NASA's Constellatiion Program, cancellation (or not)

Page 1 of 4 [ 52 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

24 Sep 2009, 4:05 pm

Anyone following this would know that the Augustine Commission has recently released its preliminary report on the future of NASA's human space flight program. Apparently NASA needs an extra $3 billion dollars a year for the any exploration beyond LEO to be viable. In the hearing before congress 8 days ago, it seemed they were unwilling to make substantial changes to the Constellation Program other than allocating more money to NASA. However, the ultimate decision still lies with the Obama administration and some people think it is unlikely that they will get the $3 billion. What I don't understand is that, that budget isn't anything more than what NASA was expecting for their new moon program in the beginning. So why would people be reluctant to partially restore a budget that was previously cut? Do think Obama will cancel the moon program?

southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

24 Sep 2009, 4:32 pm

Jono wrote:

Do think Obama will cancel the moon program?

I'm not sure what to think myself; but, have heard a couple people give their opinion that Obama will be rather better for NASA than a few of the previous Presidents, then give their "and here's why . . ." and it made sense to me.

_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain

ForsakenEagle
Velociraptor

Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
Location: Alabama

24 Sep 2009, 4:43 pm

I hope NASA can continue their work. Unlike the war in Iraq, sport utility vehicles, and the Spears sisters, NASA is actually doing something productive for mankind.

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

24 Sep 2009, 5:54 pm

0.58% in 2009; down from 0.6% the previous year. I am thinking we can afford NASA.

File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

ForsakenEagle
Velociraptor

Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
Location: Alabama

24 Sep 2009, 5:57 pm

Which little blue sliver is NASA? :lol:

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

24 Sep 2009, 5:59 pm

The list works in clockwise order beginning with Social Security as the largest.

ForsakenEagle
Velociraptor

Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
Location: Alabama

24 Sep 2009, 6:01 pm

Ah, I see it now. Thanks.

southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

24 Sep 2009, 6:25 pm

Wow, just shy of two-thirds-of-one-percent.
Less than a penny from a dollar.

_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

24 Sep 2009, 10:29 pm

As much as I'd like us to return to the moon, there's no money for it right now.

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

25 Sep 2009, 1:46 pm

John_Browning wrote:

As much as I'd like us to return to the moon, there's no money for it right now.

Do really think it's affordable? Seeing as the NASA budget takes up less than one percent of the federal budget to begin with? I don't live in the US, so correct me if I'm wrong.

unreal3x
Deinonychus

Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

25 Sep 2009, 9:25 pm

claire333 wrote:

0.58% in 2009; down from 0.6% the previous year. I am thinking we can afford NASA.

File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

Wait a sec, if NASA is using 3 billion a year and that is 0.58% of the total budget, then the total budget is ?

X \/ 100
3b /\ 0.58 ???

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

25 Sep 2009, 10:45 pm

Jono wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

As much as I'd like us to return to the moon, there's no money for it right now.

Do really think it's affordable? Seeing as the NASA budget takes up less than one percent of the federal budget to begin with? I don't live in the US, so correct me if I'm wrong.

We are at least 1 trillion dollars in the hole so far this year.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Sep 2009, 7:46 am

John_Browning wrote:

Jono wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

As much as I'd like us to return to the moon, there's no money for it right now.

Do really think it's affordable? Seeing as the NASA budget takes up less than one percent of the federal budget to begin with? I don't live in the US, so correct me if I'm wrong.

We are at least 1 trillion dollars in the hole so far this year.

You can thank George W. Bush for that deficit. An any case the space shuttle can't last forever and it's not really safe to extend it's use well beyond it's planned retirement. At this rate it seems like NASA could end up with no manned spcae flight program at all if people are not careful.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Sep 2009, 9:16 am

unreal3x wrote:

claire333 wrote:

0.58% in 2009; down from 0.6% the previous year. I am thinking we can afford NASA.

File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

Wait a sec, if NASA is using 3 billion a year and that is 0.58% of the total budget, then the total budget is ?

X \/ 100
3b /\ 0.58 ???

Actually, NASA is using 18 billion a year. I was referring to the extra 3 billion over and above that, that NASA needs to continue with the Constellation Program.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Sep 2009, 1:09 pm

Jono wrote:

Manned flight has produced little in the way of science and technology. Manned flight produces headlines. The unmanned program was produced important technologies, not the least of which is the GPS and the communication satellites which are vital to the world economy.

ruveyn

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Sep 2009, 2:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Well we have learned a bit from those moon rocks brought back from the Apollo missions. To be sure, manned missions probably can't do more than what robotic rovers can do at a cheaper price. However, they could provide an earlier scientific return. You do realise though that right now there are other reasons why the US might want to continue with the Constellation Program, don't you? A new space race is going on right now and the US is in danger of losing it's predominance in space. China has recently claimed that they could send astronauts to the moon by 2017. This time its not just two countries in the space race and China will continue with its moon program whether the US remains in it or not. The next country that would probably be capable of sending its citizens into space is India and they will also be competing with China.

Page 1 of 4 [ 52 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

NASA's Constellatiion Program, cancellation (or not) Post Reply New Topic

NASA's Constellatiion Program, cancellation (or not)