NASA Budget Cuts

Let me define what I mean by a budget cut: this year's budget is
smaller (measured in dollars) than last year's budget, adjusted for
inflation. By this definition, NASA has rarely suffered a budget cut
(a few years in the 90s being the exceptions). Perhaps you have a
different definition?

On Jan 6, 2004, at 4:46 PM, George Perkins wrote:

>
> I respectfully submit that NASA has indeed suffered serious budget
> cuts.
>
> "NASA has the smallest budget of the major agencies in the Federal
> Government. Its budget has represented less than 1 percent of the
> total Federal budget each year since 1977. "
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTML/FS-003-HQ.html
>
> "By one measure, the nation no longer seems so committed to space.
> Since the 1960's NASA got only 5 percent of the federal budget.
> Today, that is now down to less than 1 percent. "
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/03/eveningnews/main539202.shtm
> l
>
> So, the budget shrunk from 5% to less than 1%.
>
> Now, on the playing on the mind, let's look at a few so-
> called "increases". A few times these last 10 years or so Congress
> actually increased NASA's budget by 2%.
>
> But, in reality, this is not an increase at all because the annual
> increase in the cost of living is over 2%.
>
> What a con.
>
>> From 5% to less than 1%. That's quite a drop. Near weightlessness
> I'd say.
>
> Russia is just sputtering along too.. but they seem to have, or
> allow, more salesmanship and entrepreneurial initiatives as
> evidenced by their thusfar successful space tourism attempts.
>

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.