The sorry state of the U.S. space program.. or how the mighty have fallen.

[SargeRho]

The Airforce currently perform exactly Zero manned space missions.

[tater]

Reality check:

900 billion is more than they got last year (by ~10%). Look at what they got during previous congresses. They have enough money, the problem is they are forced to spend so much of stupid SLS/Orion.

[OddFunction]

The Airforce currently perform exactly Zero manned space missions.

Then let it be known that I, Mega Newblar, First year CS Student, do hereby volunteer myself for any and all manned missions.

Your move, USAF

[Kryten]

I used to be depressed about NASA until I learned that our real space program is in the US Air Force. They launch more rockets than NASA could ever hope to match. I'm not sure how many manned missions they perform, but they do have a minishuttle.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/air-force-launches-hush-hush-boeing-built-x-37b-to-space/

NASA doesn't launch any rockets... they contract launches from SpaceX, ULA, or Orbital Sciences. Exactly the same for the USAF.

[Mr Shifty]

It's not worth getting too worked up about any of this. U.S. budgetary processes are byzantine, and budgets themselves are largely meaningless political documents. The only thing that really matters is appropriations, which is where money is allocated by law to various government functions. The appropriations process has these steps:

1) Subcommittees responsible for a particular budgetary area prepare draft reports in both the House and the Senate. In this case, we're talking about the Commerce/Justice/Science subcommittees.

2) The overall appropriations committees approve the report prepared by the subcommittees.

3) The congressional bodies vote on the approved reports.

4) Once both the House and the Senate have voted up their individual reports, they convene a conference, where they try to agree on a joint resolution.

5) The joint resolution returns to the House and Senate for final votes.

6) The approved joint resolution goes to the President's desk for signature, after which it becomes law.

The current CJS appropriations bill passed step 3 in the House on June 4th. And this whole thread is about the Senate subcommittee draft, i.e. step 1 in the Senate. There's still a long way to go before this becomes law, and a lot of the early stuff is political posturing. I wouldn't start worrying about it until the joint resolution comes out of the conference committee.

Here's a link where you can track the progress of appropriations bills:

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2016

Edited June 11, 2015 by Mr Shifty

[78stonewobble]

Reality check:

http://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ccpfunding.png

900 billion is more than they got last year (by ~10%). Look at what they got during previous congresses. They have enough money, the problem is they are forced to spend so much of stupid SLS/Orion.

What's stupid about the SLS/Orion? o.O

[Jonboy]

Because money makes the world go round? Because we have a capitalist infrastructure and economy? Because a vision for mankind and a fiver will buy you a cup of coffee? Don't be naive.

So, I guess we put our funding into private space firms. Let NASA be the FAA of space; I don't have a big problem with that, really.

That's already what NASA is doing re: SpaceX. Dragon Cargo and DragonV2 are being funded through NASA's commercial resupply and crewed contracts. NASA has a contract with SpaceX and OrbitalATK to deliver a certain number of payloads to the ISS. They selected SpaceX and Boeing as the recipients of their crewed contracts, and the companies have to complete certain development milestones to continue receiving money.

- - - Updated - - -

What's stupid about the SLS/Orion? o.O

A lot of people believe that SLS/Orion are pork, funded by Congress to send money to certain districts and the aerospace industrial complex. In addition, they believe that the program lacks clear direction and goals for using such a huge launcher. I happen to agree with them.

[tater]

What's stupid about the SLS/Orion? o.O

SLS/Orion is earmarked. NASA has not decided it is what they want, they are being told by lawyers (congress) that it is what they will get. If NASA was simply given money to spend as they wished, we'd have seen vastly different choices than we have seen since Apollo. Currently, we'd likely not be seeing SLS/Orion at all as it is incredibly expensive, with no concrete mission.

[RainDreamer]

Well...I guess I will put my hope in JAXA and ESA then. Makes me really sad that despite all the recent achievements in space science, they still get a cut like this.

[Motokid600]

In an attempt to steer clear from a political debate... There is the other issue of the lack of interest in the US ( the world really ) for anything space. Therefore there's no one to put pressure on these ignorant politicians to get anything done. You don't see anyone protesting in mass over how under funded/misguided our space program is. So how can that change? Ive no practical clue short of educational reform.

[tater]

Well...I guess I will put my hope in JAXA and ESA then. Makes me really sad that despite all the recent achievements in space science, they still get a cut like this.

They are not cut. Spending is 10% higher than last year, even in this Senate version. US government spending is almost never actually cut.

- - - Updated - - -

In an attempt to steer clear from a political debate... There is the other issue of the lack of interest in the US ( the world really ) for anything space. Therefore there's no one to put pressure on these ignorant politicians to get anything done. You don't see anyone protesting in mass over how under funded/misguided our space program is. So how can that change? Ive no practical clue short of educational reform.

Space exploration is a "luxury item," frankly. With all the incentives driving a jobless recovery, it's hard to convince the masses to demand a jobs program for the highest-end workers---heck, it's not even that, it's really that the spending would be similar, but those high-education workers would have a more fulfilling work life, lol.

[Kibble]

Well I'm not shocked by this, they've done it ever since Apollo 11... they'd already canceled Apollo 18-20 and stopped Saturn V production.

Saturn V production was cancelled in 1968, before Apollo 11. Of the 15 Saturn Vs built, only one (SA514's) mission was actually cancelled, SA513 and SA515 were redesignated for Skylab and the Skylab backup, respectively. Honestly, cancelling Saturn V was the right choice. Cancelling the other Saturn, on the other paw, is one of the saddest things NASA has done.

[Kryten]

Cancelling the other Saturn, on the other paw, is one of the saddest things NASA has done.

Saturn I/IB was extremely expensive and could have been quite easily replaced with enhanced Titan variants. The problem was the lack of missions, not the lack of the rocket.

[Mr Shifty]

Well...I guess I will put my hope in JAXA and ESA then. Makes me really sad that despite all the recent achievements in space science, they still get a cut like this.

JAXA's and ESA's budgets when added together are significantly less than half of NASA's budget. Throw in Roscosmos, CSNA and ISRO and you barely reach NASA's levels. IOW, NASA spends about as much on space as the rest of the world combined.

[tater]

JAXA's and ESA's budgets when added together are significantly less than half of NASA's budget. Throw in Roscosmos, CSNA and ISRO and you barely reach NASA's levels. IOW, NASA spends about as much on space as the rest of the world combined.

So true. It's funny when people outside the US get upset because NASA gets slightly less than they ask for, and the difference itself is more then their own country likely spends itself. You'd think that the rest of the free world would pony up far more for space than the US does, since their own defense is externally subsidized.

[Vanamonde]

Please keep politics out of the discussion, guys. Before getting into which country owes what to whom, remember that some people from those countries are likely to be the forum friends you're talking with.

[Linear]

NASA's budget literally means squat. They can't really choose what to spend it on.

[Frybert]

Disappointing but not unexpected. Without going political, that's all I can say.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Frybert

[Dispatcher]

Space? What's that?

[DerekL1963]

Saturn I/IB was extremely expensive and could have been quite easily replaced with enhanced Titan variants. The problem was the lack of missions, not the lack of the rocket.

Not only expensive, but rather mediocre in performance for the cost due to the Rube Goldberg first stage. There's a reason why NASA replaced it with Titan.

[Bill Phil]

Not only expensive, but rather mediocre in performance for the cost due to the Rube Goldberg first stage. There's a reason why NASA replaced it with Titan.

Titan was USAF. NASA only used a few Titans. They never really needed payloads of about 20 metric tons after Apollo.

It was a big increase in performance over the Saturn I. More than doubled the payload with little changes to the first stage. The second stage was replaced with the S-IVB.

A few later modifications to the Saturn IB would have included an improved F-1 engine on the first stage and an HG-3 engine on the upper stage. Would've increased performance by quite a bit, since the H-I had terrible specific impulse, and the HG-3 has more ISP than the J-2, and more thrust.

Although, a mono block first stage is more efficient.

[Kibble]

Not only expensive, but rather mediocre in performance for the cost due to the Rube Goldberg first stage. There's a reason why NASA replaced it with Titan.

The cluster of tanks did not decrease its performance by any significant account. Proton has been flying with a first stage like that for a long time. It also shared its rocket engine with Thor, amortizing the costs. A very effective evolution described by the legendary Ed Kyle, Saturn-Atlas-Centaur could out-perform Titan III independant of the Air Force.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Kibble

[78stonewobble]

SLS/Orion is earmarked. NASA has not decided it is what they want, they are being told by lawyers (congress) that it is what they will get. If NASA was simply given money to spend as they wished, we'd have seen vastly different choices than we have seen since Apollo. Currently, we'd likely not be seeing SLS/Orion at all as it is incredibly expensive, with no concrete mission.

While true, it is a heavy lift capability, that enables "exciting" manned missions once again. The missions might become more concrete, when they don't have to reinvent that heavy lift capability again or a 3rd time.

If the political will (and thus economical will) never ever materialises for "exciting" manned missions again, well it doesn't matter. It was money pumped into the american aeronautics industry, not exactly a new concept, and even the falcon heavy and spacex, will be nothing more than satellite launchers, at most.

[Nibb31]

Titan was super-expensive too. Those hypergolics (hydrazine and UDMH with nitrogen tetroxide) were really nasty and required lots of specialized handling procedures and equipment that boosted the cost.

[DerekL1963]

The cluster of tanks did not decrease its performance by any significant account. Proton has been flying with a first stage like that for a long time.

That Proton has been flying like that has no bearing on the effect on performance of the Saturn I/Ib, especially since they different greatly in gross configuration, never mind the fine details.

It also shared its rocket engine with Thor, amortizing the costs

Had the Saturn I/Ib shared the same engine as Thor (it didn't), it wouldn't even have been able to get off the ground. (Thor's engines produced about 2/3rds the thrust of the H-1.)

And costs are only one small portion of the equation - performance matters. Performance matters a great [word that would get me banned] deal.