Other

New poll on space spending

The web site Daily Kos published yesterday the results of a brief poll of space exploration policy commissioned by the progressive web site and performed by polling firm Research 2000. The poll is short: three questions, only two of which are really about space exploration policy (the third is about astronomy, or perhaps more accurately, the intersection of astronomy and religious beliefs.) A total of 1,200 people were contacted in the telephone poll, conducted last week.

The first question asked, “Regarding the US Space Program, do you feel we spend too much, not enough, or the right amount?” Overall a plurality (47%) answered “too much”, versus 28% for “right amount” and 12% for “not enough” (the remaining 13% answered “not sure”). The second question asked, “Should the US government continue to take the lead in space exploration, or should it leave such space exploration to the private sector?” Here government wins out with 56% of the responses overall, versus 32% for the private sector and 12% not sure.

The breakdowns are particularly interesting. Republicans were far more likely to think that the US spends too much on its space program (56%) than independents (48%) or Democrats (38%). Men are more likely to answer too much than women (53 versus 41%). The older the respondent is, the more likely they’ll say we’re spending too much on the space program: only 43% of those aged 18-29 answered “too much”, versus 51% of those 60 and over. And despite the presence of several major NASA centers like KSC, MSFC, and JSC, those in the South answered “too much” more often (52%) than the other three geographic areas defined in the survey.

On the second question, Republicans more frequently believed the private sector should take the lead on space exploration: 55%, versus 29% of independents and 17% of Democrats. Older respondents were more likely to favor the private sector: 37% of those 60 and over versus 25% of those 18-29. And the South is more likely to favor the private sector (38%) than other regions, with only 25% in the Northeast preferring the private sector over the government.

So what does this poll mean? Maybe not much. While the aggregate results are a little confusing (people think we spend too much on the space program but want the government to be in control of space exploration?) the breakdowns by party are more predictable: more conservative Republicans think we’re spending too much but want to turn things over to the private sector, while more liberal Democrats are less willing to cut spending but also keep things in government hands.

Unfortunately, any poll is as only as good as its survey instrument (among other factors), and here it could have used some work. While it’s reasonable to ask whether people think we’re spending too much or too little on space, it would have been useful to calibrate those responses by also asking them how large NASA’s budget is (either as a dollar amount or a fraction of the federal budget). Do people who believe we’re spending too much on NASA also overestimate the size of NASA’s budget? Likewise, the second question posits an all-or-nothing scenario that isn’t reasonable: there’s no real move to hand all of space exploration to the private sector. A better question, perhaps, would be to ask if people if they believe the private sector should take a greater role, or, more specifically, if they believe the private sector should take on the responsibility of transporting NASA astronauts to orbit.

54 comments to New poll on space spending

  • Gary Church

    This has no meaning at all. It is like asking someone off the street what is the best heart surgery procedure. People are so busy with the information overload of the modern world that one in a thousand has any accurate in-depth information about man in space and why we need heavy lift vehicles and a far larger percentage of the budget going to NASA. The commercial crew con artists have the advantage in this; they can lie and sling monkey crap till everyone just gets tired of it and goes along. Tell a lie often enough…….

  • Bill White

    From DarkSyde

    The responses of Q1 and Q2 taken together could mean the electorate, — as is often the case — is either confused, or wants it both ways. Both of which suggests those of us in the explanation business, including politicians, need to do a better job of comparing and contrasting government vs. the private sector.

  • Gary Church

    Those of us in the explanation business? That would be the lying business you mean. “Comparing and contrasting” gov and biz is a fool’s game. All that matters is the goal.

    You want to make money on billionaire space clowns who want to play with their girlfriends in orbit? Then you have to get rid of the competition first so you can use all the tax dollars you get to put astronauts up to subsidize your scam.

    You want to explore and expand mankind’s presence in space? Do none of the above. Go with the biggest gov agency and biggest budget you can swing- because there is no cheap. Space travel is inherently expensive. The con artists who are telling everyone different are going to cripple HSF for nothing but filthy lucre. They are criminals. The DOD’s budget is niagra falls compared to NASA’s faucet running.

  • All the polls I found from recent years showed a majority think too much money is spent on space. All the others I’ve found also concluded the majority wanted the private sector to assume more of the cost for space access.

    This is reflected in the general apathy towards space in Congress, with the exception of the Congresscritters who represent space center districts.

