backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 99 comment(s) - last by kc77.. on Sep 10 at 6:55 AM
NASA officials continue to discuss what to do if the space shuttle must be retired and astronauts can't fly to space aboard Russian craft

Emails from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin show a growing level of discontent regarding the looming shuttle retirement and the U.S. space agency's plans to return to the moon by 2020.

"My own view is about as pessimistic as it is possible to be," Griffin wrote in an August 18 email citing a possible mission extension as unsafe and an unnecessary monetary drain on resources.  He later described the White House's attempt to shut down the space shuttle as a "jihad" against space technology that has helped NASA greatly over the years.

"Extending the shuttle creates no damage that they (the next administration) will care about other than to delay the lunar program. They will not count that as a cost," he said. "They will not see what that does for U.S. leadership in space in the long term. And even if they do, they have a problem in the short term that must be solved."

According to Griffin, there are one-in-eight odds of having another shuttle disaster if 10 more manned missions are launched after 2010.  Even with the one-in-eight odds presented by safety officials, Griffin still is having his team investigate the possibility of launching two manned missions per year just to make sure the ISS still have American astronauts and supplies so the space station can come closer to completion.

During the five-year gap after the shuttle is retired, NASA will be forced to rely on the Russian space program to get astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS).  Because of growing political tensions over the recent Russia-Georgia conflict, NASA administrators and other space officials have been weary of relying so heavily on Russia.  

A legislative exemption necessary for NASA to pay for seats aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft was somewhat well supported before the fighting skirmishes between Russia and Georgia.  But because of the fighting between the two sides, U.S. politicians are not as willing to pay for the seats, which means that the American portion of the ISS may be left unmanned for at least half a year.

An email obtained by The Orlando Sentinel last month indicated NASA was looking into how realistic it would be to extend the mission of the current shuttle until Orion is completed in 2014 or 2015.

The United States has been desperate to try and complete the ISS before the shuttle is retired, a move that would ease NASA's dependence on Russia.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Need more elbow grease.
By JKflipflop98 on 9/8/2008 4:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine with today's technology, if we put the same amount of nationalistic emphasis on space travel that we did back in the 60's.

Wouldn't that be something wonderful?




RE: Need more elbow grease.
By Bcnguy on 9/8/2008 5:48:56 AM , Rating: 1
IMHO even a good goal like that is a bad thing when its for the wrong reason. Just think no worth it.

I mean nationalistic feelings always need someone to blame or hate. That's why always brings worst colaterals than expected.


RE: Need more elbow grease.
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 8:01:35 AM , Rating: 3
So having a national goal to aspire to is a bad thing? Why do we need to hate or fear anyone else to have that?

Being the first country to have a permanent moon outpost. That's a hateful or fearful message?


RE: Need more elbow grease.
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:19:16 PM , Rating: 3
I think his point was that it is hard to rally the nation to such a goal without a boogeyman to rally against. I am all for a moonbase as soon as practical. But how many Americans really are? In the 60's it was obvious that the moon project was to beat the Russians there for nationalist purposes. If the Russian space program did not exist it is doubtful there would have been a crash program to land on the moon.


Retire or Retread
By Karpydiem on 9/8/2008 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 3
Why retire them to sit in a grassy field and waste more taxpayer money keeping them painted for tourists. How about launching them all into space with a tank re-fit and use them as busses between the moon and earth orbit? Or heaven for bid an emergency return vehicle for the space station. Are we really so stupid as to not realize that other countries are going to put bases and mining operations on the moon as fast as they can. Maybe we can use the shuttles to run their helium 3 and ores to the earth for a fee instead of giving tax payer money away for once. If we don't stop and take the lead back in this race then we are too stupid to last as a nation.




RE: Retire or Retread
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
No one is going to be mining the moon and sending back anything for a long long time. The cancellation of the shuttle without an adequate replacement, which I think is an awful move, won't really impact this.


RE: Retire or Retread
By Tryek25 on 9/9/2008 9:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think that as an emergency return vehicle the shuttle may be a tad unfeasible because of its weight. It would make it hard to boost the ISS's orbit every once in a while due to the added weight of the Shuttle. As a shuttle from here to the moon... It would definitely need more fuel than it can store just to leave earth's orbit.


Jihad ?
By Strunf on 9/8/2008 11:56:35 AM , Rating: 4
Not long ago we would say a crusade against this or that instead of a jihad... I guess the crusades became old fashioned, that said it's quite funny to see a jihad being done by Christians.




Strangelove
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/8/2008 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
"We must not allow for a orbital-personnel gap!"




Priorities - Another angle
By concerned1 on 9/8/2008 6:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
I too think we need a better sense of priorities when it comes to the spending of tax-payer dollars. I could not agree more that our missions to space have yielded many advancements over time, but our present involvement in the ISS is in my opinion, a big waste of money. But what seems to be an even bigger waste of money is the idea of scrapping the space shuttle for a GIANT STEP BACKWARDS. The Orion spacecraft, as it is currently being designed, is a 100% disposable system (like Apollo), where NOTHING gets recycled or reused. Many of it's proponents have said that by using older, proven technologies, it can be made safer and cheaper. But at what price? Without a space-shuttle like workhorse, there will be no heavy lifting capability (except for unmanned), and the cost of sending manned missions into low earth orbit will (pardon the use of the word) SKYROCKET. This endeavor (another well chosen word) seems to be a carefully orchestrated move on the part of Aviation and Space contractors to leverage the government into spending $$$$$ (BILLIONS) on R&D into a new spacecraft that will undo the advances we've made with the shuttle program. Please, tell your congress-person and senators that you want them to re-think the shuttle retirement, and SCRAP the Orion project.




Priorities
By ZimZum on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 9/8/2008 7:20:42 AM , Rating: 4
The purpose of government is not to give every citizen food and shelter, but to protect them and to allow them to make their own way (AKA Freedom). If the government were to feed and house everyone, then where would the money come from? And would we be free? Last time someone provided me with food and shelter, I had a curfew, and other limitations on my life.


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 8:07:39 AM , Rating: 4
But...but...that means lazy people can't get sh*t for free! And those who make bad choices in life will have to live with them! The inhumanity!


RE: Priorities
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 8:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Here's where people get confused:

If people make bad decisions in the stock market, or in life in general, they should not recieve a free bailout. The .com collapse, for instance, involved millions of dollars being invested in companies that never turned a profit. That being said, there should be a minimal layer of saftey; not enough to live confortably on, but enough to support people to get some type of job (even a minimum wage one).

On the other side, however, there needs to be some entity which makes sure that businesses play by the rules. One of my biggest arguements against de-regulation, is that both times it has been tried (Regan and Bush 43), there have been massive accounting scandles uncovered, due to a lack of oversight. While the concept is not a bad one, when it comes to business, neo-cons (note: i did NOT say Republicans) belive in the best of businesses.

In todays example, Freddie and Fannie may well have "adjusted" its books to make them appear more profitable. Now, should stockholders who lose a lot of cash in the bailout be held responsable for investing based on those reports? Should government step in and remove their CEO's multi-million dollar retirement packages and re-distribute it among those hurt? These are the issues which gets lost in all the debate, and will likey be ignored.


RE: Priorities
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:16:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
One of my biggest arguements against de-regulation, is that both times it has been tried (Regan and Bush 43), there have been massive accounting scandles uncovered, due to a lack of oversight.


Actually, the accounting scandals uncovered by the Bush Administration occurred mostly during the Clinton Administration. Of course, Clinton was a famous neo-con.
BTW, it is Reagan not Regan.


RE: Priorities
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 8:13:16 AM , Rating: 1
Thats a narrow way of looking at things.

Government is responsable for ensuring the long-term well being of its citizins. If that means ensuring that everyone has food and shelter, then that is the course they should take.

Your argument also has a major flaw: You seem to argue that people have the right to do most whatever they want (outside of the things that are universally illegal, of course). Its the typical De-Regulation arguement: Government should not be responsable in our day to day affairs. Of course, these are the people who want the government to bail them out when companies go bad because of illgial activity, that could have been caught beforehand with some decent oversight... Ita a cath-22: government oversight is a necessity (despite what Neo-cons believe) to ensure that the economy stays on track, yet is an anti-capitalistic principle (according to Adam Smith at least...).

As for money, as you increase the amount of people with money to spend, more money is pored into the economy, giving the government more money to play with. Thats one reason why Europe pays for everyones education; they believe, correctly in my mind, that a highly educated workforce will get better paying jobs, and thus will spend more on goods, growing the economy and providing the government more money. Of course, such a view is incompatable with American Capitalism...

To each his own I guess...


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 9:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
No government oversight is a bad idea. But so is too much. And we've got far too much now.

And you're going to look at Europe? Their unemployment is worse than ours. And many of their educated want to come to the US to escape the insanely high taxes. The British especially.

