Posted on 02/01/2007 9:45:45 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, January 31, 2007
< Source: Rep. Dave Weldon
If Enacted, Would Be Worst Cuts to Space Exploration Since 1993
Urges Senate to Reverse Irresponsible Choice by House Dems
In a fiscal year 2007 budget released today, the new Democrat majority proposed sweeping cuts to NASA's budget that could jeopardized the future of space exploration. U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), who represents many workers from NASA and Kennedy Space Center, called the cuts draconian, saying the Democrat leadership is using NASA and our nation's space program as a piggy bank for other liberal spending priorities.
"The raid on NASA's budget has begun in earnest. The cuts announced today by House Democrat leaders, if approved by Congress, would be nearly $400 million less than NASA's current budget," said Weldon.
"Clearly, the new Democrat leadership in the House isn't interested in space exploration. Their omnibus proposal lists hundreds of new increases, including a $1.3 billion increase‹over 40% for a Global AIDS fund, all at the expense of NASA."
Much of the proposed cuts would come from NASA's Exploration budget, which includes funding for the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the future replacement for the current shuttle fleet. According to Weldon, these particular cuts would jeopardize thousands of jobs in Florida, Alabama, and Texas.
Weldon today led a bi-partisan group of colleagues, including Reps. Ralph Hall (D-TX), and Tom Feeney (R-FL), in offering two amendments to the bill that would restore NASA's funding.
"Rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans alike are aghast at the treatment the Democrat Leadership has shown to NASA. To gut the exploration account in particular is clearly meant to be a stick in the eye to the President and the initiative he announced three years ago."
Speaker Pelosi is not expected to allow any amendments to today's omnibus bill, continuing the closed legislative process that has plagued the current Congress since its opening day. Consequently, Weldon said the future of NASA funding will likely hinge on the Senate.
"The Senate leadership, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), has yet to speak to the draconian cuts being proposed. I hope they're alerted to the message the House sent today and will propose funding in line with NASA's overall mission and the President's original request to ensure a smooth transition to the new launch vehicle."
NASA R&D doesn't just target the poor or one social class. It also doesn't focus its exploration on only one science.
Didn't any of you study the Ages of Exploration in school?
Exactly. I also am a contractor, and we run very lean. Send NASA money to welfare? Yeah, that's a brilliant plan...
Incoming from the moon would be traveling at least 25 miles/sec. A well-aimed rock.
Take them out? Do you realize how fast the rocks will be travelling by the time they get within range of a missle defense system? Given the state of our current system (which very good against ICBM's and IRBM's), the ability to do such a thing will not be available for some time.
ICBM's are very slow compared to moon-rock based munitions.
It could also be a case of taking the money from Nasa and putting into more visible Democratic social programs.
JPL will probably get hit hard by this and it is in California (Boxer/Feinstein land).
Nicely said?
http://technology.nasa.gov/Hybrid_Listing.cfm?x=0.439241777566
Current Nasa Tech in the Marketplace.
Oh and Pc's are small and powerful because of the initial push by Nasa. The Tech companies took it from there.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
ICBMs can get up to 4 or 5 miles/sec. An infalling rock from the moon will travel at least 7 miles/sec, correcting what I said before (25 miles/sec). 7 miles/sec is about 25,000 miles/hour.
It all depends on when you launch and how well you can aim.
The kinetic energy of a relative collision at 7/miles sec is enormous. It approches the energy density of a nuclear bomb. Two rocks colliding at that speed would probably be vaporized.
The Chinese economy will never be big enough to pull this off (unless they develop molecular nanotechnology first!).
A specific example:
The LEM needed a huge computer bank (64K!) in a very small package for flight. Nobody else wanted it, but NASA pushed for it. This was a huge accomplishment.
The new spacecraft being developed is issuing more challenges along those lines, despite being labeled a "throwback" by the uninformed.
If your target has a 1 mile-per-second speed advantage on you, and can give itself a nudge during your targeting phase, it'll be out of range before you can react.
The Chinese economy is quite large right now, and is only going to grow if we don't address the problem. The largess will be there to build such a system, if they entrench themselves on the Moon before we can do the same.
Unmanned spacecraft benefit even more from technical challenges; they can be much smaller than manned craft by ever increasing factors. Protoplasm-based intelligent systems are hard to miniaturize!
Then we nip the problem now, on Earth, before they get moondust on their shoes.
I don't think Fitzcarraldo believes that throwing rocks from the moon would allow China to call the shots.
NASA is generally at the forefront of environmental scaremongering, going back to the man-made "ozone hole". At least in my memory.
I'm still ticked at that bimbo shuttle mission commander that was waxing on about environmental "issues" while in orbit.
(And her lack of confidence in her piloting skills to land the orbiter back at KSC.)
Then we would cloak our targeting phase somehow.
They call your bluff by cashing in the trillion dollars worth of securities we have sold them to back up our government spending.
Not trying to be combative or obnoxious. There are many moves on many levels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.