Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary 462
colonist writes "A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. The panel also cut environment and science programs, but increased funding for veterans' affairs. NASA would get $15.1 billion next year, $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the President's request. Most of the cuts are on new initiatives. The subcommittee is the first step of a long budget process and major changes to the bill are expected."
3 Reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe this happened for a few reasons:
1. War
2. Sympathy
3. Elections
War: The spending on the war has caused so many problems in the US that it's hard to fathom any budget increases for any program, other than a military one. Take into account the huge chunk of cash moved into Iraq and you have yourself some questions. Is it prudent to be offering extra money to spend on space when so much money is going to killing resistance fighters, terrorists and occasional Iraqi civilians? Not to mention the costs of rebuilding the country that was bombed into the stone age, for whatever reason.
Sympathy: Dogbert says that if you want to get more funding, you should have your funding publicly slashed and burned for about a year. The sympathy you get will cause your funding increases to double in the next year, and the year after that. Part of the problem with getting new funding is that the old funding can be perceived as too fat if it hasn't been cut recently. Having funding cut will help obfuscate your motives for even more padding in the years to come.
Elections: By cutting the funding to NASA, this will show people that it's an election year and it's important to vote. I'm not sure which party will benefit from these cuts more, yet it's important for everyone that more people go and vote. People everywhere love NASA for their space exploration because most human beings want to pretend they can be members of a space faring race, like on Star Trek. NASA's human rights injuries [worldnewsstand.net], be damned.
Re:3 Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you actually implying that supporters wanted the funding cut, so as to increase it in the future?
Government funding doesn't work like that. On the contrary, if you don't use up all your funding, the likelihood of it going up is nil.
If NASA can meet the new budget, Congress says, "See? That's all you need. That's what you get next year."
If NASA underruns, Congress says, "See? You've made improvements. You don't even need THAT much!"
The reality of the situation is that you need to use all your funding / even run over a little bit to justify "getting more" in the next round of appropriations.
Re:3 Reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is why there will never be a balanced budget until govenment departments are rewarded for saving money. It was actually proposed somewhere that promising to give just a bit of the saved money as a bonus to employees in a federal department that went under budget could help quickly eliminate deficits.
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
There's nothing sadder than engineers who've been chomping at the bit for years wanting to do some *real* space work hearing about Bush's Mars plan, maybe even getting to work on preliminaries, and knowing that it's all a political game and nothing will ever actually get off the ground.
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's not be unfair to Mr. Bush (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush is "hemhorraging money" to folks like Halliburton, which is merely a bizarre sort of multinational nightmare to do with the military industrial complex, not the military itself. The military proper, well, that he's positively decimating -- engaging our soldiers in reckless policy ventures and cutting their bennies at the same moment, and so on.
Even the things the guy says he's about, he's
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, there's no way that this will remain in its current form. I can't imagine even the Republican-dominated house supporting this.
Re:3 Reasons (Score:2)
Nah Gonna Do It. Wouldn't be Prudent, at this Juncture.
Re:3 Reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:3 Reasons (Score:2)
> of a war is definitely not the way to win sympathy (#2).
Funding for veteran's programs was *increased*, not cut.
Mod the Parent Down (Score:5, Informative)
There is pleanty to critisize about the government, so lying to support a tenuous point is hardly necessary. The link you supplied discusses abuses foisted on the American public by the Pentagon and a few other government agencies. NASA is mentioned once, in passing, with no direct references or credibile, verifiable sources to support their inclusion. The phrase you chose to reference the link directly implies otherwise.
Yes, Congress has to deal with paying for the outrageousness of the Bush administration's poor decisions regarding Iraq, and personally I think that is the real driving issue, along with the medicare fiasco. The rest is complete supposition. While I don't doubt some find it interesting, there's no need to create contention by being dishonest when we already have more than enough to go around.
Kill the poor/sick? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the res
Re:Take a hard look (Score:2)
Re:Take a hard look (Score:2)
Re:Take a hard look (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Take a hard look (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though: please tell me you're kidding. And if
As Neil said (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry
Re:As Neil said (Score:2)
Re:As Neil said (Score:2)
Re:As Neil said (Score:3, Funny)
Shouldn't it be "That's 93% of a step for one man"?
