Slashdot Mirror


Senate: NASA May Get Better Budget

colonist writes "The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that funds NASA at $16.379 billion: $200 million more than this year, but $665 million less than President Bush's budget request. (The House version of the bill funds NASA at $15.1 billion: $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the request.) The shuttle budget is fully funded, but the International Space Station budget is reduced. There is initial funding for a robotic servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The budgets for the Crew Exploration Vehicle and Project Prometheus are reduced. $10 million is provided for the Centennial Challenges."

32 comments

  1. Project Prometheus cut? by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1
    The budgets for ... Project Prometheus are reduced.

    So now what are we supposed to do the next time the Goa'uld System Lords come to enslave Earth?!
    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    1. Re:Project Prometheus cut? by hotgazpacho · · Score: 1

      Same thing we did last time... find another ZPM to run the weapons of the Ancients in the Antarctic outpost.

    2. Re:Project Prometheus cut? by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      Ummm... That one was either Air Force or Department of Homeworld Security (I hate that name).

    3. Re:Project Prometheus cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Department of Homeworld Security (I hate that name).

      Methinks the Canucks doth poke fun at US.;)

  2. Why? by politicsie04 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isnt it great that NASA can get a great big increase in its budget when the US is facing its biggest budget deficit in history. The money would be better spent on reemploying all those police officers in New York who have been sacked since 9/11.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, and I still don't understand how people think that these budget cuts will save them money. How long do you think the government can operate on a deficit this large. The taxes are going to have to go back up sometime or the spending is going to have get cut too.

  3. $200 million by Xionn · · Score: 1

    Man, I wish someone would fund me $200 million more. I could buy that car I've always wanted, maybe even two.

  4. New Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or is something wrong with the math in the summary?

    The new Senate bill specifies $16.379 billion in funds. Colonist says this is $200 million more than this year, but then says they House bill requests only $15.1 billion, which he says is $229 million less than this year. What is the budget for this year? It can't be BOTH $16.179 billion and $15.329 billion at the same time?!?!?

    1. Re:New Math? by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Informative

      On senate website.

      National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): is funded at $16.379 billion, an increase of $200 million over the FY04 enacted level, and a reduction of $665 million from the budget request. An additional $800 million in emergency funding was added for NASA during the Committee's consideration of the bill.

      800 million in "emergency funding" is the difference here.

  5. If I were the King by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd cut both the Space Shuttle and the Space Station. Completely. They are a waste of money at this point.

    Instead, I'd increase NASA's budget, tell them to switch to some robotic planetary missions, a small amount of space elevator research, and a somewhat larger effort to develop a two-stage to orbit booster consisting of a reusable flyback booster and a reusable space capsule. The damn thing will be stacked like a real rocket not in the dangerous side-by-side configuration that has killed two shuttles so far.

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:If I were the King by Sygiinu · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, you don't have to have all shuttles in a belly to belly configuration - Hermes was intended to be lauched purched on top of Ariane because side-by-side mounting caused all sorts of aerodynamics issues. The first picture I could find showing this clearly is here.

    2. Re:If I were the King by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Very true, but another thing that should be noticed is that wings are useless in space. If we can do without them, all the better. We can do without them, by designing a space capsule without wings.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    3. Re:If I were the King by Sygiinu · · Score: 1

      Yup :) Can't land in an exactly predetermined location without them though and wings also generally mean a gentler landing (with no pesky parachutes to fail deploy a-la Genesis). Generally though if a capsule had a sterable parachute and was only needed for transporting men and equipment that can stand a bit of a bump on landing then it would make sence to use one and of course capsules are generally cheaper. It's very much a case of using the right tool for the job. Personally I'd like to see winged craft for ground to orbit flight and then capsule type craft for transfer from Earth orbit to Lunar and Mars orbit. (If dreams had budget considerations I might think differently however :) )

  6. What a waste. by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a waste. Inside that budget is the fact that they're cutting everything worthwhile that the agency does in favor of some dream of "going to the moon/mars." There's no point in going to the moon/mars. A better option would be to build a space elevator (5-10 billion dollars) and then do whatever missions to mars/the moon for 100 times less (as the space elevator would transport material up into space for just 100 dollars a pound, instead of tens of thousands...)

    1. Re:What a waste. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So which would result in cheaper transport costs - a space elevator, or a rail-gun system? Anyone know?

    2. Re:What a waste. by kippy · · Score: 1

      So you want him to fund a space elevator which is currently impossible with our current nanotube tech? If going to the Moon and Mars has no point as you just stated, why build a space elevator to go there in the first place?

    3. Re:What a waste. by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      There's a point in going, I'll admit, but its not worth 500 billion dollars to go to Mars. Plus, they expect nanotubes to be strong enough in 4-5 years... not too long.

    4. Re:What a waste. by kippy · · Score: 1

      I agree it's not worth $500 billion. However it does not have to cost that much. Do a google for "Mars Direct" to see one of several mission plans that can be done well within NASA's current budget.

      A space elevator would be nice but Louis and Clark didn't wait for the interstate highway system to be built and the car to be invented before they explored the west.

      I'd be careful accepting predictions about nanotube strengths being up to snuff in 5 years. Even if they are, will they be cheap enough to make an elevator a better option than chemical/electrical propulsion?

    5. Re:What a waste. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be careful accepting predictions about nanotube strengths being up to snuff in 5 years. Even if they are, will they be cheap enough to make an elevator a better option than chemical/electrical propulsion?

      And strength is not the only consideration, recall that the length of carbon nanotube based fibers are best measured in CENTImeters not meters. Even if the ribbon is not made up of continious strands we will need at least a couple of KILOmeters per segement.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it won't happen! However, it is unlikely to happen in the next 20 years.

    6. Re:What a waste. by gears5665 · · Score: 1

      no one else has made this comment yet: Its still just a theory and a pretty loopy one at that. If you want to get something done do you go with a theory or fact?

    7. Re:What a waste. by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      They've done the whole analysis--a space elevator will be surprisingly easy to build if built correctly. Of course, add the word NASA onto it and it would probably at least double the cost... ;).

    8. Re:What a waste. by RWerp · · Score: 1

      You confuse theory (a logical construct based on and proved by facts) with a hypothesis.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  7. I never understood... by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I cannot understand this line of thinking.

    NASA's *entire* budget is less than 3% of just the budget deficit. To inform you, Bush's "manned mission to mars" initiative is going to cost more than the budget increase alone, which means that NASA's funding to projects with scientific merit (according to scientists, not politicians) is going to get cut.

    It's an unconscionable stretch to blame unemployment in government programs in NYC on NASA! Maybe you should think about offering your Bush tax cut back instead if you want to re-employ government workers?

    1. Re:I never understood... by kippy · · Score: 1

      To inform you, Bush's "manned mission to mars" initiative is going to cost more than the budget increase alone

      Have you considered that the grounding of the Shuttle and disengagement of ISS will free up an additional $6 billion per year which will go straight into the VSE?

      NASA's funding to projects with scientific merit (according to scientists, not politicians) is going to get cut.

      Steven Squire of Mars Rover fame gave a speech recently where he said that human exploration of Mars is going to be needed to produce more and better science than we can get from robots. Given that this came from a scientist who is very closely involved in robotic exploration, I'd say that there is scientific merit in manned space.

  8. ALT.NASA Requirements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My suggestion, based upon the rationale originally employed in the massive NASA spending, would be to require tangible military returns on any NASA spending within a period of 1-2 years. If we fund $20B for NASA, and get $20B+ value for our military I'd be more than happy.

    With the Chinese threat on the horizon I don't want to see things like space station funding unless said space station is ours and comes with nukes pretargeted for Beijing.

    1. Re:ALT.NASA Requirements... by gears5665 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are you so crazy that you already want to nuke somewhere on the planet!

      Nukes are bad. Deterrents only. We have these deterrents but no sane person should ever think to using them again against another nation.

      Talk to your competitors. Work out a deal. No use blowing all of the rest of us up.

      Repeat after me. "Nationalism is dead".

    2. Re:ALT.NASA Requirements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the Chinese threat on the horizon I don't want to see things like space station funding unless said space station is ours and comes with nukes pretargeted for Beijing.

      You don't think the military could find alternative uses for a rocket with a 100-ton payload? Here's one possiblity a "drop ship".

    3. Re:ALT.NASA Requirements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you so crazy that you already want to nuke somewhere on the planet!

      The grandparent poster (not me BTW), didn't mention nuking anyone.

      Repeat after me. "Nationalism is dead".

      Tell that to the people living in China, or North Korea, or any other strongly nationalistic country for that matter. Nationalism might be dead to you, but it is alive and well in some parts of the world. Like or not we, either as individuals or as a group, have to deal with that reality.

  9. Re:Chances of Life by gears5665 · · Score: 1

    well, the republicans say that you should vote for them and they will reduce your taxes enough so that you can afford another new car. However, it seems that when they get into power that their definition of "you" is "you top 5% income earners, meaning us".

    These big government deficit spending Republicans confuse me.

  10. Low already by pbranes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The budget for our space program is ridiculously low as it is. We spend $15 billion/year on it - do you realize that the military alone spends $300 billion/year and they aren't even our biggest spender??!! With almost no dedication from the public towards a goal of pure scientific exploration, we should focus on the commercialization of outer space - that is where future development lies.

    1. Re:Low already by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Agreed. That will probably be more beneficial to science in the long run. If space can be successfully commercialized, that will be worth many billions more than any budget increase for NASA. Scientific projects (or whatever else) can then be funded through commercial funds if NASA doesn't have enough to go around for everything.