|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2004 10:41:16 AM · #1 |
As far as I know this is only a joke, but sound just like the type of thinking the US government does
----------------------------------------------------------------
House to Downsize Solar System
WASHINGTON D.C. The House Appropriations subcommittee on NASA
oversight, in another effort to reduce the NASA budget, passed a
resolution today to downsize the solar system. According to an
unnamed congressional staffer, House Republicans felt there has been
"too much redundancy in the solar system" and that streamlining the
4.5 billion year old planetary system is long overdue. Such action
would give NASA fewer places to go and this would allow the agency
to carry out its space exploration goals within the funding profile
that the House proposed earlier this summer.
"Look, we have three terrestrial planets" said Congressman Rip U.
Apart (R, Del.), "and only one of them really works! So why not get
rid of the other two and clean up the neighborhood?" Most
subcommittee members felt that while downsizing was definitely in
the cards, eliminating both Mars and Venus was going too far. "We
have too many international commitments to Mars." said Rush N. Hater
(R, Calif.). "So I think we should keep Mars and dump Venus. Its too
hot to live on, and liberal Democrats keep using it as an example of
what global warming can do. So from a political and practical point
of view, Venus has got to go."
Also at risk is the planet Mercury which lacks support because of
its small size and poor visibility from Earth. "Who needs it?" asked
Congressman Newt Onian (R, N.C.). "Have you ever seen it? I haven't.
So what good is it? We just don't need useless planets. And speaking
of useless planets, what about the asteroids? If you've seen one,
you've seen them all. So I say we ought to get rid of the little
boogers once and for all."
However, the downsizing recommendations do not stop with the
terrestrial planets. The resolution also calls for a reduction in
the number of gas giants which contain most of the planetary mass in
the solar system. Most subcommittee members favor retaining Jupiter
and Saturn, and eliminating Uranus and Neptune. "Jupiter employs the
most molecules, and Saturn has those pretty little rings everyone
likes." said Rep. Con Mann (R, Fla.). "On the other hand, Uranus is
a bore and its rings are dirty. And Neptune, for God's sake, is just
too far away. So begone with those ugly bruisers." But the
influential Wright I.M. Fornow from South Carolina has publicly
announced he will fight to eliminate Saturn. Fornow is especially
miffed by NASA's success thus far in keeping Cassini, the next
mission to Saturn, alive which he feels is waste of taxpayers money.
"If there ain't no Saturn, then there ain't no Cassini" he
exclaimed. The congressman also expressed concern about sending
back-to-back spacecraft bearing Italian surnames to the outer
planets (The Galileo spacecraft arrives at Jupiter this December).
The subcommittee was unanimous in its views towards Pluto which they
deemed a moral misfit. "Now here's a planet we can definitely do
without." continued Fornow. "A few years ago, it was farthest from
the sun. Now its not. Its just too confusing. And now they tell me
its really two planets instead of one. What the hell is going on
here?"
The resolution must now be presented to the entire House, where it
is expected to pass easily since only a minority of Representatives
have constituents on the affected planets. NASA Administrator Golden
has vowed to resist any further reductions to the solar system,
saying that "NASA has expended considerable effort to make the
planets cheaper, faster, and better. Much of this work would be
wasted if the solar system were downsized" stated Golden.
Critics say, however, that reducing the number of planets will not
produce the expected savings to taxpayers. Textbooks, they note,
would have to be revised to reflect the new arrangement, and
facilities would need to be constructed to remove the planets
themselves. The resolution is also likely to draw strong opposition
from religious fundamentalists who have long opposed the elimination
of any of the biblical planets. Thus, the matter is far from
resolved.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 10:45:42 AM · #2 |
| I recommend you visit BBspot.com ASAP. |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:11:03 AM · #3 |
Incidentally, there is a push within the scientific community to strip Pluto of it's planetary status. Apparently, it is too small and its orbit is too erratic to be defined as a true planet. It should be classified as a 'planetoid'. (I kid yo not)
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:17:16 AM · #4 |
| wouldn't they just go and blow it up.. |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 12:29:16 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 05:14:42 PM · #6 |
| Speaking of which we are having a close encounter with an asteroid today, approx 100 ft diameter, passing within 26,500 miles. Check it out here (NASA). |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 05:46:09 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
wouldn't they just go and blow it up.. |
hey there's the way to get rid of all the WMD, lets blow up planets...would make for a cool sky show :)
James
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 06:00:55 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 06:00:55 PM EDT.
|
