Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space United States The Almighty Buck Science

President Bush's Money For Space Cometh 619

citanon writes " The Washington Post reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has delivered, via the omnibus spending bill passed Nov. 20, the President's full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars for NASA as a part of his Vision for Space Exploration. Despite earlier reports that NASA's budget will be cut, DeLay, whose congressional district now includes the Johnson Space Center, was able to deliver the full budgetary request without any debate. NASA now has "enough money to forge ahead on a plan that would reshape U.S. space policy for decades to come." Despite this early victory, questions regarding the full cost of the program remain unresolved. It is also unclear whether the NASA bureaucracy will be able to rise to the challenges posed in the initiative and which current projects will suffer as a consequence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Bush's Money For Space Cometh

Comments Filter:
  • by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:39AM (#11008150) Homepage
    ...seriously, has anybody looked at the nation's credit card bill lately? We can't afford this. As much as it pains me to say it, we simply can't afford to spend this money. I want a well-funded NASA, but I want a sensible federal budget first.

    To continue beating a dead horse, how exactly are we going to go about paying our debts? Are we just assuming we're going to have another decade like the nineties any day now? Are we just assuming that the rest of the world will happily keep throwing money at us for as long as we want them to? Hell, does anybody even care that we're flinging ourselves into insolvency? Does anybody even bother trying to comprehend what the consequences will be when China decides to quit investing in us? Does it strike anybody that China might, y'know, have ulterior motives?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:42AM (#11008184)
      I would be complaining a lot more about the $400 billion we spend destroying a country and then paying our own companies to rebuild it then an extra $1billion for NASA over what it would normally get.

      Or the $200 billion in subsidies that oil companies get from the federal government, while renewable energy R&D in the entire US gets ~$280million
      • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:45PM (#11008789) Homepage
        Exactly. This budget increase is about 1 billion dollars. That's nothing. Most of the funding to meet the Mars mission goals is having to come out of existing NASA projects - ones working on actual "science" (imagine that!)

        Despite wild numbers from people like Zubrin ("Yeah, we'll send multiple manned missions to mars, plus precursor missions, for the cost of developing a single nuclear reactor that we're going to need!"), the real costs of developing (and most critically, *testing*) a massive radiation-resistant space-borne liferaft designed to keep many people alive in isolation for most of a year (something we have trouble doing even on the surface) while flinging it toward a planet that's eaten about half of the spacecraft that have been sent to it throughout history (the Soviets had even worse luck than we did) using To-Be-Determined-But-Undoubtedly-Complex) engines, with a descent/ascent module, base, mini-refinery, etc, is not a simple task.

        NASA took over 1% of our nation's entire GDP for a decade to get a small brief manned mission to the moon. The Soviets never got people to the moon and back, despite having an extensive program (it was largely cut back after we succeeded, but they did work on it for as long as we did). The Chinese recently scrapped their planned moon mission because the numbers coming back for the cost of it were just too high (and Chinese space tech is relatively cheap). We're talking about the moon here; the problems concerning a trip to Mars that takes almost a year are an order of magnitude greater.

        I'll back the parent, of course. The money we spent on Iraq is enough to get us to Mars and back. And other things we could do with that money concerning space are equally staggering (it's enough for simultaneous development of 10-20 large reusable launch vehicles to replace the shuttle, let alone one!). It's enough to fund any of the proposed "modern wonders of the world" (such as a transatlantic tunnel, a bridge across the Bering Strait, etc). The amount of "pure science" that could be conducted with that money really boggles the mind (materials science: nanotubes, anyone? Space: probes that make JIMO look like toys; etc). And we haven't even gotten started on the "humanitarian" things that could be done with that money (medicine, aid, etc). Or finally modernizing our transportation infrastructure.

        Our sense of priorities as a nation are all wrong.
        • > [Long list of ways to spend gobs of money]

          Hold yer Horses! The $400 billion to pay for Iraq was borrowed money. Are you saying we should borrow money to do all of those wonderous things leaving future generations to pay for what we did? If so, technically the government could do all those things independantly and reguardless of what happens in Iraq. Personally I'd much rather have just not borrow money it in the first place.

          • Are you saying we should borrow money to do all of those wonderous things leaving future generations to pay for what we did?

            Yes, we should if the expected benefit is greater than the amount borrowed plus interest.
        • by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @01:30PM (#11009196)
          Gee, where has the old American igenuity gone? We used to do the difficult before lunch and the impossible by 5PM. If we just turn our backs on hard problems, then I guess we have to take whatever solution someone else gives us. Hard problems are not cheap to solve, they WILL involve some failures and setbacks (learning experiences) but they often have great long term benefits. I'm all for getting rid of the STS (Shuttle) and keeping ISS supplied via the Russians and spending the money on Mars hardware. There is NO benefit technology or otherwise to the Shuttle and very little to ISS even. There is a "gotcha" in all of this "spin" which of course you don't hear. That issue is that the money to get started is nice BUT, Pres. Bush is only going to be around 4 yrs and the next President might come in and take the $$ away for some social program or what not. So, NASA can't count on future money for whatever ideas they come up with. And I see 2008 as the date they want to start testing prototypes. I can't predict where things will be in 7 yrs, can you? Bottom line, this is all a lot of spin and very little substance, something NASA has gotten very good at. They can manage opinions pretty well, but can they actually manage such a complex project as going to Mars and coming back (safely I might add)? I have my doubts. I support the idea in theory but I think it's going to be a boondoggle with NASA running it. Here is my Plan B: The Gov't offer a $100B prize to the first PRIVATE venture to take 3 humans to the Moon and back, and $250B if they can make it to Mars and back. The Gov't posts the money up front and it keeps earning interest each year until it is claimed. Whoever wins, they can claim the money, they own the technology and they corner the market. What would YOU give to send your most hated celebrity/movie star to Mars so you wouldnt hear from them or see them for 2 yrs? ;) Or what would YOU pay for a trip to the Moon?
          • Gee, where has the old American igenuity gone?

            Didn't we outsource that already?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:43AM (#11008196)
      I don't believe we can grow out way out of this debt.We need to elect some conservatives that will actually..gasp...spend less then they take in. We need to stop pretending that Japan and China our a giant Visa card.
      • by DigitalRaptor ( 815681 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:48AM (#11008252)
        That's the problem, Bush *claims* to be conservative, but the ONLY place he is conservative is in his spoken values.

        His actions and policies are anything but conservative.

        I'm a lifelong republican, but I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. I think he's the worst thing to ever happen to the republican party.

        • by ratamacue ( 593855 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @01:13PM (#11009046)
          His actions and policies are anything but conservative.

          Yes, but then again, the average "conservative" is anything but conservative.

          Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has enjoyed nearly exponential growth in terms of both revenue and power over the people.

          Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has been dominated by two political parties: the republicans and the democrats.

          Now, if the republicans really were practicing "conservative" politics over this period, don't you think they would have countered the democrats ability to expand government, resulting in a government which neither grows much nor shrinks much over time?

          After all, the republicans and democrats have dominated US politics together. Neither party has dominated exclusively, or anywhere near enough to tip the scales significantly in one direction, right? So how exactly did this near-exponential growth occur, if not because both parties favor expansion of government?

          Conclusion: The republians stand for continuous expansion of government, both in revenue and power over the people -- NOT limited government as they publicly claim. The two parties may differ slightly on how to expand government, but in general, history proves -- quite neatly and cleanly if I might say -- that both parties stand for continuous expansion of government.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        We need to elect some conservatives that will actually..gasp...spend less then they take in.

        Sorry, there aren't any conservatives in America. Only Reaganites. There's a couple libertarians but they're extremists and laughably marginalized.

        Your best bet is going to probably be to elect more centrist-conservatives like Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry. But, unfortunately, this isn't too likely either, since the DLC is likely not going to have nearly as much power within the democratic party after the d
      • by mpsmps ( 178373 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:52PM (#11008853)
        We need to elect some conservatives that will actually..gasp...spend less then they take in.

        Excuse me, a quick check of US deficit history [cbo.gov] shows that 11 of the last 12 record deficits (1975, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1992, 2003, and 2004) occurred under Republican administrations and only 1 under a democrat (1980), so maybe the problem is that we have elected too many "conservatives". It's absolutely astonishing to me how Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility.

        I think the reason for this is that conservatives dramatically cut government revenue through heavy tax cuts saying "you can spend the money better than the government" but then the government keeps spending the money anyway.
        • by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @02:32PM (#11009697) Journal
          That's an interesting way to look at the numbers. To take that table and say: "Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility" is a joke. Neither party is or has been for two generations. Even Clinton's so called "surplus" was only a surplus when you took Social Security out of the picture. Bottom Line: Staying on budget does not get you elected. This thread shows you why.
    • Personally I think the money they spent on the iraq war would have been better used at NASA. But your right, the US may find itself in deep financial trouble in the future.... The next powerhouses will be China and India because of their population. May take 20-30 years but at some point the US isn't going to be the only big kid on the block.

      Iraq is costing almost 2 billion a day... So in 8 days more money is spent than NASA's entire budget! And while I do support the Iraq war I don't believe the US

      • Who the hell moderated this informative?

        It costs $2 million per day. That's a lot, but not as much as you purport it to be. Secondly, a stable middle east is foundational to the survival of the western world and thus space exploration. If we are attacked by terrorists again and the economy tanks again as it did after 9/11, who's going to pay for the NASA budget?
        • Are you sure about that? I bet we fire off at least $2 million a day in ammunition. We have 100,000+ soldiers over there, do you think we pay them each only $20 a day?

          Sadly, 2 billion seems like the correct figure.

          • at $2 billion/day that would be $730 billion/year. This is about the total amount that has been allocated to the military for FY2004 at most. That would mean that the military as a whole is spending every dollar on Iraq. This is far from true. 20 million/day is probably a better number, and that includes paychecks.
        • by Stone316 ( 629009 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:04PM (#11008432) Journal
          Sorry, I was going by my faulty memory.. I recalled somewhere hearing 1.67 billion a day but I found these resources on a quick search.. So its more like 167 billion to day and 200 million a day...
          Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month [about.com]

          177 mill per day [usatoday.com]

      • by earthforce_1 ( 454968 ) <earthforce_1NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:54AM (#11008319) Journal
        But remember, the US went to the moon at a time when the Vietnam war was in full swing.

        Whatever other failings GWB may have, funding space exploration is one priority he did get right.
        • Debt (Score:5, Insightful)

          by guet ( 525509 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:13PM (#11008487)
          Take a look at this graph (taken from figures on the White House website)

          US Debt [zfacts.com]

          US Debt as a percentage of GDP was falling when the US first went to the moon. So the USA really isn't in the same situation as it was then. Add to that a very weak dollar which might encourage less lending, and things aren't looking that great. Debt isn't just bad in the short term, it's expensive to maintain and difficult to get rid of.

          The US is doing this at a time when other countries like the UK are cutting back their debt as much as possible to limit interest payments. Here's a similar graph for the UK

          UK Debt [statistics.gov.uk]

          Now I'm no economist, and this obviously isn't the only economic indicator which is important, but it looks kind of scary given the expensive war that the neo-cons have taken on all alone, and the others they still appear to be planning (Iran springs to mind). Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era of faith-based budgets.
          • The US consumer lives at the whims of Asian Central Bankers who buy dollars to keep their own preferred export market alive. This is why you see people freaking out about the dollar dropping - they are afraid the US's "bankers" will cash out.
      • by albamuth ( 166801 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @01:48PM (#11009322) Homepage
        Scene: Backstage White House Press Room
        Carl Rove: Where's the President now?
        Aide #1: Umm, I think he just went to make a press statement about the increase in NASA's budget...?
        Carl Rove spots unused, filled syringe lying on table
        CR: Oh God! You forgot to give him the injection!

        Scene: White House Press Conference
        President GWB: Thank you Americans and members of the Press. The exploration of the Outer Spaces is an important initiative in these dangerous and uncertain times. We have enemies abroad and ih our homes. We have enemies visible and indivisible. Enemies that wish to do us harm, and enemies that don't.
        Pauses, blinks.
        That is why I am giving my authorization to increase funding to the Nationalized Air and Space Association, because we need to bring the fight to the enemy. Right now, we don't have a man on the Mars. This is embarrassing! We've been to Mars and by God we ought to stay there! In the days since my father ended the Cold War, we've relaxed our posture on the Space Chase, but now a new enemy is on our doorstep. He's in our backyard, too because he climbed over the fence without asking.
        dramatic pause. squints at audience.
        My friends, now isn't the time to fall behind and ignore these things--we must act. We must bring the fight to the enemy whenever and wherever he appears, be it in Omaha, Wisconsin or on the Mars. We cannot wait until he has the advantage and saps our precious vital fluids while we sleep.
        (Carl Rove is seen edging towards the President)
        Now, you may think that with our current deploymentization in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ko-Rea we can't sustain a fight for Mars. But I'm telling you, it's not about the numbers--we have smart weapons, smart troops, and smart ideas on how to Win the Peace on Mars, by winning their hearts and minds. You see, they envy our freedom and our way of life. They envy our precious vital fluids and we...
        Carl Rove moves behind the President and plunges a syringe into his buttocks.
        Thank you, that's all I have to say...

      • The future? More like right now. The Euro is beating the dollar like gangbusters [x-rates.com], and the only way out of this situation is massive inflation and tax increases. These are the fruits of Republicanism. By time time the shit hits the fan in 2008 there will probably be a democrat in office who will have to balance the budget and the right-wing noise machine will scream "Spendocrats," like they did when Clinton cleaned up Reagan's mess.

        Then a Republican wins the seat again and we go through this stupid process
    • by xott ( 815650 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:44AM (#11008216) Homepage
      Space technology will repay itself in technological advance. Always has.
    • Yea we don't have any spare change at the moment, but hey space is our future. Tech is the best investment we can make in our and our kids future.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      This is absolutely the wrong mentality to have. Have you ever looked at the United States budget before? The money we give to NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall picture.

      Besides the return value on money given to NASA is tremendous. Where do you think the initial research for microwaves, MRIs, and countless other technologies original came from? That's right money for NASA has tremendous implications for spinoff technology.

      If you want to cut spending (and we should), why not start with "P
    • by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:48AM (#11008262) Journal
      It's ok, the Republicans have always stood for smaller government, balanced budgets and less spending...right?

      Sorry, I must've been dreaming.

      Seriously, just wait until interest rates go up and they try to borrow more $ to pay off the current massive debt.
    • by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:26PM (#11008603) Homepage Journal
      Cutting NASA to get the government's budget out of debt is the equivalent of being unemployed and skimping on resume paper, while eating caviar every night. You're tossing something that does a great deal of good and costs relatively little, while ignoring the gross overspending that put you into debt in the first place.
  • by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <hiland@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:42AM (#11008179)
    IIRC, Bush's plan looked good for jump starting missions to Mars, but hurt NASA in a lot of other areas, such as deep space probe missions. I would love to see a man on Mars in my lifetime, but NASA does have a lot of other programs going on that should not be forgotten for one high profile project.
  • I thought the US manned space program ended on February 1, 2002. Maybe they're going to spend the $16B on unmanned Mars probes?

    It would be nice if they'd find a way to repair or replace the Hubble Space Telescope, though.

  • by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burns&hotmail,com> on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:43AM (#11008197)
    The X prize was a relatively small amount of money
    compared to what we are talking about here-and the commercial implications appear to be far more substantial-and the organzation of the expenditure is such there was minimal risk. Republicans are supposed to believe in free markets and competition. What are they scared of here?


    I think the US needs a good, innovative commericial space program it it wants to be viable economically. There is lots of money to be made in space-and the US will need lots of money to keep up with its interest payments. That isn't the drive I see behind the latest Bush proposal.

    • by igny ( 716218 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:56AM (#11008346) Homepage Journal
      I think the US needs a good, innovative commericial space program it it wants to be viable economically.

      Governments must invest money in risky projects, R&D, which may or may not be profitable in the long term. On the other hand, commercial space program wants to be profitable in short term.

    • The X prize was a relatively small amount of money compared to what we are talking about here

      Why not both? Some money for the big risky projects (Mars), and other funds for the possible commercial portion.

    • The prize involved in these contests is a small fraction of the costs involved. The X-Prize participants, the DARPA autonomous vehicle people, etc, are putting more money into their projects than they will ever get back in prize money. So long as you have an exciting and sexy subject, people will still pour their own money in. And yes, these people have still made amazing advances for what they've put in, but they're doing so because it's their money. Give them government funding, and I suspect that their e
  • by Smuj ( 249217 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:43AM (#11008201)
    RTFA. This $16.2 billion is for praying our way to Mars.
  • by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:43AM (#11008202)
    To those people saying that we shouldn't have fully funded NASA so that we could instead lower the national debt, I respond there are a thousand things we should take money away from before NASA.

    Senator McCain clearly labeled many pork-barrel projects in several speeches. Pork Projects [cnn.com]

    Failing to fund NASA is failing to fund the future of our civilization and our economy. We exercise such short-term thinking at our own peril.
    • Failing to fund NASA is failing to fund the future of our civilization and our economy.

      The only thing this is funding is jobs for Tom DeLay's constituents and fat checks for aerospace contractors. And it's sort of a stretch to call ant farms in space the "future of our civilization."
    • by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:05PM (#11008441)
      I think the objection is not that the money is being spent, but that it's being spent in a careless manner. Because this manned mars program is so expensive, other programs, scientific programs, will have to be cut. NASA has a long history of doing both extremely useful things, and pointless things. The Space Shuttle and the ISS come to mind as complete wastes of money, whereas Hubble, the current mars rovers, and countless other unmanned missions have been great successes. Which would you rather have?
    • by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:09PM (#11008462) Homepage
      I want to agree with you. But the shuttle, and most of the so-called X programs, and the X-33 program in particular (~2 billion to build a *sub*orbital launch vehicle and then not even managing that?????) leads me to think that manned flight at NASA may be irredemeably broken.

      Sometimes you get a culture evolving at an organisation that precludes them from getting anything done. The Shuttle was, and is a big mistake- they originally sold it on the grounds that it would be able to launch every week (even when they knew it wouldn't- and the record shows that they didn't even bother building the facilities needed to do that, the NASA leadership knew it wouldn't be able to launch once a week, it was just the only way they could sell the program).

      A lot of the problems in the manned program is lack of good leadership- Von Braun was very well respected within NASA, whilst he was in the loop everything more or less worked. Once he left the big trouble started.

      If Bush can actually stand up to the plate for the plan, that might work. However, Bush isn't exactly my or pretty much anyones idea of a space leader, and his term in office won't see the program completed... Political instability is probably going to kill any chance of success anyway.

  • by andy55 ( 743992 ) * on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:44AM (#11008210) Homepage

    the President's full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars for NASA as a part of his Vision for Space Exploration.

    And if you like this idea, just think that the cost of the iraq war could have paid for 15 of these. *sigh*
  • to have the funding this year, but what this country's space program needs is decadal continuity and a coherent overall vision to go with it.

    Mark my words, five years from now, over half the things that this budget sets forth as worthy goals will have somehow gone aglimmering. Sigh.

  • yup (Score:2, Funny)

    by snap-hiss ( 800713 )
    Bush needs somewhere to run to after he causese Armageddon... why not Mars?
    • Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NardofDoom ( 821951 )
      No, Bush fully expects that he and all his "born again" pals will be taken up to heaven in the Rapture. Why do you think he's trying to cause Armageddon?
  • I have mixed feelings about this sort of funding. Personally, I think if the governement wants to help spur space exploration it should spend some of that money in funding incentives to coperations to engage in space related industries. Something similar to the X Prize for various accomplishments. NASA has done some amazing things and they should be applauded but I think it is time for them to take a more sheperding role.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:46AM (#11008234)
    More money for NASA?!?! Wow, that's great. We've been pushing this for years. We need to look towards the future.
    Oh... wait..., Bush is backing this? What a terrible idea.
  • by jedrek ( 79264 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:47AM (#11008242) Homepage
    The Truth.

    That all the monkeys we sent up into space came back SUPER INTELLIGENT!
  • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:48AM (#11008258)
    For 16 Billon I want a space elevator! I know we don't currently have the tech. to build one, but we have the vision and money. All it needs is some good old fashioned R&D, which would mainly be stronger materials, energy transfer, and elevator research.

    I don't care spit about sending a single person anywhere else in our solar system. I want us to be sending dozens or hundreds of people out there into space and not really just to another plant. Before we can do that though, we need a cheap space delivery system.
  • The new space race (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GodBlessTexas ( 737029 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:49AM (#11008275) Journal
    With China, India, and other countries now making overtures to get to the moon and possibly start extracting the natural resources contained on it, wouldn't it be a good idea to get back there?

    With the previous article [slashdot.org] here on Helium 3, it would seem that the moon should be our next destination, and probably the best launching pad for a Mars mission.

  • Biggest Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SloWave ( 52801 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:50AM (#11008278) Journal
    The biggest problem I see is that %80 percent or more of the money will go to pay Career CYA type desk jockeys, NASA camp followers, and other parasites that have infested the space program since the end of the Apollo landings. There really needs to be a major house cleaning at NASA and the major NASA contractors before any money can be wisely spent. The recently mentioned NASA X prize would be a good start but the the parasites' paid representitives in Congress are probably going to nix that.
  • Anyone thinking back to the 'freedom' space station, woudlnt 16 billion be enough money for NASA to *alomst* make it to last stage planing to solve its problems 2, maybe 3 tiems over??

    Dose anyone out there have the shirt, or rembere the cost to get nothing done?? was it 2Billion way back then or something outragiouse??
  • You know, it's funny because when I spend a truckload of money on credit, and then decide to spend $XYZ more on some other venture, the repo man eventually comes and nick my stuff.