Apple (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apple (Score:2)
That is to say, when Steve Jobs gets into space travel, it'll be better and more stylish. Unfortunately it will also cost even more :)
No Mars Mission? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:2)
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:2)
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that a man (or woman) on Mars wouldn't be unbearably cool, and certainly capable of doing some great science (a human could walk from crater to crater in hours, not months), but the cost is astronomical (pardon the pun). We put two rovers on Mars for less than a hundred million; people on Mars would cost tens of billions.
Of course if they were talking about sending _me_ to Mars I'd feel differently; I'd love to go. But I don't get real vicarious thrills watching somebody else go, so I'd rather spend the money more carefully.
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:4, Informative)
A realistic (i.e. not done by the incredibly bloated NASA bureaucracy) plan to put people on Mars would cost something like $20-40 billion. So for 20 to 50 times as much, you can put actual people there, and probably get at least 100 times as much done, if not more. That's a better return for your dollars. The only trouble is that it's a much higher initial investment, and NASA is completely incapable of thinking about putting people on Mars for less than a trillion dollars.
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would rather have all that money spent to social development within the US. The poverty [childrensdefense.org] level, especially in children living in it, is alarming. In fact it compares to Third World country levels.
But then again the Mod-Nazis might find this irrelevant/offensive/antiamerican (freedom hating propaganda) and mod it down in a futile attempt to exorcise the problem (out of their conscience?).
Go ahead teach master teach...
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:3, Interesting)
Primarily, cheaper payload to orbit options, cheaper stationkeeping and orbit changing methods, better in-space construction technology (to allow the use of smaller rockets), more materials research (so that payloads and rockets themselves become lighter and sturdier), etc.
Nothing will help the space industry as much as getting costs down far enough to allo
Re:No Mars Mission? (Score:3, Informative)
The research and engineering to get to Mars might cost billions - of course there would doubtless be the usual useful spinoffs and breakthroughs that'd make billions.
The actual mission might be quite affordable if the right breakthroughs happen along the way. For instance, what is the total flight time if a .01 G continuous thrust engine is available? Check out:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/docum
Oh yea, right. (Score:5, Informative)
But most likely not any changes that will actually help NASA.
Figures (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Figures (Score:2)
Actually, he appears to be pretty safe even in Afghanistan.
And this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hold out hope for private enterprise, but that's still decades away.
Trip to mars (Score:5, Funny)
They're also outsourcing NASA jobs to India, I guess.
Election year BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Election year BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in general, being a budget-minded tax cutter IS being a bold visionary.
I dunno... I just think civilization has had more than enough government produced bold visions...
Re:Election year BS (Score:2)
Let's face it, the problem is the old MIC. You have a billion dollar industry whose sole source of revenue is fleecing the government. You want to talk about accountability, how about stop using the same jokers who charge a fortune to not deliver year after year after year.
For what we are paying "private industry" we could
Re:Election year BS (Score:2)
I'm actually a basic supporter of space stuff, but I'd like to see a rational and logical approach. None of this boondoggle "send a man to Mars because we can" nonsense. Let's do some orbital industries or a solar power satellite farm. There's things NASA could do that COULD make a profit. Do something at L5.
Re:Election year BS (Score:2)
Tax cuttery (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the MS Word issue, where people with unrealistic demands drive software bloat, the unrealistic demands of people drive deficit spending.
And we elect the nice members of Congress to balance these needs. Better them than me.
GOOD! (Score:2, Insightful)
but they waste a lot of money, and i dont mean the "toilets, or wrenches" garbage.
I mean they are a large organization and its a government entity, they waste tons of money in managers talking to each other.
I think every government budget should be slashed, from schools to police. FORCE them to be efficient.
Re:GOOD! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice idea, but most places work from the ground up when figuring out the corners to cut, usually because they give the jobs to managers, and you appear to have missed the point that the whole system is dedicated to keeping a strata of middle-management in paperclips.
As for 'wasting' money, they're in a pretty unique situation regarding doing stuff for the first time, in terms of pure research, they're
Re:GOOD! (Score:3, Interesting)
$500 billion. Roll that one around in your head for a bit.
This particular case (veterans' benefits) is different, since that's a real benefit to people. But I have gotten *no utility whatsoever* out of most of our military spending. Neither has the rest of the world, and--to the extent that they have--it'd be possible to provide more benefit for cheaper using some other method.
I'm not saying that the US should eliminate its milita
We need another space race! (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting foot on another world was THE #1 defining moment of human civilization. 10,000 years from now, when we are hopefully spread across the galaxy, what historial event will stand out? A revolution in country X, a war in country Y? The raize and fall of empire Z? No, it will be the first steps off our home planet.
I can only hope in the next few years China makes a dash for Mars, and the west feels a need to upstage them. We should have been there by now.
Re:We need another space race! (Score:2)
Re:We need another space race! (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, 2001 was released in 1968. Think: that film was made in a time when nobody had ever been to the moon, but they were just about to do so. At Christmas '68 Apollo 8 orbited the Moon for the first time. That's the backdrop to 2001.
Now it's 2004. We've been to the Moon, we gave it up because we wanted to spend the money on killing Vietnamese people, and nobody seems to care anymore.
There's a word for this. Decadent.
Re:We need another space race! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, from that distance, whether we get to Mars today, or twenty years from now, makes no difference. I see no reason to rush to space so that schoolchildren in 12004 can learn that the first steps on Mars were taken in 2010 rather than 2020. Not at a cost of ignoring those wars and other conflicts that affect people
Re:We need another space race! (Score:2)
What irked me, is that the Apollo 11 astronauts only spent 2 hours on the moon's surface, and much of that time was wasted on stuff like planting the flag, chatting with Nixon, etc. Far better to have spent the very limited time collecting samples, setting up experiments
The cure is the cause (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is the way humans habitually thought we would still be hunter gatherers. The great thing about space exploration is that the technology we create to get us there sticks around forever once it's invented. Just think about it this way. If you can spend $100 today to invent a technology that will generate you $100,000,000 tomorrow, are you going to really bitch about losing a C note?
The riches that space has to o
Re:We need another space race! (Score:4, Interesting)
Arthur C Clarke isn't that wide. Even Gerard O'Neill conceded that some of his designs wouldn't be done by 2001, BUT, when Kennedy announced that they were going to the moon, it was a boom time for space. The limits were removed, only to slam back in as space was put on a backburner because the grey dust of the moon's surface failed to keep feeding the novelty. Hence the various stunts they pulled.
Politically, it was a time when the US thought they couldn't be beaten. Vietnam was a bit of a shock.
"THE #1 defining moment of human civilization."
As much as I am a fan of space in general, I think contraception was probably bigger, as it meant that we could control our own population; medical science in general has reduced our lability to environmental pressures and increased lifespan. Walking on the moon may well have been the defining moment for a generation, though.
"No, it will be the first steps off our home planet.
Except people are already forgetting it, and the vast majority follow a book of myths and legends called the 'Bible' that was cobbled together roughly two thousand years ago.
Do you even want to speculate on the fine people that think it was all staged in California?
"I can only hope in the next few years China makes a dash for Mars"
They're committed to a moon base, but what the other side of the bamboo curtain says and does are two completely different things. Mars has no interest for them at the moment because they're realists. That's one of the nicer aspects of communist nations...none of that PR stuff to sway the public. (Yes, this is a downside, I was tongue in cheek there.)
Re:We need another space race! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could share your optimism.
My bet? Ten thousand years from now, the most important historical event will be when our descendants understand the meaning behind the following mysterious inscription:
On the bright side, at least they'll have a ready supply of refined materials with which to work. Perhaps they'll put them to better use than we will.
FYI: Translation for the clueless. (Score:4, Informative)
The spiel mentioned above is the message that the Yucca Mountain design is intended to convey to future civilizations. Namely to those that show up 10K+ years from now. (Yucca being the designated site for the United States' Radioactive waste. It will be quite hazardous for an amazingly long amount of time.) The text is not really supposed to be an inscription per say, but simply the overall concept behind the structure of the entire complex.
The original research was done by Sandia national labs. A significant portion of the document can be found here [downlode.org].
Madcap googling resulted in an easy to read summary here [constantly.at]. May god have mercy on the poor soul that gets slashdotted.
BTW Tackhead, kudos on the obscure (?) reference. Forced me to learn. =)
--LordPixie
Sad to say, but I actually agree with Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, the American people (on average, not your typical US Slashdot reader - I hope) just do NOT get the fact that you have to HAVE money to SPEND money. Apparently being suckled on credit cards has removed that concept from peoples' minds.
With Bush's multiple rounds of slashing taxes, that means we have LESS to spend. We've got record budget deficits and we have to cut spending correspondingly. Period.
So if you like deep tax cuts, quit whining about budget cuts. This is what the results are - the government HAS to spend less or we're simply pissing in our own well.
Whine all you want about "But they could just cut (Program-I-Don't-Care-About) instead!" The problem is that every other program has their own segment of the population screaming about the exact same thing.
Maybe some nation that understands the concept of debit/credit ledgers can get to Mars instead, and send us a postcard.
Sad.
Re:Sad to say, but I actually agree with Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the people at NASA and appreciate everything they have done, but NASA is still a government organization and as such is extremely wasteful by nature. We just aren't getting the same type of benefits from NASA that we once did, it's stagnant and dull. I wish them
Re:Sad to say, but I actually agree with Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well honestly, NASA is one of the most wasteful organizations I have ever seen."
In defense of NASA, however, it really IS rocket science. NASA is expensive, but the Russians really aren't doing much. They're doing it cheaper by not doing much at all. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the current Russian space program is a shadow of its former self, to the point where they fly billionaires onto the ISS for cab fare. The budget struggles at their central Asian launch facility are sadly legendary.)
"W
Re:Sad to say, but I actually agree with Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
What [nasa.gov] crack [nasa.gov] are [hubblesite.org] you [nasa.gov] smoking [nasa.gov] and [nasa.gov] can [gravityprobeb.com] I [nasa.gov] have [caltech.edu] some [nasa.gov]?
We don't have record deficits. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like under Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush tax cuts lead to increased government revenue within 2 years.
The problem I have with Bush is that he won't VETO anything! He spends just like the worst of the liberals he claims are bad.
Oh, our deficits are not record, especially when compared to the GDP.
Finally Republicans act as they should. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally Republicans act as they should. (Score:2)
Re:Finally Republicans act as they should. (Score:2)
Now there is a method to the madness of the Federal Government. The Feds had to step in to keep states from cannibalizing each other. I live in Pennsylvania. We are downwind from Ohio, we get all their "industrial success" raining down on our cities as acid rain. We are next door to "tax free" Delaware, so strangely enough when you cross the border into Delaware you have retail outlets every exit.
Without
Re:Finally Republicans act as they should. (Score:2)
Research for Research's Sake (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, NASA doesn't need to turn a profit on its research. When the private sector pumps billions of dollars into something it's expecting to get billions in return. So why search for things that (seemingly) won't turn a profit right away.
NASA has benefitted this country so much its sad to see Congress shoving it aside. I guess they're hoping to offshore NASA.
These are necessary cuts (Score:2)
It's a shame this matter isn't being seriously addressed this election.
education and the social security "trust fund" (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that we have to cut NASA funding to fund baby boomers is pure nonsense. The difference between what the boomers will need (in the trillions of dollars) is far far less than the NASA budget). Now... if you want to cut the military, you could make some headroom. But you mentioned social security; so,
Right now the social security "surplus" (about 25% of your payroll
It is for this reason that... (Score:2, Insightful)
What bothers me the most.... (Score:2)
Sure I could vote for someone who says they won't cut the nasa budget....but when was the last time you heard a politician say that? Also, there's no guarantee a particular po
Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
When I think about how far the Space Shuttle has set us back it make my head hurt. Billions of dollars for a launch vehicle to replace one that costs millions of dollars.
And until Challenger, NASA had a policy of putting the Kabosh on any launches save those from the space shuttle. At any point someone could have smelled the roses, cut their losses, and moved onto something better.
Instead they had to keep burning billions.
Kick in the balls to NASA... (Score:2)
Alas, my country (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we spend all our time worrying about countries that tend to put the moon and stars on their flags.
To put this in perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
So enjoy those tax rebate cheques folks, the money had to come from somewhere.
Re:To put this in perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
The Budget was Cut by 1.49 Percent (Score:5, Interesting)
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
What?????!!!!! *Boggle*
No wonder people voted for Reagan and Bush Jr. believing shit like that.
The debt has constantly grown for at least a century and practically tripled under Reagan. The deficit has mostly grown as well, except for the years under Clinton where it finally went down and was just about to
Our new vision (Score:2, Funny)
Apparantly NASA plans to use the Metro's excellent gas mileage to reduce the cost of orbital flights. When asked why they didn't consider using a hybrid vehicle, NASA replied: 'The cost of development is too hi
But the moon landing was fake anyway (Score:2)
Saw this coming a mile away (Score:3, Insightful)
Now reality sets in. All the talk and good publicity is over. The media has moved on to newer "news" like Jenna Bush sticking her tongue out at reporters and the latest Hollywood romances that has the people back to their glazed over state. Congress gets the job of deciding how to make up for the hundreds of billions we've spent on Iraq and anti-terror efforts and doesn't really have many options for cutting the budget at this point. So NASA gets hung out to dry once more, and Bush suffers little (if any) bad press. After all, he didn't cut the budget!
God...I hate politicians so much. And not just one party either. They'll all say anything to get re-elected.
-Shadow
Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
We got more out of NASA than Tang and some rocks, boys.
(Personal note: my earliest memory that I can date accurately is being five years old, watching Neil and Buzz hop around the LEM on that late Sunday evening.)
Weapons of Mars Distruction (Score:2)
I am here to tell you of the threat Mars holds in shielding Al Queda training camps and Weapons of Mars Distruction.....
Re:Weapons of Mars Distruction (Score:2)
Does this matter to space development? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nasa made a _lot_ of promises that weren't really delivered by the shuttle. The X-prize entries have gotten a lot further for the amount of money expended than has Nasa. Now you can argue-well Nasa already built the shuttle. Still, is a politically correct bureacracy like Nasa _really_ the way a society ought to reach for the stars? I'm not sure that greedy corporations doing it for money is quite the right way either. This stuff really doesn't inherently need to be expensive. Thirty years ago, it looked like something was going to happen. What went wrong? Was it simple bad luck or a fundamental societal organizational problem? By now organizations like the National Geographic Society really _ought_ to have a space program. If the nascent Mormon church could organize colonization of Utah 150 years ago, why isn't anyone similarly motivated today? The folks running the USA today seem very, very different than those running the USA 100 years ago.
My guess here: if the USA were to go away, somebody else would pick up the ball-maybe the Russians or Chinese. Hell, I can even believe that if the US government were fundamentally restructured(ala Yugoslavia), it might have a better shot at space than this bunch of looser attorneys/media folks that will spend $1.2 trillion protecting an antique energy source in the Middle East-and not consider having a few hundred billion in prize incentives for a new energy sources to stop that bleeding.
Maybe A Silver Lining (Score:3, Interesting)
At the core, the scientists and engineers at NASA are very smart and clever people. They've done some incredible work on budgets that seem little more than spit and lint compared to the outlays the military typically gets. I think that they'll do great work no matter what the budget is because in the end they have great passion for their work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:prayer is free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree (Score:2)
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
That isn't a money problem, but more of a socialogical one. For one thing, America will have to stop treating the underclass like scum and start treating people properly, not only from the perspective of being a G8 nation and being able to afford it, but also from the standpoint that you don't want a socialogical strata of dumb people with nothing to do, living in poverty and becoming epidemic incubators.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
I think the figure is $15B, actually.
And American citizens are starving? In what state? Or City, or whatever? Sure not anything I've seen mentioned on the news recently.
Dying in the streets I won't argue with (much). There are entirely too many auto accidents still, even after many years of declining mortality on the highways....
Re:Time for handwaving (Score:2)
Re:Time for handwaving (Score:3, Insightful)
And now for a few hundred words to soak the brains of those who like to read.
There are ways things are done in order to make people in power look good no matter what the outcome is. Politics is a team sport in a government controlled by a majority party. In an election year, this more than most, we sometimes don't just see the puppets, but the hairy-wrists and the odd hand controlling some sticks. Sometimes we as an audience are less tolerant of the hijinks. In thi
Re:Time for handwaving (Score:2)
Re:Gimme the knife and let me slay the beast! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi, coward. This is the rest of the world; we took slight umbridge at the implication that NASA is the only space agency, and we'd like to invite you to check out Ariane, Long March and Huygens.
And it's 'monoculture'.
"but in order to do that it must obey the same laws as business and NASA will never do that."
You mean like charging people for satellite launch, repair and retrieval? Yeah, they'd never do that.
OTOH, I really like your thinking. California's never had power supplies this good, Litigation is at an all-time low and the media isn't trying to position itself as a government protected subscription outfit. no siree. None of that happening.
Re:Anyone else feel really left out? (Score:2)
In true proto-geek fashion I listened to "That's one small step..." on a crystal set.
The earliest mission I remember with any clarity is Apollo 8. In typical 7 year-old fashion I thought it would really suck to be away from home on Christmas Day.
The world forgot about space after Apollo 11, probably helped by the general lack of live video from Apollo 12. Pointing fancy new tv cameras at the Sun wil
Re:well.. (Score:2)
Re:I wouldn't mind (Score:2)