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

[okool]

NASA has its failures true like the x-33(NASA had invested $912M and Lockheed Martin a further $357M),ISS is costing more then specified.........and thus they have spending slashed or funds redirected cause the spacecraft is costing too much but take a look DOD the virginia class was meant to be cheaper but still costs 2 bil and is still on the list, DD(X) costs r up,LCS is in the same pot but the defense budget gets raised every year.<br />The NASA budget just holds steady they expect them to do all they do with 16 bil and NASA does it but at the cost of taking money from other important programs. No one sees to the benefits they provide and that they too provide to the National Security by keeping at the forefront of space,aeronautic research,etc. With the budget they have they had to go look at an old model for the shuttle replacement instead of innovating taking a gamble which the government prefers the DOD to do and waste money rather then NASA

 

[okool]

Ok elon can do a better job with 16 bil but he does not have other programs and research to deal with. <br /><br />So he definitely can take the risks and think outside the box but not NASA as it has the government to answer to. It has got aging facilities and workforce

 

[nyarlathotep]

<i>Irrelevant comparsion as the Atlas V is not man rated. </i><br /><br />Ofcourse it isn't. Only NASA vehicles can be man rated. <br /><br /><i>Do you know that the marginal cost of the Atlas V will be in 6 years time? Unless you do your comparison is meaningless. </i><br /><br />To accurately assess NASA's performance in the past I need to know the future? I think you're trolling.

 

[owenander]

"take the risks and think outside the box but not NASA as it has the government to answer to"<br /><br />exactly. and just imagine what else elon could achieve if the government didn't take 35% of the 16 billion hehehe<br /><br />screw mars, he'd probably be well on his way to pluto =)

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Ofcourse it isn't. Only NASA vehicles can be man rated.</i><br /><br />Not at all. Any launcher can be man rated.<br /><br /><i>To accurately assess NASA's performance in the past I need to know the future? I think you're trolling.</i><br /><br />I never troll. You are comparing predicted costs against present costs. I am asking to compare predicted costs against predicted costs. Apples with apples.<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>

 

[nrrusher]

<br />I think NASA Issues can be summarized in one word, POLITICS.<br /><br />Everything else is a symptom of this issue. And I think it is as much the fault of the American Public and our National Culture as anyone at NASA.<br /><br />Think about the average public high school. Who gets the support and funding? The athletic departments or the science clubs?<br /><br />Add to that the political tendencies to cut stuff like NASA, that many people try to paint as "lavish spending", for more vote getting public programs and pet projects.<br /><br />I think we have a lot of capabilities tied up in NASA that get sandbagged for these and other reasons. I would be in favor of completely reforming it entirely. Everyone has to re-interview for their jobs. Everyone will have their loyalties re-mapped. The nation's goals in the minds of the politicians as well as the general public need to get a little revolution going on.<br /><br />I also think, this transition period from the Shuttle, from the ISS to Moon/Mars, is an ideal time to do it. <br /><br />There are too many chicken scratches on the blackboard. Wipe it clean and start fresh.<br /><br />NR

 

[nrrusher]

While we are at it, exclude Washington Insiders, Beuracrats, and the like. Management should consist of people like Burt Rhutan, or other private industry type. NASA's industry is inheritantly high risk, a low risk tolerant mentality doesn't fit the bill.<br /><br />Vision, Vision, Vision. Someone who can dream the big dream and then spell it out so the average American understands what we are doing and why. Someone who can show the benefits of a more technologically and industrially competitive nation. Someone who can show that, like the internet, this is an industrializing opportunity the US needs to get the lead on. We cannot provide cheap labor, so we need to maximize our other technical capabilities. <br /><br />NASA itself should actually be fairly small. American Industry (prefereably small business style) needs to carry the brunt of the actual work.<br /><br />Just some thoughts<br /><br />NR

 

[spacefire]

the problem with NASA is that it has outlived its purpose: to put men on the Moon ahead of the Soviets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"the problem with NASA is that it has outlived its purpose: to put men on the Moon ahead of the Soviets."<br /><br />Wrong! Read the National Space Act before posting something like that. <br /><br />Which other organization is going to do unmanned space probes?

 

[spacelifejunkie]

There is a lot of heated opinion here as to whether NASA would perform better or worse with 5% of the national budget. I think they would accomplish more and also waste more. They would do both. Government programs are inherently wasteful since they have little incentive to be otherwise. NASA should be doing the high risk, important science and technology that the corporate world cannot. The reality is that once manned space flight becomes profitable, NASA will be less and less visible in this arena. Unless, they start concentrating on new technologies like nuclear rockets, artificial gravity stations, and the like. Things that people like Musk and Bigelow can't afford right now.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[qso1]

docm:<br />You explain how NASA manages to allow accelerometers to get installed inverted (Genesis), use inches instead of centimeters...<br /><br />Me:<br />When NASA screws up, its big news. So I would ask that for all the screw ups you have cited here...imagine now, all the times NASA got it right but was never publicized because that kind of news does not sell.<br /><br />How else could the shuttle fly well over 100 missions safely. <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>

 

[docm]

