NASA 2009 Budget info

[venator_3000]

This might be old news here but here is some info on NASAs 2009 budget...<br /><br />Capsule (pun intended)<br />http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/nasa.html<br /><br />Big Bad 800 page budget...(loads like molasses)<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY...t_Estimates.pdf <br /><br />Other capsule:<br />http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Unveils_New_Budget_Request_For_2009_999.html<br /><br />And at the mars Society..<br />http://www.marssociety.org/portal/mars-news-from-the-san-diego-chapter/TMSSD_News_34150<br /><br />And (last but not least) at NASA..<br />http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08034_FY2009_budget.html<br /><br />Lots of interesting takes on all of this. The lunar probes might be of interest, especially if they are planning a manned return mission(s). Possible redirection of robotic resources from Mars to Luna.<br /><br />v3k <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

from spaceflightnow:<br />http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0802/04nasa09budget/<br /><br />Woo Hoo, a 1.8% increase for NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

The Outer Planet flagship mission is exciting. Will depend on discussions with ESA, JAXA.<br />Place your bets: Jovian system or Saturnian system? <br /><br />http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13276-nasa-calls-for-ambitious-outer-solar-system-mission.html

 

[jschaef5]

Aeronautics is now down to 447 million...<br /><br />Anyone else think we should maybe start thinking about taking the first A out of NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Huntster]

Well, we can't have two NSAs, and guess which would win out if they had to choose one? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[venator_3000]

Yet the 1st A may actually have more of a direct impact on the majority of people's lives than the S... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Well, we can't have two NSAs, and guess which would win out if they had to choose one?</font>/i><br /><br />It would be nice to have NSA's budget and use it for space science and exploration. We would probably have outposts/colonies in several locations by now.</i>

 

[Huntster]

Heh, possible, but they really don't have a huge sum to work with themselves, though every dollar does help. The estimated budget for the National Security Agency was 7.5 billion for 2006, at least according to GlobalSecurity.org. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Huntster]

It's all about learning as much as they can about the environment before manned missions. It also ensures that the maximum targeted science can be conducted while boots are on the ground. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"It's all about learning as much as they can about the environment before manned missions."</font><br /><br />We've already sent manned missions to the moon without sending <br />an unmanned scout to the location first. It's hardly unknown territory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Huntster]

In a way, isn't that like Columbus saying upon reaching the New World, "Well, I've seen this area...everything else must be just like it". Certainly the moon features less varied terrain than Earth, but it is still wrong (in my opinion) to hold such a sentiment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Doesn't make sense to me, sending robotic landers in 2014 when they hope to have men by 2017.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, for starters, lately NASA has been talking about the manned mission being 2020, and with budget increases coming in below expectations, huge budget deficits looming, and even Obama stating that he plans to slow down spending on VSE, I would not be surprised to see the 2020 date slip ever more.<br /><br />Robotic landers can also produce "ground truth" that LRO and other orbiters cannot. It would be like saying the MERS are useless because we have MRO. While humans have been to the Moon and brought back material, it would probably be foolish to assume that the Moon is universally the same everywhere. Robotics may also be sent to more dangerous locations that we would probably not risk human lives.<br /><br />Also, putting eyes and wheels on the ground will help keep enthusiasm up during the long drought before humans (at least from the US return to the lunar surface).</i>

 

[qso1]

During the moon race, someone was asked during the early years when we were behind in the space race what we expected to find on the moon, and the answer was "Russians".<br /><br />Maybe now, the same question might be asked again with the answer being "Rutans" or "Bigelows" which would probably be a good thing. Obama wants to slow down an already slow program, makes sense in his world I guess. <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>

 

[josh_simonson]

NASA does 90% of the space research in the country, but the DOD and private industry does 99% of the aeronautics research. Why should NASA pay to make scramjets, ect, when DARPA is willing to? I'd argue that the aeronautics sector has outgrown the need for a government agency dedicated to spending money on it.

 

[venator_3000]

I think you are correct regarding the expenditures of private industry. The contracts are either for airlines or DOD. <br /><br />Still, the need for research into aeronautics has not fallen by the wayside. And the aeronautics effort of NASA researchers tends to explore areas that the DOD may not have an interest in and private industry would not view as having any specific earned value for their shareholders. That being said, much of the testing done by industry on such aircraft, whether it be a military jet like the F22 or an airliner such as the Boeing 777, is conducted at NASA facilities. Indeed, NASA and the major aircraft builders in the US have a long history of collaboration. <br /><br />NASA (as in the first A, Aeronautics) focuses on aviation safety, human factors, quiet aircraft systems and applications, small aircraft, experimental aircraft, fuel efficiency, and atmospheric sciences. It does these quite well.<br /><br />I think part of science is putting the questions to nature. Indeed, there are many fundamental questions about fluid mechanics and thermofluid sciences that NASA, partnered with academia, may be in the better position to investigate and answer. Also, NASA aeronautics research is for the most part open and accessible. I do not believe that in many cases private sector research or DOD research would, for various reasons, be quite as open. <br /><br />v3k<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[corbarrad]

jschaef5<br />"<font color="yellow">Anyone else think we should maybe start thinking about taking the first A out of NASA?</font><br /><br />Well, as long as we still have to pass through the "A" to get to the "S" I think it's quite alright for it to be there.