    On the scale of Uncle Sam though, I could just keep running the debt forever and then print more money as I go, looking worryingly at the exchange rate of the dollar on TV from time to time until the whole scam blows in my face like some giant economy-wide internet bubble.

    In short, with the US deficit the way it is, there is no
  • by bmonreal ( 264417 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:56AM (#11008345)
    Current projects are already suffering.

    the Constellation-X [nasa.gov] x-ray telescope, successor to Chandra: postponed indefinitely

    the LISA [nasa.gov] gravitational wave antenna: postponed indefinitely

    the Explorer program, which launches small, often university-designed missions like WMAP (cosmic microwave background), HETE (gamma-ray bursts), and SWIFT (just launched!). Funding for future missions is on hold.

    Not to mention that the National Science Foundation just got a few-percent funding cut.



    • Thanks for making this point (I was skimming to see if anyone had done so).

      In fact it is worse than this -- one astronomer I know tells me that it looks like *all* funding for astronomy in the NASA budget may go away.

      Besides missions like Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, Swift, Con-X, LISA, GalEx, FUSE, etc. etc. etc., NASA funds science investigations by astronomers through various programs. If the money from these programs goes into Mars exploration, that will have a major detrimental impact on our nation's

  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:59AM (#11008380) Homepage Journal
    Some questions never asked [washingtonpost.com], due to totalitarian "no debate" from Tom "The Exterminator" Delay:

    What will it really cost?
    What NASA programs will be cut to fund it?
    How will other science agencies be affected?

    Welcome to the United States of Mexico.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2004 @11:59AM (#11008381)
    IMHO, solving the energy problem is much more important than space exploration now. The energy consumption at the moment is rather dire and having a Manhattan Project or Apollo Mission directed at solving it is much more important. Many new innovations or revolutions in technology means we'll need more energy in the future. Thus, not only it solves the current money spend on oil, it helps
    1. reducing money paid to terrorist supporting countries such as Saudi Arabia.
    2. paving the way for future inventions
    3. preserving mother nature and reducing pollution.
    4. saving money to be used on more basic things like food and homes, improving people's lives immediately.

    Sure, it is less glamourous than space exploration, but it could be something that has a much more practical impact in the US dominance (economically, politically, militarily -- those tanks and jets consume lots of energy -- etc.) on Earth. I still can't believe that with the number of brainiacs the US attracted over the years, there is no concerted effort to solve this problem.
    • Surely, you can't be serious in suggesting we fund yet another Wonder of the World. While another Manhattan Product or an Apollo Mission would bring us valuable influence and perhaps lead Canadian and Mexican border cities to rebel and join our nation, there is little chance that we would complete either project.

      Our scout units have reported that the Chinese and the Indians are both working on these Wonders, devoting the output of their largest cities. You and I both know that our industrial output, measured in shields, cannot compete with theirs.

      The long-term path to victory is clear, my friends. We must build Improvements on a city-by-city basis in order to solve the energy problem. Most of our cities have a Granary and an Aqueduct now, which is a good first step. I recommend a Factory to boost production, followed by a Recycling Center and a Power Plant in each city. This will both reduce pollution and increase industrial output, allowing us to build ever more military units and product ourselves from ever-more-frequent Barbarian uprisings.

      Once we have adequately defended ourselves, we can turn our industrial output toward the most important goal: building Modules for the starship that will someday take our descendants to Alpha Centauri and allow us to win The Game. Scuttlebutt has it that our scientists have almost completed the research necessary to build a Propulsion Module for our starship!

      (Ignore this post if you've never played Civilization.)
  • by ScottyB ( 13347 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:12PM (#11008477)
    At least in part it is coming from a $100 million cut in the National Science Foundation research money. This is just typical congressional pork coming from the majority, not a new interest in pursuing real science.
  • by Garse Janacek ( 554329 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:25PM (#11008596)
    Other posts have already done a good job of debunking the severity of this budget increase compared to other stupid wastes of money (proportionately, this budget for NASA is only a moderate increase, especially in light of the costs of an ongoing war and questionable government subsidies).

    What I find interesting is that there are suddenly a lot of comments saying how this is silly, and a waste of money. If the comments were primarily focusing on the destructive or impractical requirements that come along with the funding, I could understand, but a surprising number seem to be complaining about the funding itself.

    That's interesting to me, because if memory serves, slashdotters on average tend to bemoan the lack of funding for space-related ventures, rather than the amount of money that is being wasted on them. I don't like Bush much, and he's certainly screwed up the budget in a lot of areas, but it confuses me when people criticize him for increasing funding to NASA, or the NSF, or NIH, when similar increases would probably be praised in a candidate that people liked a little bit more -- and I'm quite certain that if Bush actually cut funding for NASA, slashdot would be in an uproar over it.

    Criticize him for an unjust war, or for counterproductive goals in space research, but the funding itself is a good thing as far as I'm concerned...

  • by chmilar ( 211243 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:39PM (#11008713)
    Part of the "Wolfowitz doctrine" is to pre-emptively strike other countries in the name of defense. This has already come to pass. Another part is to militarize space, breaking existing treaties.

    It will be easier to sell the militarization of space if it can be explained as "defense". Once the U.S. establishes a base on the moon, then it obviously has to be defended. And, of course, defense means space-based first-strike weapons.

    I doubt that Bush cares about Mars at all. But, getting funding for Mars exploration is easier than getting funding for establishing a military moon base. The $16B of exploration funding will be followed by $300B of "space defense funding".
    • Dude, what are you talking about? If we really wanted to, we could strike any location on the planet with nuclear weapons within a couple hours and there's really no defense against it. Weaponizing space by actually placing the weapons there doesn't really buy anyone anything.

      This is just paranoia. ICBMs are decades old and for all intents and purposes, we (and the Russians) have already maxed out the concept of space-based weapons. Remember that a big leg of thier journey goes through space.
  • The cost issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:42PM (#11008755)
    I'm a citizen of North Dakota. My state is in the black. 90% of the government services I enjoy come from the state. Federal money for state programs is more of a burden than a benefit, because of all the strings attached. Why should I be all that worried about whether folks in far-away Washington D.C. go bankrupt?

    1. If they raise taxes beyond what most people are willing to pay, the system will collapes.

    2. If they don't and they go bankrupt, 90% of my services are intact.

    3. I really don't mind driving on gravel roads.

  • Trojan Horse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Michael_Burton ( 608237 ) <michaelburton@brainrow.com> on Monday December 06, 2004 @12:47PM (#11008811) Homepage

    For decades, I've been eager for more a more ambitious commitment to space exploration. But I'm convinced that the Bush program is a Trojan horse--a veiled attempt to eliminate NASA.

    It shuts down current working programs in exchange for promises of distant future projects. Those future projects would require enormous levels of funding for decades to come, in spite of ruinous deficits, through good economic times and bad, through many presidential and congressional elections. I don't think any honest observer believes that that long-term financing will be delivered. Certainly the Bush Administration has done little so far to drum up public or political support for such a long-haul effort.

    It's beyond Bush's power to deliver on his long-term promises, but it's within his power to destroy much of the useful work NASA is doing today. That's just what he's doing.

  • This is a Bad Thing (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2004 @01:55PM (#11009377)
    I'm an Aerospace Engineer and have formerly worked for NASA.

    What's wrong with this is not the amount of funding or anything of that nature -- it's the grandly stupid and misguided "Moon/Mars Initiative" that Bush is pushing and that the idiots on the manned space side of NASA are leeching on to.

    1. Without very clearly articulated and well thought-out plans for how we're going to tackle a serious challenge like Mars, it won't happen. Current contractors like LockMart, Boeing, Orbital, etc., are chock-full of incompetent people. NASA's manned space side is perhaps even more full of them. They are incapable, and I mean this in all seriousness as someone who has worked in this industry, of developing soundly engineered ideas and solutions to the problems of this kind of space travel.

    There are certainly people who have thought very hard about the best ways to tackle these problems, but they will be roundly ignored. This includes people like Robert Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin himself (Ph.D. in Astronautics), and so on. The contractors will be listened to when they say "we can't do that," the umpteen layers of poorly run and managed NASA manned space folks will believe them because most of them long ago stopped being able to solve hard technical problems, and people will die trying to make some of this happen (literally: don't expect Columbia to be the last disaster of its kind).

    2. While many manned space people are having wet dreams about gaining some more money and a new space "vision" (no matter how poorly thought-out or articulated), *real* programs that have *demonstrated success* have been cut. Remember reading here a few weeks ago about the Mach 10 Hyper-X program? You know, the one that after 40+ years of scientists and engineers trying to get a free-flight hypersonic scramjet experiment properly funded and run, came up with roaring success? Guess what? Once Bush broached the Moon/Mars "initiative", the X-43 follow-on programs were cut. Those groups have already disbanded. There is anger on the Air Force side since I think X-43C (maybe B, I don't remember which of the two) was supposed to be a joint project.

