You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Just because the Democrats are in power, the Bush Administration can't get a budget passed, so its frozen instead and the ISS takes its funding from the Constellation program. Apparently the Constellation program is just a money holder for the ISS in case of budgetary distress on NASA. What I don't get is why the ISS is so damn important that it justifies delaying the Moon program? To keep the Russian Dictator Putin happy perhaps. I don't see why the ISS can't be a money holder for Constellation. The astronauts are clearly having fun onboard the ISS, it would be a shame to spoil their enjoyment of weightless conditions, wouldn't it? Maybe NASA should be rolled into the Defense Department, then it could use some other port barrel spending program as its money holder. Probably the closing of several military bases could keep the Constellation program on schedule. Maybe NASA ought to be rolled into the Education department, that contains alot of pork money holders should budgets be frozen again.
Offline
Don't get down on Putin, without him Russia would be in even worse shape. He has sky high popularity, unlike bush, and the russian economy is finally starting to catch up with less corruption. He's not a dictator either, since he was elected, and can only stay in for two terms. If the russains take advanage of the US in space, it's regretable, but the main thing is that america put it's self in a bad position with the ISS partners because if they want to keep their reputation, they need to honour their promisses to the partner countries. I doubt that military funding will be used to suport the space program any further, america has a few other costly military projects on the go right now, like two wars.
Ad astra per aspera!
Offline
I guess the topic I had posted about congress not ponying up and its continued impact was not near term enough for this to be discussed in.. oh well...
Changing which department or agency or even branch of the governement that Nasa would get its money through will not change how Nasa does business.
How Nasa does business as well does not change the outlook of the average citizen either with regards to employment, earnings or health care. These are all things that democrats have always work on when in office and that is all well and good.
Offline
Don't get down on Putin, without him Russia would be in even worse shape. He has sky high popularity, unlike bush, and the russian economy is finally starting to catch up with less corruption. He's not a dictator either, since he was elected, and can only stay in for two terms. If the russains take advanage of the US in space, it's regretable, but the main thing is that america put it's self in a bad position with the ISS partners because if they want to keep their reputation, they need to honour their promisses to the partner countries. I doubt that military funding will be used to suport the space program any further, america has a few other costly military projects on the go right now, like two wars.
Russia needs Putin like Rome needed Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar reformed the corrupt old Roman Republic by abolishing it, likewise has Putin done with the Russian Republic. I don't think the short term gain you talk about is worth the long term cost in liberties and self-government. Do you really want George Bush to follow Putin's example by taking over the Press and locking opposition parties out of politics, and appointing the governors as well? I doubt it. We don't need a maximo leader to fix our country and neither does Russia. Of course the right kind of dictator would make colonizing Mars rather easy. Il Duce Zubrin anyone? If anyone doesn't like the Mars program, he can be put in jail. With full control of the press, he could ensure a rubber stamp legislature. No need to convince the public of anything as all power resides at the top as per the Putin model government. We could bend the USA's resources to send thousands of colonists to Mars, and spread tyranny there just as we'd have it here. No annoying Congress to deal with, any judges that rule it unconstitutional may meet with an untimely demise, and of course the press better give glowing coverage of the project if they want to keep the IRS off their back.
I don't really want Space to become the playground of dictators, do you? It is so dispiriting to see liberals like you so willing to throw out 230 years of republican democracy just to satisfy your immediate wants. tsk tsk tsk.
Offline
Tom, finishing ISS is a commitment not only to Russia but more importantly to US science, ESA, Japan and Canada.
ISS also has enormous value in preparing for Lunar and Mars exploration. It's the only platform available for testing the effects of long duration space flight, for developing closed loop life support, and for learning how to operate and maintain a space vehicle capable of supporting people for several years. It's no coincidence that ISS expeditions are 6 months and the crew size will be six; these are the parameters for flights to Mars.
BTW Griffin said this week that the money taken from Constellation was to cover the costs of Katrina, STS Return to flight and maintaining the science budget. As he is not allowed to transfer funds from science or operations (ISS/STS) because of instructions from Congress, he had no choice but to reduce spending on Constellation. It's not all bad news, the new chairman of the space subcommittee, former astronaut Bill Nelson, is working hard to fix the problem.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Seems like the Democrats would rather fight against Bush than work on the bigger picture.
Congress shouldn't be attaching unrelated spending to emergency Iraq bill.
Congress is under new leadership, but its spending priorities are still out of whack.
With President Bush seeking another $100 billion for Iraq, the Democrats now in charge want to pile on $10 billion for unrelated programs and projects. Meanwhile, space-program supporters on Capitol Hill are struggling to make up a $545 million cut in NASA's budget -- a cut that could widen the four-year gap between the retirement of the space shuttle and launch of its successor, Orion.
Some of the extra spending in the Iraq bill sounds worthy, such as $745 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Other spending, such as billions for farmers to cover losses caused by the vicissitudes of nature, is much harder to justify.
Our view: Reaching the moon Battle for NASA lunar plans should be aggressively fought on two fronts
It will cost NASA at least $230 billion to get back to the moon and establish a lunar base by 2024 at a time when the federal budget deficit remains out of control and huge new costs are growing.
That means NASA's lunar exploration goals will remain a fat target as the war in Iraq and money to treat wounded veterans, bolster Medicare and fund other programs maintain a higher priority.
It also raises the specter of a possible attempt to kill the program outright.
The best way to start is a proposal by Rep. Bob Allen, R-Merritt Island, to create the Florida Energy, Aerospace & Technology Fund that would pool $500 million in matching state and private money to help lure new space and other business.
Offline
It will cost NASA at least $230 billion to get back to the moon and establish a lunar base by 2024 at a time when the federal budget deficit remains out of control and huge new costs are growing.
$230 billion is the BIG shock number invented by the GAO last year for the entire cost of VSE out to 2025. If you read the small print it includes "funding needed to service the International Space Station" and is "reported as inflated (“real year”) dollars".
Anyone know how to deflate “real year dollars"? Equivalent spending in 2025 is going to be a much bigger number than 2006 - maybe a factor of 2 more. Why should GAO want to exaggerate the cost of the VSE?
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Tom, please don't insult the russians, Putin does not have absolute control over the media nor has he enroched on any liberties. I admit he's not perfect and there have been some abuses, but he's not Hitler. I also don't think it's fair to compare the problems of the US to those of Russia. The US has a huge economy, and economic growth, 3 times as many people, and little internal coruption. They won. Russian needs some serious work to turn it around. I'm not a liberal by the way.
Ad astra per aspera!
Offline
Tom, finishing ISS is a commitment not only to Russia but more importantly to US science, ESA, Japan and Canada.
ISS also has enormous value in preparing for Lunar and Mars exploration. It's the only platform available for testing the effects of long duration space flight, for developing closed loop life support, and for learning how to operate and maintain a space vehicle capable of supporting people for several years. It's no coincidence that ISS expeditions are 6 months and the crew size will be six; these are the parameters for flights to Mars.
BTW Griffin said this week that the money taken from Constellation was to cover the costs of Katrina, STS Return to flight and maintaining the science budget. As he is not allowed to transfer funds from science or operations (ISS/STS) because of instructions from Congress, he had no choice but to reduce spending on Constellation. It's not all bad news, the new chairman of the space subcommittee, former astronaut Bill Nelson, is working hard to fix the problem.
Seems to me that the Constellation program is a manned science program of lunar exploration. Wouldn't that be in the same "do not touch" category as the rovers on Mars?
Its hard to appreciate the ISS program, seems to me, that its just a big stall before going to the Moon. It takes three days to get to the Moon, Apollo didn't need any predecessor space stations, and neigther does the Constellation program. As for Mars, the interplanetary space vehicle is not going to be built in the same way the ISS is. The ISS is just a big stall. I'm not going to live forever you know, and if NASA just delays and delays, then eventually my clock is going to run out and so will everyone else's. Taking a long time to do something as simple as returning to the Moon is hardly justified. We should just get it over with. The best role, I see the ISS fulfiling is as a money holder, money is just wasted there, when fiscal times get tough, the ISS serves as a reserve of spending that can be diverted toward the Constellation Program, not the other way around. I don't see the ISS as something so vital as to justify holding up the constellation program and the return to the Moon, its been delayed long enough, we don't need some lame excuse such as finishing the ISS under a fixed budget. If the budget is fixed because of the shenanigans in congress and their political infighting with Bush, then I think money should be diverted from the ISS towards the Constellation Program to keep the project on schedule. After all the astronauts can have plenty of fun flipping around, doing summersaults, and spins in the incomplete space station as they could in one that was completed. I think that by the time 2010 arrives and if the ISS is not completed, we could just halt construction on it and use it as is. The astronauts can do plenty of spins and jumps inside under weightlessness conditions as we proceed with the construction of the Aries launch vehicles.
Offline
Tom, please don't insult the russians, Putin does not have absolute control over the media nor has he enroched on any liberties. I admit he's not perfect and there have been some abuses, but he's not Hitler. I also don't think it's fair to compare the problems of the US to those of Russia. The US has a huge economy, and economic growth, 3 times as many people, and little internal coruption. They won. Russian needs some serious work to turn it around. I'm not a liberal by the way.
Absolutely he does and has. Russia is by no means a democracy anymore, its a police state. A secret police state. Their economy is by no means a really free market one either.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Tom, please don't insult the russians, Putin does not have absolute control over the media nor has he enroched on any liberties. I admit he's not perfect and there have been some abuses, but he's not Hitler. I also don't think it's fair to compare the problems of the US to those of Russia. The US has a huge economy, and economic growth, 3 times as many people, and little internal coruption. They won. Russian needs some serious work to turn it around. I'm not a liberal by the way.
Yes, it appears, you are not, at least not by the old definition of "liberal" when they actually gave a fig about democracy. I don't insult the Russians, I think they deserve better than what Putin has given them or more accurately, taken away. I just menioned the fact that Putin was a dictator in passing, most people understand this, you apparently don't. Dictators can typically achieve somethings more efficiently and without the debate that democracies can. Putin has turned his office into a dictatorship, that means his job is alot easier than George Bush's, he has no critical press as he controls the press in his country. Newpapers and TV shows that don't sing his praises quickly find themselves out of business, and Putin has alot of levers to pull to see that this happens.
If we had a dictator running the United States, it would be very simple to win the Iraq War for instance, criticism would not be tollerated, and people who criticised would be arrested, if a dictator ran the United States and was a space enthusiast, the money could easily be found to send one thousand people to Mars if he so desired, despite this I think resorting to dictatorship would be a bad move, I don't care what short term problems he would solve because in the long term we would pay the price just like Rome did with the decline and fall of that empire. The Strength of Rome was in its Republic, the dictators that followed simply cruised on its momentum built up during Republican times, the Caesars ultimately undermined the Roman System and laid the foundation for feudalism and a new dark ages. I believe that Putin and his ilk would do the same for future generations of Russians. I do not insult the Russians by saying they deserve better than Putin.
Offline
Tom opines: "I think that by the time 2010 arrives and if the ISS is not completed, we could just halt construction on it and use it as is."
Question: What would you use it for? How would you go about it, transport-wise?
Offline
Whatever. I still wouldn't call Russia a police state, but the only ones who can judge that honsestly are those who live there. There is a lot of propaganda left over from the cold war and bad feelings going around. Anyway, Putin seems willing enough to let someone take his place in 2008, so whatever the situation now it can change. I'll let a better politically minded person debate it.
Ad astra per aspera!
Offline
Nonsense, thats the classic "chicken hawk" slur. When Putin muscles the federal government to eliminate elections of governors, do away with impeachment mechanisms, it is objectively obvious that he is not on the side of freedom. He also did try to extend term limits, but that was too overt and too brash. What do you bet his replacement is also ex-KGB?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Tom opines: "I think that by the time 2010 arrives and if the ISS is not completed, we could just halt construction on it and use it as is."
Question: What would you use it for? How would you go about it, transport-wise?
And that is the hundred billion dollar question isn't it? I don't know what the ISS would be used for even if it was completed towards its specification. The designers compromised its usefulness out of existance. To me the best thing that can be said for it is that its practice for building the real thing on the Moon. An analogy would be those grain sacrifices made in those ancient Eqyptian temples, what this annual sacrifice does is force the farmers to grow a surplus of grain, and then when times of famine arrive the temple gracieously forgoes its sacrifice requirement and this alleviates the famine. Seems to me that the ISS fulfills a similar role. With the budget freeze, NASA is undergoing a "famine" of funding, since the ISS is not doing much that is useful, its main purpose seems to be to maintain a certain budget level for NASA, and since the Constellation program is doing something useful, the funds can be diverted from the ISS to the Constellation program so that it can keep on growing without delay. Delays tend to make costs greater over time.
Offline
Hey, I got an idea. The reason we're keeping the ISS is to keep the Shuttle Workers employed until we need them to launch the Aries rocket isn't it?
Here's my proposal:
What if we cancel the ISS yet keep the Shuttle program going, then we build a passenger module that fits inside the Shuttle bay. The passenger module has seats and zero gravity bunks and windows on the roof for gazing at the Earth, then NASA will sell shuttle tickets while reserving half the seats for a Shuttle lottery. NASA can then use the proceeds from the Shuttle ticket sales and the Shuttle Lottery to help pay for the Constellation program and avoid delays in the development of the Aries vehicle due to the fixed budget imposed by Congress. You have to admit, this will keep the Shuttle launch workers gainfully employed and the Shuttle Budget will stay as is, paying for the Shuttle launch costs, leaving the ticket sales as 100% profit to pay for the Constellation program or at least that additional amount Congress won't fund. Since the Shuttle Program ends in 2010, this will serve to prove the Space tourism market and stimulate private developers to develop their own vehicles to capture this market.
Well, what do you think?
Offline
Hey, I got an idea. The reason we're keeping the ISS is to keep the Shuttle Workers employed until we need them to launch the Aries rocket isn't it?
No it isn't. Like all complicated issues, there is no single reason, it's just one of many reasons. Officially it's because it's part of the VSE, and there are lots of reasons for that, see my earlier posts. Employment on Ares is another reaon yes, keeping expensively trained people with specialized skills is important. Ares will need far less people than Shuttle, so many of them won't be needed after 2010.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Hey, I got an idea. The reason we're keeping the ISS is to keep the Shuttle Workers employed until we need them to launch the Aries rocket isn't it?
No it isn't. Like all complicated issues, there is no single reason, it's just one of many reasons. Officially it's because it's part of the VSE, and there are lots of reasons for that, see my earlier posts. Employment on Ares is another reaon yes, keeping expensively trained people with specialized skills is important. Ares will need far less people than Shuttle, so many of them won't be needed after 2010.
Then that means for the same number of workers, you can launch more.
Its not like I give a damn what the Shuttle or the ISS is doing, so as long as their doing something, they might as well take paying passengers.
Offline
Orion is an over weight capsule for going to the ISS and using the Ares 1 was never going to happen. Using the SLS is also over kill for just crew to be delivered in a ship that can get quite a bit more to such a location.
Offline
Pages: 1