 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / September 2005Leaders target NASA budget for storm costs
I had a bad feeling and knew this was coming... Leaders target NASA budget for storm costs Congressmen: Moon plan may take back seat to Katrina recovery BY LARRY WHEELER FLORIDA TODAY http://tinyurl.com/aekes If the plan does not gets axed right away...what do you think the odds are that they will back off from the Inline SDHLLV to a side mounted 'Shuttle-C' design? Also regardless of wether or not you think the plan is a good idea or not, what do you think of this idea of making VSE less likely to me axed? http://www.thespacereview.com/article/458/1 Just my $0.02 Space Cadet derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/ The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and scientific foundation formed to further scientific study and development of the moon. I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. Putting Nomex, no wait! Beta cloth suit on now! Gene > I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA > is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. As opposed to buying the votes of aerospace workers. Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? Paul >> I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA >> is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Paul Because techno-welfare produces jobs while traditional welfare does not? Just a guess. >>Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? > > Because techno-welfare produces jobs while traditional welfare does not? > Just a guess. One person is paid to produce useless aerospace hardware, another is paid to watch TV. (Shrug) The opportunity cost of techn-welfare is higher, because presumably most of those workers could find useful employment in the private sector (if not in the same area of expertise). You also generate fewer 'jobs', since aerospace wages are higher than traditional welfare payments. Paul >The opportunity cost of techn-welfare is higher, because presumably most >of those workers could find useful employment in the private sector (if >not in the same area of expertise). Sure, right after they move to India. Let's face it, there's a huge outsourcing movement. How many millions did Intel just announce it would pay to build a new techno development center in CHINA (I think it was to start with 1000 and grow to 2000 employees). Argentina (IIRC) just unpegged it's money from the $USD so it could get in on the cheap outsourcing too. If the US wants any technological edge, it bloody well better keep some technology projects going here in the US. Would you prefer to add to the number of PHD's flipping burgers? -- David On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:42:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, David Ball <davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com.nospam> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >Would you prefer to add to the number of PHD's flipping burgers? How many technical (as opposed to Womens' Studies, Communications, Anthropology, Philosophy, English, etc.) PhDs are flipping burgers? >On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:42:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, David >Ball <davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com.nospam> made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >How many technical (as opposed to Womens' Studies, Communications, >Anthropology, Philosophy, English, etc.) PhDs are flipping burgers? I'm a programmer (8 bit 8080 through 32 bit x86 assembler plus c/c++/c#) and there sure seem to be a lot of them according to the stories in the technical press. I've also seen stories about college students not wanting to take computer science because of the lack of jobs. When I lived in California until late 2004 (about a 3 to 4 hour drive north from San Francisco), I also saw quite a few news stories about lots of high tech developers working at burger joints, restaurants, anything they could get. I lived in Sacramento and later in a little town (about 27,000 people) up above Chico called Paradise. It was originally something more like pair-a-dice, but they don't exactly like that image anymore. Now, Paradise is largely retired military and very willing to fund a really nice police force while some other towns in the area have very little except what the county/state provides. Nice place to live. Also wonderful if you love car shows and seeing beautifully restored antique cars drive around town. It's about 2000+ feet elevation and there's not a lot of quake activity there, but you do have to worry about the volcanoes in the ring-of-fire. You see a lot of open fields covered with boulders, some of them really HUGE. -- David On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:29:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, David Ball <davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com.nospam> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>Would you prefer to add to the number of PHD's flipping burgers? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >students not wanting to take computer science because of the lack of >jobs. That's usually a good sign that it's time to do that major, since it means that there will be decreased supply by the time you get out... >When I lived in California until late 2004 (about a 3 to 4 hour drive >north from San Francisco), I also saw quite a few news stories about >lots of high tech developers working at burger joints, restaurants, >anything they could get. PhD developers? A lot of so-called high-tech developers from the bubble were underqualified for their jobs, and only had them because the demand was so intense in the nineties. They're finally starting to recognize the market reality. [snip of quoted message] If you're interested, when I get some time I'll see if I can find some URLs of press coverage on it. I don't know if the Northern California stations archive their news coverage but I should be able to find some tech references. It'll just take some time to find some good ones. Are you interested in stories like major manufacturers outsourcing their support centers and forcing their employees to either train their replacements in India or not get severance packages and how the companies reputation for quality products and support went in the dumper after this. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on the situation. I wasn't trying to start a big argument, just voicing how I view what's happening. Regards, -- David On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:45:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, David Ball <davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com.nospam> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >[snip of quoted message] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >companies reputation for quality products and support went in the >dumper after this. None of that has anything to do with PhDs, unless you're claiming that PhDs in computer and other sciences were manning call centers. : >>Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? : > : > Because techno-welfare produces jobs while traditional welfare does not? : > Just a guess. : One person is paid to produce useless aerospace hardware, another is paid : to watch TV. (Shrug) Your implication that all aerospace HW is useless is flawed. : The opportunity cost of techn-welfare is higher, because presumably most : of those workers could find useful employment in the private sector (if : not in the same area of expertise). You also generate fewer 'jobs', : since aerospace wages are higher than traditional welfare payments. Only you would equate a welfare recipient to an publically funded aerospace engineer. Eric : Paul >>>Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Paul Um, aren't Boing and Lockhead-Martin in the private sector? But then, welfare only produces jobs for the Welfare office. > Um, aren't Boing and Lockhead-Martin in the private sector? You could have read for comprehension if you had really wanted to, George. Paul >> Um, aren't Boing and Lockhead-Martin in the private sector? > > You could have read for comprehension if you had really wanted > to, George. > > Paul Umm, "because presumably most of those workers could find useful employment in the private sector". Most of the workers are in the private sector, i.e., Boing, Lockhead-Martin, etc,etc. > Umm, "because presumably most of those workers could find useful employment > in the private sector". Most of the workers are in the private sector, > i.e., Boing, Lockhead-Martin, etc,etc. George, honest people try to understand the point the other person was making, not misinterpret the statement so as to make it sound senseless. In thie case, you have chosen a definition of 'private sector' that makes the point seem silly. Try again, choosing a proper definition this time. Communication is a two way street; you are expected to be able to think when listening or reading. Paul >> Umm, "because presumably most of those workers could find useful >> employment in the private sector". Most of the workers are in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Paul Listening and thinking doesn't translate into automatic agreement with what is said. On the contrary. Oh, and you were the one who brought up the issue of the private sector. My definition of the "private sector" appears to include, well, the private sector. You've yet to state what your definition of the "private sector" is to include other than that people you've labeled with the vague and insulting term such as "techno-welfare" workers, whatever that means, are to look for work there. I was simply correctly pointing out that most of those so-called techno-welfare workers are already, in fact, employed in the private sectior, i.e., Boing, Lockhead-Martin, etc, etc, etc. You could try a little honesty yourself, Paul. > Listening and thinking doesn't translate into automatic agreement with what > is said. On the contrary. Oh, and you were the one who brought up the > issue of the private sector. My definition of the "private sector" appears > to include, well, the private sector. You appear to continue to be unable to be honest on this issue. My definition of the private sector was not government contractors, but rather the sector where private entities are making the funding decisions. There, that wasn't so hard to understand, was it? You could have gotten to that point yourself if you had tried, instead of taking lazy cheap shots at a point I wasn't making. Paul >> Listening and thinking doesn't translate into automatic agreement with >> what is said. On the contrary. Oh, and you were the one who brought up [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Paul Umm, government contractors also work in the private sector. Or do you think that the government buys all those 747s and then doles them out to the airlines? > Umm, government contractors also work in the private sector. Or do you > think that the government buys all those 747s and then doles them out to > the airlines? Gee, I jus explained what I meant by 'private sector', and it wasn't this. Previously I could excuse this behavior of yours as simple stupidity, but now I see you are being deliberately obnoxious. Paul >> Umm, government contractors also work in the private sector. Or do you >> think that the government buys all those 747s and then doles them out to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Paul So, when someone disagrees with you, you resort to insults, is it? How old did you say you are? 12, 13? On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>> I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA >>> is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Because techno-welfare produces jobs while traditional welfare does not? >Just a guess. A stupid guess, since traditional welfare does so as well, by infusing cash into the local economy. And what's the value of "producing jobs"? : On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "George" : <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that: : >>> I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA : >>> is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : >Because techno-welfare produces jobs while traditional welfare does not? : >Just a guess. : A stupid guess, since traditional welfare does so as well, by infusing : cash into the local economy. And what's the value of "producing : jobs"? Better than having people resort to crime. Sure it isn't the governments job to employ the workforce, but we should still have government do thinhs like provide for science, especially in the sense of a determining weather. Do you think NOAA is a waste of money? Eric On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:15:32 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >: >> Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? >: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Better than having people resort to crime. Are those the only two options? >Sure it isn't the governments >job to employ the workforce, but we should still have government do thinhs >like provide for science, especially in the sense of a determining >weather. Do you think NOAA is a waste of money? No, they provide a useful service, though much of it could probably be done more effectively at this point by the private sector. > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:15:32 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, > echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No, they provide a useful service, though much of it could probably be > done more effectively at this point by the private sector. I don't see that accuweather does a better job than NOAA. The private sector certainly has yet to land a man on the moon. > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "George" > <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cash into the local economy. And what's the value of "producing > jobs"? So does prostitution. So what is your point? >>> I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA >>> is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Because techno-welfare produces jobs while traditional welfare does not? >Just a guess. There is no significant difference in the amount of job production. What the techno-welfare jobs produce is technology _in_addition_ to the jobs. In this case, it does not appear to be very useful technology. -- Roy L On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:16:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, royls@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>> Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the jobs. In this case, it does not appear to be very useful >technology. And it's not all that much technology, for the money. >>>> I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding >>>> NASA [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -- Roy L Easy to say when you post onto usenet through a mdeium made possible by that same technology, eh? Well, in your case, you may be right that it isn't very useful. > Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? That's quite an interesting perspective. I wonder how the 30s period of building 7 wonders of the world classifies. "Public construction welfare"? On 21 Sep 2005 11:41:39 -0700, in a place far, far away, mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? > >That's quite an interesting perspective. I wonder how the 30s period of >building 7 wonders of the world classifies. "Public construction >welfare"? Well, unlike the space program, that actually provided some useful infrastructure. > On 21 Sep 2005 11:41:39 -0700, in a place far, far away, > mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, unlike the space program, that actually provided some useful > infrastructure. By "space program" do you mean manned, or unmanned space program, or both? Is sending an (automatic) probe to outer planets that much different in utility from, say, weather baloon? I would agree, though, that sending expensive technicians to maintain fancy hotel on low orbit is a highway robbery. On 21 Sep 2005 12:19:48 -0700, in a place far, far away, mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> On 21 Sep 2005 11:41:39 -0700, in a place far, far away, >> mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >By "space program" do you mean manned, or unmanned space program, or >both? I'm referring primarily to the manned space program. > Is sending an (automatic) probe to outer planets that much >different in utility from, say, weather baloon? One is pure science, the other is...weather, which everyday folks find pretty useful, particularly when the weather is about to hit them with 150 mph winds.... > On 21 Sep 2005 12:19:48 -0700, in a place far, far away, > mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > pretty useful, particularly when the weather is about to hit them with > 150 mph winds.... The technologies that made satellite weather forcasting came out of that "pure" science. : > I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA : > is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. : As opposed to buying the votes of aerospace workers. : Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? Because government-sponsored technologies, like the Internet, have the capability to produce industries within the private sector. Perhaps the ISS one day will get turned over to the private sector? Eric : Paul On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:08:31 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >: > I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA >: > is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >capability to produce industries within the private sector. Perhaps the >ISS one day will get turned over to the private sector? No one in the private sector would have any interest in that white elephant. It costs far too much to maintain. > Because government-sponsored technologies, like the Internet, have the > capability to produce industries within the private sector. Perhaps the > ISS one day will get turned over to the private sector? The error here is confusing ISS and other manned space efforts with useful technologies that are embraced by the private sector. Your second sentence could as well read: 'perhaps one day monkeys will fly out of my butt?' Paul On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:53:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> Because government-sponsored technologies, like the Internet, have the >> capability to produce industries within the private sector. Perhaps the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >sector. Your second sentence could as well read: 'perhaps one >day monkeys will fly out of my butt?' One suspects that monkeys would have more self respect... : > I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA : > is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. : As opposed to buying the votes of aerospace workers. : Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? Also, because you can get them to join the military out of high school if they can't afford college. Eric : Paul >> I read the Fla Today article. Frankly, I think the talk of raiding NASA >> is all about buying votes for minorities, liberals and senior citizens. > >As opposed to buying the votes of aerospace workers. > >Why is techno-welfare any more acceptable than traditional welfare? It presumably helps achieve national goals _in_addition_ to "providing jobs." -- Roy L >I had a bad feeling and knew this was coming... > >Leaders target NASA budget for storm costs >Congressmen: Moon plan may take back seat to Katrina recovery This is not the time to start to worry. What I meant is that any governmental committee, who's task it is to come up with a plan on how to reduce spending, will automatically finger NASA's plans, when after all they are an easy target for cuts. This same thing happened during the first post "Moon and beyond" plan budget, when due to lack of funds this idea was recommended to not be funded by such a committee. Then the President made his "approve it or else" demand, where Congress soon went on to approve it. So these spending cut possibilities mean nothing in US politics, when it is the will of the President and the Senators what counts. And like in their recent vote, then their support is currently very strong. And so only when they begin to express doubts over if the USA can really afford to go back to the Moon during this future period of debt repayment can you start to worry. The problem in the future is that as taxes increase and spending declines, then even with strong NASA governmental support there be many people who will ask "Why waste billions on this Moon plan at this time?". The tabloid news services would love this one. So the likely ending is that this Moon plan could be suspended, when you would not want to population to start to hate it. Time will tell. Cardman. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.