Ask The Founders

This week, Lileks is on vacation, so we forgo the guests and open the floor to you, our faithful Ricochet listeners. We get questions on the President (natch), Rob’s favorite restaurant, which Founding Father the founders resemble, who the characters on Cheers would have voted for and more. Also, Cuomo is a dumbo, newspapers collude, and so long to the Queen of Soul. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. 🙌

Music from this week’s podcast: People Get Ready by Aretha Franklin (with The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra)

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Boll & Branch

Use Code: RICOCHET

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 119 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Don Tillman Member
    Don Tillman
    @DonTillman

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And Peter is wrong about convincing young people that socialism is wrong, by explaining the failures of socialism by giving real examples, no matter how clear they might be. Because the answer from the left is always that they – Russia or whoever – just didn’t do socialism ENOUGH, or didn’t do it RIGHT.

    Oh gosh no…. If the answer is “they just didn’t do socialism right”, you have a wonderful opportunity for a teachable moment:

    “Let’s say that’s true.  Then you have to explain exactly how you would do socialism differently, so as not to cause millions of deaths.  But such a system can’t just suddenly appear, so you also have to explain how you’re going to get to that point from where we are currently, again without causing millions of deaths.  Then you have to explain how, once you get there, the system doesn’t drift off into a state where, yet again, millions of people die.  I’m eager to hear!”

     

    • #61
  2. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    My mother, who died in 2013 at age 92, long denounced the space program. She often asserted: “They ought to quit dicking around in space. So you go up there and you come down. So what have you done?”

    Your grandmother, David, was a very wise woman.

     

    Peter you’re an incredibly bright guy, but this kind of patronizing response on your part is a sort of virtue signaling and you know it. Whatever this woman’s merits, or demerits, as a parent – – I’ve never met her and neither have you – – her sentiments toward the space program are ridiculous.

    Oh, for goodness’s sake. Calling David’s grandmother a “very wise woman” represents an instance of friendly humor, not virtue signaling. And my position here is perfectly reasonable: I’m all in favor of space exploration–but doubt that it should take place at public expense. Not when the feds are running a vast deficit, NASA has demonstrated a couple of decades of uninspired operations, and, perhaps most important, private initiatives, such as those operated by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson, have already demonstrated the ability to launch increasingly heavy payloads and create re-useable manned vehicles. 

    You’re free to disagree, of course. But David’s grandmother’s position on all this still strikes me as sound.

    • #62
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The only form of socialism that “works” is Nordic-style welfare capitalism. Any of those other  countries like even France muck up their private sector too much. 

    The other thing is, when it “works” it’s really just forced savings by regressive taxation among a sociological homogenous group of people. 

    “Old Whig” on twitter is very educational on this stuff. 

     

    • #63
  4. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    kedavis (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    My mother, who died in 2013 at age 92, long denounced the space program. She often asserted: “They ought to quit dicking around in space. So you go up there and you come down. So what have you done?”

    Your grandmother, David, was a very wise woman.

    Peter you’re an incredibly bright guy, but this kind of patronizing response on your part is a sort of virtue signaling and you know it. Whatever this woman’s merits, or demerits, as a parent – – I’ve never met her and neither have you – – her sentiments toward the space program are ridiculous.

    I’m glad you wrote that. As just a podcast member I can’t “write” comments long enough to include those full quotes, before I ridicule them.

    But I would also argue that such things count strongly against Peter’s overall brightness. Some people are very talented in certain limited areas, but fall flat on their faces if they venture into anything else. That’s especially true for Hollywood people, which is why I’d expect Rob to have more of that problem. But it’s actually Peter who fails most in that way.

    Well, you could have passed up that last drink and bought a Coolidge level membership for two months!

    • #64
  5. SeanDMcG Inactive
    SeanDMcG
    @SeanDMcG

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    My mother, who died in 2013 at age 92, long denounced the space program. She often asserted: “They ought to quit dicking around in space. So you go up there and you come down. So what have you done?”

    Your grandmother, David, was a very wise woman.

     

    Peter you’re an incredibly bright guy, but this kind of patronizing response on your part is a sort of virtue signaling and you know it. Whatever this woman’s merits, or demerits, as a parent – – I’ve never met her and neither have you – – her sentiments toward the space program are ridiculous.

    Oh, for goodness’s sake. Calling David’s grandmother a “very wise woman” represents an instance of friendly humor, not virtue signaling. And my position here is perfectly reasonable: I’m all in favor of space exploration–but doubt that it should take place at public expense. Not when the feds are running a vast deficit, NASA has demonstrated a couple of decades of uninspired operations, and, perhaps most important, private initiatives, such as those operated by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson, have already demonstrated the ability to launch increasingly heavy payloads and create re-useable manned vehicles.

    You’re free to disagree, of course. But David’s grandmother’s position on all this still strikes me as sound.

    A gracious response.

    Although there are those that might doubt the importance of discoveries that have been made as the result of space exploration, I think part of the sentiment expressed above is that the government spent money (that isn’t theirs) in one place instead of another. Therefore, the question comes down to, “Why does the government need to be the one to do it?” That’s a question those of us on the right usually ask.

     

    • #65
  6. SeanDMcG Inactive
    SeanDMcG
    @SeanDMcG

    On cue:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/18/evolution-space-travel-new-gold-rush-has-begun.html 

    • #66
  7. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Speak of the devil 

    Per Byland is awesome. 

    • #67
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Don Tillman (View Comment):

     

    Oh gosh no…. If the answer is “they just didn’t do socialism right”, you have a wonderful opportunity for a teachable moment:

    “Let’s say that’s true. Then you have to explain exactly how you would do socialism differently, so as not to cause millions of deaths. But such a system can’t just suddenly appear, so you also have to explain how you’re going to get to that point from where we are currently, again without causing millions of deaths. Then you have to explain how, once you get there, the system doesn’t drift off into a state where, yet again, millions of people die. I’m eager to hear!”

    But they wouldn’t have to “prove” any of that. And you wouldn’t be able to prove that any theoretical plan they came up with wouldn’t also lead to disaster, without actually trying it.  As has been said before, maybe including on these podcasts, support for socialism and other forms of centralized government, is often just a series of assertions without direct evidence.  I believe it was Rob Long who said a while back, possibly on GLoP, that the left likes to say “This time will be DIFFERENT!”  But it really never is.  Unfortunately you can never convince them of that in advance.  No matter what evidence or examples you have.  “This time will be DIFFERENT!” defeats all evidence.

     

    • #68
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I’m glad you wrote that. As just a podcast member I can’t “write” comments long enough to include those full quotes, before I ridicule them.

    But I would also argue that such things count strongly against Peter’s overall brightness. Some people are very talented in certain limited areas, but fall flat on their faces if they venture into anything else. That’s especially true for Hollywood people, which is why I’d expect Rob to have more of that problem. But it’s actually Peter who fails most in that way.

    Well, you could have passed up that last drink and bought a Coolidge level membership for two months!

    I don’t drink. But I also don’t care to read/comment on the rest of the site, nor to start my own comment threads, etc.  I didn’t set the limit on podcast comments by Podcast Members, and I don’t care to double the monthly amount I pay just to get around it.

    • #69
  10. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Don Tillman (View Comment):

     

    Oh gosh no…. If the answer is “they just didn’t do socialism right”, you have a wonderful opportunity for a teachable moment:

    “Let’s say that’s true. Then you have to explain exactly how you would do socialism differently, so as not to cause millions of deaths. But such a system can’t just suddenly appear, so you also have to explain how you’re going to get to that point from where we are currently, again without causing millions of deaths. Then you have to explain how, once you get there, the system doesn’t drift off into a state where, yet again, millions of people die. I’m eager to hear!”

    But they wouldn’t have to “prove” any of that. And you wouldn’t be able to prove that any theoretical plan they came up with wouldn’t also lead to disaster, without actually trying it. As has been said before, maybe including on these podcasts, support for socialism and other forms of centralized government, is often just a series of assertions without direct evidence. I believe it was Rob Long who said a while back, possibly on GLoP, that the left likes to say “This time will be DIFFERENT!” But it really never is. Unfortunately you can never convince them of that in advance. No matter what evidence or examples you have. “This time will be DIFFERENT!” defeats all evidence.

     

    Yep.  That is unfortunately true. And eternally true. It was Edmund Burke who said “Experience is the school of Mankind and it can learn at no other.“ And Rudyard Kipling, of course, said much the same thing (and brilliantly) in his immortal poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings a full century-and-a-half later.   

    Every third or fourth generation seems determined to make the same mistakes as their ancestors, and there is nothing they can hear that will stop them.  

    • #70
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But they wouldn’t have to “prove” any of that. And you wouldn’t be able to prove that any theoretical plan they came up with wouldn’t also lead to disaster, without actually trying it. As has been said before, maybe including on these podcasts, support for socialism and other forms of centralized government, is often just a series of assertions without direct evidence. I believe it was Rob Long who said a while back, possibly on GLoP, that the left likes to say “This time will be DIFFERENT!” But it really never is. Unfortunately you can never convince them of that in advance. No matter what evidence or examples you have. “This time will be DIFFERENT!” defeats all evidence.

     

    Yep. That is unfortunately true. And eternally true. It was Edmund Burke who said “Experience is the school of Mankind and it can learn at no other.“ And Rudyard Kipling, of course, said much the same thing (and brilliantly) in his immortal poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings a full century-and-a-half later.

    Every third or fourth generation seems determined to make the same mistakes as their ancestors, and there is nothing they can hear that will stop them.

    And unfortunately they won’t just do it to themselves.  They insist on taking the rest of us, as many as they can, along for the ride.

    • #71
  12. Don Tillman Member
    Don Tillman
    @DonTillman

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Don Tillman (View Comment):

     

    Oh gosh no…. If the answer is “they just didn’t do socialism right”, you have a wonderful opportunity for a teachable moment:

    “Let’s say that’s true. Then you have to explain exactly how you would do socialism differently, so as not to cause millions of deaths. But such a system can’t just suddenly appear, so you also have to explain how you’re going to get to that point from where we are currently, again without causing millions of deaths. Then you have to explain how, once you get there, the system doesn’t drift off into a state where, yet again, millions of people die. I’m eager to hear!”

    But they wouldn’t have to “prove” any of that. And you wouldn’t be able to prove that any theoretical plan they came up with wouldn’t also lead to disaster, without actually trying it.

    Nobody said “prove”… I said “explain”.  

    And that’s the point… It demonstrates a lack of awareness.  That a working economic system is far more complex than discontent and fluffy promises.  

    And if they haven’t even performed a minimal forensic analysis of the failures of the past, they’re in no position to push it on the rest of us.

    • #72
  13. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I’m glad you wrote that. As just a podcast member I can’t “write” comments long enough to include those full quotes, before I ridicule them.

    But I would also argue that such things count strongly against Peter’s overall brightness. Some people are very talented in certain limited areas, but fall flat on their faces if they venture into anything else. That’s especially true for Hollywood people, which is why I’d expect Rob to have more of that problem. But it’s actually Peter who fails most in that way.

    Well, you could have passed up that last drink and bought a Coolidge level membership for two months!

    I don’t drink. But I also don’t care to read/comment on the rest of the site, nor to start my own comment threads, etc. I didn’t set the limit on podcast comments by Podcast Members, and I don’t care to double the monthly amount I pay just to get around it.

    It was a joke, though I did hope in was true in part.  Your comment was posted shortly after midnight and if I could ascribe the insulting and laughably dimwitted evaluation of Mr. Robinson to your having imbibed one too many it would have been better all around.  Sadly not.

    • #73
  14. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    I’m advocating testing artificial gravity in space. It will do little good to have a working BFR and not having done the important survivability tests. We couldn’t jump from Mercury to Apollo. I’m saying that a Gemini type test needs to be done to solve these types of issues. Maybe Musk will do this once they’re flying people to the space station.

    I’d also be very interested in this kind of test.

    However, I dont want roadblocks or “toll roads” for the Mars program. I dont want to be locked into developing a particular technology that is tangential to the program.

    • #74
  15. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    I’m advocating testing artificial gravity in space. It will do little good to have a working BFR and not having done the important survivability tests. We couldn’t jump from Mercury to Apollo. I’m saying that a Gemini type test needs to be done to solve these types of issues. Maybe Musk will do this once they’re flying people to the space station.

    I’d also be very interested in this kind of test.

    However, I dont want roadblocks or “toll roads” for the Mars program. I dont want to be locked into developing a particular technology that is tangential to the program.

    The challenge is that a government program is unlikely to survive the succession of presidential administrations.  We saw that with Bush-Obama.

    • #75
  16. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    I’m advocating testing artificial gravity in space. It will do little good to have a working BFR and not having done the important survivability tests. We couldn’t jump from Mercury to Apollo. I’m saying that a Gemini type test needs to be done to solve these types of issues. Maybe Musk will do this once they’re flying people to the space station.

    I’d also be very interested in this kind of test.

    However, I dont want roadblocks or “toll roads” for the Mars program. I dont want to be locked into developing a particular technology that is tangential to the program.

    The challenge is that a government program is unlikely to survive the succession of presidential administrations. We saw that with Bush-Obama.

    Yes, I agree with Robert Zubrin on this point as well. I think this was the reason Jack Kennedy phrased the challange to the moon, in 1961, to achieve the moon landing before the end of the decade. A mars program may take a little longer, because so little of the work to actually go there has been started. For example in 1961 the F1 engines that would eventually power the first stage of the Saturn V, had already been in development for 3 years. The Apollo Capsule design would start in Nov of 1961. (Gemini would not start design studies until Jan 1962)

    Its probably for the best that Obama cancelled the Bush moon program. I would have wished that Obama replaced it with some vision of his own, but he had no interest in space.

     

     

    • #76
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    I’m advocating testing artificial gravity in space. It will do little good to have a working BFR and not having done the important survivability tests. We couldn’t jump from Mercury to Apollo. I’m saying that a Gemini type test needs to be done to solve these types of issues. Maybe Musk will do this once they’re flying people to the space station.

    I’d also be very interested in this kind of test.

    However, I dont want roadblocks or “toll roads” for the Mars program. I dont want to be locked into developing a particular technology that is tangential to the program.

    The challenge is that a government program is unlikely to survive the succession of presidential administrations. We saw that with Bush-Obama.

    Private enterprise could have that problem too.  For example, if a president does the pen-and-phone thing to regulate private space exploration out of existence.  So relying on business to do the heavy lifting for us, so to speak, doesn’t mean it will happen.

    • #77
  18. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Private enterprise could have that problem too. For example, if a president does the pen-and-phone thing to regulate private space exploration out of existence. So relying on business to do the heavy lifting for us, so to speak, doesn’t mean it will happen.

    The biggest problem that ‘private’ space would have is an administration cancelling the plans of an earlier administration, which they where heavily dependent. Even though Obama killed Bush’s moon program, (Constellation) most of the hardware development plans continued. The Ares V became SLS, a rocket without a destination.

    Private space exploration, really doesnt exist – there really isnt a profit motive to find water on mars or in the asteroid belts, etc. What private space is hoping to do is lower costs for NASA, and other possible customers – by radically lowering launch costs. The space shuttle (and SLS) cost about a $1 billion per flight, Spacex Falcon 9 costs under $70 million. Granted both SLS and the space shuttle have (had) capabilities that the Falcon 9 just doesnt.

    With lower costs launch programs that were economically impossible before, can be realized.

     

    • #78
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Private enterprise could have that problem too. For example, if a president does the pen-and-phone thing to regulate private space exploration out of existence. So relying on business to do the heavy lifting for us, so to speak, doesn’t mean it will happen.

    The biggest problem that ‘private’ space would have is an administration cancelling the plans of an earlier administration, which they where heavily dependent. Even though Obama killed Bush’s moon program, (Constellation) most of the hardware development plans continued. The Ares V became SLS, a rocket without a destination.

    Private space exploration, really doesnt exist – there really isnt a profit motive to find water on mars or in the asteroid belts, etc. What private space is hoping to do is lower costs for NASA, and other possible customers – by radically lowering launch costs. The space shuttle (and SLS) cost about a $1 billion per flight, Spacex Falcon 9 costs under $70 million. Granted both SLS and the space shuttle have (had) capabilities that the Falcon 9 just doesnt.

