Slashdot Mirror
NASA Faces Major Budget Cuts
jfoust writes "A House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee approved Monday a nearly 10 percent cut in NASA's fiscal year 2000 budget, with most of the cuts in science and aeronautics. If approved, it would mean most of the currently-planned space science projects, including missions to Mars, Pluto, Europa, and comets, plus new space telescopes, would be canceled. Check the details at NASA Watch and SpaceViews. " If you're a US citizen-write your Congressperson. This is idiocy.
To add some more:
Galileo's main engine and soyourner (sp?) "nose" (the alpha-spectrometer(?)) were built in Germany, Cassini will drop the ESA Huygens probe in Titan's atmosphere (Well, let's hope so. It still need some years for it to get there.)
In fact most scientific space probes launched since some years now are the results of international cooperations. The (failed) russian Mars 96 probes launched had some european (and I think US) instruments on board.
Why?
Two simple reasons: 1. Money (of course), 2. brainpower - scientist are rational people. They don't care about national borders as much as other people do, if company a or university b in country c is leading in area d, they will let them make that.
BTW: Two other important ESA probes/sattelite US scientist have used as well include ISO (infrared telescope) and ROSAT (Röntgen Satelite). And let's not forget spacelab, the laboratory for the shuttle bay that was built in Germany and returned this year to Bremen.
I think that nuclear fission wasn't the main gyst of the original post (replace fission with fusion and you have the same idea, but with less quibbling). In any case, fission plants only suck because all practical development and improvement on them was STOPPED after 3 mile island (Forget Chernobyl, they're only russians.. er and europeans... anyway). The fact this breeder plants can go for 30 years before needing any refueling (Hmm, that means 30 years without producing and of those nasty waste products), and burn on what they produce for almost as long over again. Why don't we use 'em? Because they'd put the fossil fuel industry plain out of business! (Woops, there goes our campaign funding). Now of course you do have to eventually deal with what you produce, unless you /are/ in the fossil fuel business, then youc an just dump it into the atmosphere and be done with it (Waste, what waste?). But as I said, this wasn't the main thrust of the original argument
People seem to have the wrong impression about NASA. People seem to think that NASA missions typically consist of some multi-billion-dollar spacecraft gallivanting merrily out to Pluto for no reason whatsoever, burning hundred-dollar bills as fuel all the way.
One of the biggest programs that will be affected by these budget cuts is NASA's EOS (Earth Observing System.) This is Earth science (that's right
Data provided by the Landsat program has saved millions of lives. It has saved millions of lives. That tradition will continue (and improve) with other such Earth-observing spacecraft such as the upcoming Terra, with its MODIS and ASTER instruments. The positive results of NASA's Earth science programs alone more than justify the operating costs of the entire agency; ironically, it will be Earth science that is among the hardest hit by these budget cuts.
Beyond that, the space science is worthwhile to mankind as well, even if people don't realize it. Getting to know the inner workings of our sun is worth it. Exploration of the planets and their satellites is worth it. Gaining insight into the operation and origin of our vast universe is worth it (although this tends to chap the collective asses of fundies who feel we're going to burn in hell for having the audacity to be curious.) And doing work and performing experiments on board the shuttle in low-Earth orbit is worth it as well; people who complain about John Glenn's trip back as being a "PR stunt" or a "joyride" rarely forget to mention that that mission had more scientific experiments to perform than any previous shuttle mission.
The bottom line is this: NASA is an island oasis floating in a sea of pork. Sure, some people don't like "the space program." Some people are ideologically opposed to it. Some people just don't understand what NASA really does. But cutting NASA's budget is a Bad Thing (TM). Trust me.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Well you figured they raised how much money they get paid a year and now they found away to pay for there pay increase...
Umm...there are disturbing GAO reports about whether the F22 can even come close to its currently defined mission parameters, especially the "supercruise" one...
Congress, being a bit burned perhaps by the FA18E/F debacle, is getting back a bit. But that one is a done deal. Nothing can turn that one back now. Bye-bye, F14D. Buy Buy, FA18E/F.
The F22 is a pretty cool looking airplane. But that is the STUPIDEST reason to fund it (right next to, "well, there are lots of voters in my district who work on it") And it would probably be a worthy plane, but is its cost (+50% of an F15 or so) going to equate to +50% performance over an F15? No.
True 'nuff. That surplus doesn't even exist yet, and may never depending upon accuracies.
I'm vaguely concerned about any privatization of NASA. Let's call such a new body, hmmm, "Ground-to-Space" (G2S) in homage to a particular Brunner novel I'm sure many of you know...
My primary objection is that G2S would potentially come with far less public oversight than NASA. Given that the Gov't (especially DoD and NRO) would probably be a *major* customer, this would open the door towards "black" programs and so forth, and various forms of skullduggery. It might even be tempting to violate the treaty against militarizing space...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
sure we can then divert all this tax money to beefing up the military (during peace times) and spend some more on weapon reasearch. im quite sure these activities would be much more valuable to the tax payers and give them their "benefit of reward". if anything the science and space programs don't get enough funding.
Cutting NASA's basic research would decimate both earth and space science. Particularly with the potential damage that global climate change could effect, this seems incredibly short sighted.
The NASA Earth Observing system is a series of remote sensing satellites designed to study the Earth as an integrated system. It is one of the primary means of monitoring and understanding global climate change.
To get a sense of the work that is being done, check out:
http://www.earth.nasa.gov/
Cuts to this project seems unreasonable given both the budget surplus and the maintained funding for the space station with has much higher costs with less certain results.
For the record, I am not completely impartial. I am getting my Ph.D. in geography and work heavilly with remote sensing. I am currently funded through a NASA research grant relating to the MODIS sensor on the TERRA satellite.
You're making the common mistake of equating NASA with technological advance. In the 60's NASA was using cutting edge technology. Today they're still using 60's technology. The bureaucratic culture actively discourages new technology.
The NASA budget has always been about pork barrel been scrapped for the pure pork space station, which has been panned several times by the APS as spending. Most of the legitimate research has having little to no research value. (inadequate power supply among other things.)
I think scientific progress would be enhanced if NASA were disbanded. The independent agencies doing actual research wouldn't be forced to subsidize the defense department.
What's idiocy? The fact that billions of dollars are spent annually on projects that won't gain humankind anything significant before the end of humanity is idiocy. Perhaps if these resources were utilized on the planet we already occupy, we'd all be better off as a result.
This is as brilliant an idea as the NASA budget cuts are bad.
When will those beltway idiots get it? All of this came pretty directly from NASA. No doubt beltway idiots slowed it down a little with plenty of red tape and whatnot, but ALL THIS TECHNOLOGY came from the space program in one fashion or another.
What a bunch of idiots - worse, us for letting them stay in a position to do things of this sort...
Heaven offers little comfort like winamp and a big disk full of Dave Matthews MP3s
We've got a planet full of people decaying from myriad of diseases. Though I admit that AIDS and cancer are well funded, I do not believe that the level of severity of these matters corresponds to their current financial piece of the american pie. I'm not a people-lover, but what i know is that we through our money down the toilet (taxes) to support a product of the cold war.
And what about other ways to spend our taxes? Our money should be funding projects here on earth. Projects to understand ourselves, how our body functions, how our mind functions, and how we think. We should be interested in what lies at the bottom of the sea, the history our planet, the history of our people. One can persume that these areas of science have been well researched, but thats persuming that we have found all the answers we need (and that is more bs). And yes.. all this scientific research doesn't have to have bring in financial success.
How is it then that so many people support such a financially wasteful cause as NASA? Part of it is a result of our american heritage. We are a people who have always wanted to test our limits, move away from stagnant society and find freedom in a new frontier. This has obviously carried over into how the population looks at space. It as if there is an urgency to escape this planet, in the hope that we will find somewhere better to live. Perhaps somewhere where all the women are blonde and tall. Somewhere that has enough resources to make a millionaire out even the humblest of men. Or just somewhere to escape the realities we've created here on earth. Whatever it is we need to realize that the fervor to test this new frontier might not be as wise as we envisioned during the cold war. We do not need nuclear stations in space to attack enemies. We do not need colonies on mars so that we can vacation there during the winter months. So stop thinking about it like that please. A second argument that might sufficiently explain why we american feel sympathetic to the NASA cause is that its a very popular science at the moment. Its popularity, a result of the national focus on the space program during the cold war, seems to distract people from scientific pursuits that are left without major support. I don't want to demean what scientific contributions NASA has provided, but to use it as an engine for popular support in science is simply saddening.
I hope people get off this pro-NASA campaign and realize what they are missing. Let the commercial pursuits of NASA (satellites) be managed by private corporations. And get NASA to be more efficient, by cutting their budget, in pursuing what matters, an understanding of space (through scientific data retrieval and observation of our universe, go FUSE!). And make the international space station what it is, "international"... there is no reason to have international presence in space when there are nations here on earth still struggling to survive on earth.
please just think about it
Entertainment and marketing are a means to an end. We need to put more support into space exploration and if the only way wwe can do that is through a theme park, I say build the sucker. NASA should open it's doors to commercial marketing also. I can see it now, the fuel cell of the space shuttle painted up to look like a Coke can. Maybe some STP stickers will make it look like a race car. Marketing is wonderful thing.
--
Steve
--
InstantCool
Well, your (American) fucking ``president'' together with other war criminals and plain bandits has spent that money on killing Albanians and Serbs, so you should have complained earlier.
You're making the common mistake of equating NASA with technological advance. In the 60's NASA was using cutting edge technology. Today they're still using 60's technology. The bureaucratic culture actively discourages new technology.
The NASA budget has always been about pork barrel spending. Most of the legitimate research has been scrapped for the pure pork space station, which has been panned several times by the APS as having little to no research value. (inadequate power supply among other things.)
I think scientific progress would be enhanced if NASA were disbanded. The independent agencies doing actual research wouldn't be forced to subsidize the defense department.
Actually, the proposed legislation isn't killing the F-22 program. The development contract is fully funded. It is merely delaying the start of low-rate initial production contract by one year. Ironically, delaying production one year will increase overall production cost significantly over the long run. Right now, the production program is for 337 aircraft and $40B. If you stop work for a year, the impact is that you will only be able to afford ~220 aircraft for the same $40B. Not a very good value proposition - you might as well just cancel the program and write off the nearly $20B already spent.
The F-22 may be dramatically expensive due to the "kid in a candy store" mentality the AF took when establishing its requirements in the mid-80s and due to the inefficient 3 contractor teaming arrangement put in place by Congress and due to the multiple program delays, cuts, and replans enacted by Congress. At the start of full scale development, it was supposed to cost $50M per plane for 750 planes. Now it is ~$120M per plane for 337, most (but not all) of that increase is due to congressionally mandated program cuts and re-phases.
You are kidding yourself if you think the JSF program is going to end up any better in the long term. Their current cost, schedule, and performance requirements are even more unrealistic than the F-22's were.
Also, the F-18E/F isn't in the queue, it's in production. And it can't take the place of the F-22. It offers no increase in capability over '70s and '80s generation aircraft like the F-18C/D, F-16, F-15, MiG-29, Su-27. In fact, the Navy plans to rely on the F-22 for its first line of defense in major regional conflicts.
The main reasons why the B-2 cost so much money were: 1. Its mission was changed requiring new development and a long delay, 2. The number of aircraft to be purchased dropped from 132 to 20.
The most significant costs occur while establishing the production infrastructure (literally thousands of companies are involved in one way or another) and ramping up from low-rate to full-rate production. In most aircraft programs, the initial production aircraft cost 5-10 times more than those produced during full rate production. Had the full 132 B-2s been produced, the end production cost would have been about $300M each. Instead, the B-2 never got out of low-rate production. It would have been far wiser to cancel the program than produce so few aircraft.
Note: Joint STRIKE Fighter, not Joint Intercept Fighter or Joint Air-Supremacy Fighter. The JSF has a different mission. Back in the 70's, after trying to have a signed unified plane for every thing, the armed forces figured out that they need at least two kinds of aircraft (one for air-to-air, one for air-to-ground). My take is that we spend too much on the strike part. Defence is useful. Being able to blow away a truck in a far away land is of more questionable benefit.
-d
Actually, if I recall, China is gearing up to send some people into space in the near future. I think they even had some Russian help in it, but I don't recall all of the details of the article.
Either way...if it can make some of the higher ups a little edgy about the thought of it, you might be right.
The US government doesn't owe the UK government and vice-versa. Private and corporate investors in the UK own US government bonds & securities, and US investors own UK securities, etc. The vast majority of the US national debt is owed to private and corporate investors, not to other governments.
The US sucks in a lot of ways, yes, and is getting
worse in a lot of ways, but what place is better? Is there _anywhere_ really sane in the world? There are places that are better in some ways, but worse in others. I would love to leave if I knew of a place that had a rational government. But then I'd also love to see the USA get _sane_.
Why is it that people think that tax cuts are only for the rich? The middle class pays most of the taxes anyway, so they would be the ones that would benefit from an across the board tax cut. Is it that they might only get $500 back, but someone else might get $50,000 back?. I don't care. IMHO, if someone is paying a ton of taxes, they deserve to get a lot back when it comes to cutting taxes.
Our current surplus is due more to the recent capital gains tax cuts than the big tax increase on the rich in 1993. I know a lot of people who increased their activity in buying/selling stuff that would be taxed as a capital gain after that. They are paying more in, but it's at a lower rate, so that's acceptable. In fact, what I've read was the 1993 increase didn't net that much more because the people affected by these increases could just find away to reclassify such income as capital gains or something else. I knew a guy who owned his own computer contracting business (consisting of just himself) which was structured so that all of his income was classified as capital gains, which was taxed at a rate much lower than it would be if it was classified as regular income. An additional bonus was that he didn't pay FICA either.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Well, I think NASA should stick around for a while yet, but I do think that private sector investment is on the verge of becoming realistic and relevant. Does anyone else remember the announcement a few months ago that some hotel (Hilton, I think) was looking into a space station hotel-conference center? And that's just the barest bump of the tip of the iceberg.
And just wait for the 31 July moon crash---if that kicks up any water vapour, expect to see a working moon colony within ten years, largely or entirely financed from the private sector. Talk about cool!
``This, too, shall pass.'' ---Eastern proverb
What programs do you consider needed? In my apparently distorted vision, space, science, and technology development programs ought to be the highest priority. They're the only ones that benefit society as a whole.
The address is here www.cfw.com/~bradr/nasacuts
Tell me what you think.. tell me I am an idiot.. I dont care but let people know this is not what you want.... If your american.. this is YOUR country...
The F-22 really is too expensive, but we've already spent 15 years and almost $20B on it
The project was spawned during the cold war when the government could get away with ridiculous procurements that even the military found questionable (see - Air Force opposition to B2).
Kill it now before we waste even more money on a fleet of planes that will likely never see useful service.
While you're at it, scrap the next generation submarines - I'm more than satisfied with the current fleet which is more powerful than the rest of the world'd navies combined.
www.cfw.com/~bradr/nasacuts
As long as we get to mars in my lifetime, and I can vacation to the moon between contracts. :)
:)
First post
I think the goal of society is both of these issues; they are not exclusive. That is the purpose of society to accomplish things collectively, as it tends to be much more efficient than billions of individuals acting as their own island society.
These "local issues" were federalized for a reason. States and localities were (are?) doing a terrible job on health and welfare issues for their citizens. It was only a few years ago that local governments in southern states only served the majority populations, neglecting their minority populations. And it wasn't a begin neglect. Equal protection under the law and the Constitutional rights of neglected populations are a legit reason for the federalization of what were traditionally local issues. I work for the National Governors' Association, and they argue that governors should be the implementers of many of these programs currently administered by the federal government. I would be in trouble with my bosses if they heard this, but the sorry way they treated their citizens is why the feds took over many of these programs. I'm sure the U.S. Conference of Mayors feel they are the ones who should be running these programs instead of the feds, but their record is worse than the governors. It's all a question of who gets to spend the money, and while governors have made great strides in working for all of their citizens, I'm not ready to hand them over all the decision making power and money.
Of course, some say the only true function of the federal government is to run the military and protect the country from invasion. The federal government organizing the marketplace is a scary idea. If you think the feds inefficiency at running social programs is a problem, wait until you see them determining and implementing what they feel advances society. Funding for programs like NASA or NIH should be re-thought. What's the point? Should the government be involved in funding science and research? I think so, but it will have to compete for funding with all the other programs citizens want the feds to run. The little libertarian in me says it will be the machinations of the free market that will determine advances in society as a whole, and if the market can't bear space programs or scientific research, it won't happen until conditions are right. But he's very little.
But, back to the point, I don't think it is a binary situation. Advances in our society can lead to more comfortable lives, but advances for advancement's sake shouldn't be the only goal for society. There are a lot of people who would be quite content and really happy in a society where we all lived healthy and comfortably, because that's more than they have now.
First off, cutting 10% but maintaining funding for the space station means you are losing more than 10% of both the projects, and IMHO the results.
Second, NASA does a lot of Earth Science funding. The whole Earth Observing System (EOS) is NASA money. If global climate change is real, the information from these satellite are going to have a lot more impact than, "Oh, Look where we went in the Solar System."
One would think in todays modern society that space and space research would be at the forefront of technological advance and funding. What happened to ALF?
www.cfw.com/~bradr/nasacuts
The F-22 really is too expensive, but we've already spent 15 years and almost $20B on it
The project was spawned during the cold war when the government could get away with ridiculous procurements that even the military found questionable (see - Air Force opposition to B2).
Kill it now before we waste even more money on a fleet of planes that will likely never see useful service.
While you're at it, scrap the next generation submarines - I'm more than satisfied with the current fleet which is more powerful than the rest of the world's navies combined.
you know how on tax forms it has a little check box (give $1 to Democratic or Republican election cpagain) I think that all of the major orgnizations that get their funding from the federal goverment should be listed on the tax form (i'd give a buck a year to get us into space --hell, i'd probably give 100 bucks a year for it)
thiis would also allow other groups to get funding based on their popularity (don't like literacy programs or the NEA --don't check that box)
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
No country in the world has ever attained prosperity by paying back it's debts. The USA is large enough to sustain the debt load that it has, and the amount of money that has been lent out is helping to offset interest costs. No worries. Fund NASA.
Wah!
Military spending as a percentage of GDP has been halved since Clinton took over. You can see what percentage of is being spent by just looking on the back of your tax instructions. A higher percentage is being spent on interest and entitlements. Good strategy. Spend more to let people sit around than on defense of the country. And we wonder why there is a morale problem in the military and the Navy/AirForce can't keep enough qualified pilots.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Do these guys know the meaning of diplomacy?
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
Youde think with the "booming american economy" NASAs budget would at least hold steady, but upon closer inspection of this "booming economy" youd find there are rcord numbers of homeless people, and there a millions of people making 10k$ a year...
Sure the unemployment rate is going down, but most of theme are slave laborers for Chystler/GM/Some MArketing Firm...
I know that its hard to beleive, I dont usually come across this HUGE underpriveleged class, but in certian areas it is prevalent, Detroit, MI is an area I have seen first hand.
I guess I shouldnt waste any more time talking about it here, as obviously we dont care, I mean we are high-tech geeks, we have inherited this land, and are starving the rest, maybee its a good thing, maybee its evolution, maybee they'll burn this whole world down come the first small riot...
Well it probably isn't the best idea, but historically in the US there have been some
federal agencies that have been spun out (at least partially)...
- Fannie Mae (used to be Federal National Morgage Association, now a publicly traded company)
- RAND (used to be part of the US air force, now a non-profit corporation)
There are other agencies have turned into corporations, but are still owned by the government:
- USPS (US post office, delivers junk^H^H^H^Hsnail-mail)
- FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, insures money in the bank)
- Ginnie Mae (used to be Government National Morgage Association, government backed morgages)
- TVA (Tennesee Valley Authority, a power company)
One downside to privatization of an agency is the loss of regulatory authority. But since NASA
never had any authority, this doesn't matter.
The other downside is that as a separate corporation, you can't lose money (well at least
not too much), NASA probably wouldn't be able to cut it as a corporation.
But maybe NASA could be restructured into a non-profit model like RAND. RAND sells the
reports they generate for $$$, and they have a huge endowment (get income form the interest),
and lots of companies and the govt donate them money to direct their research. However, the NASA
that exists today is too bloated and non-economically motivated, they are negative-profit.
All it takes is an act from congress and a John Hancock from the president and poof, NASC
(National Aeronautics and Space Corporation) could be born... However, as I said, this probably
isn't the best idea...
It's a shame that few of our politicians are interested in exploring new frontiers these days. What's worse is with goverment regulations I doubt it is possible for a publicly owned space agency to make it based in the US. Or so the National Space Society has always lead me to believe.
At least this will give the Democrats more money to spend on social programs. That will make them happy.
Why don't we have a political party that is friendly to Space exploration? A lot of Republicans think it is a waste while most Democrats would rather take the money and stuff it into tree saving programs. No trees in space so it isn't worth the money I guess.
I'm depressed.
Simple economics. More buying power = more robust economy = more taxes collected. Get a clue folks.
Hear hear. The only thing that private industry wants from space is more satellites for TV, data, and cellphones.
Wah!
...a budget surplus? what happened to it?
probably flushed down the toilet on the war on drugs
(those stupid cartoons are not going to stop kids from doing drugs, Mr. President)
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
There would also be no welfare and people would die. Or do you expect those things to be privatly funded as well. Aww.. look at the poor basterd dying, give him a dollar.
Ahhh.. glad to live in Europa.
If cutting 10% costs you every major mission that NASA is going to fly... don't do it.
Either kill NASA, or disband it. But you won't save any money simply crippling it. You'll throw away a lot of money that will never be useful, because we can't fly those major missions upon which all depends. It's a false economy.
It's time for an asteroid to directly impact Washington DC... a nice, small one... it only has to kill a few thousand people... THEN NASA would get any money they wanted... for a year or two, until the beaurocracy forgot... again... (pardon my spelling of that blasted "B" word)
In a time pronounced by the BSmediaHYPE machine as the height of economic prosperity, we will stand by as our REAL accomplishments are declared irrelevant so megaslothgreedmongers can avoid paying taxes on their ill-gotten gains.
also noteworthy, recent legislation (already passed in NY) makes it ok for banks to peruse your medical records to determine your bankworthiness. another crime against us all, in order to feed the machine.
It's EASY to blame, WE are responsible. WE have put our well being in the hands of megamaniacal greedmongers. WE appear to be too busy running for our options, to even complain as our rights are discarded.
there WILL be reprocussions. fortunately, some dogooders are STILL able to influence the tide of the infowars.
I'm not sure that donations could ever add up to the kind of money needed to support a space program. The same is true of supporting the arts. These are programs that I'm not sure would survive privatization.
I like to think of myself as a Libertarian but this is one of the areas where I'm not so sure; programs that the majority of people don't care enough to pay for on their own but that are still important in their own ways to our society.
Yes, we really need this stuff.
Going to pluto has many cool points associatited besides actually getting to pluto.
In the process we will need to discover more about how the human body can tolerate 0g for extended periods of time, including muscle and bone research, which has great impact on earthbound condtions and diseases such as multiple schlerosis, osteoperosis, and other degenerative diseases.
We will have to discover more efficient and advanced power sources, energy and material recycling processes, and better insulations, materials, and armors.
A small sample of some stuff we have because of NASA
Some examples from that page: "Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment."
Where else would we have all this research and development, if not NASA?
Sure private companies might be big enough, now, to do so... but private companies also change, adjust, and re-organize... and NASA is here as long as we believe in it and support it.
NASA, and science research in general, on the surface may seem like a money sink with no results; like particle accelerators, but on the other hand we get superconductors, hardened electronics, insulated electronics, etc. A lot of this stuff is really hot, interesting, and a product of the space program!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I think that in todays times and in looking back upon ALL the advances in science that our pursuit of space has given us then this budget cut and any others like it are totally irresponsible. Our science program is responsible for some of our greatest breakthroughs in material sciences and others. To see thier budget cut is a very sad day indead and a signal that all sanity has finally left our goverment.
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" Wicca Rede
A 10% budget cut should not cause the loss of every space science program, period.
Nearly half of the cuts ($640 million of $1.3+ billion) are in NASA's space sciences programs, which account for only about $2 billion of its $13.6 billion budget before the cuts. With those kinds of cuts, a lot of missions will fall by the wayside, especially those missions still in the early planning stages (which can be cut with a minimum amount of money "wasted".) Anything planned for launch in the next couple of years, including the Mars 2001 missions, should be okay, but beyond that it looks grim.
Jeff Foust
jeff@spaceviews.com
...most of these comments from author and concerned citizen Dr. Jerry Pournelle (along with a number of the contributors to his website) - Nasa's mission in life is to preserve the bureaucracy that is Nasa... this is why the cuts will affect programs and science - NOT JOBS! Nasa is run by the criminals who took two working Saturn boosters and laid them down as lawn ornaments (and destroy'd all the plans to build them - yup - we paid for those.) I cannot claim to know what is best for the space program, but I do not believe that Nasa has any answers, either.
I say, let'm make cuts, but put bureaucrats out to pasture and save the science.
All hail the UK!
My guess is that part of the 10% was the 3-9 percent this program was going to GROW this year. I seriously doubt that NASA will have 10% less than the previous year.
If a federal agency can't make due with 7% less money than expected, I would say that agency needs to rethink its processes and cost structure. I guess whining and blaming it on those "mean" republicans is much easier.
While I hate taxes as much as the next guy, you said yourself that tax money should be used to fund those things which are impossible to obtain otherwise. Space exploration, at this point, falls into that catagory. Even The Great Evil One, Bill Gates, would be bankrupt after a while if he had to fund NASA. The amount of money currently required to explore space is too much for any one person, or even a small group of people, to afford, and any benefits that may be obtained from it are strictly long term. There simply isn't any way for a person to make a profit at this point. THat doesn't mean that it won't be possible in the future, when costs have dropped, and space travel becomes a bit more commonplace. If this ever occurs, then I'm all for the privatization of space research.
You also cannot ignore the necessity of space research. Where are we going to be in another couple hundred years if we haven't at least begun construction of a lunar colony. While I tend to think claims of population overcrowding are a bit exaggerated, eventually, we are going to run out of room here on Earth. Should we wait until that point to begin government funding of space exploration? I guess that wouldn't be a problem if you don't mind massive world-wide starvation for a couple decades.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
It is human nature to explore. Our curiousity is, has, and will continue to be, a great boon to our civilization. Ever since Columbus and Polo, exploration has brought change and has opened up new avenues of thought. Imagine if Columbus had never went on his voyage in 1492. The world may still have been thought of as flat. Science would have been stymied by the Church and maybe would not have piqued the interest of Galileo and Newton. America may never have been born. The religiously oppressed in Europe would not have been given a vast New World in which to try out new ideas; in which to create and recreate society based on different modes of thought.
While we do have many goals to accomplish here on Earth, we have an infinity of things to accomplish in space. Not taking up the challenges of space would be denying our curiosity in favor of settling for our lowly existence on Earth.
We must learn from the mistakes of our history. We must get behind our space program. Without funding to NASA, space will continue look like a vast, desolate void to us instead of the boundless, beautiful, infinite place that it is.
While we have defiled our Earth with national boundaries and wars and pollution, space is a pristine, untouched New Frontier; holding promise for a better life just as the New World did for those in 16th and 17th century Europe. Just as America ultimately improved and gave hope to the world, so will space.
"A life unexplored is a life not worth living." Either we waste away our days here, moping around in our petty library of Earthly scientific knowledge, or we take a chance at unlocking infinite knowledge in space. Right now is the time to make a choice at which route we will take.
Not yet anyway. I don't know where you heard otherwise, but if you remove FICA & SS, we _currently_ have a deficit. However, we are projected to have a "real" surplus early in the next decade.
Plus, when you consider what a joke Carter had made of our military, he really had no choice but to increase its budget during his first term.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
Welfare queens?? Fuck libertarians and their fucked up priviliged existance.
>What happens when the criminals can afford to >hire more and better equipped bodyguards (by >virtue of the profits they make from crime)?
;)
Crime doesn't pay
Besides, you are talking about anarchists. As an objectivist, i believe in minimal government. The gov't's only job is to protect individual rights (including property rights). This would necessitate a (much smaller) military -- for defense of the country only. No troops sent off to Kosovo, Somalia, etc. It would also require a (much smaller)police force -- for protection of individual rights only. It would deal with real criminals -- those would violated the rights of others(ie. theives, murderers, etc. -- No "war" on drugs or other inanities)
Yes, but not being taxed as much, a lot of corporations wouldn't feel as pressured to pay you as much. Your take home pay would probably be about the same, unless of course you OWNED the company.
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
I know I got flamed for this idea previously, but, now it's time.
You and I and all readers of this place are generally geeks. We build things. We research things. We solve problems.
We are the glue that holds this interconnected world together.
Hell! We created it!
It's high time we put our collective foot down. Let's take this thing we built back!
Let us put aside one day a year that we ALL stay home. And do nothing. at all.
Jews have that. Muslims have it. Geekhood is as close to a religion that I have. Wanna see the world shake?
Find a day.
Pick a day
That day, all geeks STAY HOME!
No work.
No calls.
No nothing.
You'll be going to mars with the blessing of the speaker of the house in 6 mos.
Geeks are assumed to be pussies.
WRONG!
We are true warriors. We put our immediate needs on hold for the larger cause.
Geeks rule this planet at this time.
Assume that mantle responsibly. Assert your authority.
Whether you like it or not, you're piloting this thing.
Do it right.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
The F-18E and the JSF are not designed to be air superiority aircraft. All of these aircraft are designed to meet a specific set of needs, with some overlap, of course. By eliminating the F-22, the roles of the F-18E and JSF would have to be expanded, which means that those projects would be delayed due to redesign and would result in more money being wasted. Our current air superiority fighter, the F-15, was designed in the late 60s early 70s. It's a great aircraft and has gone through severla revisions to upgrade its capabilities, but one can only do so much by upgrading electronics systems and powerplants. The new Russian Mig-29 and Su-27s have more advanced airframes than the F-15 and are being produced for other countries. Given the 'remote-control warfare' shown during the Gulf War and Kosovo, some people have the assumption the US weapons are automatically more advanced than whoever we go up against. That isn't going to be the case if new weapons systems developed and put into service. Would you really want a pilot in a 15-20 year old plane in a dogfight with one in a plane that was designed 5-7 years ago?
The cost of these planes (whether it's a F-22 or B-2) includes the total cost of research, development, new assembly lines, spare parts, base modifications, support equipment, training, etc. I remember reading in Federal Computer Weekly about 5 years ago about the actual production cost of the B-2. Each plane costs about $250M to produce, which was only about 10% more than the less capable B-1B. The $2B cost is more due to the $20B spent on research and development before any planes were even produced. The same is true for the F-22. The less one produces, the more they cost. It would be as if one contracted Ford or GM to build a totally new car, bought only 100 of them and then complained that they cost $3M each.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
They also believe in the privatization of security, ie. no military or police. If you want protection from crime, hire a bodyguard.
What happens when the criminals can afford to hire more and better equipped bodyguards (by virtue of the profits they make from crime)?
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
I would venture to say that just about every person on planet earth has wondered what it is like on the moon. Similarly the 'is/was there life on mars' question is also publicly interesting. Be it fantasy or not our culture has cultivated the idea of martians over decades and it's an interesting question that people would love to see answered.
/.'ers would have a hard time naming just one shuttle astronaut.
The problem is the average joe isn't interested in pictures from the Hubble, or ion drives, or anything else that does not lead to some form of real accomplishment. So what if an ion drive is more efficient and lasts longer, if it's not landing a man somewhere so we can hear the accounts in the language of a man, who cares? Unmanned missions dont generate heroes. Worse yet, since we've already landed men on the moon how can an average person get excited about something seemingly less bold like a space station.
I understand the benefits of space exploration, since I've been interested in it since I was old enough to read. But unlike the moon missions, NASA isn't doing anything bold, they're not defeating anyone, No heroes are born from their missions. John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, these men are STILL heroes. Other than the 7 who died in challanger, and Sally Ride, I would imagine even most
-Rich
Yes. Thank you. Finally, someone with the intestinal fortitude to speak the truth. The fact is, though I happen to agree with the traditional Libertarian viewpoint on a lot of issues, there are some things that only a government can do and that need to be done in order to ensure the long term life and liberty of the Nation and it's people. The exploration and colonization of space is one of them. One need only to look at history, at the Empires built by Spain, Portugal, France and England during the first Age Of Exploration, see the wealth and power they brought back to their respective homelands, to get a glimpse of the benefits that await the first nation with the guts to commit to an all-out long term effort to colonize the moon and Mars. For starters: Solar Power sats to beam inexhaustible energy back to the earth, eliminating the need once and for all for wasteful and dangerous nuclear and coal power plants; mining Luna and later the asteroid belt for their rich mineral resources instead of Terra; moving heavy industry off of earth and into orbit where it won't befoul the atmosphere with it's pollution. And this isn't even mentioning the long term good that will come from moving much of the population off-planet and into L-5's, though at an est. 6 billion people only massive, world-wide birth control in conjunction with the colonization effort can have a prayer of saving us now.
I am conviced, and have been for some time, that while one day humanity will move out to the stars, it won't be the United States that leads the way. We've pretty much gone down the road to late-stage Roman Empire at this point, though it is by no means too late to change. No, it will likely be China, once they fully industrialize and really get their space program rolling (they've already got most of our technology, after all ;-)), or perhaps a united Europe or even Japan. *Shrug.* Oh, well. We had our chance. The race goes to the swift and steadfast; history always forgets the complacent. _____________________________________
You have just brought up one of the most dangerous aspects of a true democracy. The majoriy is not always right.
If something like what you suggested was done, it would look great in theory, but knee-jerk reactions would play a large role in which boxes (if any) were checked.
Anybody that didn't especially care about space (and there are many) would avoid that box. Like-minded members of congress, seeing this, would draw attention to the disinterest and immediately propose more cuts.
In fact, I doubt if any box would get much checking - there are so many cries in this country of "cut the taxes down to nothing! a small government is a good governmnet! no government is even better!" which is truely a shame. This attitude is extremely short sighted and largely knee-jerk, but it is also the way most of america seems to think. Public works such as the space program are great examples of things that are very valuable, though most can't see how it helps them at all.
There are other government programs that many on slashdot probably don't care much about but have their own support, such as the endowment of the arts, for instance. Remember that many are very valuable and help the economy as well as boost our collective knowledge and boost pride in our country.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Maybe NASA should raise it's fees the military pays to get it's echelon satellites lofted into geosynchronous orbit to make up the difference.
(ignore the sig on this one. I'm too lazy to switch to my "serious" account)
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
I can remember back in the early '70's the government did a study which proved, in effect, that the moon program payed for itself. They actually spun off enough new technologies (computers to teflon) to open enough new markets, that they generated something like $6 GDP for every dollar invested *during the course of the program*. And, a lot of the technologies only hit the market after the moon program had ended. (And, a lot of them were picked up by others, like the Japanese using our multicoating for spacecraft windows to make antirefledction coatings for cameras 100x better than our lame brained optical shops did)
The result was that spinoffs of the space program generated enough tax revenues to almost offset the entire cost of the program, and if you include the other indirect benefits (new job for an engineer, he buys a house, etc.) the moon program literally paid for itself! Plus it put us technologically miles ahead of the rest of the world in countless areas.
In effect, this is abolishing basic types of research and the more esoteric types of applied research so the Republicans can have their tax cut (I live in a state--Colorado--where they have already savaged higher education for the same purpose--they even rigged the books so they could have a larger tax cut, but got found out by the press). This is just the same old more for me now, piss on the future crowd that has always been around. Hopefully, the Senate will be more intelligent and forward looking, but the way politics works they are probably setting up an outrageous "compromise" with only an 8% cut or some such.
years. The moon shot was way cool but NASA sold us the shuttle, which is the biggest and most expensive boondoggle foisted onto the American taxpayer since, well, since the B-2. NASA has utterly failed to deliver on any of its paper studies, and the result has been, for years and years, to shovel more money their way. Enough.
/.ers are not very good bureaucrats, this ought to be a lesson. Bureaucrats never cut the visible programs when they actually have to deal with the new budget.
NASA is a bureaucracy. As such it has the bureaucratic reaction that is typical: cut the MOST visible program so people will squeal. Since
NASA is out of control. It is only in the last coupla years that they have had any kind of innovation going on with creative robots and those are invariably found to have been the brainchildren of interesting grad students anyway. We should cut out the middleman, get rid of 75% of NASA and ask them to continue the important work of characterizing aerodynamics.
hm. if you think there has been no ecological damage from nuclear power technology in America, think again, long and hard.
Think about the unmitigated disasters the DOE perpetrated in Richland WA and Savannah GA. The hundreds of square miles of land that are going to be uninhabitable for millions of years because of improper disposal and treatment of wastes. Think about the Tritium in the groundwater in Burr Ridge IL where the first nuclear reactor from the University of Chicago was buried.
In reality, humans don't have a fucking clue what we're doing when it comes to nuclear energy.
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
Personally, I am dissappointed at the cuts, because, although NASA was a real bloat of an agency in the 70's and 80's, it shas trimmed down quite a lot with its $250 Million probe missions that bring back a lot of scienc for less money. Although some may still think that it's NASA's time to go private I don't think so. Firstly, there are SO many pork-barrel gov't project that are worth much less to the US citizen that could be trimmed, I mean c'mon, they couldn't find enough wasted money in the whole government that they had to pick on NASA?! Also, for those who say that space exploration should be all privatized, bullsh*t! Yeah, I'll trust MegaWorldCorp to spend every last penny on safety! Companies would skimp on safety and quality to save their bottom line for investors! I can hear it now,
Pilot:"Houston, we have a problem! Better eject...."
MegaWorldCorp Ground Control: "Sorry Commander, the escape unit had to be removed, ya know, we HAD to keep the project low cost for the stockholders..."
Many of NASA's project budgets have been bloated, but I'd trust flying with their safety systems over some greedy corporation's. Although I am a proponent of manned space travel(it WILL have to be done, we can't sit here, relying on robot probes for the next 1000 years...), I think NASA was on the right track with its Discovery missions and "Better, Cheaper, Faster" paradigm. Let's tell the Federal Government that we know they can find a LOT more places to get $$$ than NASA.
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@maila.wm.edu
If you look at the numbers that are online, the tax revenues during the 80s doubled. The problem was that Congressional spending just about tripled. Not all of this was due to military spending, which is a favorite target of the anti-tax cut crowd. According to data from the Concord Coalition (which is for balancing the budget), the increased tax receipts more than offset any increase in military spending. Remember, the Democrats were in control of Congress during this time, so domestic and entitlement spending was not cut, but actually increased. Programs such as REA and the Tennessee Valley Authority accomplished their goals long ago, but they still receive funding. Reagan's appointee to head the REA was in favor of dismantling the agency, but Congress said no. A great deal of the budget deficit in the late 80s and early 90s was due to the Savings and Loan bailout. While the headline grabbing part of this bailout focused on corruption, a lot of this was due to screwed up laws passed by Congress that pushed some S&Ls over the edge.
Like with individuals, Congress' debt problems have more to do with irresponsible spending that it does with income.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I don't see where the return on investment is
going to come from for private space launches
(at least beyond GEO). Commodity prices are
dropping faster than launch prices, we don't seem
to have much of an energy shortage any more, and
anybody who needs a lot of space in a bad
neighborhood can move to that big empty southern
continent. So what does space have to offer the
stockholders?
Before you go running off at the mouth, I suggest you do take a look at France as you suggest. Their semi-standardized nuclear power plant designs make their plants much cheaper than ours. Operating costs for nuclear power aren't overly expensive in either continent, more than fossil fuel plants but less than many renewable sources like geothermal and solar. The real problem is the cost of design, construction, and certification, which is primarily a problem in the US where every plant is a custom design. The waste disposal problem is easily solved if we have a strong President who can stand up to the "not in my back yard" lobbying of each states representatives.
The consequences of occasional non-catastrophic (i.e. not Chernoble) nuclear accidents pales in comparison to the polution created every day by fossil fuel plants. Three mile island is the worst accident we have had so far, and it resulted in essentially zero environmental damage.
Besides, even you will probably admit that as time goes on we will be forced to depend more and more on nuclear power as fossil fuel sources disappear and energy needs increase. Of course, R&D into other clean energy sources needs to be done as well, but keep in mind we haven't found any alternative source yet that can produce the level of power required to replace fossil fuel.
-- I remember it; might have been Niven, in a book called N-Space, but I could have been wrong... I like the idea too, but it will probably never happen.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
>A government that collects and uses its resource >to enhance and expand these rights is good.
governments cannot enhance and expand rights, they can at best protect them, or at worst violate them.
>There is no greater good then the life, liberty, >and pursuit of happiness of an individual
Agreed. Individual being the keyword.
>There are many just causes that a government >should undertake to preserve the life, liberty, >and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. One >among these, although not the most important, is >science and research.
What?!?!? The government's only job is the protection of individual rights. Anything beyond is this is a violation of rights. Funding science and research through taxation is a violation of rights. Taxation is a violation of property rights. It is the forceful acquisition of property, also known as theft.
So now tell me, how does theft promote life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the individual.
If you had spent time in the military, you would notice that most major weapon systems are a sight to behold. Big money buys impressive technology.
Unfortunately though, the JSF is a big lie. Ask anybody in the Air Force. The program office claims the JSF will have near F-22 combat capability, lower than F-16 unit cost, cheap carrier and STOVL versions, and nearly non-existent maintenance & support costs. It ain't going to happen. The day of reckoning will come when the program will have to give up most of its performance requirements to hold cost down.
You guys are all gonna realize how insignificant this is when the world ends next year.
Actually, I disagree. I think there could be great incentive to explore space now. There are in fact several private initiatives to do low-orbit transport, private satellite launches, etc. There are plenty of short-term benefits too, with new technology being developed. The point I want to make is that nationalizing space research does for the possible realm of space research what HUD does for afforable housing - segregates, officializes, detracts from.
Space is expensive, but the potential rewards are huge -- just not guaranteed. I don't want tax money going into it for the same reason I don't want the government to use the Las Vegas Casinos to 'invest' tax money: the wins are great, but the losses are catastropic and the appeal irresistable.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Fool.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
"Let people invest their money (rather than take it from them as taxes and 'invest' in wonderful gubmint programs to reach the moon, build pyramids, etc.) and see what transpires from free markets."
We (the human race) don't have time. When the #### hits the fan, the rich will hunker down in their bunkers and enjoy the extra six months they bought themselves, while the rest of us fry. We too had the opportunity to buy ourselves six extra months, but traded it for 'bread and circuses' instead.
We're literally in a box of our own making and one of the ways out was in space. The other is distasteful in that it requires being knocked back to the bronze age for a few centuries and the loss of 90% of the people alive today. But, really, it's all O.K. as long as we have Disney and Coca-Cola, we'll get by.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
while we're at it why not make the whole tax system voluntary and on our tax forms make check-boxes for everything and then we can really find out what's desired and what's not...
Pork is not a verb
You are probably right, but this bill does not cut
horribly unimpressive and superexpensive ISS or Shuttle programs which should be probably done other way. This bill cuts the only thing NASA does right --- space science. This 10% (and probably aeronautics part of NASA) is, IMNSHO, the only justification for NASA existance.
Alexey Goldin --- do not have password handy.
Someone leave an email address where we can make or voice(s) heard, slashdot them.
As soon as you can convince our government to become more isolationist, and as soon as you can convince the other nations of the world to stop looking to the US for political & military leadership, then you can cut the military budget. Right now, too many nations look to the US to be the parent and policeman for the world. We need to extricate ourselves from that role and encourage regional solutions to regional problems. But it won't happen overnight. If we abandon our military now without having the rest of the world committed to providing their own security, it will leave a leadership/power vacuum that encourages every meglomaniac with an army or militia to start killing his neighbors again.
WRITE YOUR CONGRESS PERSON!! GO HERE www.cfw.com/~bradr/nasacuts
Lets not forget one small benefit that came directly from NASA and the space program: the integrated circuit. Because of this, the machine/toy/PC/workstation you are using now exists. Without it, the PC would not exist, along with the internet, WWW, and many other neat things. They created the IC, by the way, because discrete component circuits were too heavy and bulky to be lifted into space.
Research never looks good when you look at the bottom line. But almost all major breakthroughs come from research into something else. Look up "serendipity" in the dictionary.
Aongus
Actually, it's going to be a lot more than a 50% performance increase over an F-15. When you measure performance in terms of mission effectiveness it's more like 2-4 times better than an F-15 depending on what metric is used. In fact, F-22 requirements call for a comparison test where it must prove itself to be twice as effective as the F-15. It is also more like twice the cost though. There have been numerous F-15 derivative studies considered as alternatives to the F-22. I think the most recent study predicted a new F-15 derivative would cost around $70M each (compared to around $120M for an F-22).
BTW, the GAO report you mention is widely regarded as FUD. The methodology they used to assess the likelyhood of achieving supercruise was based on some memoirs they read (and took out of context) in a book by a former Lockheed Skunk Works executive. Their assessment wasn't based on any sort of scientific analysis. In fact, the F-22 already demonstrated supercruise during early flight testing last fall.
I've had a bit of experience dealing with the GAO, and you can only believe them about 1/2 of the time. Many of their reports are well researched. Unfortunately, on many other occasions they are commissioned to do a report for some Congressman who has an agenda and a lot of people who work for the GAO are primarily concerned with telling the Congressman what he wants to hear. When that happens, the GAO people you end up dealing with aren't interested in facts or objectivity. They are just looking for ammunition for their report and will distort any information you give to them in order to support their predetermined conclusion.
The "false" surplus comes from the fact that there is more revenue coming in from FICA taxes than being spent on SS benefits. That surplus is supposed to be going into the SS trust fund. If you take FICA revenue out of the picture, the federal government actually has a budget deficit. The fact is that the government has been, and continues to be, borrowing against the SS trust fund - so our national debt is still going up.
Thanks corporal.
Sounds like another military type (rightly) worried that sooner or later the government is going to stop feeding the little piggies and they're going to have to get real jobs.
Sukhoi has produced single prototypes of the planes you mention.
They have no plans or capabilities of producing them in volume - this according to their own statements. Try read Jane's now and then.
Also, if the US doesn't have the money to fund so-called "super fighters", what gives you any sense that Sweden or Japan are going to produce one? By the way, name the last competitive Japanese tactical fighter. Israel can barely support their own military let alone develop a multi-billion dollar plane.
More fear-mongering and spooking from the military types who are afraid of the job market.
what was i thinking, you're right. Environmental programs don't help society. Ditch 'em. Let's spend the money shooting some old geezer ex-astronaut into space. That helps society as a whole, even though said society doesn't live in space. We live on earth, but a clean environment is not sexy and high tech. Let's cut off veterans' programs. Old war vets don't help society. Let's shoot up some telecom satellites because more live coverage of the next celebrity death is the only thing worth funding. Let's whack funding for community development. That sure doesn't advance society. Communities are a thing of the past, what with space aged communications and all. I say, do away with mental health programs. Helping mentally ill people can't benefit society as a whole. Maybe we can shoot them and the elderly who rely on Medicare to Mars because spending money on them surely can't benefit society as a whole. Maybe we can do what the National Institutes of Health does, and use federal tax receipts to invent new life-saving procedures and techniques and then give them to the private sector to subsidize their R&D and maximize their profits on the federal dime. That way, we can socialize the risk and privatize the profits. Oh wait, NASA already does that.
We are in debt. We pay huge amounts of interest on that debt. Why the hell arn't our congress critters looking at paying off our debt rather than lowering taxes? If we pay off the debt we'll have a lot more money for other things AND be able to lower taxes.
It's like someone who is finally able to start keeping up with the interest payments on their credit cards saying that they'll only pay the minimum balance and hence remain in debt for the rest of their lives.
I think our congress critters flunked high school economics.
Yeah, taxes may be high, but the economy is strong. Let's face it, the tax cuts help the rich much more than the poor since the poor don't pay taxes.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I know that NASA has been using Linux a lot, but couldn't they save a good bit of this cut by more completely booting out M$, NT and closed-source Unices? Software costs have got to be a huge part of their budget....
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
By reducing NASA's budget perhaps they will find more economical ways to send things into space. Sojourner was a fairly cheap project that worked out quite well. With less money maybe they'll start working more efficiently and reduce the cost per pound of cargo from $10,000 to something a little more reasonable.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the NASA budget is a drop in the ocean compared to entitlement and other transfer payments. So sure, NASA (or it's function) should be privatized (and the regulatory burdens that help prevent investment removed), but do it after the economy has been freed from the crushing burden of the transfer payments. First things first.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
Government spending in and of itself is not evil or bad from a libertarian point of view. The problem comes in the way the government gets its money; and the way it uses that money to interfere with each individual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A government that collects and uses its resource to enhance and expand these rights is good. The problem is that our government (or anyone in existence) does neither for the most part.
Libertarians tend to appear as anti-government because government has the worst track record of taking away peoples freedoms in the name of a greater good. There is no greater good then the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of an individual. Societies create governments to secure these rights and soon after these same governments take them away. When governments take away "too" many rights they fall and new governments are established. People can take an awful lot of abuse.
There are many just causes that a government should undertake to preserve the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. One among these, although not the most important, is science and research. The question is at what level of government should these activities be performed. The national government should not exist to serve its own existence. It should expect states and private entities do whatever they can be reasonably (that's a dangerous word) expected to do. Most people would agree that landing a man on the moon or going to Mars must be done at a national (or even global) scale. The national government is the only entity with the ability to carry out such missions. However, in this day and age putting satellites in orbit and the like should be a private activity, and for the most part it is.
My biggest problem with most Libertarians is that they forget about life and the pursuit of happiness and focus only on liberty. Although, of the political parties out there I think they are the closest. At least they are a third of the way there and will only error on the side of liberty, which isn't so bad.
I don't remember who, where or when, but I liked it very much. It started with the very same checkbox idea.
A home computer system would allow/force everyone to vote on how they wanted to allocate their taxes. There was even a write in option. I won't spoil the ending. It was very clever.
Anyone else remember it?
If you had my real name, you'd use an alias too.
Actually manned missions help me. I have orthostatic intolerance along with a few million other people. Astronauts and cosmonauts also get it when they return from missions. Anything they learn to help astronauts and cosmonauts also helps me.
You know, I hate to say it, but aside from moral impact, putting a man on the moon didn't _do_ anything for us. We just all felt good that there was a man on the moon for a few minutes. And it cost one hell of a lot of money to get him there. I think if NASA got a budget cut, they might start to think about what projects were useful, which ones weren't and how to do things in a cost-effective fashion. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the space program, but I do have a problem with the space program wasting taxpayer's dollars that could show a lot more results if put into, say, education.
The poster was right about one thing, neither Democrats nor Republicans in Congress have been particularly supportive of NASA.
Your point ???
And these are the ones that should be cancelled. The Space Shuttle function should be left to private industry (plain old rockets do a perfectly good job of deploying satellites without having to take riders along) and the International Space Station is pure pork and politics, with no discernible science mission.
You wouldn't like it. It's got fungus ;)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, my local respresentitve (Jim Walsh) just happens to be the chairman of the VA-HUD subcommittee and senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, which encompases the NASA budget as well as 20-30 other programs and agencies (Veterans Medicare and pensions and Housing and Urban Development the biggies, obviously).
I've recieved some word back from his legislative aide and have got some names of who we should write to to get maximum effect:
1) Speaker Dennis Hastert of the 14th district in IL. http://www.house.gov/hastert/
2) Majority Leader Dick Armey of the 26th district in TX. http://armey.house.gov/
3) Appropriation Majority Whip Tom Delay of the 22nd district in TX. http://majoritywhip.house.gov/
These people are the ones who have control of when the appropriations bill goes to the floor, as well as what cuts make it to the bill.
Jim Wlash (25th district of New York, central new york area) would be good (http://www.house.gov/walsh/). And of course you're local representative.
I suspect you haven't read certain works by H.P. Lovecraft....
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
the USgov shouldn't subsidize barney,
but something as abstract as "principles"
won't cut it nowadays.
The sound cut "cut barney, fund NASA"
probably won't work, but it's the only approach
to use with politicians.
Okay. Let's think about this. Put aside for a moment the fact that no business in their right profit-seeking mind would spend the kind of money on basic research that NASA does, because most of NASA's payoffs are long-term or non-monetary. Forget for now that many of NASA's programs, such as the educational and highly-beneficial Quest project would have no place in a profit-oriented enterprise. Ignore the fact that no business would be able to raise enough money for certain exploration missions even if they wanted to...
Even then, what possible use does it serve to cripple NASA's space programs? The money saved by the budget cuts doesn't go to private space exploration! There is no logical reason to gut NASA in the name of building a Hilton on the moon. Even if some company wants to launch an orbital golf course, complete with casino and luxury hotel, there is nothing about NASA's existence or funding that prevents that! Think, people!
And another thing. Some posters above have complained that the linked articles merely whine about all the space exploration programs that will be killed off. They say that most of NASA's plans should still be feasible with only a 10% budget cut, and that NASA is simply trying to exaggerate the situation to stir up public sympathy.
To that, all I've got to say is: work on your reading comprehension. The article specifically mentions that the budget cuts are targetted at specific programs. The shuttle missions shouldn't be effected much, but the Mars exploration program is essentially dead.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's unquestionably obscene, for all the reasons others have already mentioned in greater detail: Just plain exploring our universe and learning, for all your idealists. Technological spinoffs that directly benefit our quality of life, for all you pragmatists. Who in their right mind would want to cut the funding for an organization that contributes directly to both of these goals?
These opinions are my own.
Dan
Don't kill the F-22 program now. It's better to carry it through now that we've spent so much time and money on it. My whole point was that you can't rely on the false promises of the JSF. The "we don't need the F-22 since the JSF is coming up and will be so much cheaper" theory holds no water. If you want the US to have a tactical aircraft that isn't inferior to offerings from Europe and Russia (and their 3rd world buyers) in 2010, you had better fund the F-22 program. Otherwise, you might as well give up on the F-22 and JSF and get out of the world policeman business.
A very good friend of mine works for a NASA subcontractor. You remember stories from the military of $30 bolts, etc? Well, the same holds true for NASA. Space exploration, per se, isn't a bad idea, but the agency just spends TOO MUCH MOENY and gets TOO FEW RESULTS. See how cost effective our shuttle program is? It's not at all!
It was supposed to allow dozens of flights per year at a reasonable cost per each. Now, it's ony a few/year at a cost that could probably build a single launch vehicle each time.
Maybe it's time to kill NASA and either create a new agency or fund developments in the private sector for government use.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I remember the space program as inspirational and brough at many times brought this nation together and helped us appreciate the pretty skies at night in a special way. Now it may be other countries that will take the lead. The countries that fund this research will motivate their people in ways nothing else can. Its all about reaching for the heavens and advancing the sciences. Its to go where no man and woman has gone before.
The netherlands, norway. I hear in those contrys you can just walk around naked and stuff.
there are a lot of contrys that are a lot "freer" and much more contrys where the government is a lot better........
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Two weeks ago: "Hey, we've got a budget surplus! What will we spend it on?"
Last week: "Thirty years ago, in his greatest moment, man set foot on the moon"
This week: "Hey, let's take some money away from the guys who put a man on the moon."
Muh?!
-F
Why the comparison with environmental issues ("trashing the biosphere")? Hasn't NASA done more for earth research than nearly any other organization? We wouldn't know nearly as much about the earth's environment if not for earth observation satellites (rainforest depletion for example)? Not to mention the remote observation stations on earth that use commsats to transmit their data.
You propose waiting until we have a perfect condition here on earth before doing any space research or exploration. That isn't going to happen. We need to develop new technologies to sustain our over-populated world. Otherwise, it will be too late to do the research later.
Spending money to bring agrarian societies "up to our level" of conspicuous consumption only accelerates the problem, and is somewhat egotistical to boot.
The money we spend on NASA is fair for return, and has been cut plenty (in adjusted dollars) over the years from its heyday. I don't think our current economic situation justifies a severe cutback this year.
At least if it's going to be done (a bad idea), give NASA a lump sum, and let them spend it as they wish. Don't let the government tell them what programs they must keep and what they must cut.
Its truely disturbing, the the country the rest of the world relies on, and watches/learns from, is cutting back on it's space budget. As the only country in the world to have a space program worth it's salt (with rockets that don't explode on liftoff, generally speaking), the international community should start looking at possibly funding NASA, or starting up their own space agency. The world relies on NASA (and the US) to be their 'space embassaders' (god, I wish I could spell), but they are cutting their budget during a critical time in the Mars project.
I think it is incredably short sighted of the US Congresspeople (or however your system works) to cut funding to what could be considered one of mankinds greatest projects.
Todd - The pissed off Canadian.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
Most millitary spending is wasteful and harmful. Having a standing army at all is something that I accept, but reluctantly.
But I wouldn't suggest scraping money from the space program frying pan into the military fire, no sirree. This country's military is too ripe for exploitation already (note use of military forces as domestic police forces already
But when it comes to the space program, what would be "enough funding"? If I supported the space program as an essentially perfect investment -- that is, I always got greater benefit from money put into it than I could in any other way -- I can't think of a truly adequate funding level, because until I start cutting into my freezer full of turkeys, it's all going to come back threefold, right? In a world of infinite money and time, it wouldn't matter -- just do / fund everything you want, whenever you want. In a world of tradeoffs and limited resources (the real world), the surest way to negate individual freedom is to subordinate it to the will of an organized elite for the attainment of artificial, arbitrary 'goals,' 'guidelines' or 'milestones' which represent avarice rather than worth.
Again, I think space / Space is neat
Let people invest their money (rather than take it from them as taxes and 'invest' in wonderful gubmint programs to reach the moon, build pyramids, etc.) and see what transpires from free markets.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Russia currently produces the Su-27 and MiG-29 in volume - they are roughly equivalent to current US fighters (F-15, F-16). Russia, in particular the Sukhoi design bureau, has aircraft in late stages of development like the Su-35 and S-37 that are superior to current US aircraft. You can be assured that they will be produced in volume. The tactical aircraft and integrated air defense industries in Russia are alive and well due to a booming export business. They even get real funding from the Russian government (unlike the rest of the Russian defense industries) because they bring in so much revenue from foreign sales. With other modern offerings such as the EF2000 and Grippen from Europe and others from Japan and Isreal, the export market is going to be filled with aircraft that are superior to what the US currently has. And every third world country like Iraq, Iran, and Libya will have access to them. China and India are huge potential markets as well. If you think China doesn't have the money to build a strong military you are wrong. What they currently lack is a reason.
Try learning something about the nature of the world arms market before babbling on about the military-industrial complex conspiracy theory.
Considering all of the advances made in engineering and science due to the work done at NASA one would think that Congress would view the money as an investment. Instead Congress has decided to take the short term view once again, this is espeacially troubling considering the budget surplus.
While I personelly am a big supporter of NASA, I just hope that Congress will use the money for something more lasting than a breif tax cut.
I keep hearing this from my gun toting, pick-up truck driving, tax cuts for the rich while we shut down basic government services like primary education (you don't want a school voucher so you can send your kid to a nice, righteous, religious school where they don't teach that unGodly "evolution?" NO! I want a properly funded public school system!) basic health care for our citizens, and low cost housing for the disabled and elderly. Just what the hell am I paying taxes for anyway?
Oh yeah, to pay interest on a debt built up by Republicans during the eighties while they "cut" taxes for the rich so that wealth may "trickle down" to us street rabble; all in the name of creating a "fair" tax system. Right.
So now they're about to eviscerate yet another government agency ("Since when has the government ever done anything right?" Oh yeah? When was the last time you saw a private corporation dig a Panama Canal, design and build a Nuclear bomb, or put a man on the moon? What a bunch of neo-corporate elitist CRAP! ) which has on the whole generated more economic benefit for private corporations across the US than any other government agency (publicly funded University research not withstanding); fruits grown from basic research no private corporation could possibly afford given their per-quarter bottom line, short term or bust, thinking (restrictiveness).
So, the point of all this? My right wing tax cutting, pick-up truck with a rack of shotguns and a 30 ought six in the back, dodging bullets and taxes in one stroke, friends -- they often offer as a response to my distaste for how government has been bought off by private corporate interests, thus forcing middle of the road political norms over to what would have been called "right wing extremism" when I was a child -- they say "You don't like America, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! MOVE!"
Now I think they're right. As citizens we don't stand a chance compared to GE, AT&T, IT&T, Microsoft, or any other huge conglomerates worth more than most third world countries combined. We've lost our country -- it's time to move on. If enough skilled and technically savvy workers just up and emigrated our of the US to other spots, where rent is cheap, taxes at least go somewhere useful (instead of paying interest on the debt and the military budget), and used the net to our advantage -- working anywhere we damn well pleased, the United States might see a noticeable drop in their tax base. And when the congressmen and senators ask, "where did that money go to?" we can answer: "elsewhere"
I'm pretty fed up with my government at this point... I don't think my views will ever be represented in the Legislative or Executive branches, and the Judicial branch is a complete joke given how badly stacked it was in the eighties by Reagan/Bush. If we keep cutting education such that kids can't even learn basic reading and arithmetic skills, while at the same time cutting basic research needed for long term growth, this country's will go down the tubes. If you can't stop it, think ahead and FLEE!
In constant year dollars, the defense budget peaked in 1985 and has been declining ever since. In fact, it is now 1/3 the size it was at its peak. Reagan raised, and then cut the defense budget, Bush cut the defense budget, and Clinton cut the defense budget. In terms of its percentage of the total budget, it is now less than 1/4 of its size at its peak. You can't blame the deficit on military spending, at least not since 1985.
for 25 years the internet was "useless." it was only the domain of academics and researchers providing little of any value.
now i can research multiple sclerosis in minutes if i learn a friend has just been diagnosed with it. or keep in contact with friends from when i was 6. or parents can watch their kids at daycare, and extended families can see pictures of the newest members of their family. people can telecommute reducing traffic congestion and pollution. we can search for aliens and crack keys. we can collaborate and creat art, literature and operating systems.
all that from a 25 year program that for most of it's history has been a useless gov't funded program useful to only researchers and academics.
as we bask in an internet boosted economy, i wonder just what it would be like if we seriously invest in space exploration for the next 25 years. if instead of constantly checking the bottom line we just tried to explore, learn, research and build.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The US government just doesnt get it: what's going to keep this world intact and free of another major war (i.e. world war III) is not arming all of the countries, but rather more science, more knowledge, and more information. The Internet is just starting to get information to everyone, and then this happens. How long is it going to take the US government to completely cut the budget of NASA?
Rajiv Varma
http://nationaldebt.com/federal_debt.html
It appears as if the article from SpaceViews was a little slanted . Of course NASA is going to wine if their budget gets cut, I'd wine if mine got cut. In reality do you really think all the programs will be cut that they say will be cut? Origianally anyone flipps and says, "We lost 10% of our budget and now we can't do 90% of what we were going to do". When in reality they actually will probably do some of their own budgeting and end up doing 90% of the projects they claim will be absolutely cut.
...
The next point is, do we really need all this stuff. Yeah, it's really cool and all... To boldly go to pluto, where no man has gone before. Ok, that's great, but if I (as a US taxpayer) am paying for it, I want to know why. It's a great achievement, but what's it for. I think we need to at least consider the validity of some of these projects before we get all flustered that they're getting cut... and maybe they do have some grand purpose, in which case they're worth supporting to some point. What that point is?
Ok, last point. This one really kinda made me chuckle. The article from SpaceViews claims that we got so much surplus that we don't even know what to do with it! hello!? Can anyone say Multi-Trillion dollar debt? Could some one do a bar chart between "dozens of billions of dollars" and our multi-trillion dollar debt? I can at least assure you it would be a very un-interesting chart. I think it's great that the government is finally being respoinsible and starting to resolve this huge debt. Now the question...
What is NASA doing that is beneficial and why is it work 13.? billion instead of 12.? billion. I'm interested on views and info on what NASA is doing and potential benefits. I realize there have been many in the past, but what are the current benefits?
geisel
The Hilton space hotel proposal is unworkable with the current state NASA is in. They want to take space shuttle external tanks (which currently burn up on reentry right after launch) and give them an extra boost to orbit and then assemble the tanks into a space station. Problem is, shuttle tanks are not designed to, and will not, last in space for an extended period of time. People have been pointing out how NASA is resisting change, and this proposal will require NASA to radically change the way the tanks are built. The new tanks will most likely cost more and be heavier, which will mean the Shuttle will have its payload capacity reduced. Besides, the folks who originally proposed this idea had a statement up on their website for a while that said something to the effect of "We really don't know what we're talking about."
What we really should be doing is funding the innovative, low-cost launch vehicles being proposed by companies like , Bristol Spaceplanes, and Pioneer Rocketplane, among others. Many of these companies have workable designs if not actual prototypes and their designs are superior to existing launch vehicles. Bristol's "Spacebus" design launches an orbiter from a high-altitude supersonic aircraft, carrying 5 tons payload to space for $125,000. Sure beats a Shuttle per-mission cost of $500 million!
What a great freakin' idea!
I'd rather all our taxes were like this. How many of us REALLY are gonna get any of that welfare money? Or social security? I believe we should have a choice in where our money goes, since we don't have a choice about giving it up.
Hell, I'd probably pay all my taxes to NASA, except that I like having drivable roads and military protection and all that...
-------------------------------------
The projects being cut are not huge. The really big PR ones: space shuttle and International Space Station have been pretty much left alone. What I find disturbing about cuts is that these programs are the ones doing the new and interesting research, development, and exploration. Given how much NASA funded research and development has been used to spin-off other products commonly in use today, I am disgusted that we cutting what is basically an investment in our future while still funding programs that let people sit on their butts and do nothing.
I have certainly written my Congress critters about it. Whether or not they pay any attention to it is another matter...
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
imagine how tiny the cumulative slices for, say "higher salaries for congress" would be ;-).
Let's think about this for a little while. You probably get a yearly pay raise, for cost of living increases if nothing else. Congress hasn't had a pay raise since the sixties or seventies. It sounds bad when the other guy starts campaigning by saying "Senator Smith voted to increase his own pay!" but how would you like going 20-30 years with no pay raise??
Okay, I'll accept your premise. A military is necessary, else we'd all be Russkies or Canadians or whatever. But have you looked at our budget numbers? We spend around 280 billion US dollars a year on our military. Our military is larger than all of Europe's militaries combined.
Right, you say. We need that because we're about as big as Europe. Well, so what. We're surrounded by allies. Canada to the north, Mexico to the south--I think we could get by with half as big a military. We wouldn't have the biggest cock anymore (and that's what is really at stake; we American's have a psychology to protect).
Justin justo@linuxstart.com
Possibly one of the coolest things to come out of NASA in years!
-------------------------------------
Our current surplus is due more to the recent capital gains tax cuts than the big tax increase on the rich in 1993. I know a lot of people who increased their activity in buying/selling stuff that would be taxed as a capital gain after that. They are paying more in, but it's at a lower rate, so that's acceptable. In fact, what I've read was the 1993 increase didn't net that much more because the people affected by these increases could just find away to reclassify such income as capital gains or something else. I knew a guy who owned his own computer contracting business (consisting of just himself) which was structured so that all of his income was classified as capital gains, which was taxed at a rate much lower than it would be if it was classified as regular income. An additional bonus was that he didn't pay FICA either.
So you're saying the we _should_ cut taxes for the rich because they'll find a way to dodge them anyhow? Wow I wish I was that cool and slick.
Do we want to be a planet that is always focused on its social problems? Or one that is exploring...growing....expanding it's technological horizons. It is the age old argument, one side says: " We need to help ourselves first before we spend all that money on exploration ". My side says: Bottom line, there will always be another social program to create, there will always be the poor, there will always be the sick. This does not mean we stop the advancement of man kind. You can not make the weak stronger, by weakening the strong. Do not get me wrong, we need programs to help ourselves, there must be a balance to it.
Maybe he's right. Imagine arguments for the Pyramid Program in Egypt:
"Here, quick, you! Build the pyramids I've outlined on this blueprint, eh? This will really pull society together -- at least that lot of you who have to pay for it. We plan to make a lot of technical innovations and discoveries along the way though, so surely you won't mind being called upon to make a contribution. We'll elevate this Kingdom above the others in prestige and teamwork, right? Now if only we could get a bigger budget
People are not sheep. They are not to be *led* but rather to discover where their own journeys take them, and to join others in peaceful, voluntary enterprize.
I don't mind people exploring space - I think it's admirable, interesting, and inevitable. But I am opposed to tax money (which is exacted, and should *only* be used to fund those things which seem impossible to otherwise obtain) to send people to the moon or explorer ships into space, unless there is some reasonable benefit of reward. And if that were the case, it should be a risk undertaken by businesses organized by citizens of their own free will, not a psuedo-business enterprise imposed upon everyone because a controlling elite class decrees it.
Thanks, but that's fascism. They sure did make some purty buildings (if you're into severity and columns), but other than that, the compound belief that a) 'society' can have identifiable concrete goals even if individuals might find no sympathy for the goals by themselves and b) the government should be able to divert private property at its whim to achieve these goals is what characterizes tyranny of all kinds.
Maybe in the absence of a multi-billion dollar agency, private space research would explode -- it's actually doing fairly well right now, and could be ready for a leap.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
And $260 million would probably be enough to cover the mandated pay raises for the tenured NASA employees.
$17 BILLION per year for a failed war on drugs. The only effect has been to put minorities in prison and let kingpins get rich from prohibition while our constitutional rights are trampled.
How about funneling some of those billions where it will do some good: NASA.
At the same time the United Nations should set up an independent space exploration organization which would get its funding from all of the world's nations.
As long as each country pays an equal amount (unlike the international space station.)
bjg
European Space Agency.
I'm sick of the billions and billions of dollars being spent on the space program. If the technology being gained out there is so great... let private industry pay for it. I'm sick of my hard earned money being spent. Privatize the thing or let it go bust.
or you could be an idiot...the budget must also be signed by the President, who, last I checked was a Democrat(although not a democrat).
This is John Galt speaking...I just forgot my password
The only thing I can't seem to figure out is why a majority of NASA's exploration programs are going to be cut because of a slight 10% decrease. It makes sense that out of 10 programs, only one (of average cost) should suffer.
Just let the Russians do something in space the americans can't, then it'll be back to the competition, and everyone will love NASA again. Course, Russia's in a bit of a state right now, so it probably won't be happenening. I wonder if there's a launchpad in Wales....
~ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ~
Do you remember the 'strike' against Kosovo?
;((
That costed a lot of money for the US (and other countries), but no one protested. And at the end of the war, the military asked for more money, and I think that they'll get it...
What about NASA? Is the solution crashing an asteroid somewhere in USA? Or waiting for one, to crash...
Short-sightedness sucks
(And we didn't even speak of the rainforests.)
I don't even dare pose the question that says: Where would be we if all military funding was redirected to science research....
Oh I know... Then probably we wouldn't have an A-bomb, and our power plants would operate by using nuclear fission.
In case anyone is interested in why there are so many knee-jerk reactionists around and why they are able to influence others to come around to their thinking, it's easy... ignorance.
I don't mean that they are uneducated necessarily. What I mean is that nobody understands what our government does anymore. Nobody gets the whole story, not even Congress or the President. Between closed-door sessions, backroom deals, and secret projects and agencies, we don't have any idea where all the money goes. Where does one go to get a complete and throrough breakdown of what money went where and for what purpose? Something like this:
Amount____________Agency_____________Purpose
$50,000,000................Secret Agency A...........Head-mounted lasers for sharks
$100,000,000..............White House.................Cat Food
$500............................Dept. Of Trans..............Pot Hole Repair
You get the picture. I wouldn't trust congress to balance my checkbook (I'd prolly end up with a debt nearly that of the National one), let alone the national budget. Until we have a very large measure of disclosure (and a way to verify the information), we won't be able to understand where our money goes or why.
I may be off-base about this, but it's the way I see it. I haven't ever seen any kind of real breakdown of where our taxes go. Only those that are done in the broadest terms. If anyone can point me to something more helpful, I'd be both amazed and grateful.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
A 10% budget cut should not cause the loss of every space science program, period. If this is NASA's claim, then one of two things are true.
Congress should ignore NASA's threats. If they go through with it, NASA will end up shooting itself in the head and maybe will be replaced by a space agency with a clue.
Maybe it's time for NASA to consider the option of going private.
Considering the lack of goverment involvement in the Space Agency, NASA should explore all the possibilities it has to keep it's budget from the control of uninterested politicians.
Right now NASA is probably the biggest player in space exploration, but other agencies, like the European Space Agency, are getting really close to NASA. The lack of endorsment from the congress will weaken even more this position.
What NASA could do is to negociate with the goverment a path to privacy. The goverment could still subvention the space agency, with less and less money over the years, and the space agency could gain money from investisor and from other countries who want to become player in space exploration. There is already different kind of deal for sharing ressources with other space agencies, so it will not be that different.
This could shift the focus to programs that cost less and have a better return value on the investement (less human in space, more robots in space). And this could be a good thing (I don't think it requires human intervention to put a payload into orbit). The developement of more cost effective space transportation system will also be required (they are already under developement).
This would not be an easy path, but it is a good one. Look at the Seti project. It has gone from a public budget to 0$ to a private generated budget and it's alive and kicking! (I know that the NASA budget is a lot bigger than the Seti budget, but this example shows how the private sector is interested in space related science).
SeeU!
Contact your Senators and Representatives.
I have included my own letters below if you are interested in using them.
For Congresscritters:
Dear Representative,
I just heard the news that the House Appropriation Committee voted to severely curtail NASA's FY 2000 budget. I would like to register my strongest objections to any such cut in NASA's budget.
For Senators:
Dear Senator,
I just heard the news that the House Appropriation Committee voted to severely curtail NASA's FY 2000 budget. Given that the Senate committee will soon vote on a similar issue, I would like to register my strongest objections to any such cut in NASA's budget.
(rest of the letter)
Space research contributes practical, life-saving discoveries and useful commercial applications far out of proportion to investment. NASA is not just a simple "pie-in-the-sky" organization with esoteric, useless goals, and any cuts to NASA funding will drastically affect our future returns.
Budget cuts on the order of those approved by the House will dramatically effect NASA's research in earth and space sciences, studies which are directed towards better understanding of the Earth itself. We can ill afford such short-sighted thinking. I find special irony in the juxtaposition of the House Committee's vote with the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing.
As a [insert your state here] citizen, I implore you to support our nation's space program. Much of our modern world would be unrecognizable without the breakthroughs engendered by NASA's research, many of which have had a direct impact on the economy of our great state.
Sincerest regards,
Regards,
Regards,
-scott
I'm a former NASAite, so I've sort of seen it from the inside. My take is that NASA isn't necessarily the best vehicle for Space Exploration anymore, and perhaps, never was.
Don't get me wrong. What NASA did in the 60s with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was magnificant. And the shuttle ain't a bad feat either, considering the effects of politics on the whole thing.
But that's the whole problem. NASA has always been a political creature, and did it's cold-war job of brute-forcing our way to the Moon very well. It's the wrong organization for today, I think.
I suspect that the very presence of NASA hampered other groups from trying alternatives to get into space reliably and cheaply. At least, that seems to be happening now. The need to get to space exists (more than ever!) and the means exists. The systems, organizations and "institutional knowledge" does not, because NASA has pretty much kept it locked up.
The g'ment did a great job bootstrapping space exploration. It's time for private enterprise to carry this burden farther, and although NASA may have some appropriate role in advancing to our goals, our tax money may be better spent elsewhere.
J
Lovely. So when is our education system going to prepare the population so that they can be competent enough to explore the universe?
I say Open Free (speech) education/information NOW!
Why reinvent humans and make Borg when the population can't even do the math required in grocery stores? Scientific masturbation.
Anywho I escaped the education system.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Hey, I live in DC so I can't write a Congressperson, even though I'm only 4 blocks from the capitol. I gots yer taxation w/o representation right here, but seriously . . .
I think they should cut NASA's budget. The appropriations bill in which it's funded is facing a huge cut in its allocation this year from fy 1999 funding levels, down 12.9 percent in the House 302(b) allocation. That bill also funds labor, Veterans, housing and community development programs as well as the EPA and other independent agencies. These programs shouldn't carry the load of the cuts so NASA can keep showboating. I mean, NASA has it down with gimmicky space shots (first female commander, big deal, first teacher in space, oops, that one didn't work) timed to launch during the appropriations process. And wasteful space shots as well; we don't need to send a manned mission to launch a satellite. That's a waste of resources. Plus, like any good defense contractor, they've spread their facilities and suppliers across the country so darn near every congresstool can vote for saving jobs in her/his community.
One of the reasons we have a budget surplus is discretionary spending was placed under spending limits in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and those caps get tight this year. In a show of political impotence last year, Congress crumbled under the weight of having to enforce the caps and lost in a last minute spending frenzy label "emergency spending." It will happen again this year and the needed rethinking of NASA's mission will be postponed yet another year. Face it, when it comes down to big roads, shinny guns and tanks, and super dooper spaceships, we have essentially 535 little boys on Capitol Hill who will bend over backwards to buy the latest prettiest toy while needed programs in other parts of the federal government go wanting, but don't get me started on that . . . . .
They'll prolly just hit someone's embassy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Elections are coming up and the Republicans are doing their usual "Lets cut taxes" campaign. So in order to justify this, they have to cut something. So they've decided to cut out the F-22 program and cut back on NASA spending. Aren't these the same people who criticized Clinton for slashing the military?
They weren't public property elsewhere. We had to pay for them. He just saved a lot of people a lot of money. Now those people don't have to pay for a proprietary OS to do what they want to do.
Additionally, many many other things have come out of the space program. As someone else pointed out, the mission to the moon paid for itself when you consider how many new technologies were made available to the private sector, which in turn used them to generate the revenue that fueled the economy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Already they're having safety problems. Would the last shuttle have developed the same fuel leak that caused the Challenger explosion if they had enough money? In 1991 they put a lot of money into preventing fuel leaks but now it seems they're back to where they were in 1986. These budjet cuts would just mean people getting killed.
I didn't mean that "all" of everyone's taxes be paid in a self parcelled out manner. Wha6t i meant is that a small percentage of one's taxes (at most maybe 6-7% maybe more for small incomes) be parcelled out this waý.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
The prospect of NASA funding cuts threatens the existence of the proposed mission to explore Pluto. What must be remembered is that Pluto is relatively close to the sun right now - it reached perihelion in 1989 and between 1979 and February 1999 was closer to the sun than Neptune. Pluto will not be as close to the sun again as it is now until about the year 2225. If distance from the sun is a major factor in the cost of space missions, then Pluto must be explored now. Over the next century, Pluto's distance from the sun will increase by an amount almost as great as Uranus' distance from the sun - a great distance indeed. How much more will it cost to send a probe to Pluto when it's at aphelion?
NASA lost a chance to explore Pluto in the late 1970's when it decided to send Voyager 1 out of the ecliptic plane after encountering Saturn instead of sending it on to Pluto. Now NASA has another chance to explore Pluto. Let's hope that this chance is not also lost by the cancellation of the Pluto mission.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
I've noticed some comments that the government is using the money against the national debt.. let me tell you, that kind of money is going to make no difference in the huge almost bottomless well that is our national debt. Of course, the world owes US so much money that nobody really cares either way..
And of course, what good is a debt-free nation going to do on a burned out used up asteroid that will be Earth if we don't do something about it, or get the hell off it.
I am thoroughly impressed by the government's shortsightedness.. but I suppose I should expect it. Not only was it idiocy to even PROPOSE such a budget cut, it's stark, raving mad to actually approve it.
I hope that this issue creates enough turmoil in the techie pool (because you know that we care and it's hard to say outside of us who doesn't) to get this budget cut reversed. Hell.. I'll pay MORE taxes to get to another planet in my lifetime..
How can you even think that social security is more important than a mission to Mars. A manned mission to mars will be the most important accomplishment that mankind has ever done, and you are comparing that to social security?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
and probably a whole slew of new Discovery channel
"specials."
The obvious solution is to put drug dealers into orbit. If the war on drugs were paying for the space program, we'd be able to put those drug dealers on Europa behind bars where they belong. Oh and we can not forget the underage kids watching South Park on Saturn. Quick Bill, go put a stop to that! The morality of our youth depends on it.
Firstly, it is time for the government to quit with its virtual monopoly of the space industry.
There are a number of private companies who are capable of handling the deployment of satellites.
There are a number of private companies who are capable of developing reusable launch vehicles.
I'm frankly quite excited about the new emphasis on private investment in space, as oppsed to government investment. Outside of Hubble and John Glenn, NASA has done little to forward the exploration of space in the last ten years anyway.
Its time for change.
http://www.warroom.com/kosovo.htm
That sums up what a sorry state the US military is in.
At this point in time:
1. The US federal government is projecting the budget surplus to continue for the near (10-15yr) future.
2. NASA is one of the only government institutions whose work benefits society as a whole and is generally popular with most citizens regardless of political orientation.
3. We are celebrating the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, the first manned moon landing.
I already get sick to my stomach listening to the debates about how to spend the budget surplus when we should be paying off the national debt.
Now this?
The actions of the US government (legislative and executive branches) piss me off so consistently that I'm almost numb to it, their actions rarely surprise me anymore. But I certainly didn't see this one coming. Both major parties are so out of touch, it seems like they live in a differently country entirely.
Yes, this is obvious idiocy. And quite typical of a Congress that, against the advice of over 30 world reknowned economists including 6 Nobel Laureates is currently attempting to cut taxes by around $750-792 billion dollars. If Congress wasn't so busy selfishly lining their own pockets, maybe some of our most important programs wouldn't end up doomed in this way. I urge every /. reader in the US that cares about the quality of life, education, research and just about any important Federal program to (in the next election) vote _AGAINST_ the scoundrels who are trying so hard to undermine American intelligence, and indulge the wishes of many highly ignorant people by helping to spread ignorance around. Notice how the current Congress is so quick to say "Oh, these tax cuts are beneficial, they will put money back into the pockets of Americans" .. and you know what? That is not entirely untrue. However, that comes at a very significant price. This is one of the outcomes of such a scenario. The inability to fund important public programs such as _EVEN_ NASA! All the current Congress wants are a bunch of wealthy idiots who sing the praises of the Congress that enabled them to end up not only wealthy, but weak in the mind and incredibly ignorant. Furthermore, the "wealth" in that particular scenario is most likely to simply end up in the hands of the filthy rich as usual and I think we all know how well "trickle-down" economics works. Perhaps if we are really lucky, we will end up with 5% of the population as filthy rich, 95% as below the poverty level. SO much for the middle class. Thanks again Congress!
(P.S., I think its beginning to look like a good time to move OUT of the U.S... For real wisdom, listen to Alan Greenspan)
Throwing money at a problem just won't solve it.
Nor could the FBI, CIA, EPA or any other government agency. Its illegal.
angry democrats are funny when they realize their system doesn't work.
Firstly, I notice many contributors complaining that the government has a surplus and this should hence obviate any need for cuts. A few points:
1. The U.S. is in severe need of some sort of tax relief. The U.S. is now approaching European levels of taxation, without any of the public services offered in those countries. Understandably, this upsets people.
2. The budget surplus vanishes if you put it in context of the national debt.
3. NASA needs to get out of the way and let privatization of space begin in a meaningful way. Space does not belong to the government of the United States.
4. If you've worked in the government, you'd know that most agencies should have a hell of a lot more than 10% of their budgets cut. 50% is probably more realistic to truly trim the fat of this dinosaur.
I think it's about time that our boys and girls in the House, and the Senate, felt the full brunt of being Slashdotted. Follow those links to immediately find your local Representative and Senators' home page (don't forget each state has two senators, write them both). Email addys shouldn't be but three clicks away.
/.ers, but I expect this is a Republican thing here. Since part of their party platform is tax cuts, they have to pay for it somehow. The surplus is needed for Social Security & maybe Medicare, but if the Repubs want to have a hope at passing the size cut they just did ($700 billion, which Clinton has declared he will veto) the Appropriations committee is likely looking for any way it possibly can to scrape together more funds. The fact that Republicans have never liked any public works doesn't help. Remember when they wanted to slash funding for PBS? They think the private sector (one of their main voting bases) can do everything. I don't agree, which may explain why I'm a card carrying Democrat. If any Democrats on the committee were involved, though, I'm just as disgusted at them.
I'm not talking about flames, mind you. But let's show them how digital democracy can work. If everyone reading my comment were to email their congressman, maybe even send some snailmail (that may actually recieve more attention) perhaps they'd get the message. I suppose non-US citizens could email too, the more the merrier. (My only concern is that such folk aren't their constituents, ie, hold no power over them, but it never hurts to try)
I pay pretty close attention to politics, and not to try and start party wars with other
Just as a closing point, to me this underlies the very reason why nerds need to stop living in such an insular world, ignoring things that aren't directly very techie. This comes as no surprise to me, but perhaps does to others. I wonder how many Slashdotters knew the reasons before I put forth my explination, or how many others have realistic explinations of their own. Perhaps if we all got more involved in politics, then such incidents would occur less often. At the very least, we wouldn't be be bowled over by them.
When Sweden invades the United States I'll start being concerned with their air power.
