Democrat House passes large NASA increase......

[frodo1008]

Some time ago there were some posters here on M&L that were quite concerned that the new Democrat majority in congress would decrease NASA spending by a large amount.<br /><br />However.....<br /><br />http://www.space.com/spacenews/070730_busmon_naqsa_budget.html<br /><br />Now, it seems that this increase (which is in actuality peanuts compared to what president Bush wants as an increase to the military) is too much for president Bush!<br /><br />And of course, president Bush IS a Republican!<br /><br />Now, I personally (being a space oriented person) originally lauded president Bush on his direction for NASA. however, now when push comes to shove, he evidently may not actually want to "Walk the Talk!"<br /><br />What we space cadets need to do now is to find out which Democrat candidate would support NASA the best, and then both vote and possibly even work for this person to be the next president.<br /><br />Oh, I know there are those that would then say, but we need to investigate the candidates on the other issues also. <br /><br />SO WE THEN GET ANOTHER NIXON AND A DESTROYED SPACE PROGRAM ONCE AGAIN????<br /><br />We CAN and MUST be able to afford both GUNS and BUTTER here, or end up carping and griping about "What could have been!" just as many do on these boards now in regards to the shuttle and the ISS!!<br /><br />I know that this is somewhat of a rant for someone like myself. Heck, I even start very few threads here. But, I have suffered through the slaughter of the program just when we had performed the greatest act of the twentieth century, in placing men upon the moon! And, I DON"T want to see that desecration of the program again!!!!!!

 

[frodo1008]

What, no comments from even the peanut gallery of anti Democrat, and anti liberal ultra conservatives? For shame, for shame!<br /><br />I might have gotten a better rise by posting this over on free space!<br /><br />Can I do that, posting the same thread on more then one forum? Without getting banned that is!

 

[docm]

Not worthy of comment because it's a troll post. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Frodo, I'm with you on this one. Docm, I also believe this is a topic that could easily go astray. Without getting into a left/right, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican style argument I'll restrict my comments to an apolitical style. <br /><br />Who's in office is more important than what party is in office when it comes to NASA and its funding. Both parties deserve credit and blame when it comes to any NASA success or shortfall. The hard part about being a politician is that one issue is always tied to many others and the President's veto threat is not just based on NASA funding but other issues. Are those other issues as important as NASA funding? That is always debatable.<br /><br />I think both parties need to wake up in this arena and make NASA's budget MUCH larger. We should be dominant in the aerospace sector and although we are still in the lead, I believe that lead is slipping fast. We should have been to Mars by now. We should have nuclear rockets and space stations (plural emphasized) as well. The 1970's were way too negative of a time politically to allow it to happen. We are now reaping the consequences of that short sided point of view.<br /><br />The reality is that the private sector will lead us back to the moon and beyond. This is quite a controversial statement to many on these boards but I stand by it. As soon as manned space travel becomes profitable, NASA's role in this area will fade. Until this time, our leaders should make sure that our space program is never compromised like we see it now. New space is vital to our future but it won't be immediate.<br /><br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[gunsandrockets]

Interesting article. Though your characterization of that article is neither fair nor accurate.<br /><br />Though I am happy to see full NASA funding from the HOR, the HOR still couldn't help themselves from cutting money from manned space flight operations...<br /><br />"While the bill funds NASA's science, aeronautics and education accounts above the president's request, it shorts the agency's $6.79 billion request for the Space Operations Mission Directorate - which runs the space shuttle and space station programs - by $100 million, most of which would come out of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) procurement on tap for 2008. While NASA relies on TDRSS to communicate with the shuttle and station, the heaviest user of the aging system is the Defense Department, which pays the majority of TDRSS operations costs."<br /><br />I also wonder how the language (from the Senate?) which bans spending money for manned Mars R&D will fair in the end.<br /><br />As far as Bush goes...<br /><br />"The Administration supports the House's full funding for NASA's Exploration Systems and Space Shuttle. However, the Administration does not endorse funding in excess of the request for Aeronautics, Education, and Science, where increases for near-term support would create unsustainable outyear funding requirements," the White House wrote in its Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3093."<br /><br />I am glad to see Democratic champions of manned spaceflight countering the higher profile Democratic enemies of manned spaceflight. But I can't help but wonder, where on the Republican side is there the equivalent of Franks or Obey or other Democrats who oppose manned space exploration? The anti's all seem to have a (D) by their name.<br />

 

[qso1]

I've been one of those concerned about Democrats and their overall lukewarm support of human spaceflight since Apollo ended. However, its good to see Democrats still have some pro space representatives in their ranks such as Mikulski and Mollohan which may translate into better support in coming years but its still a bit early to know for sure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

And of course, the entire thread that condemned the new Democrat controlled congress for being anti space program (before ANY funding votes were taken) and NASA wasn't troll bait?<br /><br />Also, as the article came from a link directly placed on space.com it IS certainly an available subject, now isn't it?<br /><br />However, you are indeed entitled to your opinion, even if it is incorrect!!

 

[frodo1008]

My main point was that those that automatically condemned the current Democrat lead congress before even any votes were taken were totally incorrect! So in a way, you are correct also in that the issue of space and NASA is both supported and not supported by both political parties (yes there are indeed anti space Democrats). We should indeed take the problem on an individual basis, but some of our more conservative members have already attacked the Democrat side without giving at least the HOR a chance to even vote on the subject.<br /><br />I believe that NASA's budget should be at the very least raised to 1% of the federal budget. Back in the 1960's (which most people on these boards seem to correctly believe was a truly great time for space and aerospace as well as the country in general) NASA's budget was some 2% of the federal budget for the entire period of the 1960's, and reached a high of some 4% of the budget in 1965), so I think that 1% certainly isn't out of line!<br /><br />That would mean a NASA budget of some $30 billion instead of $17.7 billion. And even this should be achieved over a period of time by giving NASA a 10 % increase over inflation every year until it is achieved!<br /><br />NASA's current part of the federal budget is so small that you couldn't even properly chart it on an excel graph if you wanted to, either the other far higher items (even in the discretionary part of the budget) would have to be bars that would go off the scale, or NASA's part would be too small to even appear!<br /><br />In actuality, it really isn't even possible to find a true return on investment on the space program and NASA as the technology spin-offs have been so great that you could easily lose track of how much they are really worth to the economy. But, I have heard of a minimum of some 6x times the to as high as 14x the investment. So an average would be somewhere around 10x, and even the direct federal taxes on such a return to the economy would far more than

 

[frodo1008]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Heck, I thank anybody that responds to something as important as this, even docm, although he probably wouldn't reply back.<br /><br />I too, am not happy about ANY cuts in any of the vital areas of NASA, but you must admit that there are many members of these boards that would also cut manned space, if it meant more for space science or aeronautics.<br /><br />It is too bad that these budget negotiations always seem to place the already far too small a community such as our space support group at each others throats for our own particular area of NASA's many projects! <br /><br />However, the budget negotiations are far from over yet, and a $100 million cut in manned operations of some $6.79 billion is small enough that it can (and hopefully will) be relatively easily made up if truly necessary to keep the manned program on track! <br /><br />As for Mars, I am sorry but that is so far away from NASA's capabilities (except for the excellent robotic probe programs) at this time that such a ban really has no real practical affect on NASA. Heck, there are those that even doubt our capabilities to make it back to the moon with the current overall funding!<br /><br />I personally fully believe that many here are greatly underestimating what it will take to SAFELY get to Mars with a human mission. ANY other approach to the truly vast distances and dangers will lead to disaster, perhaps setting manned space exploration back for the rest of this century at the very least.<br /><br />What is needed is a true space manufacturing capability (using materials from either NEO's or the moon) so that we can launch a large enough initial human mission to Mars to guarantee enough redundancy to make sure such a mission is successful.<br /><br />In NO way do I wish to live to see the kind of media circus that would result in the slow death of the people on such a mission, some millions of miles from the Earth. There would absolutely be NO Apollo 13 type of res

 

[frodo1008]

Well, in general the Democrats wish to see social programs expanded, while the Republicans want to see the military get more money! <br /><br />It is sad to me that either view usually ends up as poison to NASA's budget. All we can do is to write our own messages to our own congress people, but I am even sure how much good that does.<br /><br />I hate to say it (as the human suffering would be horrendous) but sometimes I think it is going to take the wiping out of some major city somewhere on the Earth by a small meteor (such as the size of the one that created the meteor crater in Arizona) before humanity realizes the REAL terrorists are just chunks of rock floating around the solar system!<br /><br />And there ARE such terrorists out there that can even destroy humanity totally!!<br /><br />We mere humans are puny in comparison to such, but with a truly proper world wide space effort we could be the first species to prevent our own demise! IF we don't then we are indeed to dumbest creatures on this planet!! <br /><br />Actually, there is SOME hope, as I see that even our military people have some sense of the true danger and want at least to be able to quantify it as the first step in prevention! THAT part of the military budget I am MORE than happy to be paying as a taxpayer!!

 

[spacelifejunkie]

" hate to say it (as the human suffering would be horrendous) but sometimes I think it is going to take the wiping out of some major city somewhere on the Earth by a small meteor (such as the size of the one that created the meteor crater in Arizona) before humanity realizes the REAL terrorists are just chunks of rock floating around the solar system!"<br /><br />Fear, pain, and death are the only things that some people understand. But, there is a better way than hoping for an "eureka moment" to spur investment in space. Even if that giant meteor hit today, we would soon lose the urgency after a few years to deal with it. Once the cities are rebuilt, people will start to forget.<br /><br />Profit is a much more powerful motivator for innovation and exploration. Longer lasting, too! Unfortunately, we've dug a hole in manned spaceflight over the last 30 years and haven't continued to innovate and the up front money to invent new ways amounts to A LOT. Our politicians have tunnel vision most of the time and it seems the politicians in the districts where NASA has the most influence are the biggest supporters of budget increases. Not always so but isn't that convenient for them?<br /><br /><br />SLJ<br />

 

[josh_simonson]

He is threatening a veto because the increase in budget is not in the areas of NASA that he wants to see increased. The president doesn't want to grow the aeronautics, education and science areas while they're busy with the switchover from STS to Ares. We shouldn't forget that every year delay in rolling out Ares is a multi-billion dollar loss because the Ares (formerly STS) infrastructure is being paid for but not producing anything.

 

[gunsandrockets]

If manned flight to Mars is truly as difficult as you think it is, that makes it all the more imperitive to conduct the long lead time R&D needed to reduce that risk. But aside from the practical matter, the ban on Mars spending displays a disturbing hostility towards manned space exploration.

 

[thereiwas]

He also doesn't want growth in the earth-observing areas that might yield information on climate contrary to the interests of his oil-company friends. (When I say 'he' I mean Cheney.)

 

[alokmohan]

We want mars.