How do you feel towards NASA pushing for more space exploration?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

It is now. Talk about it.

Fantastic ...

Originally Posted by Clambake

As someone who's early childhood coincided with the boom in manned spaceflight and later went on to have the early part of my career as an engineer in unmanned and manned space flight programs for commercial, NASA, and DoD applications, I'm certainly a bit skewed toward the value of space flight development.    But I feel at this point some of the priorities across the board are somewhat misplaced and that we should really be looking at how monies should be most effectively allocated.

I'd keep NASA's budget about the same, but would like to see them reduce the spending on deep space and moon-based initiatives somewhat and refocus those monies into near space efforts including a greater focus on earth sciences.   As a related element, I think NOAA should not be a separate agency and should be combined with NASA to create a more effective agency focused on planetary science and exploration which includes our own planet.   The issues of clean air and water are going to become severe in the future if we do not do more to address the degradation caused by a continually growing global population, and we need to seed the science now.

On the defense side, I feel there is has been too much pork barrel politics in our defense budget allocation that results in enormous monies spent on areas that really aren't making our nation or the rest of the world more secure.   This issue certainly isn't new and it's massive growth can be traced back to Eisenhower's warnings of the military industrial complex, but it does seem that this problem is even more entrenched now.     I would re-prioritize the defense spending to focus better on the threat needs for the next 10 years and reduce the overall defense budget by dropping the efforts that aren't aligned with the greatest priorities.

Taking that money saved from defense, I would reallocate it to a combination of increased spending in climate studies and earth sciences, health services, and nationwide infrastructure including not only hard infrastructure like highways and bridges but also telecommunications infrastructure like broadband for all.

On a related note, I always get perturbed when I hear people complain that we should cut spending in things like defense and space and instead use it to create jobs.   Where do these people think the money is going to?   Those expensive space and defense programs cost money because it goes to people working on those programs - it is a jobs program.   And the costs spent on engineers, scientists, etc. is very highly leveraged in creating further jobs.   I recall studies that indicate that normal job creation is leveraged by about 2 to 3x, i.e. one job created also creates 2 to 3 other jobs in the process (for example grocers to feed people, builders to build their homes, etc.).   But the highly paid professional jobs such as those on NASA programs has a highly leverage of up to 5x.     When we fund a NASA program that employs 1000 people, we're really creating 5000 jobs in the process.

OK, off my soapbox now.......

Thanks Clambake, great post!  Like most of you, I voted #3, that space exploration should be a priority.  All exploration, science, and discovery should be top priorities, and space happens to be how far we've gotten to this point.  If we "give up" who knows what discoveries we will miss?

[newtogolf]

Here's a summary of how NASA spends the money they are allocated;

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

(In millionsof dollars)

Spending

Discretionary Budget Authority:

ACTUAL                                Estimate

2011 2012                        2013

Science..................................................................................................... 4,919                 5,074                       4,911

Exploration................................................................................................ 3,928                 3,721                      3,933

Aeronautics............................................................................................... 534                       569                          552

Space Operations..................................................................................... 5,321               4,196                       4,013

SpaceTechnology..................................................................................... —                         548                          699

Education.................................................................................................. 146                       136                          100

Cross Agency Support.............................................................................. 3,130               3,003                      2,848

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration ...........    433                  486                          619

Inspector General .....................................................................................         36                  38                            37

Mission Support........................................................................................ —                          —                             —

Subtotal, Discretionary budget authority ....................................................... 18,447   17,770                 17,712

Total, Discretionary outlays............................................................................. 17,633     17,656                 17,825

Total, Mandatory outlays.................................................................................. –15                 –19                      –19

Total, Outlays ................................................................................................... 17,618      17,637                17,806

[Shorty]

There is something very inspirational about the space program.

Obviously, it helps advance technology in the same way that F1 does.

The world would not stop turning if funding was cut back completely, but in terms of R&D; it's possible a worthwhile thing.

But I don't think that it should be done with mindset of finding other places to habitate. That's lunacy.

I support it in terms of technology, rather than "exploration", even though that is a fundamental physical/intellectual and emotional human need which is pretty hard to hold back.

[TD22057]

Something to keep in mind:  NASA's budget (~$17 billion) is a tiny drop of the federal budget.  Check out:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_gs.php

There have been studies that show the average American thinks NASA's budget is 25% of budget when it's actually something like 0.4%. The top 3 items in the table above (pensions, health care, defense) are all each roughly $800+ billion. A 1% cut in any of those items items could increase NASA's budget by almost 50%.  (I won't even start on the $450B we spend on welfare)

Having said that - a big part of the problem is that the money is not really prioritized on a set of engineering or science goals, politics plays a huge part in it.  And when they have to think long term (a lot of these robotic exploration missions are in development for 5-10+ years), it's hard to do things efficiently when the budget and priorities change as the administration and congress change.   I personally think more of the money should be spent on robotic exploration and Earth sciences.  IMHO, the shuttle, station, and the manned program where huge expenses without much return at all.

