New moon rover demonstrated during President Obama's inaugural parade

[LunarOrbit]

I just found this video from President Obama's inaugural parade. It shows NASA demonstrating a new moon vehicle for Obama, and he seemed to be pretty excited by it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c2jN0k0k68

[Omega 321]

That was really cool, thanks. I totally missed the parade.

[ijuin]

The pressurized rover looks like it would be good for the Phase II lunar missions--the ones where they stay six months at a location. The Phase I one-to-two-week missions apparently will use something pretty much like the Apollo rover instead (i.e. open and designed for minimum mass).

[spacecat27]

Had no idea they were so far along on something like this- very cool.  One of the secondary youtube clips that come up there is hosted by Mike Gernhardt, who was on STS-69 when I did the 20-year anniversary uplink between Scott Carpenter underwater in Key Largo and the Shuttle.  Gernhardt is an avid SCUBA diver as well.

[snake river rufus]

I'm afraid that Obama's promise to cut NASA's budget will be one of the few campaign promises kept. And with this economy I think the manned Mars (and Moon) missions may be another 10 years down the road.

[ijuin]

Yeah, apparently occupying Iraq is about five times as important as reaching beyond our Earth, given how the budgets are laid out.

[Johno]

As a side issue, I find the entire idea of an inauguration parade fascinating.

In Australia, when a new leader takes office, there's a brief ceremony in parliament, an hour or so; then they get on with the day's work.  It would be reported in maybe 3 minutes of news footage (It's more important than a major car accident, but less important than a bushfire).  Nobody would miss work because of it (unless they're the sort of person who misses work for all sorts of other things as well!).

So the entire spectacle of it is impressive - but more than a little baffling and amusing!

[ijuin]

Well, a lot of that would have to do with difference in structure of government. In the USA, the President is the independently-elected head of all Executive powers, whereas in nations run under a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is selected by the party in power, and thus does not have a lot of power separate from his party's support. Thus, you could liken it more to the coronation of a new monarch than to the selection of a minister, given that he takes the Head of State role that the Queen (Elizabeth II) takes as well as the head of government role.

[Satanic Mechanic]

Yeah, apparently occupying Iraq is about five times as important as reaching beyond our Earth, given how the budgets are laid out.

I would say the biggest waste of money is the one trillion dollar bailout of a bunch of banks that made bad descisions.

[LunarOrbit]

I kind of like Jon Stewart's plan... give the money directly to the people who have mortgages with the requirement that they only use the money to pay off their mortgage. That way the bank gets their money, the people pay off their mortgage... everyone is happy and the banks can't misspend the money on business "retreats" while people are losing their homes.

[ijuin]

Nice, but the only way that you could enforce it is by giving it out on a month-by-month basis, and cutting a person off if he ever fails to make a mortgage payment despite having been given the money.

Also, you have to deal with the strange philosophy of the executive class, which says that giving money to them is A.O.K., but giving money to anybody else is evil socialism.

[Bob B.]

If somebody made the irresponsible decision of buying a house they couldn't afford, I say don't give them anything.  Have the bank increase the length of the mortgage term to decrease the monthly payment to something the buyer can afford.  This allows the buyer to make the payments and stay in the home, but they have to pay for their mistake until they're old and gray.  Let them work they're way out of they're debts rather burdening responsible taxpayers with financing a bailout.

[Johno]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong on this?

I have heard tell that in the USA, a mortgage defaulter is simply forced to leave the encumbered property, which then reverts to the bank's ownership.  Correct?

In Australia, if you default on your mortgage and cannot repay, not only does the bank take the home; the home is considered in terms of its current market value, and any money is still owing after the home is sold, it is extracted from you (in bankruptcy proceedings, if necessary).

If my understanding is correct, then we have a harsher system - but it may also explain why in the midst of the crisis, Australian banks are currently perfecty stable.

[Bob B.]

I have heard tell that in the USA, a mortgage defaulter is simply forced to leave the encumbered property, which then reverts to the bank's ownership.  Correct?

Yes, that is my understanding, however I am certainly no expert on the subject.

[Homo bibiens]

Well, I get a warning that this topic hasn't been hit for 120 days, I hope it is OK to post, since I am addressing a question asked in one of the last posts.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong on this?

I have heard tell that in the USA, a mortgage defaulter is simply forced to leave the encumbered property, which then reverts to the bank's ownership.  Correct?

It depends on the particular state.  The following link (WARNING - there is an annoying video that pops up automatically, at least on my computer):

http://www.mortgagereliefformula.com/recourse/

has some discussion about what rights a lender has in different states.

In Australia, if you default on your mortgage and cannot repay, not only does the bank take the home; the home is considered in terms of its current market value, and any money is still owing after the home is sold, it is extracted from you (in bankruptcy proceedings, if necessary).

If my understanding is correct, then we have a harsher system - but it may also explain why in the midst of the crisis, Australian banks are currently perfecty stable.

In theory at least, lenders in no-recourse jurisdictions ought to conduct their business differently, perhaps by charging higher rates or limiting loans to more creditworthy borrowers, than lenders in recourse jurisdictions.  The result would be that the lenders in recourse jurisdictions would do worse during good times than those in no-recourse jurisdictions, but better during bad times.  Whether that is actually what is happening, I do not know.