Beta
×

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!

Obama Would Redirect NASA Funding to Education

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the perhaps-earlier-schooling-isn't-the-answer-either dept.

Space 357

QuantumG writes "In a recent article on The Space Review, Greg Zsidisin reveals that Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, using the redirected funds to nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond, if he is elected president. It is feared that if this happens the Vision for Space Exploration will flounder and that may be the end of human spaceflight altogether."

cancel ×

357 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Err. Can we mod summaries? (5, Insightful)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23044942)

Can we mod article summaries?

It is feared that if this happens the Vision for Space Exploration will flounder and that may be the end of human spaceflight altogether.

-1 Drama Queen

So according to these doyens of space and associated fields, if a U.S. project is put off for 5 years (to educate children - how DARE they?) then this will quell humankind's desire to travel in space forever?

I think there's some space all right, but it's obviously not all out there beyond the stars...

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23044966)

Aw poor poor. Heart broken? You gotta admit, that is one fucking stupid idea of Obama's.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (3, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045572)

Aw poor poor. Heart broken? You gotta admit, that is one fucking stupid idea of Obama's.

It's not the only bad idea he has. Unfortunately, Obama supporters have already modded you to zero for stating the readily-apparent truth, and no doubt this too will be modded down as well. It's a similar phenomenon to how they've taken over digg and spammed the forum with pro-Obama and anti-Clinton media for the past several months.

The bottom line is that NASA and human spaceflight are going to suffer because (a) the most competent leader running for office is being systematically drummed out of the running by the "old boy" leadership of her own party, and (b) without extremely clever leadership to get us out of the hole Baby Bush has dug for us (and it may not be possible at all given how deep into the Abyss we already are), the United States simply cannot afford space travel any longer. We have squandered our wealth as a nation acting as a proxy for the Bush-Hussein pissing match. It's debatable whether anyone could save the space program from the Bush deficit, but I do agree that a leader that will take money from an already underfunded space program that spins off countless technical and ecomonic benefits, and may well be the key to our countries economic future (not to mention, as Stephen Hawking and others have repeatedly argued, the future of the human race) in order to finance pre-kindergarden education is pretty damn incompetent. It bodes ill for what other kinds of decisions a President Obama is likely to make.

We're already third world in terms of our (lack of) basic national healthcare, we aren't doing too well on any of the technology fronts (Asia, Europe, and Canada have better and cheaper broadband, most technical innovations are coming out of the far east, and the US government has systematically underfunded and defunded some of the most promising areas of scientific research--stem cell research and genetic science being just the tip of the iceberg).

It shouldn't be news that Obama wants to gut the space program to increase handouts to the poor. He's made no secret of his stance on that. Bad public policy? Yes. Short sighted? Yes. Surprising? Not at all.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045638)

the most competent leader running for office is being systematically drummed out of the running by the "old boy" leadership of her own party

You've got to be kidding me. The only real base of support Hillary ever had was the support of the party insiders.

And "most competent"? Her vote to authorize the Iraq war makes her incompetent at best.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1, Flamebait)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046158)

Personally, I think all of the remaining candidates are losers. Hillary is an insider and will be just another Clinton. Obama is too radical and disruptive. And McCain will continue in the Bush warmongering tradition.

I don't hold out much hope for this country if these three are the best we can do.

Possibly more than at any other time, this election is about choosing the lesser evil rather than the most capable candidate.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046732)

Possibly more than at any other time, this election is about choosing the lesser evil rather than the most capable candidate.
Hence: Ron Paul, who is both lesser and evil!

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (4, Insightful)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046192)

Also the most important factor of going back to actual human space exploration instead of a shuttle service is to inspire people. If seeing the mars landing inspires a child to work hard to become an astronaut, engineer or whatever it's certainly a lot more cost effective than throwing another few billion at the education system.

Compare it to other countries and US education's problem isn't even lack of money, the whole system's just fscked up.

Also, if Mister Universe would slash the DoD budget to more sane levels (i.e. less than the money spent by all other nations on earth combined when the majority of that money is spent by your allies), then instead a few billions he'd be able to distribute a few hundred billions and perhaps he could even give NASA another billion or two without anyone noticing.

Iraq should be mentioned. (1, Offtopic)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045080)

It's a shame he's thinking of stripping NASA for money instead of just ending the war of aggression in Iraq.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045304)

However if this is true or not, I think, it's a good idea and should be at least taken in to consideration! Just ask yourself: What would be more useful for the world and U.S. citizens?

  1. a) "Quickly pulling out of Iraq" and therefore loosing some major influence in the middle east?
  2. b) Elevating the education level, in order not only to develop political awareness, which is necessary to prevent the manipulation and disinformation by political leaders? (Not that they would ever do this.)
  3. c) Realizing or -- better -- following the "Vision for Space Exploration", which at the present moment at least, seems only to be in the financial and ideological interest of NASA and its stakeholder?

Note: NASA employees themself are recruited from people with the highest education level! So why not better educate our children, so that they have the chance to dream about space exploration, too?

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1, Flamebait)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045956)

Sorry but exactly why do you think that Obama really wants any more true political awareness than any other political leader?

All to often "Political Awareness" means indoctrination into think the way we feel they should.

Let me see. Obama supports killing a big chunk of the space program for no good reason and lists a racist as a personal hero.
Yea I am sure that he is the type of leader I want...
Dang I really want a Democrat like Truman, FDR, or even Carter that I could feel good about.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046382)

Obama supports killing a big chunk of the space program for no good reason

Education is no good reason? Dear lord, the ignorant trolls I see these days...

Sixty-six billion dollars (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046694)

The point is that the Budget of the Department of Eduction, as of 2007, is sixty six billion dollars. NASA's budget is 16 billion dollars.

Do you really think that Department of Education is giving us four times the value that NASA is? (It's main initiative right now is something called "No Child Left Behind." )

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045536)

Well, the fear is somewhat unreasonable, but it is there. But there're also people who fear the takeover of the British monarchy by alien lizards (insert your own choice for ludicrous things to be afraid of). So saying someone is "afraid" of a potential future ie not a useful observation to make.

My take is that Obama is exchanging a program with concrete goals, even if they are expensive and perhaps poorly planned, for a feel-good measure. The money might be spent on "education", but what guarantee do we have that it'll actually result in better educated children? Instead, I see a better approach being to fix the problems with NASA (eg, use existing launchers rather than making a competitor, Ares I) and take the funds for the proposed education program (assuming it actually has some value) from known overfunded areas like the entitlement programs, particularly Social Security, government retirement programs, etc. There might even be some savings from reduced military activity, if Obama doesn't screw that up.

But when you arbitrarily take that kind of funds from a program with long lead times like NASA, you will generate large costs down the road. A five year delay in the Ares program, for example, means a near dead stop in current development, loss of workforce (I know the program will lose workforce anyway, but the current approach by the Bush adminstration does preserve part of the existing workforce), and loss of infrastructure and tooling (unless someone pays to maintain that infrastructure or tooling), and complicate future efforts (assuming the five year suspension doesn't become permanent). I've never seen a delay reduce overall costs. These programs don't start and stop like welfare or education programs. NASA projects take many years to develope. For many such projects a five year suspension in manpower and effort pretty much resets the program back to the start. This is a really poorly thought out idea.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1)

SunTzuWarmaster (930093) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045826)

(snip)...and take the funds for the proposed education program (assuming it actually has some value) from known overfunded areas like the entitlement programs, particularly Social Security, government retirement programs, etc. (snip)
I am curious as to what you read where you learn that Social Security has too much money and that taking away government retirement programs is a good thing (hint, the primary reason people work for the government is the benefits, and most of those are the retirement).

Also, the more socialist Obama becomes the more my vote swings back the other way.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045894)

I am curious as to what you read where you learn that Social Security has too much money and that taking away government retirement programs is a good thing (hint, the primary reason people work for the government is the benefits, and most of those are the retirement).

You can always pay less benefits. And superficially putting money into education seems a more worthwhile use of Social Security than merely to transfer wealth from young to old. Second, while there are some tough jobs like in the military where the benefits are justified, most such positions would be filled anyway. The benefits are overly generous and those people would work anyway. The combination of job stability and benefits is hard to beat. Then there's such things as the federal retirement fund for railroad workers.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1)

jabster (198058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046108)

Actually, putting more money into education merely creates yet more overhead, paperwork, and bureaucracy for the schools.

You want to actually increase the amount of money that schools spend on the children? Get rid of ALL federal education programs, and replace it with one program. Then if you want to argue that schools need more money, just increase funding for that one program.

Actually, a better way is to just get the fed out of education completely and let the local gov'ts handle it. Besides the Constitutional issues, don't forget too, that 1/3 of any federal program is lost to waste and bureaucracy.

-john

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045712)

I'm not so sure it's all that unreasonable a fear. Consider how much public interest in NASA has waned over the last 20 or so years; since the Challenger, really. After five years of delays, I think there's a very real chance that the public, deciding they don't particularly miss NASA, would no longer support it at all.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (5, Insightful)

nebosuke (1012041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045724)

The problem is that the pool of available and willing professional expertise is not static. I've already witnessed this at my current workplace, where, after less than 1 year of abandoning a relatively complicated process for a far more simple but grossly less efficient one due to temporarily relaxed requirements, the very same people who used to run the former process are unable to revive it as requirements swing back towards tighter schedules and resources--in fact their efforts to do so have made things even worse.

It is always harder to start (or revive) a program than to keep one running, and even highly skilled people who are capable of the latter may not be able to do the former if it is interrupted or temporarily disbanded for a significant period of time.

If you interrupt an extremely technically demanding program for 5 years, it will either or both take a long time or a director and team of a totally different caliber to bootstrap it again.

The principles described in the above also apply doubly to political will. At this point, NASA's funding is largely due to the legendary inertia of the government. If it were scrapped, it would take someone with an overwhelming mandate and clear, focused vision to build the political consensus and drive it through congress again.

Note that 5 years means that he is scheduling the program's revival in the next presidential term. He does not feel that it should be his responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again after pushing him off a the wall.

It is hyperbole to say that this would kill manned space exploration, but it may well kill manned space exploration in the US until the next cold war/space race, which we are likely to lose if we try to revive gutted institutions to compete with a program with strong, decades-long unbroken momentum.

Also, speaking to the larger issue of education, 'more funding' is absolutely not a silver bullet that will guarantee better quality, and the education section in his 'blueprint' booklet is totally opaque. It identifies many issues (the easiest part), states proposals to address the issues (also easy), and then does nothing to explain why or how those proposals will work (the only part that really matters).

In all honesty, I think Obama is probably the candidate I dislike the least at this point, but--and I don't hold the following against him directly, per se--it really bothers me that his supporters seem to be under the influence of a Jobs-esque reality distortion field. That people on /. of all places are willing to trivialize the scrapping of a major program of NASA because a politician cries 'think of the children'--without even attempting a strong explanation of why this is necessary--is just sad.

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045922)

Well i think your being a little myoptic. I have heard this same claptrap. Why waste all that money on space, looking for little green men, studying the life cycle of spiders, pick your favorite science program. It is damaging feel good crap.
No different than a town near me. They had a big problem with drugs and prostitution. So they closed the topless bars. Looks like you are doing something with out really doing anything useful.

If the US puts off it's space program for a few years. Thousands if not tens of thousands of people will loose their jobs. NASA will loose tens of thousands of skilled workers. And a lot fewer talented people will want to work in the space program so when they try to bring it back on line it will be a shadow of it's self.
How do I know this?
It is what happened last time.

Obama is apparently a Fascist (0, Flamebait)

jabster (198058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046072)

It doesn't get much more fascist than this: "nationalize early-education for children under five years"

Obama the totalitarian: Everything controlled by the State. Now he wants to federalize education.

Go ahead and nominate this guy, Democrats. Hand McCain a landslide victory in November.

-john

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1, Insightful)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046456)

Whenever the federal government gets involved in things like education, they fuck it up. Department of Education and No Child Left Behind ring any bells?

Re:Err. Can we mod summaries? (1)

Gryle (933382) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046770)

It's quite sad really. Federally-mandated national education standards (not the voluntary standards we have now) would be a good start to fixing the U.S. educational system. Unfortunately the DOE and NCLB are used as evidence that mandatory national standards will end in disaster.

As a nigger (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23044946)

Why doesn't he divert it to something that would be useful to niggers instead? Like prisons, or subsidising fried chicken?

That's disappointing (4, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23044952)

It's actually the first major thing I have disagreed with Obama on. My hint for those keeping score at home is that quickly pulling out of Iraq would generate a lot more spare funds. It's not like NASA is actually a major drain at all, and almost all of the money comes back to R&D and the like. *sighs* Still not wanting HRC or McCain though.

Re:That's disappointing (3, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045006)

Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present. There will be a Kurd fragment in the north (with a tiny bit of oil) which may or may not end up being eaten by Turkey, an arab fragment in the west (with virtually no oil, just camels) which may or may not be eaten by Saudi and a Iraq-Iran shia state in the south, west and center.

All of that with nukes. No thanks. Dealing with the strategic consequences of that in the long run may actually outweight current investment in the Iraq war.

The worst bit here is that if we did not topple Saddam we would have never had this problem on our hands. This is a swamp we drove into ourselves and for the time being there is no way out. There is only a way to continue piling gravel and sandbags and hope that they will stop sinking.

Anyone thinking that "we can pullout fast" is delusional.

Now Afganistan is another matter. Every single army to conquer Afganistan over the centuries went on to do better things and left it alone. It has no resources, no strategic value and pulling out of it makes sense. Chasing one wanker which is not in Afganistan anyway does not justify a war without end. It can be sealed and quarantined from the air for the next century for a fraction of the resources we use at present. Just shoot anything coming in or out and ask questions later.

Re:That's disappointing (2, Insightful)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045086)

The worst bit here is that if we did not topple Saddam we would have never had this problem on our hands.
Assuming that he isn't immortal - for which there is empirical evidence - it would have happened anyway. It's just a question of when.

Re:That's disappointing (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045200)

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem [memorable-quotes.com]

Re:That's disappointing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045088)

Oh noes! Iran! They're gonna NUKE us with their ICBMs!!!!1 Seriously, stop drinking the kool-aid and realize that we have bigger issues to worry about than freakin Iran.

Re:That's disappointing (3, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045460)

I recently went to a dinner with some friends (from Syria, Egypt, China, Lebanon and Iran). There were no people from the USA in the table (only British and Mexicans), all of us PhD students, R.As or Professors at my university.

One of the conversation themes that arised was the invasion of the USA on Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein. I found very interesting the point of view of this people that come from the Middle East and some of them (having just started their PhDs) were in their respective countries when the USA invasion started.

So, the main consense was that the USA was unlawfuly invaded Iraq and fought his president. That they have been there illegaly all this time killing inoccent people trying to enforce the laws of their country in some other place. Some of them agreed that although Iraq had poltical problems, it was something that should had been fixed by themseleves or by means other than being invaded by a foreign militar force.

So basically, as someone other said, the Kool aid that a lot of people in the USA and other western countries is drinking is pretty dense. It is funny that what people know is what their government let them know (the same for a lot of issues in China, I have a chinnese friend who is active in politics and he has shown me how western media makes inadequate use of photos to present missinformation).

The truth is that, if the USA pulled out of Iraq there would be some issues, but these are some issues that the independent country of Iraq would have to resolve. No country (and that includes the USA) has any right to invade another country.

Re:That's disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046550)

"No country (and that includes the USA) has any right to invade another country."

Yet a quick pull out from Iraq would pretty certainly lead to Iran's invasion of eastern Iraq. As is evidenced by polls, most Americans (finally) seem to understand that the invasion of Iraq was foolish, unlawful, and arrogant. That doesn't change the current political and military reality, however. In case you weren't aware, most of the middle east thinks Iran is the major threat to peace in their region, though the US is following closely.

Re:That's disappointing (3, Informative)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046668)

Unless you're in an open state of war with said country, which technically speaking the US was, and said country readily breaks the cease-fire, thinking that there's no way in hell you'd end up retaliating. Admittedly, the actual reasons for the invasion were different, but the fact remains that the US and Iraq were still in a state of war.

Re:That's disappointing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046748)

I recently went to a dinner with some friends [...], all of us PhD students, R.As or Professors at my university.
Newsflash: liberals found in academia! Film at 11. In other news, Pope shits in woods.

Re:That's disappointing (2, Insightful)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045104)

Anyone thinking that "we can pullout fast" is delusional.

