Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA 941
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
However... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Obama is no more serious about NASA's lofty aspirations that Bush or Clinton. It's just political pandering for Florida. And I am tired of hearing promises from politicians that they know damn well they can never deliver on."
Usually, I'd agree with that, however, I think you're ignoring the "new cold war" aspect here. China is developing an aggressive space program, and if they say they're going to the moon, they mean it.
Frankly, I think McCain is a little more inclined to beef up NASA precisely because of that aspect, and Obama will say damn near anything to win Florida. But it's also possible that he's reconsidered his positions on space because if he becomes President, he knows people aren't going to let him slide on the space race.
How about a vision for space (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading the article, it really just comes across as Obama trying to push the shuttle layoffs to the right so they don't take place during his first term in office.
It's unfortunate, but I would really like to see him and McCain come up with a strong vision for space to spur international and private sector investments with a corresponding push in maths, sciences and engineering.
As trite as they may be, I could get excited about a candidate that pushed:
Note that I don't say "NASA". I think NASA has a very important role to play in the development of space technology but at some point they have to be out of the business of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations.
myke
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Interesting)
Normally I don't support privatisation, normally I don't agree with people who claim that private companies would do better in every situation.
But NASA is a huge fucking money hole.
Read Feynman account in "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" of NASA and how it's run.
If someone put that 2 billion up as a prize for the first private company to put a man on the moon we'd see a new fucking space race.
Put up 10 billion for the first company to put a man on mars and it wouldn't be long before we had men in deck chairs at the summet of mon olympus.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Interesting)
HA! Upwards of $464 BILLION in debt is just fine for Bushie, but 2 BIL for funding for NASA, that's crossing the line. Thanks for the laugh early on monday morning.
re: since you worked at NASA ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have in this area, to speak authoritatively on it? But my big question would be; Why does NASA expect they *deserve* more federal funding, when it appears they've been making too many mistakes and mis-steps in recent years?
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them. But those who follow NASA a little more closely might remember such things as them accidentally letting a new satellite fall off a transport platform, onto the floor, causing expensive damage. (As I recall, the reason for this mishap was failure to properly secure it before moving it.) Going further back, we have issues like the Hubble telescope not working as designed, and several issues with arms on landers they've deployed, etc.
I realize space exploration, by nature, is a risky endeavor, and accidents will happen with complex technologies. But the problems that developed in the "space race" era felt much more like truly unavoidable situations that the "best and brightest" went to great lengths to resolve in the best manner possible. In recent years, the problems appear to be caused more by incompetence, putting priorities in the wrong order, or just rushing to meet deadlines?
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
Did they simply have bad information?
Have they suddenly had a fundamental philosophical change that alters how you should look at their entire world view, and every policy pronouncement of theirs that is built on that platform?
Is their value system still only half baked, and this is just a sign of them slowly getting their act together?
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with
Why wonder about his real thoughts on space/science when one of the signature hot-button science/philosphy issues of modern times seems to be beyond his much-lauded intellect and communications skills to talk about? That was a VERY telling moment, if you ask me.
Things Are Gonna Get Sticky... (Score:0, Interesting)
...With the Space Shuttle being retired in the next few years, the current tensions with Russia may cause some serious issues with servicing the International Space Station and other missions dependent on the Russian Heavy Lifters.
We need some real strategies for our space program, not empty promises and wishful thinking.
For instance: If they can magically pull billions out of the hat to fund a bogus war in Iraq, why can't the same sort of magic push some significant funding towards something that will reap benefits for all mankind instead of death, misery and instability.
Funny how people complain more about the peanuts the government spends on the space program than the billions spent in Iraq.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Interesting)
Whose to say that Obama doesn't want to really raise it more, but thanks to the war that W. started to avenge daddy, simply cannot?
I assume by the "avenge daddy" bit that you were referring to the attempted Iraqi assassination of George HW Bush when he visited Kuwait? Do you think it is OK for a foreign government to assassinate US presidents? Do you think that the US should have no response when something like that happens?
IMHO, it makes no difference who a sitting or former president is related to or what party he belongs to. When a foreign government attempts to assassinate one, they gotta go. It's a shame so many of people are such big pussies that they will let true acts of war slide by.
Re:Evolving? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this is hard to understand after 8 years of "the decider", but, this is *exactly* when you want him to open his mind and alter his positions. Right now, he is, in theory, pounding the campaign trail and, *gasp*, listening to people. Did it occur to you that, during such bouts of listening, he might've actually changed his mind on one or two things?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:1, Interesting)
At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
What you want, after all, is Greenspan as Mr. President.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:2, Interesting)
Well no, it would tax them the same, because taxes are a per-unit thing. The fact that rich people have more units doesn't mean they're taxed more (on a flat-tax system, our current progressive one actually does tax them more).
Is there a logical reason for taxes to be per-unit (of income), instead of per person? The government services they finance are not per-unit, I don't get twice as much DEA enforcement, or USCIS (= INS) prevention of competition for my job from Mexicans, than somebody who makes half my income.
There is no necessary correlation between a person's income and their productivity.
No necessary, 1:1 correlation. But unless the market is really messed up more productive people can negotiate higher salaries. They can also change jobs to higher paying ones a lot more easily than people without a track record of productiveness.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with ... science-wise, value-wise, and in all other ways before you should be talking about how you think that issue should be handled legislatively and judicially?
NO. I think the worry over when human life begins is a typical unnecessary distraction in this area. My take is that a consistent basis for law is much more important than the supposed ethical dilemmas. You can resolve the former and there's no method (aside from eliminating natural birth) for resolving the ethical/moral conflicts. Further, it's not the job of the President, Congress, or the Court to decide ethical matters. Thus, I don't see public policy towards abortion being in the scope of federal government either. Roe vs Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states.
It may seem counterintuitive, but I think deciding abortion law at the level of the states is more consistent. There are a range of powers that are more appropriately exercised at the state level. There will be a range of law from hardcore banning of abortion to more permissive abortion laws than the federal government currently allows. We'll see what the effects are.
Why wonder about his real thoughts on space/science when one of the signature hot-button science/philosphy issues of modern times seems to be beyond his much-lauded intellect and communications skills to talk about? That was a VERY telling moment, if you ask me.
Space development is a much more important issue. Delegate abortion and similar local issues to the states and let them worry about this sort of crap.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a little honesty, instead of Clintonian slipperyness and weasle-wording it? How about, "There's no point trying to pin down a day on the calender when the nervous system of a fetus is not, and then - an hour later - is sophisticated and functional enough that we'd all call it a baby human. But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo. This issue isn't about pinning down a date, it's about erring widely on one side or the other of a long period of time, and using reason." Well, perhaps a little more soft-sell than that... but isn't that supposed to be - in the absence of any other real experience - his actual main selling point?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't just wish away regulations that are impairing. It requires both legislative and executive power to do so, and the chances are that environmental lobbyists will oppose removing the regulations that make it pointless to drill on these lands.
What's kind of silly is that we look at the problem as a dependence on oil. This isn't the real issue. America has a dependence on hydrocarbons, once you get past that perception hurdle, you'll realize how easy it would be to significantly reduce our dependence on oil. There is one hydrocarbon that America has extremely huge reserves of, that's cheap, and isn't too problematic to get to.
Coal.
Did you know that South America has a gallon of gas priced under $1 USD? They're not losing money on it, and it's not subsidized. How are they doing it? Simple, they're turning coal into oil products. South Africa also buys most of their coal from the US. How long do you think it would take to get a couple coal gasification plants?
Think about it.
Let's Invade the Moon (Score:4, Interesting)
If I were going to be president six months from now, I'd make sure that we returned to the Moon, in force. I'd spend what it takes to put a permanent solar power base there, lasering back to a network of satellites and delivering cheap, clean power around the world. Once the base was staffed and ample power generated, I'd start mining the rare minerals that are going to run out on Earth within the next 20-100 years. I'd give contractors who are majority American owned, and use majority American subcontractors, the highest priority for taking part in the project, and aim at creating a space launch industry as dominated by commercial carriers as are airliners, while keeping a reliable government capacity operating, just like in air travel.