    A poster above pointed out existing NASA space programs that will suffer or are currently suffering. I'm not sure which is worse -- stopping *real* progress and frustrating the very people who have demonstrated success, or deluding the American people that we are on track to recreating Apollo-level achievements on a large scale and setting us up for a larger, even more wasteful, and incompetent manned space side of NASA.

    Don't get me wrong -- this is not an anti-space exploration rant. Going to space is one of ventures that had grand and wonderful repercussions for society. This is an anti-stupidity-in-aerospace rant.

    That those Americans seriously interested in our heritage and progress in the aerospace realm are not aware of just how incapable the U.S. aerospace industry (as a whole) has become is a great national tragedy. (E.g., do you *really* believe Boeing when they say the 7E7 is "20% more efficient?" Hint -- without *serious* changes in engine architecture, burning "20% less fuel" is, as Ralph would say, unpossible.).
  • DeLay (Score:3, Funny)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @02:15PM (#11009538)
    Usually the 'l' is capitalized, but I understand the gesture. Good show, submitter.
  • Awesome! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sebastopol ( 189276 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @02:42PM (#11009817) Homepage
    This is great news! Lots of money for NASA and science!

    But, who is going to do this research if our schools aren't funded because No Child Left Behind was gutted, and there is a growing, unchecked movement to replace science with pseudo science (ESP, Paranormal, Creationism)?

    Seems like the money would be better spent improving the quality of the future. I'd rather see $10b of that 16b be spent patching up the $10b shortfall from NCLB.

    Wow, I'm way offtopic...

  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Monday December 06, 2004 @03:03PM (#11010042) Journal
    I've mentioned this company before, but I'm really hoping that t/Space [transformspace.com] will get a contract for the Vision for Space Exploration. t/Space is an exciting company which includes people like Burt Rutan (of Scaled Composites and SpaceShipOne), Elon Musk (of SpaceX), Red Whittaker (of the Red Team, which constructed an autonomous vehicle which competed in DARPA's Grand Challenge), and several of the new companies in the budding space industry.

    According to their page: Our core mission requirement is to enable prompt, affordable, safe and sustainable lunar exploration and development by the largest possible number of Americans, both in person and via telepresence.

    Under our approach, government incentives focus exclusively on top-level goals, with technology and operational choices left to the private sector. The government incentives will be matched to specific top-level needs, but the "invisible hand" of market forces will shape choices as they flow down multiple supplier chains. Incentives will be structured so that several companies in each major area have an opportunity to win this support. With this competitive industrial base, two major processes become possible:

    * Market forces will continually launch new products that replace established goods and services (the "creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter [Austrian economist 1883-1950] identified as the key element of capitalism). Poorly performing systems will be killed off quickly via competition rather than via burdensome NASA reviews or Congressional intervention.
    * Capability gap analyses will be performed by dozens and ultimately hundreds of companies on a continuous basis. As happens now in all competitive industries, the successful companies will be those who listen closely to their customers and accurately predict their future needs - in other words, capability gap analysis by multiple independent profit-seekers.

    Commercial firms will create and own infrastructure that offers services that overlap in many cases. The overlaps found in a competitive private space economy will provide the resiliency now lacking in single-string solutions such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station, for which there are no ready alternatives. While functional overlaps are viewed as inefficiencies in centrally-planned systems, in a market-based system they drive costs lower (by reducing monopoly power and spurring innovation) and accelerate schedules (by eliminating single-point bottlenecks among suppliers and spurring competition).


    If I understand correctly, tSpace's plan is to design an overall space architecture, and have companies compete for different components, whether they be launch vehicles, space station life support modules, or lunar landers. Many of these components will also be available commercially, keeping the price down and the reliability high.

    I highly recommend reading through their presentation [nasa.gov]. The things they show in their are incredible. Here's a few of their points:

    Safety results from design choices, not oversight
    * Attempting to produce safety by inspection, quality control, documentation, meetings, etc., is ineffective and costly
    * The right choices include a robust and resilient concept, vehicles with ample margins and reserves, and high flight rates using smaller vehicles
    Flight history determines if a vehicle is "human rated"
    * Requires hundreds of flights for statistical validity
    * "Determination-by-analysis" is just an estimate
    Cost is an object
    * Expensive systems have too few units built to give resiliency to the architecture, and/or high operating costs lead to unsafe low flight rates.

"Because he's a character who's looking for his own identity, [He-Man is] an interesting role for an actor." -- Dolph Lundgren, "actor"

Working...