President and space exploration

[alokmohan]

I was reading in spaceref that candidates seeking vote iis to explain their space policy.What you think?

 

[holmec]

Candidates sharing their space policy would certainly be informative. I certainly would like to hear their views. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

On youtube one of the republican debate questions was about space exploration, the candidates had some pretty contrasting views.

 

[drwayne]

I really don't think any of the candidates perceive their being any "heat" to the issue.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[ashish27]

haha, Well i think Indian politicians should be made to do the same <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[alokmohan]

We can take lead of world.Then all problems are solved.

 

[R1]

here is the current president on space exploration:<br /><br />http://youtube.com/watch?v=vyH33dvsLjE&feature=related<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

So much of the space program budget goes to big defense contractors. Pumping public money into big corporations is a primary goal of this administration. They are not concerned with the national debt.

 

[R1]

I agree with the dream. The previous presidents before him had a chance themselves to<br />mandate a vigorous space program. They did not.<br /><br />The current president could have also not pursued a major step in space exploration.<br />But he did, he mandated it.<br /><br />As to where the money is spent, well, at least there was a window open for design submissions.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

"The current president could have also not pursued a major step in space exploration. <br />But he did, he mandated it. "<br /><br />But in fact, he gave no support to any method to pay for it, so his mandate is made of tissue paper, not money.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[R1]

can't the federal reserve just print the money for Nasa? <br />just kidding.<br /><br />No, I wasn't aware of the difficulty in finding money for it. Thanks for scaring me.<br />I'm not really wealthy.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

While its not really advisable for the FR to print money for NASA, if they did...it wouldn't change things much. According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt<br /><br />The national debt is over 5 trillion dollars which is around 294 times the NASA budget (If my maths right) or roughly one day of debt relief if we totally axed NASA. And if we totally axed NASA, that one whopping day of debt relief is only good for one year. <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>

 

[R1]

That's a good point, that the NASA budget is only a grain of sand compared to the national debt! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />But if the FR were to print $400 billion and send it to NASA, then the FR would get $400B in bonds or notes from<br />the government, would it not? <br /><br /> If so, why couldn't the FR just simply donate $400B worth of bonds to NASA?<br />Who would lose anything, I mean the FR is not owned by shareholders, is it? It's not 'owned' by somebody, is it?<br />Unless I learn more about this, and learn differently, it just appears to me like the FR is only a mysterious<br />entity, accumulating mountains of U.S bonds, the same thing China is doing.<br /><br /><br />edit PS: and meanwhile NASA is being neglected, in that it could use a lot of extra money<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"The current president could have also not pursued a major step in space exploration. <br />But he did, he mandated it. " <br /><br />But in fact, he gave no support to any method to pay for it, so his mandate is made of tissue paper, not money. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, but he directs NASA toward a new goal rather than keeping business as usual, which is a good thing.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

And he did give them money for it - all the money the shuttle program would have received after 2010!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Which is way less than what is needed, I fear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Which is way less than what is needed, I fear. </font><br /><br />Well yeah... if you go spend the money you DON'T have, to develop a launch vehicle you DON'T need, and the new SRB that CAN'T meet your needs.... of course you don't have enough money to do all that you wanted to do.<br /><br />Scrub the Ares 1, that will save $5~$10 billions there. Use the EELV's instead of Ares 1 for crew launches to ISS, and you won't have a "gap" of 4~5 years to service the ISS. place the Orion on top of EELVs for ISS and Lunar missions. Spend the R&D money on Ares V, because you need the big "space truck". Use existing 4-segment SRB and RS-68 (with upgrades) and let the payload capability falls where it may (the "payload weight requirement" was a guess anyway) Begin unmanned robotic missions to the Moon using Delta IIs or the EELVs now !! Start collecting data from the Moon and begin manned mission planning, then the country may just think that you're serious about the Space Exploration and this is not just another NASA job program!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

John1R:<br />But if the FR were to print $400 billion and send it to NASA, then the FR would get $400B in bonds or notes from the government, would it not?<br /><br />Me:<br />Not being an expert economist, I don't know the answer to that question. However, the government and FR do not have to give NASA money it does not have. The problem is not lack of money. The Clinton Administration had a golden opportunity to allocate significant budget increases to NASA in the late 1990s. During that time, the U.S. budget went into the black for two or three years.<br /><br />According to the "World Almanac And Book Of Facts", the 1998 budget surplus was 70.039 B dollars, in 1999 it was 124 B dollars and in 2000, it was nearly $237 B dollars. You'd have thunk Clinton could have pulled an extra bill or two for NASA. The NASA budget for 2000 was $13.442 B dollars which was a reduction from the previous years $13.665 B dollars. A $200 plus billion surplus and the C Admin couldn't even allocate a billion to NASA?<br /><br />Todays excuse is the Iraq war. Its all relative and it all depends on the agenda of the sitting Administration and the public will. There is little public will for human spaceflight which translates into little real support for NASA. The Bush Admin appears to support NASA with its Constellation program mandate but has not so far provided real funding to achieve the Constellation program objectives. Instead preferring to rob Peter to pay Paul or taking money from other NASA programs to finance Constellation. <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>

 

[alokmohan]

And the senior Bush was good at it.

 

[R1]

Well propforce and josh have good points too,<br />It could have been business as usual, Bush could have maintained Clinton's status quo or even shrank<br />Nasa's budget, but he took the right first step. <br />It's merely a first step for the U.S.<br /> Someone had to mandate it, but no one had the nerve (or neuron), to do it, for the longest time.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

But again, a "mandate" without the funding to make it feasible is nothing but words. IIRC, Reagen made some kind of space related "mandate" as well, which also went nowhere due to no funding, while actual funding went into Star Wars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[ua_vt_ae]

Unfortunately, the current US National Debt is over 9 TRILLION DOLLARS! <br /><br />See here: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/<br /><br />The politicians just keep pushing it off to us (<40) and to the generations to come.

 

[R1]

well, since the mandate, we have started developing the constellation program,<br />with Orion, Ares, etc.<br /><br />Nasa will continue to get funding each year, and is making progress. I agree that it needs more money, though.<br />For 2008, It is thought that $ 717 billion will be for our military alone (for 2008 alone!), that big allotment<br />would completely pay an astounding $400 billion manned expedition to Mars in 6.7 months, (by July '08), if my math is correct.<br /><br />Here is a big chart I found for 2008:<br /><br />http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/site/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1&gclid=CIGgwKPek5ACFSBMGgodGRLZAA<br /><br /><br />(Could it be that we have too many branches of defense? I haven't studied the entire chart, because it<br />has too much detail, but you all feel free. But from what I could see, personnel doesn't get much, maybe<br />around 40 billion each. So I wonder, Isn't it possible to just have one (or 2 at the most) branches of the military? <br /><br />This is a new millenium, all we need is 'The Advanced Armed Force of The United States, <br /><br />All personnel could remain, it's just that there wouldn't be what appears to be thousands of types of <br />aircraft, and vessels. It really seems too redundant to spend so much money on a vessel or plane to meet<br />every single possible scenario conceivable, and not be able to keep a small country like Iraq controlled, something<br />seems to be wrong)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> This is a new millenium, all we need is 'The Advanced Armed Force of The United States, </i><br /><br />It's called the Marine Corps. Hooahh!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

MeteorWayne:<br />But again, a "mandate" without the funding to make it feasible is nothing but words.<br /><br />Me:<br />Reagans mandate was what we now know as ISS. The space station for $8B dollars and completed in 1992. Reagans mandate was achieved...but with much greater difficulty than the JFK mandate for Apollo which was achieved on schedule, with five months to spare despite a major tragedy. And on cost. Some Apollo projections of the early 1960s were as high as $40B dollars but in the end, the program ended at $25 to 26B dollars according to most reliable estimates.<br /><br />About the only thing that came out of starwars was what is now known as the national ballistic missile defense program centered around ABMs that can intercept hostile missiles (Presumably ICBM) and destry them without resorting to nukes.<br /><br />Adaptive optics came from star wars research as well which is something you are no doubt aware of. <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>