Slashdot Mirror
Big Changes In Proposed U.S. Space Budget
Guppy06 writes: "CNN has this article on some of the effects of Bush's budget proposal would have on the space program. To make a long story short, funding for the manned space program is being trimmed (there's talk about outsourcing the shuttle program) and some high-profile missions to the outer solar system have been cut (say good-bye to the Pluto-Kuiper Express). On the flip side, nuclear propulsion research is getting a boost. Love it, hate it, some big things seem to be in store." The Planetary Society has their reaction to the budget proposal. And because it's been submitted several times: the ISS suffered a computer outage but all is well now.
I'm sorry, there aren't any trimmings left. They're seriously digging into the budget. I wish the politicians would wake up and maybe put some money into our future instead of the military.
Unless, of course, they feel the military is their future.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
President Bush seems to forget that pure scientific research has been the most productive driver of American prosperity in the last 200 years. So many of the technologies we enjoy today are a result of research that, at the time of funding, could not be directly justified. Hopefully, universities and research institutions will be able to get through this budget crunch time intact, but the blow to students and scientists seeing their field attacked may be much more severe, I'm afraid.
I think that the most astronomy that's going to get done in these next few years is astronomy by the Air Force, with satellites that are pointing down at the Earth, instead of up at the skies. There never seems to be a shortage of funding for those projects, even though diverting 1% of that money would probably save NASA and the US space research program.
I didn't think it was as bad as could be, really. Losing the Pluto-Kuiper probe is a bummer, but there's still pretty strong (in relative terms for today's financial climate) support for basic science.
More to the point - Nuclear Propulsion - Hooray!. This is an utterly fabulous development, and I'm probably going to get flamed for saying so. It's still the truth, all the same. Decent nuclear propulsion is the only way to reduce the current long flight times around the solar system.
We gotta start making some MONEY up there damnit.
It is not like it cannot be done, the main issue (and granted a huuuge one) would be to build the initial stations in space for handling of various extracted resources.
Hell there are 8 other planets in this solar system, why do we have to tear apart ours? There are some darn valuable resources up there, *taps lycos on the head* go get'em!
Seriously though, hhhuuuge startup costs, but scaled, not likely too much more then the initial startup costs of getting resources from the "New World" way back when.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
>> I firmly believe that the military has to be the future of where all the power is centralized.
A quote, forget from whom, but seems poignantly relevant: The easiest way to get shot is to carry a gun.
Bush seems the stereotypical spaghetti western cowpoke, speaking softly and carrying a big gun, and, in the spirit of late Hollywood arrivals, lusting after a bigger gun. I wonder who (in the figurative and collective sense) among us will get shot as a result of this.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do ANY of you people manage your own money? The budget is NOT CUT. What they've done is reduced the rate of increase. Yes, from the first paragraph, NASA is getting what it got last year, plus $500 million MORE.
What NASA, and the rest of our federal government, needs to do is eliminate the sheer waste of money that is going on... Focus on products that produce science, not kickbacks (*cough* ISS)
The federal government's most important priority is to maintain the infrastructure which makes the US possible. Things like operational costs of the three branches, minting money, foreign relations and maintaining a military (what good is all the other stuff if anyone can take it from us at whim?). In the middle area, you see things like HUD, Dept of Education, SSI, etc (stuff which they don't have a constitutional mandate to create but which people have become reliant upon). Way down at the bottom of the list, you'll find things like most of NASA, fluff research grants( did we REALLY need to spend $45k to find out how many people rinse their dishes before putting them in the dishwasher? ), etc. Things which are nice to have but aren't critical.
Now that you have your priorities, you only have a fixed amount of money to spend. An outside force has made it necessary to increase spending on one or several of your highest priority items. Nobody is going to die if NASA's budget gets reduced for a year or three to shore up our more important needs. If pure space research means that much to you, donate from your own pocket to one of the non-profit groups out there promoting research.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Interesting theory. It's not actually backed by anything in history, as far as I've ever seen, but interesting... I find it odd to assert that a conscript army would be more reliable, or more friendly to democratic institutions, than a volunteer one. The move toward volunteer armies has, in general, made armies more professional and less easily swayed to seize power for themselves.
I guess it's OK to worry about the potential for the American legions to declare a President -- something that had uncomfortable echoes ringing in my head during the oversea-ballot mini-debacle inside the 2000 general election meltdown -- but truth be told, the American army has proven remarkably resistent to the temptation of king-making.
Consider: During Watergate, every civil authority told President Nixon that he had to surrender his tapes, and he refused. The man controlled the world's most potent stockpile of nuclear weapons; a vast and effective intelligence apparatus; and millions of servicepeople looking to him as Commander-in-Chief. Some of those people were in the 101st Airbone and 82nd Airborne, elite strike troops; some were stationed quite near DC and the centers of power. It had to have crossed his mind how easily the armed forces of the United States could assume control, since -- NRA notwithstanding -- the American homeland is essentially demilitarized.
Yet, when the rubber met the road and the Supreme Court -- nine old guys in black robes -- told the Presdident of the United States, "Mr. President, you must surrender the tapes", Nixon didn't call in an airstrike; he didn't mobilize the troops; he didn't even huff and puff in that direction. Instead, he handed over the tapes. Why? Because Dick Nixon was such a firm believer in the smooth operation of justice? Nonsense.
He did it because he knew that if he issued those orders, they would not be obeyed. The American military really does see itself as properly subordinate to the civilian authority. They really do see their mission as to protect, not to rule. And why is that? Because at the heart they see themselves as citizens first, who happen to be serving. Not as some separate class called "soldier" with different priveleges and responsibilities, distinct from the general populous.
Think how astoning that is -- an army, a nation, full of modern-day Cincinatti. It boggles the mind.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Hmm, seems good enough for the automobile.
I take those odds just to drive to work. I'll gladly take those odds if it'll get me into space.