NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars

Rusty Barton wrote in
:

On 17 Jul 2003 00:30:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Cool! Where'd you find the 1958-61 numbers? I've only been able to
find back to 1962:

NASA Budget info 1958 - 1961:

http://www.richardb.us/nasa.htm - near bottom of page
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4102/ch7.htm Table 7-1 "Expenditures"
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt035.asp - Federal

Thanks!

But what do we have for
around $ 370-billion? 3 old shuttles, 2 heaps of shuttle fragments,
1 incomplete space station,

And what did we get for Apollo? Two lawn-ornament Saturn Vs, several
museum-piece CMs, a virtual scrap-heap of spent S-IBs and S-ICs on the
Atlantic floor, and 800 lbs of rocks? Sure, that's a very utilitarian way
of looking at Apollo, but it's equivalent to the view of the shuttle that
you give.

a few planetary missions

A few? During the period you give (1970-2003), we got two Venus orbiters
(one carrying several atmospheric probes), several Mars orbiters and
landers, three Mars rovers, flybys of all the other planets except Pluto,
and orbiters of Jupiter and Saturn. We also got the Great Observatories -
Hubble, Compton, Chandra, and the upcoming SIRTF.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Eddie Valiant wrote in
:

While I agree at first glance that there should be more to show for
the money, let's not forget that NASA stands for the National
AERONAUTICS and Space Agency. It's my understanding that the NASA
budget also includes funding for such mundane things as more
aerodynamic wings and fuel efficient engines for airliners, new
technologies, etc., etc., etc. Alot of what that budget bought
probably goes unnoticed by the majority of us but that doesn't
diminish it's value or our return on the investment.

Exactly my point. Apollo dominated NASA's budget during the 1960s to an
extent that the shuttle (or even shuttle+station now) never did.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In news:Jorge R. Frank typed:
Rusty Barton wrote in
:


But what do we have for
around $ 370-billion? 3 old shuttles, 2 heaps of shuttle fragments,
1 incomplete space station,

And what did we get for Apollo? Two lawn-ornament Saturn Vs, several
museum-piece CMs, a virtual scrap-heap of spent S-IBs and S-ICs on the
Atlantic floor, and 800 lbs of rocks? Sure, that's a very utilitarian
way of looking at Apollo, but it's equivalent to the view of the
shuttle that you give.

a few planetary missions

A few? During the period you give (1970-2003), we got two Venus
orbiters (one carrying several atmospheric probes), several Mars
orbiters and landers, three Mars rovers, flybys of all the other
planets except Pluto, and orbiters of Jupiter and Saturn. We also got
the Great Observatories - Hubble, Compton, Chandra, and the upcoming
SIRTF.

Well said, Jorge. But I always wonder why so many people bitch and
whine and moan about NASA. Does not NASA do what Congress allows and is
willing to pay for? The bitching and whining and moaning would be
better directed to your local congress critter if you hope to accomplish
any progressive change in NASA. Or am I wrong in this attitude?
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

On 16 Jul 2003 15:13:31 -0700, (Rusty B) wrote:

I know, we landed on the moon in 1971 & 1972, but you get the idea.

....The *real* fun is when you convert from USD to AUD :-)


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Again though, the spin-offs associated with the space program may not
be widely touted nor even known by the majority of people, but it's
certainly something to consider for the investment rather than just
museum piece hardware and rocks.

Is there a list somewhere of the shuttle spin offs?

Sander Vesik wrote in:


Apparently only 'landing humans on xxx' is what counts for some
people,
and thus its the only thing NASA should really (and especially budget
wise) pursue. And of course nasa would bae able to achieve more
once-off
show pieces of landing people on xxx if that was all it did. how
useful
that would be (or whetever it would in fact enhance spaceflight
technology
as a whole) is a completely different (and apparently not relevant to
such
people).

Sander


Sounds like the double talk NASA gives Congress at budget time every
year. Maybe they could invite you as a character witness. ;-)

So much for the book, "Learning English on $ 5.00 a day". :-)

--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California

I agree that aeronautics is often overlooked when looking at the
accomplishments of NASA. But Apollo did not drain away all of the
aeronautics funding either. Think of all of the lifting body,VSTOL and
SST research that went on during the 60's. Let's face it, the National
Love affair with Aerospace has long since ended and since 9/11 I might
even say that America is beginning to hate Aerospace. Especially
airliner transport and general aviation. Look at all the draconian
regs that have loaded upon GA pilots these days. In addition, it is
awfully hard to be a ramp rat these days without being branded as a
suspected terrorist.

Gene


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
Eddie Valiant wrote in
:

While I agree at first glance that there should be more to show for
the money, let's not forget that NASA stands for the National
AERONAUTICS and Space Agency. It's my understanding that the NASA
budget also includes funding for such mundane things as more
aerodynamic wings and fuel efficient engines for airliners, new
technologies, etc., etc., etc. Alot of what that budget bought
probably goes unnoticed by the majority of us but that doesn't
diminish it's value or our return on the investment.

Exactly my point. Apollo dominated NASA's budget during the 1960s to an
extent that the shuttle (or even shuttle+station now) never did.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:32:30 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:



So what would you have NASA do? And how would it promote science, or
some other field of your choice?


I would like NASA to spend America's hard earned tax dollars for more
than the paper airplanes they have been buying last 15-years.
It remains to be seen if the OSP will result in hardware or just
another waste of money with no results like the X-33, X-38, HL-20,
NASP. Does that promote science?

It's time NASA started bending some metal instead of ending up with
another dead end paper study.

NASA screw-ups started with Skylab. Lack of proper testing on the
ground caused it to be crippled at launch. Did that promote science?

Then there was the screw-up with the Hubble. It has the "World's most
perfect mirror" that needed corrector lenses. Does that promote
science?

Then there was the screw-up with Galileo and its high gain antenna.
How much science was lost because of this? Did this promote science?

Then we come to the Mars mission screw-up. Mars Observer - oh well,
what's a billion dollars. Mars Climate Observer. Well it observed the
climate of the Martian atmosphere at orbital speeds -oops. Measure
twice, cut once. Last but not least there was the Mars Polar Lander er
Crasher. A "Cheaper, Faster, Better" monument on the Martian surface.
Did any of these promote science?

Two shuttles are destroyed and 14 people are dead because of NASA lack
of management or mis-management. Did this promote science?

I blame Congress, the Administrations over the years and NASA for a
lack of funding and a lack of vision.

The Shuttle should be replaced. The Space Station should be finished.
There should be serious studies on alternatives to chemical rockets.
There should be more planetary exploration and sample return missions
missions.
NASA should start planning for return to the moon and a manned landing
on Mars.


That would be the "field of my choice".



So much for the book, "Learning English on $ 5.00 a day". :-)

And this was so nice of you.


Just be glad I didn't translate your original message into "jive".


--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

In article ,
says...


Again though, the spin-offs associated with the space program may not
be widely touted nor even known by the majority of people, but it's
certainly something to consider for the investment rather than just
museum piece hardware and rocks.

Is there a list somewhere of the shuttle spin offs?

Here are a few that have been commercialized.

Glenn

Is there a list somewhere of the shuttle spin offs?

Here are a few that have been commercialized.

Glenn

So where are they?