adh@anumb.UUCP (a.d.hay) (05/10/88)
The United States Senate Appropriations Committee will
allocate to the Subcommittees their Fiscal '89 Funds. Current
information indicates the HUD and Independent Agencies may be
given only a 1% increase over the Fiscal '88 Budget. This
would result in a substantial cut in NASA funding. According
to NASA Director Dr. Fletcher in a recent speech, "This could
spell extinction for the Space Program" (See last week's
Washington Post).
Sources indicate the decision will be made this week. To
prevent the loss of funds, call NOW! Express your concern by
asking the Senate to support NASA Funding at 11.5 billion, the
President's Fiscal '89 request.
The key U.S. Senators are:
Senator Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
(Senate MAjority Leader)
Senator J. Bennett Johnston (202) 224-5824
(Member of the Appropriations Committee)
If you are interested in more information, send e-mail to:
{ihnp4|mtune{.att.arpa|.att.com|.uucp}}!mvuxd!dou
Don DoughtyDXANDY@WIDENER.BITNET (01/17/90)
Please excuse me if this topic has been discussed previously, or it falls into the catagory of "too stupid to consider". Given the large amounts of media coverage generated by events such as a Shuttle mission and the Neptune encounter, why doesn't NASA use these opportunities to raise extra funds for its work. If NASA were to enter the world of advertising, if only in a small way, surely it would be able to bring in several millions of dollars. For example, if the ET were to act as huge billboard, I am sure that a company such as Coca Cola would pay massive amounts to have it painted like a giant Coke can. Although there would probably be some legal issues to be cleared up, I can not think of any practical reasons why this could not happen. After, for the companies that might want to advertise, the Shuttle has to be a better bet than Mike Tyson or Madonna. Andy Greenshields [dxandy@widener.BITNET]
AEA1@PSUVM.BITNET (Amy Antonucci) (01/19/90)
As I understand it, NASA is under the gov't so that anything that NASA may get goes to Congress and then Congress decides how much to give back. (Sucks, doesn't it?) ------- :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: :"You know, MacGyver,: "Mom- how?"- Kevin : "I don't know- fly casual"- : :that's why you're so: "Girl Scouts"-Sam B: your friend & mine-Han Solo: :hard to beat, no one:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: :knows what you're :"If you think we're gonna make it,:"Oh, joy"-Bones: :doing next-including: you'd better hang on to yourself":^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: :you." -Murdoc : David Bowie aka Ziggy Stardust : Go PSU Icers!!: :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: :Raistlin - MacGyver, Quantum Leap, SF, ice hockey fan- astronomy major: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/19/90)
In article <90018.112552AEA1@PSUVM.BITNET> AEA1@PSUVM.BITNET (Amy Antonucci) writes: >As I understand it, NASA is under the gov't so that anything that NASA may >get goes to Congress and then Congress decides how much to give back. Yup. Some years ago, when the Viking Fund had collected a substantial amount of money as a show of public support for keeping Viking Lander 1 operational (there was talk of shutting it down), complications arose when the time came to hand it over. The government apparently can't accept donations earmarked for specific projects or groups. I believe it was eventually worked out with the Fund contracting with JPL for Viking data-analysis work, which was desirable in itself and also eased pressure on the Viking budget a little. (The political point had been made anyway.) -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu