Should NASA have a higher budget?

[Rukentuts]

They should not place themselves in the business of building, maintaining and operating spacecraft, though.

Much of the Space Shuttle work was actually contracted out to GE, Honeywell, etc. just like any other DOD build.

[poser765]

Oil isn't rare and valuable enough to make it worth getting from asteroids. Virtually nothing is. The cost to get there and to get materials back is prohibitively expensive. It would only be cost effective if you were going to build something near the asteroid anyway.

While the poster whom you quoted is wrong on the details the sentiment is correct.

The future of space exploration, I think, is going to rest in the hands of private enterprises. I'm all for research and scientific endeavors, but the real meat of space exploration will only happen "when we find oil in an asteroid" and can economically bring it back. We need to a reason to go out there. When we find that people will find methods to go out there.

Right now I see NASA as a more abstract agency. Yes they will find a way to grow a better antibiotics, but that's not going to help us build cool starships.

[Laize]

Much of the Space Shuttle work was actually contracted out to GE, Honeywell, etc. just like any other DOD build.

Yet it was NASA operators who did inspections and gave the go-ahead to launch the Challenger in weather that was too cold. It was also NASA operators who let the Columbia take off with shot thermal shielding.

Every shuttle disaster has laid squarely on the shoulders of NASA.

[semaphore]

The future of space exploration, I think, is going to rest in the hands of private enterprises. I'm all for research and scientific endeavors, but the real meat of space exploration will only happen "when we find oil in an asteroid" and can economically bring it back.

That would be when the commercial development of space begins; but that's only possible after extensive exploration and research. The Age of Discovery weren't built by private investors either. Henry the Navigator was a Portuguese prince, for instance.

[Rukentuts]

Yet it was NASA operators who did inspections and gave the go-ahead to launch the Challenger in weather that was too cold. It was also NASA operators who let the Columbia take off with shot thermal shielding.

Every shuttle disaster has laid squarely on the shoulders of NASA.

I don't know, that's like saying every airplane crash can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the airline.

[Tastyfish]

MOAR MONEIES NAO!

We are behind on the hover board.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 06:19 PM ----------

I think we should just make a massive space centre and have every country in the world (that can afford it) pay a set amount per year, in order to fund it massively.

Someone estimated we would have the money to colonize the moon if we would have just combined our efforts. Probably even more things could be possible.

Space colonization / exploration isnt something we will perfect by working seperated, its something we need to all band together to create.

Space could be the ultimate herald of world peace and corperation . ^_^

[Rukentuts]

MOAR MONEIES NAO!

We are behind on the hover board.

We have about fifty years to invent warpdrive.

[Decagon]

Yes, I'd be alright with cutting everything but education, healthcare, and things like water and electricity. Cutting the military and funneling it into NASA would be a great idea, imo. My dad works for NASA though, so I'm likely not a good source of unbiased opinions on this subject.

I suppose I should point out that rather than just NASA, I support increased funding for space exploration/research in general.

[Hiricine]

Imo Nasa shouldnt have any funding. That being said, if stripping their budget wasn't an option, reducing defense spending and eliminating federal departments to increase Nasa's funding sounds like a more productive use of the money.

[Deleted]

Not just Nasa but any scientific field that's aided by government funds and yes our spending on the Military needs to be cut back. We'd get more out of scientific advancements than we would from buying more fighter jets and tanks.



You could replace Nasa with just about any government funded science group and while you are right that throwing more money at it won't necessarily get the advancements here quicker it wouldn't exactly hurt either.

My country is to retarded to invent anything new, but if we had potential than I'd vote yes.

[Decagon]

Imo Nasa shouldnt have any funding. That being said, if stripping their budget wasn't an option, reducing defense spending and eliminating federal departments to increase Nasa's funding sounds like a more productive use of the money.

This post seems relatively contradictory. You state that NASA should have absolutely no funding because the government is bad, but then you go on to say that NASA should have an increase in funding.

[muto]

If we would spent the money on NASA that we spend on our military, we probably could have already landed someone on Mars.

[Sayl]

Yet it was NASA operators who did inspections and gave the go-ahead to launch the Challenger in weather that was too cold.

The decision to launch under those conditions was egregious. Multiple factors contributed to the poor judgement ultimately displayed by NASA managers, including the weight of substantial political pressures at the time. Not that I'm trying to excuse them in the slightest, it's just more complicated than temperatures and O-rings.

It was also NASA operators who let the Columbia take off with shot thermal shielding.

The RCC panel was just fine before liftoff -- it was the gaping hole caused by foam shed from the ET during ascent that was the problem. Management's response to this still baffles me a decade later.

[Wikiy]

Yeah, NASA should have a higher budget, although I'd still like ESA to take over at some point. In a perfect world, I'd like a unified world space exploration agency because if you think about it, scientists are the least nationalistic and patriotic people of all. They don't care as much for the betterment of their own country as they do for the betterment of the world. LHC is just one example.

[Olo]

Looks like NASA and the ESA and gonna be teaming up for the Orion project

that's nice to see

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — NASA is teaming up with the European Space Agency to get astronauts beyond Earth’s orbit.

Europe will provide the propulsion and power compartment for NASA’s new Orion crew capsule, officials said Wednesday... Orion’s first trip is an unmanned mission in 2017. Any extra European parts will be incorporated in the first manned mission of Orion in 2021... NASA wants to ultimately use the bell-shaped Orion spacecraft to carry astronauts to asteroids and Mars.

[Zygersaf]

Do I WANT them to? Yes.

DO I THINK they should? Not really.

It would be great if they did get a higher budget and technology advanced faster, but we need to fix current issues first. Although i'm not american, I think the US government should focus on fixing the economey first.

[Easo]

Of course, but not at expense of other needed things.

[Senathor]

Definitely, just remove 1 % of the army moneyz (about 98940238423904809382904890280348038294832849023849023084 bucks) and they'll be fine...

[Arcilux]

In our current economy, I don't think the budget should be increased, but it shouldn't be cut either.

NWS can afford a budget cut (they pay their workers WAY too much, especially by government standards, and don't spend enough on research)
Defense can be cut (The military even says they have too many tanks, but they still build more every year because they don't want the people from the factory to lose their jobs)
Congress/politician pay should be drastically cut
FCC budget should be cut

and that is just for starters

[Skroe]

This is a retardedly complex question.

In a perfectly world yes, of course NASA's Budget should be higher.

But in the world we live in NASA's project management is abysmal. The smartest people in the US Government award contracts whose pricetag explode and can't stay on budget to save their lives.

This is actually related to defense spending since uniquely among government Agencies / Departments, NASA and the DoD share many of the same contractors since they both utilize high tech industrial firms like Lockeed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc.

The problem with NASA isn't its budget. It's contracting. Something is terribly wrong with government contracting in general. The Ronald Reagan Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier, launched 9 years ago, cost Taxpayers $4 billion, just like every carrier before it. The George H.W. Bush Nimitz Class, launched in 2008 cost $6.5 billion. The Gerald Ford Class Aircraft Carrier has a research and first-unit cost of $14.9 billion, and then a $9.5 billion unit cost thereafter for the next two - the John F Kennedy and the Enterprise. Basically the US Government is paying over twice as much for the carriers it is building now than for the carriers it is replacing, despite less than 13% inflation between 2004 and today.

This is happening all over defense and space contracting.

The F-35 was contracted as the JSF in 2004 at $55 million a copy... more than the F-16's $35 million a copy, but affordable in large numbers. Today the US Government is paying $120 million a copy for the F-35, and rising.

The National Reconiscance Office's Future Imagery Architecture program was canceled because its sattelites were going to cost $5 billion a copy. The successor is based on KH-13, and its costs have similarly exploded to almost the same amount. America will half half as many spy sattlites in the sky in three years than it did in 2005 because of this.

Over at NASA, The James Webb Space Telescope was contracted at $2.5 billion back in 2003, which is roughly what it's spiritual predecessor (Hubble) would have cost in 2004 dollars. It was supposed to launch in 2011. Today, the JWST costs $8.9 billion and will launch in 2018-2019. Because it exists and can only see in Infrared (unlike Hubble which can look over the entire spectrum, once Hubble and Chandra Decay, there will be no more Visible Light, Ultraviolet, Gamma Ray and X-ray telescopes in the sky until at least the late 2020s. Anything will have to be ground based, because the JWST immense costs makes it the only game in town.

Increasing NASA funding will not lead to many true advancements or a revolution in what we're doing in space until NASA is reorganized and government contracting is redesigned from the bottom up. There are no consequences to Lockheed Martin charging $3500 per line of code, or Northrop lowballing a bid to get the contract, then charging over double. These program costs are devastating the space program and defense a like because no one is asking the hard questions: exactly how does software cost so much? Exactly why do certain systems costs the entire operation to more than double in price?

There is a horrible fleecing by defense contractors going on, because the shape of the contract is designed to maximize their profitability and keep them in business. But it's gone too far and something huge needs to be done about it, such as moving away from cost-plus contracts to fixed-price contracts.

But until then, no.