Slashdot Mirror


President Bush's Money For Space Cometh

citanon writes " The Washington Post reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has delivered, via the omnibus spending bill passed Nov. 20, the President's full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars for NASA as a part of his Vision for Space Exploration. Despite earlier reports that NASA's budget will be cut, DeLay, whose congressional district now includes the Johnson Space Center, was able to deliver the full budgetary request without any debate. NASA now has "enough money to forge ahead on a plan that would reshape U.S. space policy for decades to come." Despite this early victory, questions regarding the full cost of the program remain unresolved. It is also unclear whether the NASA bureaucracy will be able to rise to the challenges posed in the initiative and which current projects will suffer as a consequence."

8 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. But, why? by wcitechnologies · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    Me and a friend were talking about this the other day.

    Personally I believe I'd be just as useful to put several billion dollars in a garbage can and set it on fire, then spending billions to send a man to mars so he can bounce around and make another "small step for man" speech.

    I hate to be the one pointing this out, because I know spacetravel is a "fun concept", but IMHO it is just a waste of money.

    --
    Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
  2. Quick! by daveschroeder · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Conspiracy theorists: there must be some neocon advantage! Figure out a way to spin this against the Bush administration, even though you were arguing mere days ago that Bush's space plan was bullshit and just talk because nothing would ever get funded!

  3. You don't see anything but the shit in your eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    And a Kerry/Democrat controlled government would piss away just as much, if not more.

    Honestly, you Party lovers used to be funny, but now it's just depressing to the point where I wish the lot of you really would drink the Kool-Aid and drop the fuck dead so those of us with critical thinking skills and functioning sentience can begin to advance civilization once again.

  4. Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "a stable middle east is foundational to the survival of the western world"

    Really? How so?

    The middle-east was more stable before we invaded. Maybe we should stop selling weapons to every other country in the area.

  5. Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. by Zebra_X · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    No really - shut up.

    Go post your economic complaints elsewhere. This is not the site.

    16 billion is nothing in the grand scheme of things and it's not going to break the bank.

    We need to keep ahead.

  6. Re:The cost issue by multiplexo · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    I'm a citizen of North Dakota. My state is in the black. 90% of the government services I enjoy come from the state. Federal money for state programs is more of a burden than a benefit, because of all the strings attached. Why should I be all that worried about whether folks in far-away Washington D.C. go bankrupt?

    You're a citizen of North Dakota. Your state is a bunch of upper midwestern welfare sucking shitbags that would collapse into dust bowl without federal subsidies. In 2001 NoDak paid 3.288 billion dollars in taxes to the federal government and received 6.169 billion in federal spending. The facts and figures are here. That's a 2.881 billion dollar deficit in your balance of payments with the federal government.

    Now, I'd be perfectly happy to end some of the wasteful spending that we sent to states such as yours and use it for something else, as an example we could shitcan farm subsidies, which would save a lot of money, start charging market rates for water delivered from federal water projects, which would raise a lot of money, start charging market rates for ranchers who graze their cattle on federal lands, start charging market rates for oil, gas and mineral leases on federal lands, end rural telecommunications subsidies, which would save money on my phone bills, require that 95 percent of all federal gasoline tax revenues stay in the state they're raised in instead of the current 90 percent figure, which would be a good deal for the blue states and wouldn't really hurt you because you don't mind driving on gravel roads.

    I'm a citizen of the United States who lives in Seattle, Washington, and I hate you fucking red state welfare parasites.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  7. messed up priorities by VegetariMan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Great. We have 2 billion people living on less than $2 a day and we spend $16 billion on space exploration. (And $500 billion on a useless military...)

    --
    --Nick
  8. Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. by dave420 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The US is spending too much money. This project, and indeed any other "vanity" projects, should be halted. The US has a responsibility to its citizens to not piss money away. Playing a massive game of one-upmanship with the rest of the world is, quite frankly, pathetic. Most other nations guage their success by the percentage of people living in poverty, or the rise in the standard of living, not putting people on rocks for good TV and bragging rights. Even if the scientific benefits are staggering, we should wait. The returns from these missions will be years away, and will take ages to turn a profit.

    I'm sure you'll find some way of justifying pissing away money that can save peoples lives, so I'll shut up now.

    thanks.