Author Topic: Should NASA receive a new charter? National Space Administration  (Read 3762 times)

Offline Mark Max Q

  • Going Supersonic
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Lots of excellent debate on some of these recent Space Policy threads, really high quality from all sides, but the problem still remains.

NASA gets around $18 billion a year.

Why is it so hard to fully fund SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew and Cargo out of this, when both would not even be a quarter of the budget.

It sounds like someone needs to retarget NASA's goals, give it a new charter, because the average American taxpayer knows and respects NASA for launching vehicles, not aeronautics and such.

One of the A's should go?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28098
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7913
  • Likes Given: 5269
Aeronautics provides a pretty good return on investment. It should stay.

Maybe the idea of ALWAYS cutting budgets should go instead?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10887
  • Likes Given: 325
Aeronautics provides a pretty good return on investment. It should stay.

Maybe the idea of ALWAYS cutting budgets should go instead?

And should be funded better.

And to nip it in the bud, splitting NASA is not a good idea.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10887
  • Likes Given: 325
Lots of excellent debate on some of these recent Space Policy threads, really high quality from all sides, but the problem still remains.

NASA gets around $18 billion a year.

Why is it so hard to fully fund SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew and Cargo out of this, when both would not even be a quarter of the budget.

It sounds like someone needs to retarget NASA's goals, give it a new charter, because the average American taxpayer knows and respects NASA for launching vehicles, not aeronautics and such.

One of the A's should go?

Actually, NASA managing launch vehicles should go.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
Lots of excellent debate on some of these recent Space Policy threads, really high quality from all sides, but the problem still remains.

NASA gets around $18 billion a year.

Why is it so hard to fully fund SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew and Cargo out of this, when both would not even be a quarter of the budget.

It sounds like someone needs to retarget NASA's goals, give it a new charter, because the average American taxpayer knows and respects NASA for launching vehicles, not aeronautics and such.

One of the A's should go?

You kinda wander all around there with your reasoning.

Aeronautics is 3% of the budget. You think you can solve the other problems with that?

Offline OpsAnalyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Mary Lynne Dittmar
  • Washington, DC
    • MaryLynneDittmar.com
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 120
Lots of excellent debate on some of these recent Space Policy threads, really high quality from all sides, but the problem still remains.

NASA gets around $18 billion a year.

Why is it so hard to fully fund SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew and Cargo out of this, when both would not even be a quarter of the budget.

It sounds like someone needs to retarget NASA's goals, give it a new charter, because the average American taxpayer knows and respects NASA for launching vehicles, not aeronautics and such.

One of the A's should go?

Nope.

Top line funding should increase, along with management accountability and agency-wide encouragement to take advantage of "new" business models enabling cost-sharing.  As was pointed out, Aeronautics has generated significant returns for the nation. 

Also, most of the evidence suggests that the nation "respects" NASA for "doing space" - and recognizes certain systems and missions as belonging to the "brand identity" of the agency - notably the Mars rovers and the Shuttle - but doesn't really know (or care) about much more than that.  Particularly with gas headed for $5.00/gallon.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
The NASA budget is strained because there are too many things going on at once.

I think NASA needs to focus on the ISS. The investment was massive and world wide. It needs full attention. This means commercial crew right now and to hell with SLS and the shiny new telescope.

NASA has been big supporters of the launch industry with all their scientific spacecraft but I think those days are over now. The science return is more difficult to get now all the low hanging fruit has been picked. All these missions still need ongoing support. Voyager, Opportunity, Cassini, Dawn, Ebb & Flow etc...

Got those 10 centers to keep healthy as well  ;D

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
If you believe that, then please write your congressman and encourage him to follow your policy.

Offline Integrator

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 583
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
That acronym is already in use. 
(I can't believe all of you missed that!! LOL!)

I strongly believe in aeronautics research because if NASA does not lead the way, who will?  DoD?  What has that bought us? More war.

Just look around and ask who has been leading the way, since NASA aeronautics has been on the current starvation diet? Boeing?  Lockheed Martin?  What have they done in aeronautics that is new in the last 30 years? Nothing.

It's time for some radical changes folks.

And they are waiting in the wings (pun intended).

INTEGRATOR
"Daddy, does that rocket carry people?"
"No buddy, just satellites."
"Why not?"
   --- 5 year old son of jjnodice,  21.01.2011

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10887
  • Likes Given: 325

Isn't this an argument for moving aeronautics out of NASA, where it must forever compete for funds, into a dedicated outfit like NACA reborn?  Didn't NACA provide many of those long-ago innovations?

 - Ed Kyle

That doesn't mean it will get funded better.  Also, splitting off another agency would dilute the money due funding more overhead.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9161
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 320
Perhaps it is the second "A" which needs to be removed.

Ooops.  Gotta go.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JimOman

In this age of American economic constraints, it is very tempting to cut budgets. I am in favor of cuts to many programs, but NOT NASA.

I've long said that NASA has the worst PR department in the civilized world. Many people I talk to and people at the NASA talks I give think that NASA is done and over with after the Shuttle, as if it was the only thing they do. If people knew what goes on at NASA, what research and missions they do and how it benefits the citizens, people would be far more likely to see the value in the organization and be more willing to fund it.

Jim
NASA National Collegiate Aerospace Scholars, 2010
CSE Student Rep, Congress 2012, 13, 14

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8510
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3417
  • Likes Given: 803
In this age of American economic constraints, it is very tempting to cut budgets. I am in favor of cuts to many programs, but NOT NASA.

"Cut his program, not mine."


Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
I've long said that NASA has the worst PR department in the civilized world. Many people I talk to and people at the NASA talks I give think that NASA is done and over with after the Shuttle, as if it was the only thing they do. If people knew what goes on at NASA, what research and missions they do and how it benefits the citizens, people would be far more likely to see the value in the organization and be more willing to fund it.

Jim
I really don't think you can blame NASA PR for the disinterest and ignorance of the vast majority of the US public. This specific group has never had an interest in spaceflight - not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.
There is plenty of history and current events in multiple media for anyone to learn and follow NASA today. Discussions about educating the vast majority is a total waste of time. If they had any interest they would further develop it like many on this forum did.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 04:30 AM by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline JimOman

I've long said that NASA has the worst PR department in the civilized world. Many people I talk to and people at the NASA talks I give think that NASA is done and over with after the Shuttle, as if it was the only thing they do. If people knew what goes on at NASA, what research and missions they do and how it benefits the citizens, people would be far more likely to see the value in the organization and be more willing to fund it.

Jim
I really don't think you can blame NASA PR for the disinterest and ignorance of the vast majority of the US public. This specific group has never had an interest in spaceflight - not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.
There is plenty of history and current events in multiple media for anyone to learn and follow NASA today. Discussions about educating the vast majority is a total waste of time. If they had any interest they would further develop it like many on this forum did.

Art-

I see your point, and agree to a point. I really believe that if more people
knew about what NASA is all about, more people would be interested. Your right that the more fanatical fans like us will develop interest on their own, but the average Joe may be more willing to support NASA with his or her tax dollars if he knew what was being achieved, rather than his current view of some out-of-date administration with nothing to do.

Within NASA, it is the function of PR and PAO to stir up such interest. They are trying new things to achieve this (like their growing interest in social media) but much, much more can be done.

I think my point stands that public support will increase if the public's awareness increases as well.

Jim Oman

NASA National Collegiate Aerospace Scholars, 2010
CSE Student Rep, Congress 2012, 13, 14

Tags: