.....Moon mission, Lockheed, Dick and Lynne Cheney, oh what a tangled web!!!

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:27:26 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:
"
Critics?
You mean NASA Advisory Council's science committee members right?

Yep. That's them. Boy, scientists can whine with the best of 'em.
"Wah! We didn't get a raise this year, so WE QUIT!"


You've got me on the debate 'ropes' with that one.



CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations this week, officials said Thursday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...17/AR200608170
1929.html


That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.


Neither is one billion. Or two. So any amount at all spent on space science
is enough with your reasoning.



It's more than ESA's entire budget. In fact, it pretty much equals
what every other country on Earth spends on space, combined.


And would you be satisfied if Nasa were reduced to the level
of every other country in the world?



If these
whiny a-holes don't want it, I have serious doubts NASA can't find
someone else who does.

So did Boeing's. So did Northrop-Grumman's. So did Buffalo Wild
Wings'. So did CVS Pharmacies'... oh, wait...

Uh hum.... and if the head of CVS was married to the head of, oh say, the
....FDA?

Okay, Walgreen's doubled, too. They're all in on it I guess.
Must be easy for you, living in a world where everything is one big
Bush Conspiracy. Okay, so what's Buffalo Wild Wings' link to Shrub?


You don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.
The links between Lockheed and the inner circle
at the White House including the President are clear.
And it's clear Lockheed has benefited mightily by
defense and Nasa policy...changes...since Bush
took office.

By definition that is the appearance of conflict of interest.
Which is enough to be suspicious, especially considering
the very pro-business attitudes of the administration.

It's not a stretch at all to ask these questions.

And it's ESPECIALLY appropriate to ask such questions
when the policy change, to the Moon, makes such little sense
except for the effect on the contractors.

It makes absolutely NO SENSE for the taxpayers, for Nasa
or for space science.

To the Moon and Mars doesn't pass the smell test, it doesn't, and
I think most rational people would agree.


Jonathan

ps ...It's almost October before a general election. Time to
get the political juices flowing. Please Lord, let at least
one branch fall to the demoncrats.

And make it the House.


Please God! I don't ask for much, but we need it bad.


s






And you conveniently ignored that Boeing and N-G are making out great
too. Oh right, that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory...

Brian

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:28:30 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations this week, officials said Thursday.

That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.

Neither is one billion. Or two. So any amount at all spent on space science
is enough with your reasoning.

Fine. Time to put up the numbers and let the readers decide for
themselves...

NASA Space Science budgets:

FY 94: $1.7 billion
FY 95: $1.7 billion
FY 96: $2.1 billion
FY 97: $1.9 billion
FY 98: $2 billion
FY 99: $2.1 billion
FY 00: $2.1 billion
FY 01: $2.3 billion
FY 02: $2.8 billion
FY 03: $3.5 billion
FY 04: $3.9 billion
FY 05: $4.1 billion
FY 06: $5.2 billion

Proposed:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf

FY 07: $5.3 billion
FY 08: $5.3 billion
FY 09: $5.4 billion
FY 10: $5.4 billion
FY 11: $5.5 billion

Brian

Note that NASA's Earth Science was recently rolled into the Science
line item. For example, compare 2007 Earth Science with:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2167main_04b...sum_030227.pdf

That will make recent Space Science figures look artificially high
compared to earlier ones. There are probably other similar things to
take into account (inflation, etc).



Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:28:30 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
resignations this week, officials said Thursday.

That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.

Neither is one billion. Or two. So any amount at all spent on space science
is enough with your reasoning.

Fine. Time to put up the numbers and let the readers decide for
themselves...

NASA Space Science budgets:

FY 94: $1.7 billion
FY 95: $1.7 billion
FY 96: $2.1 billion
FY 97: $1.9 billion
FY 98: $2 billion
FY 99: $2.1 billion
FY 00: $2.1 billion
FY 01: $2.3 billion
FY 02: $2.8 billion
FY 03: $3.5 billion
FY 04: $3.9 billion
FY 05: $4.1 billion
FY 06: $5.2 billion

Proposed:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf

FY 07: $5.3 billion
FY 08: $5.3 billion
FY 09: $5.4 billion
FY 10: $5.4 billion
FY 11: $5.5 billion

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

:On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:28:30 -0400, "jonathan"
:wrote:
:
: CAPE CANAVERAL, Aug. 18 -- Three NASA advisers who spoke out against
: budget cuts to the space agency's science programs turned in their
: resignations this week, officials said Thursday.
:
: That doesn't prove them right. $5 Billion a year isn't chump change.
:
:Neither is one billion. Or two. So any amount at all spent on space science
:is enough with your reasoning.
:
:Fine. Time to put up the numbers and let the readers decide for
:themselves...

Are those in constant dollars?

:NASA Space Science budgets:
:
:FY 94: $1.7 billion
:FY 95: $1.7 billion
:FY 96: $2.1 billion
:FY 97: $1.9 billion
:FY 98: $2 billion
:FY 99: $2.1 billion
:FY 00: $2.1 billion
:FY 01: $2.3 billion
:FY 02: $2.8 billion
:FY 03: $3.5 billion
:FY 04: $3.9 billion
:FY 05: $4.1 billion
:FY 06: $5.2 billion
:
:Proposed:
:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf
:
:FY 07: $5.3 billion
:FY 08: $5.3 billion
:FY 09: $5.4 billion
:FY 10: $5.4 billion
:FY 11: $5.5 billion
:
:Brian
:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:28:30 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


ps ...It's almost October before a general election. Time to
get the political juices flowing. Please Lord, let at least
one branch fall to the demoncrats.

And make it the House.


Please God! I don't ask for much, but we need it bad.

Do you really fantasize that putting the Dems in charge of the House
will fix, or even change, NASA's budget priorities in a useful way?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:28:30 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


ps ...It's almost October before a general election. Time to
get the political juices flowing. Please Lord, let at least
one branch fall to the demoncrats.

And make it the House.


Please God! I don't ask for much, but we need it bad.

Do you really fantasize that putting the Dems in charge of the House
will fix, or even change, NASA's budget priorities in a useful way?



It might. But the basic problem is having one party, dems or
repubs, running all three. It doesn't really matter which
party, but having all three branches means one rubber stamp
after another.

One abuse after another. Debates, oversight and investigations
are stifled, and half the country gets to stuff whatever they
like down the throats of the other half.

One branch has to fall to stop this train wreck. And the House
is where all budgets begin. Do you really think the contractors
can spend fast enough to lock in the moon mission in the next
two or three years? I don't.

The repubs are very good at stifling internal dissent.
Look at the global warming issue, silence from the various
agencies until Katrina. Then it all came pouring out. Same thing
can happen with the moon mission once Bush is gone.

" I started early, took my dog"

Whether or not all this blathering changes a thing?
You just have to have faith, that if the ideas are correct
and one is persistant, it'll get around somehow.




s

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:11:20 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:28:30 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


ps ...It's almost October before a general election. Time to
get the political juices flowing. Please Lord, let at least
one branch fall to the demoncrats.

And make it the House.


Please God! I don't ask for much, but we need it bad.

Do you really fantasize that putting the Dems in charge of the House
will fix, or even change, NASA's budget priorities in a useful way?



It might. But the basic problem is having one party, dems or
repubs, running all three. It doesn't really matter which
party, but having all three branches means one rubber stamp
after another.

But you specifically asked for the House.