NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars
Rusty B
Budget Year DOLLARS Price
Year Dollars (Billions) Index
(Billions) 2001 Table
1958 0.089 0.488 0.1828
1959 0.145 0.781 0.1862
1960 0.401 2.145 0.187
1961 0.744 3.879 0.1919
1962 1.257 6.554 0.1918
1963 2.552 12.767 0.1999
1964 4.171 20.587 0.2026
1965 5.093 24.795 0.2054
1966 5.933 26.820 0.2212
1967 5.426 24.798 0.2188
1968 4.724 20.664 0.2286
1969 4.253 17.537 0.2425
1970 3.755 14.616 0.2569
1971 3.381 12.356 0.2736
1972 3.435 11.787 0.2914
1973 3.324 10.910 0.3047
1974 3.252 9.790 0.3322
1975 3.330 9.111 0.3655
1976 3.670 9.356 0.3922
1977 3.944 9.297 0.4242
1978 3.980 8.798 0.4524
1979 4.187 8.540 0.4903
1980 4.850 8.966 0.5409
1981 5.421 9.089 0.5965
1982 6.026 9.436 0.6386
1983 6.664 9.973 0.6682
1984 7.048 10.050 0.7013
1985 7.251 9.996 0.7254
1986 7.403 9.960 0.7433
1987 7.591 9.940 0.7637
1988 9.092 11.540 0.7879
1989 11.036 13.506 0.8171
1990 12.429 14.714 0.8447
1991 13.878 15.735 0.882
1992 13.961 15.310 0.9119
1993 14.305 15.301 0.9349
1994 13.695 14.351 0.9543
1995 13.377 13.692 0.977
1996 13.882 13.882 1
1997 14.358 14.067 1.0207
1998 14.206 13.743 1.0337
1999 13.664 12.998 1.0512
2000 13.601 12.618 1.0779
2001 14.035 12.688 1.1062
2002 14.500 12.946 1.12 (estimated)
2003 15.500 13.596 1.14 (estimated)
In constant year dollars from 1958 through 1969 NASA spent-
$ 161.81-billion dollars and went to the moon.
In constant year dollars from 1970 through 2003 NASA spent-
$ 402.65-billion dollars and went round and round and round and round
and round......
I know, we landed on the moon in 1971 & 1972, but you get the idea.
--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, Califorina
Jorge R. Frank
news:9ad41526.03071...@posting.google.com:
> NASA Then Year 1996 Consumer
> Budget Year DOLLARS Price
> Year Dollars (Billions) Index
> (Billions) 2001 Table
>
> 1958 0.089 0.488 0.1828
> 1959 0.145 0.781 0.1862
> 1960 0.401 2.145 0.187
> 1961 0.744 3.879 0.1919
Cool! Where'd you find the 1958-61 numbers? I've only been able to find
back to 1962:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist04z1.xls>
> In constant year dollars from 1958 through 1969 NASA spent-
> $ 161.81-billion dollars and went to the moon.
>
> In constant year dollars from 1970 through 2003 NASA spent-
> $ 402.65-billion dollars and went round and round and round and round
> and round......
>
> I know, we landed on the moon in 1971 & 1972, but you get the idea.
I get the idea that you're painting a biased picture.
First, NASA spent more on Apollo than on the space shuttle from 1970-72, so
those years really belong in the first category, despite your disclaimer.
Second, Apollo was (for most of its history) a considerably larger
percentage of NASA's budget than the shuttle+station. So you either need to
compare the accomplishments of NASA *as a whole* during those eras, or you
need to break out the Apollo and shuttle+station numbers separately.
Third, you're comparing a 12-year crash program (which was viewed as a Cold
War national priority, and thus pretty much got blank checks when it really
needed them), against a 34-year period where human spaceflight was not a
national priority, and was subject to annual budget caps that forced short-
term thinking onto program management.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Rusty Barton
wrote:
>> NASA Then Year 1996 Consumer
>> Budget Year DOLLARS Price
>> Year Dollars (Billions) Index
>> (Billions) 2001 Table
>>
>> 1958 0.089 0.488 0.1828
>> 1959 0.145 0.781 0.1862
>> 1960 0.401 2.145 0.187
>> 1961 0.744 3.879 0.1919
>
>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"
Consumer Price Index - 2001
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt035.asp - Federal
Budget Composite Deflator column.
NASA needs more funding, I agree with that. But what do we have for
around $ 370-billion? 3 old shuttles, 2 heaps of shuttle fragments,
1 incomplete space station, a few planetary missions and several false
starts at building a shuttle replacement.
Somehow, I expected more to show for the money spent.
--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
Visit my Titan I ICBM website at: | stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile | satellite picture."-Steven Wright
Rusty Barton
wrote:
The correct URL for NASA Budgets 1958 - 1999
http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html - near bottom of page
Left off the "l" from "html" when doing a copy & paste.
Jorge R. Frank
news:22sbhv88sd2e5ba88...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Jul 2003 00:30:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg>
> 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.
Jorge R. Frank
news:1j5chvsvuthcn0jce...@4ax.com:
> 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.
Mike Speegle
>
> > 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.
Sander Vesik
>
> Third, you're comparing a 12-year crash program (which was viewed as a Cold
> War national priority, and thus pretty much got blank checks when it really
> needed them), against a 34-year period where human spaceflight was not a
> national priority, and was subject to annual budget caps that forced short-
> term thinking onto program management.
>
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
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Rusty B
news:<10584659...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
>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
Gene DiGennaro
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" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message news:<Xns93BAECBC...@216.39.221.8>...
