NASA's 2015 budget INCREASED! Up $250 MILLION from this year!

[[email protected]]

Actually, no. I just don't like SpaceX. I wish that the government of the USA would realize that it has a much greater potential instead of - Hurr, Murica...

I do hate SpaceX, though.

Wasn't saying I agreed with you. In fact I disagree with anyone who would propose government action as the solution to any problem. As much as everyone seems to love NASA, they forget that NASA is very inefficient because of how congress mandates its funding be spent, and that the private sector can do better at lower cost if given the chance.

[Vonar]

I'm impressed that a Republican congress that it as anti-Obama and anti-spending as it can possibly be was able to come together and agree upon increasing the budget for the space agency. Of course Russia maintaining a stranglehold on manned launch capabilities to the ISS and restricting access to Russian rocket engines to the American military has to be a major motivating factor with regards to investing into NASA. BUT with that said $250 Million is just a drop in the bucket, while a doubling of NASA's budget is certainly out of the question with the current political climate in America NASA really needs $3-$5 Billion on top of what it all ready gets in order to do all of the things that NASA wants to do.

Also contraire to what some of the others have posted NASA doesn't need a rebuild from the ground up. It needs unwavering support from the highest levels of the current and future administrations, and the political will to do what is necessary to secure America's space future. In other words it needs another Kennedy. Not a Bush or Obama who want the space agency to continue to accomplish what is almost impossible within the scope of the limited resources that it currently has, and having to endure semi regular cuts to its budget by a seemingly hostile Congress.

By the end of 2014 we will have demonstrated a manned space craft that is capable of operating in deep space, and by 2017 we will have a heavy lift vehicle that will be able to sustain human operations beyond Low Earth Orbit. Manned commercial systems like the Dragon 2 will arrive in 2015-2017 timeframe as well. This is a impressive feet when you consider the fact that we last had manned space capabilities in July 2011, and development on the hardware that now makes up the Orion and the Space Launch System started in 2004.

Also Ravensoul claimed that NASA is a example of a very inefficient branch of government. In fact when you look at the value per dollar spent in 2005 for its measly $15 Billion dollar budget NASA's space-related activities contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. This means that each dollar of NASA spending is a catalyst for $12 of economic benefit. With those figures I would argue that NASA is a prime example of government spending working as it should, and maybe even being too efficent.

[[email protected]]

I'm impressed that a Republican congress that it as anti-Obama and anti-spending as it can possibly be was able to come together and agree upon increasing the budget for the space agency. Of course Russia maintaining a stranglehold on manned launch capabilities to the ISS and restricting access to Russian rocket engines to the American military has to be a major motivating factor with regards to investing into NASA. BUT with that said $250 Million is just a drop in the bucket, while a doubling of NASA's budget is certainly out of the question with the current political climate in America NASA really needs $3-$5 Billion on top of what it all ready gets in order to do all of the things that NASA wants to do.

Also contraire to what some of the others have posted NASA doesn't need a rebuild from the ground up. It needs unwavering support from the highest levels of the current and future administrations, and the political will to do what is necessary to secure America's space future. In other words it needs another Kennedy. Not a Bush or Obama who want the space agency to continue to accomplish what is almost impossible within the scope of the limited resources that it currently has, and having to endure semi regular cuts to its budget by a seemingly hostile Congress.

By the end of 2014 we will have demonstrated a manned space craft that is capable of operating in deep space, and by 2017 we will have a heavy lift vehicle that will be able to sustain human operations beyond Low Earth Orbit. Manned commercial systems like the Dragon 2 will arrive in 2015-2017 timeframe as well. This is a impressive feet when you consider the fact that we last had manned space capabilities in July 2011, and development on the hardware that now makes up the Orion and the Space Launch System started in 2004.

Also Ravensoul claimed that NASA is a example of a very inefficient branch of government. In fact when you look at the value per dollar spent in 2005 for its measly $15 Billion dollar budget NASA's space-related activities contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. This means that each dollar of NASA spending is a catalyst for $12 of economic benefit. With those figures I would argue that NASA is a prime example of government spending working as it should, and maybe even being too efficent.

Not trying to start an argument, and this isn't about politics, but if you do even a cursory attempt to find out what NASA's bureaucratic problems are you will be overwhelmed, and you can follow that rabbit hole all the way back to its founding. NASA was once a great program, but has slowly devolved into the DMV of space agencies, and it needs to be fixed, you can throw any amount of money at a bureaucracy and it will find ways to waste it, and become even more wasteful in the process. NASA needs significant reform...but it needs to come from the scientists and engineers, not from politicians in congress.

[Vonar]

Any discussion regarding a government agency no matter the branch of government at the end of the day is about politics. NASA has its problems just like the EPA. However the solution to those problems is not to gut the agency and hand more power over to the private sector as we have seen with the EPA gutting a agency, and handing more power over to the private sector often backfires quite spectacularly.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Vonar

[vger]

Wasn't saying I agreed with you. In fact I disagree with anyone who would propose government action as the solution to any problem. As much as everyone seems to love NASA, they forget that NASA is very inefficient because of how congress mandates its funding be spent, and that the private sector can do better at lower cost if given the chance.

The question though is, will the private sector have any interest in exploring space just for the sake of knowledge? Or only when they think they can turn a huge profit from doing it?

What I would much rather see happen is a hybrid of NASA and Corporation. Then they would have a lot more freedom to look for ways to earn money, besides what basically amounts to charity. As it stands now, I don't think NASA can do a lot of things that a business can. This is similar to what is choking the life out of the USPS right now. I've thought of a lot of cool things that NASA could do (if they were allowed to) in order to supplement their funding. And I'm sure a lot of other folks around here have as well.

[razark]

The question though is, will the private sector have any interest in exploring space just for the sake of knowledge? Or only when they think they can turn a huge profit from doing it?

Private business are not known for acting out of the kindness of their hearts, or doing what is in people's best interests. Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money.

What I would much rather see happen is a hybrid of NASA and Corporation.

I'd like to see private industry take over the LEO market. Let them launch satellites and supply missions to space stations, conduct research missions, or run tourist trips, etc. If they can make money on it, they will do it. Let NASA get back into the exploration game and handle the sort of missions that won't turn a profit in the short term and push the boundaries of what we are capable of.

[[email protected]]

Any discussion regarding a government agency no matter the branch of government at the end of the day is about politics. NASA has its problems just like the EPA. However the solution to those problems is not to gut the agency and hand more power over to the private sector as we have seen with the EPA gutting a agency, and handing more power over to the private sector often backfires quite spectacularly.

NASA is not a regulatory agency so the analogue doesn't apply. NASA doesn't have any power to confer on the private sector. I'm saying it needs to be reorginized and restructured to be more efficient...this really isn't an argument, its a point of fact. I would encourage you to look into this yourself. NASA has very little control over how it spends its own money, and what that money is spent on. Also, all of the support facilites and productions lines that NASA is required to use are spread out across the states instead of concentrated in one area...this is not necessary, it was done as part of pork projects by different senators to ensure that their constituents got some of the federal pie...the list goes on and on and on. NASA could accomplish 20 times more than it does on the same budget it has now if it was restructured just to cut the fat.

[[email protected]]

The question though is, will the private sector have any interest in exploring space just for the sake of knowledge? Or only when they think they can turn a huge profit from doing it?

What I would much rather see happen is a hybrid of NASA and Corporation. Then they would have a lot more freedom to look for ways to earn money, besides what basically amounts to charity. As it stands now, I don't think NASA can do a lot of things that a business can. This is similar to what is choking the life out of the USPS right now. I've thought of a lot of cool things that NASA could do (if they were allowed to) in order to supplement their funding. And I'm sure a lot of other folks around here have as well.

I think people have a lot of misconceptions about private industry.

1. Private industry does seek to advance technology and our understanding of the world magnitudes more than government does...just look at automobiles, airplanes, computers, cell phones, etc. Governments involvement in advancing technology is typically limited to grants and funding, with the notable exception of NASA, DARPA, and a few other small agencies.

2. Private industry is not "always" just about the money, but money and funding ALWAYS serve as a limitation to advancements in those areas. Thats how the free market works, and should work.

3. Private is just another word for person, and people have interests and passions like everyone else, some people are just fortunate enough to make a lot of money off of them.

I would love to see the privatization of NASA, even if just a partial privatization, it would provide the right incentives to restructure.

[Vonar]

NASA is not a regulatory agency so the analogue doesn't apply. NASA doesn't have any power to confer on the private sector. I'm saying it needs to be reorginized and restructured to be more efficient...this really isn't an argument, its a point of fact. I would encourage you to look into this yourself. NASA has very little control over how it spends its own money, and what that money is spent on. Also, all of the support facilites and productions lines that NASA is required to use are spread out across the states instead of concentrated in one area...this is not necessary, it was done as part of pork projects by different senators to ensure that their constituents got some of the federal pie...the list goes on and on and on. NASA could accomplish 20 times more than it does on the same budget it has now if it was restructured just to cut the fat.

Derp... Highly doubtful. You might be able to get a 2%-5% increase in efficiency at best by centralizing NASA's production lines in a single state at the expense of spending tens of billions to build new facilities, a lot of jobs, and loosing a fair bit of political support from Congress.

Boeing has nearly finished building a new factory for the 787 in South Carolina which was expected to cost the company $1 Billion, and the company got a incentives package from the state worth more then $900 million. Thus to move a portion of its production line from the west coast the tax payers paid the company $900 million, and the company invested a billion dollars so $1.9 Billion dollars all together for a new relatively small production facility. Building a new factory instead of retooling the current Michoud Assembly Facility which isn't actually that far from Florida for producing the SLS and Orion in Florida would be a similar expensive endeavour which would end up costing taxpayers several billion dollars.

I don't know about you but I would rather not half to spend the billions of dollars of our money building new facilities, and instead repurpose existing ones that meet the requirements, and have money left over to actually build rockets and do actual science. But you seem to want to take the unnecessary cost of building entirely new facilities and set back the program by 5-6 years while we are waiting for the new buildings that do basically the exact same thing as the old ones to grow up out of the ground.

Of course to certain people the first option which is actually the affordable conservative path forward that makes the most out of existing hardware is "wasteful, and incurs "unnecessary fat." There are some who for whatever reason want to use new, more expensive hardware with longer development periods, and for whatever reason they also want a centralized production system in one state which is basically the opposite of the model that every single major company that they believe NASA should emulate does when producing pretty much everything.

[[email protected]]

Its not just their production line, its everything. Look into how their money is allocated and what happens whenever they try to produce something new. They have magnitudes more red tape in their way than any private industry. If you don't want to clean it up thats fine, I'm just trying to raise some awareness that the NASA everyone loves needs some help-and not just in the form of money.

[Seret]

The question though is, will the private sector have any interest in exploring space just for the sake of knowledge? Or only when they think they can turn a huge profit from doing it?

Directors of large companies do have a responsibility to show a return on investment for their shareholders or investors. That's their business model. The amount of non-productive work they engage in is going to be very limited, unless they can spin it as having significant PR value. Private companies do engage in exploration and science work, but only because they're contracted to. You're not going to see private enterprises launching their own exploration missions unless they see a commercial reason to do so. There's no reason science packages can't piggyback on commercial missions though.

What I would much rather see happen is a hybrid of NASA and Corporation.

Big organisations like NASA are already a hybrid of public and private. NASA couldn't get anything done without all the contractors that actually build their hardware.

[Vonar]

Its not just their production line, its everything. Look into how their money is allocated and what happens whenever they try to produce something new. They have magnitudes more red tape in their way than any private industry. If you don't want to clean it up thats fine, I'm just trying to raise some awareness that the NASA everyone loves needs some help-and not just in the form of money.

I would rather see a space agency produce meaningful results instead of accomplishing next to nothing of note outside the realm of Low Earth Orbit for 60 to 70 years which is what would happen if we had to rebuild NASA from the ground up as your proposing.

With that being said NASA is a national program. NASA is structured in such a way as to provide a net benefit to the majority of the nation, not a single state and as I have previously pointed out using facts to back up my arguments it does that quite admirably. NASA also is prohibited from or at least partly restricted from turning a profit from any of its research materials. It is not a private sector company, it does not half to answer to shareholders.

Based on your previous statements you also seem to want a centralized space agency with production and research activities focused on Florida and yet want NASA to be more like a major corporation, well I hate to break it to you but that's a pretty big contradiction as most big corporations that are comparable in size to NASA or larger have embraced globalization and rely on a global supply chain for their products. These supply chains are much longer then NASA's which for the most part is centered on the United States with some elements being contracted out to the European Union.