    As I’ve pointed out before, even the most fervent Constellation supporters in Congress have failed to propose adding one penny to its budget so it can get back on schedule. They look at it as a jobs program, nothing more.

  • Gary Church

    When some amateur astronomer finds a chunk of something a couple months away, or some western educated extremist with a microbiology degree lets the genie out of the bottle, or….something bad happens that nobody thought would happen, then it will be more than a jobs program. The tourist business will suddenly find itself responsible for the fate of mankind. I do not think they are up to it. The biggest budget, with the biggest program, with the biggest launch vehicles possible. All it takes is a few less aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and bringing our troops home (and cutting off Haliburton). Want to guess what NASA’s budget would be if we gave them what we are giving Haliburton?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Jeff makes a good point in the post that the poll results are likely skewed by a lack of firm knowledge about how much is actually spent on NASA.

  • Coastal Ron

    Question two is misleading:

    “Should the US government continue to take the lead in space exploration, or should it leave such space exploration to the private sector?”

    There are no plans for the private sector to “take the lead” in space exploration. The new plan only uses the private sector to support NASA’s exploration efforts. NASA is paying the bills, and NASA astronauts are doing the exploration. They may hitch a ride to LEO on a ULA launcher, or get their fuel from a ULA ACES station, but it’s NASA taking the risks.

    It’s like asking “Do you beat your wife before you leave for work, or after you get home?”.

  • Gary Church

    “There are no plans for the private sector to “take the lead” in space exploration. The new plan only uses the private sector to support NASA’s exploration efforts.”

    How can you lie like that? What kind of techno babble can you befuddle the public with to fool them into thinking HSF is not going to be crippled by these cheaper is better money making scams?

  • Bennett

    Stephen wrote:

    As I’ve pointed out before, even the most fervent Constellation supporters in Congress have failed to propose adding one penny to its budget so it can get back on schedule. They look at it as a jobs program, nothing more.

    I’ve read this from you before, but for some reason it clicked differently this time. The correlation between “not cutting Constellation but not giving a fig if it ever produced anything worthwhile – thus, no more pennies but keep my guys employed. You’re right of course.

    The poll seems to indicate that the country is not impressed, but doesn’t know why. Is it “what have you done for me lately?”

    I think a short quick series of questions such as:

    Should the USA spend more on NASA than it spends on the War on Drugs?

    Should the USA spend more on NASA than it spends on the War in Iraq?

    Should the USA spend more on NASA than it spends on cable TV?

    I’d like to see the breakdown for those.

  • Coastal Ron

    Gary Church wrote @ June 1st, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Gary, as I have stated before, it’s one thing to disagree and present your own opinion (like I do), it’s another to call someone a liar without presenting evidence.

    It’s obvious that you are passionate about space, as am I, but unfortunately you do not know how to discuss something without resorting to schoolyard insults. I know other posters have had the same experience with you.

    For these reasons I have put you on my “shun” list, and will not respond to your comments. You already know this, since I told you this on another blog post, but since you insulted me in public on this post, I thought I would publicly state it again. In the future, I’ll ignore you if you’ll ignore me.

    It’s too bad too, because in your more civil moments (sparse though they may be), you can actually ask good questions and make valid arguments.

  • Nice article, but the poll goes over well trodden ground. Most people in the US have ZERO frame of reference for NASA, barely follow NASA in the news, and GROSSLY over or under estimate it’s capacity and cost simultaneousness.

    NASA is the largest non military, non human services department of the US government. It also has a budget 5 times that of ESA, 6 times that of JAXA and 9 times that of RSA.

    I would love more money for NASA, but advocates need to live in reality. NASA is luck to have the budget it does.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 1st, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Jeff makes a good point in the post that the poll results are likely skewed by a lack of firm knowledge about how much is actually spent on NASA…………..

    maybe and when the polls are going against ones cherished belief one has to believe almost anything can change it.

    But there is little data to show that if the American people are only aware of the actual “cost” that they tend to change their minds.

    For instance quite a few polls have been done on iraq…and that includes questions which imply low or no casualty rate or less “cost” in terms of dollars and that doesnt change the viewpoints of people.

    It is unlikely if the poll question was asked “do you want to spend 200 billion over the next 20 years to return to the Moon…” the answer is “yes”.

    Thats Constellation for you.

    sorry Mark.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    Spacexula wrote: NASA is the largest non military, non human services department of the US government. It also has a budget 5 times that of ESA, 6 times that of JAXA and 9 times that of RSA.

    I would love more money for NASA, but advocates need to live in reality. NASA is lucky to have the budget it does.

    Great point, especially given the number of canceled programs and aborted advancements over the last 30 years. It has been a sad progression compared to what was expected by the pulp crowd, of which I’m one. I’d take “gas ‘n go” over the Shuttle/ISS in a heartbeat.

  • Gary Church

    “you do not know how to discuss something without resorting to schoolyard insults.”

    “NASA is the largest non military, non human services department of the US”

    “NASA is luck to have the budget it does.”

    The “regulars”, that is, the space tourism infomercial team is being called in I see. Schoolyard insults? If I cut and pasted all the times you and your buddies have called anyone not on the team a “cretin” and an “idiot” and other longer condescending strings, this would be longer than a captain tom post.

    NASA is the largest Non-military, non-human services department? Well the military and human services just about covers everybody, doesn’t it?
    Nasa is lucky huh? Nice try but it is B.S.
    You guys have nothing new to say- the same old cheaper is better, NASA is evil, we are the good ole boys so hand it over to us Joe the space plumber red blooded American can do entrepreneurs. It is all B.S. You are so interested in Florida getting emergency funds because it signals all that money going to NASA employees headed toward the tourism scam- and it makes you happy. Like all thieves are happy when they count the money they have taken out of other peoples pockets and put it in their own.

  • Gary Church

    “It is unlikely if the poll question was asked “do you want to spend 200 billion over the next 20 years to return to the Moon…” the answer is “yes”.

    I would ask them, would you rather spend 200 billion providing jobs building space ships or spend it sending people half way around the world to machine gun illiterate tribesman? You see, the money will get spent one way or another, but it will get spent. So I do consider your argument valid Mr. Oler.

  • Bennett

    More questions

    “…should, like the world, like the whole word, or NASA, do everything it can, including spending, like, some money, to keep the the world from, like, exploding or something, would that be great, or what?”

    “if it was between the world exploding or you sending $10 through paypal to NASA to save the world, which would you pick?”

    PR is everything

  • Gary Church

    Schoolyard insults? You people are children.

  • Americans on average think that we spend 24% of the Federal budget on NASA:-) That would be $840 billion a year (I wish)! Of course in reality less than 0.6% of the Federal budget is spent on NASA, less than $18 billion a year.

    Americans like to complain about too much government spending but they appear to have no idea which programs receive the most money and which programs receive the least. Even the US military has a larger space budget than NASA and they don’t send anyone into orbit.

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1000/1

  • Gary Church

    The infomercial team could care less Marcel. They have a dream, and it does not include anyone being successful or getting public support unless they are the right kind of person. Certainly not an Agency that is not interested in the profit motive and competition.

  • Robert G. Oler

    I think Griffith has lost the primary in AL-5…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    “It’s too bad too, because in your more civil moments (sparse though they may be), you can actually ask good questions and make valid arguments.”

    And it’s too bad you are associating with these lying con artists. Can’t you read all the false and misleading statements your space clown wannabe’s make? What is the deal? You need a pal Ron? I’ll be your buddy. Just help me save the world from the smell, the horrific stench of…E.O.N MUSK!

  • Gary Church

    Got’s to throw my own childish babbling in….tit for tat.

  • vulture4

    The poll suggests that anyone who is expecting the public to pony up the money to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond had better not hold their breath. And it may not be because the public doesn’t “get it”. It might be because NASA really has not produced much that is of practical value in the past few decades. Maybe it’s time for the agency buckle down and start doing useful R&D, not as an accidental byproduct of human spaceflight, but as a primary objective.

  • Gary Church

    Concerning the FACT, that DOD gets 40 times the budget of NASA, if you had just read what Marcel posted, here is my comment on why NASA has not satisfied your demands-

    From another thread; “And both times we were forced to retool the STS system for continued use instead of switch to plan B, because there was no plan B.”

    Ahhh, but there was a plan B, both times a side mount capsule version of the shuttle was proposed, just like last year. It would have been what the shuttle should have been; a heavy lift vehicle instead of a heavy space plane lift vehicle. In my opinion most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the defense industry. No politician was willing to give up a single defense job if it meant trading it away for a space job. So there was never any money to fix the shuttle by getting rid of the orbiter; which we were stuck with in the first place because they wanted to save money by getting rid of ocean recovery. But with funding cuts the military became involved and they turned it into a spyplane; there is no other reason for the crossrange requirement and the huge cargo bay. Unfortunately the railed in from Utah (more politics) SRB’s were not powerful enough to launch into a polar orbit for spy missions. In an effort to get to this polar spyplane orbit the orbiter was built as light as possible; without any escape systems at all. In a nutshell, that is what happened to America’s space transportation system. Nickel and dimed to failure. We could have fixed it after challenger and after columbia and even last year with the Side mount; but the politicians and the DOD won’t give up a nickel.

    You think Musk and his toy rocket and those 25 ton cargo birds are going to keep human space flight going?
    Space flight is inherently expensive. There is no cheap. We are about to lose a priceless infrastructure and getting nothing in return but a rip-off tourist toy.

  • vulture4, not one new invention has come from NASA since Bush cut technology. Google “NASA spinoffs.” It’s a disgrace.

  • Rhyolite

    Coastal Ron wrote @ June 1st, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    Exactly.

  • Gary Church

    “The new plan only uses the private sector to support NASA’s exploration efforts. NASA is paying the bills,”

    Oh, that’s “all” it does. Space exploration requires space craft. Human space flight requires larger space craft. HSF beyond earth orbit requires even larger space craft. HSF BEO to land on other planets, their moons, and asteroids, require extremely large nuclear propelled space craft. The private sector is incapable of providing anything that can carry an astronaut. They have nothing. zero. Falcon and those cargo birds have a long way to go and I for one, have not faith in clusters last stand and unmanned vehicles that have to be man-rated. It is a scam.

  • Fred

    Gary Church said:
    “Just help me save the world from the smell, the horrific stench of…E.O.N MUSK!”

    For the record
    Musk put $100M of his own money into SpaceX.
    His investors have added
    Founders Fund…………..= $20M
    Draper Fisher Jurvetson. = $60M
    NASA, through COTS, kicked in just $278M and with this capital Musk and SpaceX has managed to develop the Falcon 9 LV AND the Dragon Spacecraft AND along the way the Falcon 1.
    Compare this to the cost plus contracts for Ares 1 and Orion where billions have been spent with no risk to the contractor and no gain to the nation.
    For one 20th the cost of the money spent on Ares 1 just to get to PDR Musk has built Falcon 9 AND Dragon and has his first flight article on the pad. The comparison shows clearly how bloated and inefficient the cost plus system has become.
    The least you can do is be polite about someone who’s prepared to risk his own money to try and improve the cost of launch.

  • mike shupp

    Too bad they didn’t sort on education and income levels as well.

    Assuming the numbers hold up (crudely put, if somebody else can get similar results from a similar sample) there’s been an interesting change in support for spoace programs. Going back to the 60’s, surveys have indicated that 30 % to 40 % of the voters think US space programs are too expensive, 15 % to 20 % roughly have felt space programs too small, and about 30 % have felt that US space programs were about the right size. (Leaving 10 -15 % of the voters with no opinion). There’s a pretty big shift here towards the “too expensive” position, which is going to have significance if it holds true for say another decade.

    OTOH, very very consistantly those old surveys have shown that space program supporters were predominantly (a) white, (b) male, (c) college educated, (d) more affluent than average, (e) older than average [“baby-boomer-style old” not “WW 2 vet-style old”]. And just as consistantly those old surveys showed that people who wanted space program budgets cut or eliminated were more often than not (a) non-white, (b) female, (c) educated to high-school level or less, (d) poorer than average, (d) quite old or quite young.

    This survey however puts older white males in the lead in finding space programs too expensive; unprecedented numbers of blacks and hispanics and women and younger people apparently have become backers of space programs. It would appear that the survey was large enough that real differences are being measured here.

    On the one hand, I find this puzzling. Gallop and other polling agencies have been sampling voter reactions to space program budgets for 50 years, and this response is something new. It’s tempting to wonder if Research 2000 really got a representative sample of voters.

    Other hand, maybe the situation really has changed. My guess is that if such a survey were given to readers of Space Politics (or at least to commenters!) that the majority would be middle aged, moderately affluently, college educated white males — and that while regarding themselves as “pro-Space” well over 50 % of them would argue that NASA receives far too much money and that private enterprise should determine the form of future space exploration rather than the government. I.e., Space Politics’s commenters would register as “Typical” on the Daily Koss poll.

    Supporting this view, it’s interesting to note how very little attention has been paid to space matters lately on the Internet. There is, after all, a bit of a food fight going on over President Obama’s proposed FY 2011 NASA budget — the largest I can recall in fifty years — and yet some 40 or so economics-oriented weblogs I’m familiar with have not given that squabble a word of attention, and an equal number of politically-oriented sites have been just about as reticent (some recent exceptions: Kos, Slate, Washington Monthly, The Nation, National Review). Almost always these days, when NASA or proposed US space programs is mentioned, the general attitude is dismissive. By and large these bloggers are exactly the sort of older, better educated, more affluent, white males who in times past favored larger national space programs; their current lack of interest is significant — from some perspectives, distressing.

    So all in all, it was an interesting survey.

  • Bennett wrote:

    I think a short quick series of questions such as:

    Should the USA spend more on NASA than it spends on the War on Drugs?

    Should the USA spend more on NASA than it spends on the War in Iraq?

    Should the USA spend more on NASA than it spends on cable TV?

    Well, those are misleading too.

    In California years ago a ballot measure passed requiring the state budget to spend x percent of the budget on education. It was a stupid idea, and one of the many reasons why the state’s budget is such a mess now.

    Budgeting shouldn’t be based on a fixed percentage, or x should be more than y. It should be based on if a program is worthy and the cost necessary to achieve that program, within finite resources.

    I was a budget analyst for a Southern California municipality years ago, and later served on the same city’s finance commission. Government bureaucrats and elected officials have to make those decisions all the time. We’d like to do x but we don’t have infinite dollars. Something has to give.

    As I’ve mentioned, a number of polls in recent years show the public wants less government money spent on space. Do they know how much is spent? For most of them, the answer is no. Do they know what percentage of the federal budget goes to space? Again, the answer is no.

    But that’s irrelevant.

    I take the polls to show that the majority don’t think space is a big priority, especially in an era of trillion-dollar annual deficits.

    That’s why in polls that ask should the private sector pay for more of space exploration, the majority always yes.

    It’s not that the public doesn’t want space exploration. They think it’s time for the private sector to step up and take more responsibility.

    The Daily Kos poll approached it a little differently, i.e. who should be in charge. A majority said the government, which doesn’t contradict the other polls. They’re saying the private sector should spend more and be more active in space, but it should be regulated by government which defines the overall strategy.

    And that’s pretty much what Obama’s proposal does.

  • Fred wrote:

    The least you can do is be polite about someone who’s prepared to risk his own money to try and improve the cost of launch.

    Fred, Gary Church has been insulting people left and right in an attempt to draw attention to himself. Many of the regulars here have taken the pledge to not read his posts or reply to them because of his behavior. His response is to step up his trolling to a new level.

    My suggestion is you join the rest of us and simply ignore him. Obviously, it drives him nuts. That’s the best way to deal with him.

  • Bennett

    @Stephen “Well, those are misleading too.” Yeah, but I think the answers would be entertaining nonetheless. And my second set of questions would be for hilarity’s sake, sorta like a Palin Book Signing poll.

    “And that’s pretty much what Obama’s proposal does.” Exactly.

    mike shupp wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Good stuff Mike. This: Almost always these days, when NASA or proposed US space programs is mentioned, the general attitude is dismissive. or worse. Back in Feb the guy on NPR’s The World started out a piece saying “All you HSF dreamers out there? You can stop dreaming now.” He then had someone like Shelby come on and say that HSF just got canceled.

    I was so pissed that I emailed him accusing him of taking the easy route of negative journalism without doing his own research. To present something as “a real bummer, man” when the truth was 180 degrees the other direction was irresponsible and served no good purpose. No reply of course.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 6:43 am

    When the last shuttle gives the last “wheels stop”, we will be at the end of the Apollo era.

    What is very sad to me is that somewhere during the Challenger recovery the agency went badly off track and we have more or less wasted about the last 25 or so years as less and less of the space program was about doing things in space and more and more about saving NASA.

    this next era has got to be about returning the program “to the people” or human spaceflight is just about over.

    Robert G Oler

  • “Jeff makes a good point in the post that the poll results are likely skewed by a lack of firm knowledge about how much is actually spent on NASA.”

