Fund NASA Properly—A New Beginning for the Future

[Trippy]

My point Trippy is that NASA's underfunding goes to private commercial space companies like SpaceX...

Does it?

Are you referring to something other than COTS, which comes out of NASA's budget?

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) is a NASA program to coordinate the delivery of crew and cargo to the International Space Station by private companies. The program was announced on January 18, 2006. NASA has suggested that "Commercial services to ISS will be necessary through at least 2015."

COTS must be distinguished from the related Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program. COTS relates to the development of the vehicles, CRS to the actual deliveries. COTS involves a number of Space Act Agreements, with NASA providing milestone-based payments...

...NASA explored a program for ISS services in the mid 1990s entitled "Alt Access" for Alternate Access. While NASA funded Alt Access no further than preliminary studies, this program convinced numerous entrepreneurs that ISS could emerge as a significant market opportunity.

After years of keeping orbital transport for human spaceflight in-house, NASA concluded that firms in a free market could develop and operate such a system more efficiently and affordably than a government bureaucracy. The then NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin stated that without affordable Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), the agency will not have enough funds remaining to achieve the objectives of the Vision for Space Exploration.

COTS on Wiki

So COTS is a NASA driven initiative, of which SpaceX is a competitor, which in combination with CCDEV & CSTC are Space Act Agreements, which are funded by NASA to free up money for them to focus on space exploration.

The point being that the money to fund commercial space flight is part of a NASA driven initiative, that comes out of NASA's budget, not the money saved from cuts to NASA's budget.

[Tiassa]

Never push an engineer to do stuff.

Is it impossible, in your opinion, that private contractors bidding for government money might end up being the ones who push engineers?

Stronger incentives, such as Trippy is encouraging, toward private-sector efficiency in public-private partnerships might well discourage promises that cannot be kept.

Maybe the engineers need two years. And maybe, in its bid, McDonnell-Douglas says eighteen months, so Lockheed bids a lower cost and fifteen months.

Would it be NASA pushing engineers to hurry, or the corporate bosses who set an unrealistic target in order to win the contract in the first place?

... NASA's underfunding goes to private commercial space companies like SpaceX, and this is the right step towards space development.

There is a difference, I think, between involving the private sector and having it do NASA's work.

NASA research has led to technological innovations that the private sector profits from; everything from baby food to highway safety to swimsuits. One would think that something like jarmaine safety grooving on road surfaces seems obvious, but that came about through NASA research. Temper "memory" foam, most familiar to consumers through Tempur-Pedic mattresses, evolved at Ames Research Center, and even has safety applications in aircraft and NASCAR vehicles. Better fire-resistant materials, and even lifesaving firefighting equipment came about through NASA. And it's not simply NASA itself. Martek, a biotech company, rose around former NASA scientists and engineers. If you have a Dustbuster or other hand-held vacuum cleaner, you have a piece of NASA heritage. Goodyear's research for the Viking program was adapted for a new generation of radial tires. "Thermawing", an aerospace deicing technology, saw great advances through NASA's cooperation with the Small Business Innovation Research program. One of the leading American photovoltaics firms relies on technology developed through a public-private partnership. And so on. The list is impressive; NASA claims to have its fingerprints on over 1,650 technologies currently applied for profit in the private sector.

Plenty of NASA funding profits the private sector. But should the private sector be doing NASA's work for the space administration?

Increasing NASA's budget means the private sector will see increased opportunities to work with and profit from NASA.

Exploring the Universe is, in my opinion, a vital societal interest. And it should not be left to wait until the private sector figures out a profit scheme before we undertake certain ventures. Space tourism, for instance, is an intriguing notion, and the private sector will eventually accomplish excellent outcomes. But—

... every baby grows up from sucking on his moms titty.

—when is it the private sector's turn to grow up?

What is the private sector's business model for discovering whether or not there is life elsewhere in the Universe?

I can tell you one basic difference. First, imagine a symposium at which scientists introduce the world to Bacillus titania, a bacteria recovered from Titan by a NASA mission. Now imagine a billboard beside the highway: "Say hello to Bacillus titania™, a Lockheed-Martin® organism!"

