How to be immune from budget cuts

so NASA programs are to be canned?
So then it makes sense to create an 'Apollo On Steroids or AOS', doesn't it?
Because when the tax paying public 'realise' the amount of money about to be
invested in a glorious stunt, the hue and cry will can the projects. This
effectively cans all the other projects that will be subsumed into the AOS
and precanned projects that have to give way for the AOS.

Thats a lot of canning.

One way to not have projects canned, is not to have them funded by NASA, or
by government.
Hell, if the commercial exploitation of Space finally gets underway, then
the Government will be raking in vast amounts of tax, and the attendant
spinoffs will make for a very happy military as innovation will no longer be
stifled by NASA and the big ol' boys that traditionally get the lions share
of the money.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:41:09 GMT, "blart"
wrote:

so NASA programs are to be canned?

No.

Due to government debt repayment NASA's Moon plans could be suspended
a few years. And due to an hopefully successful commercial market,
then this could be changed to make use of commercial services.

NASA will still return to the Moon though, when it is all a question
of when and how.

So then it makes sense to create an 'Apollo On Steroids or AOS', doesn't it?
Because when the tax paying public 'realise' the amount of money about to be
invested in a glorious stunt, the hue and cry will can the projects. This
effectively cans all the other projects that will be subsumed into the AOS
and precanned projects that have to give way for the AOS.

Thats a lot of canning.

There is quite a lot of public support for NASA's plans. And should
they not get funded, then they will do something else. Like fly the
Shuttle longer, when then they would not have their CEV. That would be
highly unlikely though.

One way to not have projects canned, is not to have them funded by NASA, or
by government.

It is more the question of the company handling the project to
complete it within the allocated time and budget. NASA pays for
projects in stages. So no more funding means that the next stage does
not go ahead. They work in contracts and not promises.

Hell, if the commercial exploitation of Space finally gets underway, then
the Government will be raking in vast amounts of tax,

We can only hope not. So the Atlas and Delta launches get subsidized,
while the Falcon launches get taxed. That would be like SpaceX paying
Boeing and LM to compete against them. Overlooking that SpaceX will
still be a lot cheaper anyway.

and the attendant
spinoffs will make for a very happy military as innovation will no longer be
stifled by NASA and the big ol' boys that traditionally get the lions share
of the money.

The future looks better than the past.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:

There is quite a lot of public support for NASA's plans.

Unless, of course, the polling question mentions money.
Then support drops drastically.

I predict a question like 'Should we spend $104 billion
to send men to the moon by 2018?', the response will not
be so favorable.

Paul

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:43:45 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:03:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
I predict a question like 'Should we spend $104 billion
to send men to the moon by 2018?', the response will not
be so favorable.

Stated that way (which I think is a pretty fair statement of NASA's
plans as announced) I know that my answer would be "no."

A better way would be "Should we send people to the Moon before 2020
with no, or minimal, increases in NASA's existing budget?"

That should provide more agreeable responses.

Also I should mention that Paul's "men to the moon" made me smile,
when do the women get their own launch system then? Same as the male
version, but in shocking pink. :-]

Cardman.

Hmmm,
I have recently read an Op-Ed piece in the Ny times by a leading
sceptic/academic (Uni Maryland) basically bucketing the Apollo on Steroids
project as a Stunt.

Leading to cancellation of a number of programs...

Basically he said that no one has been out of Leo for a while, and the
future of manned space exploration is doomed.

I agree.

What I really want to see is a future of manned space exploitation!

with robots doing the exploration and construction.
No more gumby excuses for ISS or shuttle, no more make - work **** arounds
in space.
Just real engineering and technological solutions for the real job of making
space exploitable.

And humans then reaping the benefits, and doing what humans do...
There is a buck to be made, and all the eggs are no longer in one basket.

Plus, it should be FUN, which is about the best way of improving the human
condition IMHO.

This is properly out of the realm of government bodies no?

cheers

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:41:09 GMT, "blart"
wrote:

so NASA programs are to be canned?

No.

Due to government debt repayment NASA's Moon plans could be suspended
a few years. And due to an hopefully successful commercial market,
then this could be changed to make use of commercial services.

NASA will still return to the Moon though, when it is all a question
of when and how.

So then it makes sense to create an 'Apollo On Steroids or AOS', doesn't
it?
Because when the tax paying public 'realise' the amount of money about to
be
invested in a glorious stunt, the hue and cry will can the projects. This
effectively cans all the other projects that will be subsumed into the AOS
and precanned projects that have to give way for the AOS.

Thats a lot of canning.

There is quite a lot of public support for NASA's plans. And should
they not get funded, then they will do something else. Like fly the
Shuttle longer, when then they would not have their CEV. That would be
highly unlikely though.

One way to not have projects canned, is not to have them funded by NASA,
or
by government.

It is more the question of the company handling the project to
complete it within the allocated time and budget. NASA pays for
projects in stages. So no more funding means that the next stage does
not go ahead. They work in contracts and not promises.

Hell, if the commercial exploitation of Space finally gets underway, then
the Government will be raking in vast amounts of tax,

We can only hope not. So the Atlas and Delta launches get subsidized,
while the Falcon launches get taxed. That would be like SpaceX paying
Boeing and LM to compete against them. Overlooking that SpaceX will
still be a lot cheaper anyway.

and the attendant
spinoffs will make for a very happy military as innovation will no longer
be
stifled by NASA and the big ol' boys that traditionally get the lions
share
of the money.

The future looks better than the past.

Cardman.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:03:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Cardman wrote:

There is quite a lot of public support for NASA's plans.

Unless, of course, the polling question mentions money.
Then support drops drastically.

I predict a question like 'Should we spend $104 billion
to send men to the moon by 2018?', the response will not
be so favorable.

Stated that way (which I think is a pretty fair statement of NASA's
plans as announced) I know that my answer would be "no."

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:03:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Cardman wrote:

There is quite a lot of public support for NASA's plans.

Unless, of course, the polling question mentions money.
Then support drops drastically.

I predict a question like 'Should we spend $104 billion
to send men to the moon by 2018?', the response will not
be so favorable.

Stated that way (which I think is a pretty fair statement of NASA's
plans as announced) I know that my answer would be "no."

I'm sure you're not alone. To a member of the voting public, $104 billion
dollars is *a lot* of money. Hell, think of the number of world class
sports stadiums you could build for that kind of money. ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm sure you're not alone. To a member of the voting public, $104 billion
dollars is *a lot* of money. Hell, think of the number of world class
sports stadiums you could build for that kind of money. ;-)

It would send about 1 million kids to college.

Did I mention I have two teenage children right now?

Paul

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 02:12:38 GMT, Cardman wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:43:45 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:03:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
I predict a question like 'Should we spend $104 billion
to send men to the moon by 2018?', the response will not
be so favorable.

Stated that way (which I think is a pretty fair statement of NASA's
plans as announced) I know that my answer would be "no."

A better way would be "Should we send people to the Moon before 2020
with no, or minimal, increases in NASA's existing budget?"

That should provide more agreeable responses.

So would "would you be willing to spend $40 a year to return men to
the moon?", which is about what it comes to on a per capita basis . .
..

--
Josh

"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:43:45 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:03:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
I predict a question like 'Should we spend $104 billion
to send men to the moon by 2018?', the response will not
be so favorable.

Stated that way (which I think is a pretty fair statement of NASA's
plans as announced) I know that my answer would be "no."

A better way would be "Should we send people to the Moon before 2020
with no, or minimal, increases in NASA's existing budget?"

That should provide more agreeable responses.

Also I should mention that Paul's "men to the moon" made me smile,
when do the women get their own launch system then? Same as the male
version, but in shocking pink. :-]

Cardman.

How about a question like this to the public. Would you rather
spend NASA's 16billion dollar budget on a spacecraft that only orbits the
earth for another 30 plus years or spend it on on spacecraft that can fly to
the moon, mars and beyond for the next 30 plus years?

Ray