Slashdot Mirror
NASA In Financial Trouble
JoeGee writes "And it's not the Russian Space Agency. According to the Associated Press, as reported on Yahoo, NASA is looking at 4 billion US dollars worth of budget over-runs through 2006. This isn't surprising, considering the lack of budget increases, and the continued financial pressure.
OTOH IMHO, I would gladly pay a couple extra dollars in taxes to keep them going, too!
But, that's just me. I know most of you will probably gag on either of these idea's.
...not that I'm a pirate.. Hell I've never even fired a cannon. - oldwolf13
Never blame on budget cuts that which its more appropriately attributed to mismanagement, miscommunication, and misfortune.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
Looks likes the possibilty of selling trips into space to people in the private sector may become a necessary reality.
It sure sounds bad for NASA, but I'm guessing one of their accountants just swapped a dollar sign with a British pound sign, and their math is off by a few billion.
One one hand, I feel good about this, because it will encourage space exploration in the private sector. If profit-driven research finds new, cheaper ways into space, I might be able to take that tourist cruise before I'm 60.
On the other hand, do we really want corporations in charge of space research?
Lawyer 1: Oh, I'm sorry. You can't launch a ramjet spacecraft because we've patented the math you need to achieve orbit.
Lawyer 2: Yeah? Well your Ion booster-jets are based on our technology. We'll raise our rates so that we can afford to sue you.
Lawyer 3: Well you're all screwed because my company has patented any spaceflight using vehicles constructed on the ground or in orbit.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Not to mention all the crap that keeps crashing into Mars. ;)
The US spends about 1 billion dollars per day on the military. That's what some drunk guy in a bar once told me, and that's a pretty good source.
Up next? Disney to partner with NASA....
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
What are some examples of space shuttle research that has actually panned out as something useful?
love is just extroverted narcissism
If something doesn't profit right away, AXE it, cut it, or just leave it to stagnate.
Vision is dead.
Screw 3...
NASA has always had a policy of "its more important to get the job done well and safely than cheaply". The end result of this is an excellent safety record (compare the death told of the space exploration to /any/ of the major explorations of Africa/South America etc), which, unfortunately, when combined with the apparent American idiom that "bigger is better", leads to astronomical costs such as this. I don't think anybody here would advocate NASA cutting back on the safety and workability of the ISS and its other projects, but maybe its time for them to scale the scope of their projects back a bit. I don't mean neccessarily eliminating certain projects entirely, but rather getting them done more efficiently, even at the cost of getting them done quickly. In the long term, we'll still reach our end goal of exploring the solar system and beyond, but that way we can do it within our means *as well* as safely.
And when our oceans get seeded with alien life that migrates onto land and reproduces by shooting little hatchlings into us which can't be removed and we aren't able to move into space chandeliers because we don't have the expertise to build them because building space stations were a complete waste of money....what'll that guy be saying then?!
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
"I propose that before this decade is out we launch a robot probe that actually touches down on Mars without blowing itself to bits."
Not that W would say anything that profound. George might say "We want to be sure that the space stuff works before we make approria.. aprropri.. appropriations for more money. Let's make sure the fox ain't in the henhouse, Mikey!"
Let's face it... NASA has been full of screwups for the past two decades. It's not surprising they would be in trouble again.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
That just happends to be about how much more money I will see every 2 weeks in my pay check after the "tax break"
I can do without the money if it means human curosity can not be fullfilled....
Burn Hollywood Burn
Maybe they should look into letting all the Titos of the world get a crack at Alpha. At $20M a pop, they'll be under budget in no time...
F'ing Bush..
Why dont you complain to the people who allocate the money, ie: your congressmen. Bush tells them what he wants, and eventually signs the bill, but they have the opportunity to control and the policy.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
OOOHHH!!! I've figured out GW's agenda!
By increasing pollutants (arsenic, CO2, etc.) and cutting science funding and education funding, GW Bush will make himself the most intelligent person in America via everyone's exposure to brain damaging chemicals, lack of oxygen, lack of science and lack of teachers!
GW will be a GENIUS among MORONS!!!!
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
1. Cut yourself back to two launches a year
2. On each of those launches have at least 1 paid tourist. Instead of having this person pay directly for the trip, have the price of their trip go directly into the coffers of lobbyists to work Congress and the public on your behalf.
3. Spend the next 10 years putting all the money you saved from those launches into R&D. Focus on Single-Stage-to-Orbit and a Manned Mars Mission. These things will save you.
4. Once you put a man on Mars, you're golden, untouchable. Use the momentum gained from that to put us off this single solitary pinprick of a planet forever.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Break the Atmospheric Ceiling
That can be the cry of the new garage-based astronauts
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
NASA is and has always been somewhat of a supporting agency to US armed forces, so stuff about its budgeting should be considered along with military budgeting issues.
Remember that Bush is demanding accurate accounting from the Pentagon now about its needs for the year- it won't budget deliberately expecting supplementary spending bills in the middle of the year. Every agency, including NASA, will have to have tight budgets from here on in.
This is a manner of managerial control; without secret expenditures, there can be no secret activity with government money. The same applies to NASA
Nasa's unprecedented reporting of its true budgetary situation fits clearly into political context here. It's jumping the gun with full financial disclosure as well as pressuring congresspeople and scientists who support it to raise more money for next fiscal year, even if it has to function under a tighter accounting.
Of course, this may be the start of more privatization of space. NASA can do much more with private money than it can with public money. Remember a lot of the funds in Iran-contra affair were originally private money.
Goat sex free since 2001
If you read what scientists could have done in terms of real science it'd make you cry.
Then NASA claims Tito can't visit because of safety concerns, concerns cause by, guess what, their unwillingness to train him for two days because they deceided at the last minute they needed to be re-imbursed training costs. Did they think he wouldn't pay? A naked ploy to keep him off the station, which not only backfired, but damaged whatever remaining reputation they had for honesty. They should have said, "We are not going to train you so that we can say it's too dangerous for you to go." instead of coming up with reams of BS.
Money that in 5 years NASA has flopped on this issue totally.
With the ISS, what makes it worse is that NASA has been blaming the russians, when the delay allowed them to catch some HUGE problems, including a return to earth problem with the gear they were sending up. Mix in the most attrocious budget forcasting imaginable, stir in a touch of arrogance and redacted astronought logs, and spit out giant boondogles.
Of course, all this will luke puny when compares to the fortunes spent persuing technicially infeasible missle defense systems.
This strategy to meet President Bush (news - web sites)'s budget would limit the international space station to a crew of three, its current number, rather than the intended six or seven. That would drastically curtail research aboard a laboratory described by NASA as the most sophisticated one ever flown.
Isn't this like the National Park Service's threats to close the Washington Monument in case of budget cuts? Target the most politically popular programs first, so Congress will restore all the money, instead of cutting less important stuff.
Of course, I would think they should cut back ISS as far as possible and use the savings for more unmanned missions around the solar system. But manned flight is popular, so we keep sending 'em up there to do that oh-so-valuable zero-gravity research.
sulli
RTFJ.
What really piss me off with this space station is that with the same budget we could have sent somebody to Mars. All this space station crap happens because NASA still believes into Korolev's vision: step by step exploration of space.
First you built a space station, then you built a permanent station on the Moon, and finally you can shoot for Mars.
Guess what. The lunar program just went directly to the Moon, without stopping at an expansive space station.
There are some similar project concerning Mars, but the space station eats of lot of money, so there's any left for such "farfetched" programs.
Even if it can be argued that the scientific fallouts of a Mars program and of the space station station are roughly equivalent, going to Mars is still a lot more exciting (read good PR) than this "just above our heads" station.
Nobox: Only simple products.
You don't need to be Kreskin to predict NASA's future. The hand writing is on the wall: NASA faces a bleak future. Things are looking very bad for NASA. As many of us are already aware, NASA continues to lose friends. Blood flows like a river of red ink.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers:
Michael Hawes, deputy associate administrator for the space station, states that there are 7000 users of NASA. How many users of NASA are there? Let's see. The number of NASA projects versus NASA expenditure is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. NASA's inspector general office reported late last month that the space agency spent $97 million and 19 months, for example, on a propulsion module for the space station before determining the design was unacceptable. The project was canceled in March.
Make no mistake about it: NASA is on its last legs. It is ceasing to be. It will soon be an ex-agency.
props to all dead homiez
Any reason why The American Space program hasn't gone the same way as the European?.. the UK have, for example, moved into the private sector to support it's self and then, only, in partnership with Germany and France space "companies".
Does this debt reflect the world space sector as a whole or is it just NASA?
I'd imainge that, like the UK, much of the moneyy comes from miltary projects based on the research done. Help me out here, I thought the US pushed some much money into defense, surely NASA must get a massive chunk of that fat pie.
...how much will Dubya's revival of Star Wars cost, and will there be a 100% guarantee that nuclear weapons will not touch American soil as a result?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I understand budget overruns of a few million. It's to be expected when researching and developing new and untested technology but wasting almost $1 billion on an unusuable design??? No wonder NASA has problems getting funding. If they're track record is to be so nonchalant about that much money, especially when we are on the brink of a recession, (the federal reserve has already cut interest rates 6 times this year alone and is considering a 7th cut and expected earnings are falling short in almost every industry for the second quarter), I'd just as soon see it go to other agencies and programs down here on earth.
I know I am just naive to have believed that NASA scientists are more precise and accountable with funding than the rest of the federal government. I am very disillusioned.
tokengeekgrrl
Maybe this means that NASA will look into sending citizens into space now
That would be stupid. The total price of the trip (when including its part of the fixed costs) is much more than what he paid. Since these fixed costs have been paid, NASA needs to get as much research and testing done as possible for this money. Space Tourism the Tito way is not the way to go.
Just go IPO Nasa. :)
;-)
Seriously, it's sad that such strategic area of research is getting each day less public and financial attention. Bush's administration seems to care more about 'ground' stuff.
These are some of my impressions that I got when I look at the 'bigger' picture of current USA's governament.
For the public, they will say 'Nasa takes much and does nothing'.
If so is true, don't cut their money but instead, fix the erros. By denying Nasa to improve their work and to make a better job is the wrong way. To realize that there are areas that can be improved (and in Nasa, they are many), you can make a good job.
Seems like there's no future planning. Just fix it using any way now to look good to voters.
Nasa should be and can be one of the most important areas of any administration. The impact of their research in incomensurable.
But then again, I guess I am just an old romantic old fool that still promises the moon to ladies
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
It's refreshing to hear someone saying this in the popular media. The space station has become more about politics (both national international) and public relations than it is about science. It's sucking money away from more economical but less glamorous scientific projects, and our knowledge of the universe is going to suffer for it.
--
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- T. Jefferson
I don't think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Neither side is championing space exploration or more NASA funding in anything other than a token way.
One problem is that it isn't as easy to answer the "What's the point?" question as it is for funding for life sciences research like fighting cancer, a vaccine for HIV, etc.
Why explore Mars? Personally I haven't a clue. Why try to find a cure for cancer? Because I might get it. When political pollsters get the mood of people I think Space Research is near the bottom of the list.
They've mistaken millimeters and inches in the past, perhaps it's dollars and sense this time.
----------------------------------------
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
... and pray tell me who is going to analyse those Terabytes of data that your multimillion satellite has collected? And no, this is not a SETI@home project as image processing is data-intensive and the datapath and memory hierarchy within a PC is not exactly well tuned for these high throughput systems.
The NSA has similar issues in that irregardless of Echalon, they still need skilled analysts to interpret the information, computer filters notwithstanding. Could you perform a vegetation cover auto-correlation with the spatial extent and connectivity of basin drainage? If so, volunteer your computer and expertise.
LL
Everyone should take a look at the article in Newsweek "To Walk on Mars." It was in the July issue of 1996 (or somewhere around there. I'm positive it is the July issue.)
The article outlines the failures of NASA to actually do anything significant. Most people forget that space exporation is as much about PR as it is science. NASA continues to ignore real opportunities... we have the technology RIGHT NOW to send a manned mission to Mars, but instead, NASA insisted on building a financial black hole of a space station, and when it's finished, won't get us any closer to Mars.
The space shuttle is an excellent example of NASA's stupidity and incompetence. It costs more to launch something in orbit with the space shuttle, recycle the space shuttle, and reuse it, than it costs to build a *brand new rocket*, have the rocket launch, burn up completely on re-entry, then build a *brand new rocket* all over again.
NASA's new launch vehicle, by NASA's own estimates, won't be ready for another 20 years. This has prompted many private companies to develop cheap lauch vehicles because they are TIRED OF WAITING ON NASA!
People have a hard time getting behind little robot probes exploring space. The real progress comes with manned spaceflight. The country (and the whole human race) can rally behind a manned mission. Yes, it is much harder to send a man into space than a robot, but that is the entire point. Because it is harder, we learn more and develop new technologies to make it possible.
Isn't manned flight what NASA was created for in the first place?
NASA's refusal to work within budgets and to ignore manned spaceflight and solve its problems of sticking with bad technologies has led to this problem. If you want someone to blame, blame NASA, its their own fault.
ISS v2.0 - Designed for Microsoft Windows 2002.
Flush the toilet when you're trying to calculate the next shuttle docking sequence and blue-screen the whole station.
ISS Brought to you by Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro
Hit from behind by a NEGLEGENT DRIVER looking at the ISS? I can make sure YOU get the MONEY YOU DESERVE from ANY AND ALL accidents involving the ISS!
The only other option is to hold a semi-annual pledge drive a la PBS
The ISS has been brought to you by the Carnegie Corporation and by Earth-bound suckers like you
Or maybe I'm just really bored at work.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
$97M = $0.097B. Less than one-tenth of a billion.
sulli
RTFJ.
While browsing through the OSS-poll this morning, I learned there's a belgian who owns a .cx domain.... hmm.
Maybe NASA should have a look at paypal. For every trip to the ISS, I would gladly make a micropayment.
On a more serious note: the fact the russians work on a very tighter budget and still accomplish great things, makes me wonder where most of your taxes end up. I'm not (only) talking about spaceflight. Governments should realize research is the key to economic prosperity, scientific breakthroughs and quality education in the long run. You can't just cut the budget of your own future. IMHO, someone in Washington D.C. should reconsider some priorities.
It's amazing how all of the posters who bash Bush just spew ignorant propaganda. The so-called facts you present are nothing more than attack-dog lies. Next time do your research before lying about someone. (The pollution attacks are borderline libellous.)
The problem with NASA is that it's a juggernaut. It uses outdated technologies and procedures, and has a spending mentality that goes back to the sixties. Instead of trying to be tight and practical, they're asking for vast quantities of money to throw at poorly-realized projects.
They need to take a lesson from Aerospace corporations who have learned the hard way to slim down their operations and work more efficiently.
Got Rhinos?
The end result is that alot of alternatives to payload launchers, etc have been scrapped over the years.
Thus the primary mission of Nasa is to cover their butts and protect their jobs. Then to get something done.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
NASA will have to make due. At this point it is absolutely unreasonable for the Federal Government to ask taxpayers to provide more funds. If the Feds really wanted to supplement NASA, it could simply pick one of the many client states that receive billions of dollars a year in US military aid, cut them off, and bring the dollars home. May I suggest South Korea? Maybe Egypt.
Whenever a NASA article comes up on slashdot, the user comments always break my heart.
Fact: Good engineering is EXPENSIVE. Building, testing, and operating a manned spacecraft is a tad more complex than writing a perl script or configuring a linux kernel.
Add to those pressures a dwindling budget (a fraction of what it was during the Apollo era) and very little public support, even from those who would present themselves as forward-thinking technical types, and I'm frankly surprised that NASA's track record in the 1990s was as good as it was.
Alas, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that modern American culture is probably incapable of supporting a serious and useful space program, and I can only hope that I am still alive, and useful, when other nations get their act together to pick up where we left off.
:Michael
Point taken.
However, it would be interesting to see NASA look into the market of space tourism. NASA could possibly meet some costs this way, and increase national awarness. The Citizen Astronaut Program was a good idea that unfortunately got discontinued after the Challenger Disaster.
If the nation appears to be interested in space travel, and exploring space, and continuing to go further and further then we will see more funding for NASA.
I don't like seeing people giving the ISS a hard time either. It's a good idea. To get farther without having problems with other countries on earth we need to work together. Sure, there will be problems, but perhaps we can work them out better.
NASA also needs to 'capture' the attention of Americans. They need to go to the moon again, or send a manned mission to MARS. They've been circling the earth for way to long in the Shuttle, and people are just like 'ooh, another shuttle launch on CNN' now. It doesn't fascinate people anymore, it's become to commonplace.
I reccomend that if people want to see more from NASA and in citizens in space like the citizen astronaut program, that they should send mail to congress, and NASA. I know that email seems tempting since it's fast and a good medium, however many people just delete stuff, ignore it, and don't read it as much. REAL letters, like POST OFFICE type, are tangible. They carry the weight that someone had to write them down. And even though your letter may get stuck under a pile of hundreds, if a congress person gets enough on a certain issue, that issue, and some of those letters, will get through to him/her.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
They get to raise the price of stamps whenever they want. Any idiot could operate in the black if prices can be arbitrarily raised.
John 17:20
They should consider doing research on things people are really want to have. Like nuclear rockets. Oh, wait.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Well, Nasa, quite honestly, works out to the ultimate missile defense system (well, lets neglect the fact that they directly help the military right now, I'm not looking at that ;) ). Colonization is the key to the indefinite survival of the human race. Right now, we can get an ICBM to any point on the planet in under 30 minutes. It is quite easy to destroy us all. Once we blanket space - not just close stars, but random, scattered outposts in the darkness, in the void... we become near impossible to destroy, if not completely impossible to destroy. Sure, we'll begin to diverge as a species in places... but. Some form of sentient life will carry on. That is the reason for NASA (in my opinion :) ).
:) (it was our fault a few years back).
-= rei =-
P.S. - I just have to add this - this time, its not the fault of the company I work for that NASA is over budget!!!
"This may be presumptuous..." "That's my favorite kind of 'This'."
If to make an everyday battery recharger ready for space flight costs (if I remeber well) USD 150.000. Its not very hard to step over your budget...
Is it right? Not?
Here's an idea. Disband NASA. Turn space projects over to the private sector.
Unfortunately, we'd just end up in even worse shape. The private sector would quickly figure out that no one was buying and would rededicate their efforts into selling another 2 billion dollars worth of Pokemon to the masses. That's what the private sector is good for. Government is for doing all of the unpopular but needful things.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Given that this is the "Now The Hendersons Have The Bomb" age, thanks to Russian nonchalance towards nonproliferation, we pretty much have a choice between strategic defense or massively building up the nuclear arsenal or surrender.
Communism fell, but everyone forgot to tell the Russians.
Maybe Star Wars will give us a real launcher program. SDIO was the last group working on one, before Clinton killed the group and turned over the launcher to NASA for strangulation and burial.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Seti at home (sorry no at sign, I'm sick of it!) and distributed computing technology inc. are working on computer related projects and dreams.
There is no reason for this too. I hope that we could include some projects dealing with maybe space simulation or something which has real life, real world problems.
I know that there is other projects out there, like someone is doing cancer, and I ran one for a while which worked on nuclear waste, but these aren't half as popular are they? I think if you want to run seti then go do it, I've never uninstalled it. Distributed.net's client runs on my machine all day long, but lets get some NASA projects out.
Run whatever you want. I would like to work on calculating for NASA and maybe even saving some cash for 'em. Working on ways to get to Mars or something would bring me way more satisfaction than listening for an aliens tv signals from 50 years ago.
NASA, dammit get it together, and butter dUBYA up - he's the kinda guy who would rape the rest of us to get a few shuttle launches under his belt. He'd be a spender if it put the money in companies pockets, get the aerospace industry involved. Use FUD or smear to get it off the ground!
We all want Mars, we gotta get it before Bill Gates does.
Get your Unix fortune now!
40 years ago, we had a goal, or three. We were in a race with the russians, one that defined america's character, to a point. Space was the newest and niftyist thing out - everything in US culture there for a while somewhat focused around space, and what space could do for them.
Now that group of children have grown up, and as adults, have come to accept space travel as the norm. Nothing special about it, why spend money on it? There arent any more hyped-up goals. There really hasn't been. Closest thing in recent times was the hubble, and most people were too short-sighted to see the benefits of such a device. The IIS isnt generating the kinds of emotions from the public NASA should be looking for.
IMHO, what i think would be nice, to rekindle the "spirt" of the space program - go back to the moon. Go to mars. Send a human bean somewhere beyond the van allen belts, once again. The world has no more great adventures.
Maybe when the children and teenagers of the computer age reach their 30's and 40's, some of their knowledge and wonder generated by their youths will inspire them to create new adventures, and NOT be concerned with the financial aspects of every little thing.
I do agree though with those that say nasa is absorbing a lot of tax dollars - but so is the military (arguably). So are government employee overhead. I bet they all put premium unleaded in their lawnmowers, golf carts, and 400HP marital aids. Space is just one of several budget concerns, but it seems to be the one that always gets the most heat from the public, perhaps since its probably one of the newest broad-categorys of expense, and still considered "newfangled" by 50-something year old people who use GPS mapping, cell phones, satellite television, etc, etc, etc.
Slashdot something useful.
Management is not a tunable parameter.
I once considered drawing a few Captain Obvious comics :) Your typical looking superhero.. has a big "O" on his uniform, with, in subscript, the "bvious", just in case people couldn't tell. Has a secret identity, its him, still in uniform, just wearing glasses.
-= rei =-
"This may be presumptuous..." "That's my favorite kind of 'This'."
Its not just NASA, its whole military problem. Very big percent of US military economy was depending on existence of enemy (USSR). When the archenemy collapsed, they had to find new arguments. But there really are none... so here we go again with starwars II (NMD) and such crap.
(and the war machine keeps turning)
For those who think NASA budget is mostly mars missions - wake up !
__
__
L.
Don't knock the Mil spending. Its one of the few area's you can get funding for things that look even close to pure research - be that physics, biochem, whatever. It does not _HAVE_ to make a profit - the first time in is always expensive. If your lucky, the tech/knowhow will work its way back into your lives.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Booosh just wants to get off the geeky stuff and on to the cool explosions and shit.
--Blair
They should just go through all their Mars research finding anything that could be interpreted as evidence for life on Mars, no matter how tenuous, and then make lots of press releases about it to agencies like CNN. They should also encourage their partners to do the same. All these stories are bound to catch the public eye and raise overall interest in, and willingness to spend on, space research.
--
-- SIGFPE
Just hire a bunch of Rocketguys. They'll go up for some free beer and a Hooters gift certificate.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
You know... that's a good point...
:P Too bad the whole "starve the beast" thing doesn't work; the beast eats whether or not you have a "don't eat!" sign up or not ;)
We could make a real spender out of -W- if his proprietors thought it would be good for their companies...
Of course, then we'd be back in a Reagan situation: Big spending at the same time as big tax cuts, and a skyrocketing debt...
-= rei =-
"This may be presumptuous..." "That's my favorite kind of 'This'."
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
And a big *ppbbffttt* to the moderators who don't have more constructive uses for their points than to mark me down. You make what is obviously a mistake and you get slammed. Geesh.
tokengeekgrrl
I don't think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Neither side is championing space exploration or more NASA funding in anything other than a token way.
Space exploration really isn't a priority for congress. What is a priority is getting as many government projects for your home state as possible, this is the reason NASA is still in business. NASA has made it a point to spread their contracts all over this nation so that a large number of senators and representatives are benefiting politically. So while no one seems to care what NASA actually accomplishes in space, they care very much what NASA spends here on Earth.
The side effect is that without widespread public support, NASA is just another government program looking to get cut. I wonder how bad of a thing these cuts will be, a drop in budget could cause NASA to stop playing the political game and just focus on unmanned research. I'm all for manned space exploration but there's got to be a better way...
NASA is only $4 billion over budget? The Big Dig in Boston, MA is over $10 billion over budget right now and growing. At least NASA has accomplished something.
You forgot three who died on the pad with Apollo 7. The loss of Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee hit hard. That's the American side.
On the Soviet side, you missed no fewer than 170 deaths:
Komarov: 1967
Testers of Baikonur (you've probably seen the film of the explosion)
Gagarin and test-pilot Seryogin, lost in air flight in 1968)
Georgi Dobrovolksy, Vladislav Volkov, Viktor Patsayev, Soyuz 11, June 6, 1971 (died during re-entry)
Science is expensive, and pure research even more so. "Pure research" is the attempt to find out something without any other goal than the knowledge itself. That means there's no expected profits. Universities used to be the primary resource for this, but the way things have been the past couple decades, most research is done on behalf of a corporate sponsor, which means that 1) if you can't show a profitable motive for the intended result, you ain't doing it; and 2) If what you find upsets the sponsor, the plug is pulled quickly.
NASA has been incredibly successful, despite having both arms tied behind its back, one leg hobbled, the other knee immobilised, and forced to wear an eye patch AND headphones blaring N-SYNC and Shitney Spears 24/7.
The people who have died through their direct involvement in space programs all knew there were risks involved and were willing to take those risks. We can split hairs and say that no one told Krista McAuliffe that the Challenger was really a 1.5 million pound bomb, or that Apollo 7 wouldn't have burned if NASA read the label and followed the manufacturer's instructions, but they were still better informed than their Soviet counterparts.
