NASA budget 2014 FY

[metaphor]

Better budget than last year, even though it's not quite as much as it was 2 years ago, at least it's increasing.

I don't know why everyone is complaining about SLS taking up all the money when it's only about 10% of NASA's budget (and Orion another 8%). NASA is not funded with one block sum, it's funded by program. If the SLS is cancelled and there's nothing that puts those same people to work, the money is probably not going to stay with NASA. Look at other NASA programs that were cancelled in the past, like Constellation or the Space Shuttle. Some of the money spent on Constellation remained with the Orion capsule, and some of the money spent on the Space Shuttle remained with the SLS, but the rest of the money went away. That's why NASA's budget has shrunk by almost $1 billion per year for the last 4 years adjusted for inflation.

I'd rather have NASA get a little more money to use on payloads for the SLS (an additional $1 billion per year is probably enough to develop a deep-space habitat or a lunar lander), than cancel the entire thing and be left with basically a dead-end human exploration program.

Also, in case no one else saw it, there's $80 million earmarked this year for a Europa mission, which I think is a good thing.

Edited February 4, 2014 by metaphor

[Wahgineer]

Also, one has to realize that china is (attempting) to become a space power (and kind of already did). when they send their first man to the moon (if they do), the U.S. will experience and uproar from the public. Then, we'll see a second space race, this time it's the U.S. versus China, and the goal is Mars.

Also, considering NASA already has the schematics, it will only need to build it's mars hardware. China, which has no formal plan, will be forced to throw together some shoddy equipment or rip off of the U.S. (which won't work, because they don't have an SLS equivalent to lift the stuff).

[John Crichton]

Depends on what's included in these programs. Often NASA initiatives won't work for the private industry because those ventures aren't profitable...and they're not meant to be. They lay the ground work for future (commercial) exploration.

Sputnik for example wasn't exactly a "profitable venture", yet it laid the ground work for sooooo many future satellite launches. A company only cares about one thing, profits. So if it isn't profitable, they won't do it. That's where government steps in. It fosters progress that otherwise couldn't be funded. Progress in fields that then allow private companies to step in once the very unprofitable first exploration took place.

Still think they could cut a HUGE chunk of military spending and move it over to NASA. Hell, pick any cost center of NASA and you'll realize it's probably more useful than more war spending.

[Nikolai]

when they send their first man to the moon (if they do), the U.S. will experience and uproar from the public. Then, we'll see a second space race, this time it's the U.S. versus China, and the goal is Mars.

Two things:

* I hope such a thing would rekindle interest in manned space exploration. Society as a whole in the U.S. seems to be significantly less forward-looking than it was in the early 1960s, however; it seems more likely to me that the national reaction would be closer to "Been There, Done That" (accompanied by a yawn) -- though I'd happily be proven wrong.

* Another "flags and footprints" series of missions would be detrimental to what we, as a species, should (IMHO) be aiming for -- sustained presence in space. While races like this might do some interesting things for national prestige, they do little for making sustainable infrastructure... the kind of thing legislators can spin as enormous savings if they cut back (I'm looking at you, Senators Proxmire and Mondale), and very few seem to mind when it's dismantled. As such, a second space race could do far more harm than good. (Consider how stuck we were after the first space race. No attempt to return to the Moon was fielded seriously.)

[John Crichton]

Two things:

* I hope such a thing would rekindle interest in manned space exploration. Society as a whole in the U.S. seems to be significantly less forward-looking than it was in the early 1960s, however; it seems more likely to me that the national reaction would be closer to "Been There, Done That" (accompanied by a yawn) -- though I'd happily be proven wrong.

* Another "flags and footprints" series of missions would be detrimental to what we, as a species, should (IMHO) be aiming for -- sustained presence in space. While races like this might do some interesting things for national prestige, they do little for making sustainable infrastructure... the kind of thing legislators can spin as enormous savings if they cut back (I'm looking at you, Senators Proxmire and Mondale), and very few seem to mind when it's dismantled. As such, a second space race could do far more harm than good. (Consider how stuck we were after the first space race. No attempt to return to the Moon was fielded seriously.)

Given today's people average attention spans, they'd be outraged for like 5min before being distracted by another Bieber PR stunt.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave a brilliant speech about all this in front of congress:

[vetrox]

I dont want to sound to much like a hippy. But it does depress me, the amount of money that the various worlds powers feel the need to spend on their militaries to stay ahead of the rest. Its the 21'st century and we are still bickering about who has the bigger *****...i mean army.

