I didn't read the entire thread, but NPR has reported that Bush has only pledged another 1 billion dollars to NASA's already shoestring budget in order to reach the goals in his proposal. So basically it's a bunch of lofty goals that will not receive proper funding; not unlike "No Child Left Behind."

Occrider, I also agree with you about obtaining economic stability before taking on such ambitious projects. I do support NASA, and my uncle even helps design parts for the space station.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I didn't read the entire thread, but NPR has reported that Bush has only pledged another 1 billion dollars to NASA's already shoestring budget in order to reach the goals in his proposal. So basically it's a bunch of lofty goals that will not receive proper funding; not unlike "No Child Left Behind." Occrider, I also agree with you about obtaining economic stability before taking on such ambitious projects. I do support NASA, and my uncle even helps design parts for the space station.

Read my first post on page 3 . The majority of Nasa's budget for this proposal comes from an $11 Billion shift from Nasa's existing budget on top of the additional money supplied.

edit: by the way, this is $11 billion per year

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Read my first post on page 3 . The majority of Nasa's budget for this proposal comes from an $11 Billion shift from Nasa's existing budget on top of the additional money supplied. edit: by the way, this is $11 billion per year

I was just repeating what NPR reported. They archive all of their broadcasts no?

I think this is the correct broadcast:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1599039

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Haha we're all entitled to our opinions . I only get upset at conspiracy theories ... and not at the person, just the conspiracy There's always a margin of unknown in every matter of debate. So for instances such as this, yes it could be an election ploy. However, taking everything in consideration, I would disagree, however, I'm not absolutely certain. The only times I get upset is when a person is clinging to a theory to the point of irrationality

So you're saying I'm irrational?

Here's my view: I'd have rather seen the money spent on the Iraq war go either to NASA, to removing our country's status as a provider of Third World healthcare to those who cannot afford it, to hunt down Bin Laden and other radical Islamists in the real "war on terror," or a combo of those three.

Happy?

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I was just repeating what NPR reported. They archive all of their broadcasts no? I think this is the correct broadcast: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1599039 So you're saying I'm irrational? Here's my view: I'd have rather seen the money spent on the Iraq war go either to NASA, to removing our country's status as a provider of Third World healthcare to those who cannot afford it, to hunt down Bin Laden and other radical Islamists in the real "war on terror," or a combo of those three. Happy?

I'm about to hit the sack so I'll check it out tomorrow. I'm just saying that the moon/mars effort isn't exactly peanuts since it's redirected a large acmount of costs that were originally slated for wasteful programs such as shuttle missions. Any my irrationality comment wasn't directed at you . That was specifically in reference to conspiracy theories. At any rate, you should see the other thread that dealt with this topic somewhat (I'm somewhat sure it wasn't this one ... not sure though ). One coudl always make the case for prioritizng social issues and ultimately accomplish nothing. Or, for example, abandoning liberal arts funding in favor of "practical/useful" causes. Neophono put it quite aptly that these causes for concern will always exist and one must learn to evaluate the long term worth/contribution of a project as opposed to its short term benefits.

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bush asked Congress to increase funding for NASA by $1 billion over five years, while radically transforming the space agency's manned space flight goals -- from low-Earth orbit to audacious missions to the moon and, ultimately, Mars. Bush also asked NASA to shift an additional $11 billion from other programs to focus on his proposal. The White House's nine-page executive policy directive offered a detailed blueprint to lead NASA from its focus on the space shuttle and the International Space Station to a new class of rockets and spacecraft that will carry humans on exploratory journeys much longer and farther than the shuttle can travel.

Ah, now I see I had heard wrong.

- It's mainly a shift of funding from other programs and priorities.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Well, I've just read that Russia has now announced it too plans to strenghten up it's space program with a possible sending of astronauts to the moon. Viva la new space race! Woohoo!

___________________
1+1=10

What's Russia's yearly spending on its space program? Fifty bucks? Seriously, if Americans are upset about a weak economy/budget as well as domestic problems and its space program, the Russians should be furious.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What's Russia's yearly spending on its space program? Fifty bucks? Seriously, if Americans are upset about a weak economy/budget as well as domestic problems and its space program, the Russians should be furious.

In Soviet Union, space program is furious at YOU!

as long as someone builds a "giant laser" on the moon I'll be happy...

ahhh moonracker

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

If this had anything to do with Bush's new Mars plan that has diverted funds from other programs, I can't support his new plan:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1602589.html

To put it bluntly, the Hubble Telescope is far more important to science than a symbolic landing of humans on Mars. I think when its batteries die, and systems fail, it will be an incredible loss for knowledge and for humanity. If it was really about “safety” and not funding, then I can understand. I know the government gives us a-lot of doublespeak though.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz If this had anything to do with Bush's new Mars plan that has diverted funds from other programs, I can't support his new plan: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1602589.html To put it bluntly, the Hubble Telescope is far more important to science than a symbolic landing of humans on Mars. I think when its batteries die, and systems fail, it will be an incredible loss for knowledge and for humanity. If it was really about “safety” and not funding, then I can understand. I know the government gives us a-lot of doublespeak though.

Gee I guess building a "giant telescope" on the moon really an't worth losing Hubble...

Come on, Hubbles old, I'd rather they put up new and more powerful telescopes... on the moon would be prime.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.