Avoiding Politics As Much As Possible, But Here's A Cheap Shot OnObama's Space Policy

On Mar 10, 11:38*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
So, NASA funding is going up by about $1 billion per year, and it is
told to aim for Mars?

Next (futrure) headline: Also, NASA budget getting an extra $1 million
added per year and is told to spend it on sending humans to nearby
stars.

Next future headline after that:

"Obama Increasing NASA Budget, Not Charging Taxpayers and Raising
NASA's Aim."

Excerpt from story (FNN - Future News Network) -

"In a move expected to send chills down the spines of space
enthusiasts everywhere, today President Obama announced that he has
established another lofty goal for NASA. Not only that, but to pay for
it, the President is increasing NASA's annual budget and not charging
taxpayers for the increase!...."

"Obama said that he is increasing NASA's budget by an extra 5 cents
per year. He stated that this budget supplement will come from his own
pocket - literally!..."

"Obama stated that with this unexpected extra increase, NASA should
now begin making plans for human INTERGALACTIC exploration..."

****************

OK, cheap shot aside, but if you want to go to Mars, you do not
increase NASA's budget by $6 Billion over the next five years. You
increase NASA' budget to AT LEAST 4% of the total federal budget,
which it had when NASA put man on the moon.

The annual budget of NASA is, I believe, 16 Billion usd per year.
The NASA budget - which sent the US to the moon - was an average of
5.8 Billion usd (adjusted for inflation) per year from 1959-1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

I don't see why NASA couldn't return to the Moon *and* go to Mars with
such luxuriant funding.

As for the privatization initiative.. that's not a financial
problem... unless someone was thinking to extend taxpayer money as
corporate welfare to aerospace corporations - as well as wall street
bankers.
Just share specs of required component for future purchases.

What we really lack, though, is an explanation of exactly why NASA has
been consigned to uselessness.

Patriot Games wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:54:56 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
Give NASA 10%.
Sure, you paying?

I been paying. Still paying...

Really, what IRS do you pay your taxes to where 10% of them go to NASA?


Tell NASA we want space-based solar power.
Tell private industry that. Or the TVA.

It doesn't work that way. Private industry needs a PROFIT reason to
do anything. Today they sell electricity. Tomorrow they sell
electricity. You want them to quadruple their costs to sell the same
thing they aleady for less? That's just dumb...

EXACTLY. In other words, you want to develop a system that by your estimate
costs 4x as much? Who is going to by that?



Plus, (think about it), if private industry does it who owns it?
Private industry.... If Uncle Sam gets it started (and we can deport
all the Socialist DemocRATs) then We_The_People own it...

Wait, let me get this straight, you want to get rid of the Socialist
Democrats so we can own solar power satellites?

Umm, do you know what socialism is?


Tell NASA we want a permanent colony on the Moon.
Why? I mean besides the coolness factor.

(Which is a HUGE factor...)

We need more room. Room to plant vast expanses of crops.

We do? Why? When there's farm land here in the US going fallow?


We need the experience. There's clearly something in the human
personality that makes us need to go, to explore, to discover. (Except
for DemocRATs... They seem to only want to go to someone else's house,
explore their pockets and discover other people's money.)

Umm, so in other words, you want MY money to fund your dream, but somehow
the Democrats are wrong? You're being completely inconsistent.


Oh, and then there's that next Ice Age.... It would be nice if a
bunch of us were somewhere else when that happens...

Yeah, well in 10,000 years, I'll let my grandkids worry about it.

Rest of ignorant, racist deleted.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

lorad wrote:
On Mar 10, 11:38 pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
So, NASA funding is going up by about $1 billion per year, and it is
told to aim for Mars?

Next (futrure) headline: Also, NASA budget getting an extra $1 million
added per year and is told to spend it on sending humans to nearby
stars.

Next future headline after that:

"Obama Increasing NASA Budget, Not Charging Taxpayers and Raising
NASA's Aim."

Excerpt from story (FNN - Future News Network) -

"In a move expected to send chills down the spines of space
enthusiasts everywhere, today President Obama announced that he has
established another lofty goal for NASA. Not only that, but to pay for
it, the President is increasing NASA's annual budget and not charging
taxpayers for the increase!...."

"Obama said that he is increasing NASA's budget by an extra 5 cents
per year. He stated that this budget supplement will come from his own
pocket - literally!..."

"Obama stated that with this unexpected extra increase, NASA should
now begin making plans for human INTERGALACTIC exploration..."

****************

OK, cheap shot aside, but if you want to go to Mars, you do not
increase NASA's budget by $6 Billion over the next five years. You
increase NASA' budget to AT LEAST 4% of the total federal budget,
which it had when NASA put man on the moon.

The annual budget of NASA is, I believe, 16 Billion usd per year.
The NASA budget - which sent the US to the moon - was an average of
5.8 Billion usd (adjusted for inflation) per year from 1959-1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

I don't see why NASA couldn't return to the Moon *and* go to Mars with
such luxuriant funding.

That's because, despite your parenthetical, you (or Wikipedia, I don't
care which) really didn't account for inflation.

On 3/11/2010 7:23 PM, lorad wrote:
NASA put a man on the Moon.

Nah...
A man with Vision and Patriotism put a man on the moon; JF Kennedy.

Actually, LBJ was far more of a space fan than JFK.

Pat

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:29:16 -0800 (PST), lorad
wrote:


The annual budget of NASA is, I believe, 16 Billion usd per year.
The NASA budget - which sent the US to the moon - was an average of
5.8 Billion usd (adjusted for inflation) per year from 1959-1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

No, your Apollo-era budget was not in fact adjusted for inflation.
Try Wikipedia under "NASA budget" for actual and 2007 dollars of NASA
annual budgets.

Brian

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:34:50 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote:
And it appears the bottom has yet to be found.
Which explains the recent NASA increases.
And as far as the Mars talk is concerned, that's a nice
(morale boosting) way of saying ...Forget about
the Moon.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
om...
Patriot Games wrote:
Give NASA 10%.
Sure, you paying?
If NASA had a wildly popular goal, that 10% would be easy.
To quote a NASA webpage .....practice what they preach?
"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."
- A. Lincoln
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibr...rs/opinion.htm
Tell NASA we want space-based solar power.
Tell private industry that. Or the TVA.
Some of those govt loan guarantees just might do the
trick with Space Solar Power.
Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

They get loan guarantees paif for by your taxes, they OWN all the
patents.

Or, your taxes pay NASA to do it and America owns all the patents.

Tell NASA we want a permanent colony on the Moon.
Why? I mean besides the coolness factor.
Tell NASA we want Americans planting an American flag on Mars.
Long before then, another half dozen or so rovers will have combed every
interesting inch of Mars, and flooded us with pics and charts and graphs
of every kind.
How much support will a huge program have just to put people on Mars
when the public has long ago learned everything it wants to know?
If we plant it, will it grow?
Then shut the **** up and let 'em go do it!
The White House DID NOT put a man on the Moon.
The Senate DID NOT put a man on the Moon.
The House DID NOT put a man on the Moon.
NASA put a man on the Moon.
Kennedy put a man on the Moon. By taking on the most
pressing global threat, The Cold War, and creating a NASA
goal designed as a solution to that threat.

Of course that's utterly ridiculous, and completely wrong.

If you want to repeat Apollo, simply define the greatest impending
global problems, and design a NASA goal which could be the
solution. Keeping in mind that the longer the time span involved, the
less chance of success.
Solar power satellites could be flying in five to ten years
and ....within....existing budgets. Mars and asteroids are
too distant.
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation
"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
will occur somewhere around 2037"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf

Almost all of the oil imported to America is for transportation.

We can shed that vulnerability by going electric.

But we need electricity for that.

Short term: Nuclear.

Long term: space-based solar.

No, we can't do it in 5 years. There are still some parts that we
haven't even figured out yet....

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:22:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
:On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:54:56 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
:Patriot Games wrote:
: Give NASA 10%.
:Sure, you paying?
:I been paying. Still paying...
: Tell NASA we want space-based solar power.
:Tell private industry that. Or the TVA.
:It doesn't work that way. Private industry needs a PROFIT reason to
:do anything. Today they sell electricity. Tomorrow they sell
:electricity. You want them to quadruple their costs to sell the same
:thing they aleady for less? That's just dumb...
Yes, that IS just dumb. Given that it's just dumb, WHY DO YOU WANT TO
DO IT?

Its not my fault you're stupid.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:39:42 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:54:56 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
Give NASA 10%.
Sure, you paying?
I been paying. Still paying...
Really, what IRS do you pay your taxes to where 10% of them go to NASA?

Hahahahahahaha!

Tell NASA we want space-based solar power.
Tell private industry that. Or the TVA.
It doesn't work that way. Private industry needs a PROFIT reason to
do anything. Today they sell electricity. Tomorrow they sell
electricity. You want them to quadruple their costs to sell the same
thing they aleady for less? That's just dumb...
EXACTLY. In other words, you want to develop a system that by your estimate
costs 4x as much? Who is going to by that?

YOU are already paying for it.

It's simply a matter of using the taxes you are ALREADY paying for
something ELSE.

Plus, (think about it), if private industry does it who owns it?
Private industry.... If Uncle Sam gets it started (and we can deport
all the Socialist DemocRATs) then We_The_People own it...
Wait, let me get this straight, you want to get rid of the Socialist
Democrats so we can own solar power satellites?

I couldn'ta said it better myself!

Umm, do you know what socialism is?

Yep.

Tell NASA we want a permanent colony on the Moon.
Why? I mean besides the coolness factor.
(Which is a HUGE factor...)
We need more room. Room to plant vast expanses of crops.
We do? Why? When there's farm land here in the US going fallow?

Our unused farm land is either unsuitable for crops or it's more
profitable to do nothing than use iy because of subsidies...

Meanwhile population is growing and we're not inventing new land...

We need the experience. There's clearly something in the human
personality that makes us need to go, to explore, to discover. (Except
for DemocRATs... They seem to only want to go to someone else's house,
explore their pockets and discover other people's money.)
Umm, so in other words, you want MY money to fund your dream, but somehow
the Democrats are wrong? You're being completely inconsistent.

No, no, no... DemocRATs are ALWAYS wrong...

No, no, no... I don't want your money. We ALREADY have your money. I
want us to spend what we ALREADY have better, smarter.

Oh, and then there's that next Ice Age.... It would be nice if a
bunch of us were somewhere else when that happens...
Yeah, well in 10,000 years, I'll let my grandkids worry about it.

Less than 10,000 years. Less even than 5,000 years...

Rest of ignorant, racist deleted.

AH! You're a Socialist DemocRAT!

I shoulda known...

Calm down. It's not like we're gonna lynch all of ya!

We're just gonna ask ya's to MOVE to Canada, or France, or we don't
even care where...

On 3/12/2010 11:34 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

No, your Apollo-era budget was not in fact adjusted for inflation.
Try Wikipedia under "NASA budget" for actual and 2007 dollars of NASA
annual budgets.

IIRC, the Apollo NASA budget topped out at around 4-5% of the total
federal budget; NASA's present budget is well under 1% of it.

Pat

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:12:11 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

On 3/12/2010 11:34 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

No, your Apollo-era budget was not in fact adjusted for inflation.
Try Wikipedia under "NASA budget" for actual and 2007 dollars of NASA
annual budgets.

IIRC, the Apollo NASA budget topped out at around 4-5% of the total
federal budget; NASA's present budget is well under 1% of it.

Yes, but that's not a useful measure, because government spending was
much lower pre-Vietnam, pre-Great Society. That "5% to .5%" makes the
situation look worse than it is.

NASA was around 6% of discretionary spending in 1965 versus about .6%
today, but in actual dollars that's "only" a drop from around $33
billion in 2007 dollars to $18 billion. We should be able to do a lot
more with $18 billion, but we don't seem to be, thanks to NASA's
grossly inefficient bureaucracy, Congressional earmarks, the massive
reduction of genuine competition in the US aerospace industry ever
since the mergers and acquisitions mania of the 1990s, and ITAR
ruining US competitive opportunities abroad.

That's why I favor giving the President's paradigm shift a sporting
chance. Throwing more money at Ares and Orion and extending the
Shuttle in perpetuity isn't going to solve any of our problems.

Brian