NASA's 5% Cut for 2012 - What $1B Program should be killed?

[sftommy]

Obama is looking for 5% cuts in discretionary spending from most agencies for the 2012 budget.

If NASA has to cut 5% it would be roughly $1 Billion.

Rather than an across-the-board savings effort, the summaries I've read seemed to indicate they're looking to save by eliminating some entire programs.

What billion dollar NASA program would the readers here suggest if the cut has to be made in next years budget?

 

[Valcan]

Obama is looking for 5% cuts in discretionary spending from most agencies for the 2012 budget.

If NASA has to cut 5% it would be roughly $1 Billion.

Rather than an across-the-board savings effort, the summaries I've read seemed to indicate they're looking to save by eliminating some entire programs.

What billion dollar NASA program would the readers here suggest if the cut has to be made in next years budget?

Nothing its like saying you need to watch your money and stop buying a stick of gum every week. Nasa gets less and contributes more. The only thing in my opinion theat REALLY needs to get cut is welfare and such but thats another discussion entirely.

 

[rcsplinters]

This is a no brainer. You drop that bloated commercial manned spaceflight pork barrel. Absolutely zero impact except the administration looses a slush fund for political favors. Manned space flight is dead away, NASA would never know it was gone regarding the science missions.

If the commercial ventures really have a legit business model, then they don't need it and we'll be the better for it. If the business model is weak or not legitimate, better they die on the vine.

 

[steve82]

Not a cut exactly but there would be noticeable cost savings. They should take the Orbiting Carbon Observatory and all terrestrial climate research away from NASA and give it to NOAA. This administration has formally created a Climate Change office within NOAA that is supposed to be responsible for all of that anyway and this would be an ideal opportunity to set things right. NOAA should use the money and either pursue it more or compete it against its other priorities such as accurate hurricane and weather monitoring and supercomputers, etc. If NOAA wants a satellite, they can take the money and go out and have somebody build it for them like everybody else does and get a commercial launch provider to put it in orbit for them.

 

[nimbus]

Not a cut exactly but there would be noticeable cost savings. They should take the Orbiting Carbon Observatory and all terrestrial climate research away from NASA and give it to NOAA. This administration has formally created a Climate Change office within NOAA that is supposed to be responsible for all of that anyway and this would be an ideal opportunity to set things right. NOAA should use the money and either pursue it more or compete it against its other priorities such as accurate hurricane and weather monitoring and supercomputers, etc. If NOAA wants a satellite, they can take the money and go out and have somebody build it for them like everybody else does and get a commercial launch provider to put it in orbit for them.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=21927.0

 

[Valcan]

This is a no brainer. You drop that bloated commercial manned spaceflight pork barrel. Absolutely zero impact except the administration looses a slush fund for political favors. Manned space flight is dead away, NASA would never know it was gone regarding the science missions.

If the commercial ventures really have a legit business model, then they don't need it and we'll be the better for it. If the business model is weak or not legitimate, better they die on the vine.

Manned spaceflight is the POINT of spaceflight. Hmmmm

You know what do this...I cant remember the books name think its by Issac asimov. It was about a mechanical civilization on titan i think. The people who accidentaly created that biosphere and civilization would provid a good lesson for you.

 

[steve82]

Not a cut exactly but there would be noticeable cost savings. They should take the Orbiting Carbon Observatory and all terrestrial climate research away from NASA and give it to NOAA. This administration has formally created a Climate Change office within NOAA that is supposed to be responsible for all of that anyway and this would be an ideal opportunity to set things right. NOAA should use the money and either pursue it more or compete it against its other priorities such as accurate hurricane and weather monitoring and supercomputers, etc. If NOAA wants a satellite, they can take the money and go out and have somebody build it for them like everybody else does and get a commercial launch provider to put it in orbit for them.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=21927.0

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-09/n ... sea-levels

 

[rcsplinters]

This is a no brainer. You drop that bloated commercial manned spaceflight pork barrel. Absolutely zero impact except the administration looses a slush fund for political favors. Manned space flight is dead away, NASA would never know it was gone regarding the science missions.

If the commercial ventures really have a legit business model, then they don't need it and we'll be the better for it. If the business model is weak or not legitimate, better they die on the vine.

Manned spaceflight is the POINT of spaceflight. Hmmmm

You know what do this...I cant remember the books name think its by Issac asimov. It was about a mechanical civilization on titan i think. The people who accidentaly created that biosphere and civilization would provid a good lesson for you.

LOL! Me read Isaac Asimov, now that was funny. Sorry, you'd have to know me to understand the humor. I particularly enjoyed his Foundation series. However, I wonder if the book you are referencing is the Immortality Option by James A Hogan where the Taloids are found on Titan.

Actually manned space flight is one point of spaceflight. Of course, its rather more complicated than that. However, my point is that as a country we have recently chosen to leave manned space flight to the more progressive countries like Russia, India and China. There's no point in having commercial pork in the budget when we need to cut funding by 1B. We leave manned space flight to the countries which still have the courage and leadership to support such a program and we continue our robotic missions and other science. This cut would have no significant impact on NASA and shouldn't bother the commercial efforts which are based on sound business practice. Of course the companies which were banking on that money as a primary revenue stream might be upset, but I'm not concerned about them.

 

[nimbus]

If NOAA wants a satellite, they can take the money and go out and have somebody build it for them like everybody else does

That's already how it is. If NOAA wants a satellite, they fund the development of instruments and the NASA spacecraft to bear them, operate both once they're up there, and use the data produced. NASA only develops and deploys, and procures. The article you linked doesn't say anything about this process.

 

[steve82]

If NOAA wants a satellite, they can take the money and go out and have somebody build it for them like everybody else does

That's already how it is. If NOAA wants a satellite, they fund the development of instruments and the NASA spacecraft to bear them, operate both once they're up there, and use the data produced. NASA only develops and deploys, and procures. The article you linked doesn't say anything about this process.

No, the article doesn't, it's about the declaration of NOAA as the agency responsible for climate monitoring. Which is fine, they should take that money and put it to that use and prioritize it against their other responsibilities instead of having NASA have to serve as the intermediary and scrape off it's costs and developing and launching the satellite. Moreover, NASA does an awful lot of climaate change research that doesn't involve technical work with satellites at all. Give James Hansen an office at NOAA, he'll find a rapt audience. Don't you find it interesting that the same administration that says we should trust our astronaut's lives to commercial entities doesn't trust them with NOAA's satellites?

 

[neutrino78x]

Of course, its rather more complicated than that. However, my point is that as a country we have recently chosen to leave manned space flight to the more progressive countries like Russia, India and China.

Nope. All we did was say that US astronauts will go to LEO in commercial rockets. This is by no means abandonment of the space program. There will still be US government astronauts and official US government manned space missions.

We leave manned space flight to the countries which still have the courage and leadership to support such a program

I see, so, from 1790 to 1798, when there was neither a Continental Navy nor a Department of the Navy, the United States somehow lacked "courage and leadership"??? So, George Washington, being the President of the United States at the time, lacked courage and leadership?? Were we not a seafaring nation during those 8 years?

I'll have you know that there were many US ships during that time, flying the US Flag. They just weren't Navy or US Government vessels.

I'll say it again...if there are rockets with the US Flag painted on them, launching from US soil, subject to US law, made in the USA, with a US crew, that is a United States space program. I don't see how it wouldn't be.

That recent SpaceX launch: are you suggesting that was not a US launch??? I saw a US Flag on the rocket. It was launched on US soil. A US company. Made in the US. How is it not a US launch?

Today, most ships on the Sea are private merchant vessels.

Right now, there is no compelling reason for NASA to have a fleet of LEO rockets. The time will come when vessels are permanently in space with "US NAVY" painted on them, and names like "USS ENTERPRISE" but now is not that time.

Now is the time for the government to encourage and stimulate the well regulated private exploitation of space.

--Brian

 

[nimbus]

instead of having NASA have to serve as the intermediary and scrape off it's costs and developing and launching the satellite.

?

Don't you find it interesting that the same administration that says we should trust our astronaut's lives to commercial entities doesn't trust them with NOAA's satellites?

Aren't NASA already looking at using Scaled Composites' WK carriers, and/or Armadillo/Masten's VTVLs, and so on, for science missions?

 

[Booban]

That recent SpaceX launch: are you suggesting that was not a US launch??? I saw a US Flag on the rocket. It was launched on US soil. A US company. Made in the US. How is it not a US launch?

--Brian

Cause the dude talks with a funny accent.

 

[rcsplinters]

Of course, its rather more complicated than that. However, my point is that as a country we have recently chosen to leave manned space flight to the more progressive countries like Russia, India and China.

Nope. All we did was say that US astronauts will go to LEO in commercial rockets. This is by no means abandonment of the space program. There will still be US government astronauts and official US government manned space missions.

We leave manned space flight to the countries which still have the courage and leadership to support such a program

I see, so, from 1790 to 1798, when there was neither a Continental Navy nor a Department of the Navy, the United States somehow lacked "courage and leadership"??? So, George Washington, being the President of the United States at the time, lacked courage and leadership?? Were we not a seafaring nation during those 8 years?

I'll have you know that there were many US ships during that time, flying the US Flag. They just weren't Navy or US Government vessels.

I'll say it again...if there are rockets with the US Flag painted on them, launching from US soil, subject to US law, made in the USA, with a US crew, that is a United States space program. I don't see how it wouldn't be.

That recent SpaceX launch: are you suggesting that was not a US launch??? I saw a US Flag on the rocket. It was launched on US soil. A US company. Made in the US. How is it not a US launch?

Today, most ships on the Sea are private merchant vessels.

Right now, there is no compelling reason for NASA to have a fleet of LEO rockets. The time will come when vessels are permanently in space with "US NAVY" painted on them, and names like "USS ENTERPRISE" but now is not that time.

Now is the time for the government to encourage and stimulate the well regulated private exploitation of space.

--Brian

Oh yes, I know some little bit about history. I'm not sure how an 8 year stretch in a fledgling country's history forms any objective precedent in this situation unless I'm really stretching for a rationalization. I do find the comparison of navel capability at the time with our current development in manned spaceflight to be a little comical. Ship building at the time was comparatively far more advanced. And do I think a private company sporting a US flag makes it a US flight? Of course not, any more than I think a US Cosmonaunt wearing flag on his arm makes that flight a US flight. They could off shore next week. It happens in business, a lot. The US administration is attempting to abandon manned space flight and they may succeed. Given that, why waste the pork on it in the private sector when they really shouldn't need it anyway if they are legit.

Now I've said where I'd cut the 1B and it would have virtually no effect on NASA. Where would you cut it with similar results? That is the point of the thread.

 

[Valcan]

This is a no brainer. You drop that bloated commercial manned spaceflight pork barrel. Absolutely zero impact except the administration looses a slush fund for political favors. Manned space flight is dead away, NASA would never know it was gone regarding the science missions.

If the commercial ventures really have a legit business model, then they don't need it and we'll be the better for it. If the business model is weak or not legitimate, better they die on the vine.

Manned spaceflight is the POINT of spaceflight. Hmmmm

You know what do this...I cant remember the books name think its by Issac asimov. It was about a mechanical civilization on titan i think. The people who accidentaly created that biosphere and civilization would provid a good lesson for you.

LOL! Me read Isaac Asimov, now that was funny. Sorry, you'd have to know me to understand the humor. I particularly enjoyed his Foundation series. However, I wonder if the book you are referencing is the Immortality Option by James A Hogan where the Taloids are found on Titan.

Actually manned space flight is one point of spaceflight. Of course, its rather more complicated than that. However, my point is that as a country we have recently chosen to leave manned space flight to the more progressive countries like Russia, India and China. There's no point in having commercial pork in the budget when we need to cut funding by 1B. We leave manned space flight to the countries which still have the courage and leadership to support such a program and we continue our robotic missions and other science. This cut would have no significant impact on NASA and shouldn't bother the commercial efforts which are based on sound business practice. Of course the companies which were banking on that money as a primary revenue stream might be upset, but I'm not concerned about them.

Yep my bad was a good book though. Theres no point in cutting Nasa's budget like i said its so freakin tiny it wouldnt make a difference. Wana know where all the money goes? Entitlments.

Cut those you might get somewhere.

China isnt progressive and it damn sure wouldnt do anything for anyone else. Plus china is ina precarious possition. There out of cheap cheap labor now that other countries have gotten into the game.

Do i think robotic probs and such are vital yes BUT if you cut manned space Nasa will die. The American people may not be really excited about shuttle launches but you can point to what is in the future with that and you have astronauts. The dont give a dang about why titan has gas seas.

We as a nation are reaping what we have sown. We taugh kids sports where more important than science. Ok but then we taught them having fun was more important than winning.

So what do we have left? We have spoiled generations who have been taught to do what feels good and vote the way there told. Those are called proles.

Making lots of money in a dangerous job is considered brave and cool. Being a astronaut and mining asteroids or the moon that gives you stories scars. Talking about how you spent 5 yrs constructing a 500,000,000 dollar machine that gets questions about waste.

Of course i think the probes are awesome i also think we need to work on standardizing our designes. Maybe we need to start doing probes for cheap mass production?

 

[rcsplinters]

OH, I have to straighten this out. Valcan, in my best Richard Nixon imitation, "Let me make one thing perfectly clear".

I would NOT cut NASA's budget if I were in a position to make that decision. Were I the pres, I make one statement, that being, 'We're going to Mars in 20 - 25 years, now you tell me what you need'. That effort would pay for itself over and over with the technologies it would spin off. Light weight nuclear reactors for ion propulsion and on and on. Were it up to me, I'd have a 140 ton (or more) heavy lift booster in 7 - 8 years because ANYTHING beyond LEO is going to need it. I'd be back in orbit in 4 with a vehicle complementary to the long range goals. It would do double duty for all LEO requirements until and if commercial ventures ever made good on the political hype we're getting fed now. Lastly, I'd be doing research for what's going to replace all this stuff in 40 or so years. I don't care what it cost because we'd get all that back long term with technology transfer into the private sector. NASA, the military and roads are about the only tax dollars I don't begrudge. If I had my way, every tax nickle I pay (and I pay many, let me assure you) would go almost exclusively to those three things.

That said, the thread asked what billion would we cut. Under the current pathetic agenda, that annual $1B NASA commercial pork barrel is just stupid and totally wasted. We could cut that and nobody would miss a dime, particularly NASA.

I simply can't believe we're don't have a shuttle replacement RIGHT NOW with deep space capability. Bush had good intentions but wimped out (as did most before him) and Obama has totally embarassed our nation by making the greatest mistake involving technology since the invention of the wheel. Just don't even get me started on Bolden.

 

[neutrino78x]

That recent SpaceX launch: are you suggesting that was not a US launch??? I saw a US Flag on the rocket. It was launched on US soil. A US company. Made in the US. How is it not a US launch?

--Brian

Cause the dude talks with a funny accent.

That can't be it, because he is an American citizen. Accent doesn't change that.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

Oh yes, I know some little bit about history. I'm not sure how an 8 year stretch in a fledgling country's history forms any objective precedent in this situation unless I'm really stretching for a rationalization.

We didn't need US Navy ships at the time, and we don't need NASA owned launchers now.

And do I think a private company sporting a US flag makes it a US flight? Of course not, any more than I think a US Cosmonaunt wearing flag on his arm makes that flight a US flight.

So, by your logic, the Queen Mary 2 is not a British ship. She is not a Royal Navy vessel, and her name is not HMS Queen Mary 2.

She still flies the British flag, is considered British soil, and is subject to the orders of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II. I think it is a British ship.

Similarly, the Falcon 9 is an American rocket.

The US administration is attempting to abandon manned space flight and they may succeed.

No more so than George Washington abandoned seagoing ships.

Given that, why waste the pork on it in the private sector when they really shouldn't need it anyway if they are legit.

To accelerate development, stimulate the economy, create jobs, etc.

Now I've said where I'd cut the 1B and it would have virtually no effect on NASA. Where would you cut it with similar results? That is the point of the thread.

That's only 1/20 of their budget, should be pretty easy. Lower the pay for personnel, for example. I think government workers should be paid like I was in the military. The military gets a budget for personnel pay, divides it by the number of people at each pay grade, and that's what you get paid, regardless of your job.

It is supposed to be about serving your country.

--Brian