The US would start to look admirable around the entire world again. Except in the boardrooms and war rooms of our worst enemies, who are using our foreign oil dependence to enslave us and the world, who'd hate us as we put them out of business.
It took only 7 years for the US to go from subsonic jets to landing on the Moon, with a nation engaged in the Cold War, a hot war in Vietnam, a much lower economic productivity, a much smaller pool of engineers, much more primitive technology, and no proven example of going to the Moon to reassure us. Even before exploiting the Moon's resources industrially, we've already benefited hugely from the scientific, engineering, industrial and patriotic rewards of the visionary investment. We could return to the Moon, and lead the world out of so many problems we've helped create and are most threatened by.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Interesting)
Had the Americans kept Apollo spacecraft in production, then they could easily have done the same. Instead they built the Shuttle, with an eye to frequent manned launches, cheaper and safer flights with reusable components, and a Space Station to be completed in the late 1980s. Yeah.
But we can't fully cheer the Russians for their wisdom in sticking with a capsule over building a spaceplane. They built a shuttle, Buran, and a large launcher to carry it. Buran flew only once, unmanned, completing a perfect flight, and was then cancelled for lack of funding along with the rest of the Soviet Union. The Energia rocket flew once more, carrying the Polyus battle station. Yes, battle station. It would have formed the nucleus of a Mir 2, but with anti-satellite weapons, and (so rumour has it) an arsenal of nuclear mines... but it seems some crucial navigational component was installed upside-down, and the last great secret weapon of the Cold War ended its brief career at the bottom of the sea.
Obama needs to change on FISA too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Interesting)
Space is not something government should be concerned with.
I'm sure Queen Isabella of Spain should have never funded Columbus, since private industry would have eventually gotten there. There problem is: which country's private industry? Besides space exploration has many befits to nations. Plus some really cool toys come from it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff [wikipedia.org]
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, it may be true that Georgia was provoking Russia. But at a moment's notice, Russia launched a well-coordinated, overwhelming assault involving their army, navy, and air force, with fronts opened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The military assault was coordinated with computer attacks and a media propaganda campaign (see, for instance, the "2,000 dead" figure the Russian media kept repeating without ever providing any source or photographs to back up their claims). You simply cannot do what Russia did overnight. It takes weeks or months of planning. Georgia provided the trigger for the war, true, but Russia was clearly waiting for an excuse.
Russia/Georgia, Please solve this quickly.
Here's the underlying issue. Russia (or at least Putin) feels like border states, such as the Ukraine and Georgia, should be subservient to Russia, and not pursue political or military ties to the West. So as far as Russia is concerned, this is very much about the West (EU and NATO). And by invading and occupying a country that is on the flank of Europe, and with close political ties to the U.S., Russia is trying to threaten and intimidate the West. Now the West is in a delicate position- they can't really let this stand, but it's not clear how they can punish Russia either. Regardless, relationships between Russia and the U.S./EU have fundamentally shifted. It's not that a new conflict has started, it's that Europe and the United States are finally waking up and realizing that they're already in the middle of a conflict.
what 'ruse', rs is just plain hard! (Score:3, Interesting)
> That explains why Spaceship One exploded on launch.
Actually, it explains why Falcon I failed to launch, and Armadillo's lunar lander exploded on the runway. No, wait, it doesn't explain it. Even SpaceShipOne had a roll problem (it didn't blow up because, IMHO, Rutan is a rare daVinci-level design genius, but that's another tale). These things happen not because it's NASA or the Soviets or Private Industry, but because rocket science is hard.
Rockets blow up. A 1/100 change of failure over 100 launch = failure is likely. You can out-design some risk, but not all-- and so you have to do a cost/benefit against risk. With conventional (unmanned) satellite loses, they have it down to actuarial figures: they insure for $X, the policy costs $Y, so a risk reducation that costs more than $Y is unnecessary.
For manned stuff, the US is very risk-adverse and litigious, so I don't think private industry has much of a market advantage for risk management there. I do hope there will be legal and insurance reform to improve that situation. Put simply, people should be allowed to give informed consent to do dangerous stuff.
I'm all for commercial space ventures in addition to NASA. But arguing private industry will either a) cut corners and blow up more or b) be safer and more reliable than NASA ignores NASA's track record, reality, and how rocket science works.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
Please provide STATISTICS to prove your POSITION.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, but then why the disparity? Going back through my lifetime, Republicans have tended to spend money way more freely then Democrats.
If this was true that they're both the same, wouldn't I see similar spending binges during times when Democrats were in office?
Funniest Thing in the Whole Article (Score:3, Interesting)
"President Bush opposes the $2 billion in funding, saying it would be fiscally irresponsible."
A multi-trillion Dollar boondoggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is somehow a prudent decision that history shall vindicate him for undertaking, yet two billion for NASA is fiscally irresponsible?
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Interesting)
The response should be at most commensurate with the action. Responding to this kind of "threat" that:
a) wasn't all that plausible to begin with and
b) happened over a decade ago
with an insanely costly, unpopular war that has ruined the US economy and US standing abroad and killed tens of thousands of innocent people might just be a tad on the extreme side, no?
a) Does that matter? 9-11 wasn't very plausible to begin with.
b) Ruined the economy? The economy has grown every single quarter since 2002. Granted, the growth has slowed recently, but it really only looks bad by comparison to the explosive growth we had from 2002-2006. Come to think of it, the economy started slowing right after the Democrats took control of congress. Maybe that's just a coincidence.
Extreme? I don't think so. Freedom is not free. How many died in the US Revolutionary War? Was that extreme? How many died defending Europe in WWII? The Germans never attacked us. Was that extreme too?
Re:Was that the reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
A) I don't remember that incident at all.
Fortunately, history is not dependent on your memory.
HERE [wikipedia.org]
George H.W. Bush
April 13, 1993: Sixteen men, in the alleged employment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush as he spoke at Kuwait University. The plot was foiled when Kuwaiti officials found the bomb and arrested the suspected assassins.[13] Bush had left office in January 1993. On June 26, 1993, the U.S. launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attempted attack against Bush.[14] The Iraqi Intelligence Service, particularly Directorate 14, was accused of being behind the plot.[15]
Clinton's response was late at night to reduce casualties. All he did was kill some janitorial staff who had nothing to do with the plot.
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are we (US) so up in arms over Russia messing with Georgia? Is there something about Georgia that is of strategic importance to us? I mean, I know we don't like in general, countries going to war, but, I don't understand what the 'serious implications' of this move by Russia are....wasn't Georgia under Russian rule under the Soviet Union? If they want some pieces back...what is the big deal really?
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, forgot to mention, in the US the top 1% owns around 33% of all wealth, but pays around 40% of federal income tax. So based on your "fair" system, aren't they paying too much?
Then again, I've never seen the numbers for ALL taxes put together, including consumption taxes.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Interesting)
The sub-prime mortgage crisis was caused mostly by the deregulation of the mortgage industry. It became normal for lenders to give mortgages to people they historically knew couldn't afford it. In the past, their application would be rejected. Since the deregulation, everyone was telling people "sure, that's completely affordable."
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was discussed from the very first few months of Bush's administration taking office. Bush was briefed about Osama attacking the US with planes at his ranch in Texas, and he dismissed the possibility. We had a surplus with Clinton, and it became a debt when Bush took office, and has remained that way every year. And with a Dem as president, more "liberal" bills would be much less likely to get vetoed, such as health care bills.
So, yes, i do agree that there is a such thing as inertia. But the inertia was moving in the other direction than today...
Personally, I blame it on ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Term Limits - Look at California's Failure (Score:4, Interesting)
We need term limits in Congress.
I was for term limits in California when they were first enacted, much for the same reasons as you. That said, they have been a plain and unmitigated disaster for this state because of the many unintended consequences they have produced.
First, there was gerrymandering. Since it was now impossible for an individual to hold a district for 20 to 30 years, the Democratically controlled legislature drew safe districts that would vote Democrat for the next 20 to 30 years. Republicans went along with this because the ones in power also got enough safe districts to hold up approval of the annual budget (which requires a 2/3 vote to pass).
Second, as a biproduct of gerrymandering, politics in the California became highly partisan. Since almost all legislative districts in California consistently vote 60/40 in favor one party, the real election became the primary. Of course, one wins the primary by appearing the fringes of his or her party. Thus, our state legislators and senators started to further toward both the left and right. Most moderates never made it to the general election.
Third, the rank partisanship, led to gridlock in the legislature, especially with the state budget. Democrats refuse to cut spending in tough times, and Republicans refuse to raise taxes, regardless of the need to do so. What should be a process of compromise, is reduced to an annual game of chicken because neither side wants to back down from their ideological rhetoric.
Fourth, these budget problems are exacerbated even further by the increased influence of lobbyist groups in the capitol. This is perhaps the most insidious consequence of term limits. Because legislators and senators are out after 6 and 8 years respectively, they often have very little time to learn the legislative process and become experts on the subjects their committees govern. Thus they have to rely on lobbyist groups for information and viewpoints. Think K Street in DC but much worse.
There are a host of other maladies that term limits have wrought on this state, like the political musical chairs our politicians play, but these four are by far the worst. Term limits is the best example of the law of unintended consequences. For every problem they solved did they created another equally bad or worse one.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
I was born into quite the poor family. My parents worked their way up into middle class, though just barely. I am just inside middle class, as well and can still say that I would prefer have my SS money in hand, so I could make it go farther. I would have liked to use that money to directly fund college for myself with a much lowered school loan. I would also be able to pay off said loan much more quickly, due to a larger pay check. Once out of school, I could begin to invest the extra money that I am making by not having to pay into SS (considering that I can, and do, now live off less than my paycheck) and create a much better retirement package for myself than I'll ever get with the government.
I don't feel sorry for the people that would squander their extra cash for a "nice ride" or some "phat lewt" or whatever. If they don't want to plan for the future, I hope they at least treated their children right so that they may care enough about them to support them.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Interesting)
our regulatory structures may have been able to stop the sub-prime mortgage crisis,
Our regulatory structures creates the sub-prime mortgage crisis through the mortgage interest tax deduction, bank "community re-investment" requirements, the implicit government promise of backing Fannie Mae, local zoning rules that favored larger houses over higher density development, and some people argue an overly lose monetary policy.
Not to mention the moral hazard that government is now looking for ways to bail out silly mortgages, which will only result in more silly mortgages during the next housing bubble ('the government will bail us out").
Obviously the market failed badly in the housing bubble, but at the same time government didn't help. Markets can be silly, but the difference between them and government is that they are able to fix themselves quickly when things start going south (for example, no one is building new houses right now because of the market price signal). Meanwhile, government continues with the mortgage interest tax deduction, etc.
The folks at GMU Economics department say it best. Some people argue "markets fail, use government." However we know government can fail as well, often spectacularly, and are very slow to change. Thus "markets fail, use markets"
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:2, Interesting)
Garbage collection is very valuable.
Slaughtering your meal meat is very valuable.
Keeping the criminals out of your neighborhood is very valuable.
The people who perform those tasks are not valuable, at least it is not indicated by their pay. Now, the people that they work for, who probably would not do that task for that level of pay, are rewarded richly.
It is voodoo economics that determines compensation for tasks performed, nothing more.
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm. While this might be worth doing, it doesn't strike me as being as easy as you seem to be suggesting. For one thing it'd take several years to bring the new cars into production and a decade longer to replace the current fleet.
So overall, not a quick and easy solution to the Russia problem.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
So lets do the math (I'm honestly not sure which way it's going to end up, so I'm trying not to go into this with preconceived notions of whether the air pressure thing will help). Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter, and think offshore drilling is a short-sighted plan.
According to your fact sheet, properly inflated tires can provide up to 3% better fuel economy. According to the Department of Energy, US residential vehicles drove 1,793 billion miles in 1994 (the most recent year a lazy Google lookup brought - if someone has more recent data, by all means lets use that). According to what I could find, 1 gallon of crude makes approximately .45 gallons of gasoline (based on brief Google search - anyone have more accurate numbers?) I wasn't able to find national averages for fuel efficiency, so I'm going to pull numbers out of my ass, but use a few different possible 'national MPG' numbers for comparison, so we can at least can idea of whether the tire pressure idea could have any impact...
First, lets look at a national average of 10 MPG (probably too low). At 1,793 billion miles in 1994, consumers used 179.3 billion gallons of gas, assuming that 10 MPG number. But if they were driving on low tires (at 97% fuel efficiency...) they had 9.7 MPG and used 192.8 billion gallons of gas. So, in that case, Americans could have saved up to 13.5 billion gallons of gas inflating their tires. Max savings: 30 billion gallons of crude oil, or 710 million barrels
Assuming 20 MPG, the hypothetical 97% fuel efficient country drives around at 19.4 MPG and uses 92.4 billion gallons of gas, versus 89.7 billion gallons of gas at 20 MPG (a potential savings of 2.75 billion gallons). Max savings: 6.1 billion gallons of crude oil, or 145 million barrels
At 30 MPG (extremely unlikely, but presented for the sake of completeness) the country drives around at 29.1 MPG and uses 61.6 billion gallons of gas, versus 59.8 billion gallons at 30MPG (a potential savings of 1.8 billion gallons). Max savings: 4 billion gallons of crude oil, or 95 million barrels
So what do those numbers mean? Well, according to the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would potentially tap 18 billion barrels of crude, with production at max capacity by 2030.[1] So it looks like, even at the extreme end, just inflating tires would only be in the ballpark of 5% of the lower 48 states' offshore drilling capacity. (If all my math is right, which seems rather unlikely for math done during my lunch break...anyone spot any major flaws?)
At the same time, those savings would be per year. The same report says that offshore drilling would not have a large effect on oil production or prices "before 2030,"[2] so that 100 million barrels (the lower end of the savings spectrum) would add up to 2.2 billion barrels saved by 2030, a more respectable chunk of the estimated offshore capacity. So While I certainly don't pretend to have done enough research to say what (if anything...) can bring down gas prices, it looks like offshore drilling is not the short-term answer McCain says it is. Likewise, a 3% drop in gas prices in my area (Chicago) would be 12 cents, which is nothing to sneeze at - in fact, when I go in to get my oil changed this month, I'm going to make sure they check my tire pressure...
-Trillian
[1] - http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html [doe.gov]
[2] - http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/18/eia-bombshell-offshore-drilling-would-not-have-a-significant-impact-on-domestic-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/ [climateprogress.org]
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I never said they were doing a _good_ job, or that they didn't take 4 years to figure out what should have taken six months, but I also notice Obama's gone from the stupid "I'm bringing 'em home immediately no matter what, even if the military commanders say it's stupid" which would only appease the furthest left of the goofy-goofy lost-in-la-la-land types to something which is pointlessly obvious, but at least implies some contact with reality.
That said, I don't think Obama is offering anything constructive that hasn't already been said. But then he's not really offering anything but cheap, empty platitudes. His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be. It's a fiendishly clever scheme that would increase my cynicism of the American people ten-fold if it's actually successful.
Right now, he's sold the himself to the raving loonies, the uncritical chanters and knee-jerk bumper-sticker types. If he can pull off this scam on the whole nation, we, as a society, are in deeper kimchee than I even thought.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the flat tax is a progressive tax. I haven't heard any serious flat tax proposal that doesn't include a large personal exemption or deduction of the first $15 or $20k in salary. I would even put it at $25 or $30k and index it to inflation.
That way your actually living expenses are tax free, but only that money that is above that gets taxed.
