Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

BWhite · 2004-07-20 13:14:46

Leverage.

We need some all-American political hardball leverage.

cDelta · 2004-07-20 13:15:41

We need President Bush to open is damned mouth and support the policy he proposed nearly 8 months ago. THAT'S what we need.

clark · 2004-07-20 13:20:26

So, I'm mulling this over...

Could this be the Administration cutting the strings on their proposal to limit politcal opportunism in an election year?

Or, could this be a way to force the debate on NASA. If you look at it, they are cutting NASA even further- ending SLI (which was slated to be killed and replaced by CEV)?

Nuclear propulsion has had strong support from the get go by Bush and company- they've included funds for it for some years now. Ending it now would be a complete waste.

This kills the prize money too.

It further provides no new money to fix Hubble, replace Hubble, or give NASA the money it needs to comply with the Columbia saftey requirements...

This simply dosen't make sense unless it is designed to force the debate, or to quietly kill the whole show.

cDelta · 2004-07-20 13:23:55

You know, I'm not too 'up' on the whole appropriations process. What happens next? Is this budget final, or is there a chance that funding could be restored?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 13:24:57

It does make sense... if Congress is opposed to PlanBush and wants to maintain the status quo (Shuttle flies to ISS) as long as possible. Nasa will, as usual, have to cut money from other programs to make Shuttle fly again to "fulfill our obligation" to our "international partners"... which is all that Congress seems to care about and the endless un-cancelable gravy train that Shuttle/ISS have become. How many more nonmilitary multibillion dollar projects can you name are protected under international agreement? Solid gold to a congressman...

clark · 2004-07-20 13:26:56

You know, I'm not too 'up' on the whole appropriations process. What happens next? Is this budget final, or is there a chance that funding could be restored?

Funding can be restored through the Senate and House, they meet to resolve any differences between approved budgets.

It can also be added in on the floor via an attached ammendment... I think.

Perhaps this is a way to kill the Shuttle immediately...

BWhite · 2004-07-20 13:29:10

You know, I'm not too 'up' on the whole appropriations process. What happens next? Is this budget final, or is there a chance that funding could be restored?

What else is being cut? The idea that space policy took a lone hit seems implausible to me.

I suspect space policy is VERY low on the radar right now.

To answer the question, it can still be ironed out in conference committee after the legislation passes. Not 100% according to Hoyle but its how things work. Going to the Moon/Mars Blitz taught me a whole lot about this process.

BWhite · 2004-07-20 13:32:56

Remember, other stuff got cut also. NASA is part of a very large sweater. Pull on the NASA thread and lots of other threads start to unravel.

One "real" issue is posturing over the President's tax cuts.

clark · 2004-07-20 13:33:18

NSF cut. EPA cut. Housing cut. National service program cut.

This is ugly.

Of course the savings were all spent on the Vetrans.

BWhite · 2004-07-20 13:36:28

Read "No one will be happy" at

http://www.spacepolitics.com]www.spacepolitics.com

Mark Whittington says Tom Delay says it will all work out in conference committee. Now we are in wonk-zone of the US political process, big time!

= = =

Today also is the 35th anniversary of what?

Good timing, guys!

= = =

PS - If anyone cares, I left my office and my molasses slow DSL (thanks SBC!) and logged in at the local public library.

Can't stay long - - but I had to read the breaking news at some reasonable bandwidth.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-20 13:47:10

Today also is the 35th anniversary of what?
Good timing, guys!

:laugh:

Congres... Progress...

PS - If anyone cares, I left my office and my molasses slow DSL (thanks SBC!) and logged in at the local public library.
Can't stay long - - but I had to read the breaking news at some reasonable bandwidth.

And here I sit, lurking on a T-1. Ain't half fair.

BWhite · 2004-07-20 13:49:35

More story links can be found at spacetoday

= = =

Details. We need more details. The space.com story says part of the vision funding was funded. Go to space.com.

This public library computer is fast but won't let me cut & paste like I can at my office.

clark · 2004-07-20 13:53:15

Where...

Can't find anything on space.com either...

BWhite · 2004-07-20 13:55:37

Where...

CongressToday? Or something like that.

Hit all the usual suspects.

Spacetoday (Jeff Foust's site)
Space.com (Lew Dobbs)
Spacepolitics (Jeff Foust again)

spacetoday.net

DOT NET - - Sorry

cDelta · 2004-07-20 13:58:51

http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_040720.html

Just $372 million was provided out of the $910 million Bush wanted for initial preparations for manned missions to the Moon and Mars.
That included just one-fourth of the $520 million he proposed for the crew exploration vehicle, which NASA envisions as the eventual replacement for the space shuttle.

So, they approved 1/3 of the Vision? Maybe that was just the 'scrap the shuttle by 2010' part...

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 14:13:04

I can seee it now...

"Now that the International Space Station will be complete in the coming months, we must ask ourselves, what now? The ISS will not be a useful research platform without the Space Shuttle, and wasting this huge $120 billion dollar investment would surely be a travesty. And what has the new Exploration branch of NASA have as alternative? The Crew Exploration Vehicle is behind schedule and the Lunar Excursion Module has hardly taken shape (because they underfunded it)..."

clark · 2004-07-20 14:13:08

Okay, so three Apollo astronuats are meeting with Bush on July 21, 2005...

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking … -7983r.htm

Officials described the meeting -- on July 21, which is 35 years and one day after the first moon landing -- as a private affair and not an event. The three former astronauts -- Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins -- will attend along with their families. Other retired astronauts from the Apollo era also may attend the closed meeting.
Sources close to some of the astronauts hinted that a public statement urging support for the president's new moon-Mars space plan might follow the meeting, but there has been no official confirmation of that prospect. On the evening of July 20, the actual 35th anniversary of the landing, NASA and aerospace industry will host a reception for the astronauts and their families at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
No public statement is expected at this event, which will also be closed to news media, UPI was told.

Not promising, but perhaps it will be an opportunity for Bush to draw a line in the sand...

clark · 2004-07-20 14:52:33

Of course all of this comes out today when something like this is revealed:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14634

Rep. Dave Weldon: Gallup Poll: Large Majority of Americans Support NASA and Human Exploration

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. released the following statement regarding today's release of the Gallup Organization's poll for The Space Foundation regarding the Public's Opinion Regarding America's Space Exploration.
"The results of this poll show us that the continued exploration of space is an important and worthy mission for America to pursue and confirms my commitment toward the goal of a safe Shuttle return to flight and my continued investment and support of the Space Program.
"The poll proves that the majority of the public (both Republicans & Democrats) understand the importance of space exploration - 67% of adults show interest in the Space Program and 66% agree that it is important for our nation to have a space program that uses both manned exploration with astronauts and unmanned exploration using robotics, such as the recent Mars Rovers. We also see that a very large percent of the population, 70%, believe the benefits of human space flight are worth the potential risks to astronauts.
"NASA's critics like to claim there is no real support for space exploration. This week marks the 35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing and this poll shows support is just as strong as ever."

Sure American's support human exploration, too bad Congress is out of step.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-20 15:27:04

@#*%$!

Didn't see that coming, eh, clark?

Okay, this has surprised me to some extent, too, but then again, how could Bush have expected his wonderful vision to get passed without him pushing for it... ever since he declared it? I agree with cDelta here.

We need President Bush to open is damned mouth and support the policy he proposed nearly 8 months ago. THAT'S what we need.

Now where are the boys praising Bush for his wonderful plan when Bush himself didn't do what it would take to get it off the ground (see, politics isn't "here's my idea, do it" it's more "here's my idea, I'll lobby for a year working my ass off until I get enough constituents").

NASA Watch links Space Ref about the funding, sorry if this is a relink: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14633

NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million.

"Mars programs" I believe are robotic missions that have been in planning stages for awhile now. Shuttle seems to be "flying again." Sad times.

edit: oh, and they're cutting back from "Project Prometheus," wonder what the Nuclear Space people would have to say about Bush now...

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1090358947

clark · 2004-07-20 15:31:46

Didn't see that coming, eh, clark?

Not from the committee. The game isn't over yet.

When the big man talks, we'll know more.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-20 15:36:39

Anyone else find it remarkable how costly the shuttle is compared to all these other programs? Only to be shut down in 5 years... what an amazingly stupid waste of resources... the shuttle could fund everything else that was cut three times over.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 15:46:49

Yep, its gone in five years, barring President Kerry or anti-exploration sucessor declaring the Shuttle to be a "vital national treasure" or somthing...

Look at it this way though... Nasa had originally planned to fly Shuttle until 2025, and maybe more if Shuttle-II were not going to be available. 2010 is suuuch a big improvement.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-20 15:57:53

Kerry could be persuaded to turn the shuttle into an SDV (or even scrap it in light of some other technology). But if that 4 billion is a yearly expendature, I don't want to have anything to do with it. 20 billion dollars on technology which is being thrown away at the end? Give me one tenth of that and I'd get us to Mars and beyond.

BWhite · 2004-07-20 17:19:04

Senate passed full funding for the VSE (Vision for Space Exploration) - - a House Committee did not. The full House can reverse the Committee but that may not be likely.

For the wonks, that means conference committee.

Representatives from the House and Senate meet to resolve differences between the two versions of the budget and while in theory new stuff isn't supposed to be added, if the Senate and teh House and the President all agree to "break" the rules, who will complain?

Tom Delay is exactly right. Full funding for the VSE can be written in at the conference committee level.

= = =

Bottom line? E-mail Bob Zubrin and George Whitesides at National Space Society.

Express your willingness to attend Moon-Mars Blitz 2 and visit staffers from those people assigned to the Senate-House conference committee while it is going on.

Let the political wonkery types (not me - but groups like ProSpace manage and direct the details) but offer to show up in person and lobby staffers.

= = =

More political wonkery via Rand Simberg:

http://curmudgeons.blogspot.com/2004_07 … 74853]Mark Whittington

and Rands]http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/004031.html#004031]Rand's trackback

= = =

Another quote:

The Appropriations committee is supportive of Bush's plans but "does not have sufficient resources" to pay for them, a report with the bill said.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-20 20:50:38

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … _dc_2]This link will die in a few weeks since it's a "breaking news link."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing a tight budget, a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday backed a $92.9 billion spending bill that cuts funding for President Bush's plan to send humans to Mars and trims money for science and environmental programs.

[snip]

The bill, approved in the subcommittee by a voice vote, cuts funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by $1.1 billion from Bush's request, and by $229 million compared to the 2004 budget.

It also chops $538 million from Bush's $910 million request to finance a long-term plan to return humans to the moon and then on to Mars. Bush had announced this project earlier in the year.

"We simply could not afford to fund the vision," said the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Walsh, a New York Republican.

UNMANNED MARS MISSIONS

But the bill fully funds the $691 million request for unmanned Mars missions and leaves intact the requested $4.3 billion for the space shuttle program.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-20 13:14:46

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#52 2004-07-20 13:15:41

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#53 2004-07-20 13:20:26

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#54 2004-07-20 13:23:55

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#55 2004-07-20 13:24:57

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#56 2004-07-20 13:26:56

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#57 2004-07-20 13:29:10

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#58 2004-07-20 13:32:56

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#59 2004-07-20 13:33:18

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#60 2004-07-20 13:36:28

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#61 2004-07-20 13:47:10

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#62 2004-07-20 13:49:35

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#63 2004-07-20 13:53:15

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#64 2004-07-20 13:55:37

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#65 2004-07-20 13:58:51

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#66 2004-07-20 14:13:04

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#67 2004-07-20 14:13:08

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#68 2004-07-20 14:52:33

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#69 2004-07-20 15:27:04

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#70 2004-07-20 15:31:46

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#71 2004-07-20 15:36:39

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#72 2004-07-20 15:46:49

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#73 2004-07-20 15:57:53

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#74 2004-07-20 17:19:04

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#75 2004-07-20 20:50:38

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

Board footer