Would you donate money to nasa

[the game]

If you had the means would you donate money to NASA? If it meant more research into colonization on other planets or possibly interstellar travel? I certainly would. So many technological advancements would be made if we accomplished those two goals. It's also in our species best interest to colonize outside of earth.

If you wouldn't donate, why not?

[lonely zergling]

No I'd rather donate money to ESA.

[Puupi]

No I'd rather donate money to ESA.

^This.

Or throw your dollars at Planetary Society or some other NGO.

[Skaiz]

On the topic of funding, any funding to space exploration and technology is of great importance to me. I actually wish it was a topic discussed with potential presidential candidates a lot more. Seems many people don't really care anymore. In my eyes, there is only so much that can be done down here

[kingpinuk880]

I would if it meant full transparency. Just admit there is aliens, stop the cover up!

[Azadina]

How much money are we talking about? Enough to make a big difference?

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

as if they need money. theyre not doing anything worth while

[Sierra85]

so you want NASA to do its own kickstarter?

[Puupi]

How much money are we talking about? Enough to make a big difference?

Do you have so much money you could donate to NASA that it would make a big difference?

[glo]

No I'd rather donate money to ESA.

Yeah, donating to a significantly less accomplished agency with far less experience makes perfect sense.

[Azadina]

Do you have so much money you could donate to NASA that it would make a big difference?

That's why I'm asking What would nasa need 5 dollar donation for?

[GennGreymane]

Its a government function and entity, I should not be donating to it.

[Deleted]

Probably not.

[the game]

so you want NASA to do its own kickstarter?

Investors contribute to scientific research and development all the time.

[chazus]

Probably not. Donating to charity makes a difference on small levels. Things like Red Cross or Child's Play, ten bucks helps someone. It's not like they don't help anyone at all unless they reach X dollars. Research and work NASA does works on a budget in the billions, and if everyone donated $5... nothing would happen. Now, if I were stupidly wealthy, and had millions or billions to spend, that's a different story.

[the game]

Probably not. Donating to charity makes a difference on small levels. Things like Red Cross or Child's Play, ten bucks helps someone. It's not like they don't help anyone at all unless they reach X dollars. Research and work NASA does works on a budget in the billions, and if everyone donated $5... nothing would happen. Now, if I were stupidly wealthy, and had millions or billions to spend, that's a different story.

That's why I said if you had the means. I assumed people would catch on that meant large amounts of money.

[Ineluki]

No, they are bloated and waste tons of money like the rest of the government. Private sector will be the ones to pioneer this stuff for a fraction of what the government would spend.

[Skroe]

I'm gonna repost what I wrote on this topic a while ago. Without EPIC and Fundamental Reform, more money to NASA is wasted money.


NASA and Bad Management

You don't want to give NASA that money these days. You think you do, but you really don't. Not this NASA and not this government. That's not some silly libertarian thing. Rather it's a realization about how NASA and contracting works.

The problem of NASA is the problem of the DoD (which it shared all major contractors with, such as Lockheed, Boeing) and government in general. Control of contract growth.... really program management from top to bottom... is out of control and has been for years. I've talked about it at length. The point is let's say you double NASA's budget... NASA's ability to "do more" would be a lot less than you'd expect. The increase in money would lead to increase in ambitions, which would lead to increase in price tag.

The James Webb Space Telescope is the living, breathing example of it. It's predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope, is really a repurpossed NRO Spy Sattelite bus (spaceframe), known as KH-11 / KH-12 Kennan. They look almost identical to the HST, with a different, downward pointing optics package. Since the launch of the first KH-11, the NRO has launched nearly two dozen of them. The HST was adopted from it. Right now there five of these spy satellites in orbit.

The NRO picked a winner of a design 30 years ago and they've kept upgrading it. Every three or for years, they launch essentially another HST with new technology enhancements. KH-12s of 2015 are far more advanced than the ones of the early 1980s. But the point is, the NRO picked one design and just kept modernizing.

This contrasts with NASA and the JWST. In 2000, when the "Next Generation Space Telescope" was envisioned, it started, essentially, with a wishlist. And realizing that wishlist lead to the need to develop lot of technology that simply didn't exist. The JWST is hugely ambitious to be sure, but the result has been a growth in program cost, from $2.4 billion to $8.9 billion. It is also a decade behind schedule. It may be over $11 billion when all is said and done. All this for a space telescope that will last five years, period, do to it's limited coolant supply.

What NASA should have done was launch a modernized HST on the most modern KH-12 bus (more on that in a moment). Instead they've made the ultimate too big to fail space program. The existence of the JWST has acted as a monkey sink, sharply limiting what other programs are being funded. NASA has no Flagship class (the most expensive class) Space missions pending, other than the JWST which is beyond-Flagship essentially, due to it.

A few years back NASA got handed 2.5 space telescopes from the NRO. They are KH-12s the NRO built and paid for (valued at $300 million) but never flew as part of the Future Imagery Architecture program. NASA took them in the most reluctant way possible and has decided to use one for the WFIRST mission. But thats the hilarious part: until forced, they basically didn't "another agency's stuff".

Today the JWST has become and example of what not to do, but that hasn't stopped it's supporters from envisioning it's successor being something four times the size (and likely five times the cost). Give NASA the money, they would just build that.

The JWST got to this point because poor management, poor vision, poor oversight and opportunistic contractors.

NASA and the Obama Administration

More money wouldn't solve the problem. NASA's problem isn't money. It's leadership, management and oversight. It's been 15 years of disastrous and weak administrators (incumbent Charlie Bolden, Obama's man at NASA being the worst).

The factional nature of NASA is nothing new. It's been like that since the 1960s. The Field Centers have competed for money since Apollo. The problem is that previous administrators were able to control it.

Why is it so bad now? Barack Obama.

Typically NASA has been a Democrat versus Republican kind of interest thing, particularly in the 1990s and early 2000s when Democrats were more interested in the ISS and civilian space and Republicans interested in the Bush VSE (Vision for Space Exploration) and military space. So whenever administrations flipped, plans flipped. The result was building the ISS and a holding pattern.

What changed though was the end of Project Constellation and the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Obama proposed a truly terrible plan that was pretty much the end of manned spaceflight and for the first time since the 1960s, Congress came to a consensus on space. The problem is, this consensus is directly at odds with the Obama vision.

So what we've had, since 2010, every year, is Obama submits a NASA budget that has no chance of getting passed, and Congress laughs at it, says no, and passes their own. Obama eventually signs it, and Charlie Bolden, instead of managing NASA, instead spends his time being a spokesman for the Obama vision. It's worth noting for example, every year Obama has attempted to cut the Exploration budget for NASA, only to have Congress restore funding and then increase it. Yes... Congressional republicans will vote to INCREASE government spending when it comes to NASA.

Obama? He's mostly interested in NASA as a technology development hub and climate change. Manned Space Exploration? Not so much.

It's been 6 years of this nonsense, and it's not going to be better until the next administration. The fact that congress has a consensus though is the greatest news in the world for Space Lovers and for Space Funding.

If we doubled NASA's budget right now, you'd see the Mars group trying to do sample return now, rather than in 15 years. You'd see the James Webb Space Telescope community start planning for a successor the size of a football field that costs $25 billion. You'd see the ISS community demand the ISS be extended through 2032. But you'd see surprisingly little new.

NASA has no central control... no unified vision... no discipline.... no functional oversight by management.

NASA as Game of Thrones - John P Holdren = The Night King.

So let's tale this from the top. This is going to be brutal.

First, we're going to shoot the messenger, namely NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, the worst, most meaningless and helpless administrator NASA has ever had. Charlie Bolden was an Astronaut and a Marine General. But let's be clear about something (and we'll go into detail about this in a moment). The Obama Administration, namely Obama himself and his Science Advisor, the odious John Holdren, have no love for manned spaceflight. Their focus is Climate Change, and NASA (and Manned Spaceflight) was a particularly malignant afterthought to other priorities. Bolden having his job - which came after Obama was President for over a year thanks to him not bothering to nominate anyone - is because he was an eligible black astronaut and it is a priority for the Obama administration to have people of color in positions regardless of qualifications. Bolden was not qualified. He got that position, because the first black President is all about first _____ (position) in staffing decisions.

