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
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 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?
--
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
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.
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 ?
Doonsbury used this quote in one of his cartoons with a punchline that it was too bad GWB was apparently a child left behind and was unable to read his Dads book.
Form a post above I learned that Quayle had actually proposed spending half our military budget on space development. Eventhough I probably disagree with Quayle on every other issue he would have received my vote.
Gaaah! It really cheeses me off whenever I hear this tired old argument. "There are problems here on Earth! We must solve all the world's problems before going into space!"
That's the same as saying we should never do anything in space. The world has had problems for thousands of years, I don't see paradise-on-earth being established anytime soon.
So if you really believe this, let's get serious. Let's stop making movies, since they cost a ton of money and don't contribute to solving the world's problems. Let's outlaw the gambling industry. Let's shut down tourism, too. Let's make people give up their pets -- Americans spend way more on their pets every year than NASA gets.
And of course, the US military budget is about 10X NASA's budget, maybe we should trim *that* back until after we've solved illiteracy, poverty, world hunger, AIDS & cancer, etc.
As to the fallacy that the republican party cares about the deficit, well, here is the record. That is not to say that the democrats care. If they did, then they would have put pressure on GWB to continue with a balance budgeting. Instead, as the budget approached zero deficit, they pushed to increase spending, while the republicans pushed to cut taxes. The graph says it all.
As to losing congress, that was a multi-year campaign
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!
Correlation != causation, and a high correlation doesn't change that. It's just as likely that very poor countries, which are less likely to be a democracies (democracies require an educated, preferably not-starving population), breed terrorists due to increased civil unrest. Choosing to blow the crap out of them just leads to more civil unrest and increased poverty, meaning *more* terrorism, not less. Worse, you galvanize them against a single enemy. Sure sounds like a winning strategy to me. Or not.