Shouldnt we all just be working towards spaceflight (along with various other more usefull areas. Medicine, renewable energy etc) Although I understand that war breeds better technology. We have hardly had a "war" for a good few decades now that has caused fresh mind bending tech to come out.

I just wish the whole world would speak one language and that all we talked about was usefull stuff like "how can i get this man to mars" instead of "how can i make sure that I can blow up that country before they would be able to blow me up"

[vetrox]

Two things:

* Another "flags and footprints" series of missions would be detrimental to what we, as a species, should (IMHO) be aiming for -- sustained presence in space. While races like this might do some interesting things for national prestige, they do little for making sustainable infrastructure.

The problem with races...they end

[Soda Popinski]

Given today's people average attention spans, they'd be outraged for like 5min before being distracted by another Bieber PR stunt.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave a brilliant speech about all this in front of congress:

I just discovered Tyson's "Startalk" podcast (while listening to "TrekCast"). Great and entertaining radio show. He's got the return of Cosmos coming up in March on Fox.

Anyway, I suggest calling your representative/senator (if your American) to show support for space exploration. They really listen to constituents, as most Americans don't bother. You can call the Congressional switchboard at 1-888-SOB-U-SOB (no joke, it's a funny coincidence).

[Nikolai]

The problem with races...they end

Yes, exactly. Few Americans saw the point of continuing Moon missions after Apollo 11. I mean, we'd won, right? What more could there possibly be to do?

The sad thing is that things were just starting to get interesting. The Moon is much more peculiar and fascinating than some kind of homogenous pockmarked gray ball. But to find that out, you need to dig underneath the surface... and a lot of people just have more pressing things to do with their time.

[John Crichton]

I just discovered Tyson's "Startalk" podcast (while listening to "TrekCast"). Great and entertaining radio show. He's got the return of Cosmos coming up in March on Fox.

Anyway, I suggest calling your representative/senator (if your American) to show support for space exploration. They really listen to constituents, as most Americans don't bother. You can call the Congressional switchboard at 1-888-SOB-U-SOB (no joke, it's a funny coincidence).

Yup, Startalk Radio is awesome. Just posted a thread about the new Cosmos show a few minutes ago.

[vetrox]

and a lot of people just have more pressing things to do with their time.

I feel thats a combination of things. Most people dont care whats on the moons surface because people are more concerned about what the kardashians are getting upto.

I dont know what the American education system is like but I was taught very little about the theory behind science in school. You were taught the scientific method and that was it. Nothing about how discoveries are made (often by accident)

Its ironic. The young mind learns easier and faster...yet the young mind isnt really interested in learning. Couple that in with the social level of school childeren and things like bullying, peer pressure, ***, booze, self image etc. Its no wonder the majority of people dont care.

My girlfriend doesnt see the appeal of anything even remotley space orientated...she does like to go out of her way to spend money and time watching t.v and drinking wine...its not even interesting stuff she watches on t.v!!!!!

EDIT:Really...the slang for intercourse is blanked?

[Nikolai]

The young mind learns easier and faster...yet the young mind isnt really interested in learning.

I'd argue that many younger minds are better "scientists" than many older minds anyway -- things like bias and costs associated with having to re-evaluate things are not really factors. They're ready and willing to change their preconceived notions if reality turns out to be different from what they think.

But science is caught in a weird place. It's so phenomenally good at generating information that we have little choice but to throw piles of data at kids for long periods before they have enough information to question what they've learned intelligently. As such, science (as it is taught) tends to be a lot of memorization and very little investigation... and that's a shame, because investigation is what makes science awesome.

So yeah, I'd agree with you that a lot of people have a very parochial viewpoint, and science doesn't tend to get much bandwidth. But part of that might just be that very few people have a real understanding of what science is or how it works.

[DerekL1963]

Considering that SLS have no missions scheduled or payload and that the SpaceX Dragon and other commercial spacecraft are going to make Orion presence in LEO pointless I'm afraid that money going to SLS is wasted.

You've encountered what is known as the "chicken and egg" problem. You can't plan big missions without a big booster... and planning a big booster brings all the "sky is falling" chickens out of their roosts to complain that the booster has no missions.

Wouldnt it be better to increase the funding for commercial programs?

No.

[vetrox]

-vasectomy-

I agree with the lot.

But in my post I was trying to get acroos (badly) that although kids maybe better scientists (as they like to investigate everything) Teenagers aren't. Not because the teenage brain is bad but more because of all the external stimulus they are bombarded with.

Science and all its interesting things (i can put a metal...into water...and it near enough ****ing explodes!!!!) arent considered "cool" and those who do have a genuine interest at school are shot down and mocked by their piers which is a real shame.

All i can remember is I had no interest in anything at school. I hated every moment of it. I had to learn stuff id idnt like (therefor i learned it badly. I still dont think I have needed to use pythagoras's theorem...even if i did we have the internet now) i didnt get to learn about stuff i wanted.

Its taken me years (and funnily enough this game) to realise i really did want to be an engineer. I mean, I practically am one (ego much) but I'm going back to college to make it a career. I've had enough of being a glorified bolt undo-er/screwer upper (a car mechanic)

I dont know how to fix an education system but i think our current one is a bit dated. Isnt it more or less the same style of learning we have had for centuries now? only now its more readily available. We could do with teachers being allowed to cane kids again...god that would have been usefull when i was at school.

...huh...turns out i enjoy just rambling and making no sense...oh well I aint gonna delete everything i have typed now!

Edited February 4, 2014 by vetrox

[Soda Popinski]

I feel thats a combination of things. Most people dont care whats on the moons surface because people are more concerned about what the kardashians are getting upto.

So lets send them to the Moon. Kill two birds with one stone...

Wait, I'd have to watch them on the Moon then. Nevermind.

[czokletmuss]

So lets send them to the Moon. Kill two birds with one stone...

Wait, I'd have to watch them on the Moon then. Nevermind.

First woman on the Moon: "That's one small step for me, one awesome PR stunt for my brand. HELL YEAH!".

[m4rt14n]

So lets send them to the Moon. Kill two birds with one stone...

Wait, I'd have to watch them on the Moon then. Nevermind.

Better make that a one way mission. Sort of a Moon Direct. But without the return vehicle.

[Umlüx]

sort of a high velocity impact scenario?

[Soda Popinski]

sort of a high velocity impact scenario?

Like Spirit and Opportunity, the Kardashians' got the airbags for a soft landing.

*rim shot sound effect*

[Skyler4856]

Better make that a one way mission. Sort of a Moon Direct. But without the return vehicle.

Or lander.

[Wahgineer]

Better make that a one way mission. Sort of a Moon Direct. But without the return vehicle.

There could always be some sort of 'accident', with multiple failures of communication, propulsion, and life support as the moon acts like a sling shot, sending the craft off into deep space, never to return. How how much better life would be without having to listen to the people most undeserving of their success.

[Idobox]

I just realized something.

The US is spending consistently a significant amount of money on SLS, which is not exactly exciting PR stuff and has very few clear uses.

And the one domain where getting US funding is not very difficult, even for projects with little apparent interest, is the military.

Is it possible either the Air Force or some think tank sees significant military potential in having the SLS, but doesn't want other countries to realize it before they're ready?

USSR built the Buran because the Air Force wanted a shuttle. They didn't have clear objectives for it, but didn't want to lag behind the US for military applications. China is also developing Long March 9, with similar capability, and they could have other objectives than the moon in mind.

Personally, I don't see why the military would want such a big rocket, but I find the idea intriguing.

[metaphor]

The US is spending consistently a significant amount of money on SLS, which is not exactly exciting PR stuff and has very few clear uses.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. The SLS is the most exciting stuff NASA has done in decades in terms of human spaceflight. It's not that significant an amount of money as you can see from the chart on the first page (it costs less than the ISS and less than the Shuttle). It has uses in that it's the first vehicle since the Saturn V that's designed to go beyond low Earth orbit.

[NASAFanboy]

Killing the SLS will set human exploration back by several years.

Best to leave it be. It's an painful leech despite its potiental (Which has not been rivalled in the history of NASA), but if you kill it, the consequences will be dire for the US Space Agency. Not like the SLS will be killed anyways.

If the rocket scientists designed the Mercury, Saturn, and STS.

And if Astronauts designed the Gemini capsule.

Then Congressmen literally designed the SLS. It's not called "Senate Launch System" for nothing. The SLS is the first thing that both parties, Democratic and Republican, have agreed to fund. Killing the SLS may have you see the US Congress slash the Commerical Crew program and Planetary Science programs in an fury of retaliation, and believe me, I've seen it happen to other US Government agencies who had the unlucky idea to cancel an program mandated by Congress.

The upcoming Presidental Candidates have mostly voiced their support for the SLS, and almost all have agreed to fund it. And while they all agree in misisons beyond LEO, there is an massive split between the Republicans and Democrats on where said mission should be, Moon or Asteroid, which is sad (If they gave an 50% increase to the NASA Budget to around 30 Billion USD, we would be able to do both an manned landing on the moon and an science outpost followed by an expedition to an asteroid).