There are going to be two kinds of wars the US wil be involved in during the next fifty years:
1. The US pounding the tar out of an enemy they already know they can pummel - see Greneda, Panama, Iraq, Kosovo, etc. The US wins due to overwhleming force and neato gadgets.
2. A full scale atomic assualt on the American mainland. Both parties are destroyed utterly.
In neither case does the F-22 play a significant role.
...If there are ANY thrid parties that want to support space exploration? It doesn't seem to be that the "Reform" party has a postition on anything to do with the space program but are more concerned with cutting tax spending as well. The green party is afraid of any contingency where a rocket blast might potentially kill an endangered bird and wants to return technology to ecologically safe sticks, twigs, hemp, and granola. Libertarians also seem to want to cut it. Other parties out there seem to look like scary militants of one kind or another. Can anyone tell me why our constituency is being ignored so profoundly? We can't be in that much of a minority, Star Trek conventions look pretty full to me, should we march on washington from a Con?
If we are not going to utilize our aerospace technology we really shouldn't get bent out of shape when China steals it and tries to do something with it. If our leaders forget that China is trying to develop their space program agressively, I think I we should consider taking a Berlitz course in Conversational Chinese (At least we will have plenty of choices in ordering Take-out).
This is not anti-communist paranoia BTW, it's just a simple fact that whoever develops something first and claims it gets to reap the benefits and call the shots. Interesting that our politicians will give dominion of space away to other nations.
Could you imagine if China's great wall had been built by merely people that felt like donating their construction to the project and not under compulsion as it had been? Would not the Mongol tribes have had a feild day waiting for people to overcome their own selfishness while their leaders humbly awaited their contributions? The wall would have never been built accept that it had been when people were forced to build it, and yet they all benefited later.
Stalin's "five year plans" were equally brutal compulsory work projects that did have the positive effect of bringing a pre-electric Feudal Russia into the 20th century complete with rail transportation, electricity, and indoor plumbing. Russias a mess now, but what would it have been like if these public works projects to the benefit of everyone wasn't forced on people. Should he have waited until people felt likt contributing to modernization. If he had, there would have been no "Red Threat", there wouldn't even be those dreary high rise flats, there would have been tenements and shacks without water. There would be transportation of goods by horses.
Now, in light of this it really isn't so painful to force a bunch of unwilling people to pay taxes for things that may not benefit them immediately, but benefit all of mankind in the long term. Nobody is being forced at gunpoint to dig ditches here, like in the examples above, it's merely a sacrifice of income that compared to the European Tax structure is quite leniant.
Civilization has to be built on the backs of the unwilling, if you let the majority have a say they'd merely allow civilization to degenerate into Jerry Springer Deathmatches, pork-rinds, cheese-whiz, cheap beer, lap dances, and selfishness. Forget museums, culture, libraries, and yes knowledge of space that the relevant minority that holds civilization together enjoys. They do not have the resources to support these institutions by themselves, it can only be done through taxing those that do not give a damn about these things.
I apologise if this is inflamitory and un-democratic...but I really do not feel optimism for where this country is going.
Read about it
Sometimes I wonder if we geeks dont have some unbalanced brain chemistry that makes us find ways to hate any establishment.. I mean, we all love space travel, right? But it seems alot of us hate NASA.. America's only space program and the world's most effective one.
.1 cents a kilo.. but it requires, say, a 3 billion dollar satellite in orbit to provide that energy. When NASA's budget gets ripped back another 10% every year, in couple decades they'll have to save up a couple of years in a row just to send up that one satellite without doing Any other missions.
Now I'll be first to admit that NASA does indeed have its problems. However, a great deal of those problems are forced on them. No, nobody is making NASA continue using Shuttle. No, there's no Real need to send humans up there with the satellites. However, NASA has very little choice but do both of those. As for the first one, if they dont use Shuttle, what Will they use? There are hundreds, even thousands, of ideas out there for new propulsion and earth-to-orbit devices.. but how many of them have an possability of actually working? And of those, how man do we have the technology for right now? Most of the good ones I've seen have the little "And we have alot of this technology already!" in there. All the reall great new systems rely on pre-installation setup.. special satellites in orbit, new launch facilities, retooling the whole mission control bay.. None of that is unexpected in a new system, but it all costs money. Sure you might be able to build a new ship that runs on solar energy and can get to orbit in 5 minutes for
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
If you want to change this obvious stupidity, or any other government stupidity (there's so much), write your congress person. If you don't know who your congress person is go to Vote smart and enter your zip code at the bottom of the page. It'll give you your congress person's name, snail-mail, and e-mail address. Write them, but PLEASE be polite. It doesn't help things to call the congress-people names.
With the F-18 E and the JSF both in the queue, the F-22 is quite unnecessary. Its a classic pork-barrel project that would set new records for cost. Sorry, but I don't pay taxes just so boys can get new toys - some of this money has to start flowing back to the taxpayer in the form of useful domestic services.
Just look at the boondogle of the B-2. Most of the fleet will never see combat, but they cost $2 billion a piece.
As for one of the small ways in which basic research at NASA has impacted your life, see the June 1999 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. One of the recipients of the "Excellence in Programming" awards is Don Becker, who works with CESDIS at the Goddard Space Flight Center. The whole article can be found at http://www.ddj.com/articles/1999/9906/9906a/9906a. htm , but here is just a snippet:
t ml), and a distributed shared memory package."
"To implement such a system, however, Becker, who is a staff scientist with the Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences (or CESDIS, part of the University Space Research Association, a nonprofit consortium of universities that sponsors space-related research), had to come to grips with Linux's unstable networking capabilities, and the lack of Linux support for off-the-shelf network cards. Consequently, Becker ended up writing enhancements to the kernel network subsystem to support faster I/O on high-speed networks, device drivers for countless Ethernet cards(see http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/index.h
In short, basic research rarely seems like a good investment in the face of countless current, legitimate priorities because it's payoffs aren't immediate or predictible. However, if we stop doing things just to test our own limits, then we are freezing our current state of advancement as a species and saying that we don't need to progress any further. Where would we be today if we made these decissions 50 years ago, or 100, etc.. ?
I'm writing this from a British/European perspective so can't criticise too much as my tax bill doesn't help NASA, but this is incredibly sad news.
NASA is probably the only government-linked organisation - American, European or otherwise - which many people over here have any respect for, and it really cuts when something you believe in gets shafted like this.
NASA is also the only organisation, public or private, which is doing anything meaningful in space at the moment, the ESA trails NASA by decades, and the Russians are crippled financially. Very disappointing.
I can't believe in this day and age Congress is still trying to cut NASA's budget, after all it's done for us. I think NASA is necessary to pave the way for commercialization of space, and cutting NASA even in the smallest amount will affect our species' future tenfold.
Ha! it would have been far cheaper to just farm out the job of creating the networking code to a private company than to push all of that pork to NASA and hope that some of it comes back.
By the way, its not like this was pioneering work. All of those networking features existed elsewhere.
What a load of crock is this complaining about the proposed budget cut.
In the US a lot of things aren't taken care of well like the war on poverty, the legelization of canabis;), the environmental polocies which in real life mean didly squat. And you want to maintain projects which have virtually no effect on the quality of the lives of all those impared people?
I say cut the budget even more, also cut the defense budget even more and let those damn Europeans take care of their own crap (Kosovo for instance), and yes I know I'm a European myself but I think we should take care of our own business so the US can take care of its own business better.
How much does the U.S. spend on its millitary every year?
gee, i would have expected anti-nasa people would appreciate privately financed advertising...
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Usually it seems that, no matter, what the article is about there are dozens of posts on /. from the neo-libertarians. The recent post office one springs to mind.
I find it funny that as soon as the question becomes "space exploration" (a question near and dear to the hearts of all geeks no doubt) the same people who were crying for government to stay out of licensing software professionals or taxing internet commerce or whatever suddenly turn into bleeding heart tax and spend liberals.
I mean, how do they justify the hypocrisy to themselves?
I agree with this anonymous coward. If private industry is better at technological innovation than government (which is what all those Silicon Valley execs are always telling us) then stop funding NASA completely and let private industry pick up the slack. Hooray for allocative efficiency!
But most of the time, it is in conjunction with NASA.
Rabid's right, NASA is the world's space agency. I know that sorta sounds Nationalistic but ESA, NASDA (.jp), RSA (.ru), and others all look towards NASA for help and technology for projects. Cutting NASA back hurts the rest of the world in terms of space flight and exploration. When NASA does something, they see if anyone else is doing it. If another country is doing something, they see if NASA is doing it.
Politicians should love the idea of space science. They have their head up their ass so much it should be second nature to explore other dark places.
If nasa's is going to be doing idiotic things like the pointless John Glenn return to space pr stunt they deserve to get thier budget cut. I'm sure people will point to tech advances of the space program (velcro, tang etc.) but wouldn't that money be better spent if it went directly to a cause like medical or tech research instead of overly expensive manned missions to space?
Do what they did with the early explorations of north america and sell shares in the mission. I'd throw money in it just to see if it would go... The rest of the Idea i leave up to you cause it just slipped my mind. (heavy objects contacting the floor at a high rate of speed do cause distractions...)
Then again, under the Libertarian ideal, you wouldn't be taxed as much (or at all!), and could donate that money to some space development organization, instead of spending it meddling in other nations' civil wars..
If I read it all correctly, manned missions and ISS are not cut, so that gimmicky space shots will continue. The purely scientific ones are, so no more nice pictures of Mars or comets or whatever.
Do the math. There are somewhere around 260 million people in the U.S. If you assume they all generously donate a dollar (not too unreasonable after balancing the cheapskates and the generous), you have $260 million. Put that in a bar graph next to NASA's budget.
Here's a link to the details on where NASA spends its money. Lots of details. Look for charts midway through for a summary.
We will see how you feel when everyone else has F-15s, as well as superior SU-27s, EF-2000's, etc.
Air dominance is good. Defense is good. Meaningless tax cuts for republican party public relations is bad.
NASA didn't invent Velcro(tm).
I say we gut the current NASA bueracracy and put the Engineers and Scientists in charge. At least They know what they are doing, and how it needs to be done.
$800m/day for army, but only 11b to nasa
wow thats fair.
Glad to see usa thinks blowing things up is more important than exploration, unless they have secret ufo technology already
And now congress wants to gut the program.
Our state tax form has a checkbox to donate to wildlife preservation and I always give a little to help a good cause. I'd gladly donate to NASA at tax time to help. Space exploration is just too important to gut like this.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
NASA use to do an amazing amount of stuff for the Human Space Flight program in house and did not farm activities out to contractors. More and more, private contractors are running the day to day operations of the HSF while NASA itself focuses more on the science aspect of its mission.
If you want to see the main contractor that runs the HSF, go here
Who is it that build the spacecraft, launch the satellites, plan the missions, man the trackers, analyze the data, and support most other phases of the space program? Lockheed Martin, Boeing, CSC, Allied Signal, GTE, and countless other companies. The NASA civil servant today serves as either a top level contract manager or is a research scientist.
As a Canadian slave to the US space program I may be biased here but I really must say that the idea of privatizing NASA makes me cringe. All that idea will do is turn it into a for-profit venture like all the others out there. More harm has been done to the world by "Profit at any price" mentalities than can even be measured. Would you really want one of the best things to come out of the US to be turned into a TV satelite launching tool that can't dredge up the will to make a step beyond our own small sphere? At the moment the gravity well is an expensive place to live, yes, but if you look at the statistics, private enterprise is *awful* at finding new technologies. Using/perfecting them? Excellent, but finding? Terrible. Most companies work on patents and developments from universities and other "free" sources. Invention with an eye to profit seldom ventures far from the bottom line.
- Hope this doesn't fly, or we won't.
become a libertarian, and this sort of thing would stop.
;)
Under the system, NASA would naturally be disbanded.
"waitaminute!" you say? That's right there would be no more NASA, but there would also be no more income taxes (cool huh?). If there are enough people that think a NASA-like orginization should exist, it will be funded privately by donations etc.
I work @ JPL, and I can honestly say that I DO see a lot of wasteful activities going on. This would be just fine if it was private, but it's not...I'm using your money when I have nothing to do @ work...
As unbelievable as it may seem, there are people out there that DON'T want to invest in space exploration..taking money from those people and funding NASA, while "corect" in your mind, is against the liberties of that person that doesn't.
then again, we don't live in that sort of society, so let's all write out congress ppl
-lev
So where do I send my donations?
Bill young is the Chair of the House appropriations committee. All of you Americand let him know what you think here:
Congressman Bill Young
U.S. House of Representatives
2407 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5961
Congressman Bill Young
Suite 1480
360 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727) 893-3191
Congressman Bill Young
Suite 606
801 West Bay Drive
Largo, FL, 33770
(727) 581-0980
Ironically, while screaming about the need to cut the budget of NASA, he also approved this (from his own website):
"Congressman Young announced relief for the Defense Department included in H.R. 1141, A bill Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 1999.
"This $15 billion bill is all about helping people," said Chairman Young. "American farmers, American troops, storm victims here in the U.S. and in Central America, and Balkan refugees will all immediately benefit from passage of this
essential aid package. Despite our differences over the Administration's Balkan policy, this bill sends a strong message to our
troops in the field that the Congress supports them.
"It also takes an important first step toward reversing the dangerous 10-year draw down of our nation's defenses by providing
additional funding for readiness, recruitment, munitions, and force protection. And, $1.8 billion for military pay raises and
retirement benefits will go a long way toward addressing critical retention and recruitment problems. We have worked hard to
keep this bill as clean and tight as possible, as well as provided offsets for $2 billion of the costs. Press Release)
Watch this site for more updates on America's Defense Readiness"
I guess if his son David were an astronaut or NASA scientist, NASA may have gotten this cash (he's a fighter pilot stationed in Saudi Arabia, BTW).
As a Canadian, I can't do much (although I did write Bill C. and ask him to veto this bill), so it's up to you Americans to let him know what you think. His e-mail address was not posted anywhere so if anyone out there has it, post it and lets have everyone let him know how stupid this is by every means of communication.
Don't let the Republicans get away with this.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
NASA's claims that these 10% is all it needs to run these huge projects is basically admitting that the remaining 90% of its budget is wasted on feeding bureaucrats.
NASA's current budget, adjusted for inflation is about the same as it was at the peak of the Apollo program.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Quit acting like a bunch of LordyLordy-what'll-we-DO??? welfare queens and instead point your enthusiasm towards private space efforts.
I really don't. Probably some stupid stupid stupid fundie in congress thinks it's blasphemous to explore God's Heaven or some such rubbish.
Space is where the future of the whole human race lies.
What would you rather have. More stealth bombers which aren't even very stealthy (One came to a British air-show. British radar saw it coming. Serbs didn't seem to have much of a problem either) or more people in space?
SF novelist Stephen Baxter researched this for his novel Moonseed. Read the afterword. He believes, after researching this with NASA people, that we could really send people back to the moon for 2 Billion - The price of one B2 Stealth Bomber!
Abso-bloody-lutely ridiculous.
REVOLUTION NOW!
In the USA we clearly have higher priorities than space exploration. Just look at where we spend our money.
Tobacco, alcohol, drugs - and the extra money we throw away cleaning up after these problems.
Don't forget the movie and music industries, either. Or how about junk food, and the amount of money we spend trying to chase the fat away from turning ourselves into couch potatoes.
Any one of these vices approaches or exceeds the Nasa budget, and the 'cleanup spending' is just as big. But we have no money for space.
As for private ventures, I don't know that we're ready, yet. Really, there's only limited money to be made at the moment in satellites, and no money in manned space until we can begin to tap into moon-and-beyond resources. Current technology just isn't up to manned moon-and-beyond yet, and private industry either can't afford such a long-range vision, or simply won't because quarter-to-quarter profits are SO important.
There's a big gap between Earth orbit satellites and manned moon-and-beyond. NASA may be the only agency we have that can bridge the gap. Maybe THEN private industry can start driving things.
I don't think it really matters which is in charge anymore. With the two-party system, politics is continuing to grow less and less for the people, and more and more for the party. Whenever a party is in control, they use their power to shove bills through that they want, not that the people want. It's just a question of which group most people would rather have shoving crap through the system.
Perhaps if we could enough of a third party so that NONE of the groups have a majority, we'd see more politicians trying to make things better rather than play the partisian politicial "get the campaign donations" game.
It's all about where the campaign money comes from. Funding NASA doesn't get them enough campaign donations to make it worthwhile - so they look for other places to put the money and get them more donations. The republicans prefer the most to just cut it to cut taxes, which allows the rich (who always save the most from the tax cuts) to donate more money.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
For all that we hear about the panicea of privitization, let's look at the most recent private space venture, Iridium. All of the backers of Iridium are in a panic. S&P downgraded it's corporate credit rating to "D". Motorola sees only 3 outcomes for it's future: "an out-of-court restructuring, in-court restructuring under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code or 'liquidation in bankruptcy.'"/ 1999-07/15/199l-071599-idx.html)
(http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate
The point is, space is not terribly profitable. There are a few ventures which will make some money in space, but these are a very few. For the types of missions that NASA flies, there is 0 short term profit. In the long run there are scientific payoffs, but try to tell your shareholders that when their stock is lossing value and watch the stampede.
Those who claim that privitization of the space program will solve all of its problems are living in dogma fantasy land. If it were so wonderfully profitable, all the major companies would be lobbying all over congress to privatize NASA to get at a new revenue source. You don't see that now do you? The reality is that if you eliminate NASA, the type of work that NASA does will die. Instead, you will be able to get satellite porn at any point in the world. That's progress.
The easiest way to make a big cut in NASA's budget would be to shut down the space station (What have they to show for it after 10+ years and who knows how many billions? - a lot of paper!) and Venture Star - who needs it, leave it to private enterprise! - NASA shouldn't be building launchers anymore.
The research space shots are getting cheaper with a better return, leave 'em alone.
If NASA just did basic engineering and scientific research and left the rest to Industry we would all be better off. (And I'm not an American)
BigTom
The Democrats don't get to spend a single penny because the REPUBLICANS control the congress and have for the past FOUR YEARS. Obviously you are not an American because you seem to have no idea how the process works. The majority party controls the budget commitess and it is that parties priorities that dominate.
NASA IS publicly owned... its payed for by US citizens tax dollars (and money that Reagan borrowed in the 80s for shiny space weapons) government regulations have NOTHING to do with the lack of (operational) provate launch programs, this has alot more to do with the 100s millions/billions it takes in infrastucture, research and development necessary to build a succesful launch capability (im talking large payloads to geosynch orbit not 50lbs to LEO)
Some of these programs have been scrapped entirely, others will probably be abandoned in this round of cuts.
You want to know what NASA could have done that would have been useful? Look at the advanced passanger aircraft they were developing, with a blended wing body. No private company is going to foot the bill for resaearch of that kind. It's cheaper to build things that crash than research new designs that might not.
You want to know why it'd be useful to go to Mars, or Pluto? Because new conditions require new technologies. Your non-stick frying pans, velcro fasteners, and pens that work upside-down weren't made for the fun of it. Those were necessary technologies for space.
New things are invented out of necessesity. ALWAYS. That's why wars tend to spur so many inventions. I'd rather see the world encourage more peaceful incentives. If that means sending men to the furthest reaches of the solar system, so be it!
Then, there are the finite resources of Planet Earth. I don't like seeing entire mountains vanish off the map, forever, because construction workers want a gazillion tonnes of cement to build stuff that's going to get demolished ten years down the road. It would be environmentally, geographically and archaeologically better to mine asteroids than consume the planet we're standing on. But nobody is going to start doing that, if organisations such as NASA don't produce the technology needed to do so. Private companies aren't going to be willing to invest in research like that.
Is it short-sighted to whittle away NASA? YES! Yes, NASA is top-heavy with beaurocracy, which it needs to do something about, urgently, but without NASA and other space agencies leading the way, nobody is going to follow into space. We only have telecom satellites because the Russian space agency and NASA showed that it was possible. Arthur C. Clarke's famous letter was important, but on it's own, would have just been ignored as idle fantasy.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They control the house and the senate, so if the funding is being cut, it's at their behest.
:)
It never ceases to amaze me what people are willing to lay at the feet of the Democrats when the house and the senate are controlled by Republicans. They're probably using these cuts to fuel their giant tax cuts for the rich...
If you want the goverment to spend more money on space this is what you have to do.
1)Have a 3rd party is money build a small orbiting space station
2)shoot the earth with missels with this new space station. (the white house and stuff)
3)The goverment will give 100trillion dollars to defense to build a space ship.
4)in about 20 years it will be de-clasified and nasa can have the technology.
the only way to get something done in this country is to blow stuff up.
#!/bin/sh
/dev/null;
for i in *.email; do
cat $i >
done
exit;
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
This happens quite often...Nasa has some spectacular successes (and even manages to trim their own budget), and then some thick-necked bible thumper in congress decides that NASA is a waste of money. Why is it they always make assinine comments about "little green men" as well? Considering this is happening right after the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, it's downright disgusting.
Bottom line: more human beings are needed in congress (as opposed to the sub-human lawyers and affiliated scum that populate it now).
I remembered driving in to work that I put the wrong url in. The correct URL for the Space Access Society is http://www.space-access.org, or in hyperlink form, here.
Sorry about that!
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
You've all taken time to read/post here, so why not write to your senators and congressmen?
Go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov. Both make it exceptionally easy to write the people representing people. All you need to know is your state and zip code!
For the first time in my life, I've written to Congress. (It took less than five minutes.) I think you all should too, whether you support or hate the proposed cuts. If you choose to write, please be civil (i.e. avoid swears and direct insults.)
Who owes who??
I mean if nearly every country has huge debts... then cant we just cancel out all negatives?
if UK owes US $400b, and US owes UK $300b, then cancel the diff, same goes for all countries.
or is it the world bank that is sitting on $10000000 trillion in repayments over 400 years?
WHERE THE FUK IS ALL THE MONEY????
someone is hording it all
NASA expenditures are a tremendous waste of your and my money. Their last few missions have been little more than PR stunts designed to compel people to continue to support them. (Glenn, ferchrissakes!)
When I was working for a large research/engineering firm, we had a couple of NASA execs coming in to ask us about 'Building a themed attraction' around the Pathfinder mission.. this is right after they realized the kind of PR their web site generated. They even gleefully used the words "We want it to be just like Disney world!". I almost threw them out of my office.
I, for one, am absolutely thrilled that we're reducing the funding for this tax-subsidized playpen. If you want entertainment, pay for it. Don't force me to. Good riddance.
If the USA, with the largest economy the world has ever seen and at a time where said economy is flush with prosperity, can't afford space science, then it's time the USA retired from its position as world leader in space.
NASA should be relegated to a nice cozy existence as a little aviation and space science outfit that no longer does the 'big projects'. At the same time the United Nations should set up an independent space exploration organization which would get its funding from all of the world's nations. Ideally, it would be autonomous and the UN would approve the budget but not the program. This would allow all countries to participate and it would finally become MAN's exploration of space and not just AMERICAN MAN's exploration of space. Leaving space exploration in the hands of the congenital idiots in Washington is criminal. Screw Congress, screw the Senate, screw Clinton. Bring on the United Federation of Planets.
>WHERE THE F-- IS ALL THE MONEY????
At least for the U.S. debt, I believe the vast majority is T-bills, Treasury Bonds, and U.S. Savings Bonds. Individuals finance the debt because they make a decent, stable return on their capital, which is represented in the Federal budget as the interest payment on the national debt.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Most of NASA's problems mentioned in other posts are as a result of past assaults by the government "streamliners" and budget-cutters.
The shuttle was built, but what it was supposed to do was delayed (support a space platform). Once its purpose was diluted by the powers that be, it was redesigned to be more "economical", which in the long-run made it more expensive to operate (and more dangerous).
The space station was budgetarily hacked and slashed into a shadow of its planned capability. NASA was then forced into an alliance with economically troubled Russia, which has caused extensive further delays.
"Publicity stunts" like the Glenn launch (don't forget there were other astronauts up there doing their usual scientific work at the time), are necessary for an organization that has to yearly beg for money to stay in existance. It brought a huge popularity to the program at little cost (Glenn had to pull his weight while in orbit). Don't forget he was the *third* politician that took a shuttle ride.
There are many other cases. In fact, this is the entire history of the program after the first moon landing.
Privatizing the program is laughable. Of course private companies have the technology, they are doing the work *now* (USA, Boeing, Lockeed, etc.). But the only financial gain is putting up communications satellites, and that is currently dominated by private industry. This will not fund basic research or exploration. Would Microsoft spend billions to sponsor the Chandra (or in this case Gates) X-Ray observatory? Damned unlikely. As much as I would like to see a Pan-Am Space Clipper, it won't be happening anytime soon.
The one advantage private industry would have is holding on to the technologies they developed and selling them. Imagine if NASA could do that!
What nay-sayers are really getting at is that basic research and exploration have no financial value. This type of research is in such rarified air, it is a difficult sentiment to disprove (who really knows what astronomical physicists are up to these days, outside of the field?). However, the computer industry and the internet show at least some small benefit from the past basic research that gave birth to them...
What about everyone who DOESN"T live in the US and really wants to support NASA.
;)
As much as many would hate to admit it, NASA is the only organization in the world with the resources to go to places like Mars, the Moon, Europa, and Pluto.
Maybe someone could post a petition that we can send to the president and to NASA... better yet, set up a site that has mailing addresses... snail-mail is always more effective.
Although, 100 000 "virtual signatures" would work pretty well I bet too
Not exactly. We are actually running a surplus now, even if you take FICA taxes out of the equation. This wasn't the case at first though. I agree that all the FICA taxes should be directed only at SS. If this was done, our total debt would go down since we would be paying off the SS trust fund, which has been used as a nice big slush fund for other programs. Unfortunately, politicans can't help but try to tap into a nice big pile of money. Which is why I'm against expansion of Medicare/Medicaid. Any past expansion that was said to help save money actually has resulted in cost overruns (the % of GDP spent on health care before these programs was about the same as what was being spent in other industrial countries. Now it's at least 2x that.). Who is to say that these won't follow the same pattern? Also, all of this is based on budget projections. These projections were made by the same people who in the mid 1990s said we would be still running 200+ billion deficits now.
I doubt I'll ever see any of what I've contributed to SS anyway. I would much rather have a portion of the money that I contribute go into a retirement plan that I've picked.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I you have seen this thing, or know anything about it - you will know what I mean. I went on a field trip to the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth with the Comp. Sci. club here at school, and that thing is simply awesome. While I'm not a big fan of the military, this thing is a sight to behold.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
That myth that some enemy out there is amassing huge amounts of weaponry that we must counter with massive expenditures.
The Russians cannot produce the planes you speak of in volume, nor can the Chinese purchase them in amounts that would prduce a viable threat.
Sorry, but your same logic was used by the military-industrial complex during the cold war to bilk the taxpayers out of trillions of dollars...and most of it had very little to do with defense. It was clearly established at the end of the cold war that estimates of Soviet capabilities were completely inaccurate, and this was intentional to the ends of propping up military contrators.
With all the frantic responses I am reading in this discussion thread it seems that people think that if we don't continue to fund space exploration all the time it's gonna be all used up or something. Clue: Space isn't going away. If money isn't budgeted for projects, we'll do it another day.
I fail to see the need for us as a planet to rush things like this. Certainly, there is a vocal minority who think trashing the biosphere is acceptable since they plan on just jumping a rocket ship to somewhere else (fat chance), but for the most part it seems like even if we quit all space exploration for another century, all it would mean would be that it would be there a century later for us to explore.
Honestly, what's the rush here? Are the stars and the planets gonna go away if we don't hurry up and find them?
Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Surveyor 98, Ulysses, DS1, DS2, NEAR, Chandra, Compton Gamma Ray observatory, Cassini, Mars Polar Lander, Stardust.
Those are some of the NASA missions that have taken or are taking huge amounts of data this decade, which informed members of the public have probably heard of. NASA also funds quite a bit of ground based, good-old-fashioned astronomy and astrophysics.
> Outside of Hubble and John Glenn, NASA has
> done little to forward the exploration of
> space in the last ten years anyway.
You have obviously not checked your facts before blindly firing of this statement.
John
hrmm they're planning on cutting budgets that projects have planned on and budgetted against. one of the problems that i've noticed at labs i work at ( jhuapl) is that in order to get grant money / projects from nasa, you must underbid the next guy. while the underbids are usually reasonable it's hard to plan out ahead for a long term project. new technologies will definantly emerge during the life of the project, and the project teams may very well develop some of these. but with new toys comes a higher price, yet you are held to the price that you quoted. what do you do then?
now that there stands a chance of a smaller budget for messenger (the satellite to mercury) or the possiable cancelation of the project, i wonder how lean it will start to get around here.