NASA will be fully funded at $16.2 billion!

wvbraun · Nov 21, 2004

Whatever...

wvbraun · Nov 21, 2004

The numbers are not adjusted for inflation if that's what you mean...

wvbraun · Nov 21, 2004

"Great news! Isn't 16.2 even more than was originally requested?" No. The original senate bill would have funded NASA at $16.4 billion but $800 million of that was emergency funding to be used exclusively for Shuttle RTF and Hubble if I recall correctly. So the senate actually approved 'only' 15.6 billion and made some cuts to the VSE. However, these cuts didn't make it after all. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

wvbraun · Nov 21, 2004

"I'm glad about this, i think we're looking at 4 Solid years of VSE funding, and these first years are the hardest and most crucial, to get the program on a roll and real." Exactly. NASA has to move fast now. They have to get the program so entrenched that no administration will be able to cancel it in 2009.

rogers_buck · Nov 21, 2004

I guess you wouldn't know about the super conductor super collider - not being a citizen. But that is what can happen. Funds were drained away from other science only to have the plug pulled on the SCSC in the end.

JonClarke · Nov 21, 2004

Why shouldn't someone as well informed as wvb know about the SCSC? And I see no relevance of the history SCSC to the current fact that NASA has, over 6 years and two different administrations, has received a steady increase in funding, at least in numerical terms? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

wvbraun · Nov 21, 2004

Actually I've heard about the SCSC. Didn't a lot of physicists complain that the ISS doomed the project because congress couldn't find the money to fund both? A huge waste of effort, they had already begun building it. On the other hand, since there is a new collider under construction at CERN, the Large Hadron Collider, which will presumably have most of the capbilities the SCSC would have had, cancelling the SCSC was probably not too big a mistake. As Jon pointed out you can't compare the SCSC project to the VSE. NASA has more backing in congress than scientist doing basic research with no near term practical applications.

independent · Nov 21, 2004

So I was watching Meet The Press today and heard McCain say that NASA has suffered because of all the recent pork barrel spending, He implied they were underfunded

rogers_buck · Nov 22, 2004

Jon At that time the internet was not so widespread. So my assumption was that the details of that projects cancelation might not have been widely known. No disrespect to WVB, but a canceled project is not so memorable unless it was in your face at some point. WVB & Jon I agree that the SCSC was more of a Texas pork project that did not enjoy such widespread support. It coined the desperaging term "Big Money Science" (as I recall) and was thought to have zapped the funding of many worthy proposals. 1970s, 80s big deficits. 1990s deficit hawks. If axing big money science to help balance the budget is a pattern repeated there could be trouble ahead. The deficits of today are worse than then, and the nations ability to earn is by no means in so strong a position today as it was in the 90s. In the 90s technology allowed the commercialization of all that cold war era technology on a massive scale. That trick is no longer available to us. As WVB points out, all is well as ends well with the SCSC cancelation (except no Higgs as yet), but that same rationale can be applied to Nasa. The ISS will continue to be a drain until 2010+ and so that internal competition for the Nasa $$ will remain. Maybe the programs that will not be funded today are those we will need to quickly recover with newer and cheaper technology if the initiative gets axed? The ISS alone had a negative effect on other Nasa programs. Can't really ignore the economics of the nation when discussing programs the public sees as optional. The moon is more tangible than the Higgs and more urgent thanks to the Chinese. But, public support can't be assumed or it would have been more of an issue in this election. Politicians bail quicker than rats from a sinking ship if they feel their electability is at risk.

rogers_buck · Nov 22, 2004

>> Actually I've heard about the SCSC. Didn't a lot of physicists complain that the ISS doomed the project because congress couldn't find the money to fund both? A huge waste of effort, they had already begun building it. Maybe. But I think the two projects were jointly lumped into the "Big Money Science" bin and scientists complained that they were sucking money from other projects. They may have sucked money from each other, but I don't remember that as being an issue other than they were drawing from the same ultimate well. The cancelation was good for me, because I hired a couple of the SCSC engineers after they got the sack. (-;

JonClarke · Nov 22, 2004

Buck Rogers The SCSC was closely in all the main serious and popular science journals at the time - Nature, Science, Scientific American, New Scientist, for example. It also received quite a bit of coverage on radio and TV science programs, so even in the benighted time BI (Before Internet) people outside the US could avail themselves of what was going on. I certainly knew about it, and I was a hairy knuckled geologist working in a mining town out in whoop whoop at the time <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Cheers Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

erioladastra · Nov 23, 2004

Actually, one of the biggest factors of canceling the SCSC was poor managment. Cost overruns and mistakes were causing major problems. That combined with the price tag in tight times and the fact that the Europeans were ahead in this area pushed congress to pull the plug. ISS was not a factor.

SpaceKiwi · Nov 23, 2004

Does this budget fully fund projects related to the CEV in fiscal 2005? I know there was talk of deferrment of funding for this earlier in the budgetary haggling, but does the 16.2b allow everyone to get properly underway on CEV? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

halman · Nov 23, 2004

wvbraun, Could you chart the NASA budget from 1965 to the beginning of the one that you posted? I think that it would explain a lot of the problems that spaceflight has experienced in the United States. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

no_way · Nov 23, 2004

Ok, Centennial Challenges got slashed by 50%. LRO, the only first measureable milestone of VSE got only 10mil funding, which forces program managers already to talk about severely scaling back the project and/or delaying it. Martian science programs got a boost which i didnt think was a top priority at all for VSE ( source: nasawatch.com ) Where the HECK are the good news for VSE, i ask you ?

wvbraun · Nov 23, 2004

I can't find details anywhere but as far as I know development of the CEV is fully funded. That's the good news right there. The CEV is the centerpiece of the VSE. Everything else is secondary. Cuts to LRO: I don't see a problem if it gets delayed a year or two. Centennial Challenges: I'm much more worried that congress refused to give NASA the authority to award prizes of more than $250,000. "Martian science programs got a boost which i didnt think was a top priority at all for VSE" It's "Moon, Mars & Beyond". Of course Mars is a priority.

wvbraun · Nov 23, 2004

"Could you chart the NASA budget from 1965 to the beginning of the one that you posted?" I did a quick google search: NASA budget in 1996 dollars (1959-1996)

wvbraun · Nov 23, 2004

Budget ax falls on lunar probe But just before midnight Friday, 24 hours ahead of a deadline for Congress to pass a budget, DeLay threatened to not let his colleagues vote on the budget if NASA did not get all its money. For the first time anyone could remember, NASA was a deciding factor in a budget deal, according to DeLay and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Melbourne. "To quote Mr. O'Keefe," said JSC Director Jefferson Howell, "the leader was a champ." Politics was key, as it was when another powerful Texan, Lyndon Johnson, fought for the money and resources needed to fulfill President Kennedy's call to put men on the moon. The 2000 redrawing of Congressional districts shifted DeLay's district to include the Johnson Space Center. However, DeLay said he's always been a "space nut" and resolved to fight long-term for funding space exploration. "We still have our battles to fight, engineers and legislators both," DeLay said. "For NASA, a day without a challenge is like a night without stars." Space Exploration and a Tale of Two Presidents Bush At this point, the Bush Administration proved that it had learned something from the mistakes of its predecessor. Congressman Tom Delay, now House Majority Leader, announced that the House appropriations bill that gutted the President’s initiative would never reach the House floor. With control of the House schedule, Delay had that power. The White House Office of Management and Budget announced that any appropriations bill that resembled the House bill would be veto. It was an extremely bold threat considering that NASA funding shared the same bill with popular veterans and housing programs. Instead of caving, the White House had drawn a line in the sand. There the fight remained in limbo. Th

rogers_buck · Nov 23, 2004

You probably have seen this. http://www.space.com/news/aps_report_041123.html

summoner · Nov 23, 2004

I read that earlier, and in my opinion it's inevitable that there are going to be groups that complain because they feel like their funding may be threatened or that their research may not be tought of as important as something else. I disagree with them. To me going back to the moon especially if we can create a permanent presence will bring many people back to science. I think it needs to be looked at as a long term project instead of what it may do to a short term budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

rogers_buck · Nov 23, 2004

I can agree with that. No more flags and footprints or else why bother? The cheap launch curve does have to converge though. The article speaks to the national academy goals which are important, but doesn't speak to the other cost reduction programs that might be jeopardized. We need all of these things, so I hope NASA is getting enough money and will continue to get enough money so that it doesn't wind up eating its young.

NASA will be fully funded at $16.2 billion!

wvbraun

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

independent

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

halman

Guest

no_way

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

summoner

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page