Will NASA funding be affected by the next President?

[hellokeith]

The last few years I've been following NASA very closely. I watch Shuttle launches, EVA's, International Space Station activities, NASA news briefings, etc.

It just dawned on me that NASA and by proxy ISP/ESA/JAXA/RSA etc has had a fairly good run the last 8 years, and I would hate to see that upset by targeted budget cuts. In particular I want to see succeed the Constellation program, because the Shuttle program must cease to make way for extra-orbital human exploration. Several NASA administrators and assc admin's have all agreed that while the Shuttle program has been very successful, it is expensive in dollars and in engineering man hours, and both of these resources need to be devoted, while the expertise is still hot, to the new Constellation program.

So do you think the the next President, from whichever party they come, will make substantial budget changes to NASA?

 

[dahunan]

It is being affected BY WASTED $'s in Iraq

 

[Jaskalas]

It is not a vital service through which elections are won. Therefore it is always in danger, and considering our debt and continued spending policy, I would be very worried about NASA?s future.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: dahunan
It is being affected BY WASTED $'s in Iraq

Oh come on. Are you going to make everything about Bush?



Personally, I hope NASA gets more funding. They get very little compared to a LOT of stupid shit that gets funding.

 

[Butterbean]

McCain said we should go to Mars. Obama is already there.

"McCain Wants a Man on Mars"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...nts_a_man_on_mars.html

Keep in mind perhaps McCain might have recently said this recently to keep Obama from saying it. Obama seems to want to mimic Kennedy in so very many ways.

 

[CycloWizard]

A lot of science funding in general hinges on the outcome of this election. Since all of the candidates suck on issues that are truly substantial and things that the president should have power over, I might have to vote for a D to give myself a little job security. My guess is that the D's will increase funding for NSF/NIH, though might not be as friendly towards NASA, while the opposite is true for the R's.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
The last few years I've been following NASA very closely. I watch Shuttle launches, EVA's, International Space Station activities, NASA news briefings, etc.

It just dawned on me that NASA and by proxy ISP/ESA/JAXA/RSA etc has had a fairly good run the last 8 years, and I would hate to see that upset by targeted budget cuts. In particular I want to see succeed the Constellation program, because the Shuttle program must cease to make way for extra-orbital human exploration. Several NASA administrators and assc admin's have all agreed that while the Shuttle program has been very successful, it is expensive in dollars and in engineering man hours, and both of these resources need to be devoted, while the expertise is still hot, to the new Constellation program.

To say that the shuttle program has been very successful is ludicrous. It was sold on the premise that access to space would become almost as routine as an airline flight. That was the claimed USP for it to replace the Apollo hardware which would have lobbed much more capacity into near-earth orbit at a fraction of the cost, while keeping the option of man leaving earth orbit open. The Shuttle never delivered on it's promise but, more importantly, it

a) forced the shutdown of the Apollo program which was a proven, cheap (the basic R&D had been accounted for) and reliable way to get man into space. That the Constellation program is a re-hash of the Apollo program should validate this point.

b) it sucked up NASA dollars to the detriment of what it should have been focusing on: further development of human environmental systems for space, which is the Achilles heel of manned space-flight.

We have proven that man can live and work in space. But the Constellation program will not provide any break-through on the fundamental problem for routine manned space-flight mentioned in b) above. Until that problem is tackled, human spaceflight is basically a waste of time, effort and money (unless you think that videos of people floating upside down, taking ant farms up to the space station, growing crystals in space for the gazillionth time or having space-station feeds to classrooms are worth the billions of dollars).

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
McCain said we should go to Mars. Obama is already there.

"McCain Wants a Man on Mars"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...nts_a_man_on_mars.html

Keep in mind perhaps McCain might have recently said this recently to keep Obama from saying it. Obama seems to want to mimic Kennedy in so very many ways.

I think Obama should call him on that one, just like he did on doing away with taxes on gas. Kennedy's reason for Apollo was not to get a man on the moon but to beat the Russians to it. There's no such compelling Cold-War type of reason to get a man to Mars now.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: dahunan
It is being affected BY WASTED $'s in Iraq

Oh come on. Are you going to make everything about Bush?



Personally, I hope NASA gets more funding. They get very little compared to a LOT of stupid shit that gets funding like bushes war.

Oh come on...


Fixed for ya!

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Although he has neutered most avenues of scientific research in USA, Bush has actually been pretty good to NASA. I'm starting to believe in this BDS thing, you people can't go a single thread without bringing him into it, no matter how far removed he is from the topic of discussion.

 

[Jeff7]

Getting people to Mars is a really lofty goal with a number of major problems. The #1 issue is of course getting the astronauts there not only alive, but sane.
Imagine spending more than a year in solitary confinement, inside a small capsule with no way out. Or even imagine spending that same amount of time with one other person. There'd better be no conflict, or you'll either kill each other or quietly go nuts.

Then there's cosmic and solar radiation - a good flare-triggered CME would be enough to cause severe radiation poisoning.

And finally, Martian dust. It's very fine, it's quick to acquire an electrostatic charge and stick to everything, it would be wind-blown, and it's corrosive; if inhaled, it could cause silicosis-like complications.



People on Mars: Too expensive, too dangerous, and too far beyond our technology. We can still do a LOT with robots. They don't care much about eating, or staying confined for months on end, and they don't care if you work them literally to death. Robotics research can also have applications back on Earth.

And in general, NASA serves as a technology breeder, allowing the best scientists in the country a place to conduct research, some of which finds its way, quietly, into the consumer sector. Those who always complain about how such research wastes money also fail to realize how much of modern technology relies on "useless" research. My favorite example was one that Carl Sagan used while addressing some members of Congress:
Imagine that you were Queen Victoria's science advisor, and she asked you to create a box with moving pictures in it, such that she could be at the palace, and people would see her moving, speaking image in this box. "What would you do about it?"
Meanwhile, someone elsewhere was researching the interactions of moving electrical charges and magnetic fields. Moving electrical charges in magnetic fields? Who the hell cares about that?

Oh wait, that's how generators work. And that's what CRTs use to create an image - magnetic fields and moving electrons.

Or Madame Marie Curie, studying radiation. Again, useless science. Rocks that can produce dots on photographic plates with some kind of invisible rays, and cause premature death. Woohoo, real useful.

Now we have nuclear power plants and nuclear medicine, thanks in part to such research.



Pure science needs continued funding, or we will stagnate technologically.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Will NASA funding be affected by the next President?

Yes. There are only 10 more shuttle flights through 2010. Keeping the space shuttle flying in 2011 would cost between $2.7 billion and $4 billion.

The FY 2009 authorization bill sets a $19.2 billion NASA budget, a $1.9 million increase over 2008.

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Although he has neutered most avenues of scientific research in USA, Bush has actually been pretty good to NASA. I'm starting to believe in this BDS thing, you people can't go a single thread without bringing him into it, no matter how far removed he is from the topic of discussion.

Bush wants to go to Mars - McBush wants to go to Mars. Sheesh - Bush 41 wanted to colonize Mars.

You stated the case correctly. Why neuter most avenues of scientific research in the US with 100's of billions of dollars for moon bases and manned trips to Mars in the NASA budget?

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I would love for NASA to get more funding. The ultimate fate of the human race will likely depend on space colonization.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: njdevilsfan87
I would love for NASA to get more funding. The ultimate fate of the human race will likely depend on space colonization.

Agreed; the sooner we are colonized, the sooner we unite and overthrow our alien overlords.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
People on Mars: Too expensive, too dangerous, and too far beyond our technology. We can still do a LOT with robots. They don't care much about eating, or staying confined for months on end, and they don't care if you work them literally to death. Robotics research can also have applications back on Earth.

Hehe, nahh.. Too far beyond our will to invest in a project to do so. The technology is easily there to do it.

 

[Vic]

Congress controls NASA's purse strings, not the President.

Regardless, it is extremely unlikely that NASA will see a cut in funding no matter who is elected.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: Jeff7
People on Mars: Too expensive, too dangerous, and too far beyond our technology. We can still do a LOT with robots. They don't care much about eating, or staying confined for months on end, and they don't care if you work them literally to death. Robotics research can also have applications back on Earth.

Hehe, nahh.. Too far beyond our will to invest in a project to do so. The technology is easily there to do it.

Really? NASA had started a dedicated research program to figure out a solution to the dust problem. The stuff is super-fine powder of iron oxide and various other compounds. It would be wind-blown, electrostatically charged, it would damage seals on doors and uniforms, it's mildly corrosive, and it could cause health problems if inhaled.
There are also occasional planet-wide dust storms that would render solar panels almost useless, making the noon sky as dark as late evening.

There's also a matter of electrostatic dissipation. An astronaut out wandering around the surface could accumulate a very significant charge. When he goes back to the lander, he could easily cause damage to the electronics simply by touching the ship.

There are also the matters of radiation, both cosmic and solar. Lunar astronauts were simply lucky - if a coronal mass ejection had hit while they were outside Earth's magnetic field, they'd likely have died of radiation poisoning.

There's also still the matter of the length of the trip, which would possibly be close to 2 years.
1 person in solitary confinement for 2 years, stuck in a small spaceship? How sane might he be once he gets there?
More than one person - then there's still the risk of conflict arising, and also a requirement for that much more food, water, waste processing, oxygen, and living quarters. More supplies and living quarters means a bigger ship, which means more fuel, as well as more expense. There would also need to be adequate space to allow for exercise equipment, otherwise there would be significant loss of bone and muscle density from a long time stuck in one place.
And hey, there's going to have to be some kind of outlet for sexual release, and the means to clean up the "aftereffects."



Yes, I'm sure we could overcome these problems. Doing so would be very expensive, and I think that money could be better invested in other means of exploration and research. Humans are a bit too fragile and expensive

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are also the matters of radiation, both cosmic and solar. Lunar astronauts were simply lucky - if a coronal mass ejection had hit while they were outside Earth's magnetic field, they'd likely have died of radiation poisoning.

This is huge problem. No one has any real world solution for it.

 

[bozack]

When I used to work there the general sentiment was that republicans in office were typically better for the administration, whereas democrats tended to cut their budget. No idea what would happen now.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
McCain said we should go to Mars. Obama is already there.

"McCain Wants a Man on Mars"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...nts_a_man_on_mars.html

Keep in mind perhaps McCain might have recently said this recently to keep Obama from saying it. Obama seems to want to mimic Kennedy in so very many ways.

No, Bush wants to go to mars. I say send him.

Seriously, we need an unmanned mission to mars. Much less expensive.

 

[glenn1]

I would personally like to see NASA's budget completely zeroed out, along with at least half the other cabinet departments.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

There are also the matters of radiation, both cosmic and solar. Lunar astronauts were simply lucky - if a coronal mass ejection had hit while they were outside Earth's magnetic field, they'd likely have died of radiation poisoning.

This is huge problem. No one has any real world solution for it.

Indeed. The only "solutions" I've seen thus far would involve either a thick spherical shell of water, which would make the spacecraft so massive that the fuel requirements would be completely unfeasible.
The other is some kind of energy shield, which would require an immense amount of power.

Originally posted by: glenn1
I would personally like to see NASA's budget completely zeroed out, along with at least half the other cabinet departments.

And thankfully, you're not the one making the budget decisions.

 

[DrPizza]

There's absolutely no reason for manned missions to Mars. Robots can do any mission that humans can do, for a very small fraction of the cost.

From Nasa:
"Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?
A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
Q. How much does the Space Shuttle cost?
A. The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion. "

For comparison's sake, each of the Mars Exploration Rovers cost less than a single space shuttle mission, including their building, launching, landing, and operating for 90 days. I'm sure we've learned more from the Rovers than from any single Shuttle mission. Not to mention that the shuttle missions don't even leave earth's orbit! Dozens upon dozens of missions such as the rovers can be done for the cost of sending up 1 human to Mars.

Oh, and manned missions to the Moon and to Mars? $50 to 100 billion.

Originally posted by: njdevilsfan87
I would love for NASA to get more funding. The ultimate fate of the human race will likely depend on space colonization.

While that may be true, this isn't the time to be wasting time & money attempting to do so. Technologically, we're at the stage of learning to rub two sticks together to make fire while colonizing other planets would be like our ability to send people to space today. And, ultimately, our sun isn't going to last forever. But, even if 100 years from now, you sent humans hurtling through space toward the closest star, when they got there, they'd be greeted by descendents of people who left earth generations later.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I would personally like to see NASA's budget completely zeroed out, along with at least half the other cabinet departments.

I'm interested in hearing your reasonings.

IMO we're nowhere near the point where free market capital can expect to profit from anything beyond earth orbit satellites. Especially in our currently myopic economic environment. While in the meantime, long term research to develop a more feasible form of propulsion is required, or else we are never getting off Earth. Although even the possibility of that is a good debate all its own.

 

[Jeff7]

I'd also like to see some more monitoring done for asteroids that pose an impact threat.

It's not like it's something that will "just never happen." Something is going to hit Earth. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Maybe not for 50 years, maybe not for 50,000. But something will hit.
While the chances of it happening in the near future are low, the results could be utterly devastating.


DrPizza - don't forget too, those Rovers have been going for over 4 years now, and they don't need to be refurbished constantly like the shuttles do.
Granted, they're on a one-shot mission, but the returns have been incredible. The coming Mars Science Lab will add considerable capabilities, with a miniature science laboratory in its main chassis.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
While that may be true, this isn't the time to be wasting time & money attempting to do so. Technologically, we're at the stage of learning to rub two sticks together to make fire while colonizing other planets would be like our ability to send people to space today. And, ultimately, our sun isn't going to last forever. But, even if 100 years from now, you sent humans hurtling through space toward the closest star, when they got there, they'd be greeted by descendents of people who left earth generations later.

Along those lines, I've read that the "life forms" that discover the Voyager, Pioneer, New Horizons, and other probes, will be Earth-originated life, of whatever form humanity eventually takes. We'll start venturing out of the solar system in thousands of years, and quite possibly find those ancient probes, still speeding away in interstellar space. Maybe they'll be guided by ancient data archives on the trajectories of the probes, or else simply found by chance during routine scans.
It'll be interesting to see if they're able to figure out how to get the data off of some of those various storage devices, and what they'll make of it. It's our little time capsule, set with a sort of automatic timed lock, by simple nature of distance. The "timer" will unlock the treasure once we're advanced enough to catch up to it.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Oh, and manned missions to the Moon and to Mars? $50 to 100 billion.

Still, I'd sooner see 10 missions to Mars rather than the occupation of Iraq.