Bush to Propose Budget Increase for NASA ($500M for 2004)

REUTERS ^ | Sunday, February 2, 2003; 7:22 PM | Reuters

[Mark Felton]

Bush to Propose Budget Increase for NASA

Reuters
Sunday, February 2, 2003; 7:22 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday, promising investigators would look into whether past cutbacks played any part in the space shuttle Columbia disaster.

The disaster has prompted calls for increased spending to upgrade the aging shuttle fleet and develop a new space plane. Columbia broke up over Texas on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts aboard, just 16 minutes before it was due to land in Florida.

While NASA's budget has been reduced over the past decade, a senior administration official said Bush would boost funding for the space agency by almost $470 million to $15.47 billion in his fiscal 2004 budget.

The budget, which will be released on Monday, does not include costs associated with Saturday's disaster.

The administration official would not give a breakdown of NASA's budget, so it was unclear if it would include additional money for the shuttle program or safety upgrades.

NASA's total budget for 2003 was $15 billion, a slight increase from the previous year.

The space shuttle program was budgeted at $3.208 billion for 2003, $75 million less than in 2002.

Asked if additional money for NASA would be needed, the official said: "A large increase has been planned. A large increase will be proposed and we will continue to work with Congress to determine what the right amounts should be."

The official said it was too soon to say whether the disaster was in any way connected to past cutbacks in the shuttle program.

"It is not clear to anybody what impact, if any impact, there was as a result of funding. This very well may have nothing to do with any funding concerns," the official said. "All of these, though, must be reviewed as part of the overall investigation."

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, told CNN the administration had been delaying safety upgrades on the space shuttle.

"That is inexcusable," said Nelson, who once flew on the shuttle.

"Although that delay and those upgrades, I don't think, has any connection with yesterday's tragedy. Ironically, out of this tragedy we will now probably see the safety upgrades sped up," Nelson added.

[F16Fighter]

"Go ahead and spend the money Mr. President, after you tell us what programs you're going to cut to pay for the increase.

If only there was a political party in this country which represented me."

OR me...

Every single time this President runs into a PR buzz saw, the solution seems always to redline the tach running printing presses at the U.S. Mint.

Will we EVER have just one government agency admit JUST ONCE that appropriations were never a factor in solving a problem OR messing up?

The modus operandi for these people is to wait to be bailed out of their own d@mn shoddy organization, gratutious waste, and gross mismanagement -- AND THE U.S. TAXPAYER HAS TO FURTHER FUND AN ALREADY BLOATED AND INEFFICIENT BUREAUCRACY.

[bonesmccoy]

The orbiter fleet rotates through a process called OMDP. During OMDP the orbiter is essentially dismantled and reassembled. The entire process is documented and reviewed by multiple layers of management.

Of more interest is the workforce issue involved with the shuttle program. Most of the engineers who originally designed, built, and flew the vehicles have retired. Very few of the original NASA and private contractor team are now involved with the program. Manpower issues have been a known issue for the past 10 years.

For this reason, some space policy analysts were suggesting that a next generation space vehicle should have been started in the early 1990's. However, Dan Goldin, the Clinton-appointed NASA Administrator, prioritized "faster, better, cheaper" instead of "safer".

Thanks Dan.

[bonesmccoy]

Unless the nation is willing to bring the old Rockwell International tooling out of storage (and rebuild some of the facilities involved), there will be no way of replacing the parts destroyed two days ago.

The facilities which constructed the orbiter have been closed for several years (closed by BILL CLINTON'S lack of commitment to aerospace projects).

The suppliers of parts were downsized when the US military was defunded by BILL CLINTON.

I'd like to thank BILL CLINTON for royally screwing up our national interests. Not only did the S.O.B. destroy our healthcare system, but the Clintons gutted the military/aerospace community's manufacturing facilities and forced our national launch interests to now rely on the Russians for access to the multi-billion dollar space station that WE PAID FOR; and removed/eliminated the entire manufacturing base for manned space vehicles.

If you find any liberals who claim that the GOP gutted spaceflight, set them straight!

[bonesmccoy]

You have an interesting thread going. I'm more than a casual observer of NASA.

Your point regarding ABM/BMDO is relevant.

Prior to merger with Boeing, MDAC had a X-33 program which was evaluating verticle take-off and landing rocketry. Lockheed's Venture Star program was also moving forwards with some innovation.

Private capitalization of spaceflight (either unmanned or manned) seems to have been factored out of the equation.

The White House needs to re-evalute the entire structure of our program.

We need to separate out innovation/R&D from commercial spaceflight.

STS was sold as a "routine" spaceplane during the Carter Administration. The Nixon era-goals for STS were warped by the Democrat liberals in the US Congress throughout the 1970's.

For those of you in California, you need to review the voting record of Barbara Boxer (who as a Congresswoman never voted for any NASA manned spaceflight appropriations bills).

Thanks for nothing Barbara!

[Tree of Liberty]

The Nixon era-goals for STS were warped by the Democrat liberals in the US Congress throughout the 1970's.

Could you elaborate on what their respective goals were?

[Post Toasties]

Like let the Chinese set up in space first?

[bonesmccoy]

Certainly!

The original design for the shuttle launch vehicle was submitted by none other than Werner Von Braun.

I recall reviewing Congressional hearings in the 1969-1970 time frame which was elaborating on the utility of the shuttle vehicle.

The concept that Von Braun wanted to implement was based upon the publications he wrote for Colliers in the late 1950's. Review of the children's books on spaceflight from the late 1950's to early 1960's should show winged spacecraft nearing orbital space stations.

The concept was to have a winged, reusable space vehicle for hypersonic aeronautical research. However, the vehicle would also perform duties to lift small payloads to Earth orbit. As the discussion continued, it was realized that a reusable spacecraft could have a variety of launch vehicles.

The initial congressional hearings on the STS program has drawings of the original plans for the STS. These drawings included a vehicle like the orbiter Columbia, but mounted on a Saturn-like launch vehicle. Essentially, the orbiter would fly back, but the rest of the vehicle was expendable.

Sometime during the 1972-1975 timeframe (See a book by Joseph Trento called Prescription for Disaster) the design was modified from a liquid booster rocket to a solid one. The reasons for this change appeared to be related to Jim Fletcher's leadership at NASA and also Congressional politics. The shuttle program was approved by the Congress in 1972 (as men were still walking on the moon).

The initial flight date was supposed to be around 1979. However, the schedule slipped several years due to problems with the Main Engines (which were thought to be the most dangerous element of the system). The solid boosters in hindsight were also risky (given failure rates of 1 in 100-200 flights). The tiles were often criticized by the media (anyone recall the Morton Dean CBS White Paper report aired around 1980 on the shuttle program?) who questioned if a "zipper effect" could occur.

I recall that it was Jimmy Carter's administration who actually ordered the dismantling of the launch complex 39 pads from the Apollo configuration to one for STS.

At this point, our nation (even if we had an intact moon rocket and fuel systems) can not send Apollo Saturn to space. The launch pads are configured totally differently and no ground processing systems exist.

Those individuals who think we can build a new orbiter are also wrong. The companies that created the space shuttle no longer exist. They were bought out by Boeing in the late 1990's.

Clinton era consolidation of military hardware suppliers has led to a disasterous situation. We have no capability to construct new manned vehicles nor advance rocket propulsion technology. The budgets have been increasingly shrunken during the Clinton second term.

While the investigation is just beginning, we should start debating about the best policies to open Low-Earth orbit to massive commercial interests.

[philman_36]

And where is this money supposed to come from?
Oh yeah, the same place as the rest of it, thin air.
(it can't come out of our pocket 'cause, like Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard, our pockets are bare)

[rintense]

Oy. Why am I not surprised this goes back to Clinton. No wonder he was able to balance the budget.

[F16Fighter]

"Like let the Chinese set up in space first?"

Too late -- they've already set up shop and in the space payload business, but they're doing it for less than what NASA says their early morning coffee and Dunkin Donuts cost them.

[ARCADIA]

And where is this money supposed to come from?

The short answer is, that it would probably come by increasing the national debt.

The more relevant question is what will these dollars yield for us? The return on the original Apollo/Shuttle program turned out to be far greater then its enormous cost. Countless consumer products, indutrial technologies, intellectual techniques, and even a whole new genre of entertainment were generated by our efforts. If we can get the same kind of multiplier effect going then the return on every dollar can be very good.

We can only do that by doing this on the right scale. $500M will barely pay for a car wash, and what we need is to conduct R&D leading to the manufacture of a better, safer, and more efficient car. If AOL/Time Warner can blow 200x that amount in a year, a keystone national endevor would certainly be worth many times $500M.

[ARCADIA]

It sounds like we, like the natives on King Kong's island, have lost so much of our technology that we can barely maintain the wall that keeps our enemies at bay. Do we dare to admit that we no longer have the technology and means to replace a lost space shuttle?

[FreeReign]

Go ahead and spend the money Mr. President, after you tell us what programs you're going to cut to pay for the increase.

The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%.

Inflation plus population growth in this country went up around 4% for the year.

That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year.

What part of this don't you understand?

[BillyBoy]

>> The shuttle program IS A FAILURE. It meets none of the original specs. It doesn't lift enought, it takes too long to prep for launch, it takes too long to recycle between launches, it costs much more per launch than original projected and it doesn't come close to meeting the original saftey parms. Other than that, the shuttle is a wonderful program. We should build a new replacement space transport system. <<

I say no more money for NASA until they invest it a useful program. All these idiots do is rest on their laurals "We sent a man to a the moon in under a decade". Great NASA, and now it's THREE DECADES later and what have you accomplished? Let's see....we put John Glenn up again for a publicity stunt and blew up two shuttles. Hmmm.

Maybe if NASA came up with a bold new ship design for space travel, proposed a base on the moon, or FINALLY came up with a timetable for getting us to Mars, I would consider boosting their funding for the billions more they want.

Until then, NASA shouldn't get one extra cent while we're still figureing what "went wrong" with Columbia.

[BillyBoy]

>> Like let the Chinese set up in space first? <<

I think the whole reason NASA got guys to the moon so fast is that they were under incredible pressure to beat the Russians to the punch.

With the cold war over, NASA is preoccupied with studying the effects of ants and "the first disabled hispanic american female" in space.

Perhaps it's time the feds start "rumors" that China is actively training astronaunts to undergo a mission to Mars in 2005...

[onceone]

What part of this don't you understand?

The part I don't understand is why this country continues to allow the federal government to ignore their constitutional responsibilities by spending tax monies on programs in which they have no authority to be involved. NASA is a good thing, but it would be more in line with the constitution if the monies spent were from the DOD budget, and NASA was a subset of that.

The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%.
That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year.

Obviously you are not going to be able to get my point, as you somehow can equate an increase in spending to be a net savings. Are you a teacher?

[FreeReign]

Go ahead and spend the money Mr. President, after you tell us what programs you're going to cut to pay for the increase.

The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%. Inflation plus population growth in this country went up around 4% for the year. That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year. What part of this don't you understand?

In your response in post #58, you conveniently left out one of the facts that I posted. What are you afraid of?

Per person, we will pay less for NASA in the 2004 budget. The record of my full post shows it -- even if you wish that part of my post would go away to save face from your initial above statement.

[onceone]

Chill out. I am a rookie here. You, as an individual who has made numerous postings on this board, give one the impression you actually read the initial posting before you respond. This exchange is not lending truth to that perception.

Excuse me if I failed to include every word of your post in my response. But I did read them, and I hope you take the time to read my posts in their entirety.

It was not I who threw down the gauntlet with, What part of this don't you understand?". In my opinion this is a rather confrontational approach to a civil discourse.

As for your statement -
The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%. Inflation plus population growth in this country went up around 4% for the year. That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year. What part of this don't you understand?

This statement, while probably true, would only make your premise accurate if the population increased by adding taxpayers. Last time I looked, most newborns have about 16 to 18 years before they get placed on the tax rolls.

As for the other choice statements of yours, What are you afraid of? and ...even if you wish that part of my post would go away to save face from your initial above statement. I can only say this in response -

I fear very little, and I am not the one who needs to save face in this encounter.

Have a nice day.