House Panel Cuts Funds for NASA's Managed Space Exploration

[aquitaine]

We don't care about our space program.

WASHINGTON — In a move that reflects the uncertainty surrounding NASA's current strategy for replacing the space shuttle and returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020, House appropriators slashed by 16 percent the space agency's $4 billion request for manned space exploration in 2010.

The proposed legislation, marked up June 4 by the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee, trims $483 million overall from U.S. President Barack Obama's $18.7 billion budget request for NASA next year. The $670 million cut to the 2010 manned exploration request would leave $3.21 billion, which is less than is available for the effort this year.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A 16% cut from 4billion dollars during economically hard times somehow equates to lack of caring?

 

[aquitaine]

Yes it does, for the simple reason that we have been spending so little to begin with. Nasa's budget as it stands is a fraction of one percent of the total national budget.

 

[Cyrus]

Why do we need to spend money on manned space missions, aquitaine?

 

[Hepth]

Why do we need to spend money on manned space missions, aquitaine?

To further develop our ability to adapt human life to extreme or alien conditions. While I don't see anything coming out of manned space missions themselves, the technology to support humans in space travel to orbit more efficiently, safely and comfortably will undoubtedly lead to some new inventions, materials, processes and techniques that will filter down to everyday life. (Home-water recirculation, etc. )


Having said that, I support pulling back some spending across the board. Just so long as its temporary. I'd hate to see them cut it back 16% just so they can fight over a "Dems propose 19% increase in manned space exploration funding!" fiasco in a few years. Which you know is how it would be framed. They'd have to make legislation that made it temporary to be reviewed again at a later time.

 

[Cyrus]

To further develop our ability to adapt human life to extreme or alien conditions.

Why?

While I don't see anything coming out of manned space missions themselves, the technology to support humans in space travel to orbit more efficiently, safely and comfortably will undoubtedly lead to some new inventions, materials, processes and techniques that will filter down to everyday life. (Home-water recirculation, etc. )

I don't think that's worth the high sticker price. All those things could be developed for Earth based applications for a lot less money.

Having said that, I support pulling back some spending across the board. Just so long as its temporary. I'd hate to see them cut it back 16% just so they can fight over a "Dems propose 19% increase in manned space exploration funding!" fiasco in a few years. Which you know is how it would be framed. They'd have to make legislation that made it temporary to be reviewed again at a later time.

I'd like to know why they should fund any manned space flights anymore. We sent robots to mars, why is it necessary to send a +3000lb space station there to do the exact same thing, unnecessarily risk peoples lives, and cost 20x more.

 

[ExactlySolved]

While I don't see anything coming out of manned space missions themselves, the technology to support humans in space travel to orbit more efficiently, safely and comfortably will undoubtedly lead to some new inventions, materials, processes and techniques that will filter down to everyday life. (Home-water recirculation, etc. )

I totally agree, and these beneficial side effects are much more interesting to most people than any 'stamp-collecting science' that comes from robot missions. I'm not saying that the design of these robots does not lead to innovations, I am just saying that NASA should keep foremost the innovations in mind as opposed to the 'scientific' importance of the data that they are collecting.

 

[Cyrus]

I totally agree, and these beneficial side effects are much more interesting to most people than any 'stamp-collecting science' that comes from robot missions. I'm not saying that the design of these robots does not lead to innovations, I am just saying that NASA should keep foremost the innovations in mind as opposed to the 'scientific' importance of the data that they are collecting.

Your point about having people in space is more tangible to the general public because they can (ignorantly) think: "maybe some day I can go to space".

I don't understand what you mean by 'stamp-collecting' science. What non stamp-collecting science does the shuttle missions do?

The scientific importance of the data they collect is the only reason why we spend so much money on it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes it does, for the simple reason that we have been spending so little to begin with. Nasa's budget as it stands is a fraction of one percent of the total national budget.

So during hard economic times with the largest money making state in the union on the verge of bankruptcy we should not decrease spending on things which do little to help or fix our poor economic situation just to show we care? I think we have our hands a bit too full dealing with people here on Earth to be worry about putting people in space.
Also the NASA budget total will still be increased by approximately one billion. They have only trimmed the budget for manned space flight apparently due to lack of a coherent direction and are open to amending their change to the budget if they see a good plan placed before them

 

[math_04]

NASA still has a decent budget. And yes, with the economic downturn, you cannot blame the government for cutting funding. NASA can always collaborate with Russia, Europe and share resources.

 

[aquitaine]

Your point about having people in space is more tangible to the general public because they can (ignorantly) think: "maybe some day I can go to space".

I don't understand what you mean by 'stamp-collecting' science. What non stamp-collecting science does the shuttle missions do?

The scientific importance of the data they collect is the only reason why we spend so much money on it.

Relative to other things, we don't actually spend that much. Would you rather we spend nothing at all?

I'd like to know why they should fund any manned space flights anymore. We sent robots to mars, why is it necessary to send a +3000lb space station there to do the exact same thing, unnecessarily risk peoples lives, and cost 20x more.

Because there is a limit to what robots can do. They are slow, the distances involved create major problems with radio control due to lag, and they are dumb. That's right, dumb. They can't do even the simplest of problem solving. Of course there is a place for robots, but they aren't the uber-explorers they are made out to be. Besides, since when did we as a race ever get anywhere by playing it safe? Driving to the movie theater is an unnecessary risk, but I don't see calls to not go to movie theaters. What we need to do is invest in new technologies to reduce the cost of getting stuff into space like this thing

So during hard economic times with the largest money making state in the union on the verge of bankruptcy we should not decrease spending on things which do little to help or fix our poor economic situation just to show we care?

It gives people good jobs, how is that bad? Besides, this isn't the first time California has had major budget problem. I'm also not saying we shouldn't have no funding cuts, but we do need to be careful with what gets cut. If we pulled out of Iraq, we could save $108 billion per year. Which would serve our children better?
Space exploration, both manned and unmanned, is our promise to the future. That it has largely been stagnant for the last 30 years is the icon of our parents generation's general failure to realize the promises of the past for what could have been.

Your point about having people in space is more tangible to the general public because they can (ignorantly) think: "maybe some day I can go to space".

You are referring to a group of people who are much more likely to know who the winner of last seasons' american idol than who is the speaker of the house or senate majority leader. The american public by and large doesn't care about space at all.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Relative to other things, we don't actually spend that much. Would you rather we spend nothing at all?



Because there is a limit to what robots can do. They are slow, the distances involved create major problems with radio control due to lag, and they are dumb. That's right, dumb. They can't do even the simplest of problem solving. Of course there is a place for robots, but they aren't the uber-explorers they are made out to be. Besides, since when did we as a race ever get anywhere by playing it safe? Driving to the movie theater is an unnecessary risk, but I don't see calls to not go to movie theaters. What we need to do is invest in new technologies to reduce the cost of getting stuff into space like this thing

Can you let me know what humans exploring space have done that a robot couldn't do?

 

[Cyrus]

Relative to other things, we don't actually spend that much. Would you rather we spend nothing at all?

As an Aerospace engineer, yes. As a rational taxper and scientist, no.

Because there is a limit to what robots can do. They are slow, the distances involved create major problems with radio control due to lag, and they are dumb. That's right, dumb. They can't do even the simplest of problem solving. Of course there is a place for robots, but they aren't the uber-explorers they are made out to be. Besides, since when did we as a race ever get anywhere by playing it safe? Driving to the movie theater is an unnecessary risk, but I don't see calls to not go to movie theaters. What we need to do is invest in new technologies to reduce the cost of getting stuff into space like this thing

I don't agree with your notion that robots are slow vs. having people in space. In what way are people faster? Radio control due to lag isn't a major issue because they are not radio contorolled. They work on their own, but receive updates if necessary. Getting robots to work better autonomously is worth while cutting edge research where money benifitting that will benifit us back on Earth far more than sending people up in tin cans to circle the Earth for top dollar.

Second point, robots are the explorers humans can never be.

Third point, your last sentence lacks any sound logical basis. It's not about "risk", its about bang for the buck. Robots have a much larger bang for their buck than human space flights.

