I blame Bush..............................again!

A few thoughts here.

First, I think NASA is fairly inexpensive as these things go, so I have no problem with increasing their budget and I would pay $100 or $200 a year. Make it a check box on the tax return form.

Second, I have this "feeling" that NASA's manned space exploration program doesn't have clearly communicated goals or reasons. I haven't heard a clear explanation of why we want a moonbase, what we expect the astronauts in the moonbase to do, why we want to go to Mars, or what we expect men to do there that cannot be done by robots. Imagine if 1/4 of a manned Mars mission cost were spent on robotic explorers - the things would be incredible and we could have dozens of them all over the planet. I am not saying there aren't such goals or reasons, I'm saying that as as a fairly informed person who is interested in space and has made the effort to read up on Constellation and other NASA programs, I haven't learned what they are - so imagine what the average American knows - absolutely zip I'd guess. It is hard to support something if you've not been given a reason to care about it.

Third, I am bothered by the idea of scrapping the International Space Station in 2015, only a few years after it has been expanded to current size. It seems ridiculous for the world to spend so much money and effort to build the ISS, then quickly throw it away. Is that an admission that the ISS serves no real purpose after all? Then will we spend billions to establish a moonbase then close it down after several years?

Fourth, I don't like the idea that America's access to orbit might be dependent on some thinly funded private companies who could easily go out of business, and on bumming rides from the Russians, Europeans, and maybe Chinese. Orbit seems pretty strategic, from a military and also commercial standpoint, and it seems that access to orbit should be strategic too.

Fifth, Constellation is not a very inspiring program in the sense that the planned vehicles look so much like Apollo, so to the average Joe it is "ho hum, been there done that". NASA really needs to communicate something more exciting.

So basically I can whole-heartedly support NASA's robotic exploration programs, and I am unclear/need to be convinced on whether I support the manned programs to the moon and Mars. My heart wants to support them, but my head would like some reasons.

Several points:

1. $10 per person is a bargain. NASA is one of the few worthwhile things the gov't does in my OP.

2. There is every chance another country will go to the moon before we do. China is targeting 2030. India is targeting ~2020. And of course Russia still wants to go to the moon.

Living in China, I can say there is an incredible amount of patriotism around their space program and I am sure they will make it happen.

3. Support for Space-X does not preclude govenment funded programs. You can support both.

I like the check box on tax return idea. They should do the same for govt. funded healthcare, that might solve the debate ;).

Cut it.

And that pains me to say - I love the space program and the accomplishments it has made. But I also think these are desperate times and if it were up to me, I'd spare nothing - not even the programs I happened to like. There can be no sacred cows. There's no money. The United States is broke and has no real prospects for serious wealth creation in the future (we no longer have any manufacturing or industrial clout).

Across-the-board 50% cut of all government expenditures. Wham. Just like that. Starting immediately. Any resulting surpluses go to paying down our deficit and getting off Chinese dependence. Then increase the cuts by 5-10% per year until you're down to about 20-25% of today's levels. For every single department, agency, program, etc. The only one I'd give a bit of a reprieve to is the military, and I'd still cut military spending too - down to the level necessary to protect our country at home, not embark on crusades around the world.

This (or something like it) has to happen, and if we lose the moon or Mars missions because of it, oh well. It WILL happen, whether by choice or by force of mathematics.

We should focus on fixing our own problems first - here at home (in America) before trying to fix the rest of the world's problems and CERTAINLY before going to Mars, the moon, etc.

I had originally stated China specifically as the "other country", but I removed it for fear of making my thread too political. I fully recognize that they will be that "other country" that will try to beat us to the moon.

Are you cutting vertically (remove 50% of the programs) or are you cutting laterally (remove 50% of the budget from each program)? Seems that you want to remove NASA completely, while only injuring other programs. Does that mean there are some that will not be cut at all (they get a reprieve since NASA is gone)?