Science ain't cheap, but when's the last time you thought about the price of ignorance?
woof.
"Eppur si muove" ("Nevertheless, it moves") -- supposedly said by Galileo after his recanting of his book.
I have had to work with NASA folks before an their
real problem is their arrogance. The cost overuns
are caused by their inability to admit someone else
could do the same thing cheaper or even right.
The phrase "We didn't invent so it must be wrong"
was probaly started at NASA.
Now the other major cost is their management
structure. Let me inform you their engineers ergo
the people really doing the work, are way
under-paid. The going rate at Nasa is about 1/2
the industry rate. SO you end up with the older
good engineers waiting for retirement being
overworked and a bunch of college graduates
who can't function without matlab holding their
hands.
sigh
Leslie Donaldson
It's embarrassing here in Canada that the politicians scream "We need more of our young people to become highly educated!" on one side of their face while absolutley screwing over every practical implementation of such a statement!
NASA needs money, their research is invaluable.
Schools need money, their services are incalculable
Hospitals (and Health Care in general) need money, some day you will be glad if they do have more cash!
Go ahead and mod me as redundant or offtopic. But it's a fact that in both the US and Canada, our priorities are totally backwards. Although being larger and more prominent (and having alot more money), the whole situation disgusts me a little more when I watch PBS news shows or listen to NPR.
Plus damnit, it is our money. (Respective to our own countries of course).
If they could find a few thousand employees running Seti@Home they could sue them for a half million each. That would put a big dent in that $4 billion.
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
Because seemingly non-productive research can later benefit us in ways not today imaginible. Much crystal growing tech (that today makes our CPUs) came from space research. But when these space launches were happening, computers were still made of glass, metal, and vacuum, and your father was saying "Where's the benefit?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
4 billion US dollars worth of budget over-runs
If Carl Sagan were here, he'd say we need billions and billions of dollars.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Most people don't realize how much their lives are actually influenced by technological advancements that have been made available by NASA and other 'why even bother' research programs.
The requirements for some of NASA's programs have created the need for new technologies, some of which have trickled down to the average consumer in the form of microwave ovens or "sleep systems" (translation: beds).
You must not be aware of the tremendous list of technological achievements NASA made towards getting us to the moon, which have drastically improved our lives. Everything from integrated circuits to ketchup packets, from satellite communications technology to Tang. .V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
make world, not war
Fund The Fight Against Bush And His Agenda
Liberty in your lifetime
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They take our money, at gunpoint, because they know that we wouldn't otherwise hand over our money for their causes... Why don't they have a simple check box for things we don't want to support? To try to hold non-essential causes in the same arena as the Military and other essential services is disingenuity, thievery, or stupidity.
Am I to gather then that the NEA in not essential, but that the "Military" is? Why shouldn't I be able to have check-boxes next to the NSA suggesting I do not want to pay for their mission? Or next to the Navy, because I happen to not like ships much? It seems particularly odd that you think that supplying the military is an unquestioned necessity, but that you also object to the government collecting taxes "at gunpoint."
I am impressed by your ability to equate "pro-fascism" with freedom to identify oneself with political positions that are not in line with the Founding Aristocracy's views. This is especially impressive when you yourself seem to be arguing that their funky First Amendment encourages people to be "anti-American."
I am most curious to know your wide ranging views on military exploitation of space. Should this be funded or does it fall into the "optional" category?
I find it hard to beleve that any 1/2 sentient Slashdot poster would say we don't get anything out of NASA. Just take a look at that thing you are typing on! If it wasn't for NASA it would still take up a 20x20 room and use TUBES instead of microchips. For those of you who doubt how much we get from NASA Please read the damn FAQ.
If I could be sure that all the money would go to NASA I would give my tax break back, plus the "refund" I'm getting in the fall. That should pay for quite a few of the "I don't want you spending my money" folks around here.
But I want one concession- I need a list of all the folks I'm paying for. This way I can make sure that they are not on the recieving end of the payoff at the end. You all die when the comet hits SUCKER!!!!
"I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
1) Instead of disturbing the only biosphere we know of in the universe to mine metals and minerals here we could mine the nearby lifeless orbs. But only if we get to space. The environmentalists should be for this.
2) Deconstruction of molicules one atom at a time and the construction of other molicules at all require microgravity or less. We currently have plenty of opportunity to do this *ONLY* if we want to pay attention to one disease/issue at a time and if the correct people, as opposed to the politically empowered people, get to do the research. A large accessable habitat at an Legrange point is needed to address the medical needs of the world today. All the cancer-x vs. cancer-y vs. AIDS people should be demanding space in space for research.
3) Generating power in space is "better". It (again) doesn't impact the biosphere and solar can work nicely and if we could GET OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT the whole "what about when it falls out of the sky" garbage goes away because things don't fall here after a certain distance. So the ecology people and the Californians should be for space right now, with the rest of us to follow.
4) Spending money on space stuff is like getting to spend your money twice or more while shelling it out only once. The thermous bottle, kevlar, and countless things we use every day around the world were invented in the persuit of space. This is a bargan and a half, the budget concious and the cheap should be behind going to space.
5) In space things like air are commidities. For the first time ever air is a comodity (sp?). Think of the new markets for the old products... The business people should be for going into space.
6) Some fraction of everything we make up there has to come down here and be spread around, and some fraction of everything we make down here has to be gathered up and sent up there. The shipping and receiving people and the Teamsters(tm) should be for establishing ourselves in space.
7) Real estate.... need I say more?
8) Space is really big! We would have someplace to put all extra population. The Catholic Church and the anti-choice lobbies should be for space. So should all the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) people on virtually every topic. Once again, if you send garbage high enough it doesn't come back down.
9) Space is really big! (again) So if we had colonies on the moon and mars you would finally have a place to move to or send your inlaws to that is far enough away for them not to be comming by or calling you up on the phone. You know who you are if this one applies to you, and you should be for space exploration.
10) In space vacuum is free and the value of free suction and the varried possible uses for same boggles the immagination.
You think I am joking but I am not. (ok, maybe number 9 and 10 were a bit over the top.) Everything in our entire sphere of experience as a species has to do with occupying and controling space here on earth. It should surprise nobody that space not-here-on-earth and the acqusition, occupation, and control of same is a natural progression, a NECESSARY progression. Not only is the total value of being there quite high, the total value of the work involved in getting there is higher than you might immagine.
Remember, if they do invent a cure to cancer, and it has to be made in micro or near-zero gravity then, if we don't have the manufacturering facilities up there already only a dozen people every six months (or so) will be able to get/afford to be cured. You think AZT costs a nut? Wait till Pfizer(etc) gets to mark up the cost of your colon-cancer treatment pack that has to be made, or god forbid *administered*, at L5.
--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Sorry, I couldn't resist... 8-)
--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
A while back on a similiar article someone had a good(Total Fantasy Unfortunetely since no congressman would ever Implement this *:(* ) Idea. On the tax form their should be a pie chart where people could decide how much of THEIR tax money should go into what program THEY WANT. (example. Say I want 15% of my taxes going to Nasa, 25% on education, 15% on military, 5% on congress, 30% on city construction, and 10% on police). This would be the ultimate DEMOCRATIC VOICE on where our money should be spent.
NASA Administrator:Hey engineers, yeah you with the pencils. Go forth and do geeky things, preferably in space.
NASA Engineers:Ok but when do we get paid?
NASA Administrator *practicing golf swing*:Uh...riiiight.
Since NASA gets about a fraction of the money they probably should get it's no wonder they're facing budget overruns. It's too bad they don't purposely blow stuff up or they could get as much money as the Air Force (who's getting ready to order a fat load of F-22s and plans to junk most of their fleet for a new batch of JSFs). No NASA doesn't make magical things or cure cancer (directly) or feed hungry homeless kids but neither does the military or national park service or the person expense budget of Washington D.C.. Bitching we need to feed homeless people or put money into schools rather than send things into space is pretty ridiculous. Siphoning money away from NASA isn't going to put any more fucking food in anyone's fucking mouth and it certainly isn't going to make your dumbfuck child any smarter. Most of the money for any public works project goes into paying for the bureauracy to "run" the program. It's like donating to a charity, only a small fraction of your 10$ donation does anything semi-meaningful most of it goes into someone's wallet tax free. The government makes trillions off us in a year and most it we never see again unless you live next door to a government contractor and see his brand new fishing boat. Hmmm...maybe NASA ought to contact Kleiner-Perkins for venture capital on their next set of missions. Will Hearst III and John Doerr might throw down some cash for a DS probe or two.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
If your lucky, the tech/knowhow will work its way back into your lives.
More likely that you will never here about it, at least for a great many years, or that it will have some horrendous limitation in comparison to the military version, like that in GPS systems.
I'll watch and wait for NASA to do a backflip and start offering discount flights for one and all soon. Methinks soon the "Right Stuff" will equate to the "Right Bank Balance". I am concerned though where my baggage may end up,I seem to recall that NASA lost a Mars probe through being unable to differentiate between Metric and Imperial measurement systems, inspires faith NOT.
*****a man without god is like a fish without a bicycle*****
Could be a troll, but oddly enough it's still the majority attitude in America. Just look at the popularity of the Fox News Channel.
Amen brother!
I might actually watch that, would you?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, the real goal of NASA is to get to Alpha Centauri before the Zulus do.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Get a clue.. its missile defense if it
e de fense.html
o gy /missile_defense_000426.html
even ever works, or worse has to be used. And
Clinton funded the research through his term. The
the cost was estimated by CBO last year to be
order of $60 bio over 15 years. Lets see... thats
60% of the space station. Will the science done
on the full blown version ever recoup the costs?
And how do you balance this against the cost of
not building a missile defense? Even if it were
only used once, to stop just one bomb, it would
more than pay for itself - totally ignoring what
ever price you put on the people who would not be
killed.
ref:
http://www.rand.org/natsec_area/products/missil
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technol
Keep in mind when reading news reports like this one that the words used are often chosen to hype up the article. NASA may have spent $97 million researching and developing the design to discover that it was non-viable. Had they not spent the money, they would not have known the solution wouldn't work. Also, $97 million doesn't just disappear down a hole; I suspect that the knowledge gained in this project may lead to other developments.
As always, the whole story is not told without sufficient research. That's why I trust my elected officials to know the details for me |:)
Take care,
Mark
Take care,
Mark
There is a solution...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Both you and the people who modded you up need need to go back and retake some of your high school civics courses.
The President doesn't just "eventually sign the bill", he also has the ability to veto it. He also has the ability to control administrative policy. All of this gives him emormous leverage over Congress, because he can threaten to veto bills that are highly important to the districts (and thus careers) of individual Congressmen, unless they give him what he wants.
Even in the highly divided Congress we have today, Congress gave Bush most of what he asked for. Clinton was even more effective, considering he faced hostile majorities in both houses.
Whether you are cheering for NASA's demise, or reacting in horror to their budgetary problems, this was Bush's decision. (Or someone he delegated it to.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
laf!! :)
;)
I'd moderate that up if I hadn't already posted
-= rei =-
"This may be presumptuous..." "That's my favorite kind of 'This'."
John Carmack aspires to that position.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
I'll tell you that it's not only in the US and Canada where this is happenning. Prevailing ignorance and sheer reluctance to see long-term is a problem all around the world. Even some of my brightest and most educated friends tend to cast such far-flung and philosophical thought into their peripherally mind set. Anybody who doesn't (which would include myself), are deemed too idealistic. I don't pretend to completely understand the whole national government policy in the US, Canada, or even here in Australia, but I tend to speculate that it is much harder to implement policies then to simply create them. Here in Australia, the health and university education system are largely having under funding and staff problems. Last week the opposition government vowed to emphasis the "Knowledge Nation" in Australia with targets such as doubling university funding by 2005 and so forth. This is all well and good, but once that government gets elected and they push it as a government policy, the result might not hit anywhere near their slated target.
> Not only did he advocate building a stadium at the public expense, he made a shitload of money off it happening, when he sold his team with a shiny new stadium.
References to Goober Bush aside, I think it is an outrage, the way teams have been blackmailing cities with the "buy me a new stadium or I'll go somewhere else" scam.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Just a few examples of the useless stuff that we've attained from NASA and the military. Though I should mention it after reading some of these posts... After all, pure research is worthless and expensive, and if the military does it, well then, it must be bad.
Plastic, modern ceramics, nuclear power, fuel efficient car engines, wireless anything, teflon, semiconductors and superconductors, transistors, the Internet, microwave ovens, GPS, computers, engine emissions scrubbers, and more and more....
So lets cut research, great idea. Way to invent things that people haven't already thought of, because we all know that we got were we are by improving existing things.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Then donate your $300 to NASA. Is anyone stopping you?
As I stated, I misread 97 to be 970 and apologized for my error. I know perfectly well how much is in a billion and the waste of government agencies. NASA is one of the only agencies I had hoped was more careful with their spending since it consists of mainly scientists and academics, and not politicians.
And now we all know you're really an asshole, not like there was any doubt to begin with. Bugger off.
- tokengeekgrrl
Comment removed based on user account deletion
NASA has become a big pot-belly space program. Sure, they field great missions to the planets, the scientific community would demand no less. But their Human Exploration, propulsion, and new-craft research efforts are horrible. HEDS is always over-budget, unfocused, and over-managed. NASA hardly does much in researching new propulsion or crafts these days, and when someone DOES come up with a new craft, NASA gets in the way, rather than jumping on board.
Oh, they mean well, and they're smart people. But they have one of the largest companies in the country (Boeing) and several other wealthy aerospace firms basically begging them for cheap funding so they can pad their bottoms. Sure, innovation goes on, but when money passes from the Government to the private sector, 90% is wasted because the government couldn't oversee a teakettle. That's just a fact of life.
NASA needs this gut-check, and more. I love what they do, but I hate what they don't do more.
Go Lakers!
At the time, everyone at NASA was an engineer. Engineers don't putz around when they're trying to solve a problem, they get the job done. These days Dan Goldin complains that like 70% of his engineering force is set to retire in 10 years. Who knows, maybe someday the engineers will all be civil servants... that'd be funny. Then we'd see space-shuttles fueled with red-tape.
Go Lakers!
Robert Heinlen that said that the three biggest failures of socialism in the 20th centry were the Russian farm program, the US educational system, and NASA?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There have been over 100 shuttle flights, including 51L. This is the 79th flight since the Challenger exploded. NASA engineers currently rate the chances of a catastrophic failure resulting in the loss of the craft and all hands to currently be around 1 in 300.(because of improvements to engine design/computer systems)
Go Lakers!
Considering that there are only 11 NASA Centers, and they reside in 7 states, I find it surprising that NASA gets as much money as it does. I work at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland Ohio, our budget for FY02 will be cut from $582mil to $532Mil...roughly 10%. That's quite a chunk for a single year. Tax cut or no tax cut, these numbers were "decided" (they are not exact) long before the tax cut was signed in. The bottom line is that there just isn't enough of a lobby for NASA to get it what it needs. Privatization could be the answer...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's an interesting article:
"I'm on board with them that a supplemental appropriation -- $300 million or so -- is required to maintain value of the ISS project. But I'm coming to think that in exchange, the space industry should be forced to confront reality and see that their problems aren't caused by Bush, they're caused by a consistent policy of make-believe and tolerance of mismanagement. Acknowledgement of that -- and a sound get-well plan -- strike me as a reasonable requirement for approval of the extra moneys. But at the rally there was no trace of any notions that the problems were self-inflicted, or that it wasn't much more fun to blame yet another outsider for the mess NASA finds itself in. That was the saddest part of the event -- that and the pitiful, exploited 8-yr-olds with the anti-Bush posters."
http://www.nasawatch.com/jsc/06.30.01.meeting.note s.html
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Stop griping and start working. If you think NASA is the devil, weak, wasteful, and idiotic, start letting politics know that you want it changed. If you think NASA is overworked, underpayed, and fighting an uphill battle, let your voice be heard that you want more money to NASA. This is not a majority rule, it is rule by the loudest majority. Hard on the ears, and on the mouth, but what else can you expect? The reason America is in dire straits is not because everyone is an idiot, but it's because the idiots are so loud.
On an open-source software community bulletin board you are claiming that good engineering is expensive?
Go Lakers!
i for one do not want the space programs budget cut.. look around.. lots of the stuff that we use everyday came from the stuff nasa uses for space travel(term used loosly ;0 )
You've got taxpayer dollars being spent to study cow farts.
You've got industrial defense contractors in key Congressional districts being given billions of dollars to build aircraft carriers that the Navy doesn't even want.
And then you've got NASA, whose budget is a fraction of one percent of the total federal outlay, and that's what these "waste-watchers" complain about.
Jesus suffering fuck. Sometimes people baffle me.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The problem with Star Wars, though, is that the real threat isn't from an ICBM from a rogue state (such as N. Korea or Iraq or Libya), but from terrorist NBC (Nuke/Bio/Chem) weapons, which are man portable.
How is Star Wars going to protect anyone from a suicide bomber with a suitcase nuke?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Just auction a few Voyagers off on eBay. That'll do the trick. Although, shipping might be a problem.
I don't know about you, but I don't hold my breath everytime I drop a bill to a client into the mail like I do when they shoot several million tons of steel and liquid hydrogen into high orbit
Forget about the impact EMAIL has made on the USPS, the real killer is FAX -- and has been since 1989
FAX documents are legal/binding and admissable in a court of law
email is dubious and highly subject to spoofing
sure junk mail might be proping the USPS up -- well, let them raise bulk mail prices -- hell let them raise it all up a few degree's
they do the job i wouldn't want....at a bargain!
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
NASA's hard times are in part due to it's success, the Gee Whiz isn't there as much as it once was, not the questions hitting NASA are, "So where's the profit in it?" Land on Mars, big deal, it'll be 50 years before anyone's actually commercially exploiting Mars. Americans too often expect instant results and it's just not there, especially with a 2 year trip to the red planet (July 10th news: Launched rocket, August 10th, still going, Sept 10th, everything going fine, January 10th Astronaut invents revelutionary new version of Freecell, March 10th, still going well, July 10th, celebrate halfway there, September 10th , still going...yawn)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The SEI is part of Carnegie Mellon University. The folks at SEI developed the "Capability Maturity Model" and this is the model the article talks about.
I used to do research in Software Engineering in a prior life and got frustrated with it. "Mainstream" CS folks are extremely snobbish and treat most S/W Engg Research as "very soft".
Conversely, the industry has very little time for the wonkish papers put out by the software engineering community. Ignored by the rest of CS and by industry, software engineering is certainly the poor step-child.
In a sense, the field has itself to blame. Much of the "research" in software engineering gets done with toy programs (I was quite guilty of this), and in many ways didn't relate to the real world. Sometimes however, good tools and good practices did come out .. however, getting individual developers to use these tools is quite difficult.