Bolden is not a nefarious or ill meaning man. What he is though, is the ultimate company man. NASA Administrators are usually independent, like the director of the FBI. They sometimes serve across Administrations, like Daniel Goldin did. THey are nominally non-paristan. Not Charlie Bolden though. He's been Obama's man at NASA, from day one. Unlike NASA of before-2009, this NASA issues highly political statements, defending the Presidents desired policies when they come in conflict with laws passed by congress and signed by Obama. This NASA Administration, pushes Obama's space agenda, as if NASA was the Department of Education or something. That is historically, not how NASA has been run. Bolden, the company man, the career follower of orders with zero management experience, made it that.

That makes Bolden a compromised person. What makes him a failed Administrator is everything else. NASA isn't one agency. It's 10 agencies. It's it's 10 field centers that all fight for power and money over each other. They try to wipe each other out. They try to take all the money and maximize their slice of the pie. Wonder why we haven't sent a probe to Europa before now even though it's been talked about for years? Ask the Mars group... they work really hard making sure money for probes goes to their home turf. The Space Science community would love if man spaceflight went away for ever. The Earth Science group wants to make NASA the Climate Change Agency. Managing NASA has been about Managing these interests. It's been about being the King of the Ten Kingdoms. Most NASA Administrators have been poor stewards of this. Bolden's been the worst. The war has gotten out of control and undermined the national interest.

Bolden is also the first NASA Administrator not trusted by Congress. What I wrote above has compromised him. It's made him a political figure. Thats' new. That's not how it used to be as recently as 2008. There have been controversial and enthusiastic NASA leaders and pure bean counters. But they have a working relationship with Congress that advances the national space interest.

How bad is it with Bolden? They don't trust him about not trying to internally short circuit the SLS that they demand regular updates about SLS progress every six weeks from him, and in person four times a year. They don't trust the Administrator to administrate. Bipartisan mind you, because space policy is Congress vs Obama not Democrat vs Republican. They know who is master is, and they don't trust Bolden to not throw monkey wrenches in the SLS program in favor of Obama's prerogatives, namely Climate Change and Commercial Space.

So now that we've shot the messenger, let's shoot the message.

Obama does not care about human spaceflight. Let's put that out there. When Orion flew in December of last year, when Astronauts fly in it in 2018. When we go back to the Moon or an Asteroid or Mars, Americans need to know, this happened because of Democrats and Republicans in Congress defying Barack Obama. In 2010, Obama killed the Constellation program. He wanted to turn NASA into a Research and Development house, with a focus on technology development, and technology outreach to the developing world. He wanted NASA to focus on Climate Change. Most of all though, he did not want NASA spending $6 billion a year to people in space. So he killed Constellation, killed Orion, and tried to push NASA towards Commercial Space flight - in 2010 far more in it's infancy - because if America is to have manned space flight, from his perspective, better $300 million a year commercially on a few "keep the lights on in the ISS" missions, rather than $6 billion. But man's place in space, in Obama's role, ended in low earth orbit.

Congress, which was deeply concerned about Constellation, rightfully said "ha ha ha... no." They created the SLS program, which is a reformulated rocket-oreitned part Constellation in a way, using shuttle heritage hardware to make a new powerful booster. Detractors call it the "Senate Launch System". I consider it an honorific. Because the SLS exists because Congress put the breaks on Obama's really dumb idea.

Now since 2011, Congress has funded SLS and Commercial. But the power struggle continues. Every year Obama submits a budget that starves the SLS for money and over-invests in Commercial. Every year Congress replies by passing a budget that gives MORE money to the SLS, and funds Commercial to a fair - but not extravagant- degree. And every year, at every opportunity, the two sides fight about it, namely Charlie Bolden, who is nominally the man responsible for the SLS, trying to slow funding while accelerating commercial funding. It's a massive disagreement about priorities that Obama can't win, because Congress writes budgets.

So what is this message then, in the end? It's the same damn fight. Congress has put billions of dollars towards Commercial Space. And it has put billions towards Orion/SLS. Commercial space is technologically not ready. It's not a matter of money. SpaceX isn't waiting for congressional funds. neither is Boeing. That money is paid back later. But it's 2015 and SpaceX is behind schedule with Falcon Heavy and the (different) Dragon V2 capsule from their promises back in 2011. That in itself, is fine, but the fact of the matter is, throwing money at it would never have sped it up. Dragon V2 will fly next year or in 2017, as will CST-100. But that is on the other end of many many tests and unmanned flights that neither company has conducted yet. Also Boeing's commercial capsule, the CST-100, is supposed to launch on Atlas Vs... but boeing has a very limited number of the Russian RD-180 engine stockpiled and reserved for Air Force / NRO missions, so who knows if that rocket can even be used commercially.

