NASA facing budget cuts-good news!!
Discussion
The U.S. Senate passed legislation recently cutting funding for NASA’s global warming research.
The House is expected to pass the bill, and President Trump will likely sign it. Supporters say it “re-balances” NASA’s budget back toward space exploration and away from global warming and earth science research. Republicans plan to end the more than $2 billion NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate.
“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, told E&E News. “I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that.”
To put that $2billion into perspective, SpaceX costs a Falcon 9 launch at $36.7 million....
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22...
Sylvaforever said:
To put that $2billion into perspective, SpaceX costs a Falcon 9 launch at $36.7 million....
No it doesnt. SpaceX f9 launch is $60-70mil basic and for nasa its usually around $140mil per launch actual.The james webb telescope has a budget around $8.7bn
$2bn to gather actual real data on the planet isnt much at all given they have spent $400bn already on the f35 project..
RobDickinson said:
Sylvaforever said:
To put that $2billion into perspective, SpaceX costs a Falcon 9 launch at $36.7 million....
No it doesnt. SpaceX f9 launch is $60-70mil basic and for nasa its usually around $140mil per launch actual.The james webb telescope has a budget around $8.7bn
$2bn to gather actual real data on the planet isnt much at all given they have spent $400bn already on the f35 project..
the figure I quoted was MINUS their 40% mark up! Duh!!!
ps F35 can't hit a moving hi lux!!! now THAT'S outrageous lol
ash73 said:
Very shortsighted imo, it's important we better understand how the climate works despite what a few idiot luddites on the internet say and NASA can contribute significantly to the science by studying the sun and climates on other planets as well as our own.
They should also be spending a lot more on exploration and protection from NEOs. The entire Apollo programme could be funded in today's money with the amount they spent in Iraq/Afghanistan *per year*.
Instead Trump pledges to build a military 'none will dare challenge'.
I agree that trying to make Middle Eastern countries into Western-style democracies is folly, but how do you propose to use your 'I know how the climate works' information? You get what the weather gives you, roll with it.They should also be spending a lot more on exploration and protection from NEOs. The entire Apollo programme could be funded in today's money with the amount they spent in Iraq/Afghanistan *per year*.
Instead Trump pledges to build a military 'none will dare challenge'.
Thing is there is a lot of duplication of the climate stuff. The have NOAA and others dig the work... Nasa doesn't also need to do it as well. Doesn't stop them coming up with the solutions you propose, they just don't need to be involved in the day to day guts of the climate science system.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Thing is there is a lot of duplication of the climate stuff. The have NOAA and others dig the work... Nasa doesn't also need to do it as well. Doesn't stop them coming up with the solutions you propose, they just don't need to be involved in the day to day guts of the climate science system.
...but after the cancellation of the shuttle programme it's been a good wee earner...seeing as the Ruskies are doing all the real launches these days.Have you actually seen the table for total successful launches for 2016 analysed country by country?
Here it is -
USA - 22
Russia - 18
China - 20
India - 7
Japan - 4
Europe - 9
Israel - 1
North Korea - 1
So, nationally, the USA launched the most successful missions in 2016. China also launched 22 but two of these failed.
Of course, not all of the US launches were conducted for or by NASA. But then, a lot of the Russian launches were on behalf of various agencies, some of them non-Russian.
Here it is -
USA - 22
Russia - 18
China - 20
India - 7
Japan - 4
Europe - 9
Israel - 1
North Korea - 1
So, nationally, the USA launched the most successful missions in 2016. China also launched 22 but two of these failed.
Of course, not all of the US launches were conducted for or by NASA. But then, a lot of the Russian launches were on behalf of various agencies, some of them non-Russian.
Eric Mc said:
Have you actually seen the table for total successful launches for 2016 analysed country by country?
Here it is -
USA - 22
Russia - 18
China - 20
India - 7
Japan - 4
Europe - 9
Israel - 1
North Korea - 1
So, nationally, the USA launched the most successful missions in 2016. China also launched 22 but two of these failed.
Of course, not all of the US launches were conducted for or by NASA. But then, a lot of the Russian launches were on behalf of various agencies, some of them non-Russian.
I'm more thinking of manned launches in support of the ISS, tbh. NASA were once the carrier of choice, but that's gone now.Here it is -
USA - 22
Russia - 18
China - 20
India - 7
Japan - 4
Europe - 9
Israel - 1
North Korea - 1
So, nationally, the USA launched the most successful missions in 2016. China also launched 22 but two of these failed.
Of course, not all of the US launches were conducted for or by NASA. But then, a lot of the Russian launches were on behalf of various agencies, some of them non-Russian.
NASA are still providing the astronauts and crews for the ISS.
However, Obama decided that it wasn't NASA's job to be a mere taxi service - that they needed to be more ambitious with their manned programme aims.
That is why they decided to develop the SLS - for better or worse - and sub-contract the ferry duties to third party contractors (SpaceX, Boeing Spaceliner and possibly, Dream Chaser, which all have been funded extensively by NASA.
As regards a hiatus in US manned launchers, we had a similar situation between 1975 and 1981. In that period not a single US astronaut flew into space. At least they have been able to maintain a manned presence in the current hiatus period.
However, Obama decided that it wasn't NASA's job to be a mere taxi service - that they needed to be more ambitious with their manned programme aims.
That is why they decided to develop the SLS - for better or worse - and sub-contract the ferry duties to third party contractors (SpaceX, Boeing Spaceliner and possibly, Dream Chaser, which all have been funded extensively by NASA.
As regards a hiatus in US manned launchers, we had a similar situation between 1975 and 1981. In that period not a single US astronaut flew into space. At least they have been able to maintain a manned presence in the current hiatus period.
Eric Mc said:
NASA are still providing the astronauts and crews for the ISS.
However, Obama decided that it wasn't NASA's job to be a mere taxi service - that they needed to be more ambitious with their manned programme aims.
That is why they decided to develop the SLS - for better or worse - and sub-contract the ferry duties to third party contractors (SpaceX, Boeing Spaceliner and possibly, Dream Chaser, which all have been funded extensively by NASA.
As regards a hiatus in US manned launchers, we had a similar situation between 1975 and 1981. In that period not a single US astronaut flew into space. At least they have been able to maintain a manned presence in the current hiatus period.
I thought the Russians were providing the ferry services out of Kazahkstan ? A lot of the rest seems like tourism, or have I got that wrong?However, Obama decided that it wasn't NASA's job to be a mere taxi service - that they needed to be more ambitious with their manned programme aims.
That is why they decided to develop the SLS - for better or worse - and sub-contract the ferry duties to third party contractors (SpaceX, Boeing Spaceliner and possibly, Dream Chaser, which all have been funded extensively by NASA.
As regards a hiatus in US manned launchers, we had a similar situation between 1975 and 1981. In that period not a single US astronaut flew into space. At least they have been able to maintain a manned presence in the current hiatus period.
As an aside, skies are clear, new telescope getting it's first outing tonight. In the garden cooling down right now!
There isn't much in the way of space tourism at all. There have been about four or five individuals who paid for a seat on a Soyuz over the past 15 or so years but the vast bulk of astronauts or cosmonauts who have flown to the ISS have been professional astronauts/cosmonauts, scientists or engineers
Since 2011 and the end of the Shuttle programme, the ONLY way humans can get to the ISS is by way of a Soyuz launch from the Baikonour Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.
Unmanned resupply missions have been conducted from Baikonour (Kazakhstan), Korou (French Guiana), Japan and the US (Caper Canaveral and Wallops Island).
The plan is that manned missions from US soil will start again (possibly) in 2018 with SpaceX (Dragon) and Boeing with their Starliner.
Since 2011 and the end of the Shuttle programme, the ONLY way humans can get to the ISS is by way of a Soyuz launch from the Baikonour Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.
Unmanned resupply missions have been conducted from Baikonour (Kazakhstan), Korou (French Guiana), Japan and the US (Caper Canaveral and Wallops Island).
The plan is that manned missions from US soil will start again (possibly) in 2018 with SpaceX (Dragon) and Boeing with their Starliner.
Eric Mc said:
There isn't much in the way of space tourism at all. There have been about four or five individuals who paid for a seat on a Soyuz over the past 15 or so years but the vast bulk of astronauts or cosmonauts who have flown to the ISS have been professional astronauts/cosmonauts, scientists or engineers
Since 2011 and the end of the Shuttle programme, the ONLY way humans can get to the ISS is by way of a Soyuz launch from the Baikonour Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.
Unmanned resupply missions have been conducted from Baikonour (Kazakhstan), Korou (French Guiana), Japan and the US (Caper Canaveral and Wallops Island).
The plan is that manned missions from US soil will start again (possibly) in 2018 with SpaceX (Dragon) and Boeing with their Starliner.
And I truly hope they do get back in the game!Since 2011 and the end of the Shuttle programme, the ONLY way humans can get to the ISS is by way of a Soyuz launch from the Baikonour Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.
Unmanned resupply missions have been conducted from Baikonour (Kazakhstan), Korou (French Guiana), Japan and the US (Caper Canaveral and Wallops Island).
The plan is that manned missions from US soil will start again (possibly) in 2018 with SpaceX (Dragon) and Boeing with their Starliner.
It was.
It was a NASA decision to end the Shuttle programme. After Columbia they made a decision which essentially said that they would only fly enough Shuttle missions to cover the final construction components of the International Space Station.
They also stated that there would be no further Shuttle missions that did not involve docking with the ISS. This would have meant the cancellation of the final Hubble service flight. However, they were persuaded by the scientific community and to some extent by interested politicians to un-cancel that mission and it did eventually fly.
The problem NASA then had was that the propsed replacement programme (Constellation) was cancelled by the Obama administration to be replaced by SLS.
At no point did any US administration say to NASA that they could not continue a manned programme. What they did do was mess them about a bit with the consequence that they have had a longer than expected gap between the end of Shuttle flights and the recommencement of the replacement programmes (of which there are actually three - SLS/Orion, SpaceX/Dragon and the Boeing Starliner.
It was a NASA decision to end the Shuttle programme. After Columbia they made a decision which essentially said that they would only fly enough Shuttle missions to cover the final construction components of the International Space Station.
They also stated that there would be no further Shuttle missions that did not involve docking with the ISS. This would have meant the cancellation of the final Hubble service flight. However, they were persuaded by the scientific community and to some extent by interested politicians to un-cancel that mission and it did eventually fly.
The problem NASA then had was that the propsed replacement programme (Constellation) was cancelled by the Obama administration to be replaced by SLS.
At no point did any US administration say to NASA that they could not continue a manned programme. What they did do was mess them about a bit with the consequence that they have had a longer than expected gap between the end of Shuttle flights and the recommencement of the replacement programmes (of which there are actually three - SLS/Orion, SpaceX/Dragon and the Boeing Starliner.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff