[990] in Humor
HUMOR: House to Downsize the Solar System
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew A. Bennett)
Mon Jul 31 13:21:12 1995
To: humor@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 13:15:26 EDT
From: "Andrew A. Bennett" <abennett@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:47:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: Espacionaute Spiff domine! <MATOSSIAN@aries.colorado.edu>
From: "Adam M Baker, QMM section" <AMBAKER@estec.esa.nl>
*** Resending note of 95-07-31 09:17
_
Seems like Mondays are far too serious.So hope this lightens up your day....
Adam.
- ----------------------------------------------
Author: vilas at JSC_SSED
Date: 7/27/95 12:39 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
House to Downsize Solar System
A Press Release
Bob Haberle reporting.
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.
End of Message
==================== REST OF RFC822 HEADER ===============================
Received: from newton.jsc.nasa.gov by vmprofs.estec.esa.nl (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with TCP; Thu, 27 Jul 95 20:35:13 MET
Received: from snmail.jsc.nasa.gov by giotto.jsc.nasa.gov with SMTP;
Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:34:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cc:Mail by snmail.jsc.nasa.gov
id AA806877252; Thu, 27 Jul 95 13:31:34 cdt
------- End of Forwarded Message
