NASA funding cuts continue

[Broomstick]

And then they will blame the overworked, exhausted people instead of their own unwillingness to fund an adequate system instead of pissing away dollars.

I hope the controllers up and strike once some of them start dropping unconscious on the job, because that's probably the only thing that'll motivate any change.

Air traffic controllers are forbidden by law to strike. Some of them tried it anyway, the PATCO strike of the early 1980's. Every single one of those people were fired and barred from working for the Federal government for the rest of their lives. The current administration would be no more merciful.

[wilfulton]

I think that most air traffic controllers probably stick with the job because they have a strong sense of commitment to it and generally want to do that job, not just because it pays well (although pay is always a motivating factor)


Hmm...

It's ominous when the head of the FAA states that controllers "make too much money for people who don't have college degrees"

I always like it when overpaid bureaucrats belittle the little people who work themselves nearly to death to justify their positions.

[Broomstick]

I think that most air traffic controllers probably stick with the job because they have a strong sense of commitment to it and generally want to do that job, not just because it pays well (although pay is always a motivating factor)

The relatively high pay is, in part, compensation for a much shorter career than for many other professions. In addition to years of training before a controller even starts work, they are required by law to retire at 55 - 10 years before qualifying for things like social security and medicare. That's 10 years they either have to support themselves through savings, or try to find a decent job against age discrimination and such.

[Lord Zentei]

You missed the point. There's no oil for the oil companies on mars.

Oh, I get the point all right. The oil companies need not restrict themselves to only one energy source, you know.

No, but they're quite happy to squeeze every drop of profit out of the one they've got before going to all the expense and risk of finding new ones out in the black. Exploiting space based resources would require vast costs, for unknown benefits. Which is why companies are not going to do it. Sure, they might be first into a new market with a huge lead on the competition, but there's far more chance that in the short term they'll spend a shitload of money and not get much out.

I'm well aware of such things. The post I was responding to was speaking of why NASA was not being given more money.

[Sikon]

NASA has already undergone budget cuts that have taken millions of dollars from the space agency over the past
10 years.

Investigating, the article in the opening post is misleading when it suggests that NASA's budget is being cut. The term reallocated would be better.

One can far better see what is going on by looking at the graphs here.

The $54 million localized cut talked about in the article would be too relatively small to show up much on the graphs, but one can see that overall NASA spending is being reallocated rather than cut.

Off the above topic, to correct my own mistake:

The CBO link shows a projected NASA budget of $271 billion through 2020, so two figures in the last paragraph of my first post in this thread should be $200 billion and 10000 instead of $300 billion and 15000 (faulty memory).