Established Member
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/06nasabudget/
Deserves a thread of its own, I think.
Griffin and comrades have taken about 2 billion dollars from science projects to pay for shuttle/ISS operations. Griffin himself isn't particularly happy about it, but he obviously doesn't have other options. What is your opinion about this?
Order of Kilopi
This thread sounds like what you're thinking.Originally Posted by Cugel
Established Member
You're right. That's what you get when you have to cover different things from one budget! (astronomy and space exploration)
Seems like the Europa mission is put on hold as well...
http://www.space.com/news/060207_europa_budget.html
Vulcan Administrator
I don't have a problem with this thread being devoted to the specifics of NASA's budget. With that being said:
Canceling NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder: The White House's Increasingly Nearsighted "Vision" For Space Exploration
This is a bad decision. A really bad one. In making it, one has to question whether this White House really meant what it said 2 years ago when it raised everyone's expectations, invoking an expansion "into the cosmos" in so doing.
With every passing year this "vision" is becoming increasing nearsighted.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Vulcan Administrator
Sen. Mikulski Response to Space Funding in President's NASA Budget
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) released the following statement today following the release of President Bush's FY 2007 budget, which included:
- $150 million for a servicing mission to save the Hubble Telescope
- $16.8 billion in federal funding for NASA (3.2% increase)
- $2.3 billion for Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., which supports 10,000 employees (a 2% increase)
The budget also provides $443 million for the Webb Telescope, which will follow the Hubble Telescope, scheduled to be launched in 2013. The Webb Telescope will be run by Baltimore's Space Telescope Science Institute and Goddard:
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Order of Kilopi
Me neither, just wanted to point it out just in case... that's why I didn't ToSeek it. (Apparently you niether, or else you would have beat me to it)
Vulcan Administrator
Good overview:
Highlights Of The NASA FY 2007 Budget Request
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
Get some of the science guys and lobby people quickly to the Euros, and ask the space agency of Europe for some cash. Although NASA has been the best agency - landing Vikings of Mars, the Voyager missions, Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon, Skylab station and other greats.
Yet a lot of its more recent missions have been supported by International help and joint missions, ISO and other space telescopes have come about due to European help, the ISS has been kept up by the Russian Soyuz and Russian Progress craft, solar science has been helped by Europeans such as Ulysses or the joint NASA/ESA Soho
When beancounters at NASA tried to chop down the old Ulysses jupiter-sun mission to save a few bucks the Euro-space agency went crazy with frustration and pushed back for extra funding. Right now the Europeans have a small but well organized budget and are pushing for a number of extra solar planet missions, the Corot spacecraft, expansion of the ESO telescopes, big OWL/Euro50 ideas, Darwin mission. If money is short the TPF could become a joint project like the Cassini-Huygens did.
Established Member
I have mixed feelings about the postponement/cancellation of TPF. While my gut reaction is (extreme) distaste, I feel that it won't be shelved for long. My feeling is that the discoveries that Kepler, COROT, and (especially) SIM make in the next ten years will make a TPF-like mission almost inevitable in the long run.
Member
Personally, I'm real annoyed. No funding for a Europa mission, SIM delayed, TPF delayed. It's the priorities of this president I'm afraid. Flags and footprings are getting in the way of the best science targets. Not that I'm not 100 percent in favor of scrapping the shuttle for something that can get out of LEO and begin expanding our horizons again, but really there is no reason to choose one over the other when you can easily do both.
Order of Kilopi
Sorry, but when you've got a major city in ruins, an occupation to fund, an energy infrastructure still recovering, a raging allergy to new taxes, and a new record for budget deficit ($430 billion), there's just no money left to spare.
Member
Sorry but the NASA budget got quite a big increase. There is just too much allocated to the new exploration initiative over science objectives. There was 700 million more spend on the new launch system than was even planned. It looks like they are trying to increase the pace at the cost of science. Hurricaine relief and budget deficit haven't affected NASA at all. Spending is going up, priorities within the budget are being shifted. I wonder if China's announcement they planned go to the moon caused us to speed up our timetable.
Established Member
My immediate objection is not to the overall amount of NASA's budget but to the percent of that amount that is spent on what I would consider good science versus the percent spent on what I consider less worthy projects. Manning spacestations and sending people to the moon has very little scientific value, and I would rather see the planets explored by satellites and robots. Meanwhile, I am very interested in basic science.
Edit: I typed this before I read kbmast's post immediately prior to mine. I suppose I've just echoed his post. Hello moonrocks, good-bye judgement.
Member
Europe in a few years will be an islamic worshipping dictatorship... You faith in ESA tells me you don't live in this continent.
Mauro
Member
The amusing thing about all this fuss is that other threads in this forum are lauding Russian/Sino/euro(soon to be euro-islamic) moon initiatives as very good ways to advance space science and exploration...
Maybe there are two moons.
Mauro
Established Member
Well, Fortunate is our resident scientific conscience.
Most of us just like big rockets.
BTW, do check out the forum rules.
Established Member
Not sure where I expressed any conscience on this thread. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. In my only post on this thread (#13), I attempted to say that Doodler's comment in post #11 was irrelevant to my major objection to the NASA budget, in that his comment pertained to the overall amount of the budget while my main objection was to the percentages in which the money was distributed to the various areas within the budget. I had absolutely no intention of expressing or implying any opinion about the content of Doodler's objection or about the relationship between NASA budget and any other budget. My comment was intended to deal only with the (alleged) value of manned spaceflight versus the value other possible NASA projects. I am fascinated by astrophysics and cosmology. I have almost no interest in people flying around in space. My preferences about how NASA divides up its funds are purely recreational.Well, Fortunate is our resident scientific conscience.
Most of us just like big rockets.
BTW, do check out the forum rules.
This post seems long given the simplicity of the point, but my shorter post (#13) seems to have led to a miscommunication.
Last edited by Fortunate; 2006-Feb-08 at 01:28 PM.
Member
Well I have interest in BOTH science and having people flying around in space and the budget annoys me. Big increase in spending but the distribution cuts science missions even still. It just seems like a balanced approach would make more sense. Or not spending as much and spending more on the deficit would make more sense. But just bumping up money for manned space flight and cutting science when the budget goes up is annoying. If it wasn't for science there wouldn't be any space program. Any design for a spacecraft gets better the more you know about the enviornment you're sending it in.
Member
IMHO it is exactly the opposite,
If it wasn't for manned spaceflight there wouldn't be any science space program.
Mauro
Member
Wow, I think you took me the wrong way. You're talking about political motivations, I'm discussing the technical aspects of even building a rocket. The technology didn't come from politicians or engineers. Scientists make the discoveries in chemistry and materials science and tell politicians what engineers can be built from that science. You're quite right, the initial motivation for the space program was based on cold war politics and international prestiege. It had zero to do with science which is why the program was canceled after the political objectives were met. Apollo 17 was the first flight to carry a scientist, and the last flight.
But just like understanding chemistry and materials science allowed for rockets, understanding the effects of dust on Mars or radiation around Jupiter or other things we don't even know about yet will allow us to build better spacecraft allowing more manned exploration and reducing the risk.
Order of Kilopi
I think there are elements of both. Imagination needs to be sparked.
Yes, scientists make discoveries where they say "what can this be used for?". They are also trying to come up with a way to solve a problem that engineering is presenting. And they are looking for evidence to support a politician's point of view.
So I think that this debate is moot, based on opinion, and anecdotal.
Engineering: communication satellites
Political: we are better than the others
Scientific: I wonder what's out there
Honored Member
I'm sure everyone is doing the best they can with what they've got.
Established Member
No doubt about that. However, do you think everybody is on the same agenda?
I have the feeling that NASA has become a collection of independent kingdoms fighting each other. With two horses pulling a car in opposite directions (and at the best they can) you don't get much progress. Things would get much more transparent and efficient when NASA would be split up in 2 or 3 independent parts, each with their own budgets and goals. Where there is overlap in projects (like developing a methane engine for instance) you can always create a joint effort. I also think that none of these new 'parts' would need to be on the agency level like NASA is today. Science and Earth monitoring is done best by University related institutes like APL and JPL, while manned projects can be managed and directed by the Johnson space center. Who needs NASA at all?
(just an idea from a relative outsider)
Order of Kilopi
I guess you can say that.
But I don't agree with the analogy because...
Essentially the different parts of Nasa do have seperate budget and it's mostly (but not all) controlled by Congress. At least with Nasa being a single entity, there can be some (intellegent?) decisions being made with the discretionary funds. My worry would be that Congress would say, group 1: do this, Group 2: do that, and Group 3: we dont think you add much benefit, so were getting rid of you.
So for the flexible portion of the budget, would you rather have 1) bunch of politicians, or 2)someone who has a scientific background.
Order of Kilopi
NASA doesn't need to be weaker than it already is. Let the Air Force be forced to tackle the majority of aeronautics. Launch vehicle development has to come first. The flyboys have had more makes of airplanes than we have had of rockets.
Once the new LV fleet is established--STS will be axed and new science payloads will come to the fore.
Terrestrial Planet Finder is not dead for all time--it will be put off and a better version perhaps launched atop a larger vehicle.
Look how succesful the recent Atlas launches have been.
But there werefolks against anything beyond Atlas IIAS.
But thanx to the booster boosters, we have a fast pluto shot.
Be thankful.
Order of Kilopi
I thought one of the main goals of NASA was non-military applications of aviation. What the Air Force needs, and what commercial aviation needs are 2 different animals. (Although you did say majority, so that may lead some wiggle room)
Actually, couldn't the same be said for rockets? The military has pushed rocket technology (at least it did decades ago) for missles, spysats, etc. And manned craft evolved off of that.
I think NASA is just in a position that there will never be a majority that it satisfies. So, lets gripe and urge as we may, but be glad for what we can get.
Vulcan Administrator
I think it's less true than it used to be, but it's worth noting that NASA is largely a bunch of geographically dispersed bases, each with their own agenda (Goddard, Johnson, Kennedy, JPL, etc.). Recent administrators have worked on making this less of a problem, but I think it's still there.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Banned
The NASA science cuts are really stupid, esp when you consider that they are being made in order to free up funds for a human spaceflight program that really won't amount to much. It would be one thing if we were really serious about designing new propulsion techniques, building a replacement for the shuttle, and establishing bases on the moon and mars. Most this 'vision' seems to be political rhetoric: it would take a much firmer fiscal and political committment to make this 'vision' a reality-- half-hearted efforts and cutting programs that do work is not the way to accomplish the 'vision.' The headline making science missions, on other hand, are what NASA does best.
Vulcan Administrator
Space science revolt begins
Greetings Colleagues: We have a very serious matter on our hands now. NASA plans to reduce funding for research programs over FY06 and FY07 by 25% in order to fund the development of the Crewed Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle. This is a disaster to American solar system exploration. Our ability to turn this situation around is going to depend directly upon your communicating with your Representative and Senators. Absolutely every voice will count!
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Vulcan Administrator
NASA Pulls Funds From Mauna Kea
he sky was the limit for a space-aged project on Mauna Kea. However, the $50 million needed to build it has been cut from NASA's budget.
In its fiscal 2007 budget, NASA cut a big chunk of its science spending in favor of the space shuttle program. One project on the chopping block is a group of telescopes that have been highly anticipated by astronomers, but dreaded by some Big Island activists.
The twin Keck telescopes are the most powerful in the world. But astronomers say they could "see" even better surrounded by a ring of small telescopes that would focus and refine the image. The scientific goal is to learn more about where we come from and what else is "out there."
After eight years in development, those so-called Outrigger Telescopes appear doomed, left out of NASA's budget along with $2 billion in other planned science projects.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote