I have a question.

jimdietrich

How is it that congress will pass a multi billion dollar bill to fund the exploration of the moon and mars today, and the people of New Orleans here on earth still can't afford to fix their houses and move home?

1970RR

Because they are planning to rebuild the city on Mars, as it is less prone to flooding.

my2hands

because they do not give a fuck... and it is US that let this shit happen...it is OUR money they are stealing

chopitdown

jimdietrich wrote:

How is it that congress will pass a multi billion dollar bill to fund the exploration of the moon and mars today, and the people of New Orleans here on earth still can't afford to fix their houses and move home?

is it good fiscal use to re-build in New Orleans in it's previous location? I mean look at the billions that are going into a city that wasn't maintained correctly and built below sea level. On a side note i think we can better use the money than mars and moon exploration but should we be more discretionary in how we allocate the funds to NO?

BrinkofForever

I think space exploration is one arena that the Government needs to privatize. NASA is a complete waste of money, IMHO.

jimdietrich

chopitdown wrote:

is it good fiscal use to re-build in New Orleans in it's previous location? I mean look at the billions that are going into a city that wasn't maintained correctly and built below sea level. On a side note i think we can better use the money than mars and moon exploration but should we be more discretionary in how we allocate the funds to NO?

We have the technology to rebuild and do it safer it would just cost money.
Example Amsterdam

chopitdown

jimdietrich wrote:

We have the technology to rebuild and do it safer it would just cost money.
Example Amsterdam

Does Amsterdam get threatened with hurricanes? NO was not in structural peril before the hurricaines was it? I just don't think it's a bright move to re-build in the same place. Just my opinion. Should we spend the money on technology to save a city or should we move the city above sea level?

inmytree

chopitdown wrote:

Does Amsterdam get threatened with hurricanes? NO was not in structural peril before the hurricaines was it? I just don't think it's a bright move to re-build in the same place. Just my opinion. Should we spend the money on technology to save a city or should we move the city above sea level?

question: where do should New Orleans move...?

"above sea level" is a big place...

chopitdown

inmytree wrote:

question: where do should New Orleans move...?

"above sea level" is a big place...

touche...and i'll take the easy way out...that's for the gov't and the people of LA to figure out but i'm fairly sure the entire state is not below sea level. I just think that if we have the opportunity to take some precautions and stack the deck in NO favor it would be beneficial.

mammasan

chopitdown wrote:

Does Amsterdam get threatened with hurricanes? NO was not in structural peril before the hurricaines was it? I just don't think it's a bright move to re-build in the same place. Just my opinion. Should we spend the money on technology to save a city or should we move the city above sea level?

No Amsterdam does not get impacted by hurricanes but did you ever see the North Sea during a storm? The storm surge is pretty damn close to what was seen during Katrina. Minus the strong winds it's pretty much the same.

Eliot Rosewater

Brink wrote:

I think space exploration is one arena that the Government needs to privatize. NASA is a complete waste of money, IMHO.

I could not agree with you more. The sick amount of money that's wasted on NASA is shameful. When we have a government funded program such as NASA and a congress that spends two days debating on ammending the constitution over burning a flag.....what else do I need to say to show how fucked up this country's priorites are?

chopitdown

mammasan wrote:

No Amsterdam does not get impacted by hurricanes but did you ever see the North Sea during a storm? The storm surge is pretty damn close to what was seen during Katrina. Minus the strong winds it's pretty much the same.

nah i haven't seen that so I'll take your word for it. And hopefully if they chose to keep rebuilding NO at the present site they take the necessary precautions, perhaps following the amsterdam model, if it's appropriate.

inmytree

chopitdown wrote:

touche...and i'll take the easy way out...that's for the gov't and the people of LA to figure out but i'm fairly sure the entire state is not below sea level. I just think that if we have the opportunity to take some precautions and stack the deck in NO favor it would be beneficial.

for the record...I feel the construction of NO should be well planned and done correctly, meaning with precautions to protect the city from future storms, like you mentioned...

