vt_hokie - 10/1/2008 1:37 PMI almost think there needs to be a separate agency for aeronautics research, so it won't continually have its funding gutted to cover overruns on the space side of things.
khallow - 10/1/2008 1:35 PMI can't unconditionally support such a movement. NASA needs to more effective in space, more supportive of private industry in space, and more focused on studying critical problems (like ISRU or the effects of low gravity on organisms). Otherwise, I don't see the payout from a better funded NASA worth the effort.
khallow - 10/1/2008 9:35 AMI can't unconditionally support such a movement. NASA needs to more effective in space, more supportive of private industry in space, and more focused on studying critical problems (like ISRU or the effects of low gravity on organisms). Otherwise, I don't see the payout from a better funded NASA worth the effort.
HIPAR - 10/1/2008 10:05 AM Then the whole concept breaks down when you want to design a space shuttle.
savuporo - 10/1/2008 3:59 PMQuoteHIPAR - 10/1/2008 10:05 AM Then the whole concept breaks down when you want to design a space shuttle. Thats sort of the entire idea: you should not want to design a space shuttle. Being a government space agency, you would want to fly your research and exploration missions, including manned ones, but not design and operate launch vehicles within the agency.
OV-106 - 10/1/2008 7:49 PMThere is a middle ground folks. The Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army and Cost guard all operate and maintain there equipment. While they do not design it, they do have a great amount of input be defining the requirements, input to the actual design, etc.
Regarding the original topic: A hypothetical "One Percent For Space" campaign doesn't have to mean exactly that. I think some of you are getting too concerned with the nitty-gritty details of what specific budget we should appropriate. That's not how I would view it. I would view it as a campaign to simply get manned spaceflight on the public's radar again, and show how much could be done with a modest budget. Who on this board doesn't find that agreeable?
In that regard, I think the "One Percent For Space" idea is perfect:
- By its very name, it conveys that we spend less than 1% of our budget on spaceflight- It's easy to remember- It's an easy soundbite for politicians to get behind
- It doesn't sound that outrageous to your average voter
Well the title is "One Percent For Space," not "One Percent For NASA." Congress can spend the money in any way they see fit. I completely agree that some of the most promising areas that could use funding are private space firms who could super-charge our exploration programs if they come to fruition.
ryan mccabe - 10/1/2008 11:01 PM Well the title is "One Percent For Space," not "One Percent For NASA." Congress can spend the money in any way they see fit. I completely agree that some of the most promising areas that could use funding are private space firms who could super-charge our exploration programs if they come to fruition.
Jim - 10/1/2008 8:16 PMNot an applicable analogy. Space launch is not an weapon system
Jim - 10/1/2008 10:13 PMCongress does not disburse monies to commercial entities. Nor does it just give money to a company to "super charge" it. A gov't agency would have to be involved. Any tax money for space is going through NASA.
I'm honoured, truly. Though I'm not sure the idea was originally mine. However, it was me who has been pushing the concept around the various Space blogsites. Regardless of who originally thought of it, pegging NASA'a budget permanently at 1% percent of the Federal Budget, regardless of whether America's economy is in a boom or bust would be to my mind, only fair. This would give America a -- probably -- permanent lead in space technology at a minimal investment. The time is now and there will never be a better opportunity to do this. The United States manned space program is at an actual, titular crossroads in History. If America loses the lead, and more importantly, the workforce and brainpower of it's amazing Space Community in the next few years;
It Will Never Come Back.
Without leadership from the top right now, the U.S. governments of the present and future will be complicit in the ultimate outsourcing of mankind's grandest adventure, to other supposedly "lesser" nations. Who wants to have that on their conscience? Who wants to say that the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia, indeed all American explorers died for nothing? Give all our descendants a future that includes the Heavens as a home.
One Percent For Space -- America CAN afford it!!
MATTBLAK - 11/1/2008 6:26 AMWithout leadership from the top right now, the U.S. governments of the present and future will be complicit in the ultimate outsourcing of mankind's grandest adventure, to other supposedly "lesser" nations. Who wants to have that on their conscience? Who wants to say that the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia, indeed all American explorers died for nothing? Give all our descendants a future that includes the Heavens as a home. One Percent For Space -- America CAN afford it!!
There is ISS, which is being funded to those participating nations best effort at this time. Also, experiments fly aboard each others craft, manned and unmanned all the time -- I'm not sure what you're getting at. International co-operation in space is decades old and is desirable, but most nations with a space program will tell you it's not obligatory under their charters, merely desirable. Also, I said 'supposedly "lesser" -- note the quote marks, implying the colloquial opinions of others, not necessarily mine.
My remarks are about the U.S. Manned Space program, which currently has a narrowing window of opportunity to achieve greatness. It is an opportunity that is the U.S.'s to lose and nobody elses... :frown:
ryan mccabe - 10/1/2008 11:36 PMQuoteJim - 10/1/2008 10:13 PMCongress does not disburse monies to commercial entities. Nor does it just give money to a company to "super charge" it. A gov't agency would have to be involved. Any tax money for space is going through NASA.I realize it would go through NASA, but Congress can stipulate where the money is to go. That can be goods/services from private space firms the same way a spending bill provides funds for a specific highway.And I wasn't talking about handing out corporate welfare to "super charge" private space firms. What I said we could "super charge" was our exploration programs. And while that chiefly means the VSE, other programs stand to benefit too.
savuporo - 11/1/2008 7:04 AM Quotekhallow - 10/1/2008 9:35 AM I can't unconditionally support such a movement. NASA needs to more effective in space, more supportive of private industry in space, and more focused on studying critical problems (like ISRU or the effects of low gravity on organisms). Otherwise, I don't see the payout from a better funded NASA worth the effort. Exactly my position, worded differently. Even if there was another space agency, that would be strictly prohibited from building any operational launch vehicles i'd fully support giving it as much money as reasonably possible. As it stands, more money is simply being poured into bigger boondoggles.
khallow - 10/1/2008 9:35 AM I can't unconditionally support such a movement. NASA needs to more effective in space, more supportive of private industry in space, and more focused on studying critical problems (like ISRU or the effects of low gravity on organisms). Otherwise, I don't see the payout from a better funded NASA worth the effort.
Once the biggest current boondoggle is eliminated -- Ares 1 -- much of the rest of the wastage would go with it. Following this, er, 'evacuation' the clog-up would be eliminated and with a modest increase of NASA's budget (plus some management butt kicked) there would be room for the 21st Century essentials -- ISRU, Propellant Depots, L-1 & L-2, nuclear technology and better Heavy-Lift.
OV-106 - 10/1/2008 11:50 AMQuotekhallow - 10/1/2008 1:35 PMI can't unconditionally support such a movement. NASA needs to more effective in space, more supportive of private industry in space, and more focused on studying critical problems (like ISRU or the effects of low gravity on organisms). Otherwise, I don't see the payout from a better funded NASA worth the effort.Don't then....Without some increased funding though you will never really see real, continued and substantial money for prizes (that support private industry) and programs like ISRU and other R&D programs (why invest the money in them if you don't have the money to go somewhere and actually use them?)....
khallow - 11/1/2008 1:29 PMQuoteOV-106 - 10/1/2008 11:50 AMQuotekhallow - 10/1/2008 1:35 PMI can't unconditionally support such a movement. NASA needs to more effective in space, more supportive of private industry in space, and more focused on studying critical problems (like ISRU or the effects of low gravity on organisms). Otherwise, I don't see the payout from a better funded NASA worth the effort.Don't then....Without some increased funding though you will never really see real, continued and substantial money for prizes (that support private industry) and programs like ISRU and other R&D programs (why invest the money in them if you don't have the money to go somewhere and actually use them?)....I disagree. NASA already receives ample funding to focus on a few of those goals. It's not just a problem of not enough funding (in fact that might not be a problem at all), but also a problem of where that money goes. My take is that restructuring NASA to improve its focus and better fulfill its mandates (and cutting out programs such as Ares 1 or the Space Shuttle that have no meaningful contribution to general space development) would be a bigger improvement especially over the long term for US space development (and my little pet projects) than just giving NASA more money.