Yes a highly educated work force will get better jobs. But its not the governments job to provide it to you. Yes every kid should get a basic education. But beyond that, it should be up to the individual to make sure they get a good education and succeed in life. And don't tell me that the poor don't have the opportunity. In this country you can go to a state school and get financial assistance to help you get through. You might have to take out some loans, but you can do it. I did. I have the $60,000 in loans to prove it.


RE: Priorities
By gamerk2 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Priorities
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
The only way government can make any product cheaper than the private market is by distorting the market. Since it makes the rules it obviously has the power to do so.
A better argument would be to say since government has no profit motive it can better distribute its product to the population. Lack of the need to make profits allows government to deliver goods or services in a universal manner. It is obvious some goods and services are better handled by the government, police and the military being good examples. The question is which ones are and which ones aren’t?


RE: Priorities
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "It is obvious some goods and services are better handled by the government, police and the military being good examples"

Depends on who you listen to. Read Vernor Vinge's "Peace War" series (especially the interstitial novella) and you might come away with a different conclusion about the effectiveness of private police and military forces.


RE: Priorities
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I read that book years ago when I was in university. It made me miss a class or two.


RE: Priorities
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 7:36:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How does oversight lead to high unemployment? I'd love to see your reasoning on that point... I'm a socialist.


The last part makes explaining the first part to you fruitless. You're ideologically incapable of comprehending. I'd have more luck convincing an Evangelical there is no god.

That said.. to give you at least something to look up in an econ text book.. A generous welfare state reduces incentives to work, and heavy labor market regulation and union power in Europe leads to a higher than necessary marginal cost to add new employees. Regulations that make it difficult to lay off/fire unproductive or necessary workers put companies in a position where they'd rather go short handed than possibly hire eternal workers. As for unions.. They're fantastic, for those who already have jobs. They lock in higher wages for the already-working members, but due to the higher cost causes fewer new ones to be created and creates a strong incentive to move away from labor-intensive processes and towards more automation. For example, auto plants in high-cost America are far more automated than those in Eastern Europe. Finally, for those countries with limits on the working week, the idea that frees up hours for others to work has been discredited, with the chief effect simply being lower productivity. Economists of all political stripes generally agree on the above, and a quick Google will reveal studies arguing the above going back at least two decades now.

What do you think explains Europe's consistently higher unemployment and, now, rapidly deteriorating economic situation? Evil capitalist plot? Most indicators seem to point to the US getting out of this global economic slowdown with less damage than Europe, where a year ago that seemed unlikely, but Europe folded like a cheap lawn chair.


RE: Priorities
By hashish2020 on 9/8/2008 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
Perfectly defensible response, if you can give me one example of how that one big expensive war protected us, cowboy


RE: Priorities
By KnightCG on 9/9/2008 3:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
The government is more than happy to provide you with free food and shelter. If you don't believe this, head to your nearest bank, walk to the teller and say "gimme all your money."

If that doesn't suit you, well, you should probably go get a job and, as stray put it, make your own way, better known as freedom.


RE: Priorities
By phxfreddy on 9/10/2008 2:20:43 AM , Rating: 1
Socialism is like trying to keep humans as pets.

http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/liberalism-soci...


Another hit
By qwerty1 on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another hit
By kyleb2112 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another hit
By randomly on 9/8/2008 7:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
No we cannot, we do not even have a capsule to put on top of any rocket to carry humans into space yet.
Probably the fastest approach would be to man-rate an EELV but even under the best circumstances that wouldn't be ready till 2011-12. The other option is the DIRECT 2.0 design done by some internal NASA engineers, which could be flying several years sooner than ARES I since it uses more of the currently available parts.

At this point in time though there is no option to keep access to the ISS other than extending shuttle flights, which may be extremely expensive and may not even be possible since they started shutting down the program 4 years ago.


RE: Another hit
By rupaniii on 9/8/2008 10:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
They could unlock Project Sunbird from A51.
Mind you they are showing off their much older and less exotic, but still acceptably useful Scramjet to Space vehicle tech.
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p24.htm...

But, I'm a bit more intrigued by the one that apparently violates every international treaty on aeronautics ever written that is often seen splintering the sky over Idaho, Utah and Nevada disappearing into a blinking glimmer as it just keeps going up and up and up...
I guess as long as its over your own land it's just a fib on the treaties, but, once it's in space... well.
We'll leave it all up to Mr. Ripley.
Then again, consider the Concorde which was around forever and was oh so close...


RE: Another hit
By straycat74 on 9/8/2008 7:16:12 AM , Rating: 4
Maybe I forgot my history, but I can't remember there being a war we (the American people) wanted to fight. I am of course not speaking of looking back on a war once we've won to determine its popularity among the people.
And don't get into management of war either. Every war has been mismanaged, and bad decisions made. The sad truth is that us Americans are too soft and too comfortable, and we like to complain too much. Myself included.


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Most wars are popular in the beginning. Even Vietnam and Iraq were so. What Americans seem to lack is the desire to fight a long drawn out inconclusive war.


RE: Another hit
By AlexWade on 9/8/2008 7:49:44 AM , Rating: 4
I happen to agree with the Bush administration here. The Shuttle has outlived its usefulness. How long until another disaster? Every time the Shuttle launches, they have to check to see if some foam fell off, or if heat shield was damaged, or something. We landed on the moon with rockets, that should be good enough until something safer and more efficient comes along. Time to stop throwing away money on repairs and put money into a real solution.


RE: Another hit
By murphyslabrat on 9/8/2008 1:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
So we save money by using disposable aircraft? Makes sense to me </sarcasm>


RE: Another hit
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 2:11:47 PM , Rating: 3
Given you have to essentially rebuild the Shuttle from scratch after every launch-- yes, disposable rockets are much cheaper.


RE: Another hit
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 8:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes...it's all Bush's fault. Just like Katrina right?

Fact of the matter is that the SENATE makes the decisions. He just approves them.

And if our last Democrat president hadn't scrapped our shuttle replacement, we'd have a new one NOW and wouldn't have to be going back to a 1960s design because its quick to develop.


RE: Another hit
By gamerk2 on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another hit
By Chaser on 9/8/2008 8:45:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And as for Kitrina, explain how its NOT his fault?


That's Katrina. Really YOU my friend are delusional if you think the President of the United States can be blamed for a hurricane that develops in the Caribbean. And you try and lecture someone on how government works? Please crawl back into your one room cabin in the woods and dream of anecdotal "hope and change".


RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 9:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
Its not the weather, dingbat... Its the completely botched response that is being referred to as his fault... Further worsened by hiring his buddy for the head of FEMA that has zero experience.


RE: Another hit
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 10:05:06 AM , Rating: 4
So no blame whatsoever for the mayor of New Orleans or the governor who did absolutely nothing to prepare for it? They turned down the offer of having the National Guard deploy for and prepare for the storm.

And no blame for the citizens still in the city who were looting the city bare and even shooting at rescue choppers?

I notice a stark difference in the response to destruction in New Orleans and that in the MidWest. Whereas in New Orleans, citizens were looting, shooting, and basically creating a lawless area, the people in the MidWest waited until it was safe to start cleaning up and did. And there wasn't media reporters crawling all over it either with celebrities showing up to support them. Nor did the citizens there cry out to the government for money and aid. Or sit on their rooftops waiting to be rescued.


RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 11:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed... the response was botched on all levels of govt. What does that have to do with this thread? Bush was brought up as having mismanaged Katrina, and I was responding to Chaser who stated " (you)are delusional if you think the President of the United States can be blamed for a hurricane"

I added that it was not the weather, it was the mismanagement on hte federal level that he was blamed for - and hiring a know nothing windbag to run FEMA was irresponsible.

Now, you take that, and blame local and state govt. then add republican rhetoric to the mix... You may have a point- but its way off topic. The topic of this thread is what an idiot Bush is, and what a horrible job he did.


RE: Another hit
By DrKlahn on 9/8/2008 10:38:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Its the completely botched response that is being referred to as his fault... Further worsened by hiring his buddy for the head of FEMA that has zero experience.


Please go and talk to someone in charge of Emergency Management for a large County or City. You will then realize just how horribly the City, County and State did dealing with Katrina and what a wonderful job the media did redirecting the blame onto the current President and the Federal Government.


RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 12:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that local and state and fed. botched it wasnt the issue in this thread (and I agree they did botch it). This thread was about how Bush botched his portion of it.


RE: Another hit
By greenchasch on 9/8/2008 12:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
If you read ANY article on the situation that goes beyond the depth of "it was a really bad situation", you'll see the federal response was better than anyone could have expected. I know how much you Bush haters love to blame him for anything from sunspots to your dog's bad hair day, but its really getting kind of silly.


RE: Another hit
By DrKlahn on 9/8/2008 1:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that local and state and fed. botched it wasnt the issue in this thread (and I agree they did botch it). This thread was about how Bush botched his portion of it.


As I stated earlier, talk with someone who can inform you of the scope of responsibilities. You may start to realize how little of that mess can actually be put upon the doorstep of the Federal Government.

FEMA, contrary to popular belief, does not have and has never had disaster plans for all major metropolitan areas of the country. This is why they fund the state and local agencies. These agencies are responsible for the first 48 hours of the disaster while FEMA mobilizes to assist them (not takeover).

Look beyond what the majority of the media is feeding you and analyze the actions of the local authorities. The mayor in particular was inept and negligent in his actions.


RE: Another hit
By Bender 123 on 9/8/2008 11:10:07 AM , Rating: 1
Please observe the following article from Popular Science. It is not exactly a political magazine, so it really does not have a dog in the political hunt.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315...

The Feds really did do a good job, it was so massive, that there were bound to be fail points.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 9:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
Um, just an observation. I think he's talking about Bush putting a horse trainer in charge of FEMA and moving FEMA under Homeland Security. I don't believe he's saying that Bush is standing over the Gulf creating Hurricanes by blowing hot air. Although you never know. Just my observation since seeing words like "delusional" sparked my interest. I personally would have used the word "retard" in this post but I decided against it.


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 11:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Placing FEMA under HS was a Congressional act.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 1:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
It most certainly was not. The creation of Homeland Security and the relocation and management of FEMA staff was a Administration proposal. Congress only controls the funding of the department. Whose running it and where it is located is under complete control under the Executive branch.


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 1:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are wrong. Bush created the Office of Homeland Security, which is not and never was a cabinet level department. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department of Homeland Security - which different than the Office of Homeland Security since one is operations and one is advisory - and placed different agencies and offices under the Secretary of Homeland Security. Which agencies were placed under DHS were decided and voted upon by Congress, then signed into law by Bush. There was enormous debate at the time on which -mainly but not exclusively dealing with the FBI and CIA - agencies should be placed under DHS. I don't remember much debate on whether FEMA should be part of DHS at the time; I doubt there was much disagreement on whether it should be part of DHS.


RE: Another hit
By bpurkapi on 9/8/2008 3:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember that congress after 9/11 had a republican dominated house and senate, so most of Bush's proposals were rubber stamped by his party with little debate. Now the problem comes when this legislation gets its first real test. When Katrina happened we have democrats in control of the congress. Recently we saw the response in the Gulf Coast to be completely different, whether that is because folks had recent memories, or because there are now less people is up for debate. But the government response was ironed out. Personally I think that hurricanes should be a federal response because they often hit multiple states making it difficult for governors to effectively control the situation.


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
While there certainly should be a federal component to any major disaster local and state entities are much more familar with the geography, infrastructure, demographics, and resources of areas hit by a disaster.

I don't think FEMA under DHS is a bad idea if there is going to be a DHS at all. There was very little opposition to DHS, either from Republicans or Democrats. It is important to remember that Republicans never had a fillibuster proof Senate if the Democrats were dead set against DHS it would never have happened.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 7:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Tom you are splitting hairs just for the sake of doing so. I did not confuse the two. The Department of Homeland Security resides under the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.... How do I know?? Here's the bill from whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis/...

The Congress must vote on ALL bills before they can be signed into law. It's our process. These departments along with FEMA since they have been placed under this department all report to President Bush. The fact that you are arguing that President Bush didn't have a hand in the law is absolutely amazing.... how do you think domestic surveillance, and the classification of torture ended up in that Act? Tinkerbell!?! This is based on National Homeland Security Strategy published in July 2002 by who??? You guess it ...the President.(the Act was signed into law in November of 2002).. it took me a while to find it but I did.... here it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/

Wiki is great and all, but reading the bills yourself is better. Especially if you are going to be to firm in whose right or wrong. Thanks for playing.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 7:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.fema.gov/

Here's another link notice how the website says:

FEMA 500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
Disaster Assistance: (800) 621-FEMA, TTY (800) 462-7585
U.S. Department of Homeland Security


RE: Another hit
By vbNetGuy on 9/8/2008 8:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to be able to summon a hurricane on demand to purposely cause billions of dollars in damage.


