backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by ameriman.. on Oct 26 at 1:23 AM


NASA's Lori Garver  (Source: wikimedia.org)
NASA urged Congress to provide the full $850 million, because if it is not paid now, the U.S. will be forced to pay the Russians $450 million for every year that the U.S. delays its own commercial crew vehicle starting in 2016

Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator, is pushing for increased funding for NASA's commercial crew vehicle development, or warns that the U.S. will be paying the Russians over the long-term instead.

The retirement of NASA's space shuttle fleet throughout 2011 has made U.S. astronauts dependent on Russia to travel to the International Space Station (ISS). The cost per seat for this rendezvous is estimated to increase to $63 million by 2015, and NASA is hoping to have commercial spaceships of its own to avoid having to pay the Russians. NASA is looking to Boeing Co., SpaceX, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada Corp. for such spacecraft.

But these spacecraft developers will require assistance for the creation of NASA's request. NASA put aside $388 million to support such development, while the agency put forth another $800 million for spacecraft to be developed by SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp.

But now, NASA is moving on to its next phase of its commercial crew vehicle development, and needs $850 million.

So far, Congress has put aside $312 million in the House and $500 million in the Senate.

Garver urged Congress to provide the full $850 million, because if it is not paid now, the U.S. will be forced to pay the Russians $450 million for every year that the U.S. delays its own commercial crew vehicle starting in 2016.

According to Garver, paying U.S. companies the extra money needed now will outweigh having to pay the Russians $450 million per year in 2016 and beyond, which will obviously benefit the Russian space effort instead of the U.S.

But NASA's money troubles don't end there. Even if Congress comes up with $850 million in 2012, the cost of the commercial crew vehicle development will only increase as time goes on. Garver estimates that NASA will require $6 billion "over five years."

The next step is a hearing for funding the next phase, known as CCDev 3, next Wednesday. It was scheduled by the House Science Space and Technology Committee.

Source: MSNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

SLS waste
By ameriman on 10/21/2011 3:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
The SLS:
* will consume the funds for other projects and will not reduce the price per pound to launch into orbit...SLS budgetary footprints will stamp out all the missions it is supposed to carry, kill our astronaut program, and destroy science and technology projects throughout NASA.
* will cost 10-20x more than using existing (Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta IV), or proposed derivative (Falcon Heavy) American commercial rockets with on-orbit assembly/fueling as needed
* Wastes 50+ billion taxpayer $s creating a Govt launcher in violation of the NASA’s charter, the Space Act, and the 1998 Commercial Space Act requirements for NASA to pursue the "fullest possible engagement of commercial providers"
* Congressional laws forcing NASA use Space Shuttle components for SLS amounts to a de-facto non-competitive, single source requirement assuring contracts to existing shuttle suppliers, a bailout for corporate interests grown rich/fat from NASA's space shuttle
* Congress's real goal is simply to maintain the Shuttle Industrial Complex, pork make-work jobs in congressional districts, the iron triangle of Congress, NASA and industry that has kept the taxpayers’ money flowing in certain directions for decades, regardless of results:




RE: SLS waste
By vanwinkle on 10/21/2011 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, since you posted twice in a row, let's pick this apart too.

1) SLS will consume funding. That's true. That's what heavy lift programs do. However, CCDev is currently operating alongside it, and is capable of producing manned LEO systems that operate at a fraction of SLS' budget. We want to continue having a manned presence in space, so we'll continue to fund both CCDev and SLS. In fact, CCDev makes almost no sense without something like SLS; it's more efficient to send the crew up in small, crew-focused capsules, but only if you also have a heavy launch system to put up things for them to dock with. The ISS won't last forever, we'll need to either start replacing modules or building an entirely new space station in the next 8-12 years, and once that day comes the CCDev capsules will become launchers to nowhere.

Also, SLS is a manned launch platform. How will it kill our astronaut program to continue funding a project that is intended to put astronauts into deep space?

2) Of course it will cost more than existing rockets; it will lift much more than existing rockets. Consider this: The International Space Station has a mass of 861,000 pounds. The largest Falcon 9 variant can only lift up to 58,000 pounds to LEO. That means that today, even if you managed to design it as space-efficient as possible so that you were weight-constrained, it would take 15 Falcon 9 launches to put the ISS into orbit. SLS will have a maximum payload of 280,000 pounds, meaning that it could put nearly the entire thing into orbit with just 3 launches!

This gets worse once you start thinking about missions beyond LEO. The farther beyond LEO you go, the more propellant you need to lift, both to send the crew to its destination and to bring them back. In 2009, NASA released a design study that calculated it would take seven Ares V launches to lift the spacecraft, propellant, and payload necessary to support a return-trip mission to Mars, with an additional Ares I launch to lift the crew into orbit. Given that Ares V was planned to be even more powerful than SLS, you're looking at something like 10 SLS launches for the same mission profile... or 50 Falcon 9 launches.

Do you really think using 50 rocket launches for a single mission sounds at all efficient? Basically, saying "SLS is inefficient" is saying "we don't need to go beyond LEO". That's what all the current launch systems are efficient at, LEO launches, and that's about it.

3) How does it violate NASA's charter to create a "government launcher"? Up until CCDev, NASA has internally designed every manned launch system that it has used (well, except for those it took from the Defense Department, which were also "government launchers"). NASA is pursuing commercial providers for its manned LEO launch profile through CCDev. There is no "possible engagement of commercial providers" for a heavy launch system, because no commercial provider can justify building a rocket with that much lift capability.

4) I agree that the forced re-use of space shuttle components is not all good. However, it provides for the continued use of established, proven hardware, which is kind of a big deal for manned space launches, and it does save money on design costs. I'm excited that they'll be competitively bidding the advanced booster system, and hopeful that we'll finally see the ATK boosters replaced with something safer and more economical.

5) It may be that Congress' real goal is to maintain contracts with current employers. But advocates of space travel can either embrace that and support the funding of the only true heavy-lift system on the table today, or they can try to kill it when they know that there's no support for space funding without there also being something in it for Congress.


RE: SLS waste
By JediJeb on 10/21/2011 7:02:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it would take 15 Falcon 9 launches to put the ISS into orbit. SLS will have a maximum payload of 280,000 pounds, meaning that it could put nearly the entire thing into orbit with just 3 launches!


quote:
Do you really think using 50 rocket launches for a single mission sounds at all efficient?


If what has been stated further down that the Falcon launches cost 1/10 as much as the other launches, and your comparison is that 15 Falcon launches are equal to 3 of the other which is a 1/5 ratio then it would still make sense to go the Falcon route because it would cost 1/2 as much. It would take more launches but if it is simply a money issue the numbers still favor the Falcon.


RE: SLS waste
By delphinus100 on 10/21/2011 11:41:56 PM , Rating: 3
Economies of Scale. Gotta love it. (as well as maintaining proficiency in ground handling and launch operations)

SLS will never be manufactured and operated in numbers great enough (if any) to get much of that...


RE: SLS waste
By CryptoQuick on 10/21/2011 8:39:10 PM , Rating: 3
Only 15 Falcon Heavy launches? That's a bargain compared to how many STS launches it actually took to build the ISS, ain't it?

Also, Musk says he plans to build 400 Merlins for 10 Heavy's and 10 Falcon 9's each year at the height of SpaceX production. That would build the station in less than 2 years, vs. SLS's single launch per year. There's no doubt that if NASA asked for it, he could do it, too.


RE: SLS waste
By delphinus100 on 10/21/2011 11:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but only if you also have a heavy launch system to put up things for them to dock with.


What are these things that require an SLS to launch them?

Usually you decide what you want to do first, then develop a new launcher to do it, if (and only if) one is required...not the other way around.

Commercial Crew on the other hand, is a means of meeting an existing requirement (domestic manned access to ISS), and anticipated requirements (manned access to privately operated platforms)


RE: SLS waste
By WinstonSmith on 10/22/2011 8:57:34 AM , Rating: 3
"Falcon 9 variant can only lift up to 58,000 pounds to LEO. That means that today, even if you managed to design it as space-efficient as possible so that you were weight-constrained, it would take 15 Falcon 9 launches to put the ISS into orbit."

The ISS is a HORRENDOUS waste of funds. It's a money pit, an orbiting white elephant in search of a mission. Nothing remotely as heavy as it is going to be placed in orbit again for many decades. But you use the ISS as a measure of the Falcon 9's value? Why?

Take a look at the ongoing experiments at any point in time and divide the cost of operations by that number. The number of scientific papers that result from a mission are a good measure of its scientific value. Just the papers from ONE unmanned probe mission typically dwarf the number of papers from ALL ISS experiments thus far.


RE: SLS waste
By brundall on 10/22/2011 9:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a thought, if the ISS is such a white elephant and is not doing anything productive - why not strap a few small boosters to it and send it off to Mars for a manned return trip? What's not to love?


RE: SLS waste
By ameriman on 10/26/2011 1:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
vanwinkle

1) Your claim/belief that we 'must have' or even 'need' a super heavy launcher, or SLS for leaving LEO is unfounded and specious... Of course we can easily assemble/fuel craft on-orbit, and we certainly don't need a ISS, SLS, or Orion to do it...

2) Current NASA schedules (LOL) are a 150k LEO payload by 2018, and a possible 280k payload BY 2030... 20 frigging years FROM NOW!!! at a bankrupting $50-60 billion!!! That is CRAZY!!! We can launch 500 Falcon Heavys, put 60 million lbs in LEO for less than that..

3) The SpaceX Falcon Heavy, requiring NO NEW/UNTESTED COMPONENTS, should fly in 2012-2013... with 120,000 lbs LEO payload!!!

4) The SpaceX Dragon capsule is MORE CAPABLE than Orion... we should cancel Orion, fund SpaceX...

NASA has WASTED 40 years and $500 billion on manned space... while killing 2 crews... WITHOUT LEAVING LOW EARTH ORBIT... Basically ZERO space science, technology, exploration to show for it..
Talk about a horrible cost/benefit!!!
NASA promised Space Shuttle as CHEAP, SAFE, RELIABLE access to space at $7 m/launch.. What NASA delivered cost $1.5 billion/launch, killed 2 crews, had 5 years of outages...
Then NASA promised ISS at $8 billion, promised it would be justified.. instead we have a $160 billion white elephant boondoggle which needs to be dumped in an ocean...
NASA blew 10 years and $20 billion on failed/canceled Constellation..

3 strikes and NASA is out..

You need to quit pretending that big govt NASA is the answer to any question...
You may have another 40 years to waste watching NASA tread water at $20 billion/year, but I DON'T...

If we stop this NASA waste/pork on SLS and Orion, and instead fund SpaceX, we can be on Mars within the decade...

Otherwise, SLS and Orion will SUCK UP ALL FUNDING, the greedy pols, existing space establishment, and NASA big wigs will kill SpaceX and commercial space...


RE: SLS waste
By vanwinkle on 10/21/2011 4:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'll add this: SpaceX claims that it can drastically reduce the cost of launching things into orbit by developing self-landing, reusable versions of its Falcon 9 rocket. If this is true, it would be revolutionary and make the concept of launching dozens of Falcon 9s at a time a lot more realistic, as well as a heck of a lot cheaper. HOWEVER, this is completely unproven technology, and until they demonstrate that they can not only do this but do it reliably, it seems incredibly short-sighted abandon our current heavy-lift ambitions simply because a commercial entity might provide a commercially viable alternative in the next decade or so.


RE: SLS waste
By delphinus100 on 10/21/2011 11:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
SpaceX plans would be enhanced by, but don't require recoverable Falcons.


RE: SLS waste
By WinstonSmith on 10/22/2011 9:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
"HOWEVER, this is completely unproven technology, and until they demonstrate that they can not only do this but do it reliably, it seems incredibly short-sighted abandon our current heavy-lift ambitions simply because a commercial entity might provide a commercially viable alternative in the next decade or so."

