Re: NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars

[Rusty B]

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

[Rusty Barton]

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

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> And maybe I'm getting this confused with another probe but I recall Galileo's
> mission went off rather well, despite the problem. You seem to be trying to go
> for every screw up NASA has made. You also reference the lost NASA probes of
> the post-Apollo era...have you ever looked at how many satelites and probes
> failed PRIOR to Apollo?

I recall an amusing animated illustration of the first American and
Soviet lunar probe attempts. It showed the Earth/Moon system in a
simplified, looking-down-from-the-north aspect, and had illustrated lines
shooting off the Earth for every lunar attempt. The first several were
weak little yellow lines that either never achieved orbit or never got
out of orbit. A few looped up and then fell well short of the moon. One
went all the way to a lunar distance, but well away from the moon. Luna
1 finally hit the moon, and Luna 3 bent around it, and finally about half
the probes got to the moon... run in a fairly sped-up fashion, it was
very, very amusing watching these things shoot out and miss, over and
over... Good thing they got better with practice.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Matthew F Funke]

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 )

[Matthew F Funke]

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 )

[Sander Vesik]

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 +++

[Sander Vesik]

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 +++

[Chris Jones]

(Matthew F Funke) writes:

> 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).

Yes, Luna 1 missed the moon and went into solar orbit, the first
artificial satellite of the sun (I don't believe in the manhole cover
story). Luna 2 hit nearly dead center on the moon, which was an
impressive bit of aiming given that neither probe had course correction
capability (nor did Luna 3, also an impressive bit of aiming).

[Doug...]

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... |

[Jim Davis]

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