OTOH, anyone who thinks that Iraq will turn into the next Japan or Germany if we stay a few more years is completely insane.

It's going to be bad now or it's going to be bad later.

Re:That's disappointing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045214)

Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present. ... All of that with nukes. No thanks.
Yeah, but you know what? I don't really give a shit about Israel. I mean I don't wish them ill will, but I don't feel some need to defend them either. And defending Israel is pretty much the only reason to care about a 'scary' Iran led by that civil engineer.

Oh my god, he might invade us and make us improve our public transportation system. The horror.

Re:That's disappointing (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045828)

I admire your optimism if you think that it will be limited to Israel. In fact Israel has enough nuclear potential to fend for itself. It is the rest of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa which will end up being assimilated.

What do you think, that only USA can install puppet states? Other nations know how to do it as well and there is nothing easier than doing this on religious grounds. In fact it is the cheapest way of doing it.

Re:That's disappointing (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046678)

If we didn't assist Israel, they(rightly) would feel they had no reason to listen to us in matters of policy. If they didn't feel they had to listen to us about policy, do you really think that WB and Gaza would still exist as separate polities?

Re:That's disappointing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045506)

"Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present. There will be a Kurd fragment in the north (with a tiny bit of oil) which may or may not end up being eaten by Turkey, an arab fragment in the west (with virtually no oil, just camels) which may or may not be eaten by Saudi and a Iraq-Iran shia state in the south, west and center.

All of that with nukes. No thanks. Dealing with the strategic consequences of that in the long run may actually outweight [sic] current investment in the Iraq war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_states#Undeclared_nuclear_states

Iran is accused of having nukes like Iraq; it isn't confirmed. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and the Kurds don't have nukes, yet. Even if/when they all do, we can handle them diplomatically. If we don't make new decisions (e.g. weaning off of ME oil, letting Israel protect itself, and employ Iraqis) then we will continue to bear the strategic consequences (i.e. getting ass-fucked without lube). Please stop spreading FUD so we don't continue nation-building the entire middle east.

"Anyone thinking that "we can pullout fast" is delusional."

No, doing the same thing for five years and expecting different results is delusional. The longer the U.S. stays, the more EVERYONE will pay. I mean part of my family was lost because a shrub decided to civilize "The Cradle of Civilization".

Signed,
a token Assyrian American.

Re:That's disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045624)

Edit: It looks like Turkey has nukes because of NATO nuclear weapons sharing. Still, having and using on humans are two different things.

Re:That's disappointing (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045584)

Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present.

No it wouldn't. Iran is considerably larger than all of Iraq in population and land area. So adding southern Iraq to Iran, which isn't likely to happen IMHO, wouldn't "double" Iran. What could happen though is that Iran becomes considerably more powerful in the region due to a breakup in Iraq. That could require a larger US military presence in the Middle East than we currently have especially if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. For example, how do you prevent Iran from invading southern Iraq in the advent of a Iraq breakup? Or continuing that into an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? That requires a large military presence. Maybe even a nuclear attack.

Now Afganistan is another matter. Every single army to conquer Afganistan over the centuries went on to do better things and left it alone. It has no resources, no strategic value and pulling out of it makes sense. Chasing one wanker which is not in Afganistan anyway does not justify a war without end. It can be sealed and quarantined from the air for the next century for a fraction of the resources we use at present. Just shoot anything coming in or out and ask questions later.

The irony here is that the US has little trouble in Afghanistan. And it's a laugh to think that an air enforced quarantine would work or be cheaper than the current approach. I figure it'd take dozens of sortees a day just for a superficial attempt at a quarantine. I don't know what the cost is per sortee, but I bet it's a few thousand dollars per sortee even if no accidents occur or ammunition used.

Re:That's disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045782)

Just shoot anything coming in or out and ask questions later.
and yet you wonder why the world hates Americans!

Re:That's disappointing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045960)

Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present.

Not really - half the Iraqis hate the Iranians on religious grounds, and the other half hate them because they lost a generation fighting a brutal war against them less than two decades ago. In fact an aggressive Iran might even unite the Iraqis (well, something has to ...)

Re:That's disappointing (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046334)

Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present. There will be a Kurd fragment in the north (with a tiny bit of oil) which may or may not end up being eaten by Turkey, an arab fragment in the west (with virtually no oil, just camels) which may or may not be eaten by Saudi and a Iraq-Iran shia state in the south, west and center.
I have no idea why, but that entire paragraph just made me hungry. Except for the camels bit. Now I have to go find breakfast.

      Slashdot! News for nerds. Looking after your daily nutritional needs since 1997.

Re:That's disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046642)


fuck 'um we live in the USA and we should keep it that way. fuck oil and fuck our lifestyles. if you get a grip on reality you find out nothing is even remotely necessary, except for death.

AOBO (1)

dammy (131759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045566)

Any one but Obama. Look, as a conservative, I rather have Hillary in the WH with your party in complete control of Congress during the next two to four years. Economy is going to go ugly and want the party in control of Congress to take the full blame for what is about to happen. I don't like McCain, I don't think I could vote for him (plan to vote Barr if he runs as the LP candidate). I've got a very bad feeling about Obama's naÃvety and inexperience to deal with the bad guys around the world.

I have come to the uneasy conclusion that Obama may have some deeper issues then McCain has. For the GOP, the ideal win is Hillary. The US can survive four to eight years of her and Bill, I don't know if that is true for Obama.

On a side note, this should be a slam dunk for the Democrats. McCain does not enjoy solid support from the GOP base, the current situation should be highly negative for the GOP runner but he is ahead in the polls. How sucky candidates do you guys field to have someone like McCain maybe the next POTUS in today's enviroment? The leadership vaccum within the GOP gave you all a near perfect candidate to run against, and it's a up hill battle? What's up with that?

Dammy

Re:That's disappointing (4, Informative)

Falstius (963333) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046008)

My hint for those keeping score at home is that quickly pulling out of Iraq would generate a lot more spare funds.

The Iraq war is paid for almost exclusively with special funding initiatives, it is not part of the budget. So ending the war won't suddenly free up trillions of dollars for other uses, it will just slow our descent into debt from the Demon Drop speed it is currently.

Re:That's disappointing (1)

jabster (198058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046124)

But don't forget that Obama has most recently said that he won't pull out of Iraq. He wants to keep a small "strike force" of 10k troops or so in the region to protect US interests and be able to respond if al-qaida make a comeback in Iraq.

And one of his military advisors has said he could forsee a US military presence in Iraq for 100 years. And this is assuming Obama becomes President.

-john

Re:That's disappointing (1)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046462)

Actually NASA needs more funds if anything. Talk about performing on a shoestring budget (comparatively). We could also end a great deal of subsidies (those to profitable companies) and use that money to fund challenge grant research in the University system. The university shares in the patent revenue with the US government, which puts half of the revenue going back into the challenge grant system, the remainder to the general fund... Get America innovating again and keep corporations on their toes ;)

The rigors of kindergarten (3, Funny)

Ezekiel68 (652736) | more than 6 years ago | (#23044968)

"Mommy, can I go out and play?"

"Oh no you don't! Not until you've studied up for your advanced color identification exam!"

And Iraq? (1, Offtopic)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 6 years ago | (#23044996)

Well, once you're out of Middle Eastern crapholes you won't be spending on that right?

Re:And Iraq? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045352)

Nope, and we won't be spending on half of our education, because women will be property, not people. Surrendering in Iraq (yes, that's exactly what it is) will move the war here. This isn't a war for oil, it's a war for national survival. I'm sorry to piss on your cheerios, but there are 10 times as many muslim countries now as there were 20 years ago, and the rate isn't slowing.

Re:And Iraq? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045454)

Don't worry, whether the boss is Obama or McCain, we're sure to find other "crapholes" to spend money on...

Pre-school is education now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045050)

His plan isn't for education, its for day care.

Re:Pre-school is education now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046348)

Yup, it's day care. Kindergarden is already preparation for school, when formal education begins. Especially because the brain reorganizes around age five, which is why we don't remember much before then.

I call shenanigans (2, Interesting)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045064)

This story is based on someone's personal blog, who wrote this story based on a personal anecdote and a PDF that's hosted on some site I've never heard of. Meanwhile, I checked Obama's site and found no mention of any plan to make this particular cut. I think the author of the original story is making things up.

Re:I call shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045148)

Learn to google fag. It's all over if you just look.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-20-obama-education_N.htm [usatoday.com]
"To pay for his education program, Obama would eliminate tax-deductibility of CEO pay by corporations and delay NASA's program to return to the moon and then journey to Mars."

The problem is it is all from a late november speech. Obama needs to learn to look before he speaks.

Re:I call shenanigans (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045620)

This story is based on someone's personal blog
Except that the Space Review [thespacereview.com] is clearly not a personal blog. I take it you haven't actually read the article.

Re:I call shenanigans (3, Informative)

toolie (22684) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045758)

This story has been all over like a month ago. The Orlando Sentinel had a story that they ran where it compared things Obama said outside of Florida to things he said while in Florida. Outside of FL, he goes on about slashing the NASA budget. Then, when talking to people that directly affects, he changes the story to spending less on education and more on NASA to try to get votes.

Fuck, I hate politicians.

Re:I call shenanigans (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046332)

His message is change.

In Soviet Florida he changes his message.

The worst thing is, I'd still vote for him because Hillary and McCain are probably worse. If only his supporters would stop being so annoying. He's not a saint, he's a politician just like the rest, hell, he's better at negative campaigning than Hillary.

No one needs pre-kindergarten education (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045068)

I will never understand why people have children they can't be bothered to raise. Shunted into daycare as soon as possible, raised by nannies, and they are still always clamoring for yet more school at younger ages.

Open letter to the people having these children: Your genes are not special. Your kid will not cure cancer. Get over yourself. It's expensive to raise children--especially when you have to pay the people who are actually doing it. Why don't you just volunteer for one of those Big Brother programs on the weekends? You'll see those kids just as often as your own, with the added benefit of not causing all that emotional damage.

Rigors of kindergarten, pffft.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

gcatullus (810326) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045334)

Certainly daycare/nannies are not the ideal people to be raising your own children. But pre-school can help socialize kids who have stayed at home with mom since they were born.

Now the idea of making it nationalized is terrible. There should be choices out there for more or less academic pre-schools, depending on what your kid enjoys.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045388)

wait--isn't an environment of your peers known as the real world... why not introduce the next generation too it as soon as possible.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

cuby (832037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045366)

When both parents work, where do you put the kid?
Women can have a day job and most certainly have the same rights of men...you know... they don't exist only to have kids and rise them.
Pre-kindergarten education is very important to rise birth rate among the active population.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045450)

Women do have just as much right to work, but if the parents are willing to reduce their hours or alter their lifestyle to fit in with the child's, should they really have one?

The bloke can quit his job and raise the kid theres no need to pass of the responsiblity as soon as possible.

When I used to live with my parents, my mum was a child minder and it always used to bug me that I would spend more time with the kids she looked after than both parents combined and I would be activily avoiding them. In pretty much every case the husband was the main bread winner with the wife going back to her job as soon as possible which would pay for child care and a few "extras" oh and the holidays they liked going on (minus kid) three of four times a year.

