White House Just Says No To Death Star

That large segment of the social media devoted to serving up softballs for the Administration to hit out of the park delivered enough signatures to an online petition requesting construction of a Death Star begin by 2016 that the White House was bound to reply.

Paul Shawcross’ answer, ”This Isn’t The Petition Response You’re Looking For”, has become an instant science fiction classic, making such au courant arguments as:

· 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.
· The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
· Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

Shawcross also touted the country’s existing space exploration and science accomplishments, prompting a Washington Post columnist’s elbow-nudging reply

…White House, you cannot just say, “We have built space stations and lasers” and think that we will be appeased. All space stations are not created equal. The International Space Station couldn’t explode a planet if its life depended on it. It could bore the planet a little, but that would be about as far as it went.

While we’re waiting for the official Republican reply, Tim Kyger, once an aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, who worked on science and technology, liked my comment on Facebook – “The Death Star is a manned space vehicle. We need know nothing more than that to explain the Administration’s opposition to it.”

The White House responds to online petitions that meet certain requirements, among them gathering 25,000 signatures within the first 30 days. The Death Star petition had 34,435 signers.

[Thanks to Janice Gelb and David Klaus for the story.]

3 thoughts on “White House Just Says No To Death Star

  1. There is no “enemy” to destroy that occupies an entire planet. Besdies, companies like Halliburton would gouge taxpayers like they’ve always done. Currently, mankind should be concerned with getting along with one another and recognizing that background fear of an atomic weapon being used if common sense fails.

    I’d go for parking on an asteroid and building from there.

  2. Back to the moon for landing and building a base, at the same time capture an Earth orbit crossing asteroid, smelt it for a Solar Power Satellite after scientific examination, send (possibly non-surviving, I admit) first.colonists to Mars afterward.

    Until we get into the main belt to use Ceres as a base, scientific and industrial uses and safeguarding Earth are the only reasons to go to an asteroid. As Robert Heinlein said, the Moon is the key to the rest of the Solar System.

Comments are closed.