New Budget NASA Space Science Missions 180
pertinax18 writes "The New York Times is reporting that 'Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the agency's new budget.' This looks to directly impact the types of missions that have been NASA's greatest successes like the Mars Rovers. 'Among the casualties in the budget, released last month, are efforts to look for habitable planets and perhaps life elsewhere in the galaxy, an investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe apart, bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's moon Europa'"
At least someone... (Score:3, Informative)
Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and 56 other senators have introduced a bill that would mandate a 10 percent increase per year in NASA's science budget from now through 2013, among other things.
More people ought to contact their representatives about NASA funding. Unfortunately space exploration doesn't seem to get as much press time as other "important" issues these days.
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly where the money is going: to develop the CEV. Which happens to be the manned replacement for the Shuttle. There is also the big booster built from Shuttle-system components that will be used for heavy lifting big cargo.
You're advocating what's already being done!
The shuttle program can't just stop now, however; it's needed for a few more tasks. Like, oh, that obligation toward finishing the space station and getting it usable (at least, the parts that aren't just being trashed and left to rot, even though they were built to fly). Like, oh, repairing the Hubble Space Telescope and installing already-built parts.
Small changes (Score:3, Informative)
2004: $5,600M
2005 (est): $5,527M
2006 (est): $5,476M
That doesn't look like too big of a change. Does losing $50 million really do that much?