Problem with having tax brackets that are not indexed to inflation and are set at middle class levels is that year after year you have more and more middle income people falling into higher tax brackets and therefore getting a bigger slice of their lives getting taxed. The progressive income tax therefore is just a built in tax increase without the political accountability. Increased taxation without representation.
This is bad for government too because it gets them used to having budgets that grow faster than inflation. Government can't grow ahead of the rest of the economy any more than any other industry. And when that bubble bursts there are usually bullets that start flying.
Re:Heh (Score:2, Interesting)
I love the responses I got to illustrate the point that most people who are for social programs are against spending money on space exploration.
And I love how the space exploration folks are showing how indoctrinated in pro-authoritarian ideology they are that they would rather finish re-making the US into a banana republic if only they could keep their shiny toys.
NASA Spinoff List -- Nasa funding advances us (Score:3, Interesting)
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml [nasa.gov]
There are thousands and thousands of them, but here's a few:
What do all the things pictured on this page have in common? They all use technologies or materials that were originally developed for the space program.
TV satellite dish TV Satellite Dish
NASA developed ways to correct errors in the signals coming from the spacecraft. This technology is used to reduce noise (that is, messed up picture or sound) in TV signals coming from satellites.
MRI image of head Medical Imaging
NASA developed ways to process signals from spacecraft to produce clearer images. (See more on digital information and how spacecraft send images from space.) This technology also makes possible these photo-like images of our insides.
Eye chart Vision Screening System
Uses techniques developed for processing space pictures to examine eyes of children and find out quickly if they have any vision problems. The child doesn't have to say a word!
Ear thermometer Ear Thermometer
Instead of measuring temperature using a column of mercury (which expands as it heats up), this thermometer has a lens like a camera and detects infrared energy, which we feel as heat. The warmer something is (like your body), the more infrared energy it puts out. This technology was originally developed to detect the birth of stars.
Fire fighter Fire Fighter Equipment
Fire fighters wear suits made of fire resistant fabric developed for use in space suits.
Smoke detector Smoke Detector
First used in the Earth orbiting space station called Skylab (launched back in 1973) to help detect any toxic vapors. Now used in most homes and other buildings to warn people of fire.
Sun glasses Sun Tiger Glasses
From research done on materials to protect the eyes of welders working on spacecraft, protective lenses were developed that block almost all the wavelengths of radiation that might harm the eyes, while letting through all the useful wavelengths that let us see.
Sport utility vehicle Automobile Design Tools
A computer program developed by NASA to analyze a spacecraft or airplane design and predict how parts will perform is now used to help design automobiles. This kind of software can save car makers a lot of money by letting them see how well a design will work even before they build a prototype.
Dust Buster vacuum cleaner Cordless Tools
Portable, self-contained power tools were originally developed to help Apollo astronauts drill for moon samples. This technology has lead to development of such tools as the cordless vacuum cleaner, power drill, shrub trimmers, and grass shears.
Bicycle Aerodynamic Bicycle Wheel
A special bike wheel uses NASA research in airfoils (wings) and design software developed for the space program. The three spokes on the wheel act like wings, making the bicycle very efficient for racing.
Skier Thermal Gloves and Boots
These gloves and boots have heating elements that run on rechargeable batteries worn on the inside wrist of the gloves or embedded in the sole of the ski boot. This technology was adapted from a spacesuit design for the Apollo astronauts.
Pen Space Pens
The Fisher Space Pen was developed for use in space. Most pens depend on gravity to make the ink flow into the ball point. For this space pen, the ink cartridge contains pressured gas to push the ink toward the ball point. That means, you can lie in bed and write upside down with this pen! Also, it uses a special ink that works in very hot and very cold environments.
Football player Shock Absorbing Helmets
These special football helmets use a padding of Temper Foam, a shock absorbing material first developed for use in aircraft seats. These helmets have three times the shock absorbing ability of previous types.
Ski boot Ski Boots
These ski boots use accordion-like folds, similar to the design of space suits, to allow the boot to flex