|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
Rusty Barton wrote:
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? Actually, the answer to this -- and all the other times you asked the same question -- is an unqualified Yes. We didn't lose a billion dollars when Mars Observer was lost -- we spent that money increasing the technical expertise of the engineers, technicians, and scientists who put it together (and who, in turn, take the money they've been paid for doing their job and put it back into the economy). We get *less* return for failed missions, but we *do get a return*. It's not a zero-sum game. Understanding, skill, and engineering expertise are all gained, whether the mission actually gets to its destination or not. (Note, of course, that the return is much greater if the mission is successful. I'll say that in case you're planning to slip in a sarcastic remark about whether or not it's even desirable to have successful missions.) I blame Congress, the Administrations over the years and NASA for a lack of funding and a lack of vision. Different issue. 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". Why? Can you show that a manned landing on Mars today would cause people to care in (let's say) 34 years? What models in the past can we use to show how much the public would be interested? (I'd like this stuff, too, to be honest... but with a more careful approach than, say, the Apollo crash program. One that is careful enough to do some much-needed science along the way.) -- -- With Best Regards, Matthew Funke ) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
Doug... wrote:
snip Luna 1 finally hit the moon, and Luna 3 bent around it, and finally about half the probes got to the moon... Just to pick a nit, didn't Luna 1 *miss* the Moon by about 6000 km? I seem to remember hearing that they even renamed it Mechta (Daydream). -- -- With Best Regards, Matthew Funke ) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
In sci.space.policy Rusty Barton wrote:
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? Hard earned tax dollars? NASA's budget is an utterly insignificant amount of the budget, which at any rate is prognosed to have a $455 billion deficit this year. So instead of as 'hard earned tax dollars' you should say 'a small amount of spare that dropped out of the budget, both taxed and borrowed'. 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? Hubble has done a huge amount for science - whetever it needed corrective optics or not is irrelevant, you can just consider it as having part of cost of it. The only case where you would consider it would be if Hubble was a failure - which is nowhere near the same galaxy as correct. 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? No. But this was not all - not even close to all - that NASA did in the period. Two shuttles are destroyed and 14 people are dead because of NASA lack of management or mis-management. Did this promote science? Two shuttles and 14 people dead is hardly a major ctastrophy. hundreds gie yearly in air crashes, and that is considerably more mature technology. If you want to pick issue around this, pick it with decreasing ability to get humans off teh planet - if things continue as they are, the astronauts in any US mission to Mars will have to be lifted off (and brought back to earth from orbit) in rented / bought Soyus modules. 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". which is not a field - its a generic "NASA should be doing better", which may or may not be possible given funding levels. 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". And I should have cared? -- 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 -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
In sci.space.policy Matthew F Funke wrote:
Rusty Barton wrote: 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? Actually, the answer to this -- and all the other times you asked the same question -- is an unqualified Yes. We didn't lose a billion dollars when Mars Observer was lost -- we spent that money increasing the technical expertise of the engineers, technicians, and scientists who put it together (and who, in turn, take the money they've been paid for doing their job and put it back into the economy). We get *less* return for failed missions, but we *do get a return*. It's not a zero-sum game. Understanding, skill, and engineering expertise are all gained, whether the mission actually gets to its destination or not. (Note, of course, that the return is much greater if the mission is successful. I'll say that in case you're planning to slip in a sarcastic remark about whether or not it's even desirable to have successful missions.) Its important to have missions. success and failure depends on goals - its just that people have these odd habits of saying that a mission that sends a spaceprobe from earth to mars is not enough but insist on putting a bunch of instruments on it - and then evaluate failure agaisnt what the instruments could have delivered. -- -- With Best Regards, Matthew Funke ) -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
In article , says...
Doug... wrote: snip Luna 1 finally hit the moon, and Luna 3 bent around it, and finally about half the probes got to the moon... Just to pick a nit, didn't Luna 1 *miss* the Moon by about 6000 km? I seem to remember hearing that they even renamed it Mechta (Daydream). OK -- I stand corrected. I had a strong recollection that the Soviets called the first vehicle to strike the Moon Lunik 1, renaming the earlier attempts to mask their true destination. But according to Mark Wade, the first impacting probe was indeed called Lunik 2. (In a spurt of revisionism, they renamed all of their Moon probes, even the ones already flown, from Lunik to Luna a couple of years later.) Of course, Lunik 3 took the first images of the farside. -- It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn it's the sudden stop at the end... | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
Doug... wrote:
I had a strong recollection that the Soviets called the first vehicle to strike the Moon Lunik 1, renaming the earlier attempts to mask their true destination. But according to Mark Wade, the first impacting probe was indeed called Lunik 2. (In a spurt of revisionism, they renamed all of their Moon probes, even the ones already flown, from Lunik to Luna a couple of years later.) Of course, Lunik 3 took the first images of the farside. If memory serves, I don't think that's quite correct. "Lunik" was a term the Soviets never used; it was invented by Western journalists as a contraction of "lunar sputnik". The Soviets called their first lunar probe "Cosmic Rocket" with the nickname Metchta (Daydream). This was the first probe to escape earth and failed in the planned lunar impact. The second *announced* lunar probe was called "Cosmic Rocket II" and was the first probe to impact the moon. The third *announced* lunar probe was called "Cosmic Rocket III" or the "Automatic Interplanetary Station" and was the one that took the first pictures of the far side. The fourth *announced* lunar probe was designated Luna 4 and the three previous announced attempts became Lunas 1, 2, and 3 by implication although I don't think this was official. Of course, there were plenty of lunar attempts mixed in there which were unannounced because they failed early on. This was standard Soviet policy of the time. Jim Davis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA is coming along just fine now. | Cardman | Policy | 2 | July 8th 04 07:33 PM |
Pres. Kerry's NASA | ed kyle | Policy | 354 | March 11th 04 07:05 PM |
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars | Jorge R. Frank | Space Shuttle | 17 | July 20th 03 10:01 PM |
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars | dave schneider | Policy | 1 | July 20th 03 08:16 AM |
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | July 18th 03 10:14 PM |