What if nasa budget was set to 5% of the federal budget ?

[okool]

What if nasa budget was set to 5% of the federal budget ?<br />Think about it all other agencies get a nice piece of the budget and Nasa gets left out.<br />They provide a lot of research from space science to earth study and a lot of innovation that in the end benefits all of us in terms of health,manufacturing.........

 

[Boris_Badenov]

If NASA's budget was in the neighborhood of $200 billion per year we would have a colony on Mars that would be around 20 y/o by now, be mining the Asteroid Belt & have probes well on their way to other stars.<br />That could never happen though. It would require more planning than any polititian is willing to put forth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[docm]

IMO it would mean 3x the number of projects put into active development, 2.9x the number of projects canceled and a .1x increase in flown missions <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

What a pessamist <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[docm]

Just going on past performance <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Where is your data to support your claim?

 

[docm]

The program that never should have been, STS, one canceled program after another (no matter how promising) for the last 30+ years on less than believable grounds, poorly handled budgets, Orion's 'diet' problems, the Ares I 'issues' pointed out by Danny Dot on NSF, carelessness (if not outright criminal negligence) in safety matters...<br /><br />etc. etc. etc. <br /><br />NASA is your typical government agency: bloated, inefficient, lobbied from within by revolving-door moles like H., poorly and often micro-managed and very frequently dangerous to itself and others.<br /><br />It wasn't always this way, but unfortunately it's morphed into a techie version of HUD or the Dept. of Education. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Explain MER, Cassini, Galileo, EOS. Stardust, MGS, MRO, pathfinder,

 

[docm]

<b>You</b> explain how NASA manages to allow accelerometers to get installed inverted (Genesis), use inches instead of centimeters (Mars Polar Orbiter), didn't think to re-test Galileo's high-gain antenna deployment before launch after it had been stowed for years and all their other lame brained screwups. <br /><br />The ISS was supposed to cost $17.4 billion. The shuttle was supposed to fly often and safely. Together they've cost us in dollars, <b><i>not</i></b> advancing out of LEO and lives.<br /><br />Why didn't they realize that a couple kilograms of <i>anything</i> moving at hundreds of kph could damage an orbiters brittle TPS? What part of F=m/a don't they understand?<br /><br />Why didn't they realize that O rings exposed to extreme cold could crack and leak? Every farmer knows that and it matters not if it's on a rocket, semi or harvester.<br /><br />Those last 2 are 6th grade science and in both cases they were warned several times, hence the danger I mentioned above. <br /><br />Even Griffin says the STS and ISS were mistakes (USA Today interview 9/27/2005)<br /><br />Yes; NASA has glorious successes, but it's also a wasteful technocratic nightmare that wouldn't know efficient design & manufacturing methodologies if a 10 ton truck load of them dropped on its head. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>it's also a wasteful technocratic nightmare that wouldn't know efficient design & manufacturing methodologies if a 10 ton truck load of them dropped on its head.</i><br /><br />This is quite untrue. I would advice you to retract such unsubstantiated rubbish. Only complete ignorance of complex technology could excuse such a statement.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>You explain how NASA manages to allow accelerometers to get installed inverted (Genesis), use inches instead of centimeters (Mars Polar Orbiter), didn't think to re-test Galileo's high-gain antenna deployment before launch after it had been stowed for years and all their other lame brained screwups.</i><br /><br />These events have all be explained in painful detail. I usggest you read the reports.<br /><br /><i>The ISS was supposed to cost $17.4 billion. </i><br /><br />On what basis did you determine this?<br /><br /><i>The shuttle was supposed to fly often and safely. </i><br /><br />It has flown more often than any other crewed space craft and has the best safety record.<br /><br /><i>Together they've cost us in dollars, not advancing out of LEO and lives. </i><br /><br />How many times do you have to be told that we have stayed in LEO for the past 36 years because of political decisions. <br /><br /><i>Why didn't they realize that a couple kilograms of anything moving at hundreds of kph could damage an orbiters brittle TPS? What part of F=m/a don't they understand?</i><br /><br />Again, the reason for this decision have been explored in great detail. How many mistakes have you made that were clear in hind sight?<br /><br /><i>Why didn't they realize that O rings exposed to extreme cold could crack and leak? Every farmer knows that and it matters not if it's on a rocket, semi or harvester.</i><br /><br />Ditto<br /><br /><i>Those last 2 are 6th grade science and in both cases they were warned several times, hence the danger I mentioned above.</i><br /><br />Presumably the same 6th graders who can see that the face on Mars is clearly artificial. <br /><br /><i>Even Griffin says the STS and ISS were mistakes (USA Today interview 9/27/2005)</i><br /><br />I would disgree with him. The Shuttrle was a good idea at the time and a space station is essential. But even if this statement were correct, the decisions were not NASA's but political ones. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Only complete ignorance of complex technology could excuse such a statement.</font><br /><br />Bull on all counts save for the political issues, and they go hand in glove with the rest. If it were up to me the decision makers who ignored the shuttle warnings would be up on manslaughter charges.<br /><br />And FYI I'm very familiar with complex, and very dangerous, technologies after working with them for />25 years thank you very much. <br /><br />I'm also familiar with government agencies from the inside and how they operate when they go off track, and NASA has a very, very familiar look.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">These events have all be explained in painful detail. I usggest you read the reports. </font><br /><br />The reports determined that unit conversion errors and poor testing caused the failures. Have you read them yourself?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">On what basis did you determine this? </font><br /><br />NASA public statements from the 80's and early 90's outlined costs in the $10B-18B range.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It has flown more often than any other crewed space craft and has the best safety record. </font><br /><br />Only for very very stretched definitions of often and safety, and for an amortized $1B per launch it would damn well want to be safer than Soyuz.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Again, the reason for this decision have been explored in great detail. How many mistakes have you made that were clear in hind sight?</font><br /><br />Feynman explained the organizational reasons for these failures back in the 80's. Nothing has changed. No "lessons learned" have been learned. I hate that cliché.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I would disgree with him.</font><br /><br />As is your right in an open and free democracy.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

If you have 25 years of experience with complex technology then your statement is inexcusable.<br /><br />It is quite justifable to say mistakes have been made and must be corrected. Globally condemnatory diatribes like "it's also a wasteful technocratic nightmare that wouldn't know efficient design & manufacturing methodologies if a 10 ton truck load of them dropped on its head" are completely fase in the light of the great many programatic successes.<br /><br />Your critcisms must be focused and fact based, otherwise you are in the same category as the Hoaglandites.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<i>It is quite justifable to say mistakes have been made and must be corrected. Globally condemnatory diatribes like "it's also a wasteful technocratic nightmare that wouldn't know efficient design & manufacturing methodologies if a 10 ton truck load of them dropped on its head" are completely fase in the light of the great many programatic successes. </i><br /><br />Exhibit A: A certain organizations crew launcher is now costing />$15B to develop and offering less performance at higher marginal cost than an Atlas V 552.

 

[docm]

EXACTLY!!<br /><br />Also;<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Presumably the same 6th graders who can see that the face on Mars is clearly artificial. </font><br /><br />I don't know about your school district but ours (in a middle income city of <30,000) teaches <i><b>3rd graders</b></i> astronomy to a depth that would surprise you. One of their last topics before school let out was Mars and in particular he optical illusion at Cydonia....right before their field trip to the planetarium. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>(AP) -- </b>At NASA, once again, the problem is its culture - a habit of dismissing the concerns of knowledgeable underlings.<br /><br />Four years ago, it involved higher-ups ignoring engineers who feared possible catastrophic damage to the shuttle Columbia. The engineers were right.<br /><br />This time, it's NASA doctors and even astronauts getting the brushoff when voicing worries that some astronauts have drunk too much alcohol before flying.<br /><br />"I think things have changed, but some things remain the same," said Douglas Osheroff, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who investigated the Columbia disaster in 2003.<br /><br />An independent health panel disclosed Friday that, at least twice, astronauts were cleared to fly despite warnings from flight surgeons and other astronauts about their heavy drinking. One intoxicated astronaut flew into orbit on a Russian spacecraft; the other ended up with a shuttle launch delay for mechanical reasons but later tried to take off in a training jet while still under the influence.<br /><br />In both cases, the doctors and other astronauts were ignored by higher-ranking officials. Flight surgeons feel so disregarded, in general, that they told the panel they are demoralized and less likely to report concerns of impaired performance.<br /><br />All NASA's leadership wants, several senior flight surgeons told the panel, is to hear that all medical systems are "go" for space flight operations. They do not want to hear doctors' doubts about an astronauts' fitness for duty or behavioral problems, the panel was told.<br /><br />That was the same perception low-level engineers had during Columbia's final flight: Their bosses only wanted to hear positive news about the fuel-tank insulating foam that broke off and turned into deadly shrapnel that punctured Columbia's wing. Seven astronauts died.<br /><br />"NASA has had a history of ignoring indications that something is wrong, and even</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[owenander]

If NASA's budget was bigger you'd have a bigger waste of money.<br /><br />$16 billion isn't enough?<br />Give me a break, give that to Elon and see him on Mars in 5 years.

 

[JonClarke]

Irrelevant comparsion as the Atlas V is not man rated.<br /><br />Do you know that the marginal cost of the Atlas V will be in 6 years time? Unless you do your comparison is meaningless.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Give me a break, give that to Elon and see him on Mars in 5 years.</i><br /><br />Baseless hyperbole. <br /><br />Musk would not be able to do what NASA does with that amount of money. He does not have the skills or the experience. Nor is he interested in much of what NASA does. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Give me a break, give that to Elon and see him on Mars in 5 years.</i><br /><br />Baseless hyperbole. <br /><br />Muks would not be able to do what NASA does with that amount of money. hew does not have the skills or the experience. Nor is he interested in much of what NASA does.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>(AP) -- At NASA, once again, the problem is its culture - a habit of dismissing the concerns of knowledgeable underlings</i><br /><br />Quoting an op ed instead of facts? <br /><br />Slamming an entire organisation because of alledged problems of a part?<br /><br />That is not a rational critique. That is just opinion based on spectulation and prejudice.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>I don't know about your school district but ours (in a middle income city of <30,000) teaches 3rd graders astronomy to a depth that would surprise you. One of their last topics before school let out was Mars and in particular he optical illusion at Cydonia....right before their field trip to the planetarium. </i><br /><br />Good on them. But that hardly gives them the skills to perform space missions, or critique those who do does it? Despite your claim to the contrary.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"You explain how NASA manages to allow accelerometers to get installed inverted (Genesis), use inches instead of centimeters (Mars Polar Orbiter), didn't think to re-test Galileo's high-gain antenna deployment before launch after it had been stowed for years and all their other lame brained screwups."<br /><br />Not NASA "managers" <br /><br />This shows a basic lack of understanding how NASA works.<br /><br />Genesis was a contractor built spacecraft . NASA did not have hands on roles for this spacecraft. It would have happened no matter who ran the mission.<br /><br />Mars Climate orbiter and Galileo incidents were under JPL's watch. An organization that many say NASA should emulate.<br /><br />JPL is a NASA lab but has not NASA workers (all Caltech employees)<br />

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Nor is he interested in much of what NASA does. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> No, pumping money into a hi-tech jobs program is not on his priority list. Congress has set the priority, and NASA is implementing it, that whatever the followon to STS is, it has to keep all the same people employed. Not being bound by that rule, alt.space can do some things for less money, and using other technologies.