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

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

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:As if getting all of our astronauts back alive from our remaining
:Shuttle missions wasn't a sufficiently challenging and clearly-defined
:goal? :-)

Easiest way to meet that goal is to have no Shuttle missions, so it's
not exactly what is wanted in the way of 'clearly defined goal'.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

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
:

"Monte Davis" wrote in message
news
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Clearly, one can construct an unlimited number of clearly defined,
but stupid, goals. Why is this not one of them?


I smell a rhetorical question :-)


The question is not rhetorical, it's not argumentative
but simple.

What are the reasons for this dramatic change in direction
for Nasa? It's easy to sit back and force the other side to
explain themselves. But I've given plenty of reasons why
it's a bad idea. I've given alternative goals and why they
would be better and in detail. So, I have evey right to demand
they start explaining their side.

It's a simple question even a simple mind can comprehend.

Why isn't science deciding our scientific goals???
The administrator says the reason is faith.

I say such a reason is not just insufficient.
I say such a reason is not just wrong.
I say it's completely the opposite of rational.

When confronted with such a clear logical contradiction, which
is that our scientific goals have no rational justification, then
logic dictates alterior motives are at play. Or ignorance.

I see no other possibilities.

And since this policy change could lock us into a FORTY YEAR
program. I say we deserve better. The truth as I see it?

Someone like President Bush looks at Nasa the way a CEO
looks at some minor subsidiary.

To be handed out to insiders, friends and family.
This is a money grab, it's obvious.

It's what the truly big-time players like the Bush family
.....do for a living.


Jonathan

s








Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

jonathan wrote:

Damn if Lynne Cheney didn't used to be a director of Lockheed.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1071

Damn if President Bush tried to get Lockheed to run the
Texas welfare program. ( huh, lockheed and welfare???)

Why shouldn't a company that's received plenty of welfare from
government know how to dole it out as well? Similarly, here in Arizona
we once had a numbskull governor whose chief or prison construction had
once served time in prison for armed robbery.

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.