|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci Budget Should Be'ed
I gotta be quick here due to time limits but want to see what you
think. This is a bad time to mention expanding any federal budget components. This idea may need to wait 'till a better time to be promoted or implemented. But... Why did the space program get bi-partisan support in the 1960s? Because it was a national priority after the USSR upstaged America in getting people into space. To be quick and succinct: If it was a good idea then, it is STILL a good idea. NASA had like 4% fed. budget then (maybe up to 7%). Big Science and Big Space are not PRIMARILY about national prestige, though national prestige is always a good idea. Scientific advances that are not yet free-market meaningful, at any moment, do BECOME SO before all that long. Proposed: major increases in science and space budgets as soon as politically reasonable. Links: http://groups.google.com/group/one-million-mph?hl=en http://1mmph.yolasite.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/scien...ublicans?hl=en |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed
On Jul 14, 4:30*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b409867b-4b82-4ccd-820b-8ed7665028c3 @g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says... I gotta be quick here due to time limits but want to see what you think. This is a bad time to mention expanding any federal budget components. This idea may need to wait 'till a better time to be promoted or implemented. But... Why did the space program get bi-partisan support in the 1960s? Because it was a national priority after the USSR upstaged America in getting people into space. True. *The Soviets were actually out in front with the first satellite to orbit the earth, the first man to orbit the earth, and etc. *The US had to play catch-up. *This was deemed a high priority, so quite a bit of money was spent. To be quick and succinct: If it was a good idea then, it is STILL a good idea. NASA had like 4% fed. budget then (maybe up to 7%). Wrong. *That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. *That level of funding will never come back. *Claims to the contrary are extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with extraordinary proof. Big Science and Big Space are not PRIMARILY about national prestige, though national prestige is always a good idea. Scientific advances that are not yet free-market meaningful, at any moment, do BECOME SO before all that long. Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency such as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market? *If NASA was still primarily an R&D agency like they were during the NACA years, I might agree with you, but today, NASA spends the bulk of its money on missions rather than research. *There isn't much that can directly transfer to the free-market as a result. * Proposed: major increases in science and space budgets as soon as politically reasonable. Links: http://groups.google.com/group/one-million-mph?hl=en http://1mmph.yolasite.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/scien...ublicans?hl=en It's never been politically reasonable to do so. *In fact, the current administration is proposing doing exactly that and there is currently a furious uproar from the people who are going to be impacted by the cuts in current programs (i.e. axing Ares and axing or scaling back Orion). * Don't you read the news? *The politicians don't care about R&D, they only care about maintaining their steady stream of pork. The budgets were bumped up a bit to recover from the Challenger disaster, but this money wasn't spent on R&D of new tech, it was spent on making an existing "operational" system a tad bit safer. Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch. Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached, that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster. JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat. ~ BG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci Budget Should Be 'ed
In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579
@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says... So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch. Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached, that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster. I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. Change needs to come from the private sector. There have been many commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until recently few have been successful in any way. Orbital has been successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. SpaceX is starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising. JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat. JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. NASA was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic, and political superiority over the Soviet Union). Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf From above: President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know, really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top- priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things, except for defense, the top priority of the United States government. I think that that is the position we ought to take. Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all these other domestic programs and the only justification for it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them. Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. JFK could only justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order to beat the Soviets. Absent that motivation, he would only "spend reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. Today's NASA budget is what the politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of dollars a year is kidding themselves. If they could justify additional billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I, Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly dead as well). Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed
On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579 @y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says... So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch. Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached, that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster. I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. * Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising. JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat. JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic, and political superiority over the Soviet Union). * Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf From above: * *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the * *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely * *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know, * *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top- * *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things, * *except for defense, the top priority of the United States * *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take. * *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at * *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending * *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I * *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready * *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about * *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all * *these other domestic programs and the only justification for * *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because * *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, * *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them. Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. * Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I, Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly dead as well). Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most at risk. The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we spend that? ~ BG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed
On Jul 15, 3:03*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579 @y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says... So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch. Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached, that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster. I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. * Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising. JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat.. JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic, and political superiority over the Soviet Union). * Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf From above: * *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the * *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely * *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know, * *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top- * *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things, * *except for defense, the top priority of the United States * *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take. * *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at * *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending * *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I * *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready * *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about * *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all * *these other domestic programs and the only justification for * *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because * *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, * *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them. Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. * Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I, Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly dead as well). Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most at risk. The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we spend that? *~ BG- Hide quoted text - Jeff Findley wrote: Wrong. That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. That level of funding will never come back. Claims to the contrary are extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with extraordinary proof. Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency such as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market? ------: That level of funding would come back in the hypothetical that Brad Guth and I are the only two voters and the elected officials want to please us. So, I just work toward convincing more voters than Brad. I know how you feel about socialism. But big science by gov't seems a new necessity in a new era. Think of it as an extension of the military budget. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed
On Jul 22, 5:47*pm, Frank Robertson wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:03*am, Brad Guth wrote: On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579 @y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says... So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch. Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached, that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster. I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. * Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising.. JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat. JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic, and political superiority over the Soviet Union). * Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf From above: * *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the * *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely * *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know, * *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top- * *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things, * *except for defense, the top priority of the United States * *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take.. * *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at * *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending * *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I * *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready * *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about * *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all * *these other domestic programs and the only justification for * *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because * *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, * *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them. Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. * Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I, Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly dead as well). Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most at risk. The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we spend that? *~ BG- Hide quoted text - Jeff Findley wrote: Wrong. *That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. *That level of funding will never come back. *Claims to the contrary are extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with extraordinary proof. That cold-war was mutually perpetrated by those in charge of those we elected. Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency such as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market? What off-world free market are we talking about, because it sure as hell isn't of anything on Earth. ------: That level of funding would come back in the hypothetical that Brad Guth and I are the only two voters and the elected officials want to please us. So, I just work toward convincing more voters than Brad. I know how you feel about socialism. But big science by gov't seems a new necessity in a new era. Think of it as an extension of the military budget. Think of it as a mafia cabal that the public has no say and no access, but always gets to pay for everything. ~ BG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed
On Jul 22, 8:47*pm, Frank Robertson wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:03*am, Brad Guth wrote: On Jul 14, 2:29*pm, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 9ff5ddd7-b582-4475-a799-315972ded579 @y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says... So, the only alternative is to start over from scratch. Obviously you wouldn't like my 50/50 plan, so no matters what nothing good is going to happen without those traditional strings attached, that have kept us far behind the potential that we could muster. I just don't think we're going to become a truly space-fairing nation if our foundation is built on top of a socialistic government entity. * Change needs to come from the private sector. *There have been many commercial attempts at lowering the cost of space access, but until recently few have been successful in any way. *Orbital has been successful, although their costs have still been fairly high. *SpaceX is starting to show some success and their costs, so far, look promising.. JFK had the right plan and was even willing to pull a few of his own plugs, and his newly formed cabals certainly took care of that threat. JFK was never the avid supporter of space that many think he was. *NASA was just a means to an end (show the world our technological, economic, and political superiority over the Soviet Union). * Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House Topic: Supplemental appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv...transcript.pdf From above: * *President Kennedy: The only... We?re not going to settle the * *four hundred million this morning. I want to take a look closely * *at what Dave Bell... But I do think we ought get it, you know, * *really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top- * *priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things, * *except for defense, the top priority of the United States * *government. I think that that is the position we ought to take.. * *Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at * *least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending * *this kind of money because I?m not that interested in space. I * *think it?s good; I think we ought to know about it; we?re ready * *to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we?re talking about * *these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all * *these other domestic programs and the only justification for * *it, in my opinion, to do it in this time or fashion, is because * *we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, * *as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them. Read that over a few times and let it really sink in. *JFK could only justify NASA's "fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget" in order to beat the Soviets. *Absent that motivation, he would only "spend reasonable amounts of money" on NASA. *Today's NASA budget is what the politicians consider "reasonable amounts of money" for NASA. * Anyone who thinks NASA is going to get additional tens of billions of dollars a year is kidding themselves. *If they could justify additional billions, the program wouldn't be in the mess it's in today (Ares I, Ares V, and Altair are all almost certainly dead and Orion is possibly dead as well). Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? That cold war was mutually perpetrated by those rich and powerful most at risk. The Rothschilds have trillions, mostly our trillions, so why don't we spend that? *~ BG- Hide quoted text - Jeff Findley wrote: Wrong. *That funding during the early 60's was an aberration. *That level of funding will never come back. *Claims to the contrary are extraordinary claims and therefore must be backed up with extraordinary proof. Exactly how does socialistic spending by a huge government agency such as NASA have much of anything to do with the free-market? ------: That level of funding would come back in the hypothetical that Brad Guth and I are the only two voters and the elected officials want to please us. So, I just work toward convincing more voters than Brad. I know how you feel about socialism. But big science by gov't seems a new necessity in a new era. Think of it as an extension of the military budget. "...huge government agency such as NASA..." NASA BUDGET 1/2 of 1% of FEDERAL BUDGET. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Might be a bad time to mention this, but...Space/Sci BudgetShould Be 'ed
On 7/30/2010 6:22 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:
"...huge government agency such as NASA..." NASA BUDGET 1/2 of 1% of FEDERAL BUDGET. ....and its own television channel to help it distribute propaganda and get future federal funding. :-D Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SpaceShipTwo "on time and on budget" | Joe Strout | Policy | 5 | July 24th 06 06:47 AM |
Space surveillance budget reviewed | Revision | Policy | 1 | June 16th 05 03:52 AM |
Low budget space vehicle tracking | David Summers | Technology | 24 | March 6th 05 11:32 AM |
Feb 1986: First Usenet mention of the MIR space station | John Eckart | Space Station | 0 | January 10th 05 09:04 PM |
Space Flight : Budget Plans | Al Jackson | Policy | 0 | January 22nd 04 12:17 PM |