Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

Senate: NASA May Get Better Budget 32

Posted by timothy from the tax-money-at-play dept.
colonist writes "The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that funds NASA at $16.379 billion: $200 million more than this year, but $665 million less than President Bush's budget request. (The House version of the bill funds NASA at $15.1 billion: $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the request.) The shuttle budget is fully funded, but the International Space Station budget is reduced. There is initial funding for a robotic servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The budgets for the Crew Exploration Vehicle and Project Prometheus are reduced. $10 million is provided for the Centennial Challenges."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate: NASA May Get Better Budget More

Senate: NASA May Get Better Budget

Comments Filter:
  • The budgets for ... Project Prometheus are reduced.

    So now what are we supposed to do the next time the Goa'uld System Lords come to enslave Earth?!

  • Why? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by politicsie04 ( 778589 ) *
    Isnt it great that NASA can get a great big increase in its budget when the US is facing its biggest budget deficit in history. The money would be better spent on reemploying all those police officers in New York who have been sacked since 9/11.
    • I cannot understand this line of thinking.

      NASA's *entire* budget is less than 3% of just the budget deficit. To inform you, Bush's "manned mission to mars" initiative is going to cost more than the budget increase alone, which means that NASA's funding to projects with scientific merit (according to scientists, not politicians) is going to get cut.

      It's an unconscionable stretch to blame unemployment in government programs in NYC on NASA! Maybe you should think about offering your Bush tax cut back inste
      • To inform you, Bush's "manned mission to mars" initiative is going to cost more than the budget increase alone

        Have you considered that the grounding of the Shuttle and disengagement of ISS will free up an additional $6 billion per year which will go straight into the VSE?

        NASA's funding to projects with scientific merit (according to scientists, not politicians) is going to get cut.

        Steven Squire of Mars Rover fame gave a speech recently where he said that human exploration of Mars is going to be needed
  • Man, I wish someone would fund me $200 million more. I could buy that car I've always wanted, maybe even two.
    • well, the republicans say that you should vote for them and they will reduce your taxes enough so that you can afford another new car. However, it seems that when they get into power that their definition of "you" is "you top 5% income earners, meaning us".

      These big government deficit spending Republicans confuse me.

  • If I were the King (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MarsDefenseMinister ( 738128 ) <dallapieta80@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:03AM (#10319306) Homepage Journal
    I'd cut both the Space Shuttle and the Space Station. Completely. They are a waste of money at this point.

    Instead, I'd increase NASA's budget, tell them to switch to some robotic planetary missions, a small amount of space elevator research, and a somewhat larger effort to develop a two-stage to orbit booster consisting of a reusable flyback booster and a reusable space capsule. The damn thing will be stacked like a real rocket not in the dangerous side-by-side configuration that has killed two shuttles so far.

    • Just FYI, you don't have to have all shuttles in a belly to belly configuration - Hermes [astronautix.com] was intended to be lauched purched on top of Ariane because side-by-side mounting caused all sorts of aerodynamics issues. The first picture I could find showing this clearly is here [www.abo.fi].
      • Very true, but another thing that should be noticed is that wings are useless in space. If we can do without them, all the better. We can do without them, by designing a space capsule without wings.
        • Yup :) Can't land in an exactly predetermined location without them though and wings also generally mean a gentler landing (with no pesky parachutes to fail deploy a-la Genesis). Generally though if a capsule had a sterable parachute and was only needed for transporting men and equipment that can stand a bit of a bump on landing then it would make sence to use one and of course capsules are generally cheaper. It's very much a case of using the right tool for the job. Personally I'd like to see winged craft

  • What a waste. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Silverlancer ( 786390 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:18AM (#10319461)
    What a waste. Inside that budget is the fact that they're cutting everything worthwhile that the agency does in favor of some dream of "going to the moon/mars." There's no point in going to the moon/mars. A better option would be to build a space elevator (5-10 billion dollars) and then do whatever missions to mars/the moon for 100 times less (as the space elevator would transport material up into space for just 100 dollars a pound, instead of tens of thousands...)

    • Re:What a waste. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) *
      So which would result in cheaper transport costs - a space elevator, or a rail-gun system? Anyone know?
    • So you want him to fund a space elevator which is currently impossible with our current nanotube tech? If going to the Moon and Mars has no point as you just stated, why build a space elevator to go there in the first place?
      • There's a point in going, I'll admit, but its not worth 500 billion dollars to go to Mars. Plus, they expect nanotubes to be strong enough in 4-5 years... not too long.
        • I agree it's not worth $500 billion. However it does not have to cost that much. Do a google for "Mars Direct" to see one of several mission plans that can be done well within NASA's current budget.

          A space elevator would be nice but Louis and Clark didn't wait for the interstate highway system to be built and the car to be invented before they explored the west.

          I'd be careful accepting predictions about nanotube strengths being up to snuff in 5 years. Even if they are, will they be cheap enough to make
          • They've done the whole analysis--a space elevator will be surprisingly easy to build if built correctly. Of course, add the word NASA onto it and it would probably at least double the cost... ;).
    • no one else has made this comment yet: Its still just a theory and a pretty loopy one at that. If you want to get something done do you go with a theory or fact?

  • ALT.NASA Requirements... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My suggestion, based upon the rationale originally employed in the massive NASA spending, would be to require tangible military returns on any NASA spending within a period of 1-2 years. If we fund $20B for NASA, and get $20B+ value for our military I'd be more than happy.

    With the Chinese threat on the horizon I don't want to see things like space station funding unless said space station is ours and comes with nukes pretargeted for Beijing.
    • are you so crazy that you already want to nuke somewhere on the planet!

      Nukes are bad. Deterrents only. We have these deterrents but no sane person should ever think to using them again against another nation.

      Talk to your competitors. Work out a deal. No use blowing all of the rest of us up.

      Repeat after me. "Nationalism is dead".

  • Low already (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pbranes ( 565105 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:17PM (#10325264)
    The budget for our space program is ridiculously low as it is. We spend $15 billion/year on it - do you realize that the military alone spends $300 billion/year and they aren't even our biggest spender??!! With almost no dedication from the public towards a goal of pure scientific exploration, we should focus on the commercialization of outer space - that is where future development lies.
    • Agreed. That will probably be more beneficial to science in the long run. If space can be successfully commercialized, that will be worth many billions more than any budget increase for NASA. Scientific projects (or whatever else) can then be funded through commercial funds if NASA doesn't have enough to go around for everything.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (1) Gee, I wish we hadn't backed down on 'noalias'.

Close