You are referring to a group of people who are much more likely to know who the winner of last seasons' american idol than who is the speaker of the house or senate majority leader. The american public by and large doesn't care about space at all.

True, and even more reason to not fund manned space flight.

 

[Moridin]

So during hard economic times with the largest money making state in the union on the verge of bankruptcy we should not decrease spending on things which do little to help or fix our poor economic situation just to show we care? I think we have our hands a bit too full dealing with people here on Earth to be worry about putting people in space.
Also the NASA budget total will still be increased by approximately one billion. They have only trimmed the budget for manned space flight apparently due to lack of a coherent direction and are open to amending their change to the budget if they see a good plan placed before them

Cut back on military spending instead of science?

 

[Hepth]

Can you let me know what humans exploring space have done that a robot couldn't do?

Fix the Hubble telescope?

 

[LowlyPion]

To further develop our ability to adapt human life to extreme or alien conditions.

Interesting goal, even if a bit narcissistic in a human sense.

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?

If understanding extremeophile forms is a goal, that would seem to be most easily conducted and developed on Earth or near Earth orbit.

If in 400M years when the sun perhaps swells to red is there some relevance to spreading our spores about to far flung hostile environments?

Isn't the real priority to enjoy our E ticket ride, and make sure all the passengers are comfortable as long as the ride lasts?

I'm all for learning more about the Universe. It's a splendid tapestry. But really aren't pictures absent the pain and risk and inevitable losses preferable?

 

[D H]

The scientific importance of the data they collect is the only reason why we spend so much money on it.

Wrong. The scientific importance of the data is one of the least important reasons we spend so much money on it. And we don't spend so much money on it. NASA's entire budget is 50% less than the amount Americans spend yearly on pizza.

The only truly valuable assets up in space, as least insofar as Congress is concerned, are military satellites, weather satellites, and communications satellites. These are the domain of the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and private industry. The primary rationale for sending unmanned spacecraft to other planets is that one day humans might follow. What else justifies the $2.3 BILLION dollar price tag for the Mars Science Lab? How many grad students in a field that does have immediately tangible benefits to the US economy or to humanity as a whole would that $2.3 billion dollars fund?

An easy test of your hypothesis is to look at how the various space-faring nations value the scientific importance of the data collected by their space agencies. The two countries that spend the most on space science are the US and Russia. Both have strong human spaceflight programs. France spends a lot on space science, a lot more than any other western European nation. France is also the nation that is trying to push ESA to have a stronger human spaceflight component and is the only western European nation that spends a significant amount of money on its own space agency.

How about other space-faring nations? One western European nation has gone so far as to ban governmental involvement in any human spaceflight activities. If space science were so valuable, you would think that this nation would spend a lot on space science. It doesn't. Great Britain spends a paltry 0.05% of its total federal budget on space science. Take away the motivating factor that someday humans may go into space in significant numbers and you take away the rationale for spending money on space science, period.

The primary reason for spending money on any space venture is politics.

 

[LowlyPion]

I will grant that there should be some interest in developing space technologies to possibly aid in avoiding extinction events. But that does require detection and planning, which weighed as an expense is more a short term priority, than developing manned missions per se. In that regard I don't see developing tools for Armageddon-like, cowboy managed, manned asteroid adventures as being solutions to resolving far out future encounters, nearly as important as identifying what potential problems may be delectable, so that planning might be carried out well in advance, if needed, or possible at all.

 

[ExactlySolved]

I am saying that I for one don't care about the science that is done by the manned missions anymore than the science that is done by the unmanned missions. It is all stamp-collecting science to me, e.g. cataloging facts. I don't believe that large numbers of people will ever be traveling to space using rocket technology, you won't see me arguing for anything like building a space colony for catastrophic evacuation of earth: I think that's just fantasy for the forseeable future. Therefore the facts about which stamps are availible are Mars have neither an aesthetic appeal (because the're stamps) nor a pragmatic appeal (since we have no practical reasons to go there).

What I do care about, and the reasons that I think NASA should have it's funding dectupled, are:

(1) The engineering innovations developed by NASA have historically had a trickle-down effect that furthers the state of the art for practical technologies here on earth.

(2) Not all jobs are simply a means to an end, some are ends in themselves, and aerospace engineers are above-average quality citizens, meaning that a progressive civilization will do well to support large number of them.

 

[D H]

I'm all for increasing NASA's budget a bit. A factor of 10? No. That level of expenditure would require clear, very strongly motivated, and very imminent goals. NASA did receive monies of that sort during the Apollo era. Even with very clear and very timely goals, NASA wasted a lot of money back then. Moreover, those levels of expenditures were not sustainable.

 

[Cyrus]

Wrong. The scientific importance of the data is one of the least important reasons we spend so much money on it. And we don't spend so much money on it. NASA's entire budget is 50% less than the amount Americans spend yearly on pizza.

All right, omit the hastily used word 'so much' (I was just using the same wording as the person who I was replying to here).

The only truly valuable assets up in space, as least insofar as Congress is concerned, are military satellites, weather satellites, and communications satellites. These are the domain of the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and private industry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, none of these require manned space missions to send up to space.

The primary rationale for sending unmanned spacecraft to other planets is that one day humans might follow. What else justifies the $2.3 BILLION dollar price tag for the Mars Science Lab? How many grad students in a field that does have immediately tangible benefits to the US economy or to humanity as a whole would that $2.3 billion dollars fund?

My understanding of the Mars missions was to determine the chemical composition of Martian soil, not to send people to Mars some day.

An easy test of your hypothesis is to look at how the various space-faring nations value the scientific importance of the data collected by their space agencies. The two countries that spend the most on space science are the US and Russia. Both have strong human spaceflight programs. France spends a lot on space science, a lot more than any other western European nation. France is also the nation that is trying to push ESA to have a stronger human spaceflight component and is the only western European nation that spends a significant amount of money on its own space agency.

I really don't see any correlation with what you have posted. The US and Russia have big space programs because of the space race. They are leftover byproducts of the cold war. Concerning France, I would expect them to push for more human space flight because if NASA goes the unmanned route, how are they going to get into space? They would have to use Russian or Chinese rockets. It seems like they have a vested interest in manned space flight.

How about other space-faring nations? One western European nation has gone so far as to ban governmental involvement in any human spaceflight activities. If space science were so valuable, you would think that this nation would spend a lot on space science. It doesn't. Great Britain spends a paltry 0.05% of its total federal budget on space science. Take away the motivating factor that someday humans may go into space in significant numbers and you take away the rationale for spending money on space science, period.

The primary reason for spending money on any space venture is politics.

I'll buy that argument considering we went to the moon for the purely political reason of beating the Russians. But I also think you are making my case against having manned space flight all together.

 

[Cyrus]

I am saying that I for one don't care about the science that is done by the manned missions anymore than the science that is done by the unmanned missions. It is all stamp-collecting science to me, e.g. cataloging facts. I don't believe that large numbers of people will ever be traveling to space using rocket technology, you won't see me arguing for anything like building a space colony for catastrophic evacuation of earth: I think that's just fantasy for the forseeable future. Therefore the facts about which stamps are availible are Mars have neither an aesthetic appeal (because the're stamps) nor a pragmatic appeal (since we have no practical reasons to go there).

What I do care about, and the reasons that I think NASA should have it's funding dectupled, are:

(1) The engineering innovations developed by NASA have historically had a trickle-down effect that furthers the state of the art for practical technologies here on earth.

(2) Not all jobs are simply a means to an end, some are ends in themselves, and aerospace engineers are above-average quality citizens, meaning that a progressive civilization will do well to support large number of them.

Ahem, I take donations of appreciation!

 

[turbo]

It would be nice to see NASA steering away from gee-whiz manned missions that accomplish little beyond keeping fragile humans in low-Earth-orbit and concentrate on remote sensing. Those little Mars rovers have been a treasure-trove of scientific information.

