Do We Spend Enough on Space Exploration?

[christine16]

Do We Spend Enough on Space Exploration?<br /><br /> The Poll is here, you can Vote or only see the Results <br /><br />What you think?<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

My answer would have to be no.<br /><br />Space exploration can be divided up as unmanned and manned or Human Space Flight (HSF). The HSF programs are the controversial ones. NASA as a whole gets around $16 B dollars annually with probably around half going to HSF. IMO, we could go up to $17 or $18 B dollars, especially if were going to develop the Bush initiated lunar exploration programs.<br /><br />The record budget for NASA was in 1866 at the peak of Apollo spending. That record was $5.5B dollars which after adjusting for inflation, would now be $32.2B dollars, well beyond the increase I'd consider reasonable.<br /><br />As a realist, I voted spend a bit more which would be what I outlined here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

I think we are slacking on unmanned missions. We should have an advanced lander(s) on it's way to Europa, Enceladus, and Titan. With momentus discoveries to be made on each of these unique moons, the monies should be made available for in depth study. <rant off>

 

[alokmohan]

How much money will be required?Any estimate?

 

[qso1]

chew_on_this:<br />I think we are slacking on unmanned missions.<br /><br />Me:<br />Actually, were making up for lost time. We slacked in the 1980s. No unmanned mars missions, one Venus mission which was delayed till 1989. We had the Voyager flybys but those were missions originating in the 1970s. It was not until the 1990s that we picked up steam again. Galileo was one case. But that was originally scheduled for a 1986 launch and a 2 year transit to Jupiter. Challenger delayed Galileo until it finally launched in 1989 and went to Jupiter on a less energetic booster (IUS) than Centaur which required a complex gravity assist trajectory that ultimately made for a 6 year transit.<br /><br />Then came the 1997 Mars Pathfinder mission, the MERs, asteroid close approach missions, comet sample return, Cassini. Cassini was actually planned as far back as 1974 and after the Voyager flybys, serious discussions on Europa unmanned missions began. IMO, we did very well considering the decade delay imposed by budget cuts of the 1970s.<br /><br />Eventually we will get to Europa, Enceladus, and Titan but Mars is the prime focus of unmanned planetary for now and there is not enough budget for both Mars and Europa. Mars being much closer, its also technically easier to do than Europa and the prospect of finding life on Mars remains. And if life is confirmed on Mars...I'd say there will be money made available for both Mars and Europa. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

This is a good question and I would say a Europa lander would probably be on the order of several times the Viking missions. Viking was around a billion dollars in 1975 which would be almost $4B dollars now. I chose Viking as a reference because it was nuclear powered as a Europa, Enceladus, and Titan lander would have to be, barring the development of some new power source.<br /><br />Add to that the need for more powerful booster rockets and/or gravity assist trajectories, extreme autonomy due to greater signal delays resulting from much greater distances. And there is no guarantee life will be found at the surface so add to this, the cost of developing reliable surface drilling devices, sample retrieval mechanisms and sample analysis capability...well, the cost could easily reach as high as 3 to 5 times Viking. This might make it nearly impossible to sell unless we find life on Mars or precursor probes that flypast Europa detect something compelling enough to send a lander. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">Eventually we will get to Europa, Enceladus, and Titan but Mars is the prime focus of unmanned planetary for now </font><br /><br />I think this may be a bit myopic. We aren't stopping at Mars I hope. In that case, these missions need to move forward. I guess what I'm trying to say is, we're wasting a LOT of money on other non-peaceful pursuits. That money could put us giant leaps ahead of where we've been moving not only technologically speaking, but as an example of a (peaceful) world leader that we once were.

 

[j05h]

> This might make it nearly impossible to sell unless we find life on Mars or precursor probes that flypast Europa detect something compelling enough to send a lander.<br /><br />I would think the complex carbon chemistry oozing out of cracks on Europa and Enceladus would be reason enough to send landers.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[halman]

Christine16,<br /><br />Most certainly not! 50 billion a year on manned space flight for the next 30 years would probably be enough to build a space station to support manned missions to the Moon and Mars, establish a permanent human presence on the Earth's moon, develop a second generation reusable Earth to orbit vehicle, and perfect a nuclear powered drive for use with manned deep space probes.<br /><br />That level of spending would also insure that a healthy aerospace industry would exist, which would be the basis for commercial development in space. It would also guarentee that most defense contractors could stay in business without decades-long weapon systems development programs. Perhaps most importantly, it would encourage young people to enter science and engineering careers.<br /><br />I am afraid that your poll would have very different results if it were taken by people exiting a grocery store, movie theater, or restuarant. Probably, most people would say that the spending levels are fine where they are, having in fact no idea how much is actually spent on space exploration. And it is deceptive to define spending in dollars, rather than in percent of the federal budget. We spend less than 1 percent of the federal budget on human space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

chew_on_this,<br /><br />As much as I enjoy learning about the Cosmos, I have to wonder what good that knowledge will do the human race if we continue to be trapped on a single planet. Our existance could end completely at any time, either by self-induced causes, or by external forces. I am not being paranoid or alarmist, simply realistic enough to acknowledge that cosmic catastrophes are happening every day, and that our existance is incredibly fragile, dependent upon a huge range of factors remaining within narrow confines.<br /><br />I am certain that other beings have discovered many secrets of the Cosmos, only to have that knowledge die with them. We are in a race for survival, which will not be won until we have spread out over an appreciable portion of this solar system. When we are preparing to send humans to the systems of Jupiter and Saturn, learning what they can expect will be easily justified. But when we are fighting for every dollar spent on space exploration, the quest for esoteric knowledge diminishes our chances of ever being able to utilize that knowledge. Conversely, the more accomplished we become at space travel, the easier it will be to learn these esoteric facts.<br /><br />I am sure that my argument is little comfort to someone who has made his lifework studying the moons of the gas giants. I also find it amazing that he can get funding for his work when engineers who have the knowledge of how to get to those moons are being laid off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[BReif]

Bad or missing link. Maybe expired?<br /><br />In answer to your question, I would have to say NO, we do not spend enough on space exploration. I certainly would like to see more resources put into the Manned program, and an acceleartion on the Shuttle's replacement vehicle. I personally like the CEV, ESAS infrastructure, but I know others do not. I certainly think that whatever the next vehicle looks like, we would want it to have capability to get us beyond LEO, back to the Moon, and even beyond.<br /><br />I also think that we should be spending more on unmanned missions which blaze the trail for humans to follow. We need, I beleive, more probes going to Moon, Mars, and even orbiters and landers going to Jupiter's and Saturn's Moons, especially Europa and Titan. <br /><br />I agree with a "one step at a time" approach which the current VSE embraces, but we could be moving a bit faster than we are.<br />

 

[chidave]

I "think" you will find that the vast majority of people who are members of this community, will be in favor of increased funding for space exploration. The "problem" is "how", the moment we start discussing which program to cut to fund exploration, or what new taxes need to be levied, then our almost unanimous agreement in principal (that it should be increased), will be deeply divided on "how".<br /><br />And for the record, I definatley feel we do not spend enough <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[chew_on_this]

We are in a cosmic shooting gallery. It's not a question of if, but when. I, for one, would like to see a permanent presence off this world. Until nations pull together, I don't believe this will happen for several generations. I just hope this isn't to late.

 

[qso1]

chew_on_this:<br />I think this may be a bit myopic.<br /><br />Me:<br />It is admittedly somewhat myopic but going off to Europa, Enceladus, and Titan while still just barely getting back to Mars exploration is not going to go over well with the taxpaying public, especially if price tags for such missions go beyond $10 B dollars.<br /><br />The modest budget increase I suggested would probably be able to include at least one mission (With two sets of craft) to Europa. I would definetely want to include Europa as well as Mars in plans for microbiological life forms. I've pointed out numerous times here at SDC that we waste $100B dollars plus annually on rebuilding Iraq, $400B dollars plus annually on the deficit.<br /><br />chew_on_this:<br />I would think the complex carbon chemistry oozing out of cracks on Europa and Enceladus would be reason enough to send landers.<br /><br />Me:<br />And I certainly agree, but will the public. OTOH, I might be misreading the public on this because while they almost always question human spaceflight spending, they are not as vocal on unmanned. And there are those who think unmanned is the only way to go so maybe a program of exploration to Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan would be economically possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

halman:<br />And it is deceptive to define spending in dollars, rather than in percent of the federal budget. We spend less than 1 percent of the federal budget on human space exploration.<br /><br />Me:<br />Your probably responding to me, I mentioned dollars. I don't consider it deceptive to mention dollars as opposed to GDP percentage. Most of the people you mentioned won't know if 1% GDP is a small or large percentage of the federal budget unless they keep up with those issues. I often use both the dollar and percentages if I'm responding to those who say we can't afford human spaceflight. I'd personally be for a NASA budget of $20-25 B dollars annually. I sometimes mention the dollar amount to compare NASA budgets with say...$400B dollar deficits annually. That $16 B dollars looks much smaller when compared to the overspending that results in deficits year after year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

Nowhere near enough. <br /><br />What I'd like to see is a big push for space resource extraction, that should shut up the environmentalists, at least as far as terrestrial mining goes. Fund the R&D of space mining with huge hikes in terrestrial mineral royalties, along with tax breaks and other incentives on extraterrestrial resources delivered dirtside.<br /><br />I wouldn't get fancy with landing the booty. Just slam it into the desert. It'd be a pretty fireworks show.

 

[qso1]

I consider that to be "Space industrialization" which is one of the best ways we can utilize space as a resource, and it would quell some of the environmental concerns here on Earth. Unfortunately, a lot of environmentalists fail to see this and view NASA human space flight as a waste.<br /><br />Maybe they could watch the fireworks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

NO!! We need to double manned space expenditure and triple unmanned expenditure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[BReif]

As far as the question of "how": There is a tremendous amount of tax dollars wasted on all kinds of things. I, for one, beleive it is possible to increase space funding without raising taxes. All that needs to be done is to cut the pork. Cut programs like, the millions being spent by the government to study the viscosity of Ketchup, stop paying $200 for a hammer, demand responsible use of government funding, prosecute those who commit fraud with governemnt funds (ie. the mis-use of FEMA money after Katrina by some organizations (its been in the news off and on)). <br /><br />There certainly will be debate about what programs to cut, but there shouldn't be debate about demanding that government funded programs cut waste, be accountable, and become more efficient, and eliminate mis-managment, mis-use, and fraud.

 

[bdewoody]

Just watched a show on the Science Channel last night about Europa. There won't be any landings there until they can be sure that the vehicle will not transfer any life forms to that moon. So far NASA cannot 100% guarantee that no micro-organisms will hitch a ride on such a lander. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">I would think the complex carbon chemistry oozing out of cracks on Europa and Enceladus would be reason enough to send landers.</font><br /><br />This line made me think of what kind of medicines could be extracted from other biospheres. Makes you wonder if some kind of super-antibiotic could be gleaned from the study of other forms of say, a Europan style mold or bacterial vaccine or such. These life forms could well be distant cousins of our own (Earth) spawn or totally different. I bet the pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets! <br /><br />

 

[christine16]

I just saw that someone voted for - space exploration should be cut back ;(<br /><br />it's sad that there are such type of people, but i hope they are minority <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[quasar2]

not just what we spend, but how it`s spent. we should look @ how we can save. we can`t forever assume the funding will come, @least from govts. we need to have a closer look @ Space Salvage. & we need to focus on one project, the most important one @ this point imho is L1. both the Moon & Mars efforts can be done from there. possibly even a higher station in Earth Orbit. imho LEO is unsafe due to Space junk. & Equatorial launches appear to achieve this easier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

When govt's spend $200 on a hammer, the difference between fact and fiction goes into so-called 'black budgets' for top secret research and development, i.e. Area 51 stuff.

 

[qso1]

The $200 dollar hammers come out of the DOD budget rather than NASA budgets and while the overage may be funneled into black programs, the black budget IIRC, is a separate, but acknowledged budget. The amount budgeted is classified. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no reports of NASA spending $200 dollars on hammers or other excessive/unecessary spending. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>