Sander Vesik
> Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in:
> news:<10584659...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
>
>>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 what would you have NASA do? And how would it promote science, or
some other field of your choice?
> So much for the book, "Learning English on $ 5.00 a day". :-)
And this was so nice of you.
>
> --
> Rusty Barton - Antelope, California
--
Rusty Barton
<san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> 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
Matthew F Funke
>
>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 (m...@hopper.unh.edu)
Sander Vesik
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:32:30 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
> <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> 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 Vesik
> Rusty Barton <woo...@usa.com> 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 (m...@hopper.unh.edu)
--
Rusty B
<san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>> 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'.
I am talking about the AMERICAN people's hard earned tax dollars. Over
my workng lifetime of 30+ years I have contributed thousands tax
dollars to NASA,
as have all other working Americans. That works out to hundreds of
hours of my time that I have worked had the money was taken from me
and given to NASA. Since 1958 it adds up to over $ 500-Billion dollars
of hard working AMERICAN's money. I expect that money to be spent
wisely. It has not been in many cases.
Your e-mail address is from Estonia. How many tax dollars have you
contributed to NASA? How much of your personal labor has been taxed
and used to pay for a NASA space project? When you have contributed
1-cent towrard NASA, maybe I will value your opinion. Until then, you
are just full of hot air.
--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California
dave schneider
[snip useful research]
>
> In constant year dollars from 1958 through 1969 NASA spent-
> $ 161.81-billion dollars and went to the moon.
>
> In constant year dollars from 1970 through 2003 NASA spent-
> $ 402.65-billion dollars and went round and round and round and round
> and round......
Last year I spent about $200 to travel from SoCal to the real world (
== Oregon; pardon my chauvinism) for under a week; in the 40 weeks
since then I 've spent ~$1200 going round and round on a daily basis.
Do you think the 5x expenditure should have gotten me farther than 12
miles?
/dps
(note: figures much simplified; ticket cost for part a, gas costs for
part b; more detailed figures would probably show a bigger delta,
'cause 1 car payment can get an awfully nice hotel stay).
Kevin Willoughby
> NASA screw-ups started with Skylab. Lack of proper testing on the
> ground caused it to be crippled at launch. Did that promote science?
Started with Skylab? Apollo 1 was a spectacular screw up. Did Apollo
promote science? The Ranger series had its problems. Did Ranger 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?
Well, Hubble was used as part of a recent project that discovered a
planet. An old planet. A planet older than any planet is supposed to
be. That kind of discovery is good 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?
Did Mariner? Viking? Pathfinder? NASA deserves honest criticism, not
polemics.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong
Mary Shafer
> I am talking about the AMERICAN people's hard earned tax dollars. Over
> my workng lifetime of 30+ years I have contributed thousands tax
> dollars to NASA,
> as have all other working Americans.
The hardworking American taxpayer spends more money on cosmetics than
it does on NASA every year. Is a safer airliner worth more or less
than eye shadow?
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:srkjhvs00l2bave14...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jul 2003 14:34:28 -0700, woo...@usa.com (Rusty B) wrote:
>
> > I am talking about the AMERICAN people's hard earned tax dollars. Over
> > my workng lifetime of 30+ years I have contributed thousands tax
> > dollars to NASA,
> > as have all other working Americans.
>
> The hardworking American taxpayer spends more money on cosmetics than
> it does on NASA every year. Is a safer airliner worth more or less
> than eye shadow?
Just think of the aeronautical program Tammy Fae Baker's eyeliner could have
paid for!
Stefan
other parts of the gov. NASA makes up a smaller percentage of the US Gov
budget than people think, but it gets the most publicity of any
organization. Since, it is related to space and oo ahh that is cool and
probably expensive people blame NASA for loss of money. Our Gov wastes a lot
of money on other things and some money just vanishes at rates of billions.
Over the past 2yrs our gov has run up nearly trillion in debt not counting
other previous things................
My note on the shuttle replacement issue.... Right now it seems like NASA is
going to actually try and do the OSP (Orbital Space Plane) which only is
meant to carry people. Therefore the OSP cannot be a full replacement for
the shuttle (since it can only carry people). There will be missions where
NASA will need a shuttle class/type of aircraft at some point in time after
the shuttles are retired. I think for a quick fix they should be replaced w/
a MODIFIED and UPDATED RSA Buran. Not necessarily a RSA Buran, but something
designed w/ some of the ideas that the Buran was built upon like the energia
rocket it used which was also had a dual purpose to haul satellites in to
space (I think a rather nice way to kill 2 birds w/ one stone).
Also, if you are complaining about satellites being lost. It is a very hard
thing to land / placing orbit a craft on a planet by remote control. I do
not see you doing any thing to make that easier and send the gov your tax
dollars is not really an answer. In contrast to that, the satellites and
craft that have successfully worked have worked well past there lifetime and
have been extremely awarding. One nice example of this is GALILEO. Has been
at Jup since 96 is going to be laid to rest in Sept. It has out lasted and
out worked what it was going to originally do. Taken on some 18 times the
amount of radiation and has had its life extended many times.
NASA also has various joint projects like SOHO which is important in our day
to day lives. It helps people make forecasts of the solar weather. In doing
this it enables companies to know when and to be prepared if/when something
happens to their satellites. Our world relies upon satellites for a lot of
things: TV (cable, Al-antenna, and satellite) rely upon satellites, live
radio casts (national), the internet, phone calls, cell phones, GPS (many
things rely upon this: medical, firedepts, shipping, taxi's(some), aviation,
a lot more....)........
Also, note NASA is run ultimately by the senate appropriations committee.
They decide really what NASA can do b/c they control the money flow to NASA.
- Stefan