Reply
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:05 pm
....
NASA chief: Money will be tight for astronomy
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/11/space.nasa.funding.reut/index.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- NASA chief Michael Griffin warned astronomers on Tuesday that funds for their programs will be tighter than they have been in the past decade as NASA focuses more on manned space missions.
...
Roughly two-thirds of NASA's $16.4 billion budget for fiscal 2006 goes to support the space shuttle, the international space station and the development of a new system to get people into space. Space science programs will be getting about $5.4 billion this year, compared to $5.5 billion in 2005.
Griffin also says, later in the article, that there is supposed to be a Shuttle mission to fix the Hubble space telescope, but the logistics aren't quite worked out. He also notes that he expects humans to push out into the solar system during this century.
I ask you, how can we push out into and colonize the solar system if funds are cut? I know that there have been efforts to send more stuff up on the cheap, and some of them have been good efforts. And, certainly, not sending humans up when not needed is one way to go on the cheap. It's also a way, if you fail, to not look quite so bad. A loss of a few billion dollars' worth of equipment is unfortunate. The loss of seven people is a tragedy.
But there still has to be money, and there still have to be people going up. Of course I hope that it's as safe as possible. I hope for no greed on the part of the contractors who build it and no shortsightedness on the part of those who design and test it.
So, what's out there, on the horizon? Or what should be? The thing about space is (duh!), it's huge. And we go across it very slowly, like ants traversing a football field. I think the need for speed has got to be satisfied before we can go much farther. What's in the planning stages? What's plausible? I'm not talking about dilithium crystals and fiction; I'm talking about what's real. So, what can we expect to see, and will we get to see it if the budget is cut?
It's the old joke. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a man on the moon?
I'd laugh, if I didn't feel like weeping.
We could live in Eden, were we to just put everything that pollutes into space.
Can't we just send it all to Buffalo. No, wait, we already do.
When I saw this article (to be a lil serious for a moment), I was dismayed. I mean, it's not a huge loss of funds, but it's still a loss, and it's not like anything gets cheaper these days, except maybe microwave ovens.
I really want something that goes up and doesn't come down and go boom, something better and more durable than the Shuttle. And I'm tired of Shuttle apologists claiming that it's fine, it's performing better than expected, yadda yadda yadda. Yeah, I'm sure the McNairs, the Husbands, the Resnicks, the McAuliffs, the Scobees, etc. all feel the same way.
DrewDad wrote:It's the old joke. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a man on the moon?
I think that was back when a dollar was really a dollar
out best hope well my 2 cents is
Scaled Composites
Ah, are those the prize people, the Branson crowd?
yep - I saw a special on Rutan the is thinking light years ahead of current thinking - part of the reason Branson loves the heck out of these guys.
BTW - I really like Branson
check out this article also
link
You want cheap? Wait till China gets into the space shuttle business and buy a few from them.
Ah, competition in the Shuttle manufacturing biz? Hey, it can't hurt.
Thanks for the link, will try to find some time to peek at it this weekend.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace