backtop

Print 64 comment(s) - last by zzeoss.. on Jun 11 at 4:37 AM
Millions more slashed from the NASA budget for 2010

As NASA prepares to retire the current fleet of shuttles and shift its focus away from the International Space Station (ISS) and more towards the moon and Mars, the U.S. space agency faces further budget cuts that threaten missions according to SpaceRef.com.

The House slashed NASA's manned space exploration $4 billion budget by 16 percent for 2010, as the White House will wait patiently to hear more of NASA's plans once the shuttle fleet is retired.  The $670 million cut will leave just $3.21 billion, which is less than what the U.S. space agency is working with already.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia), who serves as the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science committee, said the recent budget cut is a temporary "time-out" until NASA reassures lawmakers and the White House of its plans to head back to the moon by 2020.

"Either the nation is going to have to give NASA enough funding to meet the dual challenges of carrying out its current and planned missions and of revitalizing the agency's human and physical capital, or the nation is going to have to agree on what it wants NASA to cut,' House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) said in a statement.

NASA's latest budget cuts have alarmed some lawmakers, with politicians from the Florida Space Coast pleading with Congress to increase the NASA budget -- especially for the human spaceflight program -- in an effort to try and avoid job losses that will plague the region.  

"Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in our state and across the nation," warned U.S. Reps. Bill Posey and Suzanne Kosmas, who represent the Space Coast.

Furthermore, some politicians are overly concerned regarding how long NASA will have to rely on Russia to transport supplies and astronauts into space.

The U.S. has agreed to pay up to $51 million for each Russian Soyuz that launches towards the ISS with a NASA astronaut.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By Smartless on 6/9/2009 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 3
At a time when we're researching a replacement for the shuttle we're cutting the funding? Maybe we should put GM parts in it and kill 2 birds with one stone haha.

quote:
"Tens of thousands of jobs are at state in our state and across the nation,"

Uh is this a misquote or did the guy think he didn't use state in his sentence enough?




RE: Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:34:51 PM , Rating: 4
Obama claims to want to create jobs... This cutting of NASA is a freakin mistake. Pretty sad that a country like the US can't properly fund science.


RE: Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2009 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 4
Well you know its really easy to try and return to the moon when your budget is cut $670 million dollars. How exactly are they supposed to when they don't have the money to develop the program?

This is nothing but idiot politicians setting NASA up to fail so they can cut its budget even further. Hundreds of billions of dollars to banks which disappeared, hundreds of billions to social programs that do nothing but give people "free" money, billions to ACORN, and where do we make the cuts? Science and technology. Things that actually better our nation.


By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah...but ACORN can't put NASA-bums on a shuttle bus and drive them to cities in swing states to vote in elections and sway the results.

Obama was a community organizer, Pelosi doesn't even know what her Church stands for, and Biden just tried to convince people that the new tunnel for the train system on the east coast was really for cars. You expect THESE people to actually do anything right?


RE: Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By Muskrat Matt on 6/9/2009 5:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. And I can't believe we have to rely on Russia, either.


RE: Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By Samus on 6/10/2009 5:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
I voted for Obama, but not for this.

His administration is making a lot of very disappointing decisions. Frankly, I'm amazed there are cuts to science programs when our president (and his wife) have worked in education for nearly 20 years. This is FUBAR.


By seamonkey79 on 6/10/2009 9:37:05 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you should have looked at what he actually stood for rather than what he said he stood for, since they weren't the same things...

Then again, McCain would have been just as bad as Obama on many fronts, but I doubt he would have been making buddy buddy with people who's sole reason for existence anymore is our annihilation.


RE: Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By Bubbacub on 6/10/2009 6:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
how will re-hashing 1960's rocket technology with 1980's spare parts (shuttle infrastructure e.g. SRBs) really help the development of science? (other than the development of the occasional incidental spinoff technology)

if nasa spent this money on scientific research with a purpose then it would be fine. given that we are a long way away from being able to exploit lunar resources i think is little point in going back right now. if someone puts money into making a closed loop life support system that can last unsupported on the moon then there would be a point in going there - until we do this then the lunar missions of the next decade will really add nothing that apollo didn't achieve 40 years ago.