Science for the sake of science benefits the private sector. But, as Trippy noted, it is problematic to leave such discovery endeavors to those whose first concern is the bottom line. In 1908, Emma Goldman wrote:

What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.

One of the reasons the defense industry—the specialty of killing people and destroying things—is sacrosanct in the United States is that it is pervasive. It is often asserted that Congress is unwilling to make major cuts to defense in no small part because there is not a congressional district without some investment in the defense industry. Very well; why not transform some portion of that endeavor to something more beneficial to humanity than destruction and carnage? Imagine science—that is, the quest for knowledge—was so pervasive? It may well be impossible to get off this rock and establish the human endeavor as a permanent component of the Universe that will survive any cosmic disaster save the end of existence itself; but we don't know this is the case, and the perpetuity of our species is, at least in my opinion, a far better goal to pursue than its erasure.
____________________

Notes:

Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". 1908. Anarchism and Other Essays. New York & London: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. Anarchy Archives. July 23, 2012. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist...atriotism.html

[kmguru]

Great Op. We spend a few Billion each year for NASA but spend about $80 Billion on intelligence agencies each year to get ready to fight big boys...(namely USSR).

NASA should be our future, but until Chinese start heading out, we will do no such thing...same happened to us in the beginning with Sputnik...

[superstring01]

Double? Shit, there's no excuse for it being under $50 billion, given the ROI that the USA has gotten from NASA. Sure, we can spend a trillion on other garbage, but not on the thing that will change and lead the future.

~String

[The Esotericist]

NASA is a civilian agency. Nearly everything that goes on there is supposedly public. The problem with NASA, the MSM, and indeed, this site and the public, is the mistaken thought that the best technologies and the brightest individuals are at work there, they are not. The political elites know what they are doing. NASA is a waste of money if you are interested in space.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Might I suggest you start with the term, "SOLAR WARDEN"

The program not only operates classified under the US Government but also under the United Nations authority. So you might be wondering, how do I know this information?

Well there are a few people and many others that have tried hard to find out the truth, and have succeeded by leaked information or simply asking questions and have government departments slip up and give away information freely, just like what happened when Darren Perks asked the DoD. One notable contributor is Gary Mckinnon.

When Gary McKinnon hacked into U.S. Space Command computers several years ago and learned of the existence of "non-terrestrial officers" and "fleet-to-fleet transfers" and a secret program called "Solar Warden", he was charged by the Bush Justice Department with having committed "the biggest military computer hack of all time", and stood to face prison time of up to 70 years after extradition from UK. But trying earnest McKinnon in open court would involve his testifying to the above classified facts, and his attorney would be able to subpoena government officers to testify under oath about the Navy's Space Fleet. To date the extradition of McKinnon to the U.S. has gone nowhere.

McKinnon also found out about the ships or craft within Solar Warden. It is said that there are approx eight cigar-shaped motherships (each longer than two football fields end-to-end) and 43 small "scout ships. The Solar Warden Space Fleet operates under the US Naval Network and Space Operations Command (NNSOC) [formerly Naval Space Command]. There are approximately 300 personnel involved at that facility, with the figure rising.

Solar Warden is said to be made up from U.S. aerospace Black Projects contractors, but with some contributions of parts and systems by Canada. United Kingdom, Italy, Austria, Russia, and Australia. It is also said that the program is tested and operated from secret military bases such as Area 51 in Nevada, USA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/darr...b_1659192.html

NASA decline and antigravity space fleet

NASA’s new ‘futuristic’ Constellation Program, based as it is on antiquated rocket propulsion technologies from the 1940’s, is a cover program and does not deserve to be funded. Instead, U.S. military and corporate projects involving advanced antigravity technologies and the means by which these were acquired need to be exposed to the American people.

[Tiassa]

Double? Shit, there's no excuse for it being under $50 billion, given the ROI that the USA has gotten from NASA. Sure, we can spend a trillion on other garbage, but not on the thing that will change and lead the future.

Well, you know. I need to be realistic. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

But if next year the administration's budget leapt from $17b to $50b, I'm not sure how they would spend the money.

Thus I say double it to $35b, then measure increments to $50b after five years. At that point, everything will be running at full speed, and we can start pushing toward $100b as needed.

At the same time, though, I wouldn't want NASA to be the sole focus of our scientific budget. It's just that ... well, we're so damn close to knowing that ours is not the only rock in the Universe that lives and breathes. It is the next definitive paradigm shift in the human endeavor. And it could come during the period of our lives. Perhaps it is greedy, but I would dearly love to share that moment with my fellow human beings.

There are still things to learn here on the Third Rock. We can't forget USGS, NOAA, NIH, and the rest. But we are so close to that moment. Mars will tell us life has been. Titan and Europa will tell us that life is.

We can do this.

[billvon]

The challenge facing such an inquisitive demand is how to win the policy argument in order to encourage what we might call proper funding of NASA. Indeed, there are plenty of earthbound scientific issues meriting proper funding as well, be they through the National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Geological Survey, or other such organizations.

I am all for increased funding of NASA - once we have that money. Cut spending, find that money, then spend it on NASA. Spending money right now is foolish in the extreme.

[The Esotericist]

Government pollutes science. It should probably get out of funding science. Just as when government was allied with religion, it manipulated religion towards it's own ends. It is now doing the same with science. The public doesn't see it though. When scientists see that science is serving only the state, and wish to speak out or publish something against the government created reality, they disappear, and their patents lay buried and unavailable to the public as a matter of national security.

[Trippy]

There are still things to learn here on the Third Rock. We can't forget USGS, NOAA, NIH, and the rest. But we are so close to that moment. Mars will tell us life has been. Titan and Europa will tell us that life is.

We can do this.

And there in is the heart of my message. Remember. I said Science for the sake of Science, and that Science was expensive.

What has happened at NASA is a symptom. But it's not the only symptom.

[GeoffP]

With attitudes such as this, nothing will ever change.

There's only a finite amount that can be done from Earth, ultimately you need a geologist on the ground on site.

What ever happened to science for sciences sake?

The really expensive kind that makes almost no difference whatsoever soaks up all the money that could be spent on the kind that could change our implicit understanding of things we can actually do something about.

[GeoffP]

At the same time, though, I wouldn't want NASA to be the sole focus of our scientific budget. It's just that ... well, we're so damn close to knowing that ours is not the only rock in the Universe that lives and breathes. It is the next definitive paradigm shift in the human endeavor. And it could come during the period of our lives. Perhaps it is greedy, but I would dearly love to share that moment with my fellow human beings.

There are still things to learn here on the Third Rock. We can't forget USGS, NOAA, NIH, and the rest. But we are so close to that moment. Mars will tell us life has been. Titan and Europa will tell us that life is.

We can do this.

I say life on Titan and Europa is a cinch, let alone elsewhere. Better to stop now in the reasoned assumption that we were right rather than proceed and have our hopes dashed in the most expensive way imaginable, short of constructing shuttles of actual money. How about we fund some of the neato paradigm shifts that might affect life as we define it in the only place we can practically reach?

[Edward M. Grant]

The really expensive kind that makes almost no difference whatsoever soaks up all the money that could be spent on the kind that could change our implicit understanding of things we can actually do something about.

*Cough* JWST *Cough*

Sure, it probably will do something useful, but it seems to be sucking up much of the funding for space science and some people will have spent most of their career working on it before it's even launched.

[Tiassa]

In truth, Geoff, the first part of that—

I say life on Titan and Europa is a cinch, let alone elsewhere. Better to stop now in the reasoned assumption that we were right rather than proceed and have our hopes dashed in the most expensive way imaginable, short of constructing shuttles of actual money.

—sounds like satire.

However—

How about we fund some of the neato paradigm shifts that might affect life as we define it in the only place we can practically reach?

—I am hoping you could fill in the gaps for me on the second part, because yes, we do need to continue what science we can here at home, though I'm hard-pressed to figure what, short of actually finding Satan and his crew whooping ass in a fiery chamber somewhere in the planet's structure, would so radically change the way we humans look at one another and nature around us.

Or maybe Cthulhu rising from the oceans.