Congress Considering Ending ALL Human Spaceflight

[NASAFanboy]

I'm going to study Chinese and hope I land a job with CNSA when I grow up. I'm not kidding This is stupid. This is bad. If Congress does this....I'm outta here, screw this country

When you've got entire single bomber units costing more than the SLS and ARM, and they got approved, having to cut HSF is an act of stupid I've never heard of.

http://www.examiner.com/article/congressional-budget-office-mulls-ending-nasa-human-space-flight-to-cut-deficit

And no, they're not giving the extra funds to Planetary science.

[CpPolar268]

*hurls headphones at the windows*

just.... just.. no.... no.

[rpayne88]

That's it. I'm running for president when I turn 35. It doesn't seem like we will get anyone with some common sense for the next 17 years at least.

[3_bit]

The big question is: do we really need a government to handle it? After all, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and other private companies have been proving that they can do it cheaper. If I had to choose to work at one such company, I'd choose SpaceX.

[rpayne88]

That's it. I'm running for president when I turn 35. It doesn't seem like we will get anyone with some common sense for the next 17 years at least.

I'm half tempted to take a sledgehammer to my laptop now.

Edit: Why did it double post?

[Kryten]

The big question is: do we really need a government to handle it? After all, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and other private companies have been proving that they can do it cheaper. If I had to choose to work at one such company, I'd choose SpaceX.

Virgin galactic, the people that were supposed to get their craft into service five years ago and still don't even have a motor that could send it to space? SpaceX, the people whose only practical customer for anything except GEO comsats is the government itself?

[Tiberion]

Well your title is misleading and not at all supported by the source article.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

You should now have an understanding that the CBO is not Congress, but a federal agency whose job it is to compile economic reports and recommendations for them. They create reports on thousands of things a year, and a vast majority of them aren't enacted. (If they were, our economy and budget would not be in a shambles)

So Congress MIGHT be considering this action, but its considered at least a little bit each and every year because there's actually a faction out there who is anti-manned-spaceflight.

There is also zero percent chance of this happening, mostly because of all the government contracts related to the programs and the lobbyists attached to them. The congressmen who work for those districts where spacecraft are developed or built need the support of those businesses, and if they shut them down, then those congressmen would be fired out of a cannon next election.

So it won't happen, not because its a horrible idea, but because its in their best interests not too. (again, see current economic and budget situation)

[mythbusters844]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOOO!

I can't believe it! Cut human space exploration for NASA? I seriously now think that the first flag placed on Mars by a human will be the Chinese flag or Union Jack.

I am speechless.

Me too.

EDIT:

Well your title is misleading and not at all supported by the source article.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

You should now have an understanding that the CBO is not Congress, but a federal agency whose job it is to compile economic reports and recommendations for them. They create reports on thousands of things a year, and a vast majority of them aren't enacted. (If they were, our economy and budget would not be in a shambles)

So Congress MIGHT be considering this action, but its considered at least a little bit each and every year because there's actually a faction out there who is anti-manned spaceflight.

There is also zero percent chance of this happening, mostly because of all the government contracts related to the programs and the lobbyists attached to them. The congressmen who work for those districts where spacecraft are developed or built need the support of those businesses, and if they shut them down, then those congressmen would be fired out of a cannon next election.

So it won't happen, not because its a horrible idea, but because its in their best interests not too. (again, see current economic and budget situation)

Whew Good.

Edited November 20, 2013 by mythbusters844
Ninjas..

[mdatspace]

False alarm. See Tiberion. That was one horrible late April fools joke.

[LaydeeDem]

Well your title is misleading and not at all supported by the source article.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

You should now have an understanding that the CBO is not Congress, but a federal agency whose job it is to compile economic reports and recommendations for them. They create reports on thousands of things a year, and a vast majority of them aren't enacted. (If they were, our economy and budget would not be in a shambles)

So Congress MIGHT be considering this action, but its considered at least a little bit each and every year because there's actually a faction out there who is anti-manned-spaceflight.

There is also zero percent chance of this happening, mostly because of all the government contracts related to the programs and the lobbyists attached to them. The congressmen who work for those districts where spacecraft are developed or built need the support of those businesses, and if they shut them down, then those congressmen would be fired out of a cannon next election.

So it won't happen, not because its a horrible idea, but because its in their best interests not too. (again, see current economic and budget situation)

Thank you posted this. It's amazing how many people here blindly follow sensationalist titles. (See: "Alcubierre Drive")

[Mr Shifty]

The original report is here:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44715-OptionsForReducingDeficit-2_1.pdf

From the introduction (emphasis added):

The Congress faces an array of policy choices as it confronts the dramatic increase in the federal government’s debt over the past several years and the prospect of large annual budget deficits and further increases in that debt that are projected to occur in coming decades under current law. To help inform lawmakers about the budgetary implications of various approaches to changing federal policies, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) periodically issues a compendium of policy options that would affect the federal budget as well as separate reports that include policy options in particular areas.

In other words, this is a standard report that the CBO issues every so often to let Congress know what its options are for reducing the deficit. There are no actual policy recommendations here; just options. The spaceflight option is just one of approximately 100 options offered in the document, most of which will never be enacted. No reason to panic.

[Nibb31]

The big question is: do we really need a government to handle it? After all, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and other private companies have been proving that they can do it cheaper. If I had to choose to work at one such company, I'd choose SpaceX.

SpaceX are only in business because the US Government is paying for tickets.

As for Virgin, they do not go to orbit and they never will with their current technology.

[nhnifong]

I wonder, if all the people who wanted more space exploration and manned missions were politically active and participated in every opportunity to vote that they were given, would we be able to make a difference? Are we out-numbered or are we actually the majority and are either too apathetic to change the government or the government is too unwilling to listen.

[Ralathon]

I wonder, if all the people who wanted more space exploration and manned missions were politically active and participated in every opportunity to vote that they were given, would we be able to make a difference? Are we out-numbered or are we actually the majority and are either too apathetic to change the government or the government is too unwilling to listen.

Probably outnumbered. At least, for now.

The internet as a whole is generally very positive about spaceflight, we read and discuss the benefits and disadvantages on forums and comment sections. Since we've all seen the arguments most of us reach the same conclusions. This is true for spaceflight, nuclear fusion power, stem cell research, belief system etc.

So this might give the impression that a large majority of the world wants spaceflight while in fact it is only tech savvy internet users that want space. The public at large doesn't know the arguments and only sees a money sink without any real public benefit. That's what killed Apollo, people understood it as this great adventure instead of a scientific journey, and you're not going pay for 20 great adventures if the plot's the same every time.

It should sort itself out in a coming decades though, as the population get replaced by younger people who grew up on the internet. Then we'll probably start seeing a lot more optimism for technology and a more informed public (or at least, one that is willing to do a quick google on the subject instead of relying on gut reaction).

[Skyrunner27]

The problem with this argument is that it will only save less then 1% of the US budget. I really doubt anyone in congress actually thinks that is an actual method of saving money. I think the US could cut a little into the Defense budget.

[Kerbart]

Wow. ALL Human spaceflight? The US Congress has control over the Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and European space programs? I never knew that.

[NASAFanboy]

Well your title is misleading and not at all supported by the source article.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

You should now have an understanding that the CBO is not Congress, but a federal agency whose job it is to compile economic reports and recommendations for them. They create reports on thousands of things a year, and a vast majority of them aren't enacted. (If they were, our economy and budget would not be in a shambles)

So Congress MIGHT be considering this action, but its considered at least a little bit each and every year because there's actually a faction out there who is anti-manned-spaceflight.

There is also zero percent chance of this happening, mostly because of all the government contracts related to the programs and the lobbyists attached to them. The congressmen who work for those districts where spacecraft are developed or built need the support of those businesses, and if they shut them down, then those congressmen would be fired out of a cannon next election.

So it won't happen, not because its a horrible idea, but because its in their best interests not too. (again, see current economic and budget situation)

I'm just angry that the CBO even GOT such a idea.

[pxi]

The problem with this argument is that it will only save less then 1% of the US budget. I really doubt anyone in congress actually thinks that is an actual method of saving money. I think the US could cut a little into the Defense budget.

It wouldn't surprise me. In Ireland, we just recently defeated a referendum that was proposed to abolish half our government in order to save €20 million per year.

[Requiem762]

False alarm but I think we should try and get a few former astronauts and NASA employees to run in 2014 just to be safe.

[Mr Shifty]

People. For real this isn't a problem. Other options (among many others) the CBO suggests are:

• Reduce or eliminate subsidized student loans for undergraduates.
  
• Reduce social security benefits for new beneficiaries by 15 percent.
  
• Stop building Ford class aircraft carriers.
  
• Convert the mortgage interest deduction to a 15 percent tax credit.
  
• Curtail the deduction for charitable giving.
  
• Add a "public plan" to health insurance exchanges.
  
• Covert Medicare to a premium support system.
  

This report really is just a list of possible options, most of which are not remotely feasible politically. Adding a public health plan to the exchanges, for instance, would decrease the deficit by $158 billion over the next 10 years and should be a no-brainer since it would offer better care, with more options than private care, at lower premiums. But it will never happen, both because of entrenched opposition to Obamacare from Republicans, and because of the health insurance companies' lobbying wings.

[LaydeeDem]

Can a mod add a [Misleading/Sensationalist Title] tag to this thread? Too many people here are freaking out for no reason.

[KasperVld]

Thread closed. Politics should not be discussed