The Death Star

From the blogs at WSJ.

According to a recent release by the White House, the evil menace Death Star has several other practical things that make it a terrible bit of policy.


It is expensive:
  • “The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We’re working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.”
 It is violently opposed to planet existence:
  • “The Administration does not support blowing up planets.”
It has a fundamental flaw:
  • “Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?”
According to WSJ: "The letter concludes by saying 'If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star’s power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.' "

Although, it's worth saying that any type of long term space colony or mission, even beneficent, would have to be powered by nuclear power, just like cute little Mars rover Curiosity:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/08/09/nasas-mars-rover-powered-by-nuclear-energy/






2 comments

  1. "Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?”

    As a student of history, for me it begs the question, "Why would the DOE spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a nearly perfected Integral Fast Reactor that can be scuttled in 1994 by a one-man Senate blowhard, John Kerry?"

    (I confess - I have been reading Dr. Charles Till's "Plentiful Energy", and it has me riled up)

    ReplyDelete

Only comments that intelligently add to the discussion will be allowed.