Before we could hope to do anything like that with humans running the instruments locally, we would have to not only vastly improve our technology for shielding the people in the space-craft, but also come up with a revolution in propulsion. Such projects wouldn't generate the headlines or TV coverage of a Shuttle launch or a Hubble servicing mission, but they are prerequisites to establishing a rational, reasonable space program that extends beyond Lunar visits.

 

[Hepth]

Interesting goal, even if a bit narcissistic in a human sense.

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?

If understanding extremeophile forms is a goal, that would seem to be most easily conducted and developed on Earth or near Earth orbit.

If in 400M years when the sun perhaps swells to red is there some relevance to spreading our spores about to far flung hostile environments?

Isn't the real priority to enjoy our E ticket ride, and make sure all the passengers are comfortable as long as the ride lasts?

I'm all for learning more about the Universe. It's a splendid tapestry. But really aren't pictures absent the pain and risk and inevitable losses preferable?

No, I meant extreme conditions more for here on earth. By creating equipment that can protect us and sustain us in space, we overcompensate if compared to how the environment might change for people here on earth. I'm NOT assuming the Earth is going to drastically change and we need this (a la global warming) but more for like, say we want to drill for oil or methane or something on the bottom of the ocean (Abyss?) I know we might have the technology to do it now, but it surely isn't as efficient as it could be. But the trickle down from manned space flight could create a lot of newer/improved techs to make it more affordable and safe, etc.

Imagine alone how big of an impact a cheap, completely closed-system, household water purification (from waste, etc) system would be to arid impoverished areas. Again, we probably have that technology now, but the development of it isn't being driven by the demand and so it goes foward at a slow pace. Whereas when we need it for the ISS we have a well funded system to develop it (for a reason that, let's be honest, is sort of not worth it in these economic times) but we know that we get so much more out of it that keeping 5,10,15 people alive in outerspace.



tl;dr : I believe that any advancements made from trying to sustain human life in extreme conditions (in this case Space) will eventually result in more efficient, cheaper technology that can be used to improve quality of living here on the ground. And that reason alone is worth the funding.

I guess in addition, I'd have to research it, but propulsion and aerospace methods of delivering humans to orbit must have resulted in some contributions to safer/efficient air travel (i'm thinking late 70's 80's developments). Perhaps? I'm not sure.


While the idealistic goal of manned space flight may be interstellar travel or something so far-off and unreachable that its pointless, the adventure of striving for that goal leads to some very realistic contributions to our lives.

 

[Cyrus]

No, I meant extreme conditions more for here on earth. By creating equipment that can protect us and sustain us in space, we overcompensate if compared to how the environment might change for people here on earth. I'm NOT assuming the Earth is going to drastically change and we need this (a la global warming) but more for like, say we want to drill for oil or methane or something on the bottom of the ocean (Abyss?) I know we might have the technology to do it now, but it surely isn't as efficient as it could be. But the trickle down from manned space flight could create a lot of newer/improved techs to make it more affordable and safe, etc.

Oil companies make a lot of money, and have a lot of reason to spend good money on research to find more oil. I'm not buying this argument that NASA will somehow make something that is suddenly new for this application you just described.

Imagine alone how big of an impact a cheap, completely closed-system, household water purification (from waste, etc) system would be to arid impoverished areas. Again, we probably have that technology now, but the development of it isn't being driven by the demand and so it goes foward at a slow pace. Whereas when we need it for the ISS we have a well funded system to develop it (for a reason that, let's be honest, is sort of not worth it in these economic times) but we know that we get so much more out of it that keeping 5,10,15 people alive in outerspace.

Why would it be any different than the water purification system already on board the space station?

tl;dr : I believe that any advancements made from trying to sustain human life in extreme conditions (in this case Space) will eventually result in more efficient, cheaper technology that can be used to improve quality of living here on the ground. And that reason alone is worth the funding.

I see no evidence to support this. If I were a project manager (or congressmen) and you told me you "believe" advancements "will eventually" result in x,y,z, I would say come back and talk to me when you know you can do (a,b,c) and it can be used for (1,2,3). This is really pie in the sky imagination here.

I guess in addition, I'd have to research it, but propulsion and aerospace methods of delivering humans to orbit must have resulted in some contributions to safer/efficient air travel (i'm thinking late 70's 80's developments). Perhaps? I'm not sure.

Airplanes don't use rockets.

I think there are other NASA projects that could use the money and have tangible results to show for it that actually will improve air travel, and our lives. I can even name a few:

-Aircraft Icing Research
-High Angle Stall Dynamics and Controls
-Flight Testing

Why are we going to pretend we need a billion dollar space shuttle that "might" trickle down something worth while, when I just listed some that would directly have impact?


Note: I am totally unbiased being a flight dynamicist

 

[D H]

Correct me if I'm wrong, none of these require manned space missions to send up to space.

You are intentionally missing the point. You claimed that "The scientific importance of the data they collect is the only reason why we spend so much money on it." Military satellites, weather satellites, and communications satellites are not NASA's concern, and these are the only things in space that collect data that Congresscritters deem to be valuable. Robotic probes sent to other planets and orbiting observatories looking at the cosmos are collecting data that Congresscritters do not deem valuable. The US is spending money on NASA for some reason other than the importance of the scientific data that NASA collects.

My understanding of the Mars missions was to determine the chemical composition of Martian soil, not to send people to Mars some day.

What justified the goal of measuring the chemical composition of Mars' soil?

I really don't see any correlation with what you have posted. The US and Russia have big space programs because of the space race. They are leftover byproducts of the cold war.

The leftover byproducts of the cold war pretty much ended with a handshake when Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft docked. What little was left ended when the Air Force canceled its involvement in the Shuttle program.

You are not refuting my main point: The amount a nation spends on unmanned space is highly correlated with the amount it spends on human spaceflight.

 

[russ_watters]

A 16% cut from 4billion dollars during economically hard times somehow equates to lack of caring?

Considering that the MO of the Obama administration is to increase government spending to stimulate the economy, yeah, it does.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Considering that the MO of the Obama administration is to increase government spending to stimulate the economy, yeah, it does.

Obama did increase the overall NASA budget by over a billion. I believe its the House Budget Committee that is making this cut.

 

[aquitaine]

-Aircraft Icing Research
-High Angle Stall Dynamics and Controls
-Flight Testing

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

My understanding of the Mars missions was to determine the chemical composition of Martian soil, not to send people to Mars some day.

If we weren't planning on actually going there ourselves, why would any of that be important? Why bother hunting for water deposits?

But I also think you are making my case against having manned space flight all together.

I don't agree. His example about the UK not having a manned space program and barely being active in space does have a strong correlation.

But something you overall seem to have missed is the economic benefits of industrialization and commercialization of space. Take for example a good size orbital hotel. First you would need engineers of all kinds to design it and it's systems, you would need scientists to find ways to make it better (better materials mainly), you would need technicians to maintain it, lower level janitors to clean the insides, engineers on the ground to design the launch system and spacecraft needed to bring supplies, new passengers, and new crew, you would need technicians to service both of those too, you would also need ground coordination for all of this. So just that one thing has the potential to generate thousands of jobs of all kinds from the top of the pay scale to the bottom, jobs for high, low, and medium skilled workers. Is that a bad thing?

 

[Cyrus]

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

What? I never said they were.

You're wrong.

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

If we weren't planning on actually going there ourselves, why would any of that be important? Why bother hunting for water deposits?

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. This is well documented, I'd suggest you google search this.

I don't agree. His example about the UK not having a manned space program and barely being active in space does have a strong correlation.

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

But something you overall seem to have missed is the economic benefits of industrialization and commercialization of space. Take for example a good size orbital hotel. First you would need engineers of all kinds to design it and it's systems, you would need scientists to find ways to make it better (better materials mainly), you would need technicians to maintain it, lower level janitors to clean the insides, engineers on the ground to design the launch system and spacecraft needed to bring supplies, new passengers, and new crew, you would need technicians to service both of those too, you would also need ground coordination for all of this. So just that one thing has the potential to generate thousands of jobs of all kinds from the top of the pay scale to the bottom, jobs for high, low, and medium skilled workers. Is that a bad thing?

Um.....okay

 

[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?