Congress may slash NASA budget

radarredux · Jul 20, 2004

> Great idea...even the mainly robotic Planetary Society is frustrated by these budget cuts./i> I picture a bunch or robots, perhaps with a smattering of humans, sitting around discussing how they should explore space. Perhaps that should have been "robotic-oriented Planetary Society" or "the Planetary Society, which mainly advocates the use of robotic probes to explore space, ..." <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

radarredux · Jul 20, 2004

> Please tell me they haven't cut JIMO! No way! ... i really hope they don't cut the budget/i> I am afraid $230 million was cut from Project Prometheus/JIMO. The House press release can be found at: http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=414&Month=7&Year=2004 Given that JIMO was a long-term project, hopefully this will only result in a 6-12 month delay in its final capability.

radarredux · Jul 20, 2004

> NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket. They need to slash somewhere else./i> The House's appropriations committee (the group that actually says whether you have money) has about 13 subcommittee. The subcommittee that controls the NASA budget is the "Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies". I guess NASA falls under the "Independent Agencies" group. The upshot is that NASA has to fight for its budget with Veterans affair and Housing and Urban Development, and in a time of war, Veterans will win. To give some perspective, here are some of the numbers: Veterans Health Administration: $1.9 billion morethan last year, $1.2 billion over president's request. NASA -- $229 million lessthan last year, $1.1 billion less than the president's requested. National Science Foundation (NSF) -- $111 million lessthan last year, $278 million less than president's request. Environment Protection Agency -- $613 million lessthan last year, $36 million less than the president's request. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -- $108 million lessthan last year, $1 billion more than president's request.

radarredux · Jul 20, 2004

> Good news: Senator Brownback is on appropriations./i> Brownback is on the Senate's "authorization" committee covering NASA but not (as of current listing on the web site) on the "appropriations" committee. In other words, he says whether NASA is or is not allowed to do something, but another committee says whether NASA can or cannot do it. It is the "may I" vs. "can I" issue. For those interested, the members of the Senate's VA/HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittee (which allocates funds for NASA) are: Senator Christopher Bond (Chairman) (MO) Senator Conrad Burns (MT) Senator Richard Shelby (AL) Senator Larry Craig (ID) Senator Pete Domenici (NM) Senator Mike DeWine (OH) Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) Senator Barbara Mikulski (Ranking Member) (MD) Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) Senator Tom Harkin (IA) Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV) Senator Tim Johnson (SD) Senator Harry Reid (NV)

thecolonel · Jul 20, 2004

What a blow, and for it to come on the 35th anniversary of Apollo 11 is just plain ruthless... Have we really lost so much sight of our goals that even sentimental value means nothing anymore? I'm not saying they should have given the requested budget based on sentiment alone, but jeez, couldn't they have at least waited a day to deliver the bad news?

silylene old · Jul 20, 2004

Do not turn this thread political. If you want to discuss politics, go to the.... Blacknebula, this is an inherently political subject. You cannot avoid that. Determining what gets money from the budget (Iraq) and what doesn't (space exploration) is a political decision. It isn't a technical decision, it isn't a scientific decision, it isn't a where-do-we-go-for-lunch decision, it isn't a will-you buy-some-more-toilet-paper decision, it is a political decision. Therefore, as long as this thread exists, I can question the political nature of this decision. Don't try to tell me where to "go" again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

blacknebula · Jul 20, 2004

In that case, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Senator Barbara Mikulski are on our side. Senator Brownback is on the overall Senate Appropriations committee. It must be given the OK by everyone before it hits the floor, I believe.

radarredux · Jul 20, 2004

> NASA should be opened up to private donations./i> The good news is that as private space enterprise opens up, you probably will be able to do this. There are probably several X Prize participants and other private space organizations (SpaceX, Bigelow, etc.) that would be happy to take your donation. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

blacknebula · Jul 20, 2004

Free space is for politics. I asked you to discuss politics where it belongs. In this thread, people from both sides of the aisle have commented and none have turned this into...the Republicans are evil for going into Iraq,or the Democrats are evil for supporting social programs. We all have one goal, and that is to explore space, regardless of our political affiliation. If we are going to get NASAs budget passed, we must be uniform in our stance, not divided.

silylene old · Jul 20, 2004

I didn't say republicans are evil; nor did I say that democrats are evil. I did say that the Iraq war is wasting $89B upfront and $14B a year that could've been spent on my pet project, space exploration. And yes I did imply that the entire discretionary budget is being spent on Iraq, because that is true. I personally don't care whether republicans or democrats or Bush or Hillary or Jesse Jackson is the cause of us spending $89B + $14B/yr on iraq. Simply the fact is that this is plenty of money to fund every space exploration fantasy I have (oh, I have a lot of them). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

blacknebula · Jul 20, 2004

"Simply the fact is that this is plenty of money to fund every space exploration fantasy I have (oh, I have a lot of them). " There is plenty of money, it's just who do they want to anger the most?

robotical · Jul 20, 2004

I seem to remember this very pitfall being discussed several months ago and those of us who predicted it were told that we weren't true space advocates or something to that effect. Budgets are tight, congress is not going to simply give large sums of money to what it views as optional spending. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lunatic133 · Jul 20, 2004

HOLY CRAP. I come all the way to my grandparents house (just a mile, but still) to use the internet just to find out THIS? This is a very below-the-belt blow indeed. I can't believe they would do this ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF APOLLO 11, and not only not funding MtM but ALSO making it so we have LESS money than last year? WTF. Seriously. W. T. F. "NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million." You have got to be effin' kidding me. Basically what they are doing is making absolutely effin' sure that we keep doing what we've BEEN doing for 30 years even though it's been made PERFECTLY clear that it's not going to cut it anymore ... and they're the ones who ASKED for a bold new innitiative in the first place, and now they're doing this? Advocating the stagnation policy? Effin' b*stards. That's all I have to say about it. I wish I could use full swear words without being banned .... #$!%#$@!$#%

radarredux · Jul 20, 2004

Lunatic, please tell us how you honestly feel. Seriously, I think most of us agree. The timing stinks. And like you said, Congress has been screaming for direction in space, but then Congress said we aren't funding it. Sigh...

meteo · Jul 20, 2004

Phone calls, faxes, and letters people, this cannot stand. I'm eager to hear what Bush is going to say tommorow.

blacknebula · Jul 20, 2004

Me too. I hope his speech writer is prepared.

blacknebula · Jul 20, 2004

That mean no MtM funding. I smell special interests. Personally, I'd vote to kill the nuclear mars rover, and Phoenix to fund Mtm for FY05. I'm going to ask/hope Senator Brownback actually considers killing the shuttle in appropriations to save this program.

meteo · Jul 20, 2004

I agree as much as I would LOVE to see JIMO happen it is below MtM which is below CEV on my priority list. Lets say the full increase wasn't in the cards what does everyone think should be cut first and what must be fully funded?

blacknebula · Jul 20, 2004

Shuttle <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

spacester · Jul 21, 2004

Oh my! Don't tell me the guys in DC pulled the old switcheroo on you again! (edit: this post is not directed at anyone in particular) Look, I'm not gloating, but neither am I surprised. In point of fact, I um, well, I told you so (before the crash). I predicted dubya would do the vision thing 2 to 3 years into office, but not having any himself, he would turn to space because, well, what else is there? He did just that, and you're just now finding out he didn't mean it. So if dubya the hero of space development is serious about his so-called plan to Moon and Mars, he'll be all over the place advocating the restoration of the funding he needs for his vision thing. Let me know if he does anything more than a sound bite or two. Like I said, it's nice that all the old studies got dusted off and the lucky guys who get paid to think about this stuff got some cash out of the deal. It puts Kerry in position to put together a real plan early in his term, unlike dubya who waited three years cuz he was too busy fearmongering, er fighting terrorism. Congress is pretty darn frustrated with NASA in terms of results per dollar spent. O'Keefe has cleaned up the accounting (I hope), but is almost as evasive in testimony as Psycho Dan was. Space is a bargaining chip to these guys, not much more. I don't see it as an issue that can rise above the dreck of the campaign trail. They are posturing now for the political season, which doesn't start until sometime after Labor Day. (edit: deleted a word and substituted 'fearmongering') <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

thecolonel · Jul 21, 2004

I'm extremely distraught by the news also. For awhile there I thought we really had a shot at getting the budget to get the ball rolling on all the new initiatives this year. But recent news and statements from politicians sort of showed their hand and I at least had some time to come to peace with it. So while its not a shock, it is definitely disappointing and in poor taste with respect to Apollo 11. I don't think Capitol Hill really intended to insult the aerospace community by leaking this news on July 20, instead I think they didn't even realize the correlation... which might arguably be even worse... The battle isn't over yet though. We can't continue down this same path forever, something will HAVE to change... even it is under the cursed guise of... EVENTUALLY... *sigh*

thecolonel · Jul 21, 2004

Look, I'm not gloating, but neither am I surprised. In point of fact, I um, well, I told you so (before the crash). I predicted dubya would do the vision thing 2 to 3 years into office, but not having any himself, he would turn to space because, well, what else is there? He did just that, and you're just now finding out he didn't mean it. The sad fact of the matter is that the mass majority (John Q. Public) doesn't understand people like us on SDC. When we talk about space, how it is our future, our destiny, and answers to the toughest questions from scientific to philosophical they **** an eyebrow in return and tell us to get our head out of the clouds. And unfortunately in a democratic nation, where the people elect their leaders, any politician regardless of party affiliation is not going to support something that will open themselves up to being perceived as 'aloof'. It's not a matter of supporting/not supporting, it's about political calculation... which is often one of the most vile and disgusting things imaginable. It has been a long time since we have had a prominent political figure in America, whom had the fortitude and courage to persue space regardless of how they would be perceived. Wouldn't it be nice if someone like that would come along and take us into the promised land?

bobw · Jul 21, 2004

I'm not surprised either. I remember when O'Keefe took the helm. Everybody was asking him about the moon and mars and he said something very much like ' We don't even know if we can finish the station so lets wait a bit before we talk about the future.' What, at that time, would make him say that? I thought that was a pretty bad attitude and was worried about nasa's future. To be honest, when Columbia conked my first thought was a picture in my mind of him out there one night cutting foam with a box cutter. I don't like him. I think he's there to save money by ruining nasa. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

earth_bound_misfit · Jul 21, 2004

I just wanna say, as a non USA resident, i hope the nasa budget doesn't get slashed. Nasa has done great things over the years and the world is grateful. But slashing this and slashing that doesn't help the planning/foresight and money already (then wasted) spent. Anyhow, a big thankyou to the american taxpayer for allowing us all to have a better understanding of the universe around us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

yree · Jul 21, 2004

"low-income renters of apartments and houses, despite a proposed funding level of $14.7 billion, $491 million more than in 2004." "The Environmental Protection Agency's spending was set at $7.8 billion," "I agree as much as I would LOVE to see JIMO happen it is below MtM which is below CEV on my priority list. Lets say the full increase wasn't in the cards what does everyone think should be cut first and what must be fully funded?" Post Extras: 1 be cut first STS AKA Space Shuttle 4,3 billion 2 be cut firs ISS 3 Environmental Protection Agency 6,0billon 4 low-income renters of apartments and houses $14.0 billion 1fully funded Project Prometheus 500 million 2 fully funded Crew Exploration Vehicle 4,3 billion 3 $910 million Mars proposal 1.2 billion

Congress may slash NASA budget

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

thecolonel

Guest

silylene old

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

radarredux

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

silylene old

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

robotical

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

radarredux

Guest

meteo

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

meteo

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

spacester

Guest

thecolonel

Guest

thecolonel

Guest

bobw

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

yree

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page