It just occurred to me, after reading the wiki page on NASA's planned return to the moon, that the next US president will have to fully fund the program for two full presidential terms, but then wont get to be in office when the landings actually happen.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/NASA_pla..._moon_missions

So let's say that Hillary is elected president. She will have to send a budget to congress that funds this program for all eight years (she'll hope to have eight years) of her presidency. However, she wont be the one who makes the historic phone call to the moon. She wont be the one who gets to pose for pictures with the astronauts.

And every one of those eight years, when she's looking for something to cut in the budget, that thought it going to run through her mind. I think this is a recipe for a canceled project. I'm a little bit depressed about it.

I don't think they'll get canceled, but they might get delayed a little bit. Basically, neither side wants to seem weak on science.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I see lots of potential for extended delay. The U.S. deficit is predicted to be $477 billion dollars this year and there appears to be no political will to turn this back into a surplus as in 1998-2001. Either the deficit will be reigned in which will probably involve cuts, or the U.S. will be at much greater risk of a financial crises which could also derail the moon program. Looking on the bright side, delay could result in better and cheaper technology being developed and give time for other counties such as China to be in a better position to help with moon exploration.

Alternatively, the next president may be so enchanted with the idea of making that phone call that they might press NASA into bringing forward the timeframe.

Just a thought!

But then any deaths would be blamed on the rush job and so I don't think even an enchanted president would try to do it within eight years.

Well you know, the US deficit is "only" 4% of our GDP. France and Germany both have deficits of 3.7% of their GDP. Japan's deficit is 7%.

The US national debt is 65% of our GDP. France's is also 65% of its GDP, and Germany's is 67%. Japan's is 175%.

I think that we could afford to do a lot of good things in terms of investing in the future by building infrastructure to exploit space. I just don't think that any US politician cares about anything beyond his own legacy, and none of them have any real vision.

In my opinion, one of the smartest moves that Bill Clinton made was not doing anything to get in the way of the .com boom in the late '90s. That's what lead to those surpluses. It wasn't anything the government did, and it's not something they could repeat even if they wanted to. It's just something they can and usually do screw up -for example, see the current debate on net neutrality.

I'm not sure what you're saying Tofu, but when countries are running a surplus it is much easier to find money for projects than when they are running a deficit and running surplus protects against financial shocks that can result in a wave of cost cutting. If Argentinia had a space program I'm sure it would have been delayed when they had their financial crisis.

I read somewhere that Nixon was not really happy with the Apollo programme because it had been started by the other side (Democrats?)

Also in Canada one administration paid several million dollars to cancel an order to replace ageing helicopters, because the previous administration had started it.

If it were to be allowed to continue, then it might be seen as a victory for a previous administration, something that would be unthinkable to a current administration.

So of course it will be cancelled, for political reasons and hang the economics.

After all did not a budget get blocked because someone thought Clinton had snubbed them on an aeroplane? If US politicians can get so petty - it does not look good for NASA.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

"Get"? They started that way.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Popular Science's latest issue about "Endangered" Orbits is particularly galling to me. This doesn't bode well for getting our eggs off this basket. Tomorrow's headlines today... James Hansen new NASA Chief....
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

HANSEN ADDRESSES THE NASA FAITHFUL:

"My first act is to cancel Ares I and Ares V!" ----------A few claps from Cowing and the other HLLV bashers.

"And my second is to cancel VSE--we don't need Human Spaceflight!"-------Cowings jaw hits the floor and people start looking around.

"And another thing--no more probes to Mars or anywhere else! EARTH FIRST!"----Steve Squyres is heard saying "Now wait just a minute now." Golombek jumps off a bridge.

"And say so long to COTS capitalistic scum!" The Alt.spacers leave the room.

"And I don't mean to spend any more money on aviation either"----------Jeff Bell is ecstatic, on the verge of orgasm.

"Oh...I forgot, I'm going to close down all telescopes in Hawaii and support giving that land back to nature, who needs Astronomy?"----------------Jeff Bell shrinks back in his chair, deflated, as Sophia and Hubble go on the chopping block again.

------------------------------------------

And...very quietly...Griffin walks out, after shooting a "I told you so" glare at his enemies, who wish they had him back, now that it is too late.

Now they wish so very much they had not been so ugly to that man.

***********************************


As the room empties, only one person remains seated--everyone else's dreams shattered, except for our buddy Jim (the Delta II man), who thinks this is all just lovely....until,


Hansen: "Thanks for your loyalty, Jim, but....well.....I have one last bit of bad news. President Hilary doesn't want Two EELVs. Only Atlas rockets will be used. No more Deltas--of any kind. Sorry old boy."

NEWS FLASH...GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED...THE BAD NEWS....EARTH SMASHED WITH ASTEROID DUE TO "ALL NOAA--ALL THE TIME."


Abandon in place.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...sts=17&start=1

you're right. I was just saying it's not as bad as some people think.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Glad to hear it. One of those children could be standing on the moon one day.

can you give me some sources for those numbers? How can that even be possible?

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

It was Pelosi not Clinton. Close though -they are both women.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

As I understand it, the true US national debt is many times higher than the figure that is officially quoted. This article is from 2006. I recall reading in a newspaper that as of this year every working American has a bill for over $500,000 in his or her pocket.

I just don't see how the US can afford hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions considering the runaway cost of the ISS, for a moon base.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Off the top of my head those figures sound about right. The U.S. deficit is projected to be about 477 billion this year, U.S. GDP is about $13.2 trillion, and the U.S. goverment has about $8.9 trillion in debt (T-bills). The CIA factbook lists these figures for pretty much every country.

I'll look for that.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

That article is not in dry economic language so it might be best to stick to the technical meanings to avoid politics being brought into the discussion. U.S. government debt is the number of T-bills the U.S. government has sold. However it is certainly true that the U.S.'s ageing population is expected to put increasing strain on finances.

The United States can certainly afford to put a base on the moon if they want to. But I think it is likely that the project will be delayed because it won't be seen to have much benefit in many people's eyes, political or otherwise. Cancellation is unlikely due to the bad press that might result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit

I just wonder if the US has the intestinal fortitude to go ahead with this. Apollo had serious safety issues, unacceptable in today's risk averse society. The dollars will be wasted, the costs will grow, and the program will be under high level scrutiny, taking funds away from NASA's global warming studies. (global warming=funding).
I'm hoping we go, but am not holding my breath, Americans don't see an immediate benefit from manned space exploration. A Moon base would just be seen as an extravagantly more expensive outpost than the ISS, spending it's time doing basic upkeep, with no extra funding for real research. Look at the space sites deriding the ISS for a preview. If the space community doesn't support an ISS, why a base on the Moon...or a trip to Mars? Toss a fatal voyage in, and then it's really over.
I don't think this country has the interest or vision anymore, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I think it is actually worse than that. Even with very low risk tolerance it is possible to design a (very expensive) mission as long as you define acceptable risks and stick to the definition. But today's NASA can not afford to do even that.

Normally in any dangerous activity, be it soldiering, firefighting, or test-flying airplanes, the people in charge decide what level of risk is acceptable, and plan their budgets, training, and operations accordingly. The lower is acceptable risk, the less operation can be carried out on a given budget, and vice versa. The risk level decisions are almost never publicized -- on your local fire department's website you won't find "we expect X deaths and Y injuries over next decade", -- but you can be sure fire chief has that information, and brings it up at the next municipal budget hearing. And both fire chief and city council know that the only way to bring X (let alone Y) to zero is not fight fires at all. So fire departments balance expected deaths, expected number of fires and available money, and when someone dies they grieve, do their best to learn from the experience, and carry on.

The quandary of NASA's Office of Manned Spaceflight is that it is too much in the public eye, yet does not have a clearly defined purpose. A city can not live without a fire department; nothing drastic will happen to USA if Office of Manned Spaceflight closed tomorrow. Mike Griffin knows that space is dangerous and every once in a while people will die -- but he wouldn't last a week if he went before Congress and said "This mission architecture cost X dollars, has Y percent chance of landing on Mars on schedule, and Z percent chance of killing one or more astronauts. Double the X, and Y will increase such and such, and Z will decrease such and such." Even though it would be the truth. Far too many people who for whatever reasons do not want a Mars mission (or even just do not care about it) would seize on Griffin's words and demand to know "Why are we risking astronauts lives?" Which, BTW, is as legitimate a question as "Why are we risking firefighters lives?" or "Why are we risking test pilots lives?" The difference is that the latter two have clear, generally accepted answers, and the former one does not.

Hence we get slogans such as "Safety first!" and "Failure is not an option", which sound good, but really do not make much sense. If safety really is your first goal, you should not fly at all. If you do fly but claim perfect safety, you are perpetuating a fraud. Without a fixed, admitted level of acceptable risk NASA is forced to minimize risks endlessly -- which causes delays and cost overruns, and never ends, and always fails sooner or later. And when it fails (Challenger, Columbia) there is hand wringing, and Congressional investigations, and design changes, and projects put on hold, and ultimately nothing changes because the fundamental philosophy is fraudulent.

So I expect VSE, or whatever Mars mission, to get endlessly redesigned and delayed in the name of safety, because you can never get safe enough without the honest quantitative definition of "enough". Which ain't gonna happen.

While all this drags on, two other developments will continue. One, improvements in robotics will keep giving more ammunition to proponents of robotic science (who can and do apply realistic risk analysis). Two, private spaceflight will strip NASA astronauts from what's left of their heroic aura. Both developments will make manned Mars trip harder and harder to justify as time goes by, especially when (as I expect will happen) private operators will begin selling seats at competitive prices and no red tape to researches who need manned presence in space. This will undermine "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" argument of government-sponsored manned spaceflight.

So I expect NASA manned Mars mission to die eventually burdened by all these difficulties. First person to walk on Mars will not be paid for by US (or any other) government. And for all my hopes on private spaceflight, I do not expect it develop fast enough to make a manned Mars trip profitable before 2100 or so.

Unless either a) life is unambiguously discovered on Mars*, or b) military-related reason to go there comes up. Then all bets are off.

* In fact, if life is unambiguously discovered on Europa, I would expect a manned expedition to Jupiter BEFORE one to Mars

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Thanks for those links. It amazes me that nearly every country owes debt. Only the poorest (and Switzerland) don't owe any money.



Now how is it possibe that these countries all owe money? I guess by calling it public debt that means the country owes to the banks right - and not each other.


My next question, To which other countries does the US actually owe money?

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

Governments such as Japan fund their debt with their own citizens' money. This is why Japan is has been able to run up such a huge government debt, as many Japanese people appear content with a 2% return on their Japanese bonds.

U.S. debt is held by whoever has U.S. treasury bonds. Japan holds a lot of them and Asian countries such as China have been building up huge reserves of them in the past few years. Basically the U.S. has been taking Asian goods and giving I.O.U.s in return.

And which planet is Earth in debt to?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

1. Government debt can be held by citizens of that government.

2. Galifrey.

If we were to default, would we all get evicted?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

so they own us, Saudi Arabia owns us. When will the US actually own itself again?

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

They don't own you. They own your debt, which is a different thing entirely. Other countries' citizens will stop owning U.S. debt when the U.S. stops selling T-bills which will happen when the U.S. stops running a deficit. And this will happen when taxes rise and or spending is cut. Eventually all outstanding T-bills will be paid off. Another step would be to increase the U.S. level of savings which would result in a smaller overall amount of government debt being held by foreigners.

I'll also mention that the U.S. has gotten a good deal from selling its debt to foreigners. If it had been forced to finance its debt in country there would be paying a much higher rate of interest on the debt, it would be less sustainable and taxes would have to be even higher in the future to pay for it.

Meanwhile back on topic

If the change goes from one lot to another, the temptation is to cancel it, otherwise if it were to happen then the previous administration would claim it as a success, which would be unthinkable.

Remember the Canadian administration that paid several million dollars to cancel and order for badly needed hellicopters, just because it was the previous administration that had ordered them. It would have been cheaper to take delivery, but credit would have gone to the replace administration which was politically unthinkable.

There will not be any personed moonshot, if the next administration is the other lot, which seems quite likely.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►