Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawmakers Voice Support For NASA Moon Program

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the where's-my-moon-rocks dept.

Matt_dk writes "Members of a key Congressional committee on Tuesday voiced support for NASA's Constellation program, designed to get astronauts back to the moon. The comments came a week after an expert panel said NASA's plans were not possible, given its current budget. The occasion was an appearance by Norman Augustine, head of a committee formed to consider the future of human space exploration. The Augustine committee sent a summary report to the White House last week saying NASA needs at least an extra $3 billion a year to implement the Constellation moon program. The report also included several alternatives to that program. At a feisty session on Tuesday, Congress was having none of those alternatives, starting just minutes into the two-hour hearing."

5 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Bush mandated a moon shot by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

    and utterly failed to provide funding for it. Its no wonder that NASA does not have enough money to complete the project. If this results in a funding increase for NASA, it will be a start. Even if it is only a tiny baby step.

  2. Military budget is... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

    $636B. More than the sum of ALL OTHER COUNTRIES combined.

    This is like walking around with $600 in your pocket and giving a bum on the street $3.

    1. Re:Military budget is... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's your point? We could spend the money in other ways?

      The Apollo program was nothing more than a pissing match. We tossed 13 years we dumped $145B (in 2008 $). That's $11B a year, or $8B more than we're spending now.

      Imagine if we spent $600B PER YEAR on finding alternative energy. Imagine if we spent $600B in one year on NASA. We'd be at Mars within 5 years. We slapsticked the Moon mission together in, what now looks like record time.

      Universal health care would cost an estimate $70B. $70. For ~1/10th of what we spend blowing people up we could give every man woman and child in America full health care.

  3. Re:Talk is cheap by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Talk *is* cheap. And I honestly don't think that the US government has the stomach for space exploration any more. The people certainly don't... space is a hostile environment. If you feel that any loss of life is completely unacceptable, you'll never get out there, because the environment itself will kill you if you give it a chance.

    What makes you think the American people feel that any loss of life is completely unacceptable? Most of the polls that I saw following the Columbia disaster showed an increase in support for the space program. I don't think the American people have a problem with the fact that space flight is an inherently dangerous activity. They do have a problem when incompetence leads to fatalities (who cares what the engineers say about the temperature and o-rings? let's launch!) but there's never been a majority of Americans that would scrap the whole program over them.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:$12 trillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Insightful my ass. NASA's budget is less than 1% of the federal budget. Let's say you managed to cut it in half. Congratulations, you trimmed less than 0.5%. If you're serious about reducing the deficit, there are much more effective ways to go about it than going after something that makes up less than 1% of the budget.