I also think this country has a perfect chance to seek ways to resolve energy issue with the re-building of NO...I think it should be built Green...Solar and Wind power should be the norm, perhaps levy/damn system could be designed to harness water power...and yes, it may cost extra, but if it works, the returns would be greater than the cost...

I think the money wasted on exploring mars would be better spent on focusing on the here and now....

even flow?

jimdietrich wrote:

How is it that congress will pass a multi billion dollar bill to fund the exploration of the moon and mars today, and the people of New Orleans here on earth still can't afford to fix their houses and move home?

Wait until they find black people on Mars. They won't go there either!

As for the person/people saying to rebuild NO somewhere else. How many families are you housing until their homes get built? As I thought. Such an easy idea when you aren't the one missing anything!

Laz

We need to NASA to find us a home after global warming brings this planet to a slow boil

chopitdown

inmytree wrote:

for the record...I feel the construction of NO should be well planned and done correctly, meaning with precautions to protect the city from future storms, like you mentioned...

I also think this country has a perfect chance to seek ways to resolve energy issue with the re-building of NO...I think it should be built Green...Solar and Wind power should be the norm, perhaps levy/damn system could be designed to harness water power...and yes, it may cost extra, but if it works, the returns would be greater than the cost...

I think the money wasted on exploring mars would be better spent on focusing on the here and now....

I agree wholeheartedly, that's a good idea on building it as a Green city. It's not every day we get a chance to rebuild and rework a city and see if we really can integrate those changes.

mammasan

inmytree wrote:

for the record...I feel the construction of NO should be well planned and done correctly, meaning with precautions to protect the city from future storms, like you mentioned...

I also think this country has a perfect chance to seek ways to resolve energy issue with the re-building of NO...I think it should be built Green...Solar and Wind power should be the norm, perhaps levy/damn system could be designed to harness water power...and yes, it may cost extra, but if it works, the returns would be greater than the cost...

I think the money wasted on exploring mars would be better spent on focusing on the here and now....

I completely agree with. this country should spend the money to rebuild No the right way. Unfortunetly in order to accomplish this you need a government that doesn't have it's head up it's ass.

jeffbr

I agree with some posters that we should privitize the space program. I also think we should rebuild New Orleans up in the mountains in Montana.

It was dumb enough that the French built the city below sea level. It is even dumber that the city/state/fed allowed the infrastructure to fall into a state of disarray. Dumber still that people, knowing the risk for decades, chose to remain there, and the height of folly that once it was leveled we think it is a good idea to put it back where it was. Put the existing city under water where it naturally belongs (call it New Orleans Bay or something), and move the new city up river. It could still be an important port city.

mammasan

jeffbr wrote:

I agree with some posters that we should privitize the space program. I also think we should rebuild New Orleans up in the mountains in Montana.

It was dumb enough that the French built the city below sea level. It is even dumber that the city/state/fed allowed the infrastructure to fall into a state of disarray. Dumber still that people, knowing the risk for decades, chose to remain there, and the height of folly that once it was leveled we think it is a good idea to put it back where it was. Put the existing city under water where it naturally belongs (call it New Orleans Bay or something), and move the new city up river. It could still be an important port city.

The city can still remain where it is but the levee system has to built the right way. Amsterdam is a perfect example of how a city can exist under sea level and still be adequately protected. The problem was and probably still is that our government is unwilling or too stupid to properly finance the building of a secure levee system along the line of Amsterdam's.

I think inmytree had a great idea. The city can use the very ocean to power itself, but again it needs to be financed and it order to accomplish this it will cost a lot more than the simple patchwork job they are probably planning on doing which the government is probably reluctant to spend.

keeponrockin

Ya, I don't get the space program where we could spend money here.

Eliot Rosewater

Laz wrote:

We need to NASA to find us a home after global warming brings this planet to a slow boil

That's what Stephen Hawking says as well. However, I'm under the impression that global warming will kill us long before we're even close to living on another planet.