Officials: Bush Space Plan Not Too Costly

Associated Press ^ | Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:24 PM

[anymouse]

Space-exploration proposals that President Bush is preparing to put into his next budget will not undermine his administration's goal of cutting the federal deficit in half within five years, Treasury Secretary John Snow said Sunday.

Snow said the new space proposals, which include a permanent settlement on the moon and setting a goal of sending Americans to Mars, will be undertaken "within a framework of fiscal responsibility."

Snow said the administration's budget, which will be sent to Congress on Feb. 2, will outline the new space proposals plus a plan that will accomplish the goal of cutting record budget deficits in half through a combination of stronger economic growth and spending restraint.

"We can do both. We really can," Snow said in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "This is a country of enormous resources, and we have the capacity to pursue a number of priorities at one time, but we have to do so within the framework of fiscal responsibility. I think you'll see that reflected in the budget."

Snow said that Bush was "not one to shy away from bold visions."

Snow's Cabinet colleague, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, agreed that Bush's space ideas are audacious. But he rejected the suggestion that Americans might consider the plans' probable huge cost wasteful at a time with millions of people unemployed and the country facing other expensive needs on Earth.

"America has always needed a challenge of a big and bold idea," Evans said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"I can also tell you that this program will be within a responsible fiscal budget because the president knows, once again, the basic ingredients to growing an economy and creating more jobs are cutting taxes and controlling spending."

"Whatever the program is, however big it is," Evans said, "it will be within a responsible fiscal budget."

In previewing Bush's official announcement, coming this week, White House aides did not discuss costs of the project. Bush's father proposed during his presidency a more muted project, which would have aimed at putting Americans on Mars without mention of a moon base. The cost of that enterprise was projected at $400 billion to $500 billion in 1989 dollars, far too rich for Congress to consider.

Two members of the current Congress, both Democratic contenders to take Bush's job, said Sunday that the president's moon-Mars ideas appeared to be misplaced priorities.

"I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but I don't know that we can go off on a new moon mission or Mars mission, if that's the suggestion, and just have the money to do something in addition to completing the space station," said Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., interviewed on CBS' "Face the Nation" from Des Moines, Iowa. "We're pretty far down the road on the space station, and we need to complete it and have the success from it that we need."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said as much as he admires the space program — President Kennedy's moon-shot program was an early attraction to politics — he would prefer to spend the money on an "American Center for Cures" to find cures for chronic diseases still bedeviling the world. "If we had that kind of money, ... frankly I think that's more important to the American people than that kind of space voyage at this point in our history," said Lieberman, speaking on "Late Edition from his campaign in New Hampshire.

On ABC, Snow said the administration remains confident that the economy is beginning to rebound at a strong enough rate to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate. Both Snow and Evans shrugged off a disappointing report Friday that showed only 1,000 jobs were created in December as the jobless rate dropped to 5.7 percent not from new hiring but from the decisions by hundreds of thousands of discouraged workers to leave the labor market.

Snow said while the administration was not satisfied with current job creation at present, it remained convinced that job growth would strengthen in coming months, reflecting the rebound in economic growth that started last summer.

"Everything we know about economics indicates that, as you get an economy into high gear, as you get a strong recovery under way, it does translate into jobs," Snow said. "I am very confident this recovery will translate into job creation."

[anymouse]

SecTreasury Snow and SecCommerce Evans are the first Bush Administration Officials to verify that the Bush Lunar/Mars plan is not a hoax. Interesting tactic to have these particular Cabinet officials confirm this. Does this mean that commercial space will play a big part of this space plan?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
41	Oklahoma	141.00	7	20.14	199	0.71	126.00	9

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[anymouse]

Space policy ping

[henderson field]

$500 billion will not undermine the goal of reducing the deficit? Explain, please. Mr. Snow.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"America has always needed a challenge of a big and bold idea," Evans said on CNN's "Late Edition.""

Well, Bush, balance the budget, now there is a big and bold idea.

After you've done that then tell us how next you wish to spend our money.

[KantianBurke]

"We can do both. We really can," Snow said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

Yeah. Right. And these guys exist in candycand land:

[Hodar]

$500 billion will not undermine the goal of reducing the deficit? Explain, please. Mr. Snow.

I'm not Mr. Snow; but I'll take a swing at it.

Similar statements were made during the Kennedy administration concerning the moon missions. But, when one considers the return we got on our investment, the return is several orders of magnitude greater than what the space mission was itself. For the sake of arguement, let's assume that absolutely NO US pride was gained. Let's also assume that the rest of the world either held our efforts in contempt, or as an extravegant display of vanity.

Do you think you would have a PC in your home if not for the moon mission? How about hydrazine, a forerunner of other exotic fuels that had to be developed for space? This lead to new non-corrosive oil and engine additives we use in our gasoline today. What about the knowledge gleaned from satellites, that now makes satelite TV, cell phones and GPS units not only available for military efforts, but are available to anyone for a very inexpensive cost.

The space missions required huge amounts of data to be transmitted on rather limited bandwidths (at that time); this led to real-time data compression, error correction and encryption that is being used today in your CD and DVD players. Without the lessons that were learned decades ago, either we would have competing CD/DVD error correction standards, or would be paying royalties to some professor who may have later discovered the various properties of digital data recovery, encryption and compression.

In the realm of medical science, the field of remote sensing did not exist at nearly the detail it does today. Magnetic Resonance Mapping is a direct spin-off of the medical sciences developed during the moon missions. One of the greatest tools used in science today, the Electon Microscope, is another example of spin off technolgies. We also have whole families of plastics that were developed, that had it not been for NASA, it is very unlikely they would exist today.

Does everything we enjoy from the 60's forward directly map to the space program? Well, if not directly so, certainly from spin-offs from that program. The moon missions forced areas of science to be developed that had not been investigated earlier. The mars mission will once again force us to look closely at what we know today, and find ways to improve or invent new methods of doing things. Going to Mars is the short term return, the long term return on our investment won't be realized for nearly a decade.

[KevinDavis]

I have a big feeling there is going to be a big commercial involvement in the Bush plan.

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!

[orionblamblam]

I'll answer for Mr. Snow: $500B was the 1990 plan, not the current one. The numbers I've seen indicate an *extra* five or so billion in NASA budget per year. That's $50 over ten years, not $500. In terms of government spending... that's well below chump-change levels.

[rmmcdaniell]

I'll answer for Mr. Snow: $500B was the 1990 plan, not the current one. The numbers I've seen indicate an *extra* five or so billion in NASA budget per year. That's $50 over ten years, not $500. In terms of government spending... that's well below chump-change levels.

Yes you are correct. However, we can't get to Mars with that "chump change". What does this mean? Bush's whole Mars and Moon plan is nothing more than political pandering in an election year. In 2005, the Mars mission and plans for a replacement for the shuttle will be scuttled. NASA's increased funds will instead be used (wasted) on fixing/upgrading the shuttle fleet and the international space station.

[jackbill]

will be undertaken "within a framework of fiscal responsibility."

Does anyone have Snow's e-mail address? I have a bridge that I'll sell to him cheap.

[thesummerwind]

This is real stupid of this Administration to bring this venture up before the election, given the public perception of the deficit. Real stupid.

[RightWhale]

Does this mean that commercial space will play a big part of this space plan?

For starters, NASA will probably contract out everything, except, of course, budget management. Keep an eye out for RFQs.

[singsong]

Whatever the program is, however big it is," Evans said, "it will be within a responsible fiscal budget."

The problem is not yearly costs, the problem is lack of any return whatsoever. Unmanned exploration does a reasonable job for a lot less. But no, Bush puts the problematic and expensive manned missions in command of those humble but efficient unmanned projects. Does he want to ruin them too? Or simply can't resist the temptation of selling space soda and teeshirts for $10 mil each. And no, its not ONLY an election gimmick. He proposed real changes in the structure of NASA. Contrary to any logic and results shown. Consider: We scrap the shuttle (long overdue). We start ANOTHER, totally new, MANNED effort - and it takes TOP fiscal and control priority. Ridiculous.

[anymouse]

Your first mistake is assuming that $5B will be spent on this program. This quite literally isn't "your (President Bush's) father's space program." I suspect that those at NASA and their contractors are going to be surprised that they are not going to get the windfall from the taxpayer that they think they are going to get.

[meema]

I'm with you. Balancing the budget IS a big bold thing. Every time we turn around, the WH does another big $$$$ project!

[meema]

LOL

I'm glad to see you still have a sense of humor. Wish I did.

[Central Scrutiniser]

All for it, lets do it...

[orionblamblam]

> Unmanned exploration does a reasonable job for a lot less.

Well... no. Unmanned exploration gets you photos and data... but doesn't get people off-world. We can send robots everywhere from now till the sun explodes, and it will in the end have no greater meaning than wallpaper. Now, if we start sending *people* hither and yon, and get off-world colonies set up... THAT will make a difference.

This is America. We are the children of people who went over the horizon. If we stop being those people... who are we?

[singsong]

This is America. We are the children of people who went over the horizon. If we stop being those people... who are we?

We are going over the horizon. Go see the pictures of Spirit. But if you want to go overboard, you can do it on your own. Why are you still here?

---

Unmanned exploration gets you photos and data... but doesn't get people off-world.

And what do people get you? French fries? Whatever people can do up there, the machines can do better, safer, cheaper. We can follow them, once they are good enough to take care of that fragile couch potato called "human". The most humans can do effectively is to fly around the Earth - sometimes... (did you hear about ISS leaking?)
Bush had no business disrupting NASA at the very moment they figured out the better way. I hope he gives them more funding but stops pushing them in the wrong direction. And both of you should stop watching Hollowood cr@p.