Republicans fully fund Bush's Space Plan

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-07 10:09am

The 'The magic Free Market Wand will make Space Travel a reality!' bit again.

Look, people. No one's going to space for profit on the current engines. Period. It's too expensive by far. And if no one is pushing upwards, the new engines that can make it even a tiny bit possible for the wet dream of the futurists to come true, then no one will make the engines, and it just won't happen. Space is too much of a long-term investment for anything meaningful to be done by private interests. Sure, when we're in space and moving between worlds, they'll start mining the belt. But they'll never get to doing the things that, in a very real sense, need to happen.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-07 12:55pm

MKSheppard wrote:So does this mean you've finished your training and are now in the mainstream air force?

Nope, I'm still in Air Education and Training Command. It won't be until July that I see the 'real' Air Force.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-07 01:06pm

Arguments against increased NASA spending:
1) We have serious social problems on Earth that need fixing first
2) The US has serious fiscal problems that need fixing first.

Arguments for increased NASA spending:
1) Space is so fucking cool.
2) Humanity's social problems will never be "fixed" anyway.
3) Trickle-down R&D benefits.

There are some fallacious arguments on both sides. Anti-NASA argument #1 is a joke, as pointed out by pro-NASA argument #2. However, anti-NASA argument #2 is a completely different animal: unlike general social ills such as war and poverty, the nation's budgetary problems are not insolvable. It is possible to reduce the deficit, bring the budget back under control, and then start throwing money at pet projects.

As for the pro-NASA arguments, #1 and #2 are good, but #3 is something of a deception. While trickle-down R&D benefits are potentially real, the same amount of money thrown directly at R&D for commcercial technologies would be much more efficient.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-07 01:11pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:And yes, you all I'm sure are happy about my return to SD.net. I just finished moving from hot and humid Corpus Christi to cold and rainy Little Rock. Incidentily, it was from this city that I first registered at SD.net two and a half years ago, yet because I didn't have e-mail I could not post until I got home a week later. So this will be my first post from the city in which I registered. The circle is complete.

Cool. Does this mean that you are now the Master?

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2004-12-07 01:13pm

I'm not sure if I should cry or leap with joy.

If this really is enough to get the space-program up again, all the power too it. If this turns out to be another half-funded waste of taxpayer money......grrrrrr.

In space, if were going to do it, we need to do it right. No more of this half-assed stuff.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-07 01:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:Cool. Does this mean that you are now the Master?

Only of evil Darth.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-07 04:05pm

I'm hoping this will kick the U.S. science and engineering back out of hibernation and give some much-needed vitality to our schools.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-07 04:18pm

There are some fallacious arguments on both sides. Anti-NASA argument #1 is a joke, as pointed out by pro-NASA argument #2. However, anti-NASA argument #2 is a completely different animal: unlike general social ills such as war and poverty, the nation's budgetary problems are not insolvable. It is possible to reduce the deficit, bring the budget back under control, and then start throwing money at pet projects.

America's budgetary problems can be solved, but they won't be solved. It's one thing to comfortably assert that the U.S. should get its balance sheet right before venturing out in to space, but quite another to look at the situation realistically and realize that this isn't going to happen with the current crop of politicians. So we might as well get more space exploration out of the deal. Besides, the projected cost for this venture is around 200 billion by 2004, but if you look at the money the government will spend over the next 16 years it probably won't make much of a difference anyway.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-07 07:54pm

Right now...I mean at this particular moment in history...is not the time for space exploration. This budget is bass-ackwards and upside down, along with the rest of the treasury. I never thought I would say this, but I advocate allocating said NASA funds to other crap for the moment, and fixing the shitpile we've got on the ground. Once things have stabilized, then hear me coo about space exploration.

Sorry man, 200 billion is a drop in the bucket. Even if you took that 200 billion and put it at the deficet or the debt, it would amount to next to nothing.

Now, cut Social Security and Medicaid, take that 1 trillion bucks a year and put it at the deficit and debt, now we're talking.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-12-07 10:00pm

I hope we actually spend this money well, instead of the current pet projects of nasa.

simply not cost effective these days.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-12-07 10:53pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I'm hoping this will kick the U.S. science and engineering back out of hibernation and give some much-needed vitality to our schools.

Do not worry. Our legions of American-educated H1Bs shall provide us with the scientists and engineers needed whilst simultaneously sucking away the best and brightest talent from overseas

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-12-07 11:19pm

phongn wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:I'm hoping this will kick the U.S. science and engineering back out of hibernation and give some much-needed vitality to our schools.
Do not worry. Our legions of American-educated H1Bs shall provide us with the scientists and engineers needed whilst simultaneously sucking away the best and brightest talent from overseas

Actually a lot of them are moving back home after getting their degrees since they can get opportunities there. Hence the recent breakthroughs in stem cell research in South Korea. Large educated population, and they don't have to worry about bullshit regulations from fundamentalist Christians. The number of American born engineers is declining steadily and has been for some time. We're only staying ahead because of momentum and willingness to throw lots of money at problems, but eventually unless something big happens the US will fall behind.

I know that was meant as a joke but I can't laugh at it.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-12-07 11:50pm

Mayabird wrote:I know that was meant as a joke but I can't laugh at it.

Yeah, don't I know it. I see the engineering department here and while the students seem to represent a decent mix of people the professors (at least in Computer Science & Engineering) are mostly Indian. Same goes for the grad student picture-poster. Also, the "fundamentalist influence" on other engineering fields seems much lessened compared to that in certain biological ones.

I would say that American management would ameliorate the problem ... except that these days it seems that they're more interested in short-term profits rather than long-term gain. There are a few companies here and there that take the long view but not enough.

Oddly (this is not intended to be an appeal to authority) my father doesn't seem to worried about how the US will do but he seems to put more faith in it than I.

Finally, there was a similar "science/engineering" scare back during the early parts of the Cold War when we saw hordes of Soviet grad students pouring out of their universities. Perhaps someone will manage to rally a comeback in the US but I'm not bettting on it.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-12-08 04:42am

However, anti-NASA argument #2 is a completely different animal: unlike general social ills such as war and poverty, the nation's budgetary problems are not insolvable.

And the typical counter is that 16 bil is pocket change compared to the rest of the budget. The biggest money sinks are in the military, social security, and welfare.

I think the smartest solution is to simply tighten the belts. I'm all for having a strong military, but goddamn, we're sloppy. How many stories have we heard about Congress authorizing a squadron of fighter jets that the Pentagon didn't want?

We could triple NASA's budget and it wouldn't even make a blip on the economic radar screen.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-08 12:38pm

Tell the Fundies that the Face on Mars is an image of the Virgin Mary but they have to get up real close to see it. We'll have a Holiday Inn at the site within the decade.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-08 12:50pm

Coyote wrote:Tell the Fundies that the Face on Mars is an image of the Virgin Mary but they have to get up real close to see it. We'll have a Holiday Inn at the site within the decade.

Or just tell them that there are, in fact, aliens on Mars.

... Aliens who do not know the light of Jesus. Hell, the fundamentalists might arrive before NASA does.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-08 12:55pm

SPOOFE wrote:
However, anti-NASA argument #2 is a completely different animal: unlike general social ills such as war and poverty, the nation's budgetary problems are not insolvable.
And the typical counter is that 16 bil is pocket change compared to the rest of the budget. The biggest money sinks are in the military, social security, and welfare.

This is like saying that you don't need to watch small items in your budget because the rent is most of your monthly expenditure. How do you think the budget grew out of control, if not for thinking like this? Hell, even increases in those "big ticket" items you mention are justified by the fact that they're already so big that it doesn't make any difference.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-08 12:57pm

SirNitram wrote:The 'The magic Free Market Wand will make Space Travel a reality!' bit again.

Look, people. No one's going to space for profit on the current engines. Period. It's too expensive by far. And if no one is pushing upwards, the new engines that can make it even a tiny bit possible for the wet dream of the futurists to come true, then no one will make the engines, and it just won't happen. Space is too much of a long-term investment for anything meaningful to be done by private interests. Sure, when we're in space and moving between worlds, they'll start mining the belt. But they'll never get to doing the things that, in a very real sense, need to happen.

Ahem. Cough cough: Link

Still a long way to go, of course. But don't count the free market out so readily.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-12-08 02:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:Arguments against increased NASA spending:
2) The US has serious fiscal problems that need fixing first.

I have to agree with everything you've pointed said, but I should also point out that the NASA budget is a comparitivly small slice of the total US budget. It only gets about .3 or .4% of the total budget.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-12-08 02:27pm

This is like saying that you don't need to watch small items in your budget because the rent is most of your monthly expenditure. How do you think the budget grew out of control, if not for thinking like this?

Circular logic. "The budget is out of control because of small-item spending; we can't spend anything on small-items because the budget's out of control."

All measures are not equal. I already pointed out where the real waste comes from, and it's from simple sloppy government spending. I'm not advocating spending money willy-nilly... rather, I'm simply saying that balancing the budget will involve a lot more than trimming the expenditures on a couple small things.

To use your analogy... if your rent is already egregiously high, does that mean you decide to stop buying necessities or high-priorities to avoid going into debt?

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2004-12-08 04:48pm

While increasing NASA's budget sounds good on surface, the fact is that it's a very small increase for what Bush is talking about .I'm generally supportive of space exploration, but I have serious doubts about Bush & co.'s motivations...I get the feeling that it's just a lot more of feel-good talk that they can cut the moment the getting gets tough.

More importantly, NASA's science funding is getting slashed by the new budget. Since Apollo, NASA's glories could be summed up by one word: Science. Hubble, Viking, Voyager, Spirit/Opportunity, Chandra etc., and all this is under threat from the new budget. Even the Hubble doesn't look like it's going to be saved, and every astronomer and astrophysicist in the world would gladly donate their left kidney (without anaesthesia) if it would extend the Hubble's lifespan.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2004-12-08 04:51pm

Forgot one more thing. The Mars initiative is going to involve the military-aerospace complex big time (read: Boeing, Lockheed Martin), which is presumably why the GOPs are so enthusiastic about it. Conversely, most scientific space missions are put together by university consortia.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-08 05:41pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:The 'The magic Free Market Wand will make Space Travel a reality!' bit again.

Look, people. No one's going to space for profit on the current engines. Period. It's too expensive by far. And if no one is pushing upwards, the new engines that can make it even a tiny bit possible for the wet dream of the futurists to come true, then no one will make the engines, and it just won't happen. Space is too much of a long-term investment for anything meaningful to be done by private interests. Sure, when we're in space and moving between worlds, they'll start mining the belt. But they'll never get to doing the things that, in a very real sense, need to happen.
Ahem. Cough cough: Link

Still a long way to go, of course. But don't count the free market out so readily.

Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-12-08 05:46pm

One problem, though; balancing the budget(at least here in the US) is a rather difficult task. What's the political guarantee that an eliminated NASA would be revived, particularly as they would have to re-set up all their infrastructure?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-08 05:52pm

SirNitram wrote:
Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.

Give be a hundred A-bombs, 20,000 tons of submarine-hull grade steel, a couple dozen miles of wiring, about fifty thousand vacuum tubes, a few hundred tons of graphite, and the title to Jackass Flats and the surrounding desert, and I'll make commercial spaceflight viable in less than a decade.