Bush to Propose $500 Million Budget Increase for NASA

[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 They acknowledge the design is outdated.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.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 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?

The defense budget? I believe it's $355 billion.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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?

It is easy to justify. Just look at the average age of our planes and ships.

The defense budget was slashed fairly big in the 90s and our forces are currently suffereing for it.

 

[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 They acknowledge the design is outdated.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.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: 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.

Besides Sat TV we HAD to go to space for these? Hmmmm that does not compute

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: 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.

Besides Sat TV we HAD to go to space for these? Hmmmm that does not compute

Sure it does. When doing something new, many other new and completely unrelated things are often a side effect.

 

[Maharaja]

Our forces suffered from the 1990s defense cuts cause our forces remained too big. One thing that I don't like is that we still have troops in Germany. Why are we still there waiting for a Soviet invasion? Same sort of thing, in Japan & South Korea. Those are now two countries who can handle their own defense. Plus I'm sure there are domestic bases we could live without and save some money.
I have no problem with upgrading some of the old equipment the military still uses but I honestly don't feel big fat budgets are justified.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Maharaja
Our forces suffered from the 1990s defense cuts cause our forces remained too big. One thing that I don't like is that we still have troops in Germany. Why are we still there waiting for a Soviet invasion? Same sort of thing, in Japan & South Korea. Those are now two countries who can handle their own defense. Plus I'm sure there are domestic bases we could live without and save some money.
I have no problem with upgrading some of the old equipment the military still uses but I honestly don't feel big fat budgets are justified.

If you want develope and maintain the best hardware, it costs money.
If you want to keep people that are able to take care of such equipment, it costs money.
If you want to maintain the ability to project force world wide, it costs money. After 2 world wars and a cold war, I really think we have to do this.

Yes i would prefer if NATO pulled more weight in the last one.

 

[Maharaja]

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

Laust, he's just looking at current economic data. 4th Quarter, GDP grew by a mere 0.7%. It's lousy growth but it's still growth so we can't be in a recession or depression. Anyway for all of 2002 GDP grew by 2.5% I think, so it's not a terrible economy just not so hot.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

The CIA factbook says that GDP growth in 2001 was 0.3%. It's probably even higher for 2002. A depression is defined as 4 quarters of negative growth I believe.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Maharaja

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

Laust, he's just looking at current economic data. 4th Quarter, GDP grew by a mere 0.7%. It's lousy growth but it's still growth so we can't be in a recession or depression. Anyway for all of 2002 GDP grew by 2.5% I think, so it's not a terrible economy just not so hot.

Actually i think 2002 was at 3%.

Manufacturing is also expanding for the 3 month in a row.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

The CIA factbook says that GDP growth in 2001 was 0.3%. It's probably even higher for 2002. A depression is defined as 4 quarters of negative growth I believe.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion

What is this all about?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

The CIA factbook says that GDP growth in 2001 was 0.3%. It's probably even higher for 2002. A depression is defined as 4 quarters of negative growth I believe.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion

What is this all about?

It is GDP, what part do you not understand?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

The CIA factbook says that GDP growth in 2001 was 0.3%. It's probably even higher for 2002. A depression is defined as 4 quarters of negative growth I believe.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion

What is this all about?

That's the size of our economy.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

The CIA factbook says that GDP growth in 2001 was 0.3%. It's probably even higher for 2002. A depression is defined as 4 quarters of negative growth I believe.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion

What is this all about?

That's the size of our economy.

So with the negative symbol it means it went down then?

 

[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

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.

You are kidding right? Are you to young to work or something and this is what you hear from your mutual fund owning hopeful father?

The CIA factbook says that GDP growth in 2001 was 0.3%. It's probably even higher for 2002. A depression is defined as 4 quarters of negative growth I believe.

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion

What is this all about?

That's the size of our economy.

So with the negative symbol it means it went down then?

no, that is just a dash being used a seperator mark.

 

[LAUST]

Oh, well guess I got proved wrong then 😱

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: 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.

You forgot the ever popular Kevlar, Ziploc bags, and cordless tools.


🙂

 

[jaydee]

Why again must we throw more and more money at NASA? What exactly do they provide for the country? I think this country has more pressing needs than $13 billion per year worth of space exploration at this point.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: jaydee
Why again must we throw more and more money at NASA? What exactly do they provide for the country? I think this country has more pressing needs than $13 billion per year worth of space exploration at this point.

well, while I think a lot of the stuff listed would have been made eitherway eventually, Charron and a few others made their point.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: jaydee
Why again must we throw more and more money at NASA? What exactly do they provide for the country? I think this country has more pressing needs than $13 billion per year worth of space exploration at this point.

well, while I think a lot of the stuff listed would have been made eitherway eventually, Charron and a few others made their point.

Sure, most of the stuff that was made by NASA would probably eventually be produced anyway. But would you rather have things like satellites in 1959 or say in 1970?

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: jaydee
Why again must we throw more and more money at NASA? What exactly do they provide for the country? I think this country has more pressing needs than $13 billion per year worth of space exploration at this point.

well, while I think a lot of the stuff listed would have been made eitherway eventually, Charron and a few others made their point.

Sure, most of the stuff that was made by NASA would probably eventually be produced anyway. But would you rather have things like satellites in 1959 or say in 1970?

Charron and a few others made their point
miles ahead of ya 😉

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: jaydee
Why again must we throw more and more money at NASA? What exactly do they provide for the country? I think this country has more pressing needs than $13 billion per year worth of space exploration at this point.

well, while I think a lot of the stuff listed would have been made eitherway eventually, Charron and a few others made their point.

Sure, most of the stuff that was made by NASA would probably eventually be produced anyway. But would you rather have things like satellites in 1959 or say in 1970?

Charron and a few others made their point
miles ahead of ya 😉

Oh, I know. Just driving the point home. 😉

 

[jaydee]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: jaydee
Why again must we throw more and more money at NASA? What exactly do they provide for the country? I think this country has more pressing needs than $13 billion per year worth of space exploration at this point.

well, while I think a lot of the stuff listed would have been made eitherway eventually, Charron and a few others made their point.

Sure, most of the stuff that was made by NASA would probably eventually be produced anyway. But would you rather have things like satellites in 1959 or say in 1970?

Meanwhile, tuition for SUNY (State Universitiy of NY) colleges is going up 40% next year due to lack of funds (albeit, this is a state issue, not federal and thus different budgets). NASA definitly isn't a bad program, and I'm sure their are much worse causes that are federally funded but man, I just wish college education would become a higher priority at some point.