RE: Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot
By TSS on 6/10/2009 10:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
right. how you propose we find out how to get to mars in less time then it takes to kill a human from space radiation, without making trips to the moon and back to improve efficiency?

besides i have a feeling the "manned space exploration budget" includes not only how to get somewhere but also how to survive there.

and at the very LEAST it'll create alot of jobs to actually get off this rock and onto the next one. NASA might be a government industry, it's a bloody efficient one for a change.

in my oppinion, regardless of what NASA's total budget is for this year, it should be tripled. let GM fail if ya can't find the money for it. NASA's more efficient and iconic at this point anyway.


By Bubbacub on 6/10/2009 1:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
answering your points in reverse order:

GM bailouts Vs NASA is a different story all together. (and i agree GM is a waste)

Job creation in a recession Vs Money spent on science is a different story all together. (though i agree pork barrel job creation if it has to be done is better directed to nasa than other industries)

the manned exploration budget will include some life support research but this will be a tiny fraction of the money spent on making ares 1 and 5. my point was that the resources should be spent inversely since the rate determining step in exploiting the moon is the development of life support systems not lunar capable rocket systems (which we have known how to build for 40 years).

your argument about the mars mission is again a different story IMO - if you want to go to mars then go to mars. the technology for going into orbit and docking a couple of times around a non-earth planet/moon has been available to us for 40 years. we have built spacestations that can adequately shield people from radiation for over a year. the only thing stopping us from going directly to mars is the extreme expense of building a huge rocket to get there in one go (or the huge expense of building one in orbit with multiple trips from smaller rockets). going to the moon again will not really make going to the mars any easier as all of the lessons that could be learn't from doing so were learn't 40 years ago.


Good
By rmlarsen on 6/9/2009 2:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is time that NASA got out of the entertainment business (manned space flight, ISS) and back into the science business. Robotic observatory spacecraft often cost a fraction of a single shuttle launch and deliver vastly larger amounts of relevant science data.




RE: Good
By Bateluer on 6/9/2009 3:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, bad. The ISS and manned spaceflight are hardly entertainment.

We should never have cut NASA's budget from the 60s and 70s. Honestly, we should have permanent facilities on the Moon right now, launching multiple manned missions to Mars.


RE: Good
By knutjb on 6/9/2009 7:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
You can thank Jimmy Carter for locking us into stagflation in the 70's killing economic recovery and NASA's budget. The very expensive Saturn V rockets were retired at a time when real scientist had finally made it up to next in-line for trips to the moon. The last Apollo mission had it's first non-military fighter jock, a scientist.

BTW for those who weren't around during Carters reign of fiscal chaos you'll get to experience it with Obama's plan since he is taking us down the same, very painful, road.


RE: Good
By unableton on 6/10/2009 7:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't really relevant to the article (but what on Daily Tech ever is "LOLOL OBAMA HURR"), but..
quote:
You can thank Jimmy Carter for locking us into stagflation in the 70's killing economic recovery

Paul Volcker would like a word with you. Central bank incompetence prior to 1981 and especially before 1979 was a major factor in the poor economic performance of the 1970s. While I am not making an argument for the efficacy of the Carter administration, your economic analysis is overly simplistic and should be disregarded.


RE: Good
By knutjb on 6/10/2009 1:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you missed my simple historical background pointing out the conditions that killed NASA's budget in the 70s just as they were making significant progress on moon research that was in the comment I was commenting on. History repeats itself and is doing so again. It's hard to review history and compare it with today's problems with your head in the sand. If the economy was improving the Dems wouldn't need to cut NASA to fund their fun, they would do what they normally do, just take it out of the military. Pull your head out and read some history, like FDR and of the 70s stagflation period and you might get a clue of what is going on now.


