|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 05/26/2007 11:08 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Squid.erau
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 05/26/2007 11:53 AM » |
|
Found what i'm guessing is a typo on page 21. They state NASA's 2006 budget was $16.5 billion, while NOAA's was $964 Billion. I not an expert, but that sounds a bit off.
Matt
|
|
|
|
Felix
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 05/26/2007 12:28 PM » |
|
Squid.erau - 26/5/2007 1:53 PM Found what i'm guessing is a typo on page 21. They state NASA's 2006 budget was $16.5 billion, while NOAA's was $964 Billion. I not an expert, but that sounds a bit off. Matt NOAAs buget is about $ 3.5 billion. Their satellite program (NESDIS) is about $ 800 million. See http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/budget2006/ (page 157 or 7-22)
|
|
|
|
Ventrater
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 05/26/2007 03:48 PM » |
|
Squid.erau - 26/5/2007 6:53 AM
Found what i'm guessing is a typo on page 21. They state NASA's 2006 budget was $16.5 billion, while NOAA's was $964 Billion. I not an expert, but that sounds a bit off.
Matt In the original paper (in french language): http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/pdf/rap-off/i3676.pdfwe can read: ""NOAA voit ses activités spatiales dotées d'un budget de 964 millions""
|
|
|
|
02hurnella
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 05/27/2007 03:26 PM » |
|
This is fascinating but pretty inpenetrable. A couple of really interesting things it says/recommends are
> "qualification of ariane 5 for human spaceflight in 5 years!"
> increasing european military space spending about 8 times over by 2020. (double every 5 years)
> Accelerate galileo so it is usable in three years.
> put a capsule to return experiments etc on the ATV.
> land on the moon by 2018! (forgive my sceptism about this one)
> Develop the vulcain 3 in collaboration with Nasa! (as it is similar to J-2x)
> Develop Vinci and boost ariane 5's capability to 12T to Gto
> Studies to develop Nuclear power for deep space missions (I assume they mean RTGs)
> More powerful hypergolic stage for generic ariane 5's. (to lauch ATV's)
This is all interesting and ambitious but read below
"Europe relies on the russian soyuz spacecraft and shuttle for acess to the Iss for its astronauts and, in the case of shuttle, for the installation of columbus also. Without denying the value of this co-operation, very much to the contrary, Europe cannot continue on this path, one which is contrary to its own space development plans and those of the whole world deprived of its first class capabilities."
hmmmm?
|
|
|
|
EE Scott
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 05/27/2007 08:05 PM » |
|
hektor - 26/5/2007 7:08 AM
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rap-info/i3676-english.pdf
I think this is a good way to know the Euro-vision of things ...
These guys have gathered quite an impressive amount of facts. Thanks for sharing this, very interesting. It's obviously a big-time call to arms for France/European space industry. I love the enthusiasm. Typical of these types of alarms, they tend to over-state the efforts of other nations' programs. Especially as NASA's budget seems to be trending downward going forward. I'd love to see a manned capability come out of ESA, but it would take billions of euros, and I think EU nations/ESA partners have made clear their preference for agricultural subsidies over support for space projects. The Gallileo project could be thought of as an exception, or just a jobs program for aerospace workers, or both. But I would love to see the recomendations, or even just some of them, implemented.
|
|
|
|
neviden
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 05/29/2007 08:38 PM » |
|
Interesting document. It is written from the French perspective and that of course means heavy focus on the Ariane 5. Well some of them are good. ESC-B should get finished but more importantly, they should try to reduce launch costs even further. Recently announced launch rate increase should help.
Maybe the new EU “space policy” will implement some of those proposals.
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 06/01/2007 07:53 PM » |
|
Squid.erau - 26/5/2007 6:53 AM
Found what i'm guessing is a typo on page 21. They state NASA's 2006 budget was $16.5 billion, while NOAA's was $964 Billion. I not an expert, but that sounds a bit off.
Matt That's what the budget would be if Goddard's god Hansen were to replace Griffin. No CEV, no CLV--just five million Delta II launched weathersats for the GW alarmists to play with. If Hansen is president Hilary's Chief Admin, Jim will be very busy indeed :bleh:
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 06/01/2007 09:20 PM » |
|
publiusr - 1/6/2007 3:53 PM
Squid.erau - 26/5/2007 6:53 AM
Found what i'm guessing is a typo on page 21. They state NASA's 2006 budget was $16.5 billion, while NOAA's was $964 Billion. I not an expert, but that sounds a bit off.
Matt
That's what the budget would be if Goddard's god Hansen were to replace Griffin.
No CEV, no CLV--just five million Delta II launched weathersats
And what is wrong with that
|
|
|
|
simonbp
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 06/19/2007 05:23 AM » |
|
Jim - 1/6/2007 4:20 PM
And what is wrong with that Absolutely everything. Real science about discoveries that revolutionize our perceptions of the universe, that make us think and perceive the universe in new ways. Most of the rest of science is busy work, filling in the gaps between the revolutionary pillars. Case in point: If you really want to study global warming, don't look down; 15 million weather sats aren't going to tell you any more than two weather sats are. Rather than look at what can already being measured, look for the potential causes not being addressed. For example, a heck of a lot (not all) warming can be attributed to solar variations. A single satellite that measures spectral variations in solar flux, mapped to changes in surface temperature and albedo, would tell you a whole lot more about GW than a couple million extra weather sats... The point is (and politicians hate this): in order to do real science, you have to leave your comfort zone. Doing what you've done before is almost useless... Simon 
|
|
|
|
MKremer
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 06/19/2007 06:41 AM » |
|
I think we need to pay just as much attention to things concerning our own planet (meaning budgets for Earth environmental and surface/oceanic studies) as we do for the environment and studies of things outside of the immediate Earth area (including the Moon, and beyond).
Exploring everything outside of 2 or more Earth radii is great, and important, but unless we also concentrate on understanding Earth's geology, oceanography, climatology, and atmosphere, we aren't going to truly be able to relate what we discover and study everywhere else to what we already understand about our own planet (and we still don't understand all that much about our own world).
|
|
|
|
meiza
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 06/19/2007 09:34 AM » |
|
If the current NASA management and leadership is incompetent in the earth observation part of the mission, then maybe it should be transferred to NOAA along with the original budget.
|
|
|
|
joebacsi777
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 06/24/2007 01:00 PM » |
|
On the big scale I strongly believe that humanity's future is out there. It's as simple as that. Without new goals, new horizons living in a smaller and smaller and more fragile world, people will lose their imaginativeness, and become less creative, less risk taking, and more and more decadent. Of course i'm not talking about tomorrow lol, but exploration is the thing that is kind of natural for our species that lives everywhere around the globe, and yet we have no more land on earth with signs "Here there bee dragons" we have an infinite universe out there. Who knows, there might even be dragons there...
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 07/02/2007 07:48 PM » |
|
I agree with you.
If Hansen were to be our next NASA Chief then all the Griffin bashers will wish they shut their mouths.
Tomorrow's headlines today...
__________________________________________________________________________________
HANSEN ADDRESSES THE NASA FAITHFUL:
"My first act is to cancel Ares I and Ares V!" ----------A few claps from Cowing and the other HLLV bashers
"And my second is to cancel VSE--we don't need Human Spaceflight!"-------Cowings jaw hits the floor and people start looking around.
"And another thing--no more probes to Mars or anywhere else! EARTH FIRST!----Steve Squyres is heard saying "Now wait just a minute now" Golombek jumps off a bridge.
"And say so long to COTS capitalistic scum!" The Alt.spacers leave the room.
"And I don't mean to spend any more money on aviation either"----------Jeff Bell is ecstatic, on the verge of orgasm.
"Oh...I forgot, I'm going to close down all telescopes in Hawaii and support giving that land back to nature, who needs Astronomy?"----------------Jeff Bell shrinks back in his chair, deflated, as Sophia and Hubble go on the chopping block again.
And...very quietly..Griffin walks out, after shooting a "I told you so" glare at all his former enemies, who wish they had him back--who wish so very much they had not been so very ugly to that man.
***********************************
As the room empties, only one person remains seated--everyone else's dreams shattered, except for our buddy Jim, who thinks this is all just lovely....until,
Hansen: "Thanks for your loyalty, Jim, but....well.....I have one last bit of bad news. President Hilary doesn't want Two EELVs. Only Atlas rockets will be used. No more Deltas--of any kind. Sorry old boy."
NEWS FLASH...GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED...THE BAD NEWS....EARTH SMASHED WITH ASTEROID DUE TO "ALL NOAA--ALL THE TIME."
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 07/02/2007 08:22 PM » |
|
What is the color of the sky in your world?
As for Delta, it doesn't matter to me. Delta-II is going to be dead because VSE has already taken all the money. At this time, there are no NASA ELV's scheduled for 2010.
In my world, Grifffin is out and Alan Stern comes in and revives FBC, but redefines "cheaper". He cancels the Stick and delays the HLLV until a real need. Goldin's legacy goes on and Griffin's is the same as X-33, SLI, X-38, OSP.
|
|
|
|
