Space Policy Guru John Logsdon Has Good News and Bad News On NASA Funding 78
MarkWhittington writes According to a story in Medium, Dr. John Logsdon, considered the dean of space policy, addressed a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle. The author of a book on President Kennedy's decision to go to the moon and an upcoming book on President Nixon's post-Apollo space policy decisions had some good news and some bad news about NASA funding. The good news is that funding for the space agency is not likely to be slashed below its current $18 billion a year. The bad news is that it is not likely to go up much beyond that. If Logsdon is correct, static NASA funding will mean that beyond low Earth orbit human space exploration will remain an unrealistic aspiration. American astronauts will not return to the moon, not to mention go to Mars, in the foreseeable future.
Really? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. But the information from the earlier story shows how little you should care about this -- adjusted for inflation, funding has not really changed so much over time. So this fake temper tantrum of not having enough money... the overall level of funding hasn't really changed. Now the groups that complain that specific programs come and go, that is a reasonable complaint. But don't make it out to be like the 1970s saw 1 trillion in 2015 US dollars per year... never happened.
Without budget reform (Score:1)
Exploration is not realistic while the manned spaceflight budget is dominated by ISS. Kill ISS and free up over $3 billion a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Kill SLS/Orion and save what, 4 billion a year ? Kill JWST and save 10 billion over its lifetime, kill MSL 2 and save 2 billion.
The question is, to what end ?
Yes it will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who could pay for a space mission are governments and bored billionaires, it's nearly impossible to make a profit in space.
I once did some quick calculations to show that you couldn't send a human to profitably collect watermelon-sized diamonds from the surface of Mars, I wish I could find the post about it now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, great things require well-meaning ultra-rich people for them to happen, because commoners are too cheap and stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who could pay for a space mission are governments and bored billionaires, it's nearly impossible to make a profit in space.
I once did some quick calculations to show that you couldn't send a human to profitably collect watermelon-sized diamonds from the surface of Mars, I wish I could find the post about it now.
Unless you are a bored billionaire, and your quick calculations are what propelled you into being a bored billionaire, please forgive my skepticism about *your* calculations, compared to the calculations being made by those with a demonstrated track record of making profits.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Columbus showed a negative return for his trip.
The whole fucking colony of Roanoke disappeared costing several English Lords a boatload of money.
Exploration is not for timid bean counters.
The good news and the bad news... (Score:1)
The good news is:
We can send up 20 Astronauts this year...
The bad news:
They have to pay $1 Million for each bag they take with them....
See, they should have flown (Favorite Airline that doesn't charge for bags)...
Time to Pause and Rethink (Score:2)
We know how to get stuff into orbit. We've done it many different ways many different times, both privately and publicly funded. We also know how to keep people up there for extended periods of time.
We can keep re-inventing the wheel when it comes to gaining access to space and/or invent a new tin can for people to hang out in one there, or we can pause a bit and define the next challenge. I mean a real challenge and not parlor tricks for the 6PM news or episode of some science show on Discovery. I think on
Re: (Score:2)
I think the challenge should be something like, "reduce manned launch costs by 95% and increase launch reliability by 500%". That doesn't sound glamorous, that won't excite people, but that is exactly what it will take to make a manned Mars mission, asteroid mining, and all of the other great ideas a reality.
Honestly, at this point I could argue with a straight face that we ought to emphasize unmanned missions with high scientific returns and take the enormous pile of money spent on manned space programs f
Re: (Score:1)
>> "reduce manned launch costs by 95% and increase launch reliability by 500%".
Use soyuz.
Already done.
Just cancel one or two unneeded weapon systems (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Better yet we could cut those weapons programs and use the savings to fill in existing budget holes and just reduce the deficit.
Lets face it, geek love of space aside NASA isn't really a very good use of the public's resources. We have done a lot and learned a lot its time to put it back on self for a while until we solve some big energy problems.
All that stuff about astroid mining and such is at this time ridiculous because of the energy inputs required. When someone figures out a potential energy source
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of funding in the area of identifying dense portal energy sources with low ecological impact.
We need/want that for all sorts of things. When someone comes up with something truly new, like working fusion or something we can than explore if its adaptable to space travel.
Until there I don't see much value coming from our continued efforts in space. We have no way to recover in any useful quantity anything we might find out there. Knowing how the earth got its water does not advance or mater
Re: (Score:2)
We could also cut all funding to the arts. After all it is just entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
'Entertainment' that fails in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
'Entertainment' that fails in the marketplace.
Because regular people would rather listen to high-quality music like One Direction and Britney Spears.
Re: (Score:2)
So the regular people should subsides those that want to listen to Bach?
Re: (Score:2)
Well think of it this way: when aliens (presumably with FTL technology that we still think is impossible) come visiting, which is going to impress them and make them think ours is an advanced, worthwhile civilization to make first contact with and make diplomatic ties with and exchange technology with? Hint: it sure as hell isn't Britney Spears.
But hey, if you want to just be one of countless backwards races that none of the cool aliens of the galaxy want to waste their time visiting, and who just sits on
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it will be Britany Spears, Star Wars "the original", and the Avenger Movies that will be impressed by not to mention "I Love Lucy". It is hard to tell. what they like.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is it worth to this country to make sure we won’t find the Luftwaffe our superiors when we start that “Second Front”? We spend in one night over Berlin more than $20,000,000. The NACA requires—now—$17,546,700 for this year’s work. These raids are prime factors in winning the War. How can we do more towards Victory than by spending the price of one air raid in research which will keep our Air Forces in the position which the NACA has made possible?
But the real issue in Launius's article is NACA did not consider importance of the jet engine.
http://launiusr.wordpress.com/... [wordpress.com]
Overstatement (Score:3)
I foresee a future of space exploration funded by the super-rich, because it's cool and they can, but also organizations with a speculative interest. I'm thinking of asteroid mining - robotic at first, but if an asteroid is captured and brought near earth, manned operations will probably take place at some point.
Looking back at the earlier days of Earth exploration, specifically "new world" and Antarctic, there were no guarantees of success or even survival; and while Columbus was state-funded, the mission was of a primarily commercial interest. Shackleton's and Scott's, however, were primarily for exploration - scientific curiosity. As long as we have people like Elon Musk, there's a chance for manned exploration. Even a high-risk manned mission to Mars would have plenty of willing volunteers, as long as there was a chance of safe return (I do think it would at least have to be planned to be round-trip).
That will change very shortly.... (Score:3)
All the Chinese have to do is land a man on the moon -- even if it's a one-way trip -- and NASA's budget will skyrocket when they believe that the Chinese will have the high ground. It will become a defense program -- and you KNOW those have unlimited money, even from Republicans... hell, especially Republicans.
Public yawns (Score:2)
Americans are reactionary. Until China embarrasses the USA by taking a tinkle on Neal Armstrong's flag, they will not care.
taxes, revenue, and budget (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of money to be had for NASA, Congress simply needs to do its job better to get it. Stop monkeying with the tax code and make corporations actually pay income tax and there will be plenty of revenue.
Corporations don't pay tax.
If you increase corporate taxation, they cut wages, or cut dividends, or increase prices. In all those cases, that means less money goes to real people, who now have less money to spend on useful things that keep the economy going, rather than government boondoggles.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can do those things, then they will do those things regardless of tax.
Can you imagine a CEO looking over the budget and deciding 'huh, turns out we can cut wages by a third and save millions... but we're turning a nice profit right now, so I why bother?'
Re: (Score:2)
If they can do those things, then they will do those things regardless of tax.
Exactly. I always find it rather amusing that so many "free-market capitalists" forget this very basic principle of a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can do those things, then they will do those things regardless of tax.
No, they won't.
If they cut wages, they lose their best staff.
If they cut dividends, their stock price drops.
If they raise prices, customers start looking for alternatives to their products.
None of those things are likely to be good in the long term, which is why sane companies won't do them. But when you're suddenly forced to pay more money at gunpoint, you have no choice.
I mean, really, seriously: where do you think the magic pile of money comes from to pay higher taxes? Your company profit is $X million a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't showing less profit paying?
Otherwise you could extend your argument to mean nobody ever pays for anything.
how is that good news? (Score:2)
I don't see how that is good news. NASA has been incredibly wasteful and inefficient in their use of funding (just look at the space shuttle program). The well run programs NASA runs don't excuse the crap they are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No.. that will be done by the Chinese who could then throw rocks from the moon.
Sure. Right after they finish building their new aircraft carriers and their new stealth fighter planes. Chinese talk as much as the American administrations do, and end up doing less.
Re: (Score:1)
+1. Cancel the completely pointless ISS and we will have the Webb, probes on Europa, you name it.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has been incredibly wasteful and inefficient in their use of funding (just look at the space shuttle program)
NASA had no choice but to be wasteful and inefficient. The military forced them to. The only reason the Space Shuttle happened is because the military wanted a way to not only launch secret spy satellites, but to be able to recapture them and bring them back intact.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the military. Plus congressional boondoggles. Plus the public, who wanted to see "American heroes in space". Who cares what the reasons were and are, the fact remains that public funding for NASA does not give us a good return on investment i
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they'd stop forcing NASA to get hijacked by other interests, and just do makes sense for space exploration, then they wouldn't have this problem.
NASA did great back in the 60s when they were given a single, simple mission, land men on the moon, and given the proper funding to do so (at a time when the technology needed didn't even exist), and wide latitude as to how it should be done.
Re: (Score:2)
And if pigs could fly...
Landing men on the moon was a useless stunt and has held space exploration back by decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for Pete's sake.
Writing a book is a lot of work, and when you're done you promote it for the simple reason that you want people to read it.
Very few people get rich from writing a book, and it's fairly safe to say that nobody sits down to write a book on space policy because he thinks he'll "strike it rich".
Re: (Score:2)
Third law of motion (Score:2)
Makes sense if you pay attention to the great grandfather of space exploration. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "What goes up must come down".
educate the public (Score:2)
"...the public, when surveyed, thinks that NASA gets something like a quarter to a third of the US budget. Perhaps we should show the world what we could accomplish if we really had that level of funding?"
No. We need to educate the public what percentage of federal budget is spent on NASA. We first need to show the brutal truth of what's going on, and those who closely follow space activities have shown misinformation among themselves (not that it is all their fault, it seems federal policies are delibrie
Re: (Score:2)
We need to make sure to document all of this using an information storage medium that can last eons, so that when alien travelers come to this planet in the far future and find the ruins of our civilization, their xeno-archeologists can read these records and see exactly why our civilization failed.
Hand of history (Score:2)
It’s fair to ask, if NASA is getting 50% of the world’s funding and the rest of the world is going to the Moon, why is it unreasonable to expect that we would go as well? There are two possible answers. Perhaps the rest of the world has an unrealistic impression of the complexity of the problem and their own capabilities. Or, perhaps our own space agency has turned into a bureaucratic morass that is incapable of finishing large projects without spending ridiculous sums of money. For sure the for
really? (Score:2)
Neil Won't be happy. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He needs to stop wasting his time trying to convince people here to spend money on this. Instead, he should go to China and India and convince them. Their societies actually think about things longer-term than the next reality TV show season, so they're going to be the ones to succeed in this stuff, while western society fails and collapses.
Re: (Score:2)
And they're doing worse than the US how? Last I heard, China only just recently surpassed the US in carbon emissions, and that's with a far larger population plus a huge amount of manufacturing (that we've sent over there). It's rather hypocritical to criticize them for environmentalism when we're polluting 4x as much as them per capita.
18 billion would be fine if.... (Score:2)
NASA is the only option? (Score:2)
"If Logsdon is correct, static NASA funding will mean that beyond low Earth orbit human space exploration will remain an unrealistic aspiration."
So the only option for anything human beyond LEO is NASA? Chinese not able to ever, ever do it? Russians? India? Europe?
Not about science (Score:2)
Of cause this is not how it got sold in pop-sci edutainment magazines and tv-shows, but in less frivolous circles it's always been a