|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
Is there a list somewhere of the shuttle spin offs? Here are a few that have been commercialized. Glenn So where are they? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Minimum Number of Rocket Designs | Charles Talleyrand | Space Science Misc | 47 | July 14th 04 10:40 PM |
NASA Announces Independent Engineering and Safety Center | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 15th 03 04:16 PM |
NASA: Gases Breached Wing of Shuttle Atlantis in 2000 | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 10th 03 01:27 AM |