House Panel Cuts Funds for NASA's Managed Space Exploration

[D H]

And none of these are even related to unmanned space flight.

NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center and Langley Research Center are devoted primarily to aeronautics. Ames and Glenn do a lot aeronautics research as well. Those items that Cyrus listed most certainly are in NASA's purview.

 

[Al68]

Without getting too philosophical what is the purpose of adapting human life to extreme conditions? Are we going someplace? Is there some imperative that we must spread ourselves about beyond the borders of Sol?

Maybe not beyond our solar system any time soon, but certainly, as many have said, we should be at least a "two planet species" as a practical matter.

Not only would it increase the long term survival odds for our species, but what we learn in the process will be priceless.

That being said, private ventures may be more valuable than government programs in the future. Certainly they would be more efficient, once they get off the ground, so to speak.

 

[BAnders1]

I'd have to agree with Cyrus on this one. I'd love to see NASA's funding increase and I would love to see people gain interest in space and science. However, from the average American's point of view, I don't see why we shouldn't cut back on funding in such terrible times. I know NASA's budget is only 3% of the budget that the Dept of Defense receives, but it is still hard for the average taxpayer to see the reason for keeping non-vital spending alive.

 

[aquitaine]

Would you happen to have a source for this, other than a one line sentence of no substance?

I misread your answer, my bad.

Um.....okay

I'll take that sarcasm as a no.

In what way is that a 'strong correlation'? Thats a single data point. The word correlation has no meaning for a single data point.

Name one country with a strong presence in space without having any astronaughts.

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe not beyond our solar system any time soon, but certainly, as many have said, we should be at least a "two planet species" as a practical matter.

I'm afraid if you are going to build your castles on "practical" you have quite a ways to go.

Practical doesn't seem to apply.

 

[D H]

Because planetary geologists want to know the makeup of the surface. Not to mention that finding water would indicate the possibility that life could have formed there millions of years ago.

And this desire alone justifies the expenditure of billions of dollars?

The value of the scientific data, in terms of dollars spent, does not justify space research. If research value was the sole metric for whether we should spend money on space

In what way is that a 'strong correlation'? Thats a single data point. The word correlation has no meaning for a single data point.

I gave four, not one. You chose to ignore three because you are being ... never mind. If you can't say something nice ...

Here are some data points.

Country     GDP     Civil space budget    Human
          1e12$     1e9$   per GDPx1e3  Program

Russia    1.677     2.21         1.31       Yes
US       14.265    18.1          1.27       Yes
India     1.210     1.30         1.07       Yes
France    2.866     2.49         0.87       Yes
Italy     2.314     1.55         0.67       Yes
Germany   3.668     1.82         0.50       Yes
Japan     4.924     2.10         0.43       Yes
Canada    1.511     0.319        0.21       Yes
UK        2.674     0.414        0.15        No

I know NASA's budget is only 3% of the budget

You do not know NASA's budget. You are off by a factor of 5. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal budget.

 

[Cyrus]

And this desire alone justifies the expenditure of billions of dollars?

That's a topic for debate. There is always a juggling act between stuff that's out in left field and stuff that we can use here and now. In my mind, the way to get around this is to get something worth the billions of dollars spent. Finding possible traces of water on Mars is certainly worth the billions of dollars, but it's NASA's job to make sure the public thinks this too. You can tell if something is worth the billion dollars because typically data from space causes large changes in the publics perception of space. "Wow, water on Mars means there could really be life on other planets". As opposed to: "They spent a billion dollars to dig up dirty and find some water".

The value of the scientific data, in terms of dollars spent, does not justify space research. If research value was the sole metric for whether we should spend money on space.

You have not defined a metric here. What does 'research value' mean? I would argue changing the publics way of thinking based on the results is a valid metric.

I gave four, not one. You chose to ignore three because you are being ... never mind. If you can't say something nice ...

That post wasn't for you, nor did I quote you.

Here are some data points.

Country     GDP     Civil space budget    Human
          1e12$     1e9$   per GDPx1e3  Program

Russia    1.677     2.21         1.31       Yes
US       14.265    18.1          1.27       Yes
India     1.210     1.30         1.07       Yes
France    2.866     2.49         0.87       Yes
Italy     2.314     1.55         0.67       Yes
Germany   3.668     1.82         0.50       Yes
Japan     4.924     2.10         0.43       Yes
Canada    1.511     0.319        0.21       Yes
UK        2.674     0.414        0.15        No

You do not know NASA's budget. You are off by a factor of 5. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal budget.

What does the column "Civil" mean?

 

[D H]

What does the column "Civil" mean?

Dang. That's the problem with trying to post a spread sheet in text. Think of that as a spread sheet in which "Civil space program" spans two columns. The two columns are the size of the country's civil space agency budget expressed in (1) billions of US dollars and (2) budget as a fraction of GDP, expressed in per mil.

 

[Cyrus]

Does that include all money to NASA, or only NASA funding for specific space related tasks?

 

[aquitaine]

Finding possible traces of water on Mars is certainly worth the billions of dollars,

Why, unless we plan to do something with it?

Besides, you do believe economic expansion in space beyond what we have is bad. :p

 

[Cyrus]

Why, unless we plan to do something with it?

Finding water in the soil was the 'something we plan to do with it'. This is an answer we can only get by going to Mars: so I wouldn't call it 'stamp collecting' science. I really don't like that term and take offense to its use because it belittles the work done by people in fields like Biology and Geology.

Besides, you do believe economic expansion in space beyond what we have is bad. :p

Please don't type smiley text faces in your posts towards me (This annoys me to no end). To answer your question, there is no market for economic expansion in space, so I don't see your point.

 

[D H]

That's all of NASA. It includes NASA's aeronautics research and it excludes NOAA. The same goes for other countries. Some fold aeronautics and space-related activities together, some keep them separate. So take the numbers with a grain of salt.

I excluded China because China doesn't distinguish between civilian and military space and because estimates for the size of China's space program vary hugely.

Source for those numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_agencies#Highest_budget_space_agencies

I also looked at other sources, but could not find a nice compact list. European nations are particularly tough because of ESA. I double checked all the western European nations in the list to ensure that the monies listed for each of those countries include that country's contribution to ESA.

 

[Cyrus]

That's all of NASA. It includes NASA's aeronautics research and it excludes NOAA. The same goes for other countries. Some fold aeronautics and space-related activities together, some keep them separate. So take the numbers with a grain of salt.

I excluded China because China doesn't distinguish between civilian and military space and because estimates for the size of China's space program vary hugely.

Source for those numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_agencies#Highest_budget_space_agencies

I also looked at other sources, but could not find a nice compact list. European nations are particularly tough because of ESA. I double checked all the western European nations in the list to ensure that the monies listed for each of those countries include that country's contribution to ESA.

Well if that's the case, NASA has a very large Aeronautics program. If you want to have a valid chart your presenting, you really need to subdivide that to specifically space based funding.

Furthermore, you need to then subdivide THAT data into manned and unmanned.

Sorry, I don't buy your table for one minute the way it stands. I need to see specifically how much money NASA has for manned vs unmanned space flight, and then put that back into your chart above because the very real possibility exists that we spend 18%, but 10% of that is for space, and 8% of that is unmanned. So taking away manned funding would still leave us WAY ahead of everyone else in terms of funding.

 

[D H]

there is no market for economic expansion in space, so I don't see your point.

That is your opinion; stop stating it as if it is a fact. That most certainly is not the opinion of Bigelow Aerospace, EADS Astrium, Excalibur Almaz, Galactic Suite, Hilton International, Orbital Sciences Corp., SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, just to name a few.

 

[Cyrus]

That is your opinion; stop stating it as if it is a fact. That most certainly is not the opinion of Bigelow Aerospace, EADS Astrium, Excalibur Almaz, Galactic Suite, Hilton International, Orbital Sciences Corp., SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, just to name a few.

All right, there are a half dozen mega million/billionaires that would like to go to space (I assume you mean going to space for travel. If you mean otherwise, please by all means correct me).

 

[D H]

Well if that's the case, NASA has a very large Aeronautics program. If you want to have a valid chart your presenting, you really need to subdivide that to specifically space based funding.

Please don't use smileys in your posts towards me (This annoys me to no end).

So taking away manned funding would still leave us WAY ahead of everyone else in terms of funding.

You are being intentionally dense. If Congress took away the funding for human spaceflight, do you really think that they would leave the unmanned space programs as is? Without the expectation that humans will someday follow those unmanned probes, there is little reason to spend any money on unmanned space exploration.

I already gave one data point in that regard: Great Britain. In the mid 1960s, unmanned space crowd used exactly the same logic you are using and lobbied Parliament to ban all UK government funding of human spaceflight activities. The Parliament obliged -- and soon drastically cut funding for unmanned space activities. Unmanned space could not compete with other branches of science for one simple reason: It has a pathetically small return on investment.

Another data point: The end of Apollo. Human spaceflight activities were drastically curtailed when Nixon canceled the Apollo program. Some unmanned space enthusiasts initially rejoiced this decision. That rejoicing soon ended as their budgets followed the same downward spiral.

If the past is any measure of future performance, Congress will decimate spending on unmanned space should it decide to eliminate spending on human spaceflight.

 

[Cyrus]

Please don't use smileys in your posts towards me (This annoys me to no end).

Quite understandable.

You are being intentionally dense. If Congress took away the funding for human spaceflight, do you really think that they would leave the unmanned space programs as is? Without the expectation that humans will someday follow those unmanned probes, there is little reason to spend any money on unmanned space exploration.

Dense? You presented me with a chart comparing Space funding, making the case that the US has so much more funding specifically because of manned space flight and that it would all go down the drain to that of the UK if we took space flight away. Within this very data you omit to mention that you included a HUGE portion of AERONAUTICS funding. I'm being "dense" because I've sat through lots of projects sponsored by government agencies where the people from the government come in and assess/evaluate the work people are doing. They specifically look for signs that they are being mislead in presentations and want to know the specific context of what's being said and chew people out when they don't explain things honestly. (This is why I'm very picky about what you have presented and said here).

So I ask again, what portion of that huge chunk of US spending specifically goes to the manned space flight program? You are comparing apples and oranges.

I already gave one data point in that regard: Great Britain. In the mid 1960s, unmanned space crowd used exactly the same logic you are using and lobbied Parliament to ban all UK government funding of human spaceflight activities. The Parliament obliged -- and soon drastically cut funding for unmanned space activities. Unmanned space could not compete with other branches of science for one simple reason: It has a pathetically small return on investment.

I would think unmanned space flight (today) has a much larger return on investment, as its much cheaper, and can do much more (thanks to modern technology). This was not the case in the 1960s. But I'd like to hear what you think about this.

If the past is any measure of future performance, Congress will decimate spending on unmanned space should it decide to eliminate spending on human spaceflight.

Congress is full of idiots. The other day I heard a senator talking about "do we really want to spend all this money to stop the Earth from warming just TWO degrees?" <smacks forehead> I listen to CSPAN radio when I drive to school, one of these days I'm going to drive into a wall out of anger from the radio.

 

[D H]

Dense? You presented me with a chart comparing Space funding, making the case that the US has so much more funding specifically because of manned space flight and that it would all go down the drain to that of the UK if we took space flight away. Within this very data you omit to mention that you included a HUGE portion of AERONAUTICS funding.

I challenge you to try to go through NASA's budget, deciding what expenditures are for human spaceflight versus unmanned versus aeronautics versus an earmark for the NASA swimming pool at Congresscritter Joe Idiot's alma mater versus slush fund for God knows what? Now you want me to do that for each country, with each country treating military versus civilian space a bit differently, each country treating aerospace versus aeronautics differently, each having their own Joseph Dummkopf who are fund their alma mater differently? Please. That is a full time job, and then some.

So I ask again, what portion of that huge chunk of US spending specifically goes to the manned space flight program? You are comparing apples and oranges.

No matter how you cut it, Britain's unmanned space program suffered immensely when Parliament obliged that country's anti-human spaceflight crowd. The US's unmanned space program suffered immensely when Nixon killed the Apollo program.

I would think unmanned space flight (today) has a much larger return on investment, as its much cheaper, and can do much more (thanks to modern technology). This was not the case in the 1960s. But I'd like to hear what you think about this.

Now you are the one comparing apples to oranges. If you want to justify unmanned space flight solely on the basis of scientific ROI you need to compare it to the research it would be competing with for funding now, not the research that was done back in the 1960s.

Modern technology doesn't help unmanned space flight near as much as it helps Earth-based scientific research. Practically everything flown into space is a one-off. The mirrors are custom-made. The sensors are mostly custom-made. Compare this to the scientist whose research is solidly affixed to the Earth and who need some newfangled piece of equipment. The first impulse is to reach for a scientific equipment catalog. Most of what they need is a phone call away.

Avionics are a huge problem, and the problem is getting bigger as die sizes get smaller. The computer on a typical space probe is ten year old technology at best. Suppose you are the PI for a space probe to be flown five years from now, a typical time span for an unmanned space probe. What CPU are you going to use? You need to decide very early in the design cycle. The CPU selection drives the design of the electrical system and constrains the design of the flight software. You have to choose from what's available at the time of the design decision. You choices include a 603MHz PowerPC processor, 733MHz PowerPC processor, a 750MHz PowerPC processor, ... When the vehicle flies in 2014, will your competitors for funding be using a single board 750 MHz PowerPC? The Mars rover's flight computers run at a hefty 25 megahertz. You would have to go to a lot of garage sales to find a 25 megahertz desktop computer.

Flight software is yet another problem. The Shuttle flight software is a famous or infamous example. Everything was planned in advance, checked, and double checked (google the term "independent verification and validation"). The test scaffolding was treated as class A software. It had to be planned in advanced, checked, and double checked. The test scaffolding for the test scaffolding wasn't class A. It still had to be planned and checked. If you counted the lines of code (the test scaffolding and test scaffolding for the test scaffolding don't count) and divided by all the people involved in the project (the people who did the planning, the testing, and the IV&V do count because they cost money) you would come up with about one line of code per person per day. While NASA has streamlined things to some extent even for class A software, and the flight software for an unmanned probe is only class B, the cost for the software for your probe will be immense.

Your competitor? He will tell a cheap grad student to whip up an analysis program using Matlab toolboxes, a statistical analysis program, and a bit of custom Python for glue. It won't take very long. And then he will run the program on a 1 THz computer.

Bottom line: Productivity and ROI are worse, not better, than in the 1960s.

 

[Al68]

I'm afraid if you are going to build your castles on "practical" you have quite a ways to go.

Yes, we definitely have a long way to go.

 

[aquitaine]

To answer your question, there is no market for economic expansion in space, so I don't see your point.

You base that on what?

 

[turbo]

You base that on what?

What can we possibly do in space that is so valuable and so impossible to do here on Earth that can justify the cost of us putting the equipment/procedure out in space? Years ago, we heard of pipe-dreams of new technologies that would blossom when we had test-beds in zero-G. Well, the ISS has been up for a while. Where are the new zero-G technologies, new drugs, new processes for making "unobtainium", etc? You might be able to theorize about some exotic technology that can be better-performed in zero-G (perhaps some thin-film coating done by vapor-deposition...) but by the time we have re-designed the process equipment and have lofted it and the requisite materials to orbit, processed it and returned it to Earth safely, the stuff will be more costly than cut diamonds. Let's spend our money on real science and not on Buck Rogers fantasies of "man in space".

 

[BAnders1]

You do not know NASA's budget. You are off by a factor of 5. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal budget.

Thank you for cutting my quote off short, but I said "I know NASA's budget is only 3% of the budget that the Dept of Defense." Unless the DoD gets 100% of the federal budget, it would appear that you didn't read what I said before you jumped to call me a liar.

 

[aquitaine]

What can we possibly do in space that is so valuable and so impossible to do here on Earth that can justify the cost of us putting the equipment/procedure out in space?

On just its sub orbital services virgin galactic has a waiting list 45,000 people long. Then, with people getting into space on a more regular basis, why wouldn't some people decide to put facilities up there to attract even more people? Eventually it will just get easier to built stuff straight in orbit, from materials taken from other parts in the solar systems.

Years ago, we heard of pipe-dreams of new technologies that would blossom when we had test-beds in zero-G. Well, the ISS has been up for a while. Where are the new zero-G technologies, new drugs, new processes for making "unobtainium", etc?

Comparing a badly mismanaged political project to what I am suggesting is hardly fair. Nothing has come out of the ISS because...no one has actually attempted to do anything with it.

You might be able to theorize about some exotic technology that can be better-performed in zero-G (perhaps some thin-film coating done by vapor-deposition...) but by the time we have re-designed the process equipment and have lofted it and the requisite materials to orbit, processed it and returned it to Earth safely,

Which is not at all what I was suggesting. When space is industrialized, the materials would come from elsewhere in the solar system. Most of the processed materials would then be used in space, only precious metals would be sent back to Earth (or if we actually do discover some new zero-g process that leads to some awesome new tech or materials then that would be sent back as well). It might not be cheap initially, but overtime economies of scale makes stuff less expensive.

Let's spend our money on real science and not on Buck Rogers fantasies of "man in space".

I'll remind you you said that when the Chinese or someone overtakes us in space.

 

[turbo]

I'll remind you you said that when the Chinese or someone overtakes us in space.

Oh, national pride as a reason to fund manned space-flight? Great reason to waste billions. (NOT) If the Chinese want to spend themselves into oblivion to "overtake" us, they're welcome to do so.

 

[drankin]

Actually, the driving factor for putting us on the moon was, in fact, national pride. Was it worth it? I think so. I think we need to cut spending everywhere right now. The only problem with that is I don't see a light at the end of tunnel for our economy. So, that budget may never be increased. That seems to be the real problem. Not so much where do we need to cut spending but how are we going to let capitalism put us back in business as a country. This should be our focus.

 

[Al68]

Oh, national pride as a reason to fund manned space-flight? Great reason to waste billions.

You got to love these strawman debates.

The issue is whether or not the program is a waste of money, not whether we should waste money. Despite assertions to the contrary, everyone agrees that wasting money is bad.

And wasn't this in response to privately funded enterprises, anyway?

 

[aquitaine]

Oh, national pride as a reason to fund manned space-flight? Great reason to waste billions. (NOT) If the Chinese want to spend themselves into oblivion to "overtake" us, they're welcome to do so.

Nice strawman. In reality one of the long term goals of the chinese space program is to stake out future resources. They've made no secret about that.