Do We Spend Enough on Space Exploration?

[spayss]

We spend enough on space exploration but not enough on science infrastruture. I'd scrap manned exploration and put the money into M.I.T type institutions . At the rate we're going and the weight of bureaucracy, man won't walk on Mars before the end of the century. Promote science and technological innovation in all fields and we'll get there in half the time. An extra billion spent on nanotechnology, metallurgy science, etc, will get us to Mars quicker in the long run. <br /><br /> We didn't beat the Japanese in WW2 because we could spend more money on planes and tanks but because we had the underlining science and technology infrastructure to respond to the challenge at hand. The same with the race to the moon. We won because of our superior technological infrastructure to build a space program upon and not because we spent more.

 

[BReif]

In my reference to a $200 hammer, etc., I was not refering to NASA's budget perse, but to the fiscal responsibility, or lack thereof, that is demonstrated by the federal governement as a whole. I beleive that if there was less waste, budgets could be trimmed, and additional money could be allocated for space exploration, or given back to the people. I certainly beleive that NASA does strive to forcast costs accurately. They always seem to be under fire by the Government Accounting Office, and Congress, as well as the media, for their handling of costs. So, I beleive that NASA is already aware of the need for full disclosure, and its need to not be wasteful. <br /><br />That said, it is very difficult to forcast costs with technolgies that are still in developement, and it is difficult to forcast costs for unforseen events, such as the costs associated with Katrina, and the additional costs incurred on the ET during the past year. <br /><br />Sometimes an engineering decision doesn't work thre way the engineers planned, and it has to be re-worked, which incurs additonal costs. Better to have the additional costs than no manned spaceflight, in my opinion. Same can be said in the unmanned arena.<br />

 

[observer7]

A few clarifications.<br /><br />NASA FY 2007 Budget as submitted $16.8 billion dollars of which<br />- $5.33 billion for science programs (James Webb telescope, solar dynamics observatory, DAWN, 2009 Mars science lab, others)<br />- $3.97 billion on exploration (Constellation and Lunar Recon Orbiter)<br />- $724 million on aeronautics research<br />- $6.2 billion on space operations (Shuttle and ISS)<br />- $ 491 million on cross agency programs (education, innovative partnership program)<br /><br />Based on this info we can see that over 1/3 of NASA's budget is tied up in Shuttle and ISS, both of which are going nowhere! Increasing NASA's budget will just feed more contractors in the 'business as usual' environment. <br /><br />IMHO, NASA is one of the agencies that commits some of the most wasteful practices. They may not buy $200 hammers, but they spend entirely too much money on cost plus contracts to long time partners who have no incentive to perform space missions more efficiently and cost efffectively. NASA needs to change to a system of buying services (launch this payload for x dollars) or fixed price contracts for hardware (provide a robotic system for exploring Europa with these specs, provide a CEV with these capabilities) and then making the contractors responsible for any overruns or additional costs. I believe that the aerospace industry would suddenly find ways to build $50 million dollar systems and ensure that they don't get tipped over because someone forgot to install the bolts!<br /><br />Increased budgets are not the answer, a change in the way we approach space exploration (more commercial activity and greater emphisis on efficiency) are the first steps.<br /><br />-- <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[spayss]

brief,<br /><br />True to an extent. If, however, it's difficult to forecast costs then budgets should be overestimated as much as underestimated. Numbers aren't pulled from a hat and the result of the best geusstimation possible. If projects are more often over budget than under budget then the people in charge are incompetent. If NASA can't do anything according to a proposed budget then the Congress should take NASA's estimate and triple them and then make a decision to provide funds or not.<br /><br />There is a NASA ploy of low balling figures with a polyanish exuberance to get a project approved and then acting 'aghast' as expenses rise.

 

[qso1]

Observer7:<br />Increased budgets are not the answer, a change in the way we approach space exploration (more commercial activity and greater emphisis on efficiency) are the first steps.<br /><br />Me:<br />In an ideal world, I agree with that line of thinking. But under current conditions, a modest budget increase is not unreasonable IMO in part because despite NASA having wasted some money as all government agencies do. NASA has also accomplished quite a bit with the money they have gotten. NASA budgets have been at roughly 50% of what they were in the time of Apollo. What other government agency existing then and now can claim that? And with that 3 decades worth of 50% savings, what did we as a society actually gain? Where did the saved money go?<br /><br />It makes no sense IMO to try to save money by cutting NASA budgets when the savings will be wasted by continued deficit spending and spending on rebuilding Iraq or other wastes such as the S&L bailout or whatever the government may wish to spend saved money on.<br /><br />Efficient budgeting should already have resulted in some private companies getting their own space initiatives started. And this may be underway with Rutan, Branson and company. But they are tackling suborbital space for now. Will they be able to efficiently tackle orbital space? Hopefully they will. And if they do, NASA can pull out of the LEO access business and focus on lunar/mars until private industry can develop that less expensively as well. <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>

 

[pathfinder_01]

“IMHO, NASA is one of the agencies that commits some of the most wasteful practices. They may not buy $200 hammers, but they spend entirely too much money on cost plus contracts to long time partners who have no incentive to perform space missions more efficiently and cost efffectively. NASA needs to change to a system of buying services (launch this payload for x dollars) or fixed price contracts for hardware (provide a robotic system for exploring Europa with these specs, provide a CEV with these capabilities) and then making the contractors responsible for any overruns or additional costs. I believe that the aerospace industry would suddenly find ways to build $50 million dollar systems and ensure that they don't get tipped over because someone forgot to install the bolts!”<br /><br />The trouble is no company in its right mind would accept a cost contract. A cost contract is great when you have the product in hand. I.e. Boeing selling a couple of 747 to a government agency. Boeing knows exactly what a 747 costs, and so long as there is little deviation from a standard 747 they know how much to charge to make a profit. In addition aircraft like the 747 have a market outside of the government with which to recoup R/D costs. <br /><br /> It is not so great when you have to spend money to develop it (like the CEV or the Shuttle or any Robotic mission). <br /> <br />In addition very few CEV will be built to spread to cost of tooling/development over and finally there are no hard numbers with which to go by. <br /><br />How much labor does this thing need to build? What exactly are the material costs? There are sure to be major surprises and set backs in development (i.e. Saturn V’s 1st launch….). What are they and how much will it cost. That is the reason why NASA does cost plus contracts. <br /><br />If NASA could purchase spacecraft from a number of preexisting companies then they wouldn’t need a cost plus contract but at the moment no one keeps Europa landers on hand on th

 

[qso1]

brief:<br />I beleive that if there was less waste, budgets could be trimmed...<br /><br />Me:<br />Where NASA is concerned, budgets have been hacked. Before 1973-74 period, NASA budgets accounted for 2-4% GDP. Since 1973-74, NASA budgets have held at around 1% GDP. Can any other government agency claim such cuts? And what do we have to show for the NASA reductions?<br /><br />brief:<br />and additional money could be allocated for space exploration, or given back to the people.<br /><br />Me:<br />Those are the last two things that would happen. Do you really believe government will do the right thing with NASA cuts? Consider again the cuts that NASA sustained after 1974. We got the Reagan era S&L scandal which taxpayers continue to pay the bailout costs to the tune of anywhere from $100 to $500 B dollars depending on what estimates one goes by.<br /><br />brief:<br />I certainly beleive that NASA does strive to forcast costs accurately. They always seem to be under fire by the Government Accounting Office, and Congress, as well as the media, for their handling of costs. So, I beleive that NASA is already aware of the need for full disclosure, and its need to not be wasteful.<br /><br />Me:<br />Hit the nail on the head here. NASA is under fire year after year by everyone from the OMB to the media. If anything, NASA is one of the most publicly scrutinized agencies to ever exist. Whenever there is a manned mission, its not unusual to see letters to the paper on how we could spend money spent on NASA by spending it to help those in need, etc. Yet the same folks see news accounts of $400 B dollar deficits, $100 B dollars to rebuild a foreign country rather than spend that on needy people here. The Hubble space telescope spent its first three years of life being called the "Troubled Hubble" by the media because of the mirror defect that was eventually repaired, allowing Hubble to revolutionize astronomy.<br /><br />If some politician or pundit said tomorrow that we need to trim NASA <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>

 

[halman]

Something which I think people should bear in mind when discussing the money spent on space exploration; That the science required to travel in space results in discoveries which have many applications on Earth. I am not going to list spin-offs, but instead point out that repeated studies have shown that investment in space exploration pays a greater return on the investment than any other single type of investment.<br /><br />Personally, I believe that many of the problems facing the American economy on the lack of investment in advanced technology. We should be building spacecraft, not competing with Korea for automobile sales. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

halman:<br />Something which I think people should bear in mind when discussing the money spent on space exploration; That the science required to travel in space results in discoveries which have many applications on Earth.<br /><br />Me:<br />I certainly agree with that but the problem is...most human spaceflight critics could care less. Have you ever been able to turn a critics viewpoint around by mentioning such benefits? Its worked for me only in rare instances. I used to point out the teflon spinoff thing only to have critics say NASA didn't invent teflon which is apparently true. Same with IC chips. I also figured NASA should not have to justify human spaceflight on the grounds of spinoffs or that it should provide direct benefits to people on Earth.<br /><br />Bottom line is, those who say we cannot afford human spaceflight base that on a false argument. We could increase NASAs budget by $2 B dollars, accomplish most of what NASA would like to accomplish and still have plenty of money to save from reducing spending on Iraq for example. The money we spend there could be cut by an amount equal to NASAs entire annual budget if critics are really interested in directing saved money to worthy causes. <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>

 

[BReif]

In my earlier post, to correct any misconception that may be occurring, I am not advocating NASA budget cuts, but rather, more efficient budgeting throughout the whole of the federal government, the savings of which could be added to NASA budget (which we all know will never happen), or given to the people (see here the american taxpayer keeping more dollars in his own pocket, not social welfare programs (which we all know also will not happen)). <br /><br />I too am very dismayed that NASA alwys seems to be the target for criticism and cuts by the same people/organizations that never criticize a program that is indeed more wasteful doing something less valuable.<br /><br />I think that the american people need to be re-educated about the real cost and benefits of space programs. Too many people believe that NASA is 10% or more of the federal budget rather than the 0.25% or less that it really is. But, as was stated, spinoff arguments won't work most of the time. Where do you begin given a mainstream media that seems to have an agenda opposing space programs? I am not sure, but I think joining a group like the National Space Society, or the Planetary Society, etc., (geez, I let my memberships lapse, need to renew) is a good start.<br /><br />

 

[spayss]

The spin off argument has nothing to do with poor budgeting and waste. There may be a spin off from developing a new metal alloy but there is no spin off in maintaining a bloated, aging bureaucracy. If fact, 10's of billions put into the shuttle in the last decade has stifled spin offs that would have come otherwise.

 

[holmec]

No!<br /><br />And in my mind any amount is not enough.<br /><br />We need to populate the solar system and learn to live in deep space for long periods if not generations. <br /><br />It comes down to survival. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>I wouldn't get fancy with landing the booty. Just slam it into the desert. It'd be a pretty fireworks show. <<br /><br />That's way too risky for the planet. You could wipe out civilisation let alone nature. I say make processing plants in solar orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Spin-off is useful when it happens but in many cases it has been exaggerated. Neither pacemakers nor teflon are NASA inventions. Medicine is simply not NASA's area of expertise; money spent on National Institutes of Health research grants saves far more lives per dollar. In the old days NASA (then NACA) justified its funding by advancing the technology of flight. Today technology development and aeronautics get little emphasis, though these are the primary areas where NASA could provide direct benefits.<br /><br />Government efficiency is always desireable but there's simply no prospect of applying such gains to any specific progam. If NASA wants more government funding we must convince the electorate they should pay more in taxes to fund it.

 

[j05h]

Budgets, critics, anti-spaceflight environmentalists and spin-offs don't matter if your focus is on private, commercial spaceflight. <br /><br />NASA is still not going to fly you, personally, in space, whether their budget is $16Billion or $24Billion, or even $160Billion. It is not in their mandate. If you want to fly, instead of watching government employees fly, then support private spaceflight. See you at the XPrize Cup. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

brief:<br />In my earlier post, to correct any misconception that may be occurring,<br /><br />Me:<br />I kind of understood where you were coming from and I agree with efficiency in the budgeting process. But being were both realists, we know this will never happen.<br /><br />brief:<br />Where do you begin given a mainstream media that seems to have an agenda opposing space programs?<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats one of NASAs biggest obstacles. It was mainstream media that latched onto the false argument decades ago and has clung to it like a junkyard dog since.<br /><br />brief:<br />I am not sure, but I think joining a group like the National Space Society, or the Planetary Society, etc., (geez, I let my memberships lapse, need to renew) is a good start.<br /><br />Me:<br />Definetily a good start. It would be helpful if the NSS had a front man as it were. Someone like Carl Sagan. A populist sort of space advocate that could maybe get the kind of budgets NASA needs. Unfortunately the damage may already be irreparable and at that point one can only hope private industry can at least get inexpensive LEO access. <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]

spayss:<br />The spin off argument has nothing to do with poor budgeting and waste.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats true. Poor budgeting of the last three decades has generated the waste and bureacracy that is present at NASA. I'm not convinced NASA is a totally bloated bureacracy. The shuttle was something that is still a technical success and one that established that we could build reusable spacecraft. Its costs has been its achilles heel but there is waste in government that is far larger than any wasted money on shuttle. It makes no sense to me to go after small fry when there are these much bigger fish ($400 B dollar deficits, $100 B dollars or more to Iraq), except that the small fry are easy targets, nothing more. Cutting NASA budgets means the money gets wasted elsewhere, thats all.<br /><br />NASA should not have to justify its existence and purpose on the spinoff angle. <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]

vulture2:<br />Spin-off is useful when it happens but in many cases it has been exaggerated. Neither pacemakers nor teflon are NASA inventions.<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree the spinoff thing is nebulous at best. I'm a NASA supporter but while I was doing research for the first book I wrote with intentions of publishing. I initially looked at spinoffs as a justification sort of for continued NASA spending. I could not establish direct links in some cases and realized that while it would be nice to justify NASA spending on spinoff value, its not necessary. I also agree money spent on NIH grants saves lives. NASA weather satellites and satellite data utilized in search and rescue operations have saved countless lives as well.<br /><br />vulture2:<br />Today technology development and aeronautics get little emphasis, though these are the primary areas where NASA could provide direct benefits.<br /><br />Me:<br />NASA is primarily in the space business whereas NACA was about aeronautics. There is not a whole lot of aeronautical research that isn't already being done that would be of much use in commercial aircraft as long as commercial aircraft technology is in more a refinement mode than an advancing one.<br /><br />Specifically, the next big jump in aircraft technology would presumably be to SSTs. SST research is all but stalled. Apparently we do not yet have the ability to overcome the cost barrier there. Not to mention the reason for the barrier which is the tech needed to build a quiet, economically and environmentally friendly SST.<br /><br />vulture2:<br />Government efficiency is always desireable but there's simply no prospect of applying such gains to any specific progam.<br /><br />Me:<br />Right, and because of this, whos to say whether NASA cuts will actually be put to better use elsewhere. NASA has already been reduced to half its Apollo level...politicians and people ought to look for other budget targets. If there is going to be a continued emphasis on cutting NASAs budget. <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]

J05H:<br />NASA is still not going to fly you, personally, in space, whether their budget is $16Billion or $24Billion...<br /><br />Me:<br />Perhaps not NASA, but a modest budget increase at the time Venture Star was being developed might have lead to a robust Venture Star that because Lockmart was the contractor. They could have been the contractor for extended production of Venture Star vehicles that could have been sold to the private sector.<br /><br />J05H:<br />Budgets, critics, anti-spaceflight environmentalists and spin-offs don't matter if your focus is on private, commercial spaceflight.<br /><br />Me:<br />On this I agree. And the focus is shifting towards private enterprise. But its still too early for P.E. to valve off NASA involvement in getting to LEO. If or when P.E. gets inexpensive access to LEO, much of the budget hassles for NASA will be muted.<br /><br />But one other comment on why I consider the budget argument false.<br /><br />On the Venture Star program I mentioned earlier. VS was cancelled because Lockheed exceeded an arbitrary budget cap when it encountered development problems. NASA axed VS because it had to. This was in 2001. The last full budget year was 2000 and NASA was allocated about $13.5 B dollars. The budget surplus for 2000 was nearly $237 B dollars. Now I'm math challenged, but seems to me there was more than enough surplus money to grant NASA $1 or $2 B dollars additional monies to continue VS. And if not, then where are the goodies from that monster surplus? Goodies like major new disease cures, an end to poverty? <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>

 

[nexium]

The USA would do better in space projects, if we could somehow commmit to spending 10% more on space each year for 30 years, even if we did not specify how we were going to spend the money more than 3 years in advance. This would insure high paying jobs long term which would attract the brightest and best to engineering and related fields. At present, we do not have a pool of qualified people to expand space spending more than about 10% per year. Neil

 

[spayss]

nexium,<br /><br /> That is why I'd prefer NASA's budget going to institutions like M.I.T. CalTech. etc. for non-specific research in all area of science and technology. We will land a man on Mars 50 years earlier by expanding a scientific infrastructure in all endeavors of society than in giving the task to government in 2006 to stumble along as it has post Apollo.<br /><br /> Re a 'commitment'. I'm not sure in a democracy my grandkids should be stuck with a decision by grandpa. Think of the deadwood and stifling inertia that would occur if an organization knew it would get 10% more each year. I suppose we could have promised 10% more each year in the 1970's for government research into computer technology....today the government would have warehouses full of rusting wired monstrosities. I'd rather have money put into an educational infrastructure to produce eventual Steve Jobs or Bill Gates and thousands like them so I can sit outside and tap away on my laptop.

 

[j05h]

> Perhaps not NASA, but a modest budget increase at the time Venture Star was being developed might have lead to a robust Venture Star that because Lockmart was the contractor. They could have been the contractor for extended production of Venture Star vehicles that could have been sold to the private sector. <br /><br />I understand your point, but Venturestar wasn't ever seriously in development. Lockmart never even finished the X-33 (single-stage-to-montana) craft, why bring up the craft they proved they couldn't build? Lockheed's plans for Venturestar, even at the time of max development on X-33, were widely criticized in the space press as unworkable. The Big Aero companies have proven they can absorb huge volumes of cash from NASA without flying anything. At least the Air Force expects results for their investment. I have no confidence in the CEV proposals, nor in Venturestar or OSP, etc, etc. We have relatively cheap access as-is: Soyuz, SeaLaunch, Ariane, EELV (where Big Aero does excellent work). I think it's more important to figure out what can be done smartly with available resources than develop new whiz-bang hardware. Nobody except space activists thought that Lockheed would sell a line of Venturestar craft, it was always a dream. <br /><br /> /> And the focus is shifting towards private enterprise. But its still too early for P.E. to valve off NASA involvement in getting to LEO. If or when P.E. gets inexpensive access to LEO, much of the budget hassles for NASA will be muted. <br /><br />I want to live in space, somehow, someday. Mars, Phobos, Uranus, where ever. Just someplace new. NASA isn't responsible for that. The only route that will get me there is industrial development. <br /><br /> />On the Venture Star program I mentioned earlier. VS was cancelled because Lockheed exceeded an arbitrary budget cap when it encountered development problems. NASA axed VS because it had to. This was in 2001. The last full budget year was 2000 and NASA was allocated <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

JO5H:<br /> understand your point, but Venturestar wasn't ever seriously in development. Lockmart never even finished the X-33 (single-stage-to-montana) craft, why bring up the craft they proved they couldn't build?<br /><br />Me:<br />I recall Venture Star being a serious effort among others aimed at what aerospace engineers see as the holy grail of spaceflight to low orbit. And that is the SSTO concept. The X-33 was never finished because NASA or maybe Lockheed capped the development at $1 billion dollars. IIRC, Lockheed had a ceiling on costs because they only had so much they could put towards development.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />I think it's more important to figure out what can be done smartly with available resources than develop new whiz-bang hardware. Nobody except space activists thought that Lockheed would sell a line of Venturestar craft, it was always a dream.<br /><br />Me:<br />This whiz bang idea that an SSTO is some impossible dream and that we should stick with tried and true Soyuz etc. Will keep us right where we have been. Basically you can forget ever going beyond LEO if all we do is continue to rely on already existing hardware.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />That's not how Congress works. And Lockheed could have absorbed whatever billion$ you threw at it without flying their Hangar Queen...<br /><br />Me:<br />Congress works how it sees fit...and Lockheed would have gone bankrupt had it continued funneling its profits from other programs into a Venture Star that as you say, was a dream, and I should point out, I was referring to X-33 when I mentioned Venture Star, my mistake.<br /><br />I agree that hopefully, private industry will take over as the dynamic of space access changes. <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>

 

[christine16]

I am a lil bit disapointed that only about 48% think that We should spend a lot more on Space Exploration <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[alokmohan]

China may give US a challenge soon.You will all be in favour of space exploration.