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by Clambake

As someone who's early childhood coincided with the boom in manned spaceflight and later went on to have the early part of my career as an engineer in unmanned and manned space flight programs for commercial, NASA, and DoD applications, I'm certainly a bit skewed toward the value of space flight development.    But I feel at this point some of the priorities across the board are somewhat misplaced and that we should really be looking at how monies should be most effectively allocated.

I'd keep NASA's budget about the same, but would like to see them reduce the spending on deep space and moon-based initiatives somewhat and refocus those monies into near space efforts including a greater focus on earth sciences.   As a related element, I think NOAA should not be a separate agency and should be combined with NASA to create a more effective agency focused on planetary science and exploration which includes our own planet.   The issues of clean air and water are going to become severe in the future if we do not do more to address the degradation caused by a continually growing global population, and we need to seed the science now.

On the defense side, I feel there is has been too much pork barrel politics in our defense budget allocation that results in enormous monies spent on areas that really aren't making our nation or the rest of the world more secure.   This issue certainly isn't new and it's massive growth can be traced back to Eisenhower's warnings of the military industrial complex, but it does seem that this problem is even more entrenched now.     I would re-prioritize the defense spending to focus better on the threat needs for the next 10 years and reduce the overall defense budget by dropping the efforts that aren't aligned with the greatest priorities.

Taking that money saved from defense, I would reallocate it to a combination of increased spending in climate studies and earth sciences, health services, and nationwide infrastructure including not only hard infrastructure like highways and bridges but also telecommunications infrastructure like broadband for all.

On a related note, I always get perturbed when I hear people complain that we should cut spending in things like defense and space and instead use it to create jobs.   Where do these people think the money is going to?   Those expensive space and defense programs cost money because it goes to people working on those programs - it is a jobs program.   And the costs spent on engineers, scientists, etc. is very highly leveraged in creating further jobs.   I recall studies that indicate that normal job creation is leveraged by about 2 to 3x, i.e. one job created also creates 2 to 3 other jobs in the process (for example grocers to feed people, builders to build their homes, etc.).   But the highly paid professional jobs such as those on NASA programs has a highly leverage of up to 5x.     When we fund a NASA program that employs 1000 people, we're really creating 5000 jobs in the process.

OK, off my soapbox now.......

Great post...I agree with most of what you said.  I like how you want to keep the budget the same but use the current funds to further advance our scientific studies.

[Jimbo Slice]

Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer

Exactly.  I support the troops, I just dont always support the policies that put them in harm's way.  Id also agree that theres lot of excesses in defense spending.

NASA has a new state of the art telescope, much more powerful then Hubble, just sitting in a storage facility. They cannot afford to launch it. Not only can they not afford to launch it, they couldn't even afford to build it. This telescope was given to them by the US defense department. The US defense built 5 of these things and launched 3 of them. They are so stupid they built two to many and gave one of them to NASA. NASA can't afford to build one of these telescopes and the US defense can afford to build five, two to many and give one away rofl.

What are these multiple telescopes orbiting earth, and stronger then Hubble doing? This made me laugh... they are spy telescopes, looking back down at us ROFL. Oh well, defense can afford to launch multiple telescopes and point them down, and NASA cant afford to launch one and point it away.

[x129]

To be fair they are not finished spacecraft (they are just telescopes) and most of the cost of something like Hubble is not construction. It is design and then launching and running it. Building 5 isn't that much more expensive (relatively) than building 3.  Then factor in you want a back up or two in case of mishaps.  Makes you wonder what they have now though that they are willing to give away their backups....

Originally Posted by Jimbo Slice

NASA has a new state of the art telescope, much more powerful then Hubble, just sitting in a storage facility. They cannot afford to launch it. Not only can they not afford to launch it, they couldn't even afford to build it. This telescope was given to them by the US defense department. The US defense built 5 of these things and launched 3 of them. They are so stupid they built two to many and gave one of them to NASA. NASA can't afford to build one of these telescopes and the US defense can afford to build five, two to many and give one away rofl.

What are these multiple telescopes orbiting earth, and stronger then Hubble doing? This made me laugh... they are spy telescopes, looking back down at us ROFL. Oh well, defense can afford to launch multiple telescopes and point them down, and NASA cant afford to launch one and point it away.

[newtogolf]

I'd guess that telescopes pointed toward earth are primitive compared to live cam feeds coming from all the locally installed cameras and drones. These telescopes are likely pointed on key areas that they want to maintain surveillance of, but domestically, the adoption of red light / stop sign cameras, ATM cameras and general street cameras is making their job much easier.

Originally Posted by x129

To be fair they are not finished spacecraft (they are just telescopes) and most of the cost of something like Hubble is not construction. It is design and then launching and running it. Building 5 isn't that much more expensive (relatively) than building 3.  Then factor in you want a back up or two in case of mishaps.  Makes you wonder what they have now though that they are willing to give away their backups....

[Mattplusness]

I wonder how much that project cost in total.

I wonder how many of our dilapidated cities could have been refurbished with that money.

[newtogolf]

There's a separate budget for that.  There needs to be a reason to refurbish a city and a way to sustain it after it's refurbished.   I'd rather let NASA spend money on space exploration  and technology than refurbish Detroit at this point.

Originally Posted by Mattplusness

I wonder how much that project cost in total.

I wonder how many of our dilapidated cities could have been refurbished with that money.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'd guess that telescopes pointed toward earth are primitive compared to live cam feeds coming from all the locally installed cameras and drones. These telescopes are likely pointed on key areas that they want to maintain surveillance of, but domestically, the adoption of red light / stop sign cameras, ATM cameras and general street cameras is making their job much easier.

Yeah, anyone who watches "Person Of Interest" knows that!

[newtogolf]

POI is a bit exaggerated but not by much.  There are more camera's out there recording 24/7 than most people realize, the technology isn't there to consolidate and interpret it without human intervention yet.  Most people don't realize that red light / stop sign cameras record 24/7 video and only snap stills when someone runs a red light.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Yeah, anyone who watches "Person Of Interest" knows that!

[boogielicious]

We must remember that we are not launching a bunch of money into space.  There are many, many jobs associated with the programs.  I am fully for continuing space exploration.  We have gained so much from the Space Program in our everyday lives.  We take cell phones and satellite communication and computers for granted now.

[Texian]

My thoughts on this subject are not original with me, but came from Ray Bradbury's essay, "From Stonehenge to Tranquility Base," which was printed in the December 1972 Playboy.

I agree with all of those who point out that money spent on space exploration is not money thrown away into space, but has many side benefits.

The ultimate reason, however, for manned space exploration, as Bradbury pointed out, is that one day we will use up the resources of this planet and will need to leave it for another if man is to survive as a specie. That essay is worth the trouble to find.

[Mattplusness]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

There's a separate budget for that.  There needs to be a reason to refurbish a city and a way to sustain it after it's refurbished.   I'd rather let NASA spend money on space exploration  and technology than refurbish Detroit at this point.

I feel the same way. I hope your main city goes to shit and you lose your job because companies move out.

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by Mattplusness

I feel the same way. I hope your main city goes to shit and you lose your job because companies move out.

Blame the American automakers and the UAW for that.  Its not your fault that their sales went down due to inferior product and they chose to pack up and leave in order to utilize cheaper labor.  Its kind of funny how the Japanese car companies are able to employ Americans to build their cars, while maintaning a very high level of quality and still turn a profit.

You know, its not some rule that you have to stay in Detroit.  I was born in Wisconsin and slowly watched manufacturing leave the area.  Ive since moved to Ohio where there actually is business and couldnt be happier.  Thats cool thing about America: you can make your life go where ever you want.

[newtogolf]

Move to where the jobs are, cause if you're waiting for Detroit to become refurbished you've got a long wait.

Originally Posted by Mattplusness

I feel the same way. I hope your main city goes to shit and you lose your job because companies move out.

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by Texian

My thoughts on this subject are not original with me, but came from Ray Bradbury's essay, "From Stonehenge to Tranquility Base," which was printed in the December 1972 Playboy.

I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever heard someone refer to an article in Playboy.  So people do read them!!!

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Move to where the jobs are, cause if you're waiting for Detroit to become refurbished you've got a long wait.

The city is slowly turning around...Dan Gilbert is doing a great job at helping bring businesses down to the city.  The downtown part of the town is the best it's looked in years, especially after Ford Field and Comerica went up about a decade ago.  If you're not from Michigan, or have Michigan roots it's easy to listen to the media and read the bad press about the city.  It's much better then it was 10 or 20 years ago.

To get somewhat back on topic, look at what has happened to FL since the NASA budget has been cut.  I don't necessarily think we should push for more space exploration, but I do believe the NASA budget is very important to our country. Prepare for novel...

One of the largest problems with this country, the United States of America, is our education system.  In the 1960's kids grew up with idols like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Jim Lovell.  Today our youth idolizing sports stars.  I'm not saying althletes aren't educated, don't take it that way, I'm saying that kids aren't looking at scientists and the working class americans as idols.  NASA having a larger budget will help promote the sciences to our youth and get us better on track with the rest of the world when it comes to Mathematics and the Science fields.  I've seen manufactoring mentioned a few times in recents posts, mostly dealing with the auto industry.  Manufactoring is getting outsourced, it's no longer an American necessity to lead in manufactoring and those jobs should be outsourced.  I said it, they should be outsourced to countries like China.  They can make goods must cheaper which in turn helps out our economy.  Consumers don't pay attention to where something is made, they look at price.  Cheaper goods will boost the economy by allowing consumers to have more funds available for savings, investing, vacations, etc.  I kind of went on a tangent with my thoughts, to get back on track...A larger budget for NASA is beneficial in numerous ways for the United States.  It promotes the sciences and gets our youth excited to get a further education, and it employs Americans in jobs that are beneficial to our economy.