    With lower costs launch programs that were economically impossible before, can be realized.

    That sounds like you might be thinking if launch costs were much less, Peter would change his answer.  I find that doubtful.

    • #79
  20. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):
    That sounds like you might be thinking if launch costs were much less, Peter would change his answer. I find that doubtful.

    No I wasnt thinking of Peter’s position at all, as it was not relevant to the post I was responding to.

     

    • #80
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I suppose not.  But I would expect, if NASA launch costs were greatly reduced, Peter and others like him would think “Great, now NASA can get less money than ever!”

    • #81
  22. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Before even thinking about capitalism or socialism, we need to educate the human race to not believe things based on feelings. We live in a tyranny of sentiment. 

    • #82
  23. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    we need to educate the human race to not believe things based on feelings. 

    Uh huh.  One thing, Henry.  You plum forgot to add the part about … HOW!!

     

    • #83
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    we need to educate the human race to not believe things based on feelings.

    Uh huh. One thing, Henry. You plum forgot to add the part about … HOW!!

    Well it seemed to work a lot better before the left basically took over education.

    So maybe the lesson – from the school of experience – is that you’re less likely to have conservative adults if children are being taught to be liberal all the way through college.

    • #84
  25. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    kedavis (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    we need to educate the human race to not believe things based on feelings.

    Uh huh. One thing, Henry. You plum forgot to add the part about … HOW!!

    Well it seemed to work a lot better before the left basically took over education.

    So maybe the lesson – from the school of experience – is that you’re less likely to have conservative adults if children are being taught to be liberal all the way through college.

    Circle gets the Square. That’s a huge part of it. When kids are marinated in liberal indoctrination from K through 12 and then on into college and graduate school … when they are steeped in it like Lipton’s teabags and are having this pedagogic indoctrination reinforced through virtually every arm of the mainstream media … when all of that is taking place 24/7, how, then, do we avoid becoming like Western Europe and Canada?

    Answer:  We don’t.  Because we can’t.

    (And anyone thinking of responding to this with the usual, reflexive “Sounds to me like you’re giving up the fight” etc. — spare me, okay?  As Lee Marvin says at the end of Don Siegel’s THE KILLERS:  “Sorry, I just don’t have the time.“)

    • #85
  26. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I suppose not. But I would expect, if NASA launch costs were greatly reduced, Peter and others like him would think “Great, now NASA can get less money than ever!”

    Ok… So?

    NASA is the most politically engineered government agency in the world. Its centers, labs and satellite facilities are located (purposefully) to guarantee protection from congressmen from coast to coast, and across the spectrum. Its budget is very well protected.

    Secondly… NASA has been getting just shy of $20 Billion per year for the past 40 years… With very little technological progress to show for that spending. (at least compared to its first 20 years, 1958-78) Its just sad.

    • #86
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I suppose not. But I would expect, if NASA launch costs were greatly reduced, Peter and others like him would think “Great, now NASA can get less money than ever!”

    Ok… So?

    NASA is the most politically engineered government agency in the world. Its centers, labs and satellite facilities are located (purposefully) to guarantee protection from congressmen from coast to coast, and across the spectrum. Its budget is very well protected.

    Secondly… NASA has been getting just shy of $20 Billion per year for the past 40 years… With very little technological progress to show for that spending. (at least compared to its first 20 years, 1958-78) Its just sad.

    If you mean they were getting 20 billion in 1978 and still get 20 billion now, I would point out that to equal 20 billion in 1978, adjusted for inflation, would require almost 80 billion now.

    And if anything, if they can manage to do launches for 90% less than what it used to cost, that’s not a reason for Peter Robinson to cut their budget by 90% and figure it won’t do them any harm.  That’s a reason to keep their budget right where it is, perhaps even increase it some, if not all the way up to the current equivalent of 80 billion, since they’ll be able to do so much more with it.

    • #87
  28. Mister D Inactive
    Mister D
    @MisterD

    On the Cheers question:

    Sam: Always shallow, he would vote for the best hair, if he even voted. My guess is he wouldn’t vote, but would claim to vote for Hillary to pick up women.

    Diane: Hillary, easily.

    Carla: Carla hates Diane, and I think would hate Hillary for reminding her of Diane. Given her attraction to Nick Tortelli (almost certainly a Trump voter), I suspect that Carla would find her loins set afire by the real estate magnate, and would have voted accordingly.

    Woody: When last we left, Woody had entered Boston politics. Since he won the election in Boston, we can assume he ran as a Democrat, and would vote as instructe (along with his wife). Likely to be the party nominee in 2024.

    Rebecca: She herself said she aimed for Donald Trump, and ended up with a plumber (Joe the Plumber maybe?). She was totally one of those women that would let him grab her p***y. I can see her resenting Hillary for getting what she wanted – success through marriage.

    Norm: If he hasn’t died from liver disease, I just don’t see him caring enough to vote.

    Cliffy: Trump, of course.

    Lilith: Hillary

    Frasier: With both Diane and Lilith voting for Hillary, I can see Frasier passive aggressively voting Trump.

    Phil: Always the ladies man, he’d move to Sam’s left and vote Jill Stein.

    Harry the Hat: He appreciates a swindler. Trump

    Gary: Since Gary’s always won in the end, would have bet Sam on the election, and taken Trump.

    John Allen Hill: Too snobby to vote Trump. Hillary all the way.

    Coach, Eddie and Al are all dead, so they voted Hillary.

     

    • #88
  29. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):

    If you mean they were getting 20 billion in 1978 and still get 20 billion now, I would point out that to equal 20 billion in 1978, adjusted for inflation, would require almost 80 billion now.

    And if anything, if they can manage to do launches for 90% less than what it used to cost, that’s not a reason for Peter Robinson to cut their budget by 90% and figure it won’t do them any harm. That’s a reason to keep their budget right where it is, perhaps even increase it some, if not all the way up to the current equivalent of 80 billion, since they’ll be able to do so much more with it.

    Once again, So? Peter, Jack, Jill and Harry could all want to cut the NASA budget. But NASA has a prevent-defense in congress to prevent anything but superficial cuts.

    It would be dangerous to give NASA $80 Billion all at once. NASA wouldnt figure out how to do more with more, but it would find ways of doing it more expensively. NASA’s problem isnt budgetary, its missionary. NASA has operated for 40 years without a mission, a schedule or a dream. Its the one part of government that needs these ingredients more than anything else. In this complete absence of vision the bureaucracy has become sick – they dont want a mission – they dont want definitive goals to be judged on. They want to skate by on robots to the outer planets – meaningless manned missions in earth orbit and to be heralded as geniuses at cocktail parties.

    Back in the Apollo times, NASA managers used to say “waste anything but time” I think as the generations of NASA management have gone by, they have kept a pithier version of the motto, dropping the second half of it.

    This is why the new space way of doing business, on fixed price contracts (instead of costs plus contracting) and fee for services contracts with milestone provisions for payments, is the way for NASA to move forward with an aggressive program that will keep to its budget and schedule. Is so important to NASA’s future – NASA can once again get into the accomplishment game.

    • #89
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    If you mean they were getting 20 billion in 1978 and still get 20 billion now, I would point out that to equal 20 billion in 1978, adjusted for inflation, would require almost 80 billion now.

    And if anything, if they can manage to do launches for 90% less than what it used to cost, that’s not a reason for Peter Robinson to cut their budget by 90% and figure it won’t do them any harm. That’s a reason to keep their budget right where it is, perhaps even increase it some, if not all the way up to the current equivalent of 80 billion, since they’ll be able to do so much more with it.

    Once again, So? Peter, Jack, Jill and Harry could all want to cut the NASA budget. But NASA has a prevent-defense in congress to prevent anything but superficial cuts.

    Year after year of “superficial” cuts is how you get to NASA having a $20 billion budget now rather than a “constant” budget from 1978 of $80 billion.  Or even a 50% cut budget of $40 billion. And the “superficial” cuts could continue even farther.

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.