I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to work but I do think a parent should be looking after them they shouldn't be dumped into day care, school care or on the grandparents as soon as possible. When I have kids if I'm not the bigger earner then I'll quit my job, making sure they grow up in a loving enviroment is more important to me than having a few extra's.

Yes there are times when both parents will need to work to support a family, but I have to ask if they can't afford to spend any time with the child they want to bring into this world what is the point?

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

cuby (832037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045570)

You are right IF one can afford to quit the job.
Unfortunately that is not the case with the majority of people.

I live in a country where it is normal for both parents to work, and children grow ok, its not the end of the world. The birth rate is already very low now... Without pre-kindergarten you can bet that in 50 years my country would have a low fraction of today's population. That is not acceptable.

The reality in the US is different, but initiatives like this are important to improve opportunities among the poor people and increase social mobility. Its not the end of the world to put the kid on pre-kindergarten, in fact, the kids I know that go there are more sociable and active than the ones who don't... And they don't seem to me under loved.

It is worst to keep them in the house seeing TV all day.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045810)

My aunt just had her first kid at 40ish. She rushed off back to work as soon as possible, a scant few months after the birth, dumping her responsibility on perfect strangers in some daycare center. Except it's not just a daycare center, it pretentiously makes claims to offering some sort of higher education to kids not even two years old. It's the start of the yuppie railroad to Harvard built on unreasonable expectations and fairy dust.

  My uncle is a dentist who makes good money, so she by no means needs to work. She simply enjoys working rather than parenting--which raises the question of why she would undertake an endeavor she has no interest in. I don't apply for jobs I don't want and then pay someone else to do them for me when I get the position.

  She sees her kid for maybe an hour in the morning as she rushes to get him ready and out the door. At night she dumps all the work on her husband, another scant hour or so to mostly just bathe the kid and put him to bed. As of yet, I've only seen her put on her "mother" hat at social functions where her son serves as a trinket to be dressed up and shown off, but never paid any attention to. You can bet that weekends and other such free time will be spent similarly rather than in any sort of meaningful interaction with her offspring. In the 18 or so years she bears responsibility for the kid kid she will spent less time loving him than I spend with any one of my cats, and my cats will never have any need of therapy.

Of course, it's not actually a mystery why she had the kid. It was just yet another piece in the yuppie status symbol puzzle. She already had the husband, the house on Long Island, the completely unnecessary SUV ontop of the other two cars (my uncle doesn't even drive), and all the other junk that fills their house simply because it has a high cost and someone put it in her head that she "should" have it.

And now she has the ultimate toy, a son. Something to show off at dinner parties and brag about to all the other yuppie wives, but not worth wasting time on. Because after all, what would she do without the kid? She'd have to actually develop a personality! Surely she can't be expected to have things to say without such a crutch to lean on. Apparently the oh-so-fulfilling job that she can't live without isn't very interesting to talk about, but the motherhood she can't be bothered with is an endless source of entertaining gossip. Doesn't make much sense to me, but what do I know? I don't even have an SUV or other status symbol of note.

In case that came off as sexist, that was not my intention. I am not implying that women should always stay barefoot and pregnant and never have a job. I focused on her rather than her husband simply because it was 100% her sole decision to have the kid in the first place and she is by far the more neglectful of the two. He would be a decent enough parent if it wasn't for the fact that he never wanted kids until she decided he did and he HAS to work full-time.

In conclusion, all yuppies should be put to death and Long Island should be sunk to the bottom of the sea. Nationalizing preschool is a dumb idea and people who don't want to raise kids shouldn't have them. People who can't afford to have kids ought to reconsider also.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046214)

My aunt just had her first kid at 40ish. She rushed off back to work as soon as possible, a scant few months after the birth, dumping her responsibility on perfect strangers in some daycare center. [...] Of course, it's not actually a mystery why she had the kid. It was just yet another piece in the yuppie status symbol puzzle.
I saw worse when I adopted two Russian three-year-olds. My wife and I went into court, we told them that she was a stay-at-home mom, and in thirty minutes we were done; and that's with translations needed of every word uttered. Meanwhile, there was another woman staying in the same hotel as us. She was an unmarried M.D. who wasn't planning to quit her job, and was complaining about spending over four hours in court being grilled about every aspect of her life.

Personally, I'm surprised that she was finally allowed to adopt, since in a few more years she and her child may wind up in the news (http://news.google.com/news?q=reactive+attachment+disorder [google.com] ). OTOH, Russia's international adoption system appears to be basically a method for turning a profit while reducing the load on their orphanage system. In this, they are helped by good-meaning Americans who seem to think that almost any life in the US will be better than the kids' probable life in Russia. (This is a feeling that I share, BTW, I just wish I known beforehand.)

Your aunt is also laying the groundwork for her kid having reactive attachment disorder, although a less severe case. OTOH, being less severe it is less likely to be diagnosed, and left untreated it may be more likely to lead to problems in later life.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045480)

So, you say it's very important that we raise children properly --- but at the same time, not so important that parents should be expected to raise children???

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

cuby (832037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045600)

I see Pre-kindergarten as only a portion off the children's education... And you imply that is bad. I don't think that all pre-kindergarten is bad. Like all things, there are a lot of grey between the extremes.

When both parents work... (1)

tpz (1137081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046604)

they have a problem with priorities.

It is that simple. Yes, as another replier mentioned, women are equally within their rights to have a career. However, once someone decides to be a parent, they are equally oblighed thusly: to be the best parent possible. That requires reprioritizing.

And please let's not get started with any of this "we need to both work because we need to live in this overly expensive neighbourhood and dress and dine too expensively and need to drive that big SUV over there." junk. People have to learn that a choice is required: a lifestyle focused on you as an individual with zero children, or one focused on the maximal development of your offspring.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045980)

Many of the people who have children they can't be bothered to raise were children that no one bothered to raise.

Also, these sorts of federal programs aren't really targeted at people who can afford nannies.

Re:No one needs pre-kindergarten education (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046496)

I will never understand why people have children they can't be bothered to raise. Shunted into daycare as soon as possible, raised by nannies, and they are still always clamoring for yet more school at younger ages.

Biology. There comes a point in the lives of many women (in their late 20s in my observation) where a hormonal switch gets flipped and they suddenly say "I want a baby." Then, after a horrific pregnancy + labor + first 3 months, they say "What have I done?" By then it's too late.

And I take it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045094)

that he wouldn't instead cut "defense/war" spending to pay for said education? Which candidates support increasing science funding, while at the same time decreasing "defense" spending?

Um (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045168)

Sorry, but this is just some guy making stuff up on his blog. It is interesting to speculate whether funding early childhood education would be a good thing for our country. I tend to think so. But supposing that some other specific thing would need its funding cut tit-for-tat and that such a change has already been planned at that level of detail is ludicrous.

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045308)

Google disagrees. I think maybe you mistook who is the guy making stuff up.

"Article" (1, Interesting)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045188)

Calling blog posts articles sets a pretty dangerous precedent. It puts someone's personal viewpoint on the same level as say, an article from a respected published like Reuters and can create lots of FUD and unnecessary debate.

Now I know this is Slashdot and there's many of you itching for an argument, waiting to pounce and say "Well the media is stupid and has bias too". That is correct. However, when we read an article from a respected news source, as opposed to someone's personal blog, we are assuming that they have some kind of qualification, have done certifiable research and the article has passed through some kind of review process. You can't assume any of that with a blog post.

Re:"Article" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045222)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-20-obama-education_N.htm [usatoday.com] [usatoday.com]
"To pay for his education program, Obama would eliminate tax-deductibility of CEO pay by corporations and delay NASA's program to return to the moon and then journey to Mars."

http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+project+constellation [google.com]

Learn to google.

Re:"Article" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045372)

Rebuttal: Fox News

Re:"Article" (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045408)

I don't see your point. The Reuters brand implies the qualification, certifiable research, etc. Calling it an "article" does not. In other words, there's a commonly accepted definition of article and I see no case for accepting your non-standard definition of "article". Further, this would be an article according to your definition since it is published under Space Review with a real, live editor. Course if you had actually read the "article" you would see immediately the following line: "[Editor's Note: This is part 1 of a two-part article.]"

Not a bad idea (2, Interesting)

mcelrath (8027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045482)

Honestly I don't think this is a bad idea. NASA has lost its focus. Right now it's major scientific project is a space station to give the retiring space shuttle a place to go.

I think we've all been disappointed that the flying cars and weekend trips to mars envisioned by TV and authors in our childhood have not materialized. But the government was never a good way to go about space exploration. It's too risky, and governments are risk averse. A better way to do it is in the private sector. They're more tolerant of risk. The X-Prize has been phenomenally successful, and should be emulated. But government over-regulation, and subsidized competitors has prevented the private sector from flourishing. For a sad read, go over to Beale Aerospace's [bealaerospace.com] page.

NASA needs to refocus its effort on science by contracting launch services from the private sector. Congress should rearrange the regulatory atmosphere to allow this to happen (particularly with respect to human spaceflight and liability), and to enable a competitive launch industry rather than the the fat-cat subsidized government contractors we have now.

I want to go to the Moon and Mars too, but no more "flags & footprints". It's long past time we got serious about human spaceflight and did what it takes to make it an everyday occurrence. As long as all human spaceflight is in NASA's hands, nothing will change.

Re:Not a bad idea (3, Insightful)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045730)

the government was never a good way to go about space exploration. It's too risky, and governments are risk averse. A better way to do it is in the private sector.

The X-Prize was cool and all, but let's be realistic, they never came close to leaving Earth's orbit. Not exactly deep space exploration.

To be sure, we should relax some of the restrictions on private space flight, but that doesn't mean we should stop funding it publicly. Real deep space exploration is just not profitable, the private sector is not going to pick up the slack.

Re:Not a bad idea (3, Informative)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045992)

.... [the X-Prize winner] never came close to leaving Earth's orbit

They never came close to being in Earth orbit either. That requires 20 times the speed and 60 times the energy [wired.com] than they achieved.

Rich.

Re:Not a bad idea (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046034)

Government isn't always more risk averse than the private sector. The private sector generally invests in things that have a positive risk-adjusted return. The government happily spends on things that do not have a positive risk-adjusted return, at least in terms of dollars.

Re:Not a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23046170)

When the risk is very high and the possibility of any economic return at all is very low, the private sector drops out. Face it, when it comes to true exploration, we just don't know what we're going to see. The danger and risk to life is extremely high. It's just not worth the investment to a private entity, because the chance of losing the investment entirely is just too high. It makes no sense economically to invest in exploration. Proven technology, on the other hand, yes.

There is little precedent for a private group to perform major exploratory tasks-- Columbus, Lewis and Clark, and nearly every other major explorer was funded by a government. Very few of them ever found what they set out looking for. No westward voyage to India, no Northwest passage... hardly a good investment for a private group. On the other hand, in the long run the investment was very much worth it, as anyone would agree, so the exploration is worth doing. It just has to be funded by a group that isn't seeking immediate returns on the investment.

The real way to handle this is to allow NASA to continue to push the fringes. The activities we've mastered (eg getting into orbit, docking with a space station, putting up satellites) should be turned over to the private sector now. There's clear economic incentive for those activities, as the exploration has opened up business venues in that area. So NASA should be turning its attention (in manned spaceflight at least) to getting back to the moon, and pushing outward from there. As those steps become more routine, then we might see private business getting more involved.

parents (2, Insightful)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045518)

education for children under five

Isn't that the parents job??

I hope he kills it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045524)

Space X is getting close to manufacturing rockets cheaper than NASA can. NASA should get out of the rocket business, saving us taxpayers money. In our capitalist nation, space travel will be done by rich geeks. Not astronauts.

Obama: anti-marijuana? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23045530)

Would he legalize cannabis and end the unjust laws against growing it for whatever reasons we wish?

Would he allow us to once again grow hemp?

The marijuana laws are against humanity and must be dropped.

O*ama trouble (0, Flamebait)

ThomasCR (768602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045656)

Well ... avoid at least one of them! Best wishes from EU.

Think of the children... (1)

Renaissance 2K (773059) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045770)

If our education falls any further than it already has under NCLB, there won't be anyone smart enough to become an astronaut when the time comes. I don't think it's a terrible idea, as long as it's not a complete redirect and as long as it doesn't last forever.

Re:Think of the children... (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046536)

Think of the children, you say?

I will, when their parents do.

NONE of these programs will work without parental involvement in education. Far too often, parents do their kid's homework, so Johnny doesn't feel bad for being left behind. They fill their Johnny's schedule with play time, piano lessons, football practice, but somehow neglect to explain to Johnny just WHY it's important to try to learn about the world around him. With latchkey kids, it's worse. There's NO guidance whatsoever, and then these same parents wonder why lil' Johnny is getting into trouble with the law.

Fix the parents, and the kids will [generally] come out OK. Until then, h'wever, no amount of money we throw at education will make much of a difference. After all, lil' Johnny's going to be a NFL star! His coach said so!

Re:Think of the children... (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046698)

"Far too often, parents do their kid's homework"

I thought I was the only one who knew this... how many others are aware of this problem? The parents want their kids to do well, which is perfectly well and good. But they have substituted "good grades" for "being educated" and thus their kids will get the better grades since mom is doing the work, but surprise! kid knows squat.

I worked at a Barnes and Noble and an astonishing number of mothers would come in there to buy reading list stuff and the only question was "which ones are the shortest?" And then would proceed to ask for the Cliff Notes, too.

At some point, I think, getting positive results became an end which was no longer connected to striving. Here we have it in education, but there is an appreciable number of people who see the steroid-athlete thing and say its only a problem if you get caught. The desire for a reputation of excellence is losing its connection with the desire to be excellent.

The US has no monopoly on human spaceflight! (3, Interesting)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045788)


America-centric bollocks. If NASA were razed to the ground and all its employees rounded up and shot, it still would not spell the end of human spaceflight... as John F. Kennedy knew perfectly well when he launched the race to the moon.

Nothing could please the Russians more than to have lost the battle for the moon, but to have won the war for space.

Re:The US has no monopoly on human spaceflight! (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046102)

Blah, I didn't think it important to put "by NASA" on the end of the summary as obviously we're talking about NASA.

flounder (2, Informative)

in_fla (849388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045802)

It's founder [google.com] , not flounder. A flounder 1) is a bottom-dwelling flat fish [google.com] 2) was a Delta House pledge. Either could give NASA a run for its money,

Re:flounder (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046412)

Thanks. I thought it was wrong but wasn't aware of the right word. Shame the Slashdot "editors" don't have your grasp of the English language.

Bring on the robots! (4, Interesting)

Daniel Rutter (126873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23045866)

Humans are, fundamentally, abysmally unsuited to survival in space. Plus, we insist on bringing astronauts BACK, which makes every manned mission FAR more complex and expensive.

Human spaceflight may be romantic and inspiring, and a human may be far more flexible and adaptable than any robot, but humans also have outrageous supply and environmental demands. It's simply impossible for manned missions to do more than a tiny fraction of what far cheaper automated probes can do.

And every time NASA shoots a Shuttle into low orbit to feed the ISS so that it can be dropped into the ocean on schedule [umd.edu] , they do almost zero to advance human knowledge, and spend enough money to send a whole new robot-rover mission to Mars and then run it for three months.

People who insist that manned spaceflight is worth the price do not, I think, usually comprehend the magnitude of the difference between that price and the price of unmanned probes. They also seem to have a pretty poor grasp of what space science actually entails, and how little of it even theoretically can be done by people.

NASA doesn't help education? (1)

AWhistler (597388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046446)

One word....FIRST. NASA puts up a lot of money for high schools to start a FIRST team. And the people who participate are the same kind of people NASA needs in the future.

We need education more! (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046614)

As a high school student, I have been told time and time again about how "budget" issues result in no new textbooks, computers, or building renovations this year. I think education is more important. After all, who would be left to work at NASA if public education continues to fail?

Re:We need education more! (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 6 years ago | (#23046718)

As a high school student, I have been told time and time again about how "budget" issues result in no new textbooks, computers, or building renovations this year.

The federal budget doesn't fund high school textbooks, so may be true, but it's not a point in favor of increasing the Department of Education budget (which, remember, is already four times NASA's), it's a point in favor of increasing your state budget.

The federal education budget-- sixty-six billion dollars-- buys things like implementing the "No Child Left Behind" act.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?