No threads on the Augustine Report?
 

No PARFing please, space exploration should not be a political subject.

I figured it would directly impact a few of you.

In a nutshell, Congress commissioned a group to examine the viability of NASA's future plans, including the Moon missions.

They determined that NASA is financially unsound, and that they need to drop major projects. I quote:

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most complex and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=32327

Ouch.

They also state that we cannot go beyond low Earth orbit in the foreseeable future without having an extra $3 billion per year allocated to NASA (yes, $10 per American per year will prevent us from going back to the Moon).

Does this directly affect any of you (NASA itself, NASA contractors, etc)? Would you be willing to pay an extra $10 per family member per year to put men (American) back on the Moon by 2020? Would you rather not spend the money, but hope that another country gets there first? Or, would you rather support something like Space-X, the private company that is targeting space travel?

I think it's a shame that NASA is the whipping boy for "government waste", when their budget is a comparative drop in the bucket.

Let's take one of the last areas the USA is at the top of the heap in, and get rid of it.

nasa has serious management problems.


but this is a federal bureaucrat ploy. when the money runs out they always cut the things people care about first. here in california they are closing state parks. the feds are going to cut nasa, while leaving the national endowment for the arts alone.

I've been a long proponent of returning to the moon. I would pay even more

**assuming** that the money went directly into NASA's funds, and wasn't pillaged by other fed groups, how much would you pay a year to cover this project? They need $10 per person per year, but we both know that there's lots of people who will refuse to support NASA or space (for various, though absurd, reasons). Would you pick up the slack for 1 of them? 4 of them? 10 of them?

This isn't just pointed at you red-beard, but at anyone willing to answer. Would any of you be willing to write a $100 check each year for 10 years, directly to NASA's accounting office, to ensure the funding is there to try to get to the Moon again?

No need. Just re-allocate the $billions$ promised to ACORN.

you're framing it wrong.

it's not about giving an extra $10 each to return to the moon. it's about diverting the $10 we already give to the NEA, and the $10 we give to foreign aid, and the $10 we welfare etc.

I'm trying to be serious. NASA has lost funds every year, there is no reallocation, you cannot reallocate money that doesn't really exist anyways. They need a PBS style infusion of funds directly from the citizens who are interested in supporting space exploration. I wonder if that's possible, and if the citizens would actually pay more money for space, or would they pull the "no more taxes period" flag and let NASA and it's projects die. If that happens, what's next? Is all federally supported science at risk?

[QUOTE=Pazuzu;4901358...................
This isn't just pointed at you red-beard, but at anyone willing to answer. Would any of you be willing to write a $100 check each year for 10 years, directly to NASA's accounting office, to ensure the funding is there to try to get to the Moon again?[/QUOTE]

I might be depending upon the expected return on the investment. Bases? Research?

I'd be more willing to write that check for research into alternative energy or a replacement for the internal combustion engine in the family car.

says who?


if the money is real enough for egypt to cash the check, it is real enough to divert ot nasa.

there is no such thing as a shortage of tax revenue. there is only government spending on things we don't need.

NASA doesn't care about black people.

"expected return on investment"

See, that's what I want to learn more about. Is the day and age such that we would need a return on investment, vs. just writing a check and saying "NASA has to survive, period, it's manifest destiny or whatever"? Do we need to get a return? What if we attempt to get back to the Moon, and fail, but really put a good push in and just can't pull it off? What are the limits to what we accept as a return from NASA? Do they need to come up with the next Tang?

This is all just for conversation's purposes. I know where I stand on it, I'm not going to be swayed by anyone, but I am interesting in the Everyman view of NASA right now.

They are not magically going to move money from something else to NASA. They won't, period. They never have, and they never will, the flow has always been the reverse of that. So, why bother saying that it's the solution, when in fact, it's not, since it simply won't happen.

The facts are, NASA is underfunded for it's projects. They have three options right now: Kill projects, kill sources of funding drains, or throw a big bake sale and have the public fund them directly. Or, shut down.

Welcome to the modern world of liberal speak.

BTW, Please don't PARF me, I got that from the NY Times.

Wouldn't we get more for our money by writing a check to the privateers?

Dunno, that's one of the Big Questions. Will the private companies have the drive that is lacking at NASA to push a project through to completion, at whatever cost? Do they even want to go to the Moon (space travel yes, space hotel, yes, but the Moon? I don't know if it's in their business plans...). Can they catch up with NASA, which has 50 years of practice, assets, resources, etc on them?

If properly funded, would NASA be able to do this, or would they boondoggle the whole thing too much?

Making the assumption that we honestly are talking about families paying $100 a year for this...it's a big risk to flip that coin and having the funds go private or public, since no one knows the outcome either way.

Yes, private companies will and do have the drive and do have the know-how. The problem is the government has a stranglehold on space with respect to permissions, rules, regulations, laws, etc. As a result, space development by a private entity is a very, very, very expensive proposition.

The need for, desire, and financial gain with respect to space development are all there. The government has had decades to refine space development and yet we have minimal to show for it. What is the old saying? Never send a boy to do a mans job. The government needs to step aside and let private interests do what the government obviously cannot or will not do.

If you really want to see space development, and I'm talking a short timeframe here, as in less than a decade, contact your representatives. Get them to ditch NASA and pass legislation opening up the governmental stranglehold on space.

I'm willing to give $20.

NPR has fund drives. Why not NASA?

And I am being serious.

How much $$ to put blackstronauts on the moon?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6H8TJv0C58Q&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6H8TJv0C58Q&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I blame Bush..............................again!

A few thoughts here.

First, I think NASA is fairly inexpensive as these things go, so I have no problem with increasing their budget and I would pay $100 or $200 a year. Make it a check box on the tax return form.

Second, I have this "feeling" that NASA's manned space exploration program doesn't have clearly communicated goals or reasons. I haven't heard a clear explanation of why we want a moonbase, what we expect the astronauts in the moonbase to do, why we want to go to Mars, or what we expect men to do there that cannot be done by robots. Imagine if 1/4 of a manned Mars mission cost were spent on robotic explorers - the things would be incredible and we could have dozens of them all over the planet. I am not saying there aren't such goals or reasons, I'm saying that as as a fairly informed person who is interested in space and has made the effort to read up on Constellation and other NASA programs, I haven't learned what they are - so imagine what the average American knows - absolutely zip I'd guess. It is hard to support something if you've not been given a reason to care about it.

Third, I am bothered by the idea of scrapping the International Space Station in 2015, only a few years after it has been expanded to current size. It seems ridiculous for the world to spend so much money and effort to build the ISS, then quickly throw it away. Is that an admission that the ISS serves no real purpose after all? Then will we spend billions to establish a moonbase then close it down after several years?

Fourth, I don't like the idea that America's access to orbit might be dependent on some thinly funded private companies who could easily go out of business, and on bumming rides from the Russians, Europeans, and maybe Chinese. Orbit seems pretty strategic, from a military and also commercial standpoint, and it seems that access to orbit should be strategic too.

Fifth, Constellation is not a very inspiring program in the sense that the planned vehicles look so much like Apollo, so to the average Joe it is "ho hum, been there done that". NASA really needs to communicate something more exciting.

So basically I can whole-heartedly support NASA's robotic exploration programs, and I am unclear/need to be convinced on whether I support the manned programs to the moon and Mars. My heart wants to support them, but my head would like some reasons.

Several points:

1. $10 per person is a bargain. NASA is one of the few worthwhile things the gov't does in my OP.

2. There is every chance another country will go to the moon before we do. China is targeting 2030. India is targeting ~2020. And of course Russia still wants to go to the moon.

Living in China, I can say there is an incredible amount of patriotism around their space program and I am sure they will make it happen.

3. Support for Space-X does not preclude govenment funded programs. You can support both.

I like the check box on tax return idea. They should do the same for govt. funded healthcare, that might solve the debate ;).

Cut it.

And that pains me to say - I love the space program and the accomplishments it has made. But I also think these are desperate times and if it were up to me, I'd spare nothing - not even the programs I happened to like. There can be no sacred cows. There's no money. The United States is broke and has no real prospects for serious wealth creation in the future (we no longer have any manufacturing or industrial clout).

Across-the-board 50% cut of all government expenditures. Wham. Just like that. Starting immediately. Any resulting surpluses go to paying down our deficit and getting off Chinese dependence. Then increase the cuts by 5-10% per year until you're down to about 20-25% of today's levels. For every single department, agency, program, etc. The only one I'd give a bit of a reprieve to is the military, and I'd still cut military spending too - down to the level necessary to protect our country at home, not embark on crusades around the world.

This (or something like it) has to happen, and if we lose the moon or Mars missions because of it, oh well. It WILL happen, whether by choice or by force of mathematics.

We should focus on fixing our own problems first - here at home (in America) before trying to fix the rest of the world's problems and CERTAINLY before going to Mars, the moon, etc.

I had originally stated China specifically as the "other country", but I removed it for fear of making my thread too political. I fully recognize that they will be that "other country" that will try to beat us to the moon.

Are you cutting vertically (remove 50% of the programs) or are you cutting laterally (remove 50% of the budget from each program)? Seems that you want to remove NASA completely, while only injuring other programs. Does that mean there are some that will not be cut at all (they get a reprieve since NASA is gone)?