To The Moon
-
NASA wants to return to the moon in the next decade, replacing the Space Shuttle with an Apollo like reusable capsule. Supposedly this $104 billion price tag is less than half the cost of the Apollo program and is spread over 13 years instead of 8 as Apollo used.With the tsunami in Sri Lanka and surrounding areas, the hurricane in the US, and other economic drains, like a certain military campaign in the cradle of civilization, I'm not sure this will fly. The article mentions this will not require new money, and I know President Bush supports this, so we'll see what happens. Especially if we have a Democrat elected in 2008.
I think it's still a good idea to continue to explore our world and learn more about nature, both under the oceans and in space. This type of basic research could help us solve problems like energy, resource issues, medical problems, etc. over time and I am for continuing investment in space. Just not bank breaking investment. It's not a top priority, but it should continue to get funding and NASA and other countries' agencies, should work together and do more with less.
I recently have been thinking of getting Apollo 13 to watch with the kids because it's such a great story. There's something special about sending people into space and it captivated me from the time I was a kid. October Sky was a similar story, also very enjoyable and both my boys had a good time watching that one. Space exploration is one thing that I think gets most people excited.
Not that I'd want to go. I know my limitations and as exciting as it sounds, in practice I think I'm better off just reading about it.
Or just writing about it 🙂
Steve Jones
-
While I have long been an advocate of the space program, and feel that we have enormously benefited from the spin-offs, I feel that the $104B would be better spent in a national initiative to develop alternative energy sources and wean us off of Oil - especially the foreign flavors.
Steven J. Ackerman, ConsultantACS, Sarasota, Floridahttp://www.acscontrol.comhttp://spaces.msn.com/members/sjackermansteve@acscontrol.com
Kindest Regards,Steven J. Ackerman
Consultant
ACS, Sarasota, FL
http://www.acscontrol.com
http://spaces.msn.com/sjackerman -
Sir Arthur C. Clarke said it best: "the dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program." I believe that the human race depends on an active space program. How about we divert some of the funds from the defense program. The U.S. Government spends $400 billion per year. The next two biggest defense spenders are Russia and China with $70 billion and $50 billion respectively. I think we can cut some of this out and still stay "competitive".
Here's one approach to helping our country: http://www.truemajority.com/fun/
I don't agree with everything they put out but most of it makes sense. I don't mean to get all political but this leads me to another point. The True Majority group seems to lean toward the Democrats pretty heavily and I want it to be known that I am neither Democrat or Republican. I lump politicians from both camps into the category of Republicrats because they are both just taking turns pulling the country apart. We often hear of people who choose the "lesser of the two evils." I prefer elimination of the evil entirely. Vote Independant (or at least vote against the incumbant).
That should stir things up for a few days
[font="Tahoma"]Bryant E. Byrd, BSSE MCDBA MCAD[/font]
Business Intelligence Administrator
MSBI Administration Blog -
I feel that the $104B would be better spent in a national initiative to develop alternative energy sources and wean us off of Oil - especially the foreign flavors.
-- Steven J. Ackerman
Alternative energy sources are already there and ready. They won't become readily available until we can keep Big Oil from lining the pockets of politicians. Laws are continually being put in place that protect oil companies from competition. The U.S. is as far from true capitalism as the U.S.S.R. was from true communism.
[font="Tahoma"]Bryant E. Byrd, BSSE MCDBA MCAD[/font]
Business Intelligence Administrator
MSBI Administration Blog -
Bah to all the fiscal naysayers. One has only to look at the deficit that everyone was screaming about over a year ago. It would just grow and grow they said. Our children would end up paying for it they said.
They said the same thing about Reagan's deficit.
Tax cuts take care of deficits. That is why you no longer heard about them anymore before Katrina. The estimated deficits have massively shrunk since the last election.
We can afford the price tag on the space program and on our wonderful military.
As for energy, we need to open and exploit our own resources and look into developing one of the best alternative energy sources: nuclear power.
-
That should stir things up for a few days... - Bryant - that's a veritable pandora's box right there...so I'm not going to fall into the completely useless trap of mouthing off my opinions - there is such a vast divide between opinions in this country that it's a case of "never shall the twain meet"......the first response to your post confirms this....
However, TRUEMAJORITY just got another member..Am I glad that I've always been conservative in my cookie consumption and know when 'nuff's 'nuff...
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
As to the $104 billion over 13 years.
select cast(104000000000 / 13 as money) As [Yearly Amount]
Yearly Amount
---------------------
8000000000.0000
(1 row(s) affected)
That's $8,000,000,000 (billion) a year. That's a rounding error in the DOD, SSA, Medicare and several other agency budgets.
He**, we've all heard about the $315M Bridge to Nowhere. And add insult to injury they just gave the major oil companies tax cuts in the latest DOT package.
I have always wanted to see NASA given back the money and the space program run the way it should have gone if it wasn't for the space race.
If we had followed the logical progression, we should have built platforms in low earth orbit. And then stations in geosynch, and then staged to the moon from there. Getting out of the gravity well is what takes the most work. We should have been working on catapault systems all this time.
We also need to get more private companies into the system.
BTW, I try to vote for the independents and the non-incumbents at every vote. I'm tired of the two party system. It just screws the little guy. :growl:
----------------
Jim P.A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
-
If we had followed the logical progression, we should have built platforms in low earth orbit. And then stations in geosynch, and then staged to the moon from there. Getting out of the gravity well is what takes the most work. We should have been working on catapault systems all this time.
We also need to get more private companies into the system.
Fully agree with this, Jim. VC and private companies should be allowed to compete in the space programs or generate space programs of their own.
Also agree that a boat-load of spending can be cut as well. Not in the military but in many other places.
-
Steve,
As you know, my husband, Todd Corey, is the Electrical and Avionics Branch Chief for NASA's Space Station program at Kennedy Space Center and has worked for NASA since 1988. Recently, his mother wrote him and she was obviously upset because she felt her peers did not have a clue as to what the space program really does. Personally, as an ex-space program employee myself, I agree with her. Anyway, he wrote her this email and I would like to share it with all of you (I especially like the part about the breakdown of tax dollar allocation straight out of the IRS 2004 tax prepartion booklet):
"I don’t have a single document you can hand somebody and say, “See, look at all the great things NASA does.” The closest thing I found is attached to this message and titled “NASA Hits - Rewards from Space”. It may be what you’re looking for and does identify several key benefits from the space program, but it’s not an exhaustive summary and somewhat limited in my opinion. NASA is involved with many projects to explore space and improve life on earth with advances in aeronautics, airline safety, weather observation, astronomy, and robotic exploration of the solar system. Human spaceflight gets the most attention with the missions to the moon and our current program of using the Space Shuttle to build the International Space Station for conducting biological and physical research in the microgravity of space. Trying to capture all of those accomplishments in a brief reference sheet is not easy. Many people don’t realize how the space program has benefited the country in terms of keeping us a technological leader in the world and helping to secure our economic future. Under the “Vision for Space Exploration” formally introduced by Pres. Bush in 2004, the fundamental goal of exploring space is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests. Flying the Shuttle and completing the Space Station are critical elements of that vision.
In terms of cost, NASA gets about 0.6% of the federal budget today. This is less than a penny for every tax dollar paid. During the moon missions NASA used to get about 4% of the budget. I doubt if we’ll see that kind of money again in the foreseeable future. Critics think we should axe the space program and use the dollars from NASA to address social problems on Earth. They may not realize or want to acknowledge that a large portion of our taxes are already spent on social programs and other entitlements. Here’s the breakdown straight out of the IRS 2004 tax preparation booklet:
37% Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement
21% Social Programs (food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment, assisted housing, social services)
22% National Defense, veterans, and foreign affairs
7% Net interest on the debt
3% Law enforcement and general government
9.4% Physical, human, and community development
0.6% NASA (on the IRS chart, NASA is included in Phys, human, and comm. develop. – I broke out the NASA portion)
I’d like to see anyone else do as much for the well being of this country as NASA does for the amount of money it receives. It’s one area where people are trying to do something constructive and positive for this country. The space program improves life on earth while trying to expand our horizons. It inspires kids to get a good education, provides challenging high tech jobs across the country, and returns numerous benefits from the knowledge gained that feed right back into our nation’s scientific, security, and economic interests. It’s not uncommon to hear references to NASA spinoffs as the reason for exploring space, but they are merely by-products of the space program, not an ends to a means. Yet some people identify better with that kind of stuff in terms of tangible benefits to their personal life. Here’s a few web links that are useful. There’s a lot of info to look at, so in the interest of time, I bold-faced those items that will give you a few tidbits of quick gee-whiz info. Take a few moments to look at the other sites when you get a chance. There’s a lot of information available to the public on-line, if they’re willing to spend the time looking at it.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html
This takes you to NASA’s home page. On the lower right under the “NASA’s Future” heading is a link to “The Vision for Space Exploration” if you want to read about where NASA is headed. Also on the lower right under “Other NASA Links” is a link to the “NASA Spinoffs” page which I’ve also pasted below.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/spinoffs_index.html
“NASA Spinoffs”. Look to the right side of the page for a link to “NASA’s Hits – Rewards from Space” for a highlight summary of spinoffs. I’ve attached a copy of that report to this email. There’s other links on this page that will connect you to other spinoffs.
Online Spinoff site. You can access the 2004 Spinoff issue as well as back year issues. You can also link to spinoffs specific to shuttle, station, and Apollo. I’ve listed those below for a quick look.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/shuttle.htm
Shuttle Spinoffs
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ISSspin.html
Space Station Spinoffs
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm
Apollo program Spinoffs
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-1.html
This link is to a news release from the White House regarding the new Vision for Space Exploration. Near the bottom of the document is a short list of some more NASA spinoffs."
All the best,
DaleAuthor: An Introduction to SQL Server 2005 Management Studio
-
Oh, and by the way, nothing cracks me up more when I hear "we need to keep the tax dollar money for causes down here on earth". Obviously, this is spoken by someone who has no idea what a spinoff is (see above).
All the best,
DaleAuthor: An Introduction to SQL Server 2005 Management Studio
-
Thanks for the links but I was already quite aware of the fantastic job done by NASA with its meager budget. That is why I believe the missions to the moon and many of the other NASA projects should move forward. I did not state that NASA should be cut.
What I agreed with Jim is that so much more could be done if we allowed private funding and commerical enterprise into the area of space flight and exploration. The space platforms would help NASA would they not? Then why were they not built? Money. I am sure NASA could benefit from an influx of capital could it not?
Space exploration is humanity's future. I truly believe that.
BTW: Who said: "we need to keep the tax dollar money for causes down here on earth"? Or were you just addressing another POV. I certainly did not say it.
Best regards.
-
Steve,
Not to worry. I worked for McDonnell Douglas Space Systems so I am sympathetic to the commerical endeavours.
I understood your comments from the start. My posting was not even a reaction to yours. It is really geared towards the "nay sayers" my husband and I have encountered ever since we both became involved in space exploration. There are those who really believe that the social programs are it and that any exploration should stay right here on the good ol' earth. Their last names are usually spelled POLITICIAN.
The bottom line is that the usual argument on Capital Hill is that all tax dollars should be spent on other programs besides space exploration and that they should be spent on programs "here on earth". It's not a new argument but one that always burns because if you have any knowledge of spinoffs, you would know the value of space exploration is not just the mission but what comes after it.
All the best,
DaleAuthor: An Introduction to SQL Server 2005 Management Studio
-
That's cool. I just thought you misunderstood me because you started with "Steve,". Looking back you were probably talking to Steve Jones. My fault.
Good points though.
-
That's okay. I like when you get fired up, Mr. Larson.
You were right though, I was addressing Steve Jones' initial editorial.
All the best,
DaleAuthor: An Introduction to SQL Server 2005 Management Studio
-
Just finished watching the true majority clip cited early in this thread. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how capable the average American is at telling other Americans what our problem is, and how best to solve it. What is especially astonishing is the near complete lack of understanding of the facts or proof for any of the positions taken.
Here are some facts...
There was no federal education department until the late 1970's. How can that be, we sent people to the moon, marginalized polio, invented antibiotics, created radios, light bulbs, and the vacum tube all before the existence of a federal education management agency? All those pre 1970 American scientists and entrepreneurs that engineered the strongest economy and greatest country in the history of the earth must have been the beneficiary of some US Department providing cash for their education. There can be no other explanation!
There was no federal school lunch program before 1936 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_4.htm) Not possible. It is completely beyond comprehension that our founding fathers and all the other citizens of the colonies and the resulting country were not fed lunch on the public dollar. There is no way Ben Franklin carried a brown bag to school provided by his Parent's - that is just ludicrous. We all know he would have starved if his uncle Sam did not bring the government cheese.
Defense spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product has decreased
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf 
Start reading on page 44.Year % GDP
1952 13.2
1962 9.2
1976 5.2
1983 6.1
1995 3.7
2002 3.4
The GDP is the important part. This is not just the federal budget, but the entire value of every good and service our country produces.
1 tenth of 1 percent of our GDP (2003 =10,400,000,000,000) is 10,400,000,000. Ice cream man - turn around preach to the choir, instead of crying about what the government does not do, get together with the other leaders of business and solve the problem. Get all of them to give 1/10 of 1% of their total output towards solving the problems with education.
Better yet Run for Office and do something about it yourself. I am betting you are not willing to take the pay cut.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply