Only about half of America… :rolleyes:
by Tuckerfan
What do you think will happen if China is viewed as a world power? What terrible things will inevitably befall our country if China is the first to take the interplanetary plunge? Help me understand your passion. I need specifics; no paranoid hand-waving on this one.
Maybe I’m just naive or unimaginative, but I can’t see any consequence to them beating the Mars race as being bad enough to have Bush in office another four years. But maybe that’s because I can fathom voting for my dead cat Ziggy before voting for that meathead.
To be honest, I’m not sure that he does, however, Bush raised the issue before Kerry, and didn’t put conditions on returning to the Moon or going to Mars, Kerry popped in with a “Me too, but only if we can afford it!” kind of attitude. Had Kerry made his announcement that he was open to the US returning to the Moon and going to Mars first, and Bush piped in with a “Me too!” response, I’d be for Kerry.
I don’t know any of the deceased, and won’t pretend to guess what they might be thinking right now.
Well, if the story’s of Ashcroft thinking that calico cats are Satan’s agents are true, then he ought to be fairly easy to control. He gets out of line, dangle a cat in front of him.
And yes, I do know, that it’s a whole administration which gets decided come November, which is what worries me. When the Nixon Administration replaced the Johnson Administration, one of Nixon’s first acts was to reverse many of Johnson’s policies, including the plans for continued Lunar exploration by the Apollo program (that’s how we ended up with Skylab and the Saturn Vs parked in front of NASA centers, see, the hardware was already bought and paid for, so NASA had to find something to do with it). Since the whole of the Johnson Administration was gone, there was no one left, outside of the folks at NASA, to fight for the extension of the program. If Bush wins a second term, and manages to get the ball rolling, presumably the next President to replace him will realize that the project is too far along to justify cancelling it out of spite (note I’m assuming that the President after Bush will be smarter than Nixon). Kerry could easily walk into office next year, pull a “Morning in America” routine, ala Ronald Reagan (you know, the whole bit about how he was in charge and then proceeded to dump nearly everything Carter held near and dear into the shitter), and shut NASA down as far as greater manned exploration goes.
Actually, I thought his shock and indignation at Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” was his effort at misdirection. Still, he’s paying more lip service to the space program than Kerry is, and it is the space program which matters to me.
As for my fears of a non-democratic China getting to Mars first, well, there’s a few reasons for that. Number one, is the technological advantage that they’ll have over us. I like living in the most technologically advanced nation on Earth (or at least one of them). Second, if the Chinese are placed on equal par with the US in the world’s eyes on a political scale, that means that their voice will carry as much weight in the UN (yes, I know they have a seat on the Security Council, but they still can’t brow beat countries into siding with them like the US presently can) as the US. Now, we know that China allows factories to work their employees like slaves, and they might execute prisoners simply to harvest their organs for transplants, so I have to ask you, if human rights legislation comes before the UN that the US is in favor of, and that China is opposed to, which would you prefer: The world thinking that the US is the greater power, or that the Chinese are the equal/greater power? Remember, many of the nations voting on the measure will do so, simply in an effort to curry favor with the nation they consider to be the strongest. Third, if we give up on Mars, and let China have it, what else will we be willing to give up on? The Soviets gave up on the Moon after the US landed on it in July, 1969, and look what happened to the USSR. It’s now a fragmented nation, where the bulk of the population suffers from the effects of poverty. Took just over twenty years to happen. They went from “Number 2” on the world stage to an imploded mess, rife with corruption. Yeah, we’re a fundamentally different country than the USSR ever was, but if you’d have polled most people during the Cold War and asked them if they thought the USSR would ever fall without a shot being fired (by the US, at least), I’m sure the majority would have said, “No.”
Again, China switches to a democratic nation, with at least as much respect for human rights as the US, then, hey, I’m all for 'em going. Because it’ll be a symbol (if nothing else) of what democratic nations are able to do. If China’s government doesn’t make the necessary reforms, then they’ll be a symbol that you can do more than the US, while oppressing the hell out of your own people.
Hentor the Barbarian said:
Wow. After calling me a liar, you have the nerve to post that?
Here are the numbers:
First, let’s address Reagan’s ‘slashes’:
NASA budget in the last year before Reagan: 4.959 billion.
NASA Budget in Reagan’s last budget: 11.036 billion.
Net Change under Reagan: +6.077 billion per year.
Average annual increase for NASA in the Reagan administration: 15.6% per year.
Then there is George HW Bush:
NASA Budget at start of Bush term: 11.036 billion
NASA Budget in Bush’s last budget: 14.305 billion
Net change under Bush I: +3.27 billion per year.
Average annual increase: 7.4% per year.
Now Clinton:
NASA Budget at start of Clinton term: 14.305 billion
NASA Budget in Clinton’s last budget: 14.095 billion
Net change under Clinton: -210 million per year.
Average annual increase: -.2% per year.
Now Bush II:
NASA Budget at start of Bush II term: 14.095 billion
NASA Budget in Bush’s last budget (projected): 16.2 billion*
Net change under Bush II: 527 million per year.
Average annual increase: 3.75% per year.
So… Let’s see how it comes out in the wash:
Annual percentage increases for NASA:
Reagan: 15.6%
Bush I: 7.4%
Clinton: -.2%
Bush II: 3.75%
This, Hector characterizes as, “NASA’s budget slashed under Reagan, boosted in 1990, then remaining about the same thereafter.” This is more than a little disingenuous. The fact is, all three Republican presidents boosted NASA, and the Democrat in the middle cut the budget slightly.
Moreover, all three Republicans made NASA an important part of their presidencies. Bush I and Reagan gave it healthy increases AND made important policy changes and gave NASA new goals. Clinton did jack-squat, basically ignoring NASA. Bush II gave NASA its first major new goal and vision since Apollo.
Moral of the story: If you like space exploration, vote Republican.
To be fair, there are numerous ways to look at NASA’s budget. Absolute dollars, constant dollars, as a percentage of government outlays, etc. In the last category, NASA has slowly deteriorated - a process that started with the end of Apollo and has continued to today, even with Bush’s funding increases.
Some good charts of NASA funding here. The chart in constant dollars shows modest increases under Reagan, a huge boost under Bush I, a decline under Clinton, and a smaller increase under Bush II.
*The 16.2 billion figure does not come from the CBO web site because that number is out of date. Since those figures were published, Bush has requested an additional 864 million for NASA.
That’s a great site, by the way! They claim a human mission to Mars will cost $25-55 billion, which is considerably less than the space station…and, as they note, less than our trip to the moon! Give me a break! If they do a manned Mars mission for less than $100 billion (getting the people there and back and performing at least something approximating science on the Mars surface), I’ll pay for it myself! I’ve heard estimates of a trillion dollars, which may not be quite right but is at least getting in the ballpark.
At first, my thought was to vote for anyone but Bush.
The more I hear Kerry, though, the more I feel I may just write in a candidate.
Its not an easy decision, being in Ohio and all.
Time will tell.
Got a link to any of those trillion dollar estimates?
Jshore: The Mars Society advocates a Mars mission call “Mars Direct”, which would require first landing a robotic propellent factory on Mars to make the fuel for the return voyage, and then once that’s complete, flying a ship directly to Mars from Earth. That’s the $25 billion project. I happen to think they are greatly underestimating the difficulty of remotely manufacturing fuel on Mars.
The trillion dollar number bandied about, however, is equally outlandish. A more reasonable cost estimate for a Mars mission is probably more like 125-250 billion.
But once again, I have to emphasize that the Bush plan is not a ‘Mars Mission’. It’s much more low-level than that. It’s basically a new generation of technologies that are all focused on exploration, rather than exploitation and commercialization. NASA looks outward, and private contractors take care of LEO. If you look at the full program, you’ll see the ‘Office of Exploration Systems’, which overlooks programs like the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the Jupiter Icy Moons orbiter, the new James Webb Telescope and future telescopes, and other projects. The Crew Exploration Vehicle is designed to be modular - the same control systems, crew compartments, and other components can be snapped together into different configurations for different missions. Mars is mentioned as a possible destination for this spacecraft, but also mentioned are asteroids, Europa, the Lagrange points (so you can service future deep-space telescope arrays), etc. It’s a workhorse vehicle that gives us a large number of options for exploring space.
For example, here’s Boeing’s concept of a Crew Exploration Vehicle configured for flights to The Moon: CES - Moon.
Here’s an inflatable crew habitat module
Here’s a habitat module attached to a lunar lander component.
Here’s a Resource Module that provides power, cooling, and other service gear.
Here’s a Working Space Station comprised of a habitat module, and some resource modules. This can be used for servicing telescopes, doing science, etc.
Going to Mars? Put together three or four habitats, a bunch of resource modules, and then all your R&D can be spent on just the Mars-specific stuff. Going to the moon first means that all these components will have been tested, refined, be several generations newer than the first ones, etc. All proven technology. It’s a very smart way to do things - incrementally, sustainably, with modules that can be used to build ever-larger and more complex spacecraft as our exploration capability grows.
Did someone change the thread subject to the validity of space exploration?
Samwise:
First, thanks for calling my attention to a mistake that I made. Apparently NASA’s R&D budget was slashed during the Reagan years, but the overall budget did in fact increase. I apologize for that.
LIE!
The average annual increase between 1982 and 1989 (reflecting budgeted amounts from 1981 through 1989) was 9% per year (Hint the annual increases were 11%, 11%, 2.9%, 2.8%, 2%, 2.5%, 20%, and 21%. If you sum those, Samwise, you will get 73.2, and if you divide it by the number of figures you added up (in this case 8), you will get the average: 73.2/8 !=15%. 73.2/8 = 9%.
Ah! You’re just taking the range of the numbers and dividing by the number of years! Creative Samwise, and some might say deceptive, but I just say LIE. If I increase my movie budget annually from $10 to $500 to $5000 to $11, I can go to my wife at the end of four years and say, “See honey, my average annual increase in spending was $11-$10 = $1 and $1/4 years = $0.25 and $0.25/$10 = 2.5%. An average annual increase of 2.5% is reasonable, isn’t it, honey?
Here, you are closer. Using the net change between years 1990 and 1993 (Bush I), the average annual change was 6.8% (12%, 11%, 0.1% and 2%)/4.
Here, your effort is consistent with mine, which, I think, illustrates how steady the funding was during this period. Although, to be precise, the actual average change over this period was -$26 million per year. But at least your terminology is closer to a semblance of accuracy here.
Again, close. The average increase projected through 2005, which will be Bush’s last budget is 3.0%.
[quote]
So… Let’s see how it comes out in the wash:
Annual percentage increases for NASA:
Reagan: 15.6% Way off!
Bush I: 7.4% Close
Clinton: -.2% Accurate
Bush II: 3.75% Close
Disingenuous! I have taken responsibility for my error in my characterization of Reagan’s NASA budget (rather than his NASA R&D budget). However, let’s talk about disingenuous relative to your original story in this thread.
Well, we’ve gone from “constant erosions” to “basically ignoring NASA” with the truth being that there was a consistent level of funding of NASA over Clinton’s term. We’ve gone from the Bush boys being two solitary space buff standouts to Bush I having a lower annual increase than Reagan, and Bush II lower still.
Well, except that using the data you provided, and looking at the breakdown of net change in NASA’s budget, the moral is a bit different:
average annual increase
Kennedy: 83%
Reagan: 9%
Carter: 9%
Bush I: 7%
Bush II: 3%
Johnson: 1%
Clinton: 0%
Nixon: -2%
Of course, Samwise’s morals are always somewhat dubious.
WHAT?! I like Bush more than you do? Nonsense, I tell you, nonsense!
I got 2%.
But then, I got 78% for Kerry, so that’s something.
Daniel
It all depends on how you look at it. If you use constant dollars, then NASA DID see steady erosions under Clinton. If the budget stayed roughly the same in absolute dollars, then it decreased each year by the rate of inflation.
Of course, using constant dollars also makes Reagan’s increases much smaller, because inflation was higher then. That was why I also provided a chart in constant dollars, which shows (drum roll) an increase under Reagan, a big increase under Bush, an erosion under Clinton, and then more increases under Bush II. Just as I said.
It seems to me you’re the one trying to twist the numbers to make Clinton look better than he was. But as we’ve shown, even under the best twisting possible, NASA STILL lost money under Clinton. For their funding to go DOWN over an 8 year period is pretty remarkable for a government agency - especially since overall government spending went up dramatically during that period. Clinton presided over a huge economic boom, and yet none of that new revenue made its way to NASA.
Bush, on the other hand, has tons of expensive priorities, a recession, and a war to fight. And yet, he’s managed to boost NASA’s funding. Which president do you think cares more about NASA?
And of course, every time John Kerry mentions NASA, he has to work in a sentence like, “I want a vigorous space program, but you have to understand that there are many domestic priorities that we need to focus our attention on.” Translation: NASA will be ignored and have its funding cut, just like under Clinton.
The trillion dollar estimate for the new space initiative has always been completely wrong. The Space Review has an article that deconstructs the origin of that estimate.
Fine. I am willing to believe the trillion dollar estimate was a complete shot in the dark and has severe problems with how it was derived. But, the low end figures are equally ridiculous. And, historically, I don’t think the major problem has been with underestimating the costs of manned space exploration. Just look at the shuttle and the space station.
I’m voting for Kerry. But I admit, it’s only to get the Bush clan out of office. I’m frankly not that impressed with Kerry, but I think that I have to give him a chance. A good analogy is the starting quarterback for the Steelers. Neil O’Donnell sucked. He had his chance but he completely screwed up. So I was all for Kordell. Let’s give him a chance I said. It turns out that Kordell sucked too (even worse). So we got rid of him and moved onto someone else. That’s the beauty of having an election every 4 years. You never know how good the next guy will be. But as long as you know the current guy sucks, you move on.
Incidentally, I got a 71% correlation with Kerry (and Kucinich) and a 17% correlation with Bush. It’s probably due primarily to my opposition to most abortions.
jshore: Yes, but the low end figure of 25 billion is never mentioned by either NASA or Bush. You’re blaming them for something they never said.
We can play worst-case scenario and say, “Okay, NASA’s goal is to go to Mars by 2030, as Bush says. The Office of Exploration systems is going to have a budget of 12.5 billion per year after 2010, increasing at least at the rate of inflation.”
If that’s the case, and NASA’s new vision was solely a ‘Mars plan’ as critics claim, then NASA could spend 250 billion on a Mars mission without requesting additional funding. Isn’t that in the ball park?
But again, I guess I have to repeat this: The new Bush plan is NOT a ‘trip to Mars’ program. It’s just a re-shuffling of priorities into exploration instead of low earth orbit. If Mars can’t be done, it won’t be. Then the CEV will be used for Moon missions, missions to the Lagrange points to set up telescope arrays, or whatever. There is no pie-in-the-sky here: that’s something invented by Bush’s critics. The new program is sustainable, incremental, and has no finite goal. It’s just a shift in direction. A very, very good shift in direction. With lots of intermediate milestones to keep everyone focused and on track (unmanned CEV tests by 2008 (a little too ambitious), manned flights by 2012, lunar flight by 2015, etc.)
Back to the OP, I’m definitely voting against Bush. If that means Kerry, then Kerry it is. (I won’t even consider Nader) In the highly unlikely event that Kerry doesn’t actually get the nomination at the convention, I’ll probably be voting for Edwards.
That’s not to say I don’t like Kerry. I do. I just really, really, really want Bush out.
By the way, for those who think their votes won’t matter, just remember this. Instead of trudging into the polls in Nov. thinking “I might as well not vote, it’ll just be cancelled out by one for Bush,” skip merrily into the booth thinking “hot damn! I’m gonna cancel out one of Dubya’s votes. That’ll show 'im. Ha ha!”
alrite so im not a big war buff or w/e lol i dont know what gun but it was his assault rifle and im not creative enough to make that story up thanks for the credit tho lol and i was just telling u why i wouldnt vote for him i guess whether u believe me or not is your prerogative
Except, of course, that it wasn’t “underestimating” (in the sense that they guessed wrong at how much the shuttle would cost) in the case of the shuttle.
I saw an awesome home-made bumper sticker:
“No Billionaire Left Behind - Buch/Chaney '04” 
Now, doesn’t that just say it all? They can’t understand domestic affairs because their domestic affairs are just fine and comfy!
Look carefully at what kind of people you are supporting here, folks. Oil tycoons? (baphoons?) Hmm, some people claim that there’s a sheik or two to blame, but I know…it these types of guys’ fault!
Bush ain’t no Jed Clampett. I knew Jed Clampett…
- Jinx