Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

smurf975 · 2004-07-21 13:52:04

A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. The panel also cut environment and science programs, but increased funding for veterans' affairs. NASA would get $15.1 billion next year, $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the President's request. Most of the cuts are on new initiatives. The subcommittee is the first step of a long budget process and major changes to the bill are expected."

Read the article http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … d=160]here

An interesting fact that I got from a slashdot post:

When you include costs like veteran's benefits and the interest on the national debt (about 80% of which was caused by past military spending),the "defense" budget accounts for nearly 50% of the US federal budget each year!

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 14:20:45

Well of course, we've been paying to defend the rest of the world for a long long time.

Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada etc etc all have only a minimal military and essentially no strateigic capacity of their own to defend themselves from outside invasion since Stalin practicly... French and British capacity is fairly limited on the scheme of things.

smurf975 · 2004-07-21 14:27:18

Well of course, we've been paying to defend the rest of the world for a long long time.
Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada etc etc all have only a minimal military and essentially no strateigic capacity of their own to defend themselves from outside invasion since Stalin practicly... French and British capacity is fairly limited on the scheme of things.

However the European nations in the NATO, which is mostly paid for by the USA , are getting more pressure to manage their own defence forces. Which is good or the European nations and perhaps Taiwan and South Korea should pay for the cost of the American troops and hardware that are issued to defend their nations.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-21 14:45:41

Reportedly, the vote split along party lines.

Time to vote Democrat.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-21 14:46:08

Yeah, well, perhaps if we didn't go of on a tangent spending all that money on Vietnam the whole Apollo program could've been extended to a permanent base on the moon rather than what we got (ie, a lot of dead men in a useless war, and practically zero manned exploration of space since).

Some /. posters made that point, also.

p.s. this topic probably could've done without a new thread (the "Bush sets wrong goal?" topic is already discussing this for several pages now), but I won't lock or anything, people will discuss where they wish. Just try to remember so we're not cluttering up the forum.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-21 14:47:25

C M Edwards, heh, heh, we posted at the same time. So the Democrats voted for his increased budget? Yaknow, it's hard to predict these sorts of things.

Somewhat ironic though, no?

BWhite · 2004-07-21 15:02:40

The subcommittee action Tuesday passed by voice vote, an indicator of strong across-the-board sentiment. . ..

from UPI

Next up, full floor vote, which Tom "the Hammer" Delay promises will not happen without full funding for NASA.

Otherwise conference committee or continuing resolution.

Now, from the Washington Post's report on the yet unpublished committee comments:

The committee also expressed skepticism that the administration can finish building the international space station by 2010 and then retire the shuttle. Knowledgeable congressional staffers, who declined to be identified by name because of committee policy, suggested that this view contributed to lawmakers' decision not to fund the crew exploration vehicle.
"NASA needs to reevaluate this date in the context of the current budget environment and the technical challenges associated both with return-to-flight activities and the new system development needs," the panel's report said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … .html]Link - - registration may be required but you can try that "Kos" trick if you don't wish to register for WaPo.

Palomar · 2004-07-21 15:11:33

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … _dc]Wonder why?

*Happy reading! (not)

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-07-21 15:26:52

Well of course, we've been paying to defend the rest of the world for a long long time.
Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada etc etc all have only a minimal military and essentially no strateigic capacity of their own to defend themselves from outside invasion since Stalin practicly... French and British capacity is fairly limited on the scheme of things.

Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, the rest of the world does not really need defending. While countries like Germany and Japan are weak compared to the US, they are more than strong enough to defend themselves from any potential enemy. Hopefully when Iraq is done, we will be able to free up some of the massive military budget for more constructive purposes.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-21 15:35:46

Yeah Bill, I meant to link a post from NASA Watch regarding Delay's comments. Here it is: http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697, … 88,00.html

What's funny to me is that he's all "we're fully prepared to fight for [the vision]" but then... for more than half a year they sat on it and didn't talk about it or anything significant at all. That really shows how much they wanted it. Really, this is political talk, imho. Does Delay personally have the power to keep it from going ahead? Or does he have to get a bunch of his buddies in a back room to make some dealing?

Yaknow, this is really frustrating.

And Cindy, I saw that too..

John Creighton · 2004-07-21 21:17:10

There is a glimmer of hope though:

Despite these concessions, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) called the cuts "unacceptable" and suggested that he would stop the bill from being passed if it remains in its current state. "Yes, we are at war, just as we were when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And yes, the budget is constricted," said DeLay in a statement. "But for four decades, America's mission in space has been one of the surest economic investments the federal government has made.
"The president's space vision is my mission, and I am fully prepared to fight for it," he said.
And:
Though the president's plan was initially met with concern, space advocacy groups and the public seem to be warming up to it. A recent Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of Americans support it -- up from 48 percent in a February poll by the Associated Press.

Thus there seems to be bypartasan and public suport do do more in the maned space program then send people to LEO. I recall watching the news lately and when most people where asked where should we go next in space they says mars.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 22:36:58

I received this e-mail

Call Congress Now to Support Moon and Mars Exploration July 21, 2004 for further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.
At this critical moment, you need to show your support for human space exploration by taking action.
Yesterday, July 20, the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of civil space recommended that NASA's budget be cut by 7% from requested levels. That's a cut of over $1 billion, with the new human Moon and Mars exploration budget taking the worst hits.
This is unacceptable. But it is not over yet. There is another
meeting of the full committee that can review this first
recommendation on Thursday, and it is essential that you let them know how you feel.
What can you do? Call Congress today or tomorrow, especially if you are a constituent of the representatives on the committee. Tell them that you support full funding of the NASA fiscal year budget request.
The House switchboard is: 202-225-3121. They can connect you to any the office of any representative. First, look over the list below, and make sure to call your representative if you see them on the list. But call regardless! There is very little time and we must act fast.
The members of the committee are listed below. Call now. It's not too late to turn this decision around.
Tell them you want all NASA requested funds for initiating human exploration of the Moon and Mars restored to the budget.
The American space program needs a goal, and that goal needs to be humans to Mars. Without setting our sights on such a goal, and starting work, we will have still more years and decades of wasteful aimless activity, with our human spaceflight program just going around in circles. That is iresponsible.
The American people want and deserve a space program that is really going somewhere. Approving these funds is the necessary first step towards giving the space program the direction to make that happen.
Robert Zubrin
President, Mars Society

and a very similar email from George Whitesides of the National Space Society.

clark · 2004-07-22 08:30:21

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is big on Veteran's affairs. There were some quotes that the change in funding imphasis (for Veteran's affairs) was made at the direction of GOP leadership... whoever that is in particular, I can't say.

The reason that leadership hasn't been going around selling the Space Vision program is that there is nothing much to sell at the moment. The Aldridge Commission just finished their report, and this is an election year. Talk too much and you end up making it a political issue.

Better to go soft and quiet.

Now, what we can draw comfort from is the fact that NASA has enjoyed budget increases under Bush. By this Congress. Just give it a little time to play out.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-09-20 06:01:17

US House of Representatives panel has voted to cut the money given to fund space, environment and science programmes for next year. Just $372m was provided out of the $910m Mr Bush wanted for initial preparations for manned missions to the Moon and Mars.

That was bad, well maybe all these problems can be fixed soon

SpaceNut · 2004-09-20 06:15:41

SpacePolitics Budget roundup

Quote:
A few items of note about the efforts to get NASA's budget approved in Congress:

Writing for UPI http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nasa-04zm.html , Frank Sietzen describes the current budget situation with a baseball analogy, with the game tied in the bottom of the 8th inning and Congress at bat. He expects the Senate to take up the VA-HUD-independent agencies bill this week. Tight funding limits approved by Senate appropriators earlier this month could lead to cuts similar to what the House approved in July. If the appropriations bill makes it to the Senate floor, he says it could trigger "the first serious political debate about space spending since the 1989 and 1990 fights over the International Space Station."
A Florida Today editorial http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/o … 5WNASA.htm last week calls the current situation a "bogus game of political chicken" because of the reported veto threat. The editors rightly note that such a veto is unlikely because NASA's budget is included in a larger appropriation that includes veterans and housing programs. (Also, the bill may end up in a larger omnibus budget bill that would be even more difficult for the President to veto.) The editorial calls on President Bush to "use a bit of his political energy on the campaign trail" to promote the benefits of NASA and the exploration vision.
With the 2005 fiscal year to begin in less than two weeks, NASA and other federal agencies will need most likely a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) to keep operating until the final 2005 budget is passed. CongressDaily http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/091604cdpm1.htm reported last week that some members of Congress are supporting the idea of a long-term CR that would keep those agencies funded for several months, perhaps as late as March 2005, at FY04 levels. This would avoid the need for a lame-duck session this year after the election. This could turn out to be a short-term boon for NASA, assuming the House's version of the FY05 budget—$229 million less than the FY04 budget—wins out in the end. However, it might handcuff efforts to spend funds on exploration and other programs not included in the FY04 budget.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-22 08:43:51

Results of yesterdays Appropriations hearing.
As a result, there are some cuts, particularly in the exploration vision: $160 million cut from the CEV, $50 million from the robotic lunar exploration program, $10 million from Centennial Challenges, and an unspecified amount from Project Prometheus. These cuts, though, are less severe than what House appropriators approved in July.

NASA budget OK'd by Senate panel
$16.4 billion bill allows extra funds for Hubble, shuttle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2808048

Senate panel OKs extra money for NASA
Committee would reverse House budget cuts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6067433/

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted Tuesday to increase NASA's budget by about $200 million over the President's request, for a total of $16.4 billion.

http://appropriations.senate.gov/releas … ?id=226469

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): is funded at $16.379 billion, an increase of $200 million over the FY04 enacted level, and a reduction of $665 million from the budget request. An additional $800 million in emergency funding was added for NASA during the Committee’s consideration of the bill.

-- The return to flight activities for the Shuttle program are funded at $4.319 billion, the requested level from the Administration.

-- The International Space Station is funded at $1.6 billion. The bill reduces ISS operations by $120 million due to the continued reduced capability of the ISS for at least half of FY05.

-- The Moon/Mars vision:

--- The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is funded at $268 million.

--- A lunar exploration mission is funded at $20 million.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-22 09:13:08

Well of course, we've been paying to defend the rest of the world for a long long time.
Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada etc etc all have only a minimal military and essentially no strateigic capacity of their own to defend themselves from outside invasion since Stalin practicly... French and British capacity is fairly limited on the scheme of things.

Canada had the 3rd largest navy at the end of World War 2; only the U.S. and U.K. had larger navies. Of course one reason was that the Nazi and Japanese navies were at the bottom of the ocean. Canada chose to reduce its military in peace time because a large military is not productive. In year 2000 I pointed out that the U.S. military got 288 billion while NASA got 14.7 billion. A 10% reduction in military spending could be split 50/50 between increased spending to NASA and tax cuts. That would double NASA's budget. NASA provides more skilled jobs per dollar than the military; military has a lot of soldiers, not so many officers with degrees. NASA does research that leads to economic growth, the military does research but their focus is on dropping bombs and shooting people. NASA makes a lot more sense. So the point I'm making is that Canada's military budget as a proportion of its GDP is not too low, rather the U.S. proportion is too high.

Since then 9/11 has happened and the U.S. military budget has mushroomed; it's roughly twice what it was in 2000. I was one of those who wrote my Member of Parliament asking the Canadian government to not join the war in Iraq. Afghanistan against Al Quaeda sure, the U.S. was attacked and they're our ally, in fact I see the U.S. as family, specifically I see the U.S. as older brother to Canada; but not the war in Iraq. Now brave U.S. soldiers are dieing, Iraqi citizens are dieing, and the financial cost is more than a manned mission to Mars. Here is where Canada can say "We told you so." In fact, Canada was against the war in Granada, support for the Contras in Nicaragua, the "no fly zones" in Iraq after the Gulf War was over, and now most Canadian's are against the ballistic missile shield because they don't want to see weapons stationed in space. The U.S. is spending far too much money on military; don't blame Canada for America's over spending.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-22 09:55:53

French and British capacity is fairly limited on the scheme of things.

Hmm. How do you define being able to destroy the entire US mainland as 'limited strategic capacity'?

<sigh>
Again for yet another year the great white elephant swallows enough money to fund a replacement.

ANTIcarrot.

John Creighton · 2004-09-22 09:59:12

Here is a contrary rallying cry, It kind of sounds good but I don’t really have much belief it it. Like all times though history you can try to appease people with a carrot or keep them in place with a stick. Sometimes one method works best sometimes the other does. Such is the brutal reality of history. Of course GW forgot the proverb, walk softly and carry a big stick. Man, ever predator in the jungle can here him.

Whether the current arms race and rise in terrorisms was given momentum by policy mistakes of the united states or not they are our biggest ally and our closest trading partner. Even though there unilateralism is naive and sucking up much of the resources which could have been devoted to space we must remind them they have friends and allies. The rising tide of hate spurred by envy must be quenched by those who enjoy the greatest riches. For if this fungus is allowed to foster and rot America will fall. If America falls are way of life is in far greater jeopardy then ever before. We should stay out of IRAK but we should get ready. Our military is much too small. We don’t have enough boats to carry our troops and we barely have enough helicopters to perform simple cost guard duties.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-22 10:28:03

Well, Ok John, the Canadian military does need work. In fact in that same letter to an MP I stated that we need new helicopters. We don't need as much an increase in military spending as Washington wants Canada to do, but we do need helicopters. The Canadian frigates are the best navy ship in the world for their size (American has the big ships), but a key component is their helicopters. Helicopters on those frigates are intended to detect submarines, and if necessary drop a torpedo to take them out. I mentioned we need helicopters with detection equipment capable of locating new stealth submarines with titanium hulls. A magnetometer won't detect a titanium hull. I don't know how to design such sensors, but we need them. An air dropped torpedo can take out a submarine while the frigate is out of range of the submarine's torpedoes, so the frigate becomes a very effective anti-submarine ship. Patrolling Canadian coastal waters to keep out submarines is one of its primary missions. But as long as we have aging Sea King helicopters that are falling out of the sky, the frigates can't do their job.

For those who don't know, there was an incident where Canadian equipment from Bosnia was transported via commercial ship back to Canada. The ship captain wanted more money so refused to land. It took a military raid to force the ship to return with Canada's military equipment. This demonstrated the need for dedicated military transport.

John Creighton · 2004-09-22 12:20:36

This demonstrated the need for dedicated military transport.

I wonder what capabilities the transport ships should have? I recall in world war II ocean liners were transformed into transport ships. However such vessels lack military capabilities and if one sinks a lot of soldiers are lost. On the contrary note it would probably be const prohibitive to transport everything on a frigate. Moreover a frigate could not land very much ground hardware. Does Canada even have planes or helicopters, or hydro crafts that can carry tanks like the US army does?

RobertDyck · 2004-09-22 12:39:51

I wonder what capabilities the transport ships should have? ... Does Canada even have planes or helicopters, or hydro crafts that can carry tanks like the US army does?

Canada doesn't have any LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cussion), which are the big U.S. hovercraft. We do have http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equ … asp]CC-130 Hercules which can carry 17,320kg or 92 passengers, and http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equ … asp]CC-150 Polaris which are the military version of A310-300 Airbus. Polaris can carry 32,000kg or 194 passengers. The Navy has the http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet … Protecteur but that's a tender, intended to resupply naval ships not transport heavy cargo.

Grypd · 2004-09-22 16:30:13

Using the UK as an example the need for naval transport has resulted in the creation of the merchant marine arm. This means all British registered vessels are crewed by officers that have Merchant Marine papers and form a very large reserve.

Canada can easily go back to doing the same as im sure that there was a form of this in operation at the end of the second world war. It frankly does not cost too much as it acts more like improved ship operations training rather than military reserve training.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-23 06:53:37

It appears that even though Nasa will get more money in the 2005 budget versus the 2004, there is still the need in order to make ends meet for the initiative leading Nasa to cut or delay science or even robit missions or programs.

Bush's NASA directive clouds other missions
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/sp … usat_x.htm

"But a report released Wednesday says that if NASA proceeds as planned with that type of space exploration, it will put on hold long-scheduled missions to understand the sun's solar blasts."

SpaceNut · 2004-09-23 09:01:30

This article fills in the gap on the why an amendment was put forth with the extra money for shuttle and hubble.
It appears that the senators are looking at when the 2010 to 2014 timeline for a usefule CEV would be available as a concern.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Approves NASA Authorization Act
Includes Amendment Introduced by Sen. Hutchison to Maintain U.S. Access to Space

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15100

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-21 13:52:04

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#2 2004-07-21 14:20:45

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#3 2004-07-21 14:27:18

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#4 2004-07-21 14:45:41

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#5 2004-07-21 14:46:08

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#6 2004-07-21 14:47:25

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#7 2004-07-21 15:02:40

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#8 2004-07-21 15:11:33

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#9 2004-07-21 15:26:52

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#10 2004-07-21 15:35:46

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#11 2004-07-21 21:17:10

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#12 2004-07-21 22:36:58

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#13 2004-07-22 08:30:21

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#14 2004-09-20 06:01:17

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#15 2004-09-20 06:15:41

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#16 2004-09-22 08:43:51

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#17 2004-09-22 09:13:08

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#18 2004-09-22 09:55:53

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#19 2004-09-22 09:59:12

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#20 2004-09-22 10:28:03

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#21 2004-09-22 12:20:36

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#22 2004-09-22 12:39:51

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#23 2004-09-22 16:30:13

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#24 2004-09-23 06:53:37

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

#25 2004-09-23 09:01:30

Re: Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase

Board footer