RE: Good
By Bubbacub on 6/10/2009 6:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
"The ISS and manned spaceflight are hardly entertainment."

and this is doubly tragic - the ISS (and the shuttle by extension as its main purpose has been the construction of this white elephant) is hugely expensive, provides terrible value for money in terms of scientific return per dollar and doesn't even have any propaganda value as joe public is bored of rocket launches that don't result in explosions!


Real value of NASA
By Volius on 6/9/2009 10:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason to continue manned missions into space is simple: survival. Life on this planet is tenuous. A large meteor could smash into us. A massive solar flare could kill us. A problem with the planets magnetic field could open us up to deadly cosmic rays.

These are just a few of the ways we could go extinct tomorrow. There is absolutely nothing we could do to stop any of them, even if we had warning.

The ultimate key to our survival is to extend our habitat to other worlds - other stars.




RE: Real value of NASA
By Boze on 6/10/2009 4:23:44 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure if I agree with this... Earth has been here for a couple billion years, right? Give or take some. The last supposedly big event that screwed us (by "us" I mean the dinosaurs, really) over was an enormous meteor hitting the planet. If you take the billions of years that Earth has been around, and then figure in the chances of us being hit by a life-threatening event... look, I'm no probability and statistics teacher, but I'm betting its low.

Low enough I won't lose any sleep worrying about it.

Now, I'm all for your idea, don't get me wrong. Nothing would please me more than my descendants be part of colonizing a new Earth. Especially if we can call it Planet Boze. And I can't even imagine how much wealth you would have if you owned even a part of a planet. Imagine the first 100 families to colonize a new Earth-like planet got even 0.1% to 1.0% stakes in the planet's resources... you'd be talking wealth in the trillions.


RE: Real value of NASA
By Volius on 6/10/2009 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
What is the probability for tomorrow or next year? Who knows. The probability for it happening eventually is a virtual certainty. The point is we don't know.

Read the history. In recent years we have had a number of large space objects come very close to us. Most of them were seen only after they had already passed. Look at how many mass extinctions there have been in the past. The dinosaurs were not the only ones.

(First reply did not go to the right place)


good enough to quote
By Lifted on 6/9/2009 2:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
Spaceref.com was good enough to quote from, but you use nofollow links to take away any credit google would give them. Nofollow was designed to stop spamming of forums and comments, not prevent sources from getting their due credit from Google. DailyTech is the only site I've ever seen where articles use nofollow on just about all external links.

I'm still wondering if there is some actual benefit to DT for doing this, such as SEO, as I can't think of any off the top of my head.




RE: good enough to quote
By akosixiv on 6/9/2009 7:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
no follow links makes sure that if ever a site DT is commenting/linking to gets penalized for any issue, DT does not get the same penalty, by linking to that site.


WOW!
By Rhl on 6/9/2009 2:31:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The House slashed NASA's manned space exploration $4 billion budget by 16 percent for 2010, as the White House will wait patiently to hear more of NASA's plans once the shuttle fleet is retired. The $670 million cut will leave just $3.21 billion, which is less than what the U.S. space agency is working with already.


NO WAY! I never would have figured out that when a budget is slashed, you're given less money to work with! Thanks DailyTech! The low-IQ Neanderthal masses that read DT thank you for your revelation.




RE: WOW!
By invidious on 6/9/2009 3:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
The budget they are "working with already" means the 2009 budget. Less than 2010 does not imply less than 2009.

That was so easy even a neanderthal could do it.


By PlasmaBomb on 6/9/2009 5:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
work toward a 21st century vision of space that constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.


Sure sounds easy, lets cut their budget...




no worries man
By linuxgtwindos3gtmucs on 6/9/2009 8:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you all put your panties in knot...

Whenever i feel down i just sing this song:

Rainbows rainbows rainbows,
Obama loves everyone,
Muslims, Christians, even Jews, especially citizens that make all the money,
Whenever I think there's trouble,
I just remember, that Obama is the messiah and he'll print
more money and then our problems will be gone,
Rainbows Rainbows Rainbows.

Doesn't that make u feel better?

