A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 03, 08:31 PM
Rusty B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 18th 03, 01:20 AM
Rusty Barton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 18th 03, 02:13 PM
Matthew F Funke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 18th 03, 03:11 PM
Matthew F Funke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 18th 03, 10:08 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 18th 03, 10:14 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 +++
  #10  
Old July 19th 03, 05:17 AM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:05 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.