In the real world I experienced working at an extremely chaotic technology company, where people didn't even bother to write one-pager design documents. Now I work for one of the biggest technology companies and we have a reasonable balance between process and keeping the creativity going. Certainly I can tell from personal experience that the process has helped us find countless defects at an earlier stage in the game. At the same time, the flexibility we have with the process (individual developers are encouraged to come up with their schedules as opposed to being laid down with the law by management) has kept us retain our creative edge, which we do need to fight our tough competitors.
Since space exploration is such a costy thing, I personally think that it would be an idea to merge the different space agencies. I know that they all work very closely together these days, with everybody chipping in for a sparkling new spacestation and all. But why dont everybody get involved in the mars mission? I know that there are scientists from all over the world helping out, but what about funding? I seriusly doubt that, for example, Denmark (where i live) have donated anything other than our magnet dude from the Niels Bohr institute. I think space exploration is a global interest, and having loads of realatively small agencies. is just plain stupid.
By the way, the americans was the first to plant a flag on the moon. Does that mean that the US can claim the moon?
Hey,
Get a clue.. its missile defense
He might have been alluding to the fact that the US isn't properly funding NASA to do science that will benefit us all, but they are more than happy to fund investigations into how visible it would be if they decided to nuke the moon.
Even if it were only used once, to stop just one bomb, it would more than pay for itself
Personally, I wrote to my MP (I'm not American) voicing my opinion that we should have nothing to do with this US 'missile defense system'. The US and USSR agreed not to build missile defense systems. America has now decided screw that, they want a missile defense system, thus breaking the treaty. I do not want to be associated with that.
If america said it was decommissioning it's 'nuclear deterrent' now it had this system, that would be acceptable, but if America wants nukes and a defense system, they would essentially be able to use them with imputity.
Besides, do you think that (Whoever it is George Bush is is scared of) will say "Hey, let's fire a big ICBM at america, so that they can detect it, see where it came from, and fry us to a crisp with nukes of thier own!"? No. They wouldn't. They'd smuggle a nuke in a container lorry, covered in consumer electronics, then drive past the whitehouse and set it off. Kaboom.
In other words, it is my opinion that a missile defense system would be inflamatory to international relations whilst not protecting against the real risks.
That's my opinion anyway,
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
You know, with money spent on military technology, I'm not sure I even want it to work back ino my life.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
Just remember, that congress can overturn a Presidents veto, its rare, and looks bad for face value, but if congress wants a bill to pass, they can, and the President no matter who, can have no control over the matter.
----------
NASA's monopoly on America's interests in space is killing the industry. While the cost to fly commercial airlines has declined 40% from the 1970's since deregulation (putting air travel within reach of the working man), and the cost to ship oil has similarly declined from $7 a barrel to $1 (I don't know of a time when it was ever regulated), the cost per pound to put stuff in space has gone from somewhere around $3,800 during the 60's to around $6,000 with NASA's numbers or $35,000 with what some people think are the REAL numbers (inflation adjusted of course) (sources: David Gump "Space Enterprise: Beyond NASA", Alex Roland of Duke).
NASA has rejected several attempts in the past to privatize portions of the industry (American Rocket in the 70's and Space Industries in the 80's). In Reagen's Commerce Department, a call went out to the private sector to look at the feasability of making a moon base. The answer came back that yes it could be done with the budget given, but not with NASA! Special Interests put an end to that plan.
NASA is a blight on the space industry and a hinderence to American comercial dominance above the atomosphere. I'm sure the Europeans and Chinese love the thought of NASA crippling itself with cost overruns...
It's time to cut NASA loose, and let private industry do to commercial space enterprises what they did to computing, shipping, airline travel, etc.
What good is a baby? they make a mess, they wake you up in the middle of the night, they drain your pocketbook, and all they do is sit there and make noises and mess themselves all day long. I say we kill all the babies, because theyre useless and a huge drain on society. Think of all the other more worthy things people could spend their money on if there werent any babies.
You dont see the value of the ISS now, nobody does, its just been born. The technology will advance, and just as babies grow up to become valuable members of society, the ISS will grow up to become a valuable scientific outpost, if people will keep from offing it.
Second, why is the Federal government funding education? That is a local/state issue. Federal funding takes more money from the states (in the form of less ability to tax their own citizens) and throws it into the government waste bin, out of which only some 27 cents on the dollar returns to actually be used in schools!
Jonathan Kozol is an education activist and has been a a teacher in some of the poorest schools in the country. What does he say?
More of this speech.Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
So have gov't hire private sector companies.
Exactly, that's the best way to do it, but that's how it is now. NASA is an organization created to allocate money for space exploration. The only thing they really do is collect data and calculate budgets.
The USAF probably could do that, but their job is defense, Lockheed would be perfectly happy to build them a shuttle, but the USAF doesn't want one since it wouldn't help them defend the US.
The US spends much on its military so some uppity country doesn't try to take over the world.
s/US/Iraq/
A US buildup in France in the 30s may have deterred...
s/US/german/
The price of peace is high.
s/peace/hegemony/
How is the USA not an uppity country trying to take over the world? Don't take this as a bash on all Americans, but there seem to be some of them that have a skewed view of reality.
This
You're so right. Sorry for the confusion, it's been a long time since I red about this.
Nobox: Only simple products.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hey install a electric chair in the new spacestation and I'll bet Bush will be more than ready to throw a lot of money their way.
I am sorry that we can't execute him today, the chair is solar powered.
Solar powered, when will people learn,,
--------
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah right, like they're going to cut the damn budget for NASA. Look who the president is. GWB. Republican. Big spender. Nuff said.
Well, Nasa, quite honestly, works out to the ultimate missile defense system (well, lets neglect the fact that they directly help the military right now, I'm not looking at that ;) ). Colonization is the key to the indefinite survival of the human race. Right now, we can get an ICBM to any point on the planet in under 30 minutes. It is quite easy to destroy us all. Once we blanket space - not just close stars, but random, scattered outposts in the darkness, in the void... we become near impossible to destroy, if not completely impossible to destroy. Sure, we'll begin to diverge as a species in places... but. Some form of sentient life will carry on. That is the reason for NASA (in my opinion :) ).
:) (it was our fault a few years back).
-= troll =-
P.S. - I just have to add this - this time, its not the fault of the company I work for that NASA is over budget!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If there was / is a demand for strange alloys that can only be formed in zero-G, NASA could ship the raw materials up there and then just drop batches of the stuff back to earth (properly heat-shielded of course). Depending upon the demand for the alloys and the cost of getting the raw materials up there, they could cut a profit from it.