New NASA budget - increase $$ for failed programs

[askold]

More money for failed programs - the Shuttle and manned exploration - at the expense of the science programs that have been successful and producing positive results.<br /><br />What sense does that make?<br /><br />NASA has become a worthless bureaucracy.

 

[askold]

Today, a reporter asked the administrator, "last September you said that not one thin dime would be taken away from the science programs for human spaceflight and exploration. Is what you just said, that that's exactly what has been done, not just one thin dime but two billion dollars taken away from space science to complete the ISS?" <br /><br />"Yep, that's right," Griffin said with his usual candor. "I wish we hadn't had to do it, I didn't want to, but that's what we needed to do." <br /><br />.....<br /><br />Griffin is a con man. He'll lie and do anything he can to keep his precious shuttle program alive. That's where the big man-power expenditures are.

 

[ehs40]

Griffin is making the decisions that all others are too afraid to make. he became administrator with NASA gasping for air and about to die with him in charge the shuttle has flown and with the mishap of the 114 foam shedding the shuttle will be fixed and fly again in less than a year. We have a replacement for the aging shuttle that needs retirment. you cant make all the people happy all the time no matter what you do he just has the courage to make the decisions that no one else has the balls to its not his fault the shuttle came apart on reentry but hes doing a fine job to get them flying again now and well into the future

 

[n_kitson]

Like you, I'm concerned about the science programs. However, I expected much larger cuts, so am fairly content with the way things turned out.<br /><br />What does concern me the most is the MASSIVE cut on aeronautics. Time to remain NASA to NSA - the current budget wipes out aeronautics.

 

[arkady]

I dont consider the shuttle a failed program. In fact it has a special place in my heart. I remember watching Columbia's maiden flight as a little kid and that was what initially got me interested in space exploration alltogether. It was a technological marvel of it's time. The PR value alone would have justified it existence. Besides the moonlandings, which was before my time, I can't think of a better ambassador of American ingenuity and engineering than the shuttle. And thats without taking into account the countless missions it has flown.<br /><br />It may well be getting old, but I fail to see why it's not an object of reverance and respect around here. Respect your elderly! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[tomnackid]

If the shuttle is a failure it is because the goals determined by the congress and the administration were wrong, short-sighted and incompetent. As far as the engineering goes the Shuttle accomplished what it was designed to on a ludicrously small developmental budget. The politicians didn't give a dam about the operational cost since most of them would be gone by the time the shuttle flew. Maybe one could argue that NASA should have refused to build any kind of shuttle under the conditions they were forced to work under, but that' another discussion. And contrary to popular belief the shuttle development program did not go way over budget. It ended up about 15% over--a rather modest overrun for high a risky, high-tech project.

 

[crix]

Gah! What's wrong with not having the ability to launch people into space for a couple years?? As long as we can launch other payloads what's the big deal? We can buy those services elsewhere. I upset that more money is being spent on the shuttle when it seems there could be some way to just tell the rest of the world they'll have to wait til our new hardware is built before we can get the rest of their ISS moduls in place. hell, we can invade Iraq but we can't tell Japan to be patient?

 

[rocketman5000]

True, however there are several ISS components that can only be launched on the Shuttle due to size. Maybe it we had the Shuttle derived HLV we could retire the shuttle. Which brings to the paradox of we can't build the HLV without ending the shuttle.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">... his precious shuttle program ...</font>/i><br /><br />Griffin is <i>not</i> fan of the shuttle or ISS. His criticism of the program have been pretty strong (at least before he became administrator -- at which point he had to tone down is comments because employees get all upset).</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

Many people also don't understand that the shuttle program is a maze of contracts with the various suppliers that support it. Since it was planned to run the shuttle until 2025 until recently, many of these contracts were for 5 and ten year terms, ect. Presumably many are up for renewal in 2010, which makes then a cheap time to stop the program. Stopping before then will result in NASA having to pay off or pay to break the contracts without flying - a complete waste of money. They might as well fly the things until they reach a good point to shut them down.<br /><br />That may sound like a crappy way to do buisness to you, but if you were ATK, would you build a factory to make SRBs if your only customer was unwilling to gurantee they'd buy a certain quantity of them?<br /><br />Add to that launch contracts for ISS, and the case for continuing the shuttle is compelling.

 

[mikejz]

I would not argue that the the shuttle is a failure at all on a technical bases, in fact it is an amazing achievement.<br /><br />However, it is a complete and utter failure based on an analysis of input to outputs. We have put far more into the shuttle program/ISS than we have ever gotten out.

 

[BReif]

Certainly, I wish that the funding was available to "do it all", to fund some of the space science missions that are indefinitely delayed, as well as fund the shuttle completely in order to finish ISS construction, and develop the CEV and Shuttle derived HLV. <br /><br />In order to complete the station, we need the lifting capacity and cargo bay, EVA platforms of the Space Shuttle. We do not currently have any other platform to lauch these modules. <br /><br />We need to develop the CEV and the HLV as soon as possible so that our human spaceflight program, and the Vision for Space Exploartion moves forward without too much delay between programs. <br /><br />We also need to continue to fund robotic science missions as well. <br /><br />As Mike Griffin said in his briefing, priorities need to be set with the resources that we have, and it is not possible to please everyone, and do every program. <br /><br />One of the aspects of the Vision articulated was that the science and robotic missions that were to be flown were to contribute to the knowledge that we needed to support human exploration. Therefore, I see it as completely understandable, given what was articulated, that the Mission to Europa, the Terrestrial Planet Finder Mission, and others would be postposed indefinitely, since they do not support human exploration at this time. There is no plan at this time to send humans to Europa, or to Terrestrial planets in other solar systems. Lunar Recon Orbiter is still a go, and Robotic Mars Exploration is still a go, since these are more directly going to impact the direction of human spaceflight in the comong decades. <br /><br />Also, the completion of the ISS was articulated as a part of the Vision as well, so finishing construction, and increasing the crew capacity, and human-life sciences onboard is a goal of the VSE that is more near-term than either the Moon or Mars, and can be argued that it is necessary before the Moon and Mars. So, funding Shuttle and ISS as

 

[spayss]

BBC: "To help pay for 16 shuttle missions to the space station, Nasa plans to divert about $2bn (£1.1bn) from its science programmes and another $1.5bn (£0.9bn) from its new lunar venture between now and 2010. "<br /><br />'Fu...ing' joke. The odds of those '16' Shuttle flights being flown is next to zilch. Maybe a couple more flights and a year delay or so between them.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[no_way]

The Big Pork has spoken. Hugh !

 

[toymaker]

"Griffin is making the decisions that all others are too afraid to make"<br />Cancelling science in favour of shuttle and ISS ?

 

[toymaker]

Yuk what a disgrace-a year full of great news and what does NASA list as their greatest achievements at top of all other:<br />&#1048707;<br />" Space Shuttle Discovery successfully completed a Return-To-Flight experimental test mission to the<br />International Space Station, the first Shuttle mission since the Columbia accident in 2003. The mission<br />included breathtaking maneuvers, spacewalks, and tests of new procedures and safety equipment.<br />&#1048707; NASA and the International Space Station Partners marked the fifth anniversary of continuous crewed<br />operations in November 2005. NASA scientists have gathered vital information in the Space Station's<br />unique microgravity environment, an orbiting laboratory that cannot be duplicated on Earth."<br /><br />WOW-a man can see Earth and wave at us in the sky. My, my what a scientific revolution.

 

[toymaker]

"NASA scientists have gathered vital information in the Space Station's<br />unique microgravity environment, an orbiting laboratory that cannot be duplicated on Earth."<br />I can give a bet that a simpler an cheaper robotic satelite would do all that and more.

 

[erioladastra]

"but we can't tell Japan to be patient?"<br /><br />Actually, the partners have been patient for many, many years. And I can't speak for the Japanese but due to the delays etc ESA is fighting for their program to survive. If they don't get up soon (or look like they will) ESA could seriously cut their module and support altogether. This is why the partners are pushing very hard to accelerate their flights int he assembly sequnce.

 

[askold]

I don't think the VSE ever said that NASA should throttle the science programs to go to the moon a little sooner.<br /><br />There are two issues here:<br /><br />First - the science programs are producing tangible results in the here and now. Every year we're learning completely new things about the universe. Why do we want to slow that down? These discoveries will make it more practical go send people into space.<br /><br />Second - why do we have to go to the moon in 2020, or whatever the date is? The moon will still be there in 10 years. Besides, everybody knows the manned missions will be way overbudget and late. So, why get all excited about going to the moon real soon - it's not going to happen anyway.<br /><br />This is just insane - take money from the productive programs and give it to the do-nothing programs.

 

[egom]

Askold, the moon will be there in 10 years. Do you ask yourself if we will be here in 10 years? What if suddenly Iran realizes that they have nuclear bombs and bomb US? If you ever looked at predator 2 you must have heared the famous words: "&%$#@! happens!". I think that NASA manned missions are the plan B for humanity in case that &%$#@! happens.<br />Yes, science is good, but it is no good if you are dead.

 

[toymaker]

"What if suddenly Iran realizes that they have nuclear bombs and bomb US? "<br />One or two US cities become destroyed.<br />Iran becomes a glass skating plate.<br />Humanity doesn't perish.<br />What's your point ?

 

[dreada5]

I support VSE and agree with its necessity. I'm not saying that the great science misisons to deep space such as cassini, galileo and pluto probes etc aren't exciting and productive missions (a europa probe would be very interesting!). I'm not saying they don't excite children, inspire youth and benefit the science community and the world at large. I'm saying its all about priorities.<br /><br />Like it or not, <b>VSE is the BIG PICTURE!!</b><br /><br />The public have always dreamed of going to the stars for MANY reasons, its ingrained into our society and since the public is paying the bill... I say, give the people want they want!<br /><br />Look at what Apollo did for the US public and the science community during the 70s and look how negatively NASA is seen by the public today! Believe it or not robotic missions to the planets are far TOO easy for the agency these days! NASA needs a BIGGER challenge and today there is no greater challenge than HUMAN exploration of space. This is what our generation is destined to do.<br /><br />Once NASA has trailblazed off-world living in the form of moon and mars bases etc, the private sector will follow like they did with the first private space flight a couple years ago.<br /><br />But NASA must trailblaze this area for the rest of the world because that's what the younger generation expect and want NASA to do! Now if that means having to pursue both manned and robotic exploration simultaneously on a limited budget, then as hard as it is NASA must prioritise and put that next big "Europa Explorer" robotic mission on hold a bit. This is exactly what Mike Griffin is doing. I for one, applaud him for it!!<br /><br />Sorry mr scientist, but Luna here we come! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />

 

[toymaker]

"Once NASA has trailblazed off-world living in the form of moon and mars bases"<br />How people are easly deceived. I have seen pictures of moonbases that were to be build in 2000, in 1980's newspapers. Such projects are made every other couple of years or so to convice the public to fund major projects that end in nothing. The only field that has advanced and brings results for reasnoble cost is space science.<br />"Sorry mr scientist, but Luna here we come! "<br />Cool the rocks are waiting.<br />

 

[toymaker]

''NASA needs a BIGGER challenge and today there is no greater challenge than HUMAN exploration of space''<br />That's absurd. You want to do something just because its difficult and costly ? Why not build a icecream palace in the desert ? <br />It should provide a challange also.<br /><br />"Look at what Apollo did for the US public and the science community during the 70s and look how negatively NASA is seen by the public today!"<br />Apollo was a flags and footsteps mission that provided many false and deadend ideas for space community.<br />As for public-finding life on Europa, Mars, or new terrestial planets is probably exciting also.<br />Well anyway not as exciting for corps that will get the money to build new useless pork spaceships going to nowhere.

 

[dreada5]

Ok, if you ask the general public what cutting edge stuff should NASA be doing, what do you think they will say?<br /><br />I think they'll say searching for life elsewhere in the universe and human space exploration... that's it! Those are the challenges people expect NASA to be focusing on. <br /><br /><i><b>In a Gallup poll, 68% of those surveyed support the new plan to return to the moon, then travel to Mars and beyond."</b></i> [source: nasa.gov]<br /><br />You can't get away from it.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> in addition to the pure science missions they want <b>human space exploration</b> and they're paying the bill!!<br /><br />Apollo turned the spotlight on NASA, made the public proud of NASA and as you say, gave the scientists their moon rocks!<br /><br />VSE builds on that with the possibility of helium-3 supplies for fusion, new off-world manned observatories, new economies and most importantly the experience of working off-world and developing technology to allow humans to explore the solar system in person and to do what robots cannot.<br /><br />The last "useless pork spaceships" built by the corps wasn't perfect, but they put Hubble in orbit for us, provided scientists with a platform to conduct on-orbit experiments, advanced human bioscience AND geophysical sciences.... just to keep things in perspective! <br /><br />As you say VSE, will require major funding... but just as the shuttle and ISS was once a dream that came alive, with continued support and funding CEV will too. Obviously, Shuttle and ISS aren't perfect but I think they've given us something that has benefited the science community and excited and motivated my generation to study science and technology.