Bush to Propose $500 Million Budget Increase for NASA

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar
wasnt nasa designing a new shuttle anyways? anyone know when it will be ready?

Currently they plan to replace it by 2010. There was a x-30 or something that got shelved due to technical problems.

The composite fuel tanks couldn't be fabricated. They used aluminum tanks but they were too heavy. I think that they were also having problems with the aerospike engines.

 

[Ime]

Obviously I understated the increase... NASA needs like a $10 billion increase, minimum.

 

[Czar]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03a.html

not looking good 🙁

 

[charrison]

linkage

Reading the article it cannot be determined if this is a failure bonus or the normal increase in spending that goverment tends to get.

 

[Zebo]

Bush is the grandmaster of playing with the publics emotions to squeez in runaway spending and a police state.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Bush is the grandmaster of playing with the publics emotions to squeez in runaway spending and a police state.

Read the article, this 500million increase could be the normal yearly budget increase.

 

[wQuay]

YES! Just throw money at the problem! We know that always solves everything.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Bush is the grandmaster of playing with the publics emotions to squeez in runaway spending and a police state.

Read the article, this 500million increase could be the normal yearly budget increase.

I read it but did'nt come to the same interpretation as you...Probably because of this statement: "President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday"

Why on Sunday? And Why Boost? And why now?

 

[XMan]

To put it into perspective . . . NASA's budget for 2002 was identical to that of 1992. And it comprised of 3.7% of the entire budget.

Scientists work best without constraint; Xerox PARC just puts a bunch of scientists together, gives them unlimited funding, and stuff pops out. I'd like to see something similar happen with NASA. Give them $50 billion a year (more than tripling their current budget) with a goal of putting an astronaut on Mars by 2013.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Bush is the grandmaster of playing with the publics emotions to squeez in runaway spending and a police state.

Read the article, this 500million increase could be the normal yearly budget increase.

I read it but did'nt come to the same interpretation as you...Probably because of this statement: "President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday"

Why on Sunday? And Why Boost? And why now?

ratings?

or just the right thing to do

 

[HombrePequeno]

Only $470 million? That's barely more than inflation. I guess that whole Project Prometheus thing isn't going to get funded...

🙁

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: X-Man
To put it into perspective . . . NASA's budget for 2002 was identical to that of 1992. And it comprised of 3.7% of the entire budget.

Scientists work best without constraint; Xerox PARC just puts a bunch of scientists together, gives them unlimited funding, and stuff pops out. I'd like to see something similar happen with NASA. Give them $50 billion a year (more than tripling their current budget) with a goal of putting an astronaut on Mars by 2013.

that would be cool 🙂

 

[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.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Bush is the grandmaster of playing with the publics emotions to squeez in runaway spending and a police state.

Read the article, this 500million increase could be the normal yearly budget increase.

I read it but did'nt come to the same interpretation as you...Probably because of this statement: "President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday"

Why on Sunday? And Why Boost? And why now?

Probably because the president and congress are in the middle of doing a budget.
Why sunday, My guess is some reporter asked.
why did nasa get a boost last year about this time.

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

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: X-Man
To put it into perspective . . . NASA's budget for 2002 was identical to that of 1992. And it comprised of 3.7% of the entire budget.

Scientists work best without constraint; Xerox PARC just puts a bunch of scientists together, gives them unlimited funding, and stuff pops out. I'd like to see something similar happen with NASA. Give them $50 billion a year (more than tripling their current budget) with a goal of putting an astronaut on Mars by 2013.

that would be cool 🙂

I am big proponent of the space program, but i see very little need to go to mars currently.

 

[ultimatebob]

$500 million is a joke in NASA terms. That isn't even HALF enough money to replace the shuttle that they just lost, let alone research and build a prototype shuttle replacement.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: X-Man
To put it into perspective . . . NASA's budget for 2002 was identical to that of 1992. And it comprised of 3.7% of the entire budget.

Scientists work best without constraint; Xerox PARC just puts a bunch of scientists together, gives them unlimited funding, and stuff pops out. I'd like to see something similar happen with NASA. Give them $50 billion a year (more than tripling their current budget) with a goal of putting an astronaut on Mars by 2013.

that would be cool 🙂

I am big proponent of the space program, but i see very little need to go to mars currently.

thats true but with the scientific work behind getting people to mars comes alot of other stuff that can be used in every day life 🙂

 

[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?

 

[Pastfinder]

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

Fvcking A right...

 

[SportSC4]

funny, people are saying that an increase in money for nasa is rewarding it for failure... you starve the dog, don't expect it to play catch and live much longer.
In 1992 NASA was getting an abysmal ~12 billion. Budgeting was cut for several years after that and just recently it was upped back to ~12 billion. Then add inflation. How much longer are these ships going to last? This is 30 year old technology on 20 year old ships that have to endure incredible stress. Eventually the spacecrafts will need more maintenance and that costs more money, much so on older spacecrafts.

Let's see how the US gov likes contracting spacecraft from inside China and Russia to haul their sensitive equipment. (it won't happen)

 

[vegetation]

Perhaps NASA needs to let wealthy joyriders pay their way to space to provide some funds. Better keeping the money here than giving it to Russia.

 

[Pilsnerpete]

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.

That's my thinking, too! I mean we've got a lot of hungry ppl around the Union. I don't think this is supposed to be a
big competition to see who can go the farthest into outer space w/o dying. What's the point of going to Mars? Just to say
"We did it?" Why not show an example to the world by taking care of each other here at home, instead of searching for
oil on Mars?


Pete

 

[Aceshigh]

To do what we need to do (Upgrade the 3 existing shuttles while also working on a viable alternative, such as the OSP or the X-33) will require much more than a $500 million increase.

 

[Nitemare]

Looks like they did cutbacks the entire Clinton administration...

link

 

[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.