Funding Promised for Trips to Moon, Mars

image77 writes "NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday the space agency will have the necessary funding to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars. Delay states "We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go.""

Comments

who's not reading between the lines here?

[professorhojo]

ASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday the space agency will have the necessary funding to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars. Delay states "We will provide whatever funding is necessary to get the spotlight off my ethics investigation and possible upcoming criminal proceedings."

Way to stay on topic!

[daveschroeder]

As if the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives of the US Congress has no job, or indeed, any other tasks at all, other than to continually engineer ways to remove the spotlight from alleged ethics violations. Because, of course, once someone is accused of something, their job stops, and they're naturally only trying to erect artificial shields to deflect the allegations.

Just Set Up The Apollo Prize

[Baldrson]

Just set up a big prize for the first team to land a man on the moon and safely return him to the earth.

Cut out all this funding-cycle political crap for crissakes. Yes, yes, I know there are lots of people employed by NASA and its contractors who want the return of the glory days.

Go get a real job and stop destroying the US's pioneering heritage, and don't you dare lobby my Congressman with your time and travel paid for by my taxes.

Re:Just Set Up The Apollo Prize

[robindmorris]

Just set up a big prize for the first team to land a man on the moon and safely return him to the earth.

And how big would this prize have to be in order to make someone interested in competing for it? Remember that they have to factor in the chance that they might fail, or that someone else might do it first. Remember that Burt Rutan said that going in to orbit (which is still a long way from the moon) is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than what space ship one did. Looks to me like the prize you would have to offer is on the order of what NASA would spend to do the job themselves.

Remeber also, that with current costs for access to space, any ideas of commercializing space (other than communications satellites/remote sensing satellites) are non-starters. The cost to get into space, to keep workers alive out there, and to bring back whatever it is you have mined, mean that the economics are just not there.

The only way this will change is if someone comes up with a whole new way of getting mass into orbit. If they can do that, they won't need any incentive in terms of a prize, because their development expenditure will pay for itself very quickly.

Face facts. Putting people in space is expensive. It's also a one-off proposition; there will never be lots of companies competing on price to take people into space. Free market economics don't apply here. It's just as economical for the government to do it itself (via NASA) than for a company to do it, and send the bill to the government.

Go get a real job and stop destroying the US's pioneering heritage, and don't you dare lobby my Congressman with your time and travel paid for by my taxes

For your information, NASA employees are forbidden by law from lobbying congress, so that's one use of your taxes that you don't have to worry about.

(Disclaimer: I work for a NASA contractor on-site at a NASA location.)

Re:So how many babies HAS he eaten this week?

[TripMaster Monkey]

...exactly how Tom DeLay warrants the label 'evil'...
Here you go.

Just remember...you asked for it.

It would be better to be led from space

[SimianOverlord]

I fully appreciate Tom DeLays comments, space exploitation has been on the back burner for too long. In these uncertain times, we would sleep a lot better in our beds if we knew there was a second chance out there somewhere, a genuine, self supporting colony that could reseed the earth in case of unavoidable disaster.

Who better to found this colony than our own elected leaders? As events on september the eleventh showed, no-one is immune to terrorism on our domestic soil, and it would be far better to place our venerated leaders beyond the range of any conventional retaliation. We could always then be sure of leadership from orbit, no matter what happens. By protecting them, we protect ourselves.

And should, despite their best efforts, some cataclysm overtake us all down below, what gentle knights are better suited to repopulate our world than our saintly leaders? Congress, the judiciary, the President are all exceptional individuals who have risen to the top to command a nation of untold millions through sheer talent and moral determination. Repopulation by such giants could only in fact improve the lot of humanities descendents.

Yes, invest in NASA. Yes, load them all on a rocket. Yes, by all means let them lead from above, unseen and unvisited. Let noone say we were too afraid to take the sensible step.

We shall miss them, our leaders, available as they currently are to any stranger in need of a chat or shoulder to cry on, discussion of current policy or challenger of their POV. All that will be lost. No more will I saunter into Cheney's office, will he welcome me with a smile, and gladly spend hours discussing Middle Eastern politics. By this sacrifice, we insure our future.

I look forward with tears in my eyes to the day when they leave this planet. The correct funding of NASA will bring this day closer yet than we can dream.

But for how long?

[dfn5]

"We will provide the funding necessary to get us where we want to go."

At least for the next 3 years. Reagan said back in '84 that the ISS would be a reality in 10 years. 20 years later it's only partially completed.

Re:Since this is slashdot...

[weopenlatest]

...recognize that the audience of the article understands that science cannot be properly directed by hacks that use spending promises from beyond their terms in office to promote programs that are easily exploitable for political gain.

Note:The cost of a manned trip to Mars would dwarf scientific NASA programs, not to mention most if not all other basic research, especially the kind that offends the Christian Right, so it's not like NASA can just painlessly start shifting all it's money over to the manned program.

Further, we aren't quick to be scared into military justifications and scare tactics. We remember the (continued) folly of missile defense, and realize that politicians can be easily fooled into throwing money at non existent threats, potential threats, and threats that don't have technical solutions, while sending soldiers in Iraq out in unarmored Humvees. With our forces and checkbooks spread thin at the moment, I'll be blunt and say we couldn't be steward of free access to space regardless of the amount of political hot air that floats around.

Re:Since this is slashdot...

[Waffle Iron]

instead of acknowledging that the current House of Representatives Majority Leader, a legislator with significant power, has publicly pledged the necessary funding for NASA's Mars and Moon missions.

I acknowledge that Tom DeLay wouldn't give a rat's ass about NASA if the Johnson Space Center weren't in his home district. This just is a typical effort to ladel out pork barrel funds to his constituents, no more, no less.

Re:Way to stay on topic! - Slashdot politics

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't understand Slashdot. You see, Delay is a Republican. Any post that criticizes Republicans is automatically modded to be insightful. The child post to which you also refer was ambiguous but might be construed as being mildly defensive of Delay, in which case there is no chance in hell that it would possibly be given a positive mod.

Even pro-Republican posts that are 100% on the mark are given "troll" or "offtopic" because the left-leaning majority on /. can't bear to have a differing opinion from their own. You should know by now that negative mods are only done for censorship purposes, not because of the actual content of the post.

Anything anti-Bush, anti-Fox, and anti-Republican is immediately greeted with cheers by the intolerant /. mods. Anything pro-Bush, pro-Fox, or pro-Republican is immediately shot down with negative mods, even if it's in reality 100% informative or 100% insighful.

Welcome to Slashdot - the geek arm of the Democratic National Committee.

(Wait until you see how quickly this gets modded as "troll" or "flamebait" because I spoke the truth, thus proving my point! Mercy me that Ipost against the /. grain!!)

Re: "evil" because you don't like them?

[Doc Ruby]

Texas just convicted his political organizaion's fundraiser for illegal fundraising for corporations, and covering up the evidence (as well as all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo to escape justice). That proves that either Delay worked for illegal fundraising, or that he runs and promotes a major fundraising organization, central to his career, without supervising it. Though the latter is obviously just a lie he'll tell in a last resort to escape justice, both are evil.

How about when Delay coerced a fellow Republican to vote for the Medicare drug bill? The bill itself was a tissue of lies, deliberately underestimating the cost by hundreds of $billions, to miss a maximum Republicans set as a condition for backing it. This serious charge by the Republican leader was proven when even Delay's rigged ethics panel came down on him, a rarity in Congress.

You want evil? He protected Marianas Islands sweatshops (and sex slavers) at the request of a briber^Wlobbyist, telling his corporate backers there to "Stand firm. Resist evil.". That's evil.

He diverted funds from a children's charity to fund his parties at the Republican National Convention. Pretty evil.

And he packed the ethics committee with dependents, to avoid charges that finally were too much for even his majority to suppress. Then purged members who wouldn't stand for the whitewash. Then tried to change the rules so they would no longer "require leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted" - once he was facing indictment. Evil.

Why are you clinging to this bad guy? Does he bring home the bacon to you, from the pork he carves out of our taxes in Congress? Do you own a pharmaceutical company? Are you a congressmember on his payroll? Or are you just so "partisan" that when the Republican Majority Leader is proven guilty, all you care about is whether "Democrats are just as bad", though of course you have no proof of your codependent jealousy?