    While I agree with you and Jeff on this one, Mark, the almost unanimous conclusion of polls, good and bad, that we spend to much on space leads me to believe that if we told them a number, the numbers might level out a bit, but the overall conclusions would likely be the same. Frankly, a lot of folks don’t think we should be spending any money at all on space exploration in general and planetary exploration in particular. Ultimately, this is pretty much what I expected from the general public.

    What was interesting to me in this was the opinions of the parties. It held pretty much to what we’d expect from traditional Republican and Democrat positions. It’s an odd thing that in the space geek community the roles appear to be reversed.

  • Gary Church

    “Fred, Gary Church has been insulting people left and right in an attempt to draw attention to himself. Many of the regulars here have taken the pledge to not read his posts or reply to them because of his behavior. His response is to step up his trolling to a new level.
    My suggestion is you join the rest of us and simply ignore him. Obviously, it drives him nuts. That’s the best way to deal with him.”

    Such righteous indignation! How civil and well mannered the infomercial crew is all of a sudden. You “regulars” can’t stand someone giving back what you think is yours to give out. I post some information you cannot refute- that exposes what a scam the whole space tourism industry is, you try and beat me down, but it does not work. So you come up with, “ignore him.” You people are sad.

  • Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 8:44 am

    >>>What is very sad to me is that somewhere during the Challenger recovery the agency went badly off track

    Actually, I think it was in the 70s. America’s leaders, on behalf of the American people, told NASA to do the impossible in the 1960s. NASA did. The reward for this was to be sent to the woodshed to play with whatever NASA could scrounge. NASA logically concluded that the American people could not be trusted.

    In 1984, while working in the Reagan White House (the last good Republican WH, IMHO), I sent to see a premiere of an Imax film, the first that would talk about the Space Station. I listened to Walter Cronkite narrate about all the things that the Station would do. But, of course, I knew the facts of what NASA was taking out of Station… even in that very first year of political consideration. And I went home realizing that someone had stolen the space program from me.

  • Gary Church

    “I went home realizing that someone had stolen the space program from me.”

    That would be the DOD Einstein.

  • “Such righteous indignation! How civil and well mannered the infomercial crew is all of a sudden. You “regulars” can’t stand someone giving back what you think is yours to give out. I post some information you cannot refute- that exposes what a scam the whole space tourism industry is, you try and beat me down, but it does not work. So you come up with, “ignore him.” You people are sad.”

    You say you have posted “information that cannot be refuted”; however, you just pretend that no refutation has been made by anyone who refutes you with hard facts and thus give no answer to any valid refutation. Example: Fred’s previous counter argument of your statement about Elon Musk. You addressed NONE of his points and instead chose to go into a long tirade about some people not paying attention to you. Since you will pick and choose what you address and ignore anything that is hard for you to refute, I will also follow suit and not respond to your posts.

    BTW, in regards to you statement, “The infomercial team could care less Marcel.” the correct expression is “couldn’t care less”. You said the exact opposite of what you mean. What you mean is it is impossible for them to care less. If they COULD care less (as you state), caring less is possible. Your knowledge of English grammar seems to be on a par with what you have demonstrated in other areas.

  • Ooos accidental mistype in the above post. Here it is restated.

    BTW, in regards to your statement, “The infomercial team could care less Marcel.” the correct expression is “couldn’t care less”. You said the exact opposite of what you mean. What you mean is it is impossible for them to care less. If they COULD care less (as you state), caring less is possible. Your knowledge of English grammar seems to be on a par with what you have demonstrated in other areas.

  • Since Americans think we are spending 24% of the Federal budget on NASA, we should reduce those expenditures by 90% to appease those concerns so that NASA is only spending 2.4% of the Federal budget. That would give NASA an annual budget of $84 billion a year! I’d be extremely happy with that:-)

  • Coastal Ron

    Rick Boozer wrote @ June 2nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Welcome to the “ignore Gary Church” club Rick. There are a number of us that agree with your points, and have tried (in vain) to coax any specific information out of Gary that would lead to having a real conversation.

    He’s passionate about space, but blindly so…

  • Gary Church

    “Your knowledge of English grammar seems to be on a par with what you have demonstrated in other areas.”

    “Welcome to the “ignore Gary Church” club Rick -have tried (in vain) to coax any specific information out of Gary that would lead to having a real conversation.”

    A real conversation with you guys is bending over and taking it. No thanks; please ignore me. You are arrogant, surly, insulting, condescending, lying…..I could go on and on but, what would be the point? I give back the abuse you somehow think is your right as bullies- as the “regulars” – to hand out to anyone who disagrees with your infomercial. A real conversation? You people are space clown wannabees and I have no respect for your opinions any more than you respect mine. I will be happy to continue to expose your lies and could not wish for anything BETTER than for you to ignore me. So please, please, ignore me and just keep on lying and I will keep on posting. O.K.?

  • Bennett

    Must be time for meds.

  • Gary Church

    Like I said, arrogant, surly, insulting, sexually fixated on Elon Musk (he is in awe of him).

  • You are arrogant, surly, insulting, condescending, lying…..I could go on and on but, what would be the point?

    Since you claim I’m a liar, I will make ONE more comment to your Ares worshiping self. You mention real conversation? How can real conversation be had with someone who won’t address the specific relevant issues raised? All you do is state opinion without stating any verifiable facts to back it up. How can you expect ANYONE (even those on your side of this issue) to take you seriously when you don’t back up what you say with concrete evidence? The only LIAR here is you when you said you had “information that could not be refuted”, especially when you have yet to address each and every one of the FACTS that Fred put forward in refutation to you.

    You call me a “space clown wannabee”? Click my name on this post and you’ll find out something different. I have a Master’s degree in astrophysics and am currently working on my PhD in the same field. I have a feeling that you are probably one of the least credentialed people among the regulars on this blog. No scientist would spout the kind of unsubstantiated blather that you do, not if he wanted to stay a scientist.

  • Gary Church

    “I have a Master’s degree in astrophysics and am currently working on my PhD in the same field.”

    You are a space clown wannabe, just like the rest of them…with a masters degree. Wow. Go impress someone else with you piece of paper on the wall. A couple thousand people are losing their jobs with similar pieces of paper.

    “unsubstantiated blather”

    What does that mean? Is that Astrophysicist talk?

  • Gary Church

    Oh, and you gave the show away by calling me an Ares worshiper; I am not. I never said much about Ares except that if it does not work, find something that does.That just shows you are indeed a space clown (wannabe) taking sides.

  • Note to everyone else. Do you notice how Gary is still avoiding addressing Fred’s points?

  • DCSCA

    Americans have opposed more spending on anything and everything by the government throughout its history.

  • Gary Church

    Yes everybody, look, look how Rick is humiliating Gary!
    Grow up.
    If by Fred’s “points” you mean those dollar figures? I brought up some dollar figures no one would touch; the 1.03 TRILLION dollar defense budget.

    Nasa employees are taking their pieces of paper down off the wall Rick, because the DOD will not give up a number so small to them, .03 trillion dollars, they would not even miss it. In fact, they LOST quite a bit of money if my memory serves. Cannot even find it.
    I am not on your team of lying con artists playing the space tourist fantasy football game.

  • Rick Boozer wrote:

    Note to everyone else. Do you notice how Gary is still avoiding addressing Fred’s points?

    Rick, Gary Church is a troll. He insults and smears people to get attention for himself. Many of us have taken the pledge not to read or respond to his posts, no matter how offensive or outrageous they are.

    A troll wants attention. When you don’t read or respond to his posts, you deny him the attention he so desperately craves. Ignore him, and he loses.

  • This poll should have been prefaced by the following questions, rounded to the nearest $1B where appropriate, a negative answer to any would result in disqualification:

    1) What is the total FY 2011 Proposed Budget?

    2) What is the total discretionary spending in the above mentioned budget?

    3) What is the total non-discretionary spending in the above mentioned budget?

    4) What is the total deficit in the above mentioned budget?

    5) What is the proposed amount of NASA’s budget?

    6) What percentage of the FY 2011 proposed budget is for NASA?
    a) 10%
    b) 1%
    c) < 0.5%
    d) None of the above

    Answers at the bottom…

    I would hazard to guess that most here, an educated audience if there ever was one, never mind the voters polled by Kos, would be unable to answer more than 1 question on the phone, without Google. I would be shocked if any voter could answer all 6 on the phone.

    These polls have about as much meaning as Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

    1) $3.8T ($3.84T)
    2) $1.4T ($895B Sec./$520B Non-Sec.)
    3) $2.2T ($2.16T)
    4) $1.3T ($1.276T)
    5) $19B
    6) c

  • […] a month ago Daily Kos published a poll on space spending performed by polling firm Research 2000, that had some interesting results, including that […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>