Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Budget Woes
Abcd1234 writes "The last few months have seen NASA the focal point of high drama, the most obvious example being the controversy surrounding the next Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission. Well, the drama continues with NASA reporting to a Senate subcommitee that it currently faces a $2 billion budget shortfall which could result in the downsizing, delaying, or outright cancellation of a number of NASA missions, including the Space Interferometry Mission and Terrestrial Planet Finder, which may be delayed, and the James Webb Space Telescope, often cited as the successor to the HST, which faces potential cancellation. Among the reasons for the shortfall: cost overruns in a number of missions, including the shuttle return-to-flight program, resumption of the Hubble servicing mission, and mandated congressional expenditures (a.k.a 'pork')."
Say what you want about Dan Quayle he at least had
a really solid plan for space exploration.
And although he had his problems ( a few, ok more than a few,this post is
about the message not the messenger:) this was the only espoused program that
would have really had a chance to "get us off this rock". He at one
point even talked about the "conversion" of 1/2 of the military budget to the
space program (who would do that now?) we need to take this
seriously, it sucks being at the bottom of a gravity
well..
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
We're still going to Mars, right bitches?
He understands what needs to be done to NASA. I hope they don't delay the Terrestial Planet Finder mission too long, that mission is a very important mission and would probablly get congress to get off their asses and decide to further fund NASA.
Heres to hoping theres a nice earth like planet around 1-3AU from Alpha Centauri A =)
Apparently the increment provbided by bush was for only mars exploration by humans.
So other areas of NASA still require funding from other areas or other areas of the government.
Spotlight For Windows
Just offshore NASA to India.
NASA should be privitized. Commerical Satallites already supportly themselves, somewhat, and the rest we can let Richard Branson and John Carmack handle. Why does the already burndened American Taxpayer have to get stuck picking up the tab?
NASA is in a budget crunch. They are going to NOT service the Hubble because its' successor (James Webb) will be up in 4-5 years. But wait, mysteriously, NASA is in a budget crunch and will kill James Webb due to budget priorities.
Or We will send enough troops to beat the Flintstone army, but not enough to keep Bedrock safe and orderly untill we can install a new government in Bedrock.
Duh!
I think we should right now focus on having cheaper access to orbit, a permanent presence on the moon and a fleet of modular vehicles, manned and unmanned, that could be assembled in space for varied purposes.
Science was a only by-product of Apollo.
We need something like Apollo to lay foundations to have more science done later at lower budgets. Until science is no longer hideously expensive, it won't be done.
It gets down to patience, objectives and the will to get from here to there.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Honest question: Why does the US have NASA? The US Army, Arforce and Navy all have their own space programs, so what is the point of NASA?
Oh well, what the hell...
I just hope they don't decide to merge NASA with the Department of Homeland Security, because then they'd be forced to buy all their rocket parts from expensive American suppliers, and then they'd REALLY have to cancel a lot of missions.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
Next season is survivor Afganistan. First team to go in and capture Osam gets a billion dollars. A real bargin and ratings gold. Could save broadcast TV and solve the budgt crisis at the same time! The government is so screwed up outsourcing to entertainment could solve all our problems.
People always suggest "they should privatize space!" but these same people fail to realize a fundemental problem: space is not profitable.
There is very little out there to capitalize on (you know...the root of capitalism?). I don't think people realize how hard it is to travel out there (in terms of size, durability, and other huge problems). What does a company do with space exploration? If the rings of Saturn were made of gold nuggets we would be there. If there where diamons the size of boulders on Mars we'd be there. Unfortunately by all measurements these places are remarkable but not useful for any buisness on Earth.
I don't think you'll have MD, Boeing, Airbus or anyone else lining up to fund their own excursions into deep space because there is simply no money to make out there. Remember that Columbus had a plan to make money before going on his little trip. Expecting companies to explore space just because is unrealistic.
NASA should hire some of those legendary Russian engineers who kept the Russian space program alive on a shoestring budget, using inelegant but practical solutions like kerosene rocket fuel. They should also hire the entire winning X-prize team. Mothball the shuttle program, focus less on manned space missions, increase R&D co-operation with private companies. Figuring a way to get payload into orbit cheaply should be the main mission.
When you need to give:
$700,000 for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Washington, despite a $4.2 million privately-funded facelift
$500,000 for the Olympic Tree Program for the 2002 Winter Olympics.
$1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church repairs.
$750,000 for the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center.
$400,000 for a parking lot and pedestrian safety access in Talkeetna (population 300).
$2,500,000 for marijuana eradication.
-----
Priorities, priorities. You know?
Somewhere along the line, we're going to have to ask ourselves: what is more important? Eating at MacDonalds or watching our coutry nuke the shit out of the moon?
then what is the opposite of progress?
Go Team District of Columbia!!
--
Oh, the pain! Oh the pain!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
You can look at the most recent Hubble photographs (and a fairly extensive archive) at: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/.
Take a good look at those photos. How would you feel if NASA pulled the plug on such a successful project tomorrow, without a replacement for many years?
I think it would be a terrible shame if such an asset to the space program -- something that has had huge benefits to the world of Astronomy and science -- was just pulled out of the sky because of money troubles. It would be a sad reflection on the world we live in.
I read Toynbee and weird O. Spengler some years ago, along with many other historians but I can't recall a term that represents the construction of monuments to cement nation building.
just my .01 cent.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Geeze, why does /. keep on linking to physorg, which has crappy articles and no links to real information about stuff.
Here's a more in depth article on X-bit [xbitlabs.com]. NanoCoolers has a pretty in depth description [nanocoolers.com] of the product. It's basically a watercooling loop but using a molten metal. The really cool part is that because the metal is obviously electrically conductive, they're using a DC current combined with some magnets to take advantage of Lorentz force [gsu.edu] to propel the fluid.
That's about as privatized as you can get.
Look, NASA would solve a lot of its budgetary woes if it would just hire somebody professional to come up with names for its various projects. Space Interferometry Mission? WTF is "interferometry"? Sounds like a cancer treatment. "Planet Finder" --- boooring, besides, isn't "Finder" already trademarked by Apple? And who in the tarnation is James Webb? Some hack from the sixties nobody's ever heard of.
Off the cuff, I can think of much snappier names -- "Intragalactic Terrorist Locator" for the planet spotting thingy, "George H.W. Bush Memorial Telescope" should make it politically impossible to cancel the Hubble replacer, and for that Space Interfrazometer Moozit, let's license the sucker to Electronic Arts/Maxis and call it "SIMS in Outer Space."
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Aren't we at war... and facing some significant budget shortfalls in areas that have a real impact on the day-to-day lives of Americans?
Like, what about the BRAC? Perhaps if NASA is cut back a bit we can save a few bases there.
Rob
Sounds like someone is bumping up the extra budget requirements, so that when congress argue and don't give the full request, they're free to actually cancel the projects they weren't really gonna do anyway.
That Mr. Bushie can get $80B to support is evil, immoral, and illegal wars, but NASA can't get $2B to fund crucial missions. We've given up on science that's not used to kill people. What have we become? Maybe someone is afraid of what knowledge NASA might unlock.. some other tidbit to go against creationism ?
Billions of dollars of debt, poor schools, students who can't even read or write. 50% of the working public in LA is illiterate. space is great and all, but we have bigger fish to fry here on earth
It is easy for idiots to suggest that a president should do this or do that. But Clinton's focus was on balancing the budget (which came close).
In addition, if Quayle really believed that, he had his 4 years. Yet, Quayle did not once push or change anything for the 4 years that he was in VP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your explanation is actually very optimistic. It describes an administration with a set (albeit evil) purpose, and, with sheer determination, remarkable acumen and awesome foresight, this demonic plan is achieved.
I think that this is actually giving credit to this bureaucratic mess known as NASA. They haven't been that organized since the Appolo days.
NASA is in survival mode. Its actions are not rational, they are guided by the panic of administrators that see their personal empires crumble.
NASA has admirable engineers and great scientists, but they don't get to make the decisions. Bureaucrats do. Evil geniuses need not apply. Now, on the other hand, if you know someone who can snowjob Congress, they are hiring...
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Hey moderators! The parent of this comment may piss people off, but is not a troll. The simple truth is that if you love space you should hate NASA.
In fact most people don't renember back in the 70's when an invenstor wanted to pull together some capital and buy some old Atlas missle shells and turn it into a pivate satellite launch program. Only to have the whole thing administratively killed by NASA.
Also, other countries are building very profitable space programs while the US lingers - even though the US was the first to the moon. This is not an accident, it is because NASA is accountable to non market forces and has gotten in the way of true market solutions or even hybrid solutions.
Do I even need to mention two blown up shuttles, confusing meters with feet on a mars mission, well over a $100 million calibation error on the hubble because no one bothered to check the mirror. Not to mention all the pork in NASA, and how they've underperformed promises by nearly 100% - and no it's not because they're under funded, that might be an excuse for not doing projects, but not one for doing them crappy because of political failures - which ironically happen to be behind most all their major disasters!
If you love space, you should hate NASA, not only because they've constantly underperformed at the taxpayers expense, or because they've made so many deadly billion dollar screwups, but most importantly, they are getting in the way of better solutions. They have been for the last 30 years, think how good things would be now if "space-ship one" type ventures were considered back then and not now! Nobody's going to finance exploring the last frontieer, untill they can first make it the profitable frontier. Space is simply toooooo big to conquer as a cost burden, NASA is more incapable and incompentent of doing space for profit than almost any other orginisation on the planet (or off).
I love science and space, and some of the things NASA has proposed and done are very exciting to me. But please, in the name of God, why are we wasting our resources and hearts trying to fix something that is inherently borken by the very political nature of it's accountabilities. It never ceases to amaze me how desperately people cling to things that simply don't work for the sake of a fantasy that politicians and administrators can somehow work a miracle and fix it. Well WTF! noone ever got into space with an attitude like that!
(What amazes me is that I've yet to hear a conspiracy theory about that, despite the fact that such a theory would be infinitely more credible, given the CIA of the time, than most of the theories that are put out.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"With all the cuts in Government Funding, the greatest portion of NASA funding now comes from its fans among the general public. With the upcoming Return-To-Flight launch of the Shuttle Discovery, we need your support now more than ever! Dial 1-PLEDGE-NASA now, we've got several lines open, operators are standing by to take your pledge."
"Pledge now and get this spiffy T-shirt with the NASA logo and the logos of NASA's largest suppliers such as Morton Thiokol and Lookheed-Boing-GenDynamics, 'were Science gets down with Bizness.' Limited quantity available, so hurry, pledge now! That's, 1-PLEDGE-NASA, 1-PLEDGE-NASA, that number once again, 1-PLEDGE-NASA, please call now."
Ben, "Listened too many NPR/public radio pledge drives"
Tag lost or not installed.
The graph happens to say who was president at the time of the deficits. And that's about it. On the surface it's not that informative, really. The president only has limited veto power over the budget. Congress is the one that appropriates and actually votes on the budget.
So, if you overlay who was in congress and how the economy was doing at the time, you get a slightly more informative picture. The second is actually a better indicator since tax revenue is almost directly proportional to how the economy is doing. Even congress has limited effect, I think it's more a psychological factor when the economy gets a quick jump under republican congress.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
(grammar nazi)
"It is is over-spending"? Or "Is of it over-spending"? What is over-spending anyway?
(/grammar nazi)
There is overspending, there is underfunding, and there are budget overruns. All three apply equally to this situation. Too much was assigned to NASA, not enough was assigned to pay for it, and some projects turned out to be a lot harder than both NASA and congress expected (like in-space repair of craft that need to survive extreme temperatures and stresses on reentry - not an easy task mind you, and I'm glad it's being worked on (as the basis of the tech won't help just the Shuttle))
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
"The ground based telescopes is where great research is coming from now, ask an astronomer. They put far less import on saving hubble than the general populace, and they're the ones who actually use it."
Don't know what you're smoking, but I don't think a single colleague of mine has said a single thing in support of not servicing HST. Just like the ground-based telescopes, much of the research done with HST does not produce sexy pictures. HST has (and has had) instrumentation that goes way beyond just a fancy high-res optical camera or a atmospheric-free light bucket.
In it's slightly disabled state (dead spectrometer), yes, it's gathering less great science data that it used to. But if things had kept on track it would have some shiny new parts--that are finished and sitting on the ground right now--and still be taking data that would go into the great science discoveries of the next decade or so.
Instrumentation in astronomy in the modern era is complementary. Maybe you can make the front-page new splash with a huge ground-based instrument more than you used to (well, after we started observing from space), but the fact is, if you're really interested in the science as a whole, you're not going to get the complete picture from the ground alone.
And now onto the practical. Funding for astronomy research (some hardware, but mostly people-time) by and large comes from two places, NASA and NSF. For the most part, NASA gives money to you, the astronomer, to build something (rocket experiment, new instrument for a space mission, etc.) or to reduced and publish results for data already taken. You can probably do the math, but if there's fewer things to take data with, there's much less money to do science with. NASA has not historically (esp. under O'Keefe) provided other avenues for non-hardware related science except through that data taking. Your proposal was accepted for a project to use STIS before it broke? Tough cookies. No money for you.
NSF's budget has not been increased substantially, and with it being pretty flat over the last few years (decade?), it's hard to see how it can soak up all the astronomy funding if HST ends it's life early. Already, the money for UV astronomers from NASA has dried up from lots of angles (COS delayed/canceled, STIS dead, FUSE downtime and now limited operation). The next five years do not look good.
So, there might be more possibilities to tap the private sector. For pure science though? That's what we're talking about. Sure it's possible to get money to build things (especially when you can attach a name to it!), but who's going to pay the astronomers? That kind of money is much harder to obtain. You out there with a vote and a pen/e-mail to your reps have to decide. Do you want us substantially privately funded?
BTW, all this comes from an astronomer who's bread and butter comes from a NSF-funded, small, but modern ground-based instrument. I haven't used a dollar of NASA money in probably about 6-7 years.
But like you said. Go ask an astronomer.
I hate to repost my own commentary but some of you just don't seem to get it.
Currently the Federal Government has alot of problems getting the average tax payer to want to spend money on research of any kind. It isn't interesting and most people equate it to spending $115.00 a hammer or research into the medicinal properties of Timber Owl pellets.
Manned Space Exploration in the early years of NASA and the Soft Science of the Apollo Missions was seen as exciting and worth the expense. Support is seriously lagging for any science experiment that doesn't provide great video captions or pictures for the newspaper. Unless you support Soft Science on a Large Scale it is eventually going to be impossible to get money for anything but a better bullet or bomb.
To use a business analogy "You have to spend money to make money." Big Science can only make money by providing a supporting role and then living on the coat tails of Soft Science.
That said Bush is solely show boating the Manned Space Exploration in order to appease Joe Taxpayer's apprehension on spending any money on science. Truth be told unless it means immediate return of investment I doubt 10% of the administration (or the U.S. government) desires to spend money on "Big Science." They spend enough to keep the academics and educated placated.
No think;
How does firing the astronaunts help NASA?
How do we garner public funds for this kind of research?
How has fear ever helped in the progression of the human race from the Wheel to the Atom Bomb?
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Because science takes a second seat to defense in this administration as it has to every other in the history of the United States.
You want something differant you have two choices:
1 - Use a Cattle prod to get the democratic party into some semblance of shape.
2 - Form your own damn country. Really don't eb afraid that without a military you will only to be taken over by the US the second you devolop technology someone else wants.
Idealism is not quite as simple when you don't scream it out isn't it.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Statistically, sub-democracies breed nearly 100% of the terrorists in the world.
Timothy McVeigh
Unabomber
and, lest I be accused of anti-Americanism:
Rote Armee Fraction
Brigade Rosso
Osama bin Laden
Statistically, a pampered upbringing in a wealthy but morally bancrupt society breeds nearly 100% of the terrorists in the world.
You must have gotten your newspeak confused: "sub-democracies" breed freedom fighters. (That sounds just so 1980s, I know.)
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
Just a thought... doesn't NASA give up rights to any interesting 'finds' in that anything they do that might actually make some money gets given to big business. NASA is just the 'discoverer' of stuff... then anything useful is used by 'business' and sold back to us? I might be wrong?