It seems to me that most if not all of NASA's current budget could be considered "borrowed money". Should NASA's budget be $0? If not, how much borrowed money should we be spending on NASA?

__________________
"There is a reward structure in science that is very interesting: Our highest honors go to those who disprove the findings of the most revered among us". -Carl Sagan

A significant number of programs are currently being funded with borrowed money. It seems to me that no program should be spared significant cuts while there is such a difference between revenues and outlays.

Nice in theory, but in reality, there's been some pretty important events in American history that would never have been possible had we adhered to it, starting with the Revolutionary War, for just one example.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04 K.I.L.L. S.M.U.R.F.S.
Tuckers! Automotive Oddities! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither. MachineCast Save the planet, by leaving it! "To be second in space is to be second in everything," LBJ.

Ok, so now it sounds like you don't disagree with a moon program strictly on the principle of not doing it on borrowed money. However, now you're suggesting NASA's budget be cut "significantly". By how much? Why that much? What would your argument be against someone who suggested we are in debt and running an ever increasing federal budget deficit so we should not be funding NASA at all at this time?

__________________
"There is a reward structure in science that is very interesting: Our highest honors go to those who disprove the findings of the most revered among us". -Carl Sagan

Any time that the Federal Government runs a deficit budget (almost always) the portion of the budget that represents the deficit is funded on borrowed money.

That deficit budget applies to a rather portion of federally funded programs, and there is no particular reason to single out NASA, the budget for which, compared to the overall federal budget, is roundoff error.

I agree and this is why I'm challenging Halcyon. Halcyon is singling out one program, under one government agency (whose entire budget you correctly point out is basically a rounding error) and declaring that we can't afford that particular program.

__________________
"There is a reward structure in science that is very interesting: Our highest honors go to those who disprove the findings of the most revered among us". -Carl Sagan

He's not going to answer.

Not to cast aspersions at halcyon, but I suspect that the reason many people want to gut NASA's budget has to do with the fact that the EPA gets an awful lot of data from NASA, and since going after the EPA is pretty much doomed to failure, NASA's the target.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04 K.I.L.L. S.M.U.R.F.S.
Tuckers! Automotive Oddities! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither. MachineCast Save the planet, by leaving it! "To be second in space is to be second in everything," LBJ.

Fuel Depots are not needed with Heavy Lift. Augustine himself believes in heavy lift. I have not agreed with a fuel depot yet. Aug report says the same. HLLVs allow for more robust depots in the future. EELV depot assembly will cost more than heavy lift development. More news: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/09110...ttractive.html