nerve of some people. How dare they stand out from the crowd? Clearly the communists had it right - we must force ALL people into standard-sized molds. I propose we start by making one-size-fits-all shoes.

Re:NASA modernization program? (4, Insightful)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686296)

This is exactly the problem with the rich. They genuinely believe that their wealth is evidence that they are part of a minority of people who work harder and are superior to the rest. Some people get lucky, and most people don't. I really have trouble believing that anybody, rich or otherwise, is working a million dollars harder than the average man.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686336)

Imagine that - a small subset of the population is better than the rest. The nerve of some people. How dare they stand out from the crowd? Clearly the communists had it right - we must force ALL people into standard-sized molds.

Ah the old wealth gospel. I grew up in a life of privilege - attended the most expensive private boarding school in the state, rubbed shoulders with kids of rockstars, sports franchaise owners and all kinds of captains of industry. I know plenty of such families, and, without doubt, they are no "better" than the rest. There are just as many dumbasses and leachers among them as there are among any other broad group of society. For most, the only thing they are better at is being born into the modern aristocracy.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686344)

...one-size-fits-all shoes

That would violate my constitutional rights which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34686898)

You know what.... I've sat here and seen all of this shit you're posting and it makes me want to SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE. I would, too, if given the opportunity.

The middle class of this country is being systematically wiped out, and you seem to think that this is ok.

FUCK YOU

You, and everybody else that thinks like you needs to die a slow, painful, agonizing death.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34687088)

Typical commie - if words don't work, kill anyone who disagrees.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685906)

"small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running"

Which is more likely to work, all workers and no capitalists or all capitalists and no workers? No, they do not keep the country running. They are a big part of the reason that the country is not running well at this point.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685992)

Re: "capitalist" ..... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686156)

Capitalist fits perfectly in those sentences. Are you sure you know what the word means?

That doesn't make the claim correct (you'll produce more cars with all capital - a robot filled factory for example - than you will with all labor), but the "worker" and "capitalist" terms are used just fine.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686302)

I would ask where the robots came from. Capital cannot produce them, workers do.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686370)

Where they come from is irrelevant once they exist. And no workers do not produce them, a combination of workers and capital does.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686812)

Referring to my above, could you get robots with all capital and no workers? No. You could with all workers and no capital. Workers make things, capital controls what is made, when it is made, by whom it is made, &c. But you *have* to have workers. Capital is optional, but usually controlling.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686314)

Capitalist fits perfectly in those sentences. Are you sure you know what the word means?

Bullshit. In order for it to make any sense, you have to accept that workers can't be capitalists, and capitalists can't do work. Two assumptions for which no justification is provided. If you think what he said makes sense, you're either misreading it or you're as clueless as he is.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686510)

No you don't. They are the standard labels in economics.

Capitalists own the capital and derive income for merely owning it. Workers work with the capital and exchange their labor for income.

That one person can be both a worker and a capitalist is irrelevant to the question of which role is more important in an economy.

Do you have trouble understanding anything that involves sets that may overlap? Does the existence of movies in which an actor does the direction mean you can't have a discussion about whether acting or direction has more "importance" in film making?

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686340)

I think you know what I mean. That "small percentage that actually keep the country running". If I am in error about what you meant by the phrase, please educate me.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686436)

It's a false dichotomy, and a stupid question. Labor has always existed, as long as there have been human beings. The difference in wealth and success between societies arises from how they organize that labor.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686748)

I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something. And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation? And yes, how labor is organized is very important. Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686858)

I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something

What?

And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation?

In order to address your false dichotomy.

Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?

It means they should be able to do stupid things with their tax dollars, but that's a completely different discussion, anyway.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Xyrus (755017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687110)

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there.

I really really wish people would stop confusing income tax rate to total tax burden. They are not the same thing. Not even close.

The total tax burden is higher on the lower end of the economic spectrum than the upper end. Why? Because the rich have whole set of tricks to keep their total burden lower (even though the rich control about 80% of the wealth in the country).

The people who keep this country running are those who ARE NOT millionaires. They're the ones actually providing services and producing goods (the ones that haven't been shipped off over seas that is). If the millionaires and billionaires didn't have everyone else's backs to stand on they'd come tumbling down pretty damn fast.

Re:NASA modernization program? (2)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685766)

Given what people getting welfare and food stamps say where I can hear them, a lot of them do not actually need the money to live on. Not only are a lot of them getting most of their food for free, they think buying cigarettes and Four Loko is part of a sound strategy for becoming self-sufficient.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34686016)

I buy shares of cigarette and liquor companies too. How is this not a sound strategy?

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685928)

"I'm not sure you meant to use the word "welfare"."

Re-read his post. Pork is "welfare" for the rich. A complete racket by which the rich maintain themselves on our tax dollars rather than going out and earning profits by making products people want to buy.

Re:NASA modernization program? (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686428)

Those LINK cards don't benefit the poor, they benefit the poor's employers -- WalMart, McDonald's, etc, who aren't forced to pay their employees a living wage, because Uncle Sam kicking in a stipend. Better thay should raise the minimum wage so that a man working 40 hours a week could feed his family.

Section eight housing helps landlords at the expense of the poor; the poor tenant is paying $200 a month rent for a house or apartment that might get $250 or $300 on the open market, while the landlord is collecting another $300 or $400 from the government. This drives up rents for everyone, the poor included, while the landlord gets twice to three times what he would get if it weren't for Section 8.

TIF financing that local governments pay to get industry in depressed areas also go to the rich.

Then there's the pork I originally mentioned -- money for a project that's been cancelled is nothing but welfare, and the rich get every penny of it.

The poor get very little at all from any level of government, the rich get damned near everything.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686614)

We were getting so much from the government because of the number of children we have that I had to get a job paying $40k/year to make it worth getting off the program. You really think Wal-Mart is going to pay the door-greeter $20/hour? No fucking way. I'm making upwards of $70k/year now so I'm glad I did it, but there are plenty of people on the program that will never get off, no matter how much you raise minimum wage.

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685918)

Can you back up that claim? Look at who actually pays income tax...it is the rich. Who supplies the jobs? The rich. Who uses the public school system more, the firefighters, police, roads, utilities, naitonal parks, social security, food stamps, unemployment, medicare/medicaid? Definitely not the rich.
Who uses pork more? Look at your local congressmen and see what "pork" they got. I guarantee you benefit from some of those earmarks.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34686996)

Look at who actually pays income tax...it is the rich.

People who earn income, those might or might not be the rich depending on what they actually do. Now why the fuck is this relevant? Are you proposing that taxation should be a system where you take out what you put in, in the most direct way possible? If more people happen to have better income, they will pay the bulk of the income tax. The current situation in no way indicates that we should encourage the rich to become richer for the purposes of taxation. Now look how big of a percentage the rich pay in sales and property taxes (be it directly, or through their landlord) and come back to us.

the firefighters

When your chemical factory is on fire, who're you gonna call? Who'll prevent your nasty shit

Who supplies the jobs? The rich.

Bull-fucking-shit. They employ people if and only if they can skim off of their labor. Calling the unconscionable exploitation that most employers engage in a "supply" is absurd.

What do you say? Without them investing you wouldn't even have that?

Bullshit, if there wasn't a huge wealth disparity the average person would actually be able to start their own business to employ people (if they are good at that sort of thing) or invest to a reasonable extent. We don't need mega-rich people, we just happen to be stuck with them.

from burning and fucking over everyone?

police

People who have stuff to protect make good use of them, direct or indirect.

roads

Ah yes, when has a corp actually used the roads to, like, move stuff and arrive to perform services? Nah.

food stamps

Happen to also be a big, fat, indirect subsidy to fuckers who don't pay a decent wage and employ to people for 20 hours a week instead of hiring someone fulltime.

Who uses pork more? Look at your local congressmen and see what "pork" they got. I guarantee you benefit from some of those earmarks.

Ah yes, try to pass off government-business collusion as individual corruption, why not, after all no one likes the term 'facism'. Sounds bad...

Re:NASA modernization program? (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686398)

Your terminology fails to convey the right meaning. Let's try

Porkfare -- subsidies for the rich.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685540)

They are planning on using the Ares program. Or at least they should be. Their 2011 budget states that they are to start work on a heavy lift vehicle using components from space shuttle/Ares.

Re:NASA modernization program? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685682)

Just as millions of white people predicted - NASA is now turning into a THIRD WORLD organisation. It will soon collapse because there simply won't be enough intelligent WHITE PEOPLE working there, to keep it functioning.

THIRD WORLD PEOPLE = THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

Any rational, logical rebuttals?

cvs blame or git-blame? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685250)

any way to identify who specifically added the sentence?

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

MaxOfS2D (1907678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685264)

if I recall correctly, mostly republicans, but they were covering their backs by funding this somehow

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685318)

It involves a preexisting government contract - it wasn't covering "their" backs - it was covering "our" backs. If the government goes around welshing on it's agreements with businesses the only people doing government contracting will be those with no other options - not a very good assortment of tools for us to stay where we are or grow more powerful.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685452)

>>>mostly republicans

Citation please. That would be a remarkable feat, considering the republicans were a super-minority completely and totally dominated by the Democrats (controlled ~60% of the Congress). Speaking as someone outside the power base (i.e. unelected libertarian), I consider myself an impartial observer of the Rep-Dem Duopoly. And I don't comprehend how the republicans can be blamed when it was the Democrats that held the power of Congress for four years. And another ~40 years from 1956 to 1994.

This last century was the century of the Democrat-run Congresses.
So how again is it that we blame the Reps? Makes as little sense as blaming the minority libertarians.
i.e. Citation please.

RTFA (1)

scjohnno (1370701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685504)

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

I would also like to posit that if you are of the opinion that the Republicans have had little or no effect on the legislative process for the past two years, then you have not been paying attention.

Re:RTFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685808)

Until Scott Brown won the special election in Mass., the Republicans couldn't even sustain a filibuster without Democrat help. That's the rub about being the majority, responsibility goes along with it.

Shelby couldn't have got that provision in without Democratic consent, probably as a quid pro quo for his vote on something, which the Democrats wouldn't have needed if their caucus had been united. And it was Majority Leader Reid's responsibility to guide a budget bill through the Senate. He and Pelosi failed their clear duty to get a budget done.

Demorep ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685648)

There is no difference between democrat and republican. They both have their own set of rich friend and lobby they cater to, but mostly it is pork , corruption, and not caring about the average serf, pardon i meant citizen. Anybody thinking of "democrat versus republican" and self associate with one of the party, while lambasting the other party, is thoroughly blinded by rhetoric and is removed from reality.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685720)

Super minority?

They certainly had enough power to filibuster everything that was looked at. That doesn't make a super minority. The last century was a Democrat run congress?

Please leave the rock youve been hiding under.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685998)

The Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate until Senator Kennedy died. As Obama wisely observed at the start of his presidency, "The Republicans will take a backseat and remain quiet." The Democrats held an unstoppable majority.

Malcolm X once observed in the late sixties, "The Democrats are so powerful, the republicans might well pack their bags and go home." In the previous century, the Democrats controlled the Congress for almost 80 years out of 100. THAT is why I call it the century of the Democrat Congresses.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (5, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685940)

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

Here [orlandosentinel.com], you fucking retard. Yes, that is TFA.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686036)

You have no idea how government works. Funding is handled by bipartisan committees. The minority party has a lot of sway on funding, especially the GOP because the Dems have so many consrevative members that they often need to reach across the aisle to get anything done.

The problem is that your corporatist press isn't mentioning names and uses the term "lawmakers" to cover the overly business friendly GOP. Funny how that works. I had to do a lot of digging to get this:

According to NASA, the agency has been spending an average of $95 million a month on Ares I. At that rate, it will spend about $475 million from Oct. 1 to March 4 — the period covered by the current budget extension.

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by [corrupt] U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

His office confirmed that the language was still in effect but did not respond to e-mails seeking details.

http://www.truthistreason.net/thanks-to-congress-inaction-500-million-goes-to-defunct-rocket-program-lockheed-martin [truthistreason.net]

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (5, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686068)

It was Republican Richard Shelby bringing the pork back home. You know a member of the party of *snicker* fiscal responsbility:

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by [corrupt] U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

His office confirmed that the language was still in effect but did not respond to e-mails seeking details.

http://www.truthistreason.net/thanks-to-congress-inaction-500-million-goes-to-defunct-rocket-program-lockheed-martin [truthistreason.net]

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685270)

Dunno, but I'm sure those redundant, pointless jobs will be added under someone's "and he created X jobs in 2011..." political campaign slogans. After all jobs with no purpose outside the job itself is the whole point of government, unlike economic efficiency where the jobs actually have to contribute something society deems as worthwhile.

Now to find jobs that completely undo what little these new jobs do, hmmm maybe on the environmental side of things...

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685304)

Yup, it would waste less money to just send every worker a year's salary beyond their regular severance and send them home. At least then we don't have to pay to keep the lights on and churn through materials to build things we intend to throw away.

The magnitude of government waste amazes me sometimes...

Re:cvs blame or git-blame? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685750)

Dunno, but I'm sure those redundant, pointless jobs will be added under someone's "and he created X jobs in 2011..." political campaign slogans. After all jobs with no purpose outside the job itself is the whole point of government, unlike economic efficiency where the jobs actually have to contribute something society deems as worthwhile.

Now to find jobs that completely undo what little these new jobs do, hmmm maybe on the environmental side of things...

Umm let's go easy on the private-sector-is-nirvana please. Companies produce profit, yes. That requires being "efficient", at least with time and money, yes. Contributions to society? Not helpful to profitability. To public-relations, perhaps, so companies run ads saying "we are totally eco-everything!", true or not, and they're done with social-contribution-PR. Profitability, more often than not, leads to intense studies of how to sell the least expensive things, for the most money, as an illusion of a most amazing thing. So in food, for example, that results in lots products based on low cost ingredients - water, sugar, fat, salt, wheat, corn, soybean, and various chemicals. Because they are low cost, don't spoil, give huge taste rewards to anything they are mixed with. Fresh fruits and vegetables are not as profitable, there's just no way to do it, so they are not promoted, marketed, researched, etc. Therefore, junk food national diet, international now, heavily promoted. It's a profitable, possible sector. So, private sector has efficiency - for profit, not health.

Whose "profit interests" would be served by good health, that could counter all this? Perhaps the insurance companies. Or temp-labor. But still they do almost nothing to promote health. Why? Well, good salesmen, complex contracts and good lawyers results in much better profits than healthy insurance buyers.

And yes, I have a company, started several over the years - was last an employee in '97 - and it is very hard, almost impossible, to create a company producing "social contributions", plus income to pay for costs plus profit, plus manage all operations, all at the same time. That's why almost nobody does it, it's not so much because company owners are cruel and greedy. Companies with more greed produce more profit and grow faster, they are financially, socially rewarded, that's what happens. What's profitable? Not good social-services. That's a myth. Selling drugs, alcohol, prostitution, power, weapons, false dreams, and useless junk, now that's efficient, that's good profit.

Government is not nirvana, neither was socialism, and capitalism isn't much more than self-promotion and marketing either. So start looking for something new, because we need it badly.

Myself, I'm rooting that someday we reach humanism. No, it's not simple and easy, nothing is, and not a product for sale. And I could give a damn if capitalism just finished and became obsolete, humanity can do better than this.

everyone blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685566)

I know exactly who did it: a corrupt politician. There are 535 of them in the Congress, so... does it really matter which one of them did it this particular time?

And here's the kicker: when the new Congress comes in with all their bright eyes and lofty ideals, it will take about a month before they become exactly as corrupt as the rest of their peers. Which is to say, completely.

Re:everyone blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685900)

Wow. It is just too bad that there is no way to ever escape from this corrupt system. For all eternity, we must labor under the reign of corrupt leaders with no hope of ever possibly thinking about anything that might be better. Nope. Never. Nothing.

So much for Democrat "competence" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685266)

What was that about no budget? Can't blame anyone but Obama/Reid/Pelosi for this one.

Where'd all the gnashing of teeth over Bush's deficits go?

China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685288)

I'll bet the Chinese are now laughing so hard it hurts.

America is finished with nonsense like this.

Re:China (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685874)

I'll bet the Chinese are now laughing so hard it hurts.

America is finished with nonsense like this.

Not really, the Chinese are not laughing, no. They are too busy copying everything America does to become exactly like it. Especially the waste. For example, getting rid of all their bicycles, and putting everyone to produce, buy and sell cars for themselves and everyone. Producing many more accidents. But they have no hospitals, and nobody cares. Too busy making money with cars. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Head of NASA doesn't object? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685306)

Strange, if I was the head of NASA I would jump to this and use that $500 million to do something productive. There is just no way that that could come back to bite me. Not when there are so many senators and other obvious targets for the news agencies to make fun of.

Really, I'm just waiting for the reporter with the balls to make a story about the $500 million that goes to some senators brother or something. Why else would they conveniently not make a budget this one year?

Well, at least it's not my tax money.

Re:Head of NASA doesn't object? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685374)

Strange, if I was the head of NASA I would jump to this and use that $500 million to do something productive. There is just no way that that could come back to bite me. Not when there are so many senators and other obvious targets for the news agencies to make fun of.

You must not have gotten the news that corporations and govt have merged. $500M is going to his friends, former and future coworkers / employers. Side effects such as producing a working vehicle are not relevant to the primary goal of transferring $500M, about half from Chinese bond holders and half from taxes, to his "family".

Now if the $500M when to the department of agriculture or something, he has no "family" there so he would complain.

Doing what works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685352)

The old way produces rockets, the new way no ones sure about. I figure they'll hedge their bets as best is possible.

What if they just don't? (5, Interesting)

cfa22 (1594513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685376)

How bad would the penalties be?

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685448)

Are you asking what the penalties are for breaking the law?

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685464)

Why not? Government agencies break the law all the time and don't get punished for it -- because they're the government.

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

owyn999 (856162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685494)

Obviously not, he's wondering what the costs for breaking the contracts would be and if they outweigh the cost of continuing development on a project that isn't intended for use. Probably not but some states representative managed to get their jobs protected until after the election...

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685506)

The TSA breaks the law every time it gropes someone under 18 without their parents permission, or under 16 with their permission.

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685596)

The TSA breaks the law every time it gropes someone under 18 without their parents permission, or under 16 with their permission.

Which also makes all doctors and nurses criminals. Because just like the TSA, they're only in it for the gropes, right?

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685676)

Doctors have been deregistered for far less than a TSA grope.

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34686006)

They've been put in prison for far less than a TSA grope...

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687218)

Doctors have been deregistered for far less than a TSA grope.

You mean, like, checking your prostate gland, or doing a PAP smear, or checking for mammory lumps? That sort of thing? Doctors (and TSA agents) aren't penalized for doing their job, their penalized for taking advantage of their job to personally use their position of authority to commit an actual assault. Checking for a payload of PETN in your boxers is, unfortunately, now part of the job - just like it's the doctor's job to actually hold your balls and tell you to cough.

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685788)

Ah, but of course. I guess parents break the law every time they do a diaper change, you fucking idiot.

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34685878)

You grope your kids when you change their diapers? Sick fuck.

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686422)

If you can't tell the difference than idiot is not a strong enough word.

Re:What if they just don't? (0)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686466)

Sure, I can tell the difference: one is something that you're opposed to, while the other is not.

Oh, and it's spelled "then", you fucking idiot.

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686776)

So when did the angry English teachers hit slashdot? A typo is a typo (1am excuse but who cares).
You knew exactly what I meant here and when you were pretending you didn't understand what I meant above.
What is this bullshit of defending government agencies even when they break their own laws in obvious and disgusting ways? Do you think they have droit de seigneur? Divine right of fucking kings where the rulers don't have to obey the same laws as the rest of us? Magna Carta and then the US Constitution were supposed to stop that sort of "might makes right" idiocy.

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687002)

A typo is a typo, and yours was not.

The TSA isn't breaking any laws - that was the entire point I was trying to get across to you, and you're still failing to understand. If you'd stop and think for a minute, you'd realize that your expanded definition of "groping" would criminalize all sorts of things, from ballet and cheer-leading to doctors and gynecologists. Initially I called you an idiot because I figured you were being intentionally oblivious - now that it's become obvious that you're actually too stupid to understand what you're saying, I'm left feeling like a bit of a dick for mocking you. Let me know if you need me to explain this in any more detail, 'k?

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685470)

How bad would the penalties be?

I don't know, but upsetting the people who write your budget is generally not a good idea. Looked at it that way, $160 mill is cheap insurance to keep funds flowing.

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686032)

As I see it, if the executive branch doesn't follow the funding directives of Congress on a large scale, then government is no longer operating within constitutional bounds. Then much like a banana republic, what happens would depend on who ends up on top. On a small scale, Congress may choose to ignore it or they could punish it with removal of funds from other executive branch operations.

The penalties can range from no action at all to impeachment and removal of the president. It's pretty much at the discretion of Congress what penalty is attempted though particularly harsh penalties such as impeachment may be bounced by the Supreme Court or simply not make it through both the House and Senate. My rather uninformed opinion is that the usual approach would be to greatly cut funding in programs that the president desires. The Supreme Court itself can also punish the people below the president with the usual judicial sticks such as jail time and fines. Though if it comes to that, we have to consider the president's ability to pardon such offenses. I suspect that would neuter most of the penalties that the Supreme Court could assign.

Re:What if they just don't? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687070)

How bad would the penalties be?

ATK would sue, and a federal judge would direct the government to pay up, plus whatever penalties the judge felt were appropriate.

socialism (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685458)

You know, it's odd for a country with so many vocal opponents of socialism endorsing this bizarre situation of private defense/aerospace companies being funded by the taxpayer with very little in the way of end results.

Re:socialism (0, Troll)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685582)

No, it's flat out anti-socialism :)
Socialism by the dictionary and it's usage outside of the USA can be as simple as a church group feeding poor people. Thus most people using it as an insult don't have a clue what they are talking about. I suppose in the limited vocabulary of a cut price education people try to get a lot of different meanings that don't belong out of the words they know.
I find it quite insane that government interference is allowed beyond setting a budget and telling NASA to do what they like with it, and simply threatening to cut that budget if the government doesn't like what they do.
Why is NASA under such strict and IMHO stupid micromanagement when the TSA with a larger budget is completely out of control? I can't think of any answer other than "pork" and even more blatant corruption.

Re:socialism (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685892)

socialism noun \s-sh-li-zm\
Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now, I can't speak about how people outside the USA use the term "socialism," but I do know me some dictionary definitions, and if they are using it to describe simple acts of community charity, that's certainly at odds with the *dictionary.*

Re:socialism (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686572)

Cool, an entire complex philosophy that grew out of centuries of Christian charity truncated to three bullet points and the rest thrown away. Education by Powerpoint?
Anyway, I stuffed up and really mean the adjective as in "socialist organisation" which is a simpler concept to deal with with examples like the church group I mentioned above. I probably didn't put in enough for many people to be able to work out the context.

Re:socialism (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687142)

No, the term "socialism" was invented in the 19th century pretty much specifically to describe what the dictionary definitions state (ideas which, incidentally, were explicitly humanist, not "grown out of centuries of Christian charity"). Things like "altruism" and "charity" have been around much longer and have more appropriate words to describe them than "socialism." You are attempting to broaden the term beyond its original definition specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating the ideas it was invented to describe.

Community charity IS socialism. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687090)

giving food to the poor falls under the first definition you list.
Collective - the church (or any organization)
Giving out food - distribution of goods,

And for icing, the government funds it in the way of tax deductions and exemptions.

Anyone who claims to hate socialism, but doesn't act to remove tax exemptions from donation is a hypocrite.

Well, they were busy (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685508)

It's not like Congress hasn't been busy recently [lexisnexis.com], and presumably NASA and its subcontractors aren't just taking the money and throwing it in a shredder. It takes time and money to properly mothball a project of that size, and in the meanwhile maybe they can make a little progress toward their goals.

Re:Well, they were busy (1)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34685862)

What goals? Design another new shuttle replacement that will in turn be cancelled before being completed?

Hubris! (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686136)

This is good money thrown into the trashbin! Or better yet, simply shredded! There will be no finished product, no technical or scientific achievement as a result of this money. And while I might show my ignorance about the details of the Ares program, why the heck are they even developing solid fuel rockets? This is supposedly a manned program, no?

Re:Hubris! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686980)

Ignoring your ignorance of rockets, it's not Hubris. No one is saying they are better then some god.

The word you are looking for is 'pork'.

The replacement program (1)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686298)

NASA should have planed the Shutle replacement program as soon as the first Shuttle took off. I truely believe the space program has been so left behind since the Apollo missions that the U.S. should have been to Mars already.

The space race was to beat the Russians by landing on the moon? How about the exploration of space is mankinds future.

I guess NASA doesn't do a good job at promoting themselves otherwise they would have tons of money.

Re:The replacement program (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686494)

It's hard to blame NASA - their lack of focus and even their bureaucratic sloth is largely attributable to the micromanagement of Congress. Being a government agency is good for billions of dollars but not for efficiency. That is why SpaceX is eating NASA's lunch when it comes to getting things into space efficiently.

Re:The replacement program (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686960)

Not NASA, congress. If you haven't made an effort by contacting you Representative and urge for more funding for NASA, well then you also share in the blame.

Flyboys (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686550)

Gee that is (almost) enough money to fund a Mars sample return mission; something with actual scientific value. But that will never happen as long as NASA is run by flyboys with delusions of Star Wars....

And most, if not all, of those states are... (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34686932)

red. You know, the people that want to 'cut taxes' and 'have a smaller government'.

This is what happens when the voters go for lines like 'cut taxes'. It's a stupid misdirection that leads t nowhere good. You can't generically cut taxes and reduce pork. You must go after specific pork.

But hey, everyones' for cutting pork until it's their job.

Shuttle Replacement (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34687024)

"is struggling with the expensive task of replacing the space shuttle". Is the author talking about SpaceX or some other mythical shuttle replacement? Last I knew, outside of SpaceX, NASA did not have a pot to piss in with regards to future manned launch vehicles. Please enlighten me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...