The point is, this sounds like Congress did something wrong - and certainly, the sooner we're done working with Russians in Space the better I think it is for the US - but this statement is just the latest punch being thrown in a budgeting fight that the Obama Administration has lost every year since 2011. Every, single, year.

America's spaceflight future lies with BOTH Commercial and SLS. This is the future Congress has embraced by putting hundreds of millions every year, to both programs. Commercial will enable development of infrastructure in low earth orbit, paving the way for future use by commercial industry and civilians. It will build next generation commercial space stations and one day, space-based solar power. SLS will allow NASA to explore deeper into the solar system than ever before, either via manned missions to Mars and Asteroids, or direct unmanned probes, such as a Neptune/Uranus orbiter, or a Europa lander. They are entirely complimentary.

Obama and John Holdren don't want this, because a NASA spending $6 billion of it's $18 billion budget on manned activities is a NASA that is (A) having an $18 billion budget rather than a $13 billion, and (B) not spending it on climate change. And don't get me wrong, NASA should ABSOLUTELY spend money on climate change research, but if the US wants a climate change agency, it should make one and lavishly fund it or transfer NASA Earth Science to the NOAA. NASA should be about Space Exploration, not Carbon emissions in Earth's atmosphere. Bolden, being Obama's agent at NASA, continues to push it.

In the end, this is much ado about nothing. And here's why. The Space SHuttle flew for 30 years. It was tremendously successful. Since 2011, we've hitched flights on Russian rockets. Starting in 2016 or 2017, we'll have both Commercial Spaceflight to orbit the earth and a super heavy lift rocket to take Americans, Canadians and Europeans to deep in the Solar System, well beyond Earth orbit. And we'll have it for decades. SLS will be America's super-heavy lift launcher for most of the 21st century. Commercial Space will only get better and most capable, and in the end, supplant SLS when Commercial is able to get to Mars and beyond one day.

So in the end, fundamentally, we're arguing about waiting a little bit more time. To which I say, surely, you're joking about making this an argument? Because I've been waiting for a Shuttle Replacement since I was in 9th grade and saw the X-33 on the front page of the Science section of the Boston Globe. That was 1999. It's 2015. I'm 32. I've waited half my life for NASA to go further than where the shuttle went. You know what? 2016/2017 instead of 2015/2016 is no big deal to me.

Charlie Bolden is not respected and not listened to by the other leaders of NASA. He is not respected and treated with suspicion by Congress. Obama/Bolden's Space Agency has been rejected every year for 5 years, and yet they still try to get their way. Ask yourselves, is Bolden a man whose word should carry weight? Because let's just remember, last December this happened:



And it happened despite this in 2010.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35209628/n...celed-program/

NASA and President Barack Obama's administration expect to spend months working out the specifics for their new plan for U.S. space exploration, even as some within the space agency mourn the loss of its current effort to send astronauts back to the moon.

President Obama's 2011 budget request for NASA cut the agency's Constellation program completely, effectively canceling a five-year, $9 billion effort to build new Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets.

The new space vehicles were slated to replace NASA's three aging space shuttles (due to retire this year) and launch astronauts into orbit and on to the moon.
"To people who are working on these programs, this is like a death in the family," an emotional NASA chief Charles Bolden told reporters Tuesday, choking up at times. "Everybody needs to understand that and we need to give them time to grieve and then we need to give them time to recover."

Of course, Obama as President has ultimate responsibility for that farce almost happening, but the brain child was John Holdren.

[Tijuana]

If you had the means would you donate money to NASA? If it meant more research into colonization on other planets or possibly interstellar travel? I certainly would. So many technological advancements would be made if we accomplished those two goals. It's also in our species best interest to colonize outside of earth.

If you wouldn't donate, why not?

No, because it's not a Non-Profit. That would be ridiculous.

[I Push Buttons]

No, they are bloated and waste tons of money like the rest of the government. Private sector will be the ones to pioneer this stuff for a fraction of what the government would spend.

You realize the vast majority of money spent by NASA, hell by the entire government, is spent in the private sector, right?

The US government doesn't build ships, planes, and tanks. NASA doesn't build rockets. Private companies do, in exchange for money.