By sheer luck and grace. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

okool:<br />What if nasa budget was set to 5% of the federal budget ?<br /><br />Me:<br />That would certainly bring them up to par or even beyond where their budgets are concerned. NASAs 1965 or 66 budget was the record budget for NASA spending at $5.5B dollars. I went to the link below:<br /><br />http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi<br /><br />Plugged in $5.5 for 1966 and converted to 2006 and got about $34B dollars ($3,397 million). Todays NASA gets around half that sized budget and has been getting about half the budget it got in 1966 since 1973-74. I'd say despite their relatively few mishaps, they've done a great job and continue to do so. Think about it, when one calculates in inflation, as bad as the cost of shuttle and ISS seem...they are not all that bad if one realistically considers what we have been able to do with them.<br /><br />Apollo costed taxpayers $25 to 26B dollars by 1972 at its completion. That would translate to $120B dollars if 1972 is used as the initial year and 2006 the year to convert to.<br /><br />ISS estimated total is around $100B dollars currently and assuming the station is operational for at least 15 years. I personally think ISS a bit pricey but still a bargain when I look at similar amounts going to Iraq annually.<br /><br />NASA is the only government agency I know of that has taken such a drastic reduction and survived, all while delivering the programs they deliver as best they possibly can under such an environment.<br /><br />I see government agencies in the news from time to time complaining over 1 to 2% budget cuts and sometimes referring to the cuts as draconian or slashing. Imagine the uproar if HEW were cut 50% or Social Security took such a deep cut.<br /><br />I think realistically, if we could get $20B dollars annually for NASA with gradual increases each cycle, NASA will do well until private industry/enterprise can demonstrate they can actually do what the <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>

 

[qso1]

I mentioned the ISS estimated cost but did not mention the shuttles cost over its lifetime. I haven't seen very many published estimates but recall it cost around $10B dollars for development prior to first flight. If the approximate $200M dollars per flight in the 1980s and around $500M dollars per flight from the 1990s is factored in over 115 missions...the total approaches $60B dollars. Just for the heck of it, double that figure and as far as I'm concerned, its still a bargain compared to $400B dollar deficits and $100B dollars annually on Iraq. <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>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Which other organization is going to do unmanned space probes? </font><br /><br />A restructured, greatly stripped down, lean version of NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"lean version of NASA."<br /><br />That already exists for unmanned probes

 

[nrrusher]

<br />I do agree on one point, as far as governement agencies go, NASA is doing, and has done, extremely well with its resources considering the politics and media attention it gets. If all governement agencies had the oversight and results per dollar spent that NASA does, I would suggest that our governement overall would be almost unrecognizable...<br />

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">....its still a bargain compared to $400B dollar deficits....</font><br /><br />Lets keep the budget numbers closer to reality, OK?<br /><br />Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Associated Press<br /><br /><i>Federal Deficit Down, June Posts Surplus</i></b><br /><br />By MARTIN CRUTSINGER 07.12.07, 2:29 PM ET<br /><br />WASHINGTON -<br /><br />The federal deficit is running sharply lower through the first nine months of this budget year as the growth in revenues continues to outpace spending growth.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">The Treasury Department reported Thursday that the government ran a surplus of $27.5 billion in June, up sharply from the $20.5 billion surplus recorded in June 2006. </font></b>he government normally runs a surplus in June, a month when individual taxpayers and corporations make quarterly payments to the Internal Revenue Service.<br /><br />With the June surplus, the total deficit through the first nine months of the budget year, which began Oct. 1, is $121 billion, down 41.4 percent from the same period a year ago, when the deficit totaled $206.5 billion.<br /><br />The Bush administration this week announced <b><font color="yellow">a new deficit projection for this year of $205 billion, down significantly from the $244 billion deficit it forecast in February, reflecting the fact that revenue growth has continued to come in at higher-than-expected levels.</font></b>gt;<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="orange">"lean version of NASA."</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">That already exists for unmanned probes</font><br /><br />Then there's a pattern to follow and no excuse for avoiding change other than "I don't wanna!", is there?<br /><br />I've heard better excuses out of my kids <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Don't mistake my intentions; I'm a huge space travel proponent, but IMO NASA and its masters are penny wise and pound foolish and the Ares I/Orion fiasco is just the latest example of it. <br /><br />What's needed is a <i>serious</i> version of COTS for Constellation. That or a severe reality check. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

serious version and COTS are mutually exclusive for anything in the near term.

 

[qso1]

I can see this happening if private industry/enterprise does take over human access to space and eventually gets humans to the moon, mars and beyond. I tend to think this is the direction NASA will be forced to go anyway. <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>

 

[qso1]

docm:<br />Then there's a pattern to follow and no excuse for avoiding change other than "I don't wanna!", is there?<br /><br />Me:<br />NASA was the one that proposed a grand vision of space back in 1969 when MSFC Director Von Braun proposed it. That vision included a shuttle, a heavy lift vehicle which would have been the Saturn-V in continued production, lunar and mars bases, nuclear transfer stages and more. NASA said then this could be done with the right budget. The basic vision had not changed until NASA realized it was never going to get the budgets required to support the vision and began development of the VSE which is only a first step in implementing the vision. A vision driven by simple logic.<br /><br />Public will translated in the action of the Nixon Administration 3 years later resulted in just a shuttle. A shuttle driven largely by USAF requirements and a requirement to be developed within a $5.5B dollar budget cap<br /><br />It should come as no surprise that NASA couldn't replace ths shuttle or enable any of the Von Braun vision. The public lost interest and NASA budgets after 1973-74 dropped from approximately 2-4% GDP to the just under 1% GDP of today.<br /><br />IMO, the only option now is to support a move to get human spaceflight over to private industry startups. The public is less interested in human spaceflight now than it was in 1969. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

NASA will still be needed to plan and execute deep spalce mission for which there is no immediate economic return. No start up company - or established on for that matter - is going to build hardware to go to the Moon, Mars and NEOs unless they are given a copntract to do so.<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>

 

[qso1]

I agree. But I suspect there will be a mix of capability if private industry/enterprise gets economic access to LEO. In fact, I can easily see the day when NASA buys P.I. services to launch an unmanned probe to the outer planets from.<br /><br />The real question would be when do these companies transition from startups to fully operational and profitable. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Couldn't agree more.<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>