They ALREADY HAVE a "commercially viable alternative." They don't need to implement self-landing to be viable. They already are.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1826/1

Excerpt:

"First, the uncomfortable questions. Given the fact that the SpaceX Falcon rockets are not based on any radical technological breakthrough that lowered their costs, one has to ask just how bad a deal has the taxpayer been getting from the Atlas V and Delta IV, products of the legacy aerospace establishment? Soon to be deprived of the hyper-expensive Space Shuttle as their own point of comparison, the answer would appear to be much worse than we ever imagined."


RE: SLS waste
By Jeffk464 on 10/21/2011 10:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just outsource this one to china as well, we have outsourced everything else.


RE: SLS waste
By delphinus100 on 10/21/2011 11:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Pay attention. We already depend on the Russians (who at least have long experience, compared to China).

The idea is to reverse that, not go to yet another foreign provider.


Just wait...
By room200 on 10/21/2011 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
Some politicians will come out and say how this is good for America while finding a way to cash in on it.




RE: Just wait...
By Chadder007 on 10/21/2011 12:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Contract kickbacks you say?


RE: Just wait...
By CryptoQuick on 10/21/2011 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah dude, it's called the SLS (Senate Launch System).

Congress tells NASA how to build a frankenstein rocket, then sticks them with a massive $10s of billions bill (that includes the outdated MPCV, which still has yet to fly...), over the next 20 years.

So, $1.5-2.0 billion per launch, one launch per year, 70 metric tons to start (2018, its schedule been 'pushed to the right'), 130 metric tons 5 years later. SpaceX's Falcon Heavy lifts 53 metric tons, but at a fraction of the price-- $125 million is the list price, first launch set around 2014. There's a clear winner to this second, homegrown 'space race'.

Exciting times to be a space buff, regardless! It didn't end with the Shuttle. Things are just getting started.


RE: Just wait...
By vanwinkle on 10/21/2011 3:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
In all fairness, we need SLS to go beyond LEO. Even the president of SpaceX has said as much. I agree that SLS looks like a political boondoggle, and its design is partly dictated by politics and where it will be built, and I wish we could start from scratch. The political reality, though, is that we can't, and that even the Falcon 9 Heavy won't be able to lift as much as the SLS will once complete.

This country only develops a new heavy launch system once a generation, if that. If SLS were cancelled now, it could be 20-30 years before we're even discussing going beyond the Earth again. SLS is far from the ideal solution, but in terms of space exploration, it's better than nothing, which is what we'll get if it's cancelled.


RE: Just wait...
By Bubbacub on 10/22/2011 5:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
no we dont

multiple launches and assembly in LEO at the ISS mean that any of our current launchers is more than good enough to support missions beyond LEO.

i.e. send a propulsion module, 2-3 fuel tanks (one/two for going and one for coming back, and a habitation module in four delta 4/atlas V/Falcon 9 launches and you willl surpass what 2 SLS launches (as even the SLS is too small to launch everything in one go) will accomplish for 10% of the cost launching one SLS.

if we cancelled the SLS. let the SRB company go bust. and spent 18 billion on developing a modular interplantary space vessel we could be exploring mars by the decades end.


RE: Just wait...
By nafhan on 10/21/2011 4:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was kind of under the impression that's how politicians made all their decisions...


Why dont they just give the $850 million to SpaceX?
By jnemesh on 10/21/2011 1:24:15 PM , Rating: 4
SpaceX already has a crew capsule (the Dragon) that has already orbited Earth! Why does NASA need a whole new one? They should licence designs from SpaceX or just fund SpaceX to provide crew delivery services for them. No Russians needed!




By CryptoQuick on 10/21/2011 2:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's the plan, Stan. It would also be nice to have a few other manned systems too, in addition to the SpaceX Dragon, such as Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, Blue Origin's New Shepard, and the Boeing CST-100. Even if they don't get NASA funding, if things keep going the way they're going, you come to the table with a way to get people into space, you'll have a customer in Bigelow. He just needs to get off his recent China syndrome.

Thing is about commercial space-- NASA can cancel funding, but it's ultimately up to the industry whether they continue. Things have changed since LockMart and Boeing have been sucking at the government teat all this time. With Musk vying for Air Force contracts, oldspace is going to be playing catch-up in terms of controlling costs.


By vanwinkle on 10/21/2011 3:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what they'll be doing. NASA isn't trying to develop a "whole new" capsule, this money is to continue NASA-led development of Dragon and other systems.

The $850M is for the CCDev or "Commercial Crew Development" program, which funds private development of cargo and manned launch systems by companies such as SpaceX. The existing work on SpaceX's Dragon has been funded under the first two phases of CCDev, which promoted development of concepts and prototypes, and this money will be to fund CCDev 3, which should lead to the first usable cargo capsules.

Not all of the money will go to SpaceX, though. In order to promote competition, and to ensure that a later failure by a single company doesn't set back the entire space program, NASA is concurrently funding development by multiple companies. Really, if you think about it, this is what we should've been doing all along. Twice in its history, we discovered fatal design flaws in the space shuttle that shut down our manned launch capability for 2-3 years. If we had multiple, independently-developed launch vehicles, a design flaw won't shut down our entire manned launch ability.

According to Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program ), the development cost of the Space Shuttle program was $43B in today's dollars. This article suggests NASA needs only $6B more to finish developing not just one, but multiple manned launch vehicles. Really, that's a bargain in terms of overall development.


By delphinus100 on 10/21/2011 11:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Redundancy. Competition. Embrace it.

We once had just one manned launch vehicle, known as the Space Transportation System (the Space Shuttle)...and no alternatives for the two times that system was down.

We have to get away from the idea that there's 'one right way' to build a spaceship, even within one country. We wouldn't dream of having one single do-all sailing ship, aircraft or automobile design...

But in the end,'no Russians needed' is indeed one of the goals.


sls pork
By ameriman on 10/21/2011 3:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
Each Space Shuttle flight cost $1.5 billion... the pilot/commander were required for launch and landing...so only 4-6 seats were available for passengers...

So, NASA's space shuttle cost $1.5 billion/6 = minimum $250 million per productive seat....

While, Falcon 9/Dragon can transport 7 passengers to/from ISS or orbit, at $50-100 million per launch, for $8.3 to $15 million/seat...

$250 million down to $15-$20 million per seat... WOW..

If we can just stop Congress/NASA from blowing $100 billion on another unneeded/wasteful pork Govt booster(SLS), we can leverage commercial boosters and competition for another (40 years late) exciting new era of American manned space science, technology, exploration.




RE: sls pork
By vanwinkle on 10/21/2011 3:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
This is shortsighted on a number of levels.

1) The pilot/commander were required for launch and landing, but do you honestly believe they did nothing while in orbit? Those were "productive seats". Shuttle pilots were trained on operating the shuttle's systems while in orbit, and unlike a 2012 Camry, these things weren't designed to operate for miles on end with no maintenance. There were constant manual adjustments and maintenance operations that had to be conducted while in orbit. This would've been true in any spacecraft of the era. Hell, it's true of the ISS now; one of the reasons NASA doesn't want to drop down to a crew of 2 people is that there are so many ordinary maintenance chores on board that have to be performed daily that with only 2 crew members there's no time to do any actual research!

2) NASA's space shuttle was unique because it was a combined passenger and cargo vehicle capable of carrying not only a full crew but also a full science payload. Thinking about it in pure terms of "cost per seat" is foolish, because it ignores the fact that you're sending up far more than just people. A Dragon capsule is very efficient at putting up crew members at a low "cost per seat", but that's it.

For $1.5 billion per launch, the shuttle wasn't just taking people to the ISS and bringing them back. It was taking pieces of the ISS up to the ISS. Without the space shuttle, you'd need more than just 30 crew visits to the ISS; you'd need 30 heavy-lift rockets (which would require the Falcon Heavy or equivalent, and cost much more than just launching a Dragon capsule) plus 30 crew launches.

While the shuttle was launching, we weren't just using it to put people into space. We were using it to put a large, complex space station into space. And a space telescope. And a manned repair platform for that telescope. And interplanetary research satellites. And (prior to the ISS) a number of research payloads, and enough space for human beings to actually use them in a pressurized environment.

Dragon is significantly more cost-effective, but only in a world where the ISS already exists, and where you have a heavy launch vehicle capable of putting the heavier stuff into orbit because a Dragon capsule can't take it along.

3) Regardless of whether the SLS is "wasteful", whether it's "unneeded" is an open question. The president of SpaceX himself says that SLS is necessary for interplanetary space exploration. If his company had any chance of replacing it, don't you think he'd be lobbying for Congress to kill it and let him compete for its replacement? The problem with heavy lift is that it's not economically efficient, but it's still necessary to do the big things. We couldn't have gone to the Moon without the Saturn V, and we can't go into deep space without SLS. You could "leverage commercial boosters and competition" to keep going into LEO, but you won't get much farther without much bigger rockets than commercial competition can justify.


RE: sls pork
By Ringold on 10/21/2011 10:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Read all your posts, and just think a lot of people are disappointed with the plan. You mentioned above Ares V was more capable, and I believe DIRECT plans were too. People would rather have a better heavy lift system then a politically expedient one.


Coming to America
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$850 million

Why not make it a cool billion?

Signed,

Semi




RE: Coming to America
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2011 1:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give you this one though. +1

Love that movie.


I've told you guys before
By thisisaname on 10/22/2011 2:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
I've told you guys before that NASA is such a huge waist of money these days. No innovation, no creativity. Dumping the ISS back into the ocean in a few years (why?????). NASA's golden age of the 60's and 70's is gone. We need to move on.




Realism
By monitorjbl on 10/23/2011 12:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
To begin, I wholly endorse government spending on research that has no potential for commercial or practical use. Science just works that way, sometimes seemingly useless research will be an invaluable stepping stone that someone will end up using to make something great.

HOWEVER, the accountants and managers at NASA have been consistently and balls-out ridiculously optimistic in the past. I really don't care that a commercial entity is the one doing most of the work; if they say it's going to cost in the neighborhood of 7 billion over 5 years, I'm going to ballpark a final cost of 40 billion over 10 years.

That being said, I still think we should give them what they're asking for and just plan around it being far more. As long as humans exist, there will always be poor, starving, and homeless, there will always be war, and there will always be politics. There will not always be enough resources left on Earth to support all of us, so we really ought to be expanding to other places. Getting a reliable, reusable, and (relatively) cheap orbital vehicle that private companies can use is a step towards that.




Science needs to die....
By Raiders12 on 10/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: Science needs to die....
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 1:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Hey cough up 30% to supply the Middle East/ African wars, growing govt incompetency, and fund entitlements"
There, FIFY.

And thank you for mentioning entitlements and keeping this rant non-partisan. I hate when people blame one party when it is so clear these days that both parties are responsible for all the crap that we see today.


RE: Science needs to die....
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2011 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 3
For the love of god, stop using this damn FIFY acronym. Where did this crap start? Are you so god damn lazy that you can't spell out four words?

Jesus.


RE: Science needs to die....
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 4:09:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
For the love of god, stop using this damn "fixed it for you" acronym.
There, FIFY.


RE: Science needs to die....
By StevoLincolnite on 10/24/2011 4:39:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the love of god, stop using this damn FIFY acronym. Where did this crap start? Are you so god damn lazy that you can't spell out four words?


I can literally imagine in the future that every written word will be an acronym.

People have gotten so lazy these days when sending text messages and the like...


By ConcernedConsumer on 10/21/2011 1:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Right there with ya! Enough with the political BS tags on everything..


RE: Science needs to die....
By ConcernedConsumer on 10/21/2011 1:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Depressing isn't it? Funny how those (we put) into power can't seem to see past their own noses. All politicians are hypocrites whenever they boast about their education policies... Don't they realize we can see right through all of their BS?


RE: Science needs to die....
By delphinus100 on 10/21/2011 11:31:47 PM , Rating: 3
As long as we (re-)elect them, their job is done. That some of us 'see through it' in the process, is irrelevant.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki