Re: O'Keefe to leave NASA soon

From: Scott Hedrick (dinehnm_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/15/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:07:02 -0500

"Bill the Cat" <bill@the.cat> wrote in message
news:Xns95BFB9EEB7A9billthecat@216.196.97.131...
> >> What would you consider "adequately funded?"
> >
> > Enough to do the job, in a manner that precludes easily altering the
> > amount.
>
> You do realize that the latter is impossible, of course? In a democracy,
> the government can *always* alter the amount.

Which is the key factor in my refusing government employment. It was the
dicking around with SSF that completely eliminated any interest I had in
working for NASA.

> > NASA would need something on the order of $5-8G in *additional*
> > funding for three or four years, then increasing upwards of $15G for a
> > decade (adjusted for inflation), to have a serious chance at
> > accomplishing anything.
>
> You do realize how insane that is, right?

Only if it's insane to adequately fund space exploration.

> That's $165-182 billion over 14
> years! This is *not* a crash program - there is no need for a massive
spike
> in NASA spending.

Only if you want to do it right. I said nothing at all about creating a
crash program- I wanted to save the *existing* programs and add a new, far
more expensive one.

> Now, for the *real* numbers. The Congressional Budget Office projects that
> the new program will cost $63.8 billion through the first manned lunar
> return in 2020. Contrast that to Project Apollo, which cost $77.9 billion
> through the first manned lunar landing (actually, through the end of FY69
> on June 30, 1969, but close enough). Both of those figures are inflation-
> adjusted to constant-year 2005 dollars.

So, then, you're only interested in making one trip to the Moon? What
happened to permanent lunar surface occupation and a trip to Mars?

> That is an adequate amount of funding for the new program, in my opinion.

And you're entitled to your opinion, as unrealistic as it is.

> > The plan as proposed just takes money from
> > science and aviation programs.
>
> Incorrect. The majority of the funding for the new program through 2009
> comes from cancelling SLI and OSP, and drastically reducing SLEP.

Which pretty much supports what I just said- the plan as proposed, takes
money from existing programs, such as the ones you just named. Thank you for
your support.

 After
> 2010, more funding is freed by retiring the space shuttle.

Assuming that happens.

 After 2016, more
> funding is freed by withdrawing from the ISS program.

Assuming that happens.

None of those
> programs are under science or aeronautics.

A clear statement that ISS has nothing to do with science.

 Science and aeronautics do take
> a hit in the first few years, but are held constant (with respect to
> inflation) starting in 2009.

Which means that the money was taken from them up front, *just like I said*.

> > Frankly, at the moment, I don't see
> > increasing space spending as being a priority, particularly with the
> > current spending deficits.
>
> Fortunately, the new program does not require large increases in spending.

Only if it wants to be done properly.