Bush to Propose $500 Million Budget Increase for NASA

[Maharaja]

yeah but the thing is college isn't considered a right. education up to 12th grade is guaranteed. anything beyond that is up to you. getting gov't aid is nice but as they say beggars can't be choosers. besides, it seems we can barely provide education up to 12th grade as it is now. with more and more people going to college now though, i would think in years to come it will become a higher priority but not anytime soon.

hey I graduated from Stony Brook. What SUNY are you going to?

 

[jaydee]

It may true that a college education isn't considered a right in America, but where in the constitution do you see such provisions for the space program? What would be real nice, is some sort of program where the tution goes down the longer you've been in college. The idiots who go to college to party and drop out after the 1st semester wouldn't get much if anything for aid, but the ones who stay on graduatually get more. Some sort of logarithmic curve possibly? I also somewhat liked Tom Golisano proposal based on high school performance. Not a prefect system, but at least it's a start.

SUNY Cobskill here (transferring after this semester). Stony Brook, that's down near the city isn't it?

 

[wyvrn]

In that case we are not opposite. I wasn't suggesting ST was wrong in the first place. Did you bother to read where I stated NASA is already looking into a new design. The spending increase approved is obviously not enough for a new current shuttle, I believe the administration approved this money for research on a NEW DESIGN. I have already seen officials mention this and news reporters confirm it. If you are going to disagree with my quote, make sure you disagree with what I said 🙂

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: wyvrn
They are looking into a new design already. They acknowledge the design is outdated. (Bush's press secretary did in his address to press). Lack of funds is the exact reason we were using the older shuttles to begin with. That then is the impetus for the additional funding. I don't understand the people with fatalist attitudes, though. At first sign of trouble, then want to shut everything down. When did that ever path lead to success?

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why on earth would they buy a new Shuttle? The design is from the 70's. It's too expensive, too unsafe, too high maintainance, and too old.
It's time for a new design. Stick to cheaper, further, faster. Increasing NASA budget before the failures are examined and reforms implemented is just rewarding failure.

I have to agree with supertool. WHen you realize something is broke, you fix it. Fixing it does not mean throwing good money after bad. The shuttle while an incredible machine has outlived it usefullness.

 

[Maharaja]

Well there is also no provision in the Constitution for primary & secondary education but that's become one of those unwritten rights. The states guarantee it but I'm sure they aren't anxious to add college to their responsibilities.
The problem with switching to your seniority based aid is that kids who don't have enough money for college wouldn't get in then. These aid programs exist to help po' folks afford college. Even if the kids are gonna be good students, they won't get the chance because under your plan students who just enter college get less aid.

Stony Brook is out on Long Island, about an hour drive from the city. You transferring to another SUNY or just to another college?

 

[jaydee]

Originally posted by: Maharaja
Well there is also no provision in the Constitution for primary & secondary education but that's become one of those unwritten rights. The states guarantee it but I'm sure they aren't anxious to add college to their responsibilities.
The problem with switching to your seniority based aid is that kids who don't have enough money for college wouldn't get in then. These aid programs exist to help po' folks afford college. Even if the kids are gonna be good students, they won't get the chance because under your plan students who just enter college get less aid.

Stony Brook is out on Long Island, about an hour drive from the city. You transferring to another SUNY or just to another college?

I don't think it does deter poor students from going to college (as long as they are motivated to succeed). If I had in mind I'd be spending something $8K the 1st year, $4k the 2nd, $3K the 3rd and $2k the 4th year (instead of the average $4.3k per year as SUNY tution is at this year), sure it might make the ones who aren't sure about college think twice about it, but face it, not everyone is going to get a college degree. Not every career requires one. I'm just thinking something like this will reduce the number of students who waste their own (or should I say parents) money and time and the states money as well. "In theory", if this money applied by the state was saved, more aid could could be given. Would it work exactly like this, probably not. Would it work something like it? I think it could. Back to the poor students. If they stayed on for 4 years they wouldn't be paying anymore than today's 4-year student. The first years could be helped by gov't loans (no interest if a degree is completed?).

I dunno, it just seems to make sense to me. The mark of how society grows, has been well indicated throughout history by how well educated the people are. Just compare the peak of Rome to the Middle ages.

As for the space program. I'm an engineering major. I got a huge lecture today actually why more money must be put into NASA from one of my engineering classes as a result of the Columbia. But I still don't know if that's the answer. If $13 bil is already going in every year, and all these products are coming from it (cell phones, sat TV, ect.), where are the proceeds from these? If they are patented by NASA, shouldn't they be getting royalties and such from that? Is all that money (which HAS to be considerable) going back into NASA included in the $13 bil, or do they keep that money on top of their funding? I don't necessarily mind most of the stuff that is made known to the public, but I wonder how much is uselessly thrown away on stuff like the infamous "Mars rock", in nothing more than a vain attempt to prove extra-terristrial on Mars, while the general public is left in the dark on those projects.



I plan on transferring to a private university (U of Rochester, Kettering or Clarkson). While the tuition for a state school is significantly less, their are practically no schoarships available (there is almost no tangible incentive to do well at a state school). By joining the honor society for 2-year schools here, I get $5k a year guarunteed from Rochester (there are similar deals with RIT and Clarkson). What do I get from SUNY? A free sweatshirt. Hmmm...

 

[Maharaja]

To get the result you want - remove the do-nothing students from financial aid awards - you don't really have to change the current system. You just have to make it more stringent. From my shady memory, to receive aid you need to be a full time student. So if your earned credits fall below full time status (by naturally being a goof off and failing your classes) you lose your aid. You could leave the system as it stands now and just raise the academic bar from F as a cut off, to earning a D average or a C average in a semester. It doesn't rock the boat too much but it would produce your desired result.

As for the space program (I should actually mention that since this is a space-related topic), all these things that get invented as a result of the space program don't get patented by NASA. Most of the time, NASA contracts out work to aerospace companies. NASA tells a company they want them to build something so the company does it. Whatever stuff that is patentable belongs to the company not NASA.
Another thing is that these products don't have to be directly from NASA projects. Whatever engineer or scientist who worked on a NASA project could write up a scientific paper and get it published. Another engineer or scientist reads the paper, does their own work based on it and *BOOM* you have sneakers with velcro instead of shoelaces (I thought those were awesome when I was in kindergarten!). NASA doesn't get any money, but NASA research lead to the consumer product.
The $15.5 billion in NASA's budget comes directly from the government's treasury which is just your tax money. I wouldn't really call the Mars rock thing to be a waste. Finding out if there was life, even bacterial life, on another planet is just the kind of pure science NASA exists for.

 

[CallTheFBI]

Originally posted by: Ime
Dude, NASA should be getting a $1 Billion funding increase.

I'm glad you think so. Let's send the $ 1 billion bill straight to you. Will you be paying that with Visa, Mastercard or American Express?

 

[jaydee]

Originally posted by: CallTheFBI

Originally posted by: Ime
Dude, NASA should be getting a $1 Billion funding increase.

I'm glad you think so. Let's send the $ 1 billion bill straight to you. Will you be paying that with Visa, Mastercard or American Express?

Lol

 

[jaydee]

To get the result you want - remove the do-nothing students from financial aid awards - you don't really have to change the current system. You just have to make it more stringent. From my shady memory, to receive aid you need to be a full time student. So if your earned credits fall below full time status (by naturally being a goof off and failing your classes) you lose your aid. You could leave the system as it stands now and just raise the academic bar from F as a cut off, to earning a D average or a C average in a semester. It doesn't rock the boat too much but it would produce your desired result.

It rids the problem eventually, but for all the 1st semester students that flunk out with <1.0 GPA (or even the talented souls that manage to attain the coveted 0.0)? I'm no politician, mine could be a terrible idea in practice, I don't know. My overall point though, I will stand by: post-secondary education should become more of a priority. How is that achieved? Not sure, I don't write these things up for a living. On the other hand, does NASA need more money than the (now appearantly) $15.5 bil PER YEAR they are getting now? All I know is, that's an AWFUL lot of moolah.

As for the space program (I should actually mention that since this is a space-related topic), all these things that get invented as a result of the space program don't get patented by NASA. Most of the time, NASA contracts out work to aerospace companies. NASA tells a company they want them to build something so the company does it. Whatever stuff that is patentable belongs to the company not NASA.
Another thing is that these products don't have to be directly from NASA projects. Whatever engineer or scientist who worked on a NASA project could write up a scientific paper and get it published. Another engineer or scientist reads the paper, does their own work based on it and *BOOM* you have sneakers with velcro instead of shoelaces (I thought those were awesome when I was in kindergarten!). NASA doesn't get any money, but NASA research lead to the consumer product.

That's interesting to know, I was unaware of how that exactly works. But if everything was made by company's that were not associated with NASA, that makes the list a tad less impressive (and wth is with "bowling balls" on that list? I'm fairly certain bowling came before the space program). If NASA's role was only in the problem that was delegated out to business', that hardly qualifies those products as "only possible through NASA's funding". What's so special about space anyway? Last I knew, wasn't about 90% of the ocean still unexplored? Have we ever gotten close to breaking past the crust of the earth? There's so much to be explored and exploited down here, where's the funding for that? Does anyone know what kind of Canadian taxmoney goes into space? They don't seem to be doing too poorly without a program as elaborate as the U.S.'s. I'm kinda rambling now, but I think you get my point: That's a hellava lot of money; while it may be worth it, it's definitly worth discussion.

The $15.5 billion in NASA's budget comes directly from the government's treasury which is just your tax money. I wouldn't really call the Mars rock thing to be a waste. Finding out if there was life, even bacterial life, on another planet is just the kind of pure science NASA exists for.

That's a difference of opinion. I could care less about bacteria on another planet. As far as I'm concerned, that's just the kind of "pure science" someone else's dime could go towards.


Maybe I'm just not an astronomy type of guy 😉

 

[HombrePequeno]

That's interesting to know, I was unaware of how that exactly works. But if everything was made by company's that were not associated with NASA, that makes the list a tad less impressive (and wth is with "bowling balls" on that list? I'm fairly certain bowling came before the space program). If NASA's role was only in the problem that was delegated out to business', that hardly qualifies those products as "only possible through NASA's funding". What's so special about space anyway? Last I knew, wasn't about 90% of the ocean still unexplored? Have we ever gotten close to breaking past the crust of the earth? There's so much to be explored and exploited down here, where's the funding for that? Does anyone know what kind of Canadian taxmoney goes into space? They don't seem to be doing too poorly without a program as elaborate as the U.S.'s. I'm kinda rambling now, but I think you get my point: That's a hellava lot of money; while it may be worth it, it's definitly worth discussion.

Sure, a lot of the products that NASA funded were possible by private funding but it probably would have taken a lot more time. A lot of the space technologies took a lot of risk, risk that no private company would take. Do you really think private industry would spend billions developing rockets when they might not have even gotten anything in return? So NASA spent the billions and in return private industry made a buttload of cash.

You ask what's so special about space...well what's so special about anything? Why have people climbed Mt. Everest? What was the point of that? Space is a mountain and we will climb it. It also provides valuable resources like He3 and stuff from asteroids. And when the big asteroid hits some day, wouldn't it be better if we were also living on another planet?

The Canadian space program isn't huge but it has helped. They have built both CanadArm and CanadArm II.

That's a difference of opinion. I could care less about bacteria on another planet. As far as I'm concerned, that's just the kind of "pure science" someone else's dime could go towards.

That bacteria on other planets can help us understand life on our own planet. We could tell just how resiliant and complex life is.