Bush to Propose $500 Million Budget Increase for NASA

[Hayabusa Rider]

Looks like someone got their tax refund back.

500,000.000 could go to good use with an unmanned probe, or towards a Hubble replacement. Alternatively, you could rice out a shuttle.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

how is he going to pay for this?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Queasy
This Time Article from someone familiar with the shuttle program thinks it is time for the shuttle program to be scrapped in favor of something more cost effective and realistic.

Unfortunately, the core problem that lay at the heart of the Challenger tragedy applies to the Columbia tragedy as well. That core problem is the space shuttle itself. For 20 years, the American space program has been wedded to a space-shuttle system that is too expensive, too risky, too big for most of the ways it is used, with budgets that suck up funds that could be invested in a modern system that would make space flight cheaper and safer. The space shuttle is impressive in technical terms, but in financial terms and safety terms no project has done more harm to space exploration. With hundreds of launches to date, the American and Russian manned space programs have suffered just three fatal losses in flight?and two were space-shuttle calamities. This simply must be the end of the program.

The space shuttles are like 24 years old. I do not see anyone taking their 1979 Cutlass Supreme with 400,000 miles on it on long road trips. Bottom line is they are old and built on technology a quarter of a century old. They are in need of replacing, yet the government has been slashing NASA spending every year since 91

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

Nice rebuttal.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

Nice rebuttal.

Why should I bother, you have already ASSumed right where and how I think it should be used (and you were not even close).

For your ASSumption have a triple

on me.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

Nice rebuttal.

Why should I bother, you have already ASSumed right where and how I think it should be used (and you were not even close).

For your ASSumption have a triple

on me.

Well if you told me your position, I'd gladly prove you wrong. 😉

 

[RossMAN]

I heard it costs NASA $500 Million just for blast off.

This is a drop in the bucket.

Too little, too late.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Queasy
This Time Article from someone familiar with the shuttle program thinks it is time for the shuttle program to be scrapped in favor of something more cost effective and realistic.

Unfortunately, the core problem that lay at the heart of the Challenger tragedy applies to the Columbia tragedy as well. That core problem is the space shuttle itself. For 20 years, the American space program has been wedded to a space-shuttle system that is too expensive, too risky, too big for most of the ways it is used, with budgets that suck up funds that could be invested in a modern system that would make space flight cheaper and safer. The space shuttle is impressive in technical terms, but in financial terms and safety terms no project has done more harm to space exploration. With hundreds of launches to date, the American and Russian manned space programs have suffered just three fatal losses in flight?and two were space-shuttle calamities. This simply must be the end of the program.

The space shuttles are like 24 years old. I do not see anyone taking their 1979 Cutlass Supreme with 400,000 miles on it on long road trips. Bottom line is they are old and built on technology a quarter of a century old. They are in need of replacing, yet the government has been slashing NASA spending every year since 91

Actually the last 2 years, nasa has got an increase.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
I heard it costs NASA $500 Million just for blast off.

This is a drop in the bucket.

Too little, too late.

Nasa has ~14billion budget. Of which only about 3.5billion goes the shuttle. It is time to scrap the shuttle, scrap the newly almost finished space station and work on better propulsion tech.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

The problem here is that there no longer is a space race/competition with the soviet union. There is no need to spend tons of cash on space exploration(no political need= no money) Even if money spent in space exploration is a sure thing(we will need to do it sometime) instead of spending it on a military who probably does not need so much money anymore.... The only reason nasa exists today is to put some satelites into space from time to time and to show everyone that it was not just created to beat the soviet union at something, witch was it's original goal(and now that it's been done, no need for nasa anymore).

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: StattlichPassat Linkage WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday, promising investigators would look into whether past cutbacks played any part in the space shuttle Columbia disaster.

Bonus for failure.

You are aptly named.

NASA has new tech in development. $ is needed to help realize its potential.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: StattlichPassat Linkage WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday, promising investigators would look into whether past cutbacks played any part in the space shuttle Columbia disaster.

Bonus for failure.

You are aptly named.

NASA has new tech in development. $ is needed to help realize its potential.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

 

[GSOYF]

good...they need to not skimp on safety upgrades.

 

[Maharaja]

Like i said, there is not enough info in the article to tell if this is politics.

I think it's safe to assume the extra $500 million wasn't just politics. Below is a quote from a Space.com article from yesterday.

"It's not just NASA's budget that's coming out Monday, it's the President's request for the entire government. That massive document was sent to the Government Printing Office more than a week ago," the staffer said.

So Bush wanted to throw a few extra million at NASA anyway. It's not much of a funding increase and I'm guessing maybe it's just to keep pace with inflation.

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
how is he going to pay for this?

He doesn't need to. He'd just ask you, tax payers, to pay for it, or leave a debt for your children to pay later.

 

[Maharaja]

I think Bush, or at least his economic advisors, believe that government deficits stimulate the economy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Maharaja
I think Bush, or at least his economic advisors, believe that government deficits stimulate the economy.

Taxing the citizens more will not find us economic growth as well.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

Nice rebuttal.

Why should I bother, you have already ASSumed right where and how I think it should be used (and you were not even close).

For your ASSumption have a triple

on me.

Well if you told me your position, I'd gladly prove you wrong. 😉

We will start simple: With the Depression getting worse and worse and less and less taxes being paid, where does this new money come from? And when the worse keeps going what then is it subtracted from? So we can continue to support our cause to spread the knowledge of all the impressive things we have done on earth? I'm sure E.T. is anxious

Also what return have you gotten as a tax payer from NASA HONESTLY? and don't give me any philosophy just facts plz.

 

[Maharaja]

Taxing the citizens more will not find us economic growth as well.

That's true Charrison but Bush's spendthrift ways leave me uneasy. Especially all this defense spending. Defense is an economic money pit.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Maharaja

Taxing the citizens more will not find us economic growth as well.

That's true Charrison but Bush's spendthrift ways leave me uneasy. Especially all this defense spending. Defense is an economic money pit.

Ok, remove all the military spending and you still have about 2 trillion in spending. Happy now?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

Nice rebuttal.

Why should I bother, you have already ASSumed right where and how I think it should be used (and you were not even close).

For your ASSumption have a triple

on me.

Well if you told me your position, I'd gladly prove you wrong. 😉

We will start simple: With the Depression getting worse and worse and less and less taxes being paid, where does this new money come from? And when the worse keeps going what then is it subtracted from? So we can continue to support our cause to spread the knowledge of all the impressive things we have done on earth? I'm sure E.T. is anxious

Also what return have you gotten as a tax payer from NASA HONESTLY? and don't give me any philosophy just facts plz.

Satalite communications, weather forcasting, rocks from the moon, microprocessors....

lots of stuff.

 

[Maharaja]

Oh and just for you Laust, here's some stuff we have today thanks to the space program:

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

solar cells
stoneware
cable/satellite TV
nicad batteries
football helmets
long distance telephones
golf clubs
inertial navigation(GPS)
tennis rackets
scratch-resistant eyeglasses
water filters
composite materials-dental braces
bowling balls
laptop computers
LCD displays
virtual reality
athletic shoes
memory metals
cordless products

HEALTH

pacemakers
laser heart surgery
ingestible thermometers
heat electrode monitors
MRI's (as a result of LANDSAT)
analyzing body fluids for infections
cool suits

BETTER EARTH

heat pipes
data imaging
safety grooving
plastic foams
miniaturization
new brake chains
weight check system in cars
grooving highways
fire retardants
metallized plastics
lubricants

I just did a quick search on Google and got this from someguy's page. I'm sure you can find more if you did a more detailed search.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST
Bush might want to think about that money going somewhere else, I don't understand the space priority really, not when we can't even take care of ourselves down on the rock.

What, put it into welfare? NASA gives people jobs and the technologies it creates puts quite a bit of money back into the economy. We'll never be able to "take care of ourselves" here on Earth. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Why should we stop funding science simply because there are bad things going on in the world? How would that even make sense?

Not even within a mile of the target *Thumbsdown*

Nice rebuttal.

Why should I bother, you have already ASSumed right where and how I think it should be used (and you were not even close).

For your ASSumption have a triple

on me.

Well if you told me your position, I'd gladly prove you wrong. 😉

We will start simple: With the Depression getting worse and worse and less and less taxes being paid, where does this new money come from? And when the worse keeps going what then is it subtracted from? So we can continue to support our cause to spread the knowledge of all the impressive things we have done on earth? I'm sure E.T. is anxious

Also what return have you gotten as a tax payer from NASA HONESTLY? and don't give me any philosophy just facts plz.

What depression? The economy has been growing, though not much. I'd like to see Bush cut down some of the social spending like Medicare, welfare, and the like.

charrison and Maharaja answered your other question.

 

[Maharaja]

So what if there is about $2 trillion left in spending. That doesn't mean a $300+ billion defense budget is nothing. I haven't seen what it's been increased to now, anyone know off hand?
Anyway, enormous peacetime defense budgets started with the Cold War. It's been over for more than 10 years now, can't we slash some spending? How is this increase justified?