backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 124 comment(s) - last by BoxCutterLou.. on Apr 20 at 4:48 PM
The intrepid Cassini spacecraft has been hurtling around Saturn for four years. Look forward to at least two more.

The Cassini  spacecraft, which successfully made a seven year journey to Saturn after its October 15th, 1997 launch, has been vigorously orbiting Saturn since its arrival in June of 2004. The data sent back from the probe has been an incredible boon for planetary scientists studying the second largest planet in our area of space, its rings, and its seemingly limitless number of moons, large and small.

"This extension is not only exciting for the science community, but for the world to continue to share in unlocking Saturn's secrets. New discoveries are the hallmarks of its success, along with the breathtaking images beamed back to Earth that are simply mesmerizing," said Jim Green, director of the Planetary Science Division at NASA headquarters of the highly regarded space probe Cassini and the recently announced extension of its four year mission to explore Saturn and its solar system-unique vicinity.

The extension to the original four-year mission, scheduled to end in July of this year, was decided after several successful tests and the nearly flawless operating condition of the craft to date. Three instruments of the twelve aboard the probe have suffered minor failures, but the amount of data still able to be gathered by the craft is immense by the standards of space probes.

Cassini has, to date, made 62 orbits of Saturn and 55 flybys of its moons, 43 of which were dedicated to Titan, Saturn's largest and very earth-like moon. The orbiter most recently made a very close approach to the moon Enceladus to study a large water-ice geyser, ejecting material from the moon to a distance of three times its diameter of 500 km.

The two-year mission extension will see the craft perform another 60 orbits of Saturn, 26 flybys of Titan, seven of Enceladus and one for each moon; Dione, Rhea and Helene. The recent Enceladus flyby brought the craft within 50 km of the surface of the moon, and the new mission may bring it even closer, to a daring 25 km.

Based on past performance of the incredible Cassini, we can probably expect another two years worth of extraordinary data and images beamed back for analysis and wonderment. Should the two-year mission see successful completion, NASA predicts the craft will have enough propellant left for what may become a third phase, dedicated to missions centered on Titan and Enceladus.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hopefully
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 10:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
Someday I hope we'll actually be able to go to Saturn. Of course if the Democrats get elected, I have doubts of whether even NASA will stick around, much less accomplish anything.

Federal budget priorities should be:
-Defense
-Education
-Roads
-Space program
.
.
.

In my mind Welfare and Medicare should be around the bottom of the list.




RE: Hopefully
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/17/2008 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 1
No argument from me. Although Defense and Space Program can be one in the same :)


RE: Hopefully
By bldckstark on 4/17/2008 12:15:19 PM , Rating: 4
This is the second time in two days that I saw a DT blogger use the term "one in the same". The term is actually "one and the same". As in these two items are so much alike that they could be one item.

Not nitpicking though. It doesn't pain me or bother me to see it that way, I just thought you might like to know.


RE: Hopefully
By amanojaku on 4/17/2008 10:56:31 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
In my mind Welfare and Medicare should be around the bottom of the list.


Welfare and Medicare assist more people than just deadbeats. I know a few people who needed one or the other at some point in time and managed to turn their lives around. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who don't mind taking free money no matter their position in life (Paris Hilton gets paid to GO to parties???) I have too much pride to use welfare and medicare as crutches, but I've never been in a situation where I needed a helping hand so desperately.

Bottom line: don't assume that everyone on these programs is a leech (Republican viewpoint) or a person down on their luck temporarily (Democrat viewpoint.) Besides, you assume the money not spent on assistance programs would be better elsewhere (I won't disagree about defense and education.) What's the practical use of a visit to Saturn?


RE: Hopefully
By Xenoterranos on 4/17/2008 11:31:10 AM , Rating: 3
er, Education?


RE: Hopefully
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 12:56:33 PM , Rating: 5
Bottom line: If social programs only helped those who truly needed them instead of those who just are too lazy to work or made bad decisions which have caused them to have a low quality of life, then they wouldn't be as massive as they are today.

If you want to be stupid and get pregnant at 16, that's your decision. It isn't the government's job to take care of you.


RE: Hopefully
By therealnickdanger on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully
By phil126 on 4/17/2008 1:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
Mistakes do happen and sadly there are no perfect solutions. But in the case of teenage pregnacy would you prefer the mother and child live and die in the gutter? Just go spend some time in a less industialized country of the haves and have nots.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 5
> "Mistakes do happen and sadly there are no perfect solutions"

But some solutions are better than others. For many people, the welfare system we have now actually rewards bad behavior and disincentivizes education and hard work.


RE: Hopefully
By dever on 4/18/2008 2:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
This is exactly the point. Any government program that redistributes wealth has economic effects. Welfare effectively separates the vital feedback mechanism between productivity and reward, short-circuiting the foundation of the price system.


RE: Hopefully
By Cybesq on 4/18/2008 10:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ohhhh, you mean like the corporate welfare of bailing out Bear Sterns to the tune of one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee the banks' mortgage-backed junk bonds? Let's reward the bank's bad behavior of engaging in predatory loans, contracts of adhesion, and pure unregulated greed. Typical republican finger wagging as they rob the store.

"Hey you, look at this shiny welfare mother while I stick my hand in your pocket." I get it. Vote McSame in 2008. Four more years of it.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ohhhh, you mean like the corporate welfare of bailing out Bear Sterns to the tune of one-fifth of a trillion dollars "

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all, the Bear Stearns bailout was indeed an egregious misuse of governmental authority and a very poor idea overall. But lets not make up figures to suit ourselves. The bailout was accomplished by guaranteeing $29B of Bear Stearn's $30B in high-risk loans (J.P. Morgan underwrote the remaining $1B). So that's the *maximum* potential cost. The actual cost will likely be considerably lower, as the transfer is technically a very low interest loan to JPM.


RE: Hopefully
By BansheeX on 4/17/2008 11:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
So someone else's bad decision means that government should forcibly take money from everyone else and redistribute it to them? Voluntary cooperative action is the only way to morally solve problems like this, and we'd have more charitable action if people got to keep the money that the government is taking from them. Ever heard of 19th century America and the industrial revolution when the government was small and of ill importance? At no point was charity higher in American history. So not only is the welfare state philosophy morally repugnant at its core, it is rife with fraud and waste, it incentivizes failure, and it fights poverty by creating it. As usual though, socialist Democrats and Republicans alike are totally blind to costs and ethics.


RE: Hopefully
By gramboh on 4/17/2008 3:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a very Christian attitude FITCamaro, or are you one of those self-interest only me-me-me Republicans.


RE: Hopefully
By Ringold on 4/17/2008 9:34:53 PM , Rating: 1
Which state gives more as a percentage of income then any other to charity?

Let me give you a hint. It's very Red, and very Christian.

Republican's arent against lending a helping hand, they're against the mob using the government by way of the voting booth to use the police power of the state to confiscate from one person and give to another, particularly when the other person may or may not deserve it. Understand the inherent difference?


RE: Hopefully
By Cybesq on 4/18/2008 10:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Generosity Index is based on the behavior of people who itemize. Because of differences in state tax rates, income levels, and housing prices, the fraction who itemize varies a lot across states. In general a higher fraction of people itemize in the "blue" states than in the "red" states. Thus the groups very possibly are not comparable. There may be real differences between the charitable giving behavior of people in different states, but the Generosity Index viewed in isolation is potentially highly misleading.

Stop repeating Michele Malkin talking points and think for yourself.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Stop repeating Michele Malkin talking points and think for yourself."

That's rather ironic, considering your entire post was cut-and-pasted directly from a blog comment by someone else:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/ge...

Midway down the page, comment posted Nov 2005.

In any case, the objections raised in "your" post are all nonsense of course. The rankings are based on averages -- if you don't itemize, you're not counted in the average.
As far as income levels, Mississipi scored dead last...but came in 5th in charitable contributions. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, South Dakota -- all red states also at the top of the list. Red states dominate the top half utterly, in fact.

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New Hampshire are all high income states -- yet are the three least generous stats in the union. Nearly all states on the bottom half of the list are blue.

The reasons for this are, I believe, obvious...but a bit different than the OP suggested. People who believe the government should solve all problems are obviously less willing to fund charities directly. They'd rather increase taxes, forcing themselves (and their neighbors) to all pay alike.


RE: Hopefully
By Chudilo on 4/17/2008 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why does everyone assume that a medical reform makes Welfare and Medicare universal.It can be done the other way as well.
It can require everyone to pay for it instead (with the gov't picking up the bill for the under-priveleged)

There was a special on PBS about medical coverage around the world. We pay almost 3 times the amount of most other developed nations for medical coverage.
Billing accounts for more then 20% of our costs it's only 6 for them. They do have private non-profit insurance companies competing for business. This CAN work here if only the gov't had the guts to finally say no to insurance lobbies.


RE: Hopefully
By Azzr34l on 4/17/2008 5:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't much much about the current state of affairs with healthcare in the US.

First off, your insurance company works on your behalf to negotiate rates for you. Do you think you could walk into a hospital and try to negotiate your own rates for an ER visit or surgery? They'd laugh you out the door and bill you 100% of retail.

Second, insurance companies don't set medical chargemasters - that would be your doctors and medical facilities. Why do US patients pay so much? Ask your hospital why they charge so much the next time they bill you $72.50 for a couple Tylenol + $800 for the ER visit.

Big Pharma has a lot to do with it as well. They make more money off US patients than anywhere else in the world - why? Bush was unwilling to slap the hand that feeds him by eliminating the ability of the CMS to regulate prices for brand name drugs to Medicare members in the Medicare Reform Act.

Do yourself a favor, go read the earnings reports or SEC filings of large health insurance companies - they operate with earnings in the single digits. That's not exactly spectacular performance. Then go look at large hospital corporations like Sutter or Tenet or Big Pharma or other players in the healthcare delivery model and look at their operating profit margins - most are in double-digits. Believe me, as much as poor Dr. Smith likes to complain about his patients' health insurance companies keeping his chargemaster rate hikes in check, don't feel too bad for Dr. Smith, he's probably not hurting. How many doctors do you know living in trailer parks or apartments?

Anyone that thinks the FEDS would be able to administer universal healthcare in the US is plain nuts. They continuously botch just about every dollar we already give them - and now you want THEM administering your healthcare plan? Many Canadians and British see their state-sponsored healthcare as a token of national pride and many defend it vigorously - even though they're in worse shape than the US's model. Try being sick and actually needing healthcare in a state-run healthcare system. Wait, wait, wait. Sure, some people may genuinely be happy with it, but many are not - it's not the solution.