NASA Priorities Out of Whack? 258
amerinese writes "Just last week, we saw a story on NASA reconsidering the fate of the DAWN mission, another reminder of the space agency's budget woes. Gregg Easterbrook over at Slate.com argues not only is the budget a little short, but NASA's priorities are all wrong. From the article: 'For at least a decade, it's been clear that the space shuttle program is a clunker. Nonetheless, NASA's funding remains heavy on the shuttle and the space station, while usually slighting science. This year's proposed budget for fiscal 2007 takes the cosmic cake.' Is NASA just not thinking creatively enough?"
Re:I mostly agree (Score:4, Informative)
FYI the moon is not tidally locked and your telescope would only be usable about 1/3 -1/2 of the time, this is the same reason why you'd need 3 beaming stations for lunar based solar power.
huh ? If you mean the same side of the moon isn't always turned toward the earth then i think you're wrong on that point.
Re:Budget woes? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see... $13 billion... of which most goes to the manned-missions right off. So that's ISS and the shuttles getting the bulk of the money. Research for aerospace stuff gets another reasonably heafty share. In fact, when you get down to it, the solar system exploration budget is around $2 billion, total. That goes to fund research, build new missions, and support existing missions.
In reality, missions are very expensive and mass-producing parts doesn't fix that. Every single mission has to be launched, which is a huge fraction of the total expense right there. Fuel isn't going to get a lot cheaper through the wonders of mass-production. Neither is the man-power needed to plan the details of each mission and to work out and check things like the trajectories. (I'm periphrially involved with selecting an extended tour on a mission right now. It's complicated to say the least.) And modular components only work if the modules are sufficiently useful to a broad number of missions. This is generally not the case, as it turns out. Every mission has specific goals and requirements that almost always demand a new suite of designs. (Check out the latest Mars missions; the new objectives have caused their instruments to be VERY carefully and specifically designed.)
And to put $13 billion into perspective: that's a few percent of what the war in Iraq has costed so far and around 1% of what it will ultimately cost us. In fact, that's the price of about 7 stealth bombers. Which were easier to mass-produce than interplanetary missions, incidentally.
Your intuition for the money here is dead wrong. I'm not saying NASA is above reproach; it very much so is not. (I can spend days ranting about how much they waste time and money.) But if you want to help solve the problem, you'll have to understand the situation first.
Re:Congress controls their budget (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the first part of the experiment you suggested. It turns out that the appropriations committee that handles Nasa's budget has experience some serious changes this year and as such we may see so new "spending" habits with future budgets, who knows. However, the individuals that currently sit on the appropriations committee responsible for NASA as of March 2006 is as follows:
Link to committee membership source
http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/0323_US_Congre
Link to Nasa Budget
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Budget_04_det
Nasa Appropriation Committees
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Full Committee:
Thad Cochran (R-MS) Chair,
Robert Byrd (D-WV) Ranking
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science:
Richard Shelby (R-AL) Chair,
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Ranking
House Appropriations Committee
Full Committee:
Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Chair,
David Obey (D-WI) Ranking
Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies:
Frank Wolf (R-VA),
Alan Mollohan (D-WV) Ranking
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Full Committee:
Ted Stevens (R-AK) Chair,
Inouye (D-HI) Ranking
Subcommittee on Science and Space:
Kay Bailey-Hutchison (R-TX), Chair
Bill Nelson (D-FL) Ranking
House Committee on Science
Full Committee,
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) Chair,
Bart Gordon (D-TN) Ranking
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics:
Ken Calvert (R-CA), Chair -
Mark Udall (D-CO) Ranking
Nasa Budget:
See Link (PDF Warning)
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Budget_04_det
Official NASA Mission Statement (Score:2, Informative)
http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html [nasa.gov]
Re:Budget woes? (Score:4, Informative)
Creativity Requires Money To Act (Score:4, Informative)
Between the ISS and Shuttle ops, 40% of the budget goes to Lock-Mart and Boeing just to keep the ISS' lights on. Then 25% for technologies to support the Moon/Mars plan.
The remaining 35% ($5.3 bil) for space science can only go so far. Got existing missions to support/complete. Plus, this Administration ain't too hot on Earth science missions. The data returned tends to include a lot of climatology data they don't want to hear about, so it's cheaper to not collect the data in the first place, rather than twist researchers' arms after the fact.
Re:I mostly agree (Score:3, Informative)
A telescope still would have to deal with the sun, though. At lunar night, there should be no problem at all (no significant scattering without a real atmosphere). During lunar day, the question is how close to the sun you can point the telescope and still get good images (and avoid damage to the optics and sensors in the worst case).
Re:from 2002, maybe. (Score:2, Informative)
Strategic Goal 1: Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement not later than 2010
Strategic Goal 2: Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASA's International Partner commitments and needs of human exploration.
Strategic Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration.
Sub-goal 3B: Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system.
Sub-goal 3C: Advance scientfic knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and resources present as humans explore space.
Sub-goal 3D: Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets.
Sub-goal 3E: Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciiplines of aeronautics, and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems.
Sub-goal 3F: Understand the effects of the space environment and human performance, and test new technologies and countermeasures for long-duration human space exploration.
Strategic Goal 4: Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement.
Strategic Goal 5: Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector.
Strategic Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.