Slashdot Mirror
NASA Think Tank to be Shut Down
Matthew Sparkes writes "NASA will likely shut down its Institute for Advanced Concepts, which funds research into futuristic ideas in spaceflight and aeronautics. The move highlights the budget problems the agency is facing as it struggles to retire the space shuttles and develop a replacement. The institute receives $4 million per year from NASA, whose annual budget is $17 billion. Most of that is used to fund research into innovative technologies; recent grants include the conceptual development of spacecraft that could surf the solar system on magnetic fields, motion-sensitive spacesuits that could generate power and tiny, spherical robots that could explore Mars."
If there is only 1% waste in the NASA budget, they are wasting 170 million per year, and that would be considered a low level waste-fraud-mistake amount.
If it is 0.1% loss that is $17m/yr. So what is with shutting down a program that may yield opportunities for far greater savings and benefits over time?
I suspect more efficiency program work would do better for NASA.
...of recent technologies they've come up with that have made it into practical use?
I see the value of research for research's sake, but you've got to come up with things that have a practical use once in a while, even if by accident, otherwise that value goes away...
I'm not saying this lab hasn't come up with such things, but if they have, what are they and why aren't some of them listed in the story summary?
I think that it'd be safe to say that the think tank lost it's foam.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
...to welcome our "tiny, spherical robot overlords who could explore Mars."
Also known as 'meteorites'. Exploring doesn't mean you have to phone back home!
NASA used to be a organisation which looked to the future and developed new and astonishing technologies and dared to dream large. There is little left of all this nowadays...
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
Can some helpful person explain how the NASA budget is drawn up? The wikipedia article covers the facts and outcomes, and not the political angles.
I guess I'm asking:
* where the money is going instead? To different NASA projects or to other state projects outside [stable economy]
* is there less money overall? [shrinking economy]
* is the budget determined by the President or the Senate?
* how frequently are these budgets determined? - how soon could all this budget shrinking really be turned around?
* is there consensus on the role of NASA, or is there variation between Democrats and Republicans?
* if there had been less spent on Defense [say Iraq war], would that have been allocatable to NASA? Sometimes budgets are drawn from several pools... e.g. Road Tax in Australia is only spent on roads.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
That would explain where this brain dead idea came from.
This makes about as much sense as shooting a perfectly good horse while you're riding through the middle of the desert.
NASA has been charged with getting back to the Moon and on to Mars and frankly needs all the innovative ideas and thinking they can find. So what do they do? Shut down the people who dream up advanced concepts! It's sad enough that they are going to try and go back to the Moon using souped-up Apollo-era technology, which I predict is a prescription for disaster, but they are not even giving themselves a fair chance of coming up with a better alternative.
My pride in and belief in NASA wanes more with each passing year.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
for government airheads when they visit. they are truly eating the seed corn now.
this idiotic decision is beyond pathetic.
if NASA is going to shut down research for political suckup stunts like mars, they might as well shut down, and let the chinese colonize space.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I am by no means knowledgeable about such matters, but of course I'm going to speculate anyway.
4 million sounds like a very small amount in the grander scheme of things. Choices have to be made. I understand this. But isn't the entire point of NASA to do research? The very core reason it exists?
Maybe I only hear about the success stories that come out of think tanks. Maybe most of them squander away money in futile pursuits. As a previous poster mentioned, I would like to hear what they have accomplished in the past.
Best Windows Freeware
So it's gone.
It's not the end of research or innovation, eventually a new group will be formed to replace it. And if it doesn't produce, it'll be gone too.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
NASA budgeting has little to do with politics or even practical realities. NASA continues to try and thrive on the glory days of its leap to the Moon, even though the first landing was almost 41 years ago now. Whenever things are going bad, the President (choose any one you like) will announce plans for NASA to do something to make America proud and continue our long tradition of space exploration. However, not even Presidential boosterism can keep Congress from continually whittling away NASA's budget, to the point where it becomes a competition for money between the manned program (see as costly, inefficient, and dangerous) and the unmanned programs (see as cheap, flexible, and low-risk). Inevitably, the bulk of the budget goes to the manned program and some promising probes and instruments are shelved for lack of funds.
Now, I am a firm believer in the need for both the manned and unmanned programs. The fact is NASA is underfunded, and those funds could certainly come from somewhere else (DoD for example), but the bottom line with the American people always is, what's in it for me? Now, there a legion of examples of technology spun off from NASA applications, but those are not the kind of things that the everyday citizen is impressed with. And unless you are a Star Trek fan, the idea of exploration for exploration's sake is a dim memory, best left with Lewis & Clark. The sad fact is, unless NASA can come up with something stunning, that captures the imagination of Americans again, as the Moon landings did, this is just another stage in the deterioration of a proud agency that once carried this nation's pride to a new frontier.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
So what do they do? Shut down the people who dream up advanced concepts!
Not exactly. They feed $500M to SpaceX and Kistler to develop real-working rockets that can deliver to ISS. And yes, the money is contingent on success. Invoking private industry to develop the next generation of vehicles is the way to go.
It's sad enough that they are going to try and go back to the Moon using souped-up Apollo-era technology, which I predict is a prescription for disaster
As an aerospace engineer, I'm glad they are reverting to the apollo 'stack' concept. It is safer than the shuttle, in theory, and let's face it - the shuttle never reached its full potential as a 'space truck': dropping off and retrieving satellites. It only really efficiently used the payload bay during the construction (and continued construction) of ISS. All those missions where they just brought along a few pallets of experiments - think of all the wasted mass that was accelerated to orbit. The new system will compartmentalize equiptment from people, allowing for better scaling and efficiency. And better failure modes, using existing hardware with a proven track record (and failure modes that have been documented and corrected).
Unless of course it's a "Conservative Think Tank." One could argue whether or not today that term is an oxymoron.
I always felt I was a moderate. As I get older and learn more, I'm beginning to believe I'm a Goldwater Conservative. Today that makes me a Liberal.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I hope this helps. It won't answer all of your questions, but it is a start.
at military-industrial-Congressional complex.
Furthermore, N.A.S.A.'s primary agenda is to militarize space for the above group of criminals.
Sadly, the illiterate, innumerate U.S. population is brain dead.
Democratically as always,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
In short, NASA is faced with a slightly declining budget (not in actual dollars, but in dollars when accounting for inflation) at least partially because of tightening budgets in the U.S. due to rising costs across government and Bush's tax cuts. Recently, the Republicans were both big on tax cuts and big on spending (which IMO was a key to their political success), but the public is finally starting to catch on and demand some sort of responsibility. (I'm not gonna say Democrats would have been particularly better for NASA... only that they were not in power and fairly irrelevant in recent years.) More importantly for NASA, however, is that the agency has been tasked with very expensive priorities to go to the Moon/Mars within its current budget, which means other programs are experiencing cuts.
... say $4 million ... program that nobody in their right mind would cut... showing to Congress just how tight their budget is. (Not that this is necessarily a bluff or that this program is actually important... they could be spending $4 million on monkeys and typewriters for all I know.)
Iraq spending is obviously a major constraint as well, since it's a bit pricey, although that hasn't really been handled within the normal budget process.
The budget process is long, ugly and usually late, but begins with a proposal by the President, which is then mixed and mashed up by the Congress to meet its fancy. Both the House and Senate then consider the budget and negotiate a final budget, which is sent to the President, who can either sign it or veto it. Inevitably, they miss the deadline and pass a resolution to continue operating the government at previous years' budget levels for a few months before actually passing a bill. Essentially this means all the agencies spend most of the year fretting about how much money they have and not figuring out how best to spend it.
The agencies will also, of course, lobby the government for larger budgets and even threaten to do something crazy like cut an important but very small
The above concept appears in local government budgets as the "cut the fire department budget."
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Now who is going to come up with the ideas to stop the comets from hitting the Earth?
There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!
The US economy is still growing, however, the rising cost of debt, the war in Iraq, and Social Security are putting massive pressure on the government budget
Both
Typically a yearly budget, but they can be adjusted constantly throughout the year.
I don't think there is even consensus within NASA on what their role is.
Probably not. The Iraq war is being funded by additional requests beyond the normal budget (funded by debt). I think the better question to ask is why NASA needs more money.
Looking at it objectively, shouldn't most of the basic research that NASA has taken on over the years belong under the NSF budget and program office?
It seems to me that Science and Innovation belong to the National Science Foundation.
National Aeronautics and Space Agency should focus exclusively on applying science developed elsewhere to advance Aeronautics or Space applications.
I don't think 4 mill a year will design you anything special. might get you some sweet legos
NASA's budget is unaffected by the Iraq war, the money would never have been considered for NASA. Unless NASA can find some pressing reason to exist beyond the small means it has now Congress is never going to pour money into it.
A Moonshot was a us versus them, it gained votes because supporting it was politically smart.
The shuttle at first was also a grand idea, the program being spread over so many states to make it even more politically viable.
The space station was exciting how Reagan imagined it, it never really became that vision but he had such a grip on the American public that it was politically smart to support it.
Thats why I always liked Bush's groups proposal for the Moon base and going to Mars. We need to get the public dreaming again, thinking about space, whats out there, and getting kids back into science. If this could catch on it will again become politically smart to give NASA money.
BTW - being politically smart means spending money there because it gets you votes which keeps you in power. Politicians in DC don't really give a flip about NASA beyond one or two of them. Its like Iraq or any other hot button issue, they take sides because of how the votes will line up for them. The only real concern they have is being reelected. Science is only used for Congress to determine how best to do mailings.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I suspect NASA is actually playing brinksmanship games here. Cut external programs that cause maximum pain to the loudest voices in the scientific community and somehow this convinces Congress to restore funding allowances. Loudly threaten that we won't have any manned space flight capability for 5 years while the Chinese, Indians, and Europeans ramp up their programs.
No member of Congress is going to begrudge $4 million. It's a drop in the bucket. The average Senator and congressman earmarks more than that for their many pet local projects.
This is a pale shadow of what NASA used to represent: the scientific might of the world's most advanced country, boldly striding into space while the world watched in awe.
Today NASA just exists to keep its patchy old 1970s era shuttles flying, pouring billions into dead end maintenance efforts while the truly innovative efforts are moving to the private sector if not completely to other countries.
Frankly I think the U.S. has lost its will to explore space. Now everything needs to be justified by short term gain. The can-do, beat-the-Soviets mentality that drove us into orbit in the '50s and 60s seems to have been replaced by crass (and ignorant) focus on the bottom line. Of course, those early efforts resulted in massive technological advances, but today everything has to be directly and obviously profitable to even the stupidest politician before it gets any funding.
Let's vote out the war and vote in a $1 trillion increase in science budgets. That's my pet solution to the whole NASA problem.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
This is another example of the Government deciding to defund something because either: a) it doesn't result in immediate tangible product (though the comment that mentioned "Tang" cracked me up), b) it doesn't benefit some Congresscritter's re-election drive, c) it doesn't provide a way for someone in Government to give a handout to a constituent who's looking for a Federal contract, or d) the think tank is located in a Democrat's district.
This administration wants to privatize everything that Government does anyway. But to do this is short-sighted. No private entity would be spending time coming up with new ideas for space exploration, propulsion, etc. All the people at the NASA think tank will wind up going to a plethora of separate companies and there will be no critical mass of brain power to come up with the new ideas. Individually the folks at the think tank will be at some corporation working on "special projects".
Prediction: The Chinese will put a permanent base on the Moon and this move to close down the think tank will look Real Dumb (tm). Fiery Congressional hearings will be held shortly afterward wondering how in the hell this could have happened.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
<Patrician|Away> what does your robot do, sam
<bovril> it collects data about the surrounding environment, then discards it and drives into walls
1) Clever Sig 2) ????? 3) Profit!
Did the Think Tank come up with this idea?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Of course, people will have to abandon their religious beliefs and superstitions regarding the imminent colonization of space by humans, or escaping from earth in significant numbers to escape an asteroid impact or whatnot.
Manned space exploration is government pork for military aerospace companies. Nothing more.
...are we scared yet?
I think think the science of non-manned missions is too compelling to give up for manned missions if push comes to shove. We almost have the technology to detect Earth-like planets around other stars with fancy space-scopes, perhaps even life-signs in such atmospheres. To me that is far more important than Neil dancing on Mars. Humans on Mars is about self-agrandizing ourselves. Finding other Earth's makes us ponder our future and think deeper.
Table-ized A.I.
of shit. Private industry does not, in general, innovate. Especially in a field such as space exploration where the risk of failure is extremely high and the path to new, innovative technology is completely unclear. You need people funded to think about new stuff creatively, and this is yet another sign of the decay in the US that is killing off all new thought. Way to go USA.
7/20/1969, 38 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing . I remember watching the sucky video as it was happening.
And unless you are a Star Trek fan, the idea of exploration for exploration's sake is a dim memory, best left with Lewis & Clark. The sad fact is, unless NASA can come up with something stunning
If NASA could come up with something like warp or hyperspace fold drive or some other type of effective interstellar travel then that would certainly be stunning, but we will not get there but cutting the funding for all pure research and development entirely. The program should continue to receive some funding, even if it is only a handful of people, so that the possibility of a breakthrough, however remote, is kept alive for future generations.
if it's good for the private sector, it's good for government. For example, think of how much money the Pentagon could save by sending space weapons R&D work to China.
since they've found 0sama in those caves in mars, there's no need to waste money on finding him anymore. (unless of course saddam started WMD in heaven .. they'd really need Advanced stuff!)
I hate to say it, but NASA has been reduced to a large burecratic organization, they are not run for science any more. I spoke with a guy that had been part of the shuttle program, many years ago. It was EXTREMELY interesting listening to him. His thoughts on the shuttle program, the last shuttle disaster (his opinion is that it was easily avoidable, but wasn't because of cost-cutting measures). He also made it sound more like a government agency that was out for money, and not out for research anymore.
It appears to be all over for this group anyway. With a budget of $4 million, they have barely enough staff left to box up the filing cabinets and crate up the furniture.
Have gnu, will travel.
What happens when you stop trickling funds into your scientific research? You wind up moving your gunpowder wielding infantry across the continent on a railroad while your opponent drops a nuke on your capital city, flies a helicopter out to drop paratroopers on your cannon and launches a colonization ship to Alpha Centauri.
Don't these scientists, politicians and business people play games to learn these simple lessons?
(or maybe just my tired brain being silly. Too funny not to share)
NAthA Think Thank to be thut Down.
Oth, nothes! The think thank is thunk!
Thomebody thave them, pleathe think of the thuttles, or elthe Thoviet Ruthia will thut you down!
Thalp savthe them!
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Ok lets do the math, Medicare part d is the reason, just think 40,0000 viagra tablets would fund this program. But then again I guess congress being nothing but old men, what are the odds they would risk it. they need to get lucky to:)
People don't consider what effect on the economy closing down a think tank has. Not only do Engineers and Scientists lose their jobs, but the other people involved in the day to day running, like the guy that has to clean the filter.
To any other agency that wades into the global warming
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
Here's a NASA doc(Spinoff) published each year with some of the things which have come from NASA research.
They have been producing this document yearly since 1976.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
One cause of NASA's current problems was the complete failure of the last congress to pass a budget for the current fiscal year.
[o]_O
Like mining NEA's for precious resources; Eventually could pay for itself as well as giving benefits like generating scientific observations about our solar system or accelerating development of sensor, robotic, modular, inter-exchangeable, re-entry technology maybe even having selfpaying offworld refueling sites.
Or renting out real-estate on the ISS; for example a factory module doing some fabrication step for industry/military grade half fabricates. (electronics, crystals, optics, etc)
subject should read [NASA could make their own budget bigger and have more available for pure science.]
* where the money is going instead? To different NASA projects or to other state projects outside
Presumably other NASA projects, according to what I read
* is there less money overall?
It is rare to find the US government spending less money overall. Money "not going to NASA" is going elsewhere.
* is the budget determined by the President or the Senate?
The Senate holds the purse strings in the US government.
* is there consensus on the role of NASA, or is there variation between Democrats and Republicans?
It varies based on how much NASA spends in a given district. The bigger NASA is in a given district, the more that Senator/Representative thinks it's role is important.
* if there had been less spent on Defense [say Iraq war], would that have been allocatable to NASA?
Not necessarily. It's essentially one big pool. It goes the other way as well. People often assume that money spent on NASA could be spent elsewhere - usually their pet projects. But the reality is it doesn't work that way. Further, much of the funding for Gulf Wars II is either part of the "normal" defense budget or additional appropriations (i.e. borrowed). This is on contrast to how the NASA budget, in particular Apollo was affected a few decades ago. In that case, funding was actually cut and sent elsewhere. Nowadays, we just borrow additional money for wars. NASA's budget in the overall US Federal budget is actually rather small.
When you are talking trillions, a few billion is "noise". That said, a whole lot of "noise" adds up in the big picture, just not the little one.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Quick lesson:
'light', 'rapid fire', and 'accurate' tend to be mutually exclusive in the weapons world. The only way to sorta get all three* is to reduce the power of your shots.
The lighter the weapon, the more recoil felt. The faster you fire, the less time you have to stabilize the weapon before the next round fires. The combined effects tends to have any rifle pointing into the sky after a burst. The M16A2 is 'burst mode' for this very reason. It fires three shots with each pull of the trigger, because that's about the max somebody can hold the weapon on target during automatic fire. Longer range engagements calls for semi-automatic fire only.
Finally, rapid fire doesn't make up for lack of accuracy, especially in a rifle package. Full bore machine guns such as the SAW are a little different, but they're also substantially heavier than an assault rifle such as the AK-47. There have been a number of encounters with forces firing rifles on automatic vs forces firing on semi-auto. The semi-auto forces win substantially using fewer resources.
*Like assault rifles are today
I don't read AC A human right
NASA will likely shut down its Institute for Advanced Concepts,
to be replaced by the new George W. Bush Institute for Simplistic Concepts.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Don't put the cart before the horse, its much harder that way.
Parent is correct. Besides, by the time we can go to mars-- robotics and computers will surpass whatever benefits of having people in space. Including research in regard to human travel; so it can be done when it doesn't cost so much.
Its no surprise nerds would have trouble restraining themselves from excessive tech.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
For example, what if the space shuttles last duty was to assist in the construction of a space elevator? I don't know if that is possible with the space shuttle and could probably be done better with a stack configuration, but I'm just saying what if?
Going back to the moon dosen't seem that exciting either. It's like saying "all this possibility we inspired when we landed on the moon the first time was a fantasy, the best we can give you is more of the same. Still second prize is still pretty good". Where is the advancement? No wonder peoples eye's glaze over when geeks talk about space, they think it will never happen because they were fooled once, they were disapointed.
NASA is like this shining beacon of what is possible when humanity decides, slowly being extinguished and NIAC is like the pilot light.
Now NASA appears as an amorphous blob, trying to make a not really new launch vehicle, maybe go to the moon, doing odd bits of science, some plans for mars, got to look after ISS, have to patch up a shuttle that was a compromise in the first place, infrastructure failing and used for pork barrelling. Because it doesn't excite people, why vote to invest more?
From an outsiders point of view, it looks like NASA, infected with Administratium, whipped by the whims of politicians, subjected to the cynicism and mediocrity of management is a "can do" organisation, after appropriate management approvals. What happened to a goal that captured peoples imaginations? What happened to the engineering focus that was recognised as the capability to achieve those goals? I think the ideas cultivated at NIAC can create those goals.
To be fair, it's not really NASA's fault. They are the political football that tell us there are deeper problems, that the future is too hard to think about right now. Frankly it's unlikely you guys are going to get a president that will say "Not because it's easy, but because it is hard" in the forseeable future. Someone with a vision to industrialise space. But there may be an odd form of hope no country can ignore, humanity's harsh reality,
"Get off this rock or die here"
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
A lot of slashdotters should really read that old BPP page on the practicality of interstellar travel in general. A short but excellent read. Note he is talking about just getting to the alpha centauri system for christ sake. Also note that he seems to be denying the validity of Freeman Dysan's baby Project Orion which, although originally intended for interplanetary travel, could be supersized for interstellar travel as well. Here's an excerpt for the lazy:
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.