posted
Those of you who are "into" space as more than just a setting for the next episode might be interested in this. And you might just be as incensed as I am right now.
Impact of House Appropriations Committee FY 2000 Budget vote on Space Science Dollars and Targets in bold are as specified by the Committee Brief summary of vote here $M Cut Target Comments
60.0 Future Discovery our "Faster-Better-Cheaper" planetary missions. (Deep Impact) terminates this mission to study a comet nucleus by smashing into it with a projectile. Mission was selected July 7 (MESSENGER) terminates this mission to study Mercury. Mission was selected July 7
50.0 CONTOUR terminates this Discovery comet mission, selected October 1997
60.0 Future Explorer Our "Faster-Better-Cheaper" physics and astronomy missions. The total FY 2000 Explorer budget request was already 20% below FY 91-98 levels ($105 vs. $130 million FY 99 constant dollars). We are about to announce the selection of our next MIDEX missions, and expect to release SMEX and UNEX announcements in the coming months; all of these activities would be terminated.
60.0 Technology Pluto Express FIRST/Planck GLAST STEREO Solar Probe Solar-B This part of our budget supports mission studies and conquers the technological hurdles necessary to enable most of our future missions. Absorbing $60 million in cuts requires termination of all of the missions noted at the left, withering our scientific future, as laid out in our Strategic Plan. 35.0 Research This cut represents about 18% of our Research and Analysis budget, and is equivalent to eliminating nearly 600 grants of $60,000 (the approximate average grant size).
A few other points and perspectives:
The overall Space Science budget request for FY 2000 is only 3.6% higher than FY 1999 ($2,196.6M vs. $2,119.2M), little more than inflation. High-priority programs expecting to grow (within those totals) include Mars exploration and the astronomical search for Origins and other planetary systems. The proposed cut would be the largest reduction ever made to Space Science.
The subcommittee mark is, in essence, a "going-out-of-business" budget for Space Science, killing over half of our future missions, and more.
Space Science has demonstrated excellent cost and schedule performance for the last 5 years. Most of our missions are being launched on time, and on (or under) budget. NO recent Space Science missions have experienced overruns of more than a few percent.
Space Science has a broad, innovative, and effective Education and Public Outreach program that is reaching the public, including (especially) children, with the excitement of science. It was no fluke that the Mars Pathfinder website received 45 million hits per day in July 1997. Our missions and findings receive constant national media exposure.
Here's a list of members of this committee. You know what to do.
C.W. Bill Young, Florida, Chairman Ralph Regula, Ohio David R. Obey, Wisconsin Jerry Lewis, California John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania John Edward Porter, Illinois Norman D. Dicks, Washington Harold Rogers, Kentucky Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota Joe Skeen, New Mexico Julian C. Dixon, California Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Tom DeLay, Texas Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia Jim Kolbe, Arizona Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Ron Packard, California Nancy Pelosi, California Sonny Callahan, Alabama Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana James Walsh, New York Nita M. Lowey, New York Charles H. Taylor, North Carolina Jos� E. Serrano, New York David L. Hobson, Ohio Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma James P. Moran, Virginia Henry Bonilla, Texas John W. Olver, Massachusetts Joe Knollenberg, Michigan Ed Pastor, Arizona Dan Miller, Florida Carrie P. Meek, Florida Jay Dickey, Arkansas David E. Price, North Carolina Jack Kingston, Georgia Chet Edwards, Texas Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, Jr., Alabama Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi James E. Clyburn, South Carolina George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Randy "Duke" Cunningham, California Lucille Roybal-Allard, California Todd Tiahrt, Kansas Sam Farr, California Zach Wamp, Tennessee Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois Tom Latham, Iowa Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michigan Anne Northup, Kentucky Allen Boyd, Florida Robert Aderholt, Alabama Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri John E. Sununu, New Hampshire Kay Granger, Texas John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Roy Blunt, Missouri
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
Good God - Tom DeLay is on that committee? The far right wing Texas bug exterminator who's as dumb as a box of hair? *That* Tom DeLay? Don't use words over three syllables when writing to Tom.
------------------ "'I'm afraid there's nowhere for you to sit,' I said coldly; 'the verandah is full of goats.'" --Saki "The Guests"
posted
I think it's more a problem of "stupid, uninformed humans" rather than "conservative right" or "near-sighted left."
Both sides are woefully ignorant of what space science means to humanity, because all they ever see are billion-dollar space probes returning pretty pictures. (Which is still more cost-worthy than building a multibillion dollar device whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.)
Most "folks" can't comprehend the value of the information we glean from each and every encounter, as well as each new technology we develop for it (I can't wait to see what we glean from the successful tests on DS1,) which just makes it more frustrating for those of us who do.
So you have the Right, which wants to look good by cutting SOMEONE'S budget, (and the space program makes an easy target), and the Left, who can't understand why we spend all this money - even though it's a drop in the bucket compared to what they're already spending - on science rather than pouring it down the bottomless pit that is social engineering.
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
You're right, of course, First. It's just that DeLay is such a nasty piece of work his name caught my attention. He has a bad habit of lumping in gays with pedophiles and he goes nuts when "liberal demagogues" suggest tougher gun control laws after one of our monthly massacres. DeLay thinks Columbines are the result of "godless education" instead of the fact that any kid can get his/her hands on a gun with just a little searching.
------------------ "'I'm afraid there's nowhere for you to sit,' I said coldly; 'the verandah is full of goats.'" --Saki "The Guests"
posted
I see nothing really wrong with this. Space Exploration (some of it) should be turned over to the private sector. This will encourage innovations and alternative ways of doing things with less money. It also stands a chance to make space exploration marketable, which means that a select few people with piloting skills and phds wont be the only ones to visit LEO. The problem now is that big corporations build satelites, but must rely on goverment agencies to deliver them into orbit. A big demand to get payloads into orbit means there could be a demand for corporations to build rockets for these services. These means competition--which will eventually mean a drop in prices. And if you build these rockets and want to use them in a competitive world, you need to drop prices so that satellite builders will think about saving money by using you. If you cut cost in launching, you need to start to look for new, cheaper ways to do things. NASA is a "monopoly". The problem today is that gaining more knowledge isn't profitable. If Corporation X decides to go into the space business and studies Mercury extensively, how can it use the information it discovers about the planet to make money? Taxpayers have no choice but to help fund Space Exploration. But if no one is really interested in knowing about Pluto in the space enterpreneurer world, then how will investors take an interest in space exploration. How will they make money? I think we are at a cusp in space exploration. We need private companies to take a role to make space exploration cheaper, but there is no monetary profitable role besides payload delivery. So in a way, cutting NASA's abilities may force space companies to arrise, and get the whole ball rolling.
You know, when I was growing up, I thought that by now, I could buy a ticket to the moon. I may not be able to afford such a trip, but the option should have been here.
posted
When I was in 8th grade, my science teacher told us all that we would probably be going to the "Space Hilton" when we graduated College, and going to vacations on Mars.
Well, I guess Mr. Berglund wasn't right. Perhaps he overestimated the human potential.
------------------ "S`io credessi che mia rispota fosse A persona che mai tornasse al mondo, Questa fiamma staria senza piu' scosse. Ma perciocche` giammai di questo fondo Non torno` vivo alcun, s`i`odo il vero, Senza tema d`infamia ti rispondo." - Dante`
posted
I've always been fascinated by NASA and space in general. I find it unfortunate that these budget cuts have to be made, but I've never really understood how a country can land a man on the moon and still have homeless.
------------------ Josh: I think they're getting to know each other a bit too well, if you catch my drift. Me: Oh, I agree. I think they're spending too much time together, that is of course, if you catch my drift. Asher: I think he's *ucking her, and he's cheating on his wife, and he's risking his marriage, and if his wife finds out about it she'll leave him and take their son, and his life will be ruined. If you catch my drift...
posted
Well Jubes your teacher might have been from the generation that believed we would have flying cars in 1990 . Honestly the only way we would have "space hiltons" if there was a serious money to be made in space (which there is), if there was a company bold enough (which there are some extremely bold companies) and if the transport is cheap enough (It doesn't exist). Actually I am a died in the woof conservative, but honestly I really do support the sciences, there really not that expensive and it benfits everyone. However I don't think calling conservatives stupid is fair, I might not agree with people on the left much (well not much at all), but I always respect there opinions, even when there are "stupid" in my opinion. Anyway I support the novel idea of actually paying off the national debt with the so called "Budget surplus".
------------------ HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
posted
Jaresh: Possibly because they're two completely seperate problems? Unless you're suggesting we grind the homeless up and use them as rocket fuel. Hmm. Interesting.
------------------ "We took a small flight, in the middle of the night, from one tiny place to another." -- Ben Folds Five
posted
Of course, I'm constantly amazed by people who somehow think that transferring the pitiful amount of money the space program utilizes over into the vast amount of money social programs already utilize will somehow magically make all the social problems go away. It won't, so we might as well use the money for something both inspiring and useful.
Anybody find it ironic that a lot of the people who want Space funding cut will go home tonight and watch their favorite multi-million-dollar-earning athletes compete in a largely meaningless activity with no social or economic benefit other than to the players and the corporations that sponsor them? And support the construction of hundreds-of-million-dollar stadiums to keep their teams around?
What Pennsylvania ALONE is spending on building new stadiums would cover funding for most of the programs cut in my first post.
Yep, the masses will ALWAYS choose Futbawl heroez over astronauts and guys in lab coats. Sad, really. Personally, I don't find athletics all that inspiring OR beneficial to my life.
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 07, 1999).]
posted
Here in Nashville, were building a stadium to house the former Oilers, now the Titans. It's raised taxes and driven people out of their homes who have no where else to go, and the money spent on it will never be recovered. The entire point of a sporting event can be summed up in one question: Who can play football (for example) better? The answers: Does it really matter, and is it worth hundreds of millions of dollars to find out? No sports player is worth $9,000,000 a year.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
No human has set foot on the Moon in decades, nor are any likely to visit it any time soon. The same again for Mars. I'm sorry to say that a manned mission to the Red Planet (tentatively forecast at tens of billions of dollars) isn't likely in my lifetime, the way things are going.
Why is it politically safe for bureaucrats to cut NASA funding? Because scientists don't picket.
. Honestly the only way we would have "space hiltons" if there was a serious money to be made in space (which there is), if there was a company bold enough (which there are some extremely bold companies) and if the transport is cheap enough (It doesn't exist). Actually I am a died in the woof conservative, but honestly I really do support the sciences, there really not that expensive and it benfits everyone. However I don't think calling conservatives stupid is fair, I might not agree with people on the left much (well not much at all), but I always respect there opinions, even when there are "stupid" in my opinion. Anyway I support the novel idea of actually paying off the national debt with the so called "Budget surplus".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
