Paying for the Moon and Mars

Are the reports on the news tonight true that the Bush Administration
has left the US budget with a half trillion dollar deficit?

Is it true that the State of the Union address recently made no
reference to anything space related?

Until there's some serious "we shall go and here's the money to do it"
noises are made, is there any value in getting excited about Moon/Mars "pronouncements"?


David
--
per aspera ad astra

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:17:46 GMT, David Sander wrote:

Are the reports on the news tonight true that the Bush Administration
has left the US budget with a half trillion dollar deficit?

I think the projection for 2004 is $470 billion. The 10-year projection (made
by the Congerssional Budget Office) has increased from an estimate of $1.4
trillion (the deficits from 2004-2014 added up) made last August to $2.4
trillion announced today (err, yesterday now).

Is it true that the State of the Union address recently made no
reference to anything space related?

Didn't see the speech, but that's what's been reported here.

Until there's some serious "we shall go and here's the money to do it"
noises are made, is there any value in getting excited about Moon/Mars
"pronouncements"?

There's always value in getting excited

Dale

David Sander wrote in
:

Until there's some serious "we shall go and here's the money to do it"
noises are made, is there any value in getting excited about Moon/Mars
"pronouncements"?

"The money to do it" is going to come largely from existing NASA programs.
The projected increases in the NASA budget are pretty modest: 5% a year for
the next few years, then rising with inflation (2% a year) after that.

The near-term targets are pretty obvious: SLI, including OSP and NGLT, will
be the first rolled into the new program. When the shuttle is retired in
2010, that money will become available. Ditto ISS in 2016.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"David Sander" wrote in message
...
Until there's some serious "we shall go and here's the money to do it"
noises are made, is there any value in getting excited about Moon/Mars
"pronouncements"?

The deficit is a real problem, but it's not really responsible for the
coming lack of action. Even if there were a surplus, the mood of the country
is such that a serious space effort just isn't sellable.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:21:07 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


.... the mood of the country
is such that a serious space effort just isn't sellable.


Well, that may depend on how pole questions are asked. Time.com's
question over who would go on a *one-way* trip to Mars seemed rigged
to get a negative response. And if you ask something along the lines
of, "Would you cut education and health care and medicine for granny
to fly a redenck to Mars?" again, you're rigging a negative.

So I'd take any "negative" poll results with a grain of salt.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
David Sander wrote:
Are the reports on the news tonight true that the Bush Administration
has left the US budget with a half trillion dollar deficit?

I don't follow their budget woes closely, but it's bad... Bush is spending
lots and lots of money he hasn't got.

Is it true that the State of the Union address recently made no
reference to anything space related?

As I understand it, the speech in fact did -- very briefly -- mention the
space initiative. Space remains a minor part of government policy; this
is not 1961 and Bush is not JFK.

Until there's some serious "we shall go and here's the money to do it"
noises are made, is there any value in getting excited about Moon/Mars
"pronouncements"?

Very little. Note that even if we take Bush exactly at his word (and
assume he will be re-elected), all the Moon stuff happens after he leaves
office, and there wasn't even a schedule for Mars. The main significance
of the policy right now is shuttle retirement and replacement -- that is
going to have to be well underway before he leaves.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Sander wrote:
Are the reports on the news tonight true that the Bush Administration
has left the US budget with a half trillion dollar deficit?

I don't follow their budget woes closely, but it's bad... Bush is
spending
lots and lots of money he hasn't got.

And ensuring that less and less money is taken in. According to Paul Krugman
in the NY Times, "Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now
at their lowest level since 1950." Much of the decrease has been in the
emasculation of the IRS enforcement abilities to go against big-time tax
evaders, the rise in offshore loopholes, and a general unwillingness to
force corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share of total taxes.
(Payroll taxes, i.e., social security and the like, are capped above a
certain income level. Very wealthy people tend to have a higher percentage
of their in-coming wealth in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a
lower rate. The end result is that a professional making $90,000 a year in
salary but with little investment income and no stock options takes a lesser
percentage of his/her incoming wealth home than does a CEO with a hefty
salary, stock options, and bonuses in the form of stocks. A common debating
tactic is to focus only on income taxes and taxable income.)

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
Much of the decrease has been in the
emasculation of the IRS enforcement abilities to go against big-time tax
evaders

Savor the irony: even as the government is spending more money and cutting
taxes, it also cuts the ability to collect the remaining taxes.

Very wealthy people tend to have a higher percentage
of their in-coming wealth in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at
a
lower rate.

My dad makes a good bit of his income from capital gains, and even he admits
that it makes no sense to tax them differently. A dollar made from a capital
gain spends no differently than a dollar earned through wages.

It also makes no sense to have a cap on Social Security and Medicare wages
without a similar cap on benefits.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:00:08 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

.... Space remains a minor part of government policy; this
is not 1961 and Bush is not JFK.


And even then, didn't JFK's Moon commitment come at or near the end of
a longer speach?





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:17:46 GMT, David Sander
wrote:

Until there's some serious "we shall go and here's the money to do it"
noises are made, is there any value in getting excited about Moon/Mars "pronouncements"?


Can we wait until the president submits his budget to Congress next
month, see what's in it, and then decide?

Meanwhile, I am concerned that I didn't find anything about Moon/Mars
on John Kerry's web site, one way or the other. If a Democrat is
voted in this November, it may be a virtual certainty that Moon/Mars
will be killed. In which case the whole discussion becomes moot.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---