Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

My Fox column is up:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101623,00.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101623,00.html

Oh, I'm not surprised that the Senators were ignorant of the X Prize
or the latest news thereof. I don't think it has gotten a lot of
publicity outside space nerd circles. But it was cool that Tumlinson
was there to raise consciousness.

Anyone know who got Tumlinson invited? Usually this kind of thing, if
it happens at all, has been in the House (via Rohrabacher, generally),
with the Senate seemingly less involved in space.

As for the noise about OSP, the big issue in the Boehlert/Hall letter
seems to be that NASA hasn't found the money. The stuff about whether
OSP meets NASA's goals (whatever those goals might be) is all well and
good, but that is kind of par for the course in Washington. Goals are
rarely clear in Washington. Although perhaps they are going to get
clearer in the near future, I wouldn't count on it.

I recently attended a panel at MIT titled Space: The Next 100 Years.
Some good people were there; but at the end of it I thought the
discussion was too narrowly focussed. As I listened to a speaker
talking about the need for more education effort to increase public
interest in space exploration I concluded, yes, that's all true but it
seriously misses the target. Which is, what the problem is made of.

Namely, I have my own ecological theory now. It is, there's a social
structure and an industrial base around space exploration, it moves
money and it lobbies in Washington.

There's another social structure and industrial base around the
military. Eisenhower's phrase, "military-industrial complex" seems
near the mark if not right on it. This, too, lobbies in Washington.

The problem is, in today's Washington, the whole space structure is
ballpark two orders of magnitude smaller then the military structure.
Further, there seems to be in our society, a lot of prestige attached
to the military.

The result is, the military structure takes up all the money there is,
asks for more and gets that too -- try $87 billion, for instance. So
the space structure has to struggle to get by on leftover small
pickings. The astronomical reality we exist in, is not a factor and I
very much doubt, that in Washington, more than a few people know of
it. So space exploration comes up short.

Further, in that panel, there was some discussion of what space
exploration was basically for. The old thing about "Man was meant to
explore" got trotted out again, and I couldn't see that it was any
more compelling than when Nixon killed the Apollo project. I feel
troubled to hear this, and to notice the absence of the one good and
in fact really compelling purpose of space exploration.

Namely, for the longer term survival of our kind. I see an urgent
need for a crash program to put bases off-planet for the deliberate
purpose that they grow into settlements which in turn grow into larger
self supporting things we might call "countries" but probably won't.
Someday in the future, maybe later today, *something* is going to
happen that completely ignores the popular perception that us humans
occupy the entire known meaningful universe, right here. A Terra
Killer asteroid is only one of several possibilities.

If our society can grow up and heal up enough to undertake a space
settlement program, there's hope for the future. But while this false
high, this addiction, to military expenditure and power continues, I
think not much else can get done.

Cheers -- Martha Adams

(Martha H Adams) wrote:

The result is, the military structure takes up all the money there is,
asks for more and gets that too -- try $87 billion, for instance. So
the space structure has to struggle to get by on leftover small
pickings.

Right. Which explains why the spending on social programs exceeds the
military by at least an order of magnitude.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:50:47 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Martha H Adams) wrote:

The result is, the military structure takes up all the money there is,
asks for more and gets that too -- try $87 billion, for instance. So
the space structure has to struggle to get by on leftover small
pickings.

Right. Which explains why the spending on social programs exceeds the
military by at least an order of magnitude.

Don't confuse her with reality.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On or about Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:50:47 -0800 (PST), Derek Lyons made the sensational claim that:
(Martha H Adams) wrote:
The result is, the military structure takes up all the money there is,
asks for more and gets that too -- try $87 billion, for instance. So
the space structure has to struggle to get by on leftover small
pickings.

Right. Which explains why the spending on social programs exceeds the
military by at least an order of magnitude.

Oh, give Dubya some time. He'll get us there.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

Hmmm...okay...let's see...for the Fiscal Year 2004 budget:

(The figures here are from a line-by-line analysis of projected figures in
the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2004.)

Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor
Department, Soc. Sec. Admin.
$593B (34%)

Military Personnel $99B, Operation and Maintenance $133B, Procurement $68B,
Research and Development $58B, Construction $6B, Family Housing $4B, Retired
Pay $39B, DoE Nuclear Weapons $16B, 50% NASA $8B, International Security
$7B, 60% Homeland Security $16B, misc. $5B Note: President Bush does not
include any funds for the war on terrorism or the war on Iraq in this
budget, which he expects to request later as supplemental funding.
$459B (27%)

Veterans' Benefits $63B; Interest on National Debt (80% estimated to be
created by military spending)
$345B (20%)

Legislative, Justice Dept., State Dept., International Affairs, Treasury,
Gov't. Personnel, 20% interest on national debt, 50% of NASA, 20% Homeland
Security
$235B (13%)

Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior Dept., Transportation, Environmental
Protection, Army Corps Engineers, NSF, FCC, 20% Homeland Security
$99B (6%)


So is there an "order of magnitude" difference between social programs and
defense spending? No. In fact, if you add such things as the part of the
interest paid on the National Debt which can be directly attributed to past
defense spending, veterans benefits, etc, you easily exceed the cost of all
social programs.


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(Martha H Adams) wrote:

The result is, the military structure takes up all the money there is,
asks for more and gets that too -- try $87 billion, for instance. So
the space structure has to struggle to get by on leftover small
pickings.

Right. Which explains why the spending on social programs exceeds the
military by at least an order of magnitude.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
So is there an "order of magnitude" difference between social programs and
defense spending? No.

Considering your data is incomplete, you cannot make such an
assumption. Period. (Enormous amounts of social spending are 'off
budget', that is they are allocated right off the top and don't occur
in the budget. One of the biggest is propping up Social Security.)

In fact, if you add such things as the part of the
interest paid on the National Debt which can be directly attributed to past
defense spending, veterans benefits, etc, you easily exceed the cost of all
social programs.

It's an assumption, and an unjustified one at that, that the bulk of
the debt comes from defense spending. (Especially when one considers
the massive cuts in defense spending during the 70's and 90's, periods
when social spending showed a marked increase.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
So is there an "order of magnitude" difference between social programs
and
defense spending? No.

Considering your data is incomplete, you cannot make such an
assumption. Period. (Enormous amounts of social spending are 'off
budget', that is they are allocated right off the top and don't occur
in the budget. One of the biggest is propping up Social Security.)

Social security was included.


In fact, if you add such things as the part of the
interest paid on the National Debt which can be directly attributed to
past
defense spending, veterans benefits, etc, you easily exceed the cost of
all
social programs.

It's an assumption, and an unjustified one at that, that the bulk of
the debt comes from defense spending. (Especially when one considers
the massive cuts in defense spending during the 70's and 90's, periods
when social spending showed a marked increase.)


I have shown that it is indeed justified. If you wish to form an opinion
that it is not justified, that is certainly your choice. I have actually
provided factual data, from a reputable source, to support my opinion. If
you wish to provide equally factual data, again from a reputable source,
then we can have an honest discussion here (not that it's really needed).
Otherwise, there's no need to debate your opinion.
My main point was in disproving the statement that social spending was a
"magnitude" higher. It is most definitely not.


D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
So is there an "order of magnitude" difference between social programs
and defense spending? No.

Considering your data is incomplete, you cannot make such an
assumption. Period. (Enormous amounts of social spending are 'off
budget', that is they are allocated right off the top and don't occur
in the budget. One of the biggest is propping up Social Security.)

Social security was included.

No. The Social Security Administration was included. Much of the
money for Social Security (as well as other social programs) are 'off
budget', I.E. the money spent on them is not discretionary.


In fact, if you add such things as the part of the
interest paid on the National Debt which can be directly attributed to
past defense spending, veterans benefits, etc, you easily exceed the
cost of all social programs.

It's an assumption, and an unjustified one at that, that the bulk of
the debt comes from defense spending. (Especially when one considers
the massive cuts in defense spending during the 70's and 90's, periods
when social spending showed a marked increase.)


I have shown that it is indeed justified.

No, you have done no such thing. You supplied your opinion that the
National Debt was directly attributed to excessive defense spending.

I have actually provided factual data, from a reputable source, to support
my opinion.

No. You have provided carefully slanted data from a selected portion
of the available sources.

My main point was in disproving the statement that social spending was a
"magnitude" higher. It is most definitely not.

Your main point remains an unsupported assumption based on your
personal opinion and incomplete information.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.