Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Wrong Stuff

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted July 15, 2005.


Need proof that the U.S. is on the down-slope of the empire bell curve? Take a look at our turkey of a space shuttle and the skyrocketing cost of medical care.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Stephen Pizzo

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Ever wonder why empires don't last forever? After all, by definition an empire holds all the cards. They dominate trade, education, science, literature, quality of life and so on. So, why do they all inevitably whither? Because, nothing fails quite like success.

Here are two examples from the world's current Imperial office holder -- the U.S. of A.

It's a bird. It's a plane. No, it's a turkey.

And there it was yesterday, all dressed and no place to go. America's only manned space vehicle, the space shuttle, steaming off liquid oxygen like a giant upright turd in the Florida sun.

The space shuttle is the actualization of the old joke, "An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee."

The reason I choose the space shuttle as proof the US is on the down-slope of the empire bell curve is because, of all the ways we could have explored space, we chose to invest all our marbles in bolting an 18-wheeler to rockets.

Sending a Mack truck into orbit required some very complicated and expensive engineering contortions. Satellites sent up on the shuttle cost $25 million a ton. Compare that with the cost of sending the same payload up on simpler Russian or Chinese rockets, $3-6 million a ton.

It costs upwards of $10,000 per pound to launch anything, including the crew, into orbit on the shuttle, a cost that is more than triple that charged by the workhorse expendable launch vehicles of NASA's heyday, the Apollo era.

What happened to NASA's own "right stuff"?

"Once we won the Space Race in 1969, NASA morphed from a can-do, risk-taking, think out-of-the-box organization, to Just Another Tax-Fed Federal Bureaucracy, that, instead of playing to "win", was instead playing "not to lose." (Thomas Andrew Olson, Libertarian Institute)

The space shuttle is a mind-bogglingly expensive example of this process. It's too damn big, too damn expensive, too damn dangerous and too damn unreliable. It was designed 40 years ago. If it were a car it would be spending its days being lovingly polished in the garage by some old geezer trying to recapture his youth. Instead, the folks now running NASA decided to put a garage in orbit, call it a space station, and send the shuttle there to polish their own image.

There are a lot of cheaper ways to put people in space. The Russians, who can barely run their own country, do it regularly. Thanks to the Russians' simple and reliable Soyuz capsules we didn't end up with three skeletons floating around the space station after the shuttle crash two years ago.

With any luck a bolt of lightening will reduce the next shuttle to a pile of tile on its way to the launch pad. That would leave just two shuttles. We could put one in the Smithsonian and sell the other to Disney World.

Then turn NASA over to Bert Rutan and Richard Branson. They seem to be the current possessors of the right stuff. Imagine what they could do with just a fraction of NASA's $16 billion annual budget. We'd be orbiting Earth sipping diet cola and munching peanuts in cramped coach seating within five years. (But please remember to return your seat backs to the full upright position for re-entry. Items in overhead compartments may have shifted in weightless conditions.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The best Health Care system dissed
Posted by: TheJacksonFive on Jul 15, 2005 2:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is just anothe example of hating America first. We have one of the best health care systems in the world because we are willing to spend more per person, but the author takes that information and portrays it as a negative. If our health system is so bad, why do people come from around the globe to utilize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The best Health Care system dissed Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: The best Health Care system dissed Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» Wrong, So Wrong Posted by: birdman
» RE: Wrong, So Wrong Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: The best Health Care system dissed Posted by: Bouldercreeker
Corporations ARE the Empire
Posted by: birdman on Jul 15, 2005 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're past the point where an empire is based in a nation state. That's from another era. The new empire is the cabal of transnational corporations. The U.S. government is merely a subcontractor, used to raise funds and fight wars. I suppose the capital of this new empire is the Cayman Islands. Welcome to the Virtual Empire, the home of asymetrical capitalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, Why Have The Baby Boomers Been So Quiet?
Posted by: thirdmg on Jul 15, 2005 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the author that the Baby Boomers could make a real issue out of this country's health care system (and much else). They might even be able to wake up the Democratic Party and convince it to take the issue to the waiting public. So, what's taking so long? Are they going to wait until their own health declines before taking action?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are a lot of if's
Posted by: Sandra on Jul 15, 2005 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you have medical insurance, if you can afford the insurance premiums, if you are employed or have some source of disposable income, if you are in an area of the country where you have access to physicians and hospitals, if your prescribed medicine is covered by your insurance, etc. , you can get medical care in this country. The high cost of medical insurance and medical care is impacting individuals, families, businesses, and healthcare facilities.The high costs of treating illegal immigrants is also impacting healthcare in this country. With the powerful lobbies in place working to keep the status quo and to add to their profits, we probably won't see improvements in the system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Condition We Are In...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 15, 2005 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is a result of decisions made long ago. The state of healthcare, NASA, our energy inefficient economy, crumbling infrastructure are symptoms of a larger problem-- the American Disease.

For too long we have drank our own Kool-Aid, our own PR. We were told and taken as truth that we are the first and best while the world is largely a wretched mess. Based upon half-truth, we have blithely gone on as we always have and the bills are coming due.

Our prosperity of the late 1940's through the oil shock of 1974 was more a by-product of the of WW II than American genius. The US came out of WW II with a new and untouched industrial infrastructure while Europe and Asia lay devastated from the war. Add the flood of GI Bill- educated vets that filled our economy with millions of well educated workers and we were in for a great and long ride of prosperity.

While the rest of the world rebuilt, we got rich by being the only game in town. The problem is that we did not use our advantage wisely when viewed long term. Now the rest of the developed world has caught up, and the playing field is very different than what anyone alive is used to. The 'creation myth' of the great american prosperity has been exposed for what it was and is-- a lie.

This time produced some wise decisions and some very unwise ones. The massive suburban sprawl, our voracious appetite for energy, geographic stratification of our urban areas, heavily polluted water and air, separate and unequal schools (now divided by class instead of race), broken healthcare system, Social Security funding crisis and gargantuan debt (personal and public) are all results of politically expedient but unwise decision making from that time until now.

There is plenty of blame to go around, this is not a left/right issue. We have to turn our back on the 'quick fix' and make some long-term planning & decisions based upon real information (not spin or info-speak) for the future. The existence of endless lobby groups, trade associations and entrenched interests will make this very difficult.

We need a generation of leaders to step forward. People willing to put the long term interests of our citizens and nation ahead of career, political gain and dogma. Our country has produced such people before and can again. The big question is: Will the american people pull their head out of the sand, organize and put their shoulder to the wheel?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What? Me Worry? Posted by: Sojourner
Downward we go
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jul 15, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This country has been in a downward spiral since we shafted the first tribe out of their lands.Just because you're a great thief does'nt make you great it makes you untrustworthy.
Sure folks flock here for our medical prowess,but are any of them poor? No their well monied folks whom could pay for anything. Even if you're a citizen of this country your care is'nt that great. Managed Healthcare is the insurance industry's baby and an anathma to medical science. HMO's and others of it's variation are little better that welfare. As long as the GOV puts warfare,classism,and economics ahead
of The People,we will always be on the downslope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Canadian health care
Posted by: canuckistani on Jul 15, 2005 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering the incorrect comments from jacksonfive, as a senior policy analyst for Health Canada I should say a few things here. The movement of the Canadian health system has not (basically) strayed away from a univeral health care system. While there has been a movement to have privitised service delivery, the costs are still handled by the government (Provincial). So the system remains universal, but the some of the services within it have been turned over to private companies (anything from providing catering services to doing bloodwork). The largest strain to date in the Canadian health system has been the growing price of drugs that come from the US and others at free market prices under NAFTA and GATT. The result of this strain (and huge fiscal cutback on Federal-Provicial health transfers by current PM Paul Martin in 1995 to tackle debt reduction) has been a lack of funds given to the health care system, hence an increase in Canadians heading south to avoid waiting lines here. The funding has started to trickle back in as debt reduction is ahead of schedule so you should see less Canadians down there as time passes. There have been no credible studies to date that have shown that any level of privitized service increases efficiency and cost and saves the taxpayer money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Canadian health care Posted by: Jamesberry
Modern Health Care System: The Leading Cause Of Death (USA)
Posted by: maybememe on Jul 15, 2005 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. (2, 2a)

The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. (3) The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. (4) The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths shown in the following table is 783,936.

It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251. (5)

TABLES AND FIGURES (see Section on Statistical Tables and Figures, below, for exposition)

For Full Study Click: here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The worst health care system, properly dissed (see above)
Posted by: eugenie on Jul 15, 2005 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, somebody said it.

The American medical system, despite the PR, is the worst in the world. It can keep you alive longer, but it can't keep you healthy past the age of 9 months. What good is "health care" that makes you sick so it can sell you lots of medicine?

If you want to know what real health is like, visit a homeopath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why can no one see........
Posted by: Diecash1 on Jul 15, 2005 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the Jackass5 is just a useless Troll??? Article after article, I see this jerkoff posting inane commentary and no facts. Why do people keep responding to it??? If I didn't know better, I would think that Jingoist has returned with a new screen name!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I believe that........... Posted by: Diecash1
» My guess is he's a dirty trick Posted by: Sojourner
Space Shuttle = Truck
Posted by: moltar on Jul 15, 2005 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The design concept for the shuttle was not a 60's effort. It arose from the Dyna-Soar project of the late 50's, a relatively graceful and much smaller machine. It was supposed to take off from a conventional runway, enter Earth orbit, and return to a conventional runway. The X-15, basically a rocket engine with skids and wing stubs (also tested by Neil Armstrong) was a step toward this effort. But we know how the priorities got shifted.

The shuttle looks like Dyna-Soar with a flashlight rammed down its throat, all the better to carry cargo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I found this fact interesting.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 17, 2005 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Within the past two years an american astronaut made his first space flight on a Russian rocket. It was a minor footnote on CNN. Think how big that news would have been forty years ago. Maybe? luckily? the Russians are not spiteful or they might have said "get your own damn rocket!" I could never understand why the Apollo (Saturn V) program was ended. Then on top of that they came up with the Shuttle instead of a cheaper and better performing rocket than the Saturn V.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]