PDA

View Full Version : House Panel Cuts Funds for Bush Mars Plan



Seraphim
07-20-2004, 10:36 PM
:(


By Anna Willard

WASHINGTON (*******) - Facing a tight budget, a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday backed a $92.9 billion spending bill that cuts funding for President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan to send humans to Mars and trims money for science and environmental programs.



Republicans and Democrats said the squeeze on the 2005 appropriations bill covering the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other agencies was prompted by the budget deficit, which is expected to set another record.

"The budget crunch that we all knew was coming has finally arrived," said Florida Republican Bill Young, the chairman of the House appropriations committee.

But Democrat Rep. Alan Mollohan from West Virginia said the spending allocation was "totally inadequate."

Republicans say the budget deficit, which is expected to top a record $400 billion this year, results from the costs of fighting terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But Democrats blame it on Bush's tax cuts, which they say also squandered the surpluses he inherited upon taking office three-and-a-half years ago.

The bill, approved in the subcommittee by a voice vote, cuts funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by $1.1 billion from Bush's request, and by $229 million compared to the 2004 budget.

It also chops $538 million from Bush's $910 million request to finance a long-term plan to return humans to the moon and then on to Mars. Bush had announced this project earlier in the year.

"We simply could not afford to fund the vision," said the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Walsh, a New York Republican.

UNMANNED MARS MISSIONS

But the bill fully funds the $691 million request for unmanned Mars missions and leaves intact the requested $4.3 billion for the space shuttle program.

The Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) had its budget cut by $613 million from 2004 levels. This includes a $39 million reduction to Environmental Programs and Management.

The National Science Foundation (news - web sites) also faces a $111 million funding cut from 2004 levels.

The Association of American Universities said it was "alarmed" by the cuts to NASA (news - web sites) and NSF funding.

"These cuts represent a reversal for two critical research agencies at a time when greater investments in research are essential to maintaining America's global leadership in science and technology," the group said.

Walsh said he tried to ensure veterans and housing were fully funded but several lawmakers said the budget for these programs was still inadequate.

The bill added $1.9 billion more to veterans health care above the 2004 level. Mollohan said veterans groups reckon that they need $1.3 billion on top of that.

The full House has to support the bill and the Senate would have to back its version of the legislation before it could be sent to Bush for signing in to law.

Tane Angle
07-20-2004, 10:51 PM
woot Sorry, but President Bush's idea isn't a real great one. For starters, skip the Moon. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Ratamacue
07-21-2004, 07:10 AM
woot Sorry, but President Bush's idea isn't a real great one. For starters, skip the Moon. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
The advantage of establishing some sort of presence on the moon is that if the primary launch vehicle for a Mars mission were to be constructed at or moved to the moon's surface or in orbit around the moon, you could either a much smaller rocket to launch the habitat vehicle or use one that could be used from Earth to gain a higher interplanetary velocity.

The problem is that to have a practical system of going to Mars would require a much more efficient propulsion system than large rockets like the Saturn V. Right now, they've got these nice, useless plans saying "okay, first we'll go to the moon again, then we'll go to Mars!" All this money that has been put towards the project is nice, but it's not actually being directed anywhere. Even if I have no business, political, or scientific experience, it seems to me that the logical first step wouldn't be to start planning all this fancy **** to put on the Moon, but simply find a new propulsion system. Plasma engine technology is within our grasp, it simply needs to be focused upon and given the funding necessary.

Right now, with conventional rockets, it would take 7 months or more to go one way to Mars. After that, the crew would have to spend 2 years on the surface before the planets are aligned such that another 7-month trip would be possible. But even aside from that, even if Mars' gravity is only .38 of Earth's, how do you haul a rocket out there capable of reaching a velocity high enough to not only escape Mars' gravity but also haul the crew and supplies necessary for another 7 months? Current propulsion simply isn't up for the job. Plasma engines could quite easily carry enough reaction mass (theoretically water would be used) to get out to Mars and carry all the supplies necessary for 14 months of travel, which could possibly be shortened as acceleration would be much higher with that sort of technology. On the surface, building a greenhouse would most likely be possible to provide food, although oxygen supplies would certainly be an issue. It's also a possiblity that there is large amounts permafrost on and just under the Martian surface, which given 2 years, could be used to provide more reaction mass for the ship. In addition, given yet more advanced technology, could be used to provide oxygen for the habitats.

Anyway, I'm rambling. It's 5 AM and I can't sleep. Hopefully some of that made sense.

szr
07-21-2004, 07:23 AM
Being an Astronomy major in college, I think it would be sweet to go to the Moon to build a scientific base, with all manner of telescopes and observational equipment.

As much as I'd LOVE to go to Mars, we've got too much on our plate at the moment, and I see no point in rushing there. I'm not sure there's that much to be learned from Mars, right now, that couldn't be learned with unmanned systems.

The Moon is close and we could actually get some real science accomplished if we set up an observatory there, instead of hitting golf balls around Mars.
:P

Besides, what would be cooler? A one time shot to Mars? Or being able to look up at the Moon at any given time, and know we've got a base and people there like we do in Antarctica or the ISS?

I don't think any of this is going to happen anytime soon, though... :(

Before any field trips to anywhere, we should carry out Hubble's final servicing mission, though. That's the most important space related thing at the moment. Anyone who thinks we should write that telescope off, like NASA and the Bush administration, has no appreciation of what that telescope has provided and what it could continue to provide if it gets its last servicing.

http://www.space-weltraum.de/4images/data/media/38/bild2_gross.jpg
http://www.space-weltraum.de/4images/data/media/38/2003-28-a-web_print.jpg
More Hubble Space Telescope images (http://www.space-weltraum.de/4images/categories.php?cat_id=38&sessionid=01873553842e47020bab1abf9b32660c)

Herrmannek
07-21-2004, 07:48 AM
I'm gona cry..realy..sory tane but even this is only public relation move its worth to play