New NASA budget - increase $$ for failed programs

[toymaker]

"VSE builds on that with the possibility of helium-3 supplies for fusion"<br />What fusion ? There ain't any fusion yet. And probably fusion reactors can get without helium-3.<br />"new off-world manned observatories"<br />Is Hubble manned ?<br />" new economies"<br />Care to name any that won't need to be subsidised by the State ?<br /><br />"<br />The last "useless pork spaceships" built by the corps wasn't perfect, but they put Hubble in orbit for "<br />Want to count how many Hubble's could have been made by the costs of ISS ?<br />

 

[BReif]

What I think I am "hearing" is that any human space exploration, any human spaceflight at all, is something that you are opposed to Toymaker. <br /><br />If this is true, and correct me if I am wrong, then I would like to point out that robotic mssions and human missions feed off each other, both in the mind of the general public, and politically. <br /><br />Without human spaceflight, I do not think there would be much support for unmanned robotic missions, and vice versa. The robotic missions are sent to the planets with the hope that one day, humans will follow, and humans will go there ourselves. <br /><br />Carl Sagan said it best when speaking about the Voyager 2 Neptune encounter. He said, and I am paraphrasing: 'Neptune is now a place, a destination.' <br /><br />There is a reason that people expect data and imagry to come back in the visible spectrum, so that we can have an idea what our frontier looks like to the human eye, because, again, there is a hope that one day humans will go to these 'places and destinations' ourselves. <br /><br />Without that hope and expectation, I would wager that finding funding for robotic missions would become much more difficult. <br /><br />Toymaker, I also noticed that you are from Poland. Since NASA is an agency of the Federal Government of the United States, out of curiousity, why are you expressing intense views over US government policy when you are not a US citizen? It is not your tax dollars being spent. Just curious.

 

[dreada5]

Agree 100% breif... well put.<br /><br />Btw, although I'm a regular visitor I'm not an american citizen either...... surprised?! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I 'm an aerospace engineer living in the UK, where the media/gov't/top scientists wants nothing to do with manned spaceflight fullstop and believes all the money (and in fact, less) should be spent on space/earth science missions instead and that's where I disagree. They don't speak for everyone, like any other country.<br /><br />But I've found, in my work-related travels, that many throughout the the world look to NASA (and Russia) to spearhead and lead the way on areas like human spaceflight.

 

[toymaker]

"Toymaker, I also noticed that you are from Poland. Since NASA is an agency of the Federal Government of the United States, out of curiousity, why are you expressing intense views over US government policy when you are not a US citizen? It is not your tax dollars being spent. Just curious"<br />Whatever US does this days effects all Humanity.<br />Right now I am sad to see that USA wastes money on corrupt deals.And I am very pro-USA.

 

[BReif]

Toymaker said: "Whatever US does this days effects all Humanity. <br />Right now I am sad to see that USA wastes money on corrupt deals.And I am very pro-USA."<br /><br />Granted, the policies of the United States do affect the rest of the world, sometimes positively, and sometimes negatively. And, true, the US Government does waste taxpayers dollars. They waste tax dollars on all kinds of programs that are nothing but pure pork for special interest groups. They, IMO, waste money on the war. While I understand the need to defend the nation and the interests of the nation, the way in which the war is prosecuted, I beleive, is wasteful. But the war debate is for another thread.<br /><br />Manned Spaceflight, however, I see not as a waste, but as an investment in the future of the nation, in the economy of the nation (bolsters the aerospace industry and technological industries of every sort), and in the education of the youth of the nation who will be inspired to learn math and science, and go into engineering.<br /><br />Also, as you say that whatever the US does affects all of humanity, then it follows that manned spaceflight is an investment in the future of the human race, as well as the global economy, and global technology. As it is for the USA, so too the world. International cooperation on the ISS has helped to grow the aerospace industry in Europe by providing high tech engineering jobs for the people who built and are building modules for the ISS. Japan as well.<br /><br />Does the governement subsidize this. Yes, to a point. They provide NASA the funds, and NASA hires contractors, who in turn hire subcontractors. It trickles down into the economy, provides jobs, and grows the economy. And technology developed then finds applications in other fields as well, which creates a profit margin for the contractors and subcontractors, which then benefits other customers besides NASA. It trickles, even if in a small way, even an intangible way, to people trying

 

[BReif]

Dreada5, I am not surprised to learn that you are from the UK. In fairness, I would have to ask you the same question that I asked Toymaker. You, however, have already provided the answer. America, and Russia are looked to as the leaders in manned spaceflight, and since they do it, no-one else sees the need to tread in that water, except China.<br /><br />You, as an aerospace engineer have a unique perspective on all of this. Here's my question to you: What inspired you, and made you want to enter into aerospace engineering? And, if you can answer this one, what have your colleagues said inspired them to enter into the field?<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

It makes a lot sense.. Where is it written that space is only about science????? Why should I pay for projects for certain people???

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What inspired you, and made you want to enter into aerospace engineering? And, if you can answer this one, what have your colleagues said inspired them to enter into the field? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Like many others during my school days in the late 80s, I visited my local library and read those colourful pictorial books illustrating space colonization on huge spinning wheels, moonbases and mass interplanetary travel and I too watched all the popular sci-fi of the day. I think much of the public hold the dream or expectation too, that that's where we'll be in 50-100 years. IMO it is the inevitable future, the last frontier, the next exciting stage of the human story... we won't stay in the cradle forever staring at the skies!<br /><br />I guess, what has helped inspire me to study hard at something hasn't come naturally to me is the motto:<br /><br /><b><i>You see things; and you say Why, But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not"</i></b><br /><br />My colleagues come from all different walks of life, those that have been in the air forces and now bring that wealth of knowledge to their civilian engineering jobs, those that who have a knack for understanding the physics of engineering and decided to apply their skills to something "cool" like aerospace (satellite technology) and then those who have some relation to air industry ie. have grown up around aircraft.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why should I pay for projects for certain people??<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Great point KDavis. Why should I pay for projects that send only certain (8 or 12 a year) people to the moon?

 

[BReif]

dreada5:<br /><br />I think you have helped me make part of my point about why human exploration is so important to our future, and to future generations. Thank You.

 

[kdavis007]

I would rather see the money spent on human missions that on robotic missions just so we can see pretty pictures.

 

[askold]

"Where is it written that space is only about science?????"<br /><br />Well, if it isn't about science, then what is it about?<br /><br />Of course, we're talking about publically-funded space programs. If some daredevil wants to go into space for the thrill of it, and he's spending his own money - then go ahead.<br /><br />I only want science from my money - what do you want?

 

[qso1]

Regarding what "Brief" stated, I could not have said it better myself. I would only add that those who are against human space flight on grounds of wasted money ought to look at a few much larger fish.<br /><br />The deficit.....$400B dollars annually or 25 times the NASA annual budget. Imagine...that could easily be 25 NASAs! Then the Iraq rebuilding effort. I haven't confirmed it but the latest projection is reportedly $125 billion. Its possible that we will see some dividends from our efforts in Iraq but I won't be entirely convinced of that until its proven.<br /><br />At the time of Apollo perhaps the cost argument was justified. The cost cuts usually justified to bring the dividends to bear on such issues as poverty, disease, etc. But realistically, if we eliminate human spaceflight tomorrow, will we see headlines such as poverty eliminated, cancer cured, or homlessness problems solved? I think not, after all, we did not see such headlines after the drastic NASA human spaceflight cuts following Apollos completion.<br /><br />Instead, we got ballooning Government spending, deficits, scandals etc. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

After ALL that has been done to give you a better education by many on these boards, YOU STILL DON"T UNDRSTAND DO YOU?? <br /><br />While scientific knowledge IS very important, that knowledge is basically there to SUPPORT the manned programs, NOT compete with them!!<br /><br />That IS because the eventual goal of space exploration is to get humanity out into the solar system to EXPLOIT the vast resources of space! <br /><br />We DO indeed require the knowledge that robotic scientific devices provide in order to do this, that is true! And neither Griffin nor NASA is going to totally dump such programs! As a matter of fact the robotic science programs have received over the last decade or two a steadily increasing amount of NASA funding. It is also unfortunately true however, that the sophistication of such robotic devices, and therefore the cost of such devices has also increased, and like every other technical aspect of space exploration will continue to increase! <br /><br />We HAVE a commitment to complete the ISS, and the shuttle is the only vehicle at this time capable of doing that. IF we ever expect to have cooperation with the other countries of the world for either robotic or manned work in space then we need to honor that commitment! Even congress realizes this!!<br /><br />In the long run the manned program will be FAR more important that any robotic program. However, to me at least, these programs ARE NOT in competition with each other, as it is going to require a vast number of industrial types of robots to help people perform the mining and manufacturing that will allow mankind to exploit the solar system. In the meantime we WILL need far more knowledge of even our own moon, let alone the many types of NEO's and Mars before we can place enough of mankind onto these objects to even start a space based civilization! THAT is why past programs such as the shuttle and ISS, and future programs such as the VSE are important, as indeed are the scientific robo

 

[BReif]

I think that the per capita cost of the entire space program, robotic and manned, as well as aeronautical research (the entire NASA budget) is $45-$46 per person. I know I read that somewhere, but don't remember where, probably on another SDC thread.<br /><br />I pay about $5000 per year in taxes, and I bet there are lots of folks on these boards who pay more. $45/person isn't much at all. In my view, I am investing $45 a year in the future, one that will provide greater opportunities for the next generation(s).

 

[j05h]

I get roughly $53 for every person in the US, 16,000,000,000 / 300,000,000. For actual taxpayers, I'm guessing it's a bit higher, probably more like $100/payer. Yes, it is a good investment in our future, so is NIH, NOAA, etc.<br /><br />On the subject of thread, yes, this does feel like shovelling good money after bad. CEV and the various cancelled/deferred science projects could really use a few years of Shuttle budgets. Imagine the start CEV could have in fiscal '07 if it had $3-4billion added immediately. Yes, I know that budgetting doesn't follow that practice. If Dr. Griffin went to the President & Congress and was up front with them, as he has been in the past, he could make this happen. Getting CEV off the ground is important, whatever shape it takes. Getting Shuttle to stay on the ground may be the only path forward - it is doing again what it has done for 2 decades, swallow every bit of budget it can. The Shuttle is set for at least another $20G, over the next 5+shutdown years. I'm sure that NASA can convince Boeing or Lockmart, or even USA, to find a non-STS method of delivering ISS components with that money, if Congress would play ball.<br /><br />I'm skimming the '07 budget guide, and their goal #1 is to Strategic Goal 1: "Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010." Along with this is Goal #4: "Strategic Goal 4:"Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement." <br /><br />In these headings, there is both maneuvering room, and trouble. CEV, instead of being a promise to buy seats commercially, plus develop NASA in-house capability, is instead a multibillion-dollar out-year expense. This is extremely dangerous for American spaceflight, we are one budget cycle away from an election, with no working manned spacecraft. CEV could easily be deferred in a few years to pay for more Shuttle overruns. It's below several sub-Goals in #3, sciences. All Dr. Griffin needs to do is sa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spayss]

Quote:<br /><br />""Where is it written that space is only about science?????" <br /><br />Well, if it isn't about science, then what is it about? <br /><br />Of course, we're talking about publically-funded space programs. If some daredevil wants to go into space for the thrill of it, and he's spending his own money - then go ahead. <br /><br />I only want science from my money - what do you want"<br /><br />AGREED !!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

>""Where is it written that space is only about science?????" <br /><br />This is exactly the big point. It's not. In fact, the science is just a side benefit. Sure the MERs are cool and successful, and even relatively cheap. But is the information they've collected worth $800M to anybody? Heck no. There will be about $100k made by selling posters, calendars, and updated textbooks, maybe a couple million in profits from the movie, but that's it. The researchers that clammor for this information will actually spend MORE public dollars analizing the data, and nothing of significant financial value will be produced for it. A few papers to fill the pages of pricey journals that only sell a few thousand subscriptions, but that's about it. <br /><br />The science simply cannot justify the cost of un-manned missions. If it did, private investors would pay for it! <br /><br />Rather, the entire space program exists mainly for 2 reasons. The first is national prestige, and the manned program is the crown jewel in that regard. Second is the technical spin-offs from solving such difficult engineering problems. We could spend money doing cutting edge stuff in any field, but we choose space for reason number 1 - prestige. Maximizing scientific productivity of spacecraft is simply an arbitrary metric by which the prestige garnered by a certain mission can be measured. It can be measured in other ways too, like the speed records set by the X-43a. That's something to be proud of, and it's pending military spinoffs is something to make our enemies feel glum. That's what we're paying for.<br /><br />I think I can safely say that everyone here gets their $100 worth out of the space program - in entertainment. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[askold]

frodo:<br /><br />You admit that "scientific knowledge ... is basically there to SUPPORT the manned programs"<br /><br />If that's the case, then why are we sacrificing the science programs for the shuttle? Would you build a fancy den and equip it with a big-screen TV before you poured the foundation of your house?<br /><br />No, you wouldn't.<br /><br />I'm making a very modest point that you have a hard time seeing because you're mesmerized by the idea of brave men (and women) boldly going where no man has gone before. You're afraid that, in your lifetime, you won't experience the vicarious thrill of seeing a brave lad stepping out on the surface of Mars just like you remember from your Flash Gordon comics.<br /><br />My position is very simple: our current manned program is very primitive. We can barely get out to LEO without resulting in a national day of mouring. Nevermind the moon or Mars. To justify these high risks and low return, supporters make up nonsense such as "national pride", a second home for mankind in case Iran gets the bomb, "it's in our nature", beating the Russians, no, the Chinese, or some other bunk.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the science programs are producing real knowledge. But nobody cares about them because they don't result in boots on the ground.<br /><br />I'm not against a manned program. I think we should send explorers into the solar system - when the technology is ready. I'm perfectly happy to wait 50 years for the technology to mature. I don't think we need to rush into space with the cobbled together death traps we now have.

 

[BReif]

"I'm not against a manned program. I think we should send explorers into the solar system - when the technology is ready. I'm perfectly happy to wait 50 years for the technology to mature. I don't think we need to rush into space with the cobbled together death traps we now have."<br /><br />Askold, how will the technology for manned spaceflight mature unless we "learn by doing?" Doing nothing but robotic missions for the next 50 years is not going to grow and mature a manned spaceflight infastructure. More likely, a hiatus in manned spaceflight will freeze that technology at its current level, because we won't be learning anything from the experience that we otherwise would have if we were flying. <br />

 

[spayss]

We're going to spend tens of billions to put a man on the Moon and then, after the first step, the country will let out a collective YAWN. We just don't learn. Nobody is going to care and don't expect taxpayer to fund anything once that YAWN is heard by Congressmen. Manned exploration by the US government is a dead duck beyond an initial footprint.

 

[askold]

The robotic programs are developing propolusion systems, navigation systems and other technology.<br /><br />What are we going to learn from flying 17 more shuttle missions - nothing at all.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

Good Grief!!! You STILL don't understand what I am talking about!! Please READ my posts! I could care less about "Going where no man has gone before!" That IS NOT my point! Mankind MUST go into space to get at the vast resources of space for the expansion and future of humanity!! By the time the third world nations expand their wealth and technology to anywhere near that of Western Europe or North America, the resources of the Earth will start to be used up!! <br /><br />Their is JUST no way for the standard of living of even most of mankind to reach a reasonable level WITHOUT using up these resources! While such activities as conservation and recycling will certainly help (and may even be able to get humanity through until a true space faring civilization is at least started), but even these are going to become moot with time. ANY reasonable engineer can tell you that in the real world it is impossible to have a perfectly isolated system. So it is VITAL to eventually go outside of that system!<br /><br />While this is just a somewhat WAG (Wild A--ed Guess) of mine I would say that we have about 100 years or so before we either use up our vital resources, or the resources become so scare that world wide competition turns into world wide humanity ending warfare!!<br /><br />This IS NOT the legacy that I would wish to leave my descendants!!!!<br /><br />In order to be able to have such large scale exploitation of space resources within that time frame we MUST get going further out NOW! I would even have to say that IF we had to eliminate all pure science and exploration activities to do this then THAT IS WHAT WE MUST DO! <br /><br />However, I don't think that such a drastic sacrifice is necessary. And as I pointed out (once again, READ all of my posts!) in order to reduce the possibility of the failure of going further out with people, the robotic explorers that will give us the knowledge to increase the safety of our people should by all means be continued!! <b></b>

 

[nolirogari]

"What are we going to learn from flying 17 more shuttle missions - nothing at all."<br /><br />Once again myopia speaks- as I've said before here- take that line back to 1970 where it belongs. That is- unless you askold, can detail for me all of the mission objectives of all of the remaining shuttle flights. because if you don't know what they are going to do, how can you say they are worthless? Bottom line- you do not know what your talking about- you are simply spouting the "it isn't worth it." myth from 1970. Sorry- but those of us who think clearly, and actually know what human spaceflight is really worth, no longer buy that line. Your dog fails to hunt.

 

[askold]

nolirogari: OK, clear-thinker, what will we learn from 17 more shuttle missions we don't already know? How will these missions help us get to the moon or Mars?