RE: Another hit
By tmouse on 9/8/2008 9:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
You, my friend are just as ignorant. Departments report operations to the president and do take orders solely from him; however they do report to the congress (House and Senate) when ever congress requests it. While the administrative branch has the responsibility to propose a budget and does control the direction of departments, the legislative branch is SOLELY responsible for ALL funding allocations. The president cannot move a cent from one department to another without congresses approval. Congress on the other hand can give as much money as they want to any department’s budget and approve additional supplemental spending at any time. The president may veto these extras but congress gets the final say and may override the veto. Anytime ANY presidential candidate says he/she will spend more for this or that take it with a grain of salt. They can direct their departments to move in one direction or another and ASK for the money to do it but they cannot spend anything until congress ok's it. People are fools if they believe there will be any major spending shifts between different presidents unless there are major changes in the makeup of congress.


RE: Another hit
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 9:08:48 AM , Rating: 1
Of course then there's our lovely Supreme Court is increasingly trying to legislate from the bench.


RE: Another hit
By Pneumothorax on 9/8/2008 9:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
The sad thing was most of us are fools... I did a quick informal survey at a recent party, and I'd say only 1 out of 5 even knew we had a Senate and a House of Representatives! Most thought that congress was congress and most didn't even know what they did. At least they knew that McCain and Obama were both senators lol!


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 6:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
You need to upscale your parties.


RE: Another hit
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 11:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
[QUOTE]. The president cannot move a cent from one department to another without congresses approval. Congress on the other hand can give as much money as they want to any department’s budget and approve additional supplemental spending at any time.[/QUOTE]

In theory, yes. Its the Executive branch that PROPOSES the yearly budget though. So while Congress does get the final say on funding, the Executive branch sets the initial figure.

Also note, barring one of those years where the concensous is to cut spending, it is rare for Congress to lower any of the initial appropriations proposed by the executive branch. If they do, the representatives from that state will complain (loudly) until the funding is restored.

And as for Bush's handling on Katrina, yes, local and state officials did a horrible job. But its clear that Bush never understood the magnitude of what happened until several days after, leading to a slow federal response. And to this day, there are still inter-departmental fights going on between departments, so one of the major reasons for the slow respons has not been addressed.


RE: Another hit
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 11:38:16 AM , Rating: 3
There's a little problem called the Constitution. The federal government can't simply send troops and materials to domestic locations. It took several days for the governor of Louisiana to even make the necessary approvals before all the federal aid could even begin moving.

The offer for aid, however, was made well before the storm struck, as other posters here have pointed out.

The failure was at the state and local level. I'm sure we all remember seeing those pictures of hundreds of buses all half-underwater. . . buses that sat idle when they could have been used to bus people out of the city before hand.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 7:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Masher it did not take several days to request for Federal Aid. Here's the timeline:

http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/


RE: Another hit
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 8:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
By that timeline, it was early morning on August 31st when she requested 40k troops. Katrina made landfall 2 days prior.

Here in Florida, we take steps Ray Nagin didn't take until less than a full day before landfall up to a week before expected landfall here. Things here are just infinitely more professional and better organized. We're still flooded by Tropical Storm Fay (the St. John's River is a slow mover), and FEMA's basically had nothing to do, despite a lot of damage in areas. We've just got our own act together. I think a lot of this has come about after Hurricane Andrew, but still.

Why people are even shocked that a state that is synonymous with corrupt politicians ends up getting caught with its pants down is amusing to me. As for the human suffering.. Just skimming some of those articles.. Raping children? The whole Katrina episode was frightening to me not because the government couldn't protect its people from hardship. It was frightening to me because at the slightest, even temporary suspension of civilization-as-normal, the under classes turned in to riotous barbarians, assaulting themselves, raping and pillaging local areas, and in some cases going on murdering sprees.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 9:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you read the whole sentence. The 9/1 conference made reference to a request for troops on the 26th. The hurricane hit on the 29th.

Are you comparing a Tropical Storm with a category 4 hurricane ?
Also there was looting or as you would put it "riotous barbarians, assaulting themselves, raping and pillaging local areas" after Andrew... one often forgets with a little bit of time...especially in the US.

Here's a reference :
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?...


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 9:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
The 9/1 conference dealt with National Guard units of the respective states not federal troops. Blanco did not formally request federal troops till 8/31.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/8/2008 11:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nope... sorry that's a popular misnomer. Here's the actual request verbatim...
quote:

"In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan.

FEMA issued a statement dated August 27, that President Bush authorized the allocation of federal resources, "following a review of FEMA's analysis of the state's request for federal assistance. A White House statement of the same date also acknowledges this authorization of aid by President Bush. On August 28, Governor Blanco sent a letter to President Bush, which increased the amount of aid requested to US $130 million.


Now if FEMA issued a statement on the 27th when do you think the request happened?... if you said the 26th (as I said previously) you would be correct.


RE: Another hit
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 11:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
The allocation of federal aid does not include an authorization for federal troops. Several people here have tried to explain the sequence events to you, and countless accurate summaries exist on the web. One can only conclude you're being willfully obtuse.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/9/2008 12:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
This is what you said:

quote:
It took several days for the governor of Louisiana to even make the necessary approvals before all the federal aid could even begin moving.


This is what I was responding to. Don't act all high and mighty with me when you can't even remember what you've said in previous posts. Deal?


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/9/2008 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
In addition the request for National Guard that outstrips what a State can provide locally is routed through National Guard Bureau, which is a Federal department. An example would be that if you required additional resources from a neighboring state, that request would go through this bureau. It is only until this request has been approved by this bureau, that additional National Guard can be deployed.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/9/2008 2:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
My sticking point with you Masher is your implication that no federal assistance was asked for at all, or federal agencies weren't granted access to the State until "several days" after the event which is also incorrect.


RE: Another hit
By mmatis on 9/9/2008 9:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Another typical left-wing maggot using the MSM standard "If we say it often enough, it must be true!"


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/10/2008 6:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
LOL so your reduced to name calling ....how astute of you.


RE: Another hit
By Ringold on 9/9/2008 11:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you comparing a Tropical Storm with a category 4 hurricane ?


I was referring to Tropical Storm Fay, which still has much of central Florida under several feet of water, but if you want to be a smart ass, Florida ate 5 named storms in 2004: Charley, Francis, Ivan and Jeanne, plus Tropical Storm Bonnie. Three of the above went right through Central Florida. Charley was still a Cat 3 as it rolled over my house (my neighbors and I shared BBQ as the eye passed over). No collapse of civilization.

As for Hurricane Andrew, yes, Miami too has its poor areas, like the old Liberty City area for one. But do you really want to compare Andrew with Katrina? Katrina at least left most homes, massively damaged, in place. Check out aerial photos of Homestead after Andrew. Nothing was left except concrete slabs. There's hardly any comparing the two. One caused damage due to largely local and state government failure, the other because it might as well have been a nuclear bomb. As for rioting, you said nothing to excuse their immediate reversion to lawless barbarity.


RE: Another hit
By kc77 on 9/10/2008 6:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Um, no. I actually went there. There were many many many homes without any kind of foundation at all. Many homes pushed into others. Katrina caused $300 billion in damage. I'm not going to compare horror stories with you. But I do demand you give respect to fellow Americans who have lost their lives, which you seem easily able to do if they meet your "standard".


RE: Another hit
By tmouse on 9/8/2008 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
So the point was; is the lack of support for a shuttle program Bush's fault? Well within the budget limitations an administrator has to make decisions where to spend the money. I'm not going to get into a debate on whether the decision to keep the shuttles flying is right or wrong (I do not have enough information to make a comfortable decision at this time). My point is I seriously doubt if congress voted to give NASA, "X" billion dollars, Bush would still say scrap the shuttle program.


RE: Another hit
By Chaser on 9/8/2008 8:34:58 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry we can't keep the tax funded astronaut creation machine alive. The Space Shuttle program was worthwhile in the 80s and the 90s but its value today is nothing more than an over priced PR campaign for wannabe "heros" that no one cares about anymore. Public interest in the space program has fallen to about nothing.

The government needs to roll back NASA, apply the cost savings of the "former shuttle program" into R&D for a new program that will re-captivate the interest of the country, young and old.

This is nothing more that self preservation of money and a program because the dead weight in NASA doesn't want to lose the jobs and pensions the 20+ shuttle program created.

Kudos to congress and the President. The NASA staff would fly paper airplanes on live cameras as long as the budget stays the same and some pilot can pose for the glory, what little there is today.


RE: Another hit
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
After you strap yourself into a tube full of explosive fuel, experience a 3+ g liftoff, and say "No big deal", you can say they aren't heroes.


RE: Another hit
By Noya on 9/9/2008 12:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
3+ g liftoff


I'm sure it's more than 3g's (I think the Gravitron at the fair hits 3.5g and it's tough to lift your head off the wall).


RE: Another hit
By Cobra Commander on 9/8/2008 8:59:12 AM , Rating: 3
So what? The space race has thus far been 100% perception. If you've done your homework on NASA you would know the Space Shuttle program was a failure before its maiden voyage. And you'd also know NASA has not been the tightest ship in the shipping industry (which is the TRUE benefit of NASA and not taking Russians to a space station).

It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with poor R&D, execution and safety from NASA.


RE: Another hit
By encryptkeeper on 9/8/2008 9:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
Great, now Bush can add another black spot to his legacy by giving up our dominance in space...

It's more like another example of Bush's general disdain for science in general. His denial against 99% of the scientific community's findings that humans ARE causing global warming, not blinking an eye at drilling for more oil in the ANWR to relieve gas prices (a friggin STUPID idea, considering the price of oil has dropped nearly 40% in two months and gas has dropped less than 10%), belief that a single fertilized cell is undeniably a human being, and the fact that "No Child Left Behind" tests exclusively on reading and math was proof enough. Yeah, George, you hated science in school, probably because it was too hard for you. WE GET IT.


RE: Another hit
By FITCamaro on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 9:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think you get the whole abortion thing... People dont perform unwanted abortions on other people. Women CHOOSE to go to a clinic and have an abortion. Its thier own body, and its about not letting the givernment run our private lives or legislate our bodies.


RE: Another hit
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 10:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if the woman wants it. What about what the baby wants? The fact is it is or will be a human life. Two people made the decision to have sex(Except in cases of rape which is one of the only two times I can accept abortion. But I'd prefer she just give it up for adoption. The other is when it will kill the mother.). With that decision, even when using some form of birth control, there comes the risk of pregnancy. And thus the responsibility to respect that new life you have created.

Abortion is nothing more than an easy way out for irresponsible people. Since I started having sex, I've always known that there was the risk of having a kid. And I accepted it. In this country people fight tooth and nail to save the lives of murderers and rapists on death row. People with absolutely no value to society who have committed horrible crimes. But killing an innocent unborn child? Meh. Whatever.

And I say all this completely separate from any major religion. It's common sense. If nothing else, think about how would you feel if your mother told you she tried to abort you and failed. Somehow I doubt you'd tell your mother that "Hey. That's ok. You had the right to choose whether I was born or not."


RE: Another hit
By hashish2020 on 9/8/2008 11:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
So by your logic, it is perfectly ok for me to go murder a child who is the child of a rape? Thanks for the go ahead


RE: Another hit
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 11:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
Heres my stance: In the case of possible harm of the mother, or in cases of Rape/Incest, abortions should be an option. After that, there would need to be some form of "extraordinary circumstances" for one to qualify.

That being said:
A: I'm not a woman
B: Abortions were made legal becuase of the harm that was occuring due to back alley operations. That was a major factor in the decsion for Roe v. Wade.
C: Many (most even) of the supporters for the right to abortion choose not to have one. Its the RIGHT to have that option they support, even if they don't support the act.
D: The amount of abortions has dropped every year for the past decade.
E: There would be less unwanted pregnacies if more schools taught sex-ed instead of abstinance only programs (McCains own VP shows why those programs do not work).
F: Abortions have become a major piece of law for so long, if overturned now, would be a case of the Supreme Court "acting from the bench". Of course, its OK if you don't support the law...


RE: Another hit
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 6:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
F: Abortions have become a major piece of law for so long, if overturned now, would be a case of the Supreme Court "acting from the bench". Of course, its OK if you don't support the law...


So precedents can never be overturned? Roe was a bad decision, read it someday. Overturning Roe would not outlaw abortions it would move it to the state legislatures where it belongs.


RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 11:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
So, let me get this straight... As a republican, you are all for freedom and personal rights... small govt and non-interferance in personal lives. But when it comes to a womans right to do what she feels is best with her own body, you go all big brother on us? Kind of hypocritical - not that hypocritical is surprising coming from a die hard republican like you. =)


RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 11:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
I should add that you do have valid points... We are way too lenient on murderers and rapists, and women that have multiple abortions and basically use abortion as a method of birth control should be shot in the head- but to take away the right for a woman to choose what happens to her own body is not freedom.


RE: Another hit
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 12:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, so i'm not the only one to notice some of the hypocracy in the "republican" party...

BTW, the real republican party became the Libertarian party during the Ragan era: Fiscal rsponsability, Teddy Roosevelt forign policy (neo-cons forgot the speak softly part), and small government.


RE: Another hit
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "BTW, the real republican party became the Libertarian party during the Ragan era: Fiscal rsponsability, Teddy Roosevelt forign policy [and] small government."

Allow me to repeat that for emphasis.


RE: Another hit
By retrospooty on 9/8/2008 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2