Just remember in order to be a messiah first he has to put someone in a bad place, first take lots from nasa then print 3 tril in aid.
Later he will give everyone mac laptops and 10,000 each - just wait u see.




Here's an Idea
By jon1003 on 6/9/2009 11:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Politicians and bureaucrats should not be making science decisions, they should be supporting science agencies in their priorities for research and exploration. We need to let scientists vet ideas, not life long politicians who know nothing about complex subjects.




Manned spaceflight
By WinstonSmith on 6/10/2009 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Cut it to zero and abandon the nearly scientifically useless but incredibly expensive resource sucking ISS. Spend the money entirely on robotic spacecraft. And rather than using existing technology, really push the envelope like the Apollo program did and develop AI and robotic tech that will be highly useful here on Earth, too.

One robotics probe mission scientist said in an interview that to determine the scientific value of a space mission simply look at the numbers of professional papers published because of it which are always huge in the case of the robotic missions but unbelievably paltry for the ISS (and he gave figures).

I recall a Spacelab mission that was in orbit at the same time as the Pathfinder mission landing and subsequent success. The entire Pathfinder mission was a fraction of the cost of the shuttle launched Spacelab, but the only thing they were bragging about on the Spacelab mission was the possible development in zero G of a metal that would be great for golf clubs. And even the greatly extended MER mission hasn't yet spent the money required for ONE shuttle launch.




RE: Real value of NASA
By Volius on 6/10/2009 3:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
What is the probability for tomorrow or next year? Who knows. The probability for it happening eventually is a virtual certainty. The point is we don't know.

Read the history. In recent years we have had a number of large space objects come very close to us. Most of them were seen only after they had already passed. Look at how many mass extinctions there have been in the past. The dinosaurs were not the only ones.




Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Cobra Commander on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2009 2:52:41 PM , Rating: 5
Apparently you're too stupid to realize all the technology that results from NASA research.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By DigitalFreak on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
No, you really were too stupid to answer the question. But let me do it for you...

What has NASA done to better the country?

Lets see, Nasa technology has helped us do the following:
cordless power tools, smoke detectors, home insulation, lightning protection, windshear prediction, football helmet padding, golfball aerodynamics, firefighter breathing systems, the "jaws of life" used by emergency services, virtual reality, global communications...

Need i go on...


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By bhieb on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Veerappan on 6/9/2009 4:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
As you've said in your post, many of the inventions were born out of necessity. Remove the need for the item, and what are the chances that someone will either come up with the idea, or pursue it if they do?

A lot of the useful inventions for NASA were invented because there was a need for the item to accomplish a mission. Yes, some of their inventions only work for space exploration, but it's the inventions that are a result of the research they do and then are adapted for commercial purposes that justify NASA's budget.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By bhieb on 6/9/2009 5:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
So lets be very gracious and say 25% of the budget actually made it into a product that impacts everyone. The question then becomes is it worth the other 75% to accidentally invent something great once and awhile?

My contention is that the vast sums of money could be focused far more effectively. In hard times they should be scaled back if not completely abolished and born again. Every government funded entity becomes corrupt and inefficient, NASA is no different. Maybe it is not such a bad thing to shut them down while the time is tough, and start again when the funds are there. Space exploration is a long term need, and can be slowed/stopped for short periods if needed.

Me personally I think we should explore space because it kicks ass, is in our nature, and yes some day WAY WAY out we will need to leave this little rock. However I am not naive enough to think for one second that there is some kind of winnable argument to be made that space exploration has even remotely some kind of return on investment.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Solandri on 6/9/2009 5:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
The nature of these things is that prior to the invention, you do not know which 25% of the budget will result in something useful. Look at fuel efficient cars. There's research going on into diesels, hybrids, all-electric, and hydrogen fuel cells, with some minor proponents of LNG, propane, compressed air, and gyroscopes. We still don't know which one (if any) will get the big break and become the dominant technology of the future. While I agree with you that government agencies tend to become bloated and waste money, a primarily R&D agency needs to be given more leeway.

As for ROI, I think satellite communications and remote sensing alone justify everything we've ever spent on space exploration. How many more people do you think would die and how much money would we waste on repairing infrastructure if we were still relying on random reports from passing ships and planes for the location and intensity of hurricanes? Katrina alone did damage about 5x that of NASA's annual budget. How much worse would it have been if the region had had less than 24 hours notice of its impending landfall?


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Noliving on 6/9/2009 7:27:52 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm lets see here nasa costs around 17 billion US dollars per year, one month of war in Iraq costs more then that. In fact NASA is one of the least expensive programs of the US Federal government, so can you please tell me how cutting or abolishing one one of the least expensive programs bhieb is really going to help out other problems or budget problems for that matter that the federal government has. For crying out loud we spend more money on alcohol or just on lottery tickets then we do funding nasa. Before you cut nasa you might as well tell people to stop gambling and drinking beer so they can put that money to something more useful.


By Cobra Commander on 6/9/2009 8:00:35 PM , Rating: 3
Google "Obama PAYGO" and realize the ramifications.


By Cobra Commander on 6/9/2009 7:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
what's the difference 'necessity' between space travel and solar power efficiency? Neither are 'necessary' in the true sense of the word. My point is, why not sit these engineers to task on immediate needs? If they've done so much indirectly (and I never said they didn't - I just asked what has it done) then why can't they do great things with immediate impact?


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By PlasmaBomb on 6/9/2009 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 5
You might as well...

NASA technology has helped with the following:

satellite television
satellite navigation – internet-based Global Differential GPS
virtual reality
prosthetic limbs
dialysis
digital image processing – which has improved MRI and CAT scans
breast cancer screening
the use of ultrasound to assess skin damage in burns victims
the ear thermometer
blood pressure monitoring
road safety – the grooves in concrete were originally implemented by NASA to reduce shuttle accidents on runways, Kevlar – which was originally developed for Viking and is now used in radial tyres
structural analysis (FEA etc.) – which has lead to improvements in air safety, oh and the FAA use Global Differential GPS and a bunch of other NASA derived software
improvements in water filters
freeze-dried food
Temper foam – “memory foam” was developed as a high energy absorbent padding to improve crash protection
scratch resistant lenses
swim suits - the fancy one worn by the Olympic swimmers, including Phelps was based on NASA research and technology
running shoes – material originally designed for astronauts boots is used in the mid-sole to improve impact absorption
ultrasonic personal alarm systems
Nitinol – the memory metal
pretty much anything to do with telemetry
some of the early research into microwaves
protection for deep sea divers
while Teflon wasn’t invented by NASA they did develop Teflon coated fibre glass
portable cooling systems based on astronaut’s suits
the Left Ventricular Assist Device
improvements in CPR
non-invasive tests to detect cardiovascular disease
the restoration of artwork
crop inspection
treatments to prevent corrosion in rebar
Macro-fibre composites – which are used in Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda, and BMW cars
fortified foods
Soluble Imide coatings
technologies for cleaning up oil spills
new environmentally friendly lubricants
an environmentally friendly formula for preventing icing on airplanes
robotics
anthrax detection,

and probably a bunch of other stuff but this wasn’t really supposed to turn into a wall of text


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By SilentSin on 6/9/2009 6:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Such an incomplete list, how can you possibly forget to include Silly Putty and pens that can write upside down!?


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By knutjb on 6/9/2009 7:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
Outstanding list. I would suggest those naysayers to explore the NASA.gov sites, particularly Dryden Research Center through the Aeronautics button. There has been tremendous aircraft research providing significant improvements in drag reductions, proving the viability of the space shuttle concept, alternate methods to put satellites into space....

They do more than the space shuttle. This cut is solely so the Dems can fund their recent increase in welfare spending by removing all the cost savings enacted by Clinton by limiting time spent on the program. Politicians only see a pot of money and how they can spend it. I know of no contribution to the advancement of society that welfare has provided, but I can can easily point to NASA's.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Cobra Commander on 6/9/2009 8:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for helping me without being a dickhead about it like someone else.

(Do I actually need to specify who I'm referring to? I didn't think so)


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2009 8:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
He forgot most of the clothes you wear unless you only buy cotton.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By croc on 6/10/2009 12:36:13 AM , Rating: 1
Please go on. Please post some links that show where NASA actually 'invented' any of the above.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By zzeoss on 6/11/2009 4:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Do your own research and prove that they didn't!


By marvdmartian on 6/9/2009 3:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
How about the technologies that have trickled down to civilian use, originally designed for NASA missions?? How about the solar cells that you'd like to see improved, which coincidentally also power our satellites, space craft and the ISS??

Better yet, how about keeping some schoolkids excited enough about space travel that they'll actually excel in school, continue on in college, and become the science and engineering "whiz kids" that this country needs, all in the hopes that some day they'll get to work for NASA too??

I'm sure we could all sit on this planet, using up our resources, overpopulating and polluting, until the earth can no longer sustain life as we know it.....or, we can explore ever outward, develop new technologies, increase our knowledge of how things work outside this little bubble in space we live in, and perhaps figure out better ways to make them work.

Me, I'd rather go outward, and not turn my back on tomorrow.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By icanhascpu on 6/9/2009 4:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of having to pardon your ignorance, why don't you just keep it to yourself?


By Cobra Commander on 6/9/2009 8:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nice one-liner.
I bet you could back it up in person, too, right?
Go hide behind your liquid crystals somewhere else, tough guy.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By TSS on 6/9/2009 4:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
took some searching but the source article states it pretty well:

quote:
Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in our state and across the nation. In 2008, the U.S. space industry contributed approximately $100 billion to the U.S. economy and directly employed more than 262,000 people in 41 states at skill levels and pay scales far above national averages according to the Department of Labor. In Florida, every direct NASA job translates into 2.82 jobs created statewide, with a total impact in FY2008 of $4.1 billion in output, $2.1 billion of household income and 40,802 jobs. With the second-highest job loss numbers in the nation in 2008, maintaining current jobs in Florida and ensuring future work at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) represents a road to economic recovery for Florida and our nation


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2009 8:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yup the Cocoa area will be utterly devastated when the shuttle goes out of commission until Orion goes up. IF it goes up.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Hakuryu on 6/9/2009 4:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
He does have a point, even if it was not expressed well.

We can't argue that technology from NASA has improved our lives, but at the same time there is research going on that seems a bit of a waste in this time of bailouts and economic uncertainty. The OP mentioned water, and to use this as an example, are we seeing any real benefit from sending missions to find water on Mars or a moon of Jupiter? The costs aren't only from the probes, but the man hours to oversee and then study the results.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a moonbase in my lifetime. I'd love to hear of us finding life even if it is one celled creatures. I'd love to see space being explored... but with the problems here on Earth, I can't help but feel cutting some of the work like looking for black holes (which probably will only benefit theoretical scientists) cut until our economy is better off.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Veerappan on 6/9/2009 5:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't help but feel cutting some of the work like looking for black holes (which probably will only benefit theoretical scientists)


Black hole searching generally benefits from research in better X-Ray detectors, which also benefits nuclear weapons detection efforts... so it's not just for theoretical physicists.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By bhieb on 6/9/2009 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
So could you not also get a better X-ray detector by say funding a few billion to just make a better X-ray detector? Arguments like this are flawed in that you assume that if we did not study black holes no one would see the need for better x-ray detectors. I'd argue that for far less money you could get the same end benefit by funding it directly.

The point of space exploration is NOT a positive return on investment. We do it because it is in our nature to explore, and there is a sense of long term survival. To that end, in slow economic times IMHO it should be cut. As should all spending, contrary to what we are seeing now.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By akosixiv on 6/9/2009 5:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
cut other people's jobs? right now when there is a crisis. Take away their income, take away the funding, then what?

those people would claim unemployment benefits from the government..still taxpayers money. Now instead of a "theoretical" return of that money, they'd be sitting down wasting it on nothing at all.

Plus there is also a domino effect. Take away that sector then all other supporting jobs and businesses might go as well.

Its not really that easy to take away money from one place and expect it to place it somewhere else without any big losses. Those on the budget team would have to think really hard if the repercussions are worth it.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Solandri on 6/9/2009 6:23:13 PM , Rating: 3
There are two types of solutions. Ones which you get in a flash of insight by applying obtuse technical knowledge to a totally unrelated field (e.g. computer aided tomography by mathematicians used on 2D x-rays to reconstruct a 3D image, now called CAT scans). And ones which you get by trying to solve a problem over and over, refining each iteration to improve the product (e.g. Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb).

While the latter can be used to improve an existing idea, without the former there is no idea to improve upon. So it makes little sense to sacrifice the former simply because the latter has more predictable ROI which make the beancounters more comfortable. My hunch is the x-ray detection being referred to never would have come about with even a trillion dollars in R&D because the insight which spawned it was based off of theoretical research into black holes.

And like I said, I think satellites and remote sensing alone (e.g. hurricane detection and warning) provide more than enough ROI to have paid for the space program many times over. We just don't consider it ROI because weather reports and NHC warnings are free. If the beancounters had their way, you'd have to pay for an annual subscription to the weather reports, and the NHC would only give you an evacuation warning if your subscription was paid and current.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Noliving on 6/9/2009 7:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
But that is the problem bhieb, Nasa has some of the highest, if not the highest, returns on investment anywhere in the world when it comes to research in the sciences.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2009 8:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Do you realize how expensive said detectors would be then? It's not like millions of x-ray detectors are sold to absorb a few billion in research and development costs.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By PlasmaBomb on 6/9/2009 5:23:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We can't argue that technology from NASA has improved our lives


We can easily argue that technology from NASA has improved our lives because it has.

Do some research.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Hakuryu on 6/9/2009 6:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that should read

"We can't argue that technology from NASA has not improved our lives..."

I agree it has improved our lives... didn't catch the way it sounded wrong when previewing.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Solandri on 6/9/2009 6:01:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We can't argue that technology from NASA has improved our lives, but at the same time there is research going on that seems a bit of a waste in this time of bailouts and economic uncertainty.

NASA's budget is only $17 billion. The $350 billion injected into banks during the height of the crisis would've paid for NASA's budget for 20 years. The estimated ~$2 trillion it's going to cost in all would be enough to pay for NASA for over a hundred years. You could eliminate NASA entirely and it would barely make a dent in the financial crisis.

quote:
The OP mentioned water, and to use this as an example, are we seeing any real benefit from sending missions to find water on Mars or a moon of Jupiter? The costs aren't only from the probes, but the man hours to oversee and then study the results.

NASA is probably the #1 influence on people who go on to become scientists and engineers. Ask any scientist or engineer you meet what the top 5 influences on their career choice were, and I'll bet NASA-related projects will be on at least 95% of their lists, with multiple entries on over half of them.

It can be tempting to question the usefulness of things like sending probes to Mars, but you have to understand that that sort of geekiness is exciting and inspiring to scientists and engineers. If you eliminated it because it wasn't directly useful, most of them probably would've gone on to mundane careers in medicine, law, or finance. And we (in 2009) would probably only be at the level of technology we had in the 1980s.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By Noliving on 6/9/2009 7:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
We spend more on alcohol or just on casinos in our private lives then we do on Nasa, is what 17 billion dollars per year, one month of Iraq or Afghanistan costs more than one year for nasa, can you really tell me how just an extra 16 billion US dollars is really going to benefit the economy vs. the cons of putting all the people who are put to work by those projects to the moon or mars out of work. I mean all you are doing is just trading jobs for other jobs. In order to do what you want to do, your talking about laying off people in nasa, tell me how laying off people is going to help the economy?


By Cobra Commander on 6/9/2009 8:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. That is a more-eloquent version of what I'm trying to say.


RE: Pardon My Ignorance, but...
By mfgs0 on 6/9/2009 5:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wayne Hale from NASA has an excellent answer in his blog regarding why NASA is important for the country.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/...


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki