Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Says NASA's Budget Should Be Increased
Terov writes "This story at CNN.com says President Clinton has announced that the time has come to increase NASA's budget. All I can say is, "It's about time!""
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
First, you may prefer to use this URL
http://www.discover.com/nov_00/featbestman.html
which takes you straight to the article without JavaScript.
However, the article gives most attention to the Approval and Borda alternatives to plurality, both of which are pretty flawed. Check out electionmethods.org for a very thorough analysis.
--
Xenu loves you!
Bah - Bush was Governor of Texas...where is the Johnson Space Center? Texas. Bush's brother is Governor of Florida...where is the Kennedy Space Center...come on...you know...yep Florida.
I figured that Bush would increase funding for NASA, kind of like his daddy did from 89-93. Clinton never understood it. I doubt Gore did either, even though I did for for Gore...I had serious doubts about him.
Well, you know, the expanding universe thing and all that, everything is getting farther away. If we dont start exploring NOW, things might get out of reach! [Smiley captioned for the humor impaired]
Republicans were always known to scrap NASA to the bottom. And Clinton seems to be the greatest Democrat to follow such a trend. During his years NASA saw budget shrinking to miserable levels. They had to cut so much that "Cheap, Faster, Better" became "Crash faster and better". We saw Pluto mission completely scrapped. Cassini almost didn't reach the Pad. And of six Mars missions, only two reached the planet. One of them went so badly that we had to wait two years for its main mission to start. And there are lots of other things like a series of rocket failures, glitches on Galilei mission. Some of this may be heritage from previous presidents. But some have the direct blame on Clinton.
Interesing that during his Presidency there were lots of bravado. I still remember some harsh words about aliens he said on the eve of Pathfinder landing. Good luck that the guys are quite far Mr. President-to-go. Or else someone got get seriously irritated. On Earth, such words would be unforgivable if he spoke about any nation, even ex-foe Soviet Union.
On the other side we saw a lot of bashing Russia, while ISS was being built. But no one noted that NASA itself is in trouble of building some critical components for the station. And that they are having HUGE trouble on making the next generation shuttles. That trips to ISS are a fraction of what Russians are doing. The good cover on how bad is the state of Russia and their cosmic Ford-T named Mir silenced many of these aspects.
Besides, why to talk about rising NASA's budget now? As far as I know nothing will be changed for the year 2001. Most money has already been assigned. So we have to wait for 2002. With the conservative elephant on power... and if they cut a little bit more, then it would be better to call NASA - National Archeologic Space Archivers
And what was Viking, chopped liver?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Don't color me as a Clinton apologist, but I think you've spun this one a little wrong. He may be evil, but because he cares too much what people think, not because he cares little as you claim.
Why didn't he increase the budgets? Because the GOP (supported in part by the likes of those in Kansas that voted down evolution) was in charge for the last six years. During Clintons first two years he focused on an unsuccessful attempt to provide health care for everyone.
Why do I say evil dsepite my apologies? He saw that the nation was divided on the subject of President, but instead of trying to provide for a smooth transition is throwing up every roadblock he can to make the Bush Presidency more difficult.
--
The range of responses on here is indicative of why Clinton's statement is important:
(1) A lot of people point out Clinton has presided (with a Republican congress most of the way) over huge cuts to NASA the last 8 years. Clinton also presided over an overhaul of the welfare system, but he's not saying welfare needs more money now. Obviously something in the situation with regard to space has changed significantly, recently. The space station may be part of this - the Mars plans are probably another. For whatever reason we now have realistic, inexpensive approaches to permanent space colonization over the next couple of decades, and NASA seems logical to be at least part of this. But it'll take more money than it's getting now.
(2) A lot of other people claim NASA has failed us, citing ridiculous numbers for how much money it has wasted. As has been pointed out by others here, NASA doesn't get a very large slice of the budget any more. But NASA does have real problems, particular with the "failure is not an option" rigidity that is caused by just such criticism. Look at what the Russians can do with a tenth of the money, and a "fix as we go" approach! At least the "faster, cheaper, better" mantra has made clear that, if you want to do things cost effectively, sometimes you will fail. But you can do much more then, as opposed to when failure is not an option.
(3) And of course a few people continue to say we should spend our money on more important and urgent matters - saving the poor, or tax relief for the rest of us... But if the guy who won on "it's the economy, stupid" thinks NASA needs more money, what could that mean? As countless analyses have shown (check out John Lewis' recent "Mining the Sky" for some big numbers) taking advantage of space gives us far more resources than we have here on earth; the economic payback will be enormous, once we get over that initial hurdle to permanent space industry. And the size of that initial hurdle, estimated various ways, is surely no more than $100 billion - perfectly doable with only a moderate boost in the NASA budget.
But private industry has to be a strong partner, much more so than in the standard military aerospace system we have now. There are a lot of smaller companies coming up with some great ideas for launch systems and other space components - even modest NASA funding for those could make a huge difference. Just compare the numbers for capitalizations of SpaceHab ($100 million revenue, $30 million capitalization) or SpaceDev ($40 million cap) with your typical internet company and you can get the picture...
Energy: time to change the picture.
--Asa
Look at the Democratic House members vocal in science, technology and space.
Take a look at their voting records. I'm not arguing that you won't find Republicans there and some of them even voting to make NASA stronger but the "friends of NASA" are most definitely Democrats.
--Asa
President's don't make budgets. Take a civics class. The Congress prepairs the budget and it's been the Republican controlled Congress which has slashed and burned NASA over the last half-decade. If we see an increase in spending over the next few years it won't be because of the brothers Bush. It will be because the US Congress is no longer dominated by Republicans more interested in spending money on the Military or Corporate tax breaks than spending on science and exploration.
The current projected budget spending over the next five years (projected by a Republican dominated Congress) pushes DoD spending up and NASA spending down. Don't expect to see this change unless friends of NASA in the Congress do something to change it.
--Asa
I don't remember this being an issue he campaigned on, but you have to remember we got our first probe on the surface of Mars under the Clinton administration.
Not that Clinton could take any more credit for that than Gore can take for the internet, but it's not as if that NASA keeled over and died during the Clinton administration.
-bugg
You mean to tell me that an outgoing president is advocating huge spending in the last months of his term? Incredible! He's setting expectations that his Republican successor may find it hard to follow? Unthinkable!
The next thing you know, he'll be pardoning every friend of his party in the slammer and pushing through a bunch of legislation, just before he leaves.
Oh yeah, I forgot, that's what every outbound president does these days. Why be surprised?
Steve
I'm thinking that federal funding for NASA isn't constitutional. The constitution enumerates powers to the federal government, and they aren't supposed to have any powers other than those given to them. I am very excited about space exploration, but am not excited about ignoring the basis for our government.
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
I want my flying cars.
That was Avery Brooks, right? The guy in the TV ads raving about flying cars?
Anyway. I completely agree. There's so much we spend on stuff that we don't need that would be better spent getting us to Mars. We could get there. All we need is the money.
I want to retire to an environment pod in the Asteroid Belt. Get moving, NASA.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Nice of Clinton to leave us a recession while he's at it. NASA's important work of crushing private space ventures will be really critical while we're losing our jobs.
While we're at it, let's raise taxes, too. My company has too much money anyway, and if they have to fire me to afford the taxes, well, I'm just taking one for the team.
Perhaps we should completely privatize them like was originally intended (at least that is what was announced).
The Big Government argument:
TAX MAN: "We must increase funding to these government programs!"
tax payer: "Why must I be forced to fund this, why must we ALL be forced to fund this... shouldn't you let people decide on their own what to fund?"
TAX MAN: "QUIET YOU!!! *bang* If we didn't force you to fund it, it wouldn't get funded... and that is bad because the people want this, and they yearn for it to be funded"
tax payer: (bleeding) "Ummm, if the people really want it, then logic suggests they will fund it themselves without the gross innefficency of the government. If you are afraid of giving them CHOICE, then not only does that show the flaw in your argument for what the people want, but you are going against the very foundation of Liberty, Freedom, Sovereignty and dignity of the people..."
TAX MAN: *BANG, BANG*
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Ya know I was thinking the same thing. Bill had run with the promise of increasing the budget for his first term and even tried the Kennedyesque mission to mars push but he never got either one through. Sadly for Clinton it doesn't matter in the least what he says or does (and has been that way since the 98 elections) as his voice is muted by the door that is about to close on him the result of being a lame duck president and his party not manageing to hold on to the oval office at the end of his second term. I wasn't a big fan of Clinton when he originally made it into office but as the republican lead witch hunt intensified my feelings about him surely changed: the whole political process becoming unnecesarily hostile, dirty and ugly in the last decade totally reinforced by the 98 elections with the GOP taking over congress/house. My guess is that Clinton really has nothing to lose by saying these things. I only hope someone on Dubya's cabinet manages to listen and agree that this is not a bad idea. If the huge leap we have taken technology wise is the end result of the many innovations our space program has brought about since the manned space program began we really need more investment in the area just to keep the ball rolling.I fear that with the Village Idiot now headed into office we are doomed to see more cuts against NASA than increases. GWB seems totally clueless about the need for innovation in the space field outside of a military scope.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
Well I hate to tell ya this but the republican party is famous for hating the space program. The have managed to cut the budget of NASA every time they take control of office. Thier 'already massive budget' is considerably less than what the republican party likes to spend on the 'war on drugs'. The first 12 years of the war on drugs (starting with Reagan and ending with Bush the first) saw well over 3 trillion dollars spent. That is rougly 1,000 dollars a year for every man, woman and child inside the US borders during those years. I would rather have seen the money spent on NASA but the war on Drugs (no matter how much of a farce) is much better election/re-election fodder for the sheeples. Look for Dubya to continue the trend.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
We got to the moon in a decade. The moon.
Ten years after two scientists guessed that you could put a guy into a high-tech plastic bag, he'd live long enough to go to space, we walked on the moon.
We owned the moon.
Forty years later, we're just now shooting toasters at Mars (and missing half the time). Give them the money. I want my flying cars.
Woot w00t w007.
Sweet! Maybe now they can buy a slide rule that converts feet to meters! Seg
segfaulteq@home.com
But they have to obtain a license to sell to scumbags, which various governments are only too delighted to supply. My country, the UK, is just as happy to give Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace the same freedom, despite being in violation of various UN resolutions and international laws that they've signed up to.
The only reason NASA can't make money is that they don't (get to?) patent things. Most of their research is open (Except findings from the hardsuit research, which the government is probably exploiting to come up with powered armor in some underground lab somewhere) to pretty much everyone. Thousands of companies have benefitted from NASA research.
In particular, many of the advances in plastics materials technology have come out of the space program. You know those commercials about plastics making it possible? They're 100% accurate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I doubt it. First: The entry cost is too dramatic. Getting into a space race costs a great deal of money. The only reason we were able to do it was that Americans were so concerned about Russians nuking us, undetectably, from orbit. Or a moonbase. Or something. So there we are, in space.
Second: Competition is still good, as long as it's not violent. Why do you think it's a bad thing that multiple corporations might be interested in space? That's quite possibly the best thing that could happen to us, especially if we could get companies interested in refining and manufacturing in orbit. Need a satellite? Send your solidworks diagrams to the orbiting facility. They get metals and other materials from refineries also orbiting this silly mudball, run your plans through their CNC machines and hand-build anything they won't cover, slap it together, and send some pusher drone to deposit it into the proper orbit. Now you don't have to pay the US$10,000 per pound launch costs, nor purchase launch insurance.
The environment is a concern. This is why we have laws to protect it, not that they work very well. We should form tougher environmental laws. And enforce 'em, too. Rigorously.
Anyway, the Competition of the US vs. USSR space race was wonderful. It cajoled us into becoming the dominant factor in space. Now, Russia can't really afford to kick much ass in space, so we're not especially driven, which is a shame. Space should be a priority, and private companies should be invited to participate much more than they do now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I believe that Scientific American had an article explaining that the space program (net world wide) has been turning a profit since 1996. I do not recall which issue it was in, but I am sure a /. reader will have a copy.
Lots of valuable meteorological, geological, biological, oceanographic, etc. information is dirived from earth observation satelites, which has great commercial and scientific value. Industries that build space equipment develop cutting edge science and technology. This advancement in the sciences leads to yet more developments in science.
Granted, some missions are not profitable at the current time. However, it is foolish to let the short term loss allow a project that could lead to future posibilities of profit to society at large. The fact that we are taking the `baby steps' of exploring the solar system today, means that we would be able to take advantage of valuable resources that can be found on planets such as mars. Take the robot mission to mars in 1996, this mission showed the feasability of using robots controlled remotely from earth. Can you imagine the posibility of robot miners of mars in the next 50 years. These missions use advanced propultion systems, communications systems and electronics. This all means that humankind is getting practical experiences in the technology of the future.
It may be possible to develop some kind of warp drive and explore the galaxy some day. Before one can be a marathon runner, he must first learn to crawl as an infant.
And remember, today is the first day of the rest of your life.
You're right on all counts about Bill Clinton not being responsible for the economic good times of the 1990's. Alan Greenspan would seem to deserve more of the credit.
Likewise, I don't give much credit to the other great communicator of the last 2 decades for the years of apparent prosperity while he was supposedly At The Helm - Ronald Reagan. I knew then, too, that Paul Volker had more to do with what was happening than any other single individual.
As someone who will retire about 15 years from now, I can tell you what bothers me most:
Please, look at our policies and programs and decide what people 30, 50 and 100 years from now will decide was good and worthwhile.
Space exploration, fundamental science and better education are such programs. I hope they do get more money, but I won't hold my breath.
I await your replies.
Another point to make is that space is becoming privatized, with or without NASA. I'd say in the near future, space exploration will be a lot like computing - it will advance just fine on its own (until the NSA finds some way to control it). So kick back, relax, and let NASA enjoy its already massive budget.
Keep in mind that in order to pay for this increase, the money will have to come from somewhere; most likely some other federal program, or more taxes.
It's all about the Karma Points...
Moderators: Read from the bottom up!
SIG: HUP
Now, what does this mean for us?
-Higher taxes? I'm all for it. If it means NASA gets more money, I for one wil gladly pay higher taxes.
-Cuts in other programs? I'm all for it. Stop buying the air force bombers they don't want, stop buying the marines VTOL planes that crash more often than they fly, stop letting the FBI read my email. And we all know that's not the end of the list.
\
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/290/ 5500/2236
The CNN article was basically on a subset of this interview. Also please remember that this doesn't mean that NASA will get more money, just that a president who is about to leave office thinks that they should get more money.
In related news Bill Clinton also promised to do something about curing cancer, giving gifts of gold and murr to orphans, promote real American Democracy, end private campaign funding, recount Florida ballots and rescued a kitten from a Tree.
Way to go Bill - promise stuff now that you are irrelevant. Where the hell was the increase in NASA budgets when people cared what the hell you thought?
Are you a total asshole. NASA's budget has been cut every year since the Republicans took over in the Congress. They forced NASA to scrap some of it's most exciting missions that had been in planning for years. "already massive budget"?!?! What the hell are you smoking. NASA gets less than 5% of what the US Military gets! They get less than 1% of the total US Federal spending!
--Asa
Don't get me wrong, I believe NASA should get lots more funding than it does, but I really don't trust Clinton's motives for saying so now.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?