NASA's Competition For Dollars 78
An anonymous reader writes: We often decry the state of funding to NASA. Its limited scope has kept us from returning to the moon for over four decades, maintained only a minimal presence in low-Earth orbit, and failed to develop a capable asteroid defense system. But why is funding such a problem? Jason Callahan, who has worked on several of NASA's annual budgets, says it's not just NASA's small percentage of the federal budget that keeps those projects on the back burner, but also competition for funding between different parts of NASA as well. "[NASA's activities include] space science, including aeronautics research (the first A in NASA), technology development, education, center and agency management, construction, maintenance, and the entire human spaceflight program. The total space science budget has rarely exceeded $5 billion, and has averaged just over half that amount. Remember that space science is more than just planetary: astrophysics, heliophysics, and Earth science are all funded in this number. Despite this, space science accounts for an average of 17 percent of NASA's total budget, though it has significant fluctuations. In the 1980s, space science was a mere 11½ percent of NASA's budget, but in the 2000s, it made up 27 percent."
Just Do Prizes (Score:1)
Prize awards have high leverage on private investment. Moreover, prize awards aren't spent only for the desired returns -- thereby relegating risk management to the private sector where it belongs.
Oh, I forgot, NASA's money comes largely from political considerations about which districts get how much government pork.
Never mind.
Re: (Score:1)
Living sustainably in space is a next huge step for humanity or even life on Earth through using humans, in the 4 billion years that life's been around on this planet, and of those, the first 3 billion mostly as single cellular.
But when you talk to some people, as in a great dream and enthusiastic way, they are like, you wanna go to the Moon? We'll take you to the Moon, drop ya off with a can of gas, and see ya! Dude we don't have food on the table for some kids, and you wanna go to the Moon? and now I'm li
How Does SpaceX Do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can SpaceX come up with innovative rocket designs for a fraction of what it costs NASA? And they can produce those designs faster. SpaceX soft landed two boosters into the ocean, it would have taken NASA 10 years and $20 billion dollars to replicate that development.
I spent years in Titusville to cover the end of the shuttle program and walking away my opinion was that NASA is a flock of risk-adverse mid-managers flying in formation with a rusting theme park endless replaying clips of their glory days. There are some really good people there, some of them doing amazing things, but they're handicapped by a management structure that's too fat and doesn't have an aggressive vision for the future. NASA depends too much on contractors that can't produce anything on budget and there's no penalty for not performing. Some of that is political, not all their fault.
If we're going to explore space then we have to face the fact that it's unlikely we're going to get there with NASA as it exists today. And we have to find a way to fund that exploration so it's more insulated from politics. Otherwise we're stuck on this rock until a giant comet, asteroid or neutron star wanders by or we get fried by our own sun or a gamma ray burst.
Re: How Does SpaceX Do it? (Score:3, Interesting)
No reason to send ppl to space? Wouldn't you like to leave this polluted rock behind? Last time I checked progress happen in iterations - not leap frogs. For that we should keep practicing, so not just few extremely apt ppl can do it - but everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not "exploring", you're trying to fill the void of your boring life with imagery that makes no sense.
Grow up.
How come none of you ever wants to explore the center of the Earth or the bottom of the ocean?
Re: (Score:3)
I sympathize, but then again I do not see large numbers of people moving to Antarctica or Greenland. Both of which are likely to be much, much nicer places to live in the short to medium term than anyplace on Mars is going to be on the same timeframe.
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathize, but then again I do not see large numbers of people moving to Antarctica or Greenland.
I don't see large numbers of people moving to seasteading, which is a much closer analogue to space settlement.
Having said that, I don't think any of the four destinations is any indication at all of the will present to move to such places. All four are very capital-intensive places to live, but with the massive concentration of wealth happening in the US and around the world, very few people with the will also have the capital to do anything about it. With respect to the fourth destination, space, only o
Re: (Score:2)
No. I am fine here. I like going on my bike to work trough a forest.
No matter how bad environmental problem become, earth will still be better than anything which we could plan to reach. Fixing the problems here woll have a fraction of the cost whcih fixin them by flying away would have.
Lets
Re: (Score:3)
So, what's the plan for dealing with the Sun's inevitable transition to a red giant?
Space is where we need to be for the long term. And when I say "long term", I don't mean "three or more Congressional election cycles"....
Re: (Score:1)
> Wouldn't you like to leave this polluted rock behind
Why, so you can screw up another planet?
Even cats can figure out how to bury their waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Further, how do you expect people to learn how to do that sort of thing better? Living on Earth is soft in many ways, including a lack of need to not "waste" things. Such wouldn't be true in space.
I'm reminded of the proverb, "necessity is the mother of invention". When someone needs to learn how to do something, they tend to do a
Re: (Score:2)
Because NASA did all the heavy lifting half a century ago?
No. Because SpaceX and similar companies are doing the heavy lifting now.
We're already "exploring space" from our computer chairs. No one needs to go anywhere!!! The universe is billions of light years across, how does sending a few test pilots on the Moon for 45 minutes help at all?
How does getting out of your house help you travel anywhere? Travel isn't a process of deciding to go somewhere and just magically end up there.
You probably answered your own question... (Score:3)
People like to point out how SpaceX et al. are benefiting of all the NASA research, however that is not relevant to the question of why NASA itself
Re: (Score:1)
Re: How Does SpaceX Do it? (Score:1)
Well, if I remember correctly,first theyor other private corporations fight the government on whether they should be allowed to have propellant; then they have to fight the government on whether they should be allowed to launch. Then having proved their technology they have to fight the government on what new paperwork they have to fill out to sell US-made rockets to the government, rather than buying from the standard graf^H^H^H^Hgovernment contractors like boeing that illegally buy Russian rockets, mark t
Re: (Score:1)
NASA is not supposed to have vision - they're a branch of the Executive Department and carry out the policies of the Executive as funded by Congress. Ditto for contractors, NASA has always relied on contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is not supposed to have vision
Bullshit. The law [nasa.gov] authorizing NASA directs NASA at numerous points to plan and promote things that fall under "having vision". For example:
Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States
he Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space
The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space.
The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
Later on, there's:
plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
That's the vision mandate. It's worth remembering here that Congress isn't the experts on space exploration in the US government, NASA is supposed to be. Nor does Congress have responsibility for promoting and insuring that the US has viable and useful NASA activities. Once again, that's NASA's particular responsibility.
NASA is an engineering and scientific agency (with an overlay of flags-and-footprints) and always has been, not an exploratory agency. They do not exist to feed the wet dreams and masturbation fantasies of the space fanboys.
The above law also has numerous p
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
It's a good thing then that I actually quoted relevant parts of the law in question to address this very concern. That's the law as written - not my creative interpretation of reality or for that matter, your creative interpretation of reality.
And if we approach this from a rational point of view, who is supposed to provide the vision for NASA's activities? Congress and US presidents don't have the ability and a host of many other distractions. Presidents can appoint informal special panels to do the vis
Re: (Score:2)
So the POTUS decides who heads the execution of the activities (NASA, or DoD), which in effect means the POTUS sets the vision.
That's fine, except the US President doesn't have the skills, experience, or time to set the vision. That's why Congress allotted funding for an agency to enable and implement the President's authority in this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
He's supposed to have those skills, experience, and time.
Of course, that isn't true. Even in some sort of ideal case, no one expects a leader to be a highly proficient expert in everything. The leader is expected to delegate his authority to subordinates who do have the necessary skills.
There isn't any point to the rest of your post since I've already quoted for DerekLyons, the relevant quotes of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, US presidents make the final choices and US congresses set the budget. Those parties have the control and final say over anything NASA does. But the only party with the vision in this mess is NASA. They're th
Now the shuttle program has gone.. (Score:2, Insightful)
...perhaps NASA can do some serious exploration.
Except we still have the flying boondoggle from the Reagan administration, the ISS, sucking money away from exploration and giving it to the Russian government to launch and retrieve people and stuff from LEO for profit.
The return on investment for the ISS has been pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have been adding a new habitable module to the thing every year, or every other year.
Or more often.
Re: (Score:1)
Acid Bucket Challenge (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Priorities Changed - And People Got Suspicious (Score:2, Interesting)
This is entirely due to a matter of federal government policy. When President Kennedy made his famous speech to declare his intent to put a man on the moon, he made a massive change to state funding. His intent was to kick-start the U.S. economy by pouring a huge amount of tax dollars back into the US economy by giving it to NASA as the primary recipient at the "top" of a spending pyramid. The idea was that NASA would then award contracts to lots of other companies, who in turn would generate more work with
Re: (Score:1)
It was almost entirely unsuccessful in that regard. Despite the efforts of generations of NASA PAO's to convince people otherwise, the reality is that space program is a net consumer of technology and has produced very little that has subsequently made it's way out into the general economy.
Space (Score:1)
Oh geez, is that all? (Score:1)
"We often decry the state of funding to NASA. Its limited scope has kept us from returning to the moon for over four decades, maintained only a minimal presence in low-Earth orbit, and failed to develop a capable asteroid defense system"
Wow, what a list. I'm surprised it doesn't include unicorn hunts and panda mating.
> returning to the moon for over four decades
Why?
> minimal presence in low-Earth orbit
Sure, so we can spend all our time learning what happens to people in LEO.
> failed to develop a ca
Re: (Score:2)
Mars as the next step is a stupid idea. And that NASA also keeps suggest it as a next step proves to me how unworthy NASA is of funding. Same whenever they keep doing stupid studies on humans spending long periods in confined areas (they can always ask the nuclear submariners about it).
The true next step for anyone serious in making actual progress in space tech is to build a space station with artificial gravity (tethers+counterweights or other).
Once you have that you can test various animals (rats, food f
Re: (Score:2)
SLS is not expensive because it's so damn big.
SLS is expensive because it's so damn expensive.
It has been a goal for many in the space community to hit $1000/lb for space launchers.
SLS will beat that.
Unfortunately - in the wrong way - by exceeding it for the cost of the actual fuelled rocket on the ground.
(At the flight rates that NASA is projecting - on the high end of likely for the first several flights).
For the cost of the SLS program up to first launch, you can lift around 5500 tons to LED - using the
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what 'presentation' you saw but it is bullshit. At least for FY13 (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/022212_budget_charts.pdf) the Human Exploration and Operations (formerly known as 'Manned') percentage of NASA's budget was 45%. Its hard to argue how human operations in space (mostly ISS related) is in any way "directed at climate change". The remaining 55% includes all the planetary missions and astrophysics which again can't be called 'climate change'. Where is the 75% directed at cli
If the voters want a robust NASA (Score:1)
They will elect the politicians who will make it happen. If not, then NASA will spend the rest of its existence looking for lost change in the couch.
Disposable rovers (Score:2)
It costs an absolute fortune to sent something to another planet (regardless of weight), so why does NASA spend so much time and money designing and building rovers that are only expected to last 3-6 months?
It's like a person complaining about having a food budget that is too small, when they buy nothing but high-price, pre-packaged, ready-to-eat meals.
Money wasted on manned pork (Score:2)