AirSpaceMag.com

Today we have a space agency that really wants to do everything but, unfortunately, none of them well because of its limited budget!

NASA is supposed to be prioritizing manned beyond LEO missions but the current administration didn’t even want NASA to build vehicles to get astronauts beyond LEO. Thankfully, Congress thought different! But, unfortunately, most of the manned spaceflight budget is still going to LEO programs (ISS and commercial crew). I’m strongly in favor of commercial crew development– but not as a workfare program to continue the ISS.

We have NASA scientist pushing for still more funds for Mars surface exploration and even for exploring the surface of the Moons of Jupiter. Yet we still haven’t placed rovers at the lunar poles to examine the potential ice and carbon and nitrogenous materials there: resources that could have huge economic consequences within cis-lunar space.

And we still know very little about the composition of the regolith on the moons of Mars, two nearby worlds that could also have huge economic value– and worlds that could serve as gateways and gas stations for manned missions to the Martian surface.

If NASA space efforts are going to confined due to severely limited budgets then NASA is going to have to prioritize missions by their scientific, strategic, and economic importance!

Extremely expensive $3 billion a year programs like the ISS, IMO, have to– finally– come to a conclusion in the near future so that NASA can move foreword. Its time for private industry to start launching small specialized microgravity laboratories through private commercial launch companies– with their own funds– if they truly think such space labs have economic value.

Also, silly and extremely expensive stunts like attempting to plant flags on an asteroid have to be totally abandoned! The the cheapest and most efficient way to study numerous NEO asteroids is through– unmanned– missions, not manned missions.

The priority of NASA’s manned space program should be to establish a permanently manned outpost at one, or both, of the lunar poles in order to begin exploiting the Moon’s water ice for water, air, and fuel.

NASA’s second manned spaceflight priority should be to help private companies to develop their own private manned spaceflight capability. Both public and private spaceflight programs are mutually beneficial to each other and for the US economy in general.

After the ISS program is ended, NASA should purchase cheap Bigelow Olympus space stations and use the SLS to deploy them at LEO and possibly also at L1. These would be simple way stations used to house and to protect astronauts destined for beyond LEO missions and to dock Earth to LEO space craft and LEO to L1 or LEO to lunar orbit space craft.

NASA’s– unmanned– space program, IMO, should be primarily focused on:

1. the surface exploration and retrieval of material from the lunar polar regions,

2. the surface exploration the retrieval of material from the Martian moons of Deimos and Phobos,

3. the flyby and orbits of NEO asteroids such as those that could possibly pose a danger to the Earth

and

4. the retrieval of NEO meteoroids (3 to 5 meters in diameter) for return to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points for study and possible resource exploitation

Once these manned and unmanned priorities have been achieved, the public will once again view NASA as a pioneering organization and as a positive symbol of American technological progress. And then NASA can focus its efforts on putting people– permanently– on the surface of Mars and using the SLS to land probes on the Jovian moons and beyond.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 1, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

As far as I can tell the America’s days as space faring nation are quickly coming to a close (or at least taking a less prominent role).

The Bush Administration provided a clear vision (Moon, Mars and Beyond) but was starved of the necessary funds via Congress.

The Obama Administration removed the Shuttle Albatross off of NASA’s neck, and encouraged NASA to strongly embrace the private sector, but failed to provide a clear vision which is causing NASA to (once again) perish.

Obama is unlikely to change course if reelected, and on the GOP front Romney and Santorum are unlikely to fix the vision issue (as they have each have made fixing the economy or social values their priorities, respectively).

Right now the only reason the US has any hope is due to New Space, specifically SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace who have concrete plans on returning to the Moon and Mars later on.

I’m not sure if that will be enough to beat China, whose government is committed towards colonizing the Moon and not just visiting it.

Comment by Darnell Clayton — March 1, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

If NASA had a long history of proven program management with projects coming in on time and budget, then giving them more money might make sense. However, NASA’s formative years had the unofficial motto of “Waste Anything But Time.” Long after Apollo, their legacy of massive cost overruns and delays is so pervasive that it’s hard to find a single significant NASA project of the last 40 years that didn’t bust the budget and/or project timeframe. Doubling their budget would be rewarding failure.

SLS is the latest example but at least this boondoggle was pushed on them by Congress.

Comment by Larry J — March 1, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

The experience of what happened when the National Institutes of Health’s budget was doubled should show a cautionary tale. Without a change in structure and – as you rightly suggest — direction, doubling NASA’s budget will not fix the problem.

Comment by Mark R. Whittington — March 1, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

Yes, i agree that with double the budget, most of that money would be wasted.

The Apollo years represented an historical anomaly: the confluence of a perceived need to beat the Soviets, honor the wishes of a dead president, a new government agency (NASA), the positive technological society of the 60s, and some other circumstances allowed NASA to do wonderful things.

Now, however, there is no shared vision in the nation of a compelling need for BEO human activities. In that vacuum of shared vision, temporary gains like a coalition around VSE are fragile and easily lost. Into that vacuum come the rent-seekers, congresspeople from districts wherein lots of government bucks have been spent, companies that have benefited from those government contracts, etc. We get a Rocket to Nowhere that will cost billions more than the billions that have already been spent on it, and it will eventually get killed with nothing to show for all those dollars.

JPL and APL do astounding things because each mission is driven by specific objectives. Each of those missions lives under an assumption of limited budgets, with the assumption that the mission must fly on an existing rocket, and so forth. All of this promotes realistic engineering thinking rather than unfocused dreaming. The human spaceflight program wanders with no clear objectives and implicit assumptions of Apollo-like budgets, without the foundation upon which Apollo rested.

There is one bright shining light at the end of the tunnel: competition. It’s not just the US and the Soviets any more. Besides those are Europe, Japan, China, Iran(!) and others, along with commercial possibilities.

The Apollo era, however, is over.

Comment by Ron Menich — March 1, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

Its difficult to use NASA as a good example of government inefficiency and too much government spending since:

1.The percentage of NASA spending has fallen from a peak of 4.4% of total Federal government spending in 1966 down to 0.48% of Federal government spending to 2012. (I wish that were true of other government programs:-)

2. In today’s dollars, NASA spending use to be as high as $33 billion a year in 1966, now its less than $18 billion.

3. Annual revenue for the from the satellite telecommunications industry that NASA helped to invent is over $168 billion a year world wide.

4. Studies continue to show that NASA expenditures create a lot more wealth than they consume.

5. US annual economic growth was highest during the peak of NASA spending and has been substantially lower since NASA spending became dramatically reduced.

and

6. There wouldn’t even be the possibility of a Commercial Crew industry in the US if it weren’t for NASA and the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money spent developing the space program.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 1, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

The issue comes down to three points:
1. An increase in NASA’s budget (whether it is doubling or something less).
2. A refocusing of NASA’s budget on an organized goal.
3. A reform of NASA to make it more efficient than it has become,

1. Should not be difficult (look at how Tyson won over Stewart and the Daily Show’s audience). But in reality it is a big challenge because the politicians in charge have no interest (Obama cancelled the VSE and Romney/Santorum seem locked into a contest as to which of them is more anti-space than Obama).

2. Is also a problem. I will defer to Dr. Spudis as to how the ‘space science’ community would react to the idea of focusing all robotic activities on supporting human missions for Lunar and Asteroid resource recovery (as Marcel suggests), but I suspect it would not be pretty. The same would likely be true for focusing HSF on a human lunar return.

3. Is probably the most difficult of all. While NASA is long overdue for reform, this would require real attention at the top level of any administration and none of the probable candidates for the presidency (Obama, Romney, Santorum) seems to care to any significant degree.

Sorry for being so negative, but the recent news from the election campaign is very (to me at least) depressing.

Comment by Joe — March 1, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

There is a lot of sensiblity here, but it doesn’t quite converge. Tyson says to double the NASA budget. OK, nice. You properly ask why. That is, if you’re going to ask the taxpayer to pay more, you have to provide a compelling picture of what the taxpayer is buying. Tyson didn’t really do that, and his 2x “round number” increase is a little too, er, round. C’mon Neil. Why not x3.14 or x 1.765? What exactly do we get from 2.0?

But Paul, you hit the nail on the head. What we don’t have is a believable goal, one that combines clear and pressing societal value with attainable, decadal timescales. Until we have that goal (and not just someones goal, or a President’s goal, but a goal that the nation buys into) waving the flag for a budget increase is laughable. Don’t give me crap like inspiration and STEM education. The former is mostly meaningless, and the latter is far too important to get from putting things into space rather than putting things into schools.

Now, that goal has to be properly formed. Going back to the Moon to harvest water isn’t a goal. That’s how you implement some goal. What is that goal? Space advocates should take a deep breath and think about what a goal really looks like. My takeaway from a lot of extant space advocacy is that these space advocates wouldn’t know what a real goal was if it hit them in the head. A real goal offers an increase in quality of life for the taxpayer, and the cost for that goal has to be such that doing it offers clear value. You know what? A swimming pool full of lunar water doesn’t improve my quality of life. Neither does a mountain of platinum, nor does even a few milligrams of helium-3. They may be steps to improving my quality of life, but one needs to lay it all out.

Some words from Neil Tyson or you about how we’re going to find that goal would be helpful at this point. Is there a process whereby we can get buy-in and consensus? How do we know we’ve got it? What are the hallmarks of a marketable goal beyond “Hey, sounds good to me!”

Comment by Helen McQueen — March 1, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

I think doubling the budget could be done.
But double it slowly and also start a completely different agency.

This agency starts from a clean sheet- and it’s work starts by defining what it is going to do.
It could decide it wants to focus on robotic exploration.
It could decide it wants focus on managing infrastructure- take over ISS, and/or run spaceports. Whatever they come up with which they think is important and think they get the needed funding.
So, it start sort of like an Augustine panel, but not only does it give recommendations, but also to immediately start new agency so as to impediment recommendations.

Their task is to provide an alternative government space program. And do this generally by taking a different direction that they regard as a possible improvement.

So start another agency, NASA version 2
It’s a second opinion. Doing what NASA isn’t
doing.
Start NASA 2 at less than 1 billion per year.
NASA version 2 can thereafter add something like 1 billion to budget each year.
NASA 2 purpose is to do what NASA isn’t doing or
what isn’t deemed to be done effectively.
And the general idea is to get NASA version 2 to same funding level as NASA [and so doubling the space budget].

NASA version 2 isn’t telling NASA what to do, nor is NASA
directing NASA version 2.

NASA version 2 should get most of it’s personnel from NASA- and as things proceed each agency can recruit from each other.

So, anyone in NASA that thinks there are better and different ways to do a space program could transfer to version 2.
Increases in NASA version 2 budget will depend on what direction decided upon by new agency and whether congress agrees to fund their budget accordingly.

So Congress gets two expert views regarding space which may be harmonious or may be sharply different. The effort of course should be that agencies will work together, but it should also be somewhat similar to working with foreign/other space agencies.
Once NASA version 2 decides what they going to do, they come with better name than NASA version 2.

Comment by gbaikie — March 2, 2012 @ 8:00 am

[...] agree with Paul Spudis — absent a thorough reform of the agency, and an end to micromanagement by Congress, it would [...]

Pingback by Transterrestrial Musings - Double The NASA Budget? — March 2, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Right on, Dr. Spudis. NASA must either become an enabler for profitable industry, or it will continue to wilt away on the vine. That is the only vision that makes sense in the long term. We already tapped out the easy ones like patriotism and Wow! factor.

Comment by Roga — March 2, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

I believe the SLS is the very reason the buget will never be increased. Costing billions to build and billions to operate and completely unreusable the SLS will simply suck up money in the fashion of the old Saturn V and lead to completely justified cries of: “it cost too much” and the endless yo-yoing of the Nasa Buget. A more logical step would be to offer financial incentives to private companies to develope “COMPLETELY REUSABLE SPACESHIPS” after the fashion of the COTS program. Please don`t give me this we tried that with the SHUTTLE business. It was never completely reusable and with its side saddle configuration it was impossible to upgrade. Innovation is something that happens over time not all at once but you have to at least start in that direction for it to happen. This is the only way that space travel will ever happen in the fashion that we are hoping for. It`s time to wake up.

Comment by Gary Warburton — March 2, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

I saw that Daily Show episode, and Tyson was definitely wanting the audience to understand the benefits that we get from science.

Of course that’s a pretty big category, and for NASA some large swaths of it’s budget go to non-science things, so I don’t think Tyson was advocating for doubling NASA’s budget for something like the SLS, but more along the lines of doubling the funding for actual science programs – more observatories, more rovers – stuff like that.

There is known condition that happens with businesses where new companies are actually more likely to succeed long term if they don’t have too much money. And in fact studies have shown that when companies get too much money, they spend it on frivolous things that don’t strengthen their value to their customers, and are more likely to fail. Scarcity in business is really a good thing, and I think it’s good for NASA too.

For NASA, it is widely known that the various NASA centers are very inefficient. When the Shuttle program ended, something like only a dozen NASA people lost their jobs, whereas Shuttle contractors took the full brunt of the budget reductions. Politically and structurally NASA needs to be more efficient with our taxpayer money, but it is seen by politicians as a funding stream for certain political districts and beneficiaries.

So what to do? Why is Congress forcing NASA to build the largest rocket in the world? Does NASA have experience in transportation that the commercial world doesn’t? No. Has there been a recognized need for payloads larger than 22.5mt that the commercial launch industry has refused to satisfy? No. Has Congress funded a NASA, DoD or NRO program that requires a rocket bigger than what ULA can provide? No.

My point is that NASA doesn’t suffer from a lack of funds, NASA suffers from a lack of proper use of it’s funding. I’ll comment on what I think NASA should be spending it’s budget on in a separate post.

Comment by Coastal Ron — March 2, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

NASA’s manned space program is supposed to be focused on beyond LEO missions. So spending $3 billion a year developing a beyond LEO spacecraft (SLS/MPCV) out of the $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight budget that Obama inherited from George Bush is not unreasonable.

However,spending $3 billion a year continuing an expensive LEO program (the ISS) does hurt NASA’s ability to finance and focus on beyond LEO efforts.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 2, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

I know when the topic of NASA’s budget and goals comes up, invariably the Bush Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) is held up as the gold standard of what we should be doing with NASA’s limited budget.

Some revere the VSE, but to me it was a proposal that got funded, but ultimately didn’t work out. Some of those same people that revere the VSE seem to forget that an earlier Republican President had a vision for a space station in LEO, and though it took far longer than originally thought, and nearly didn’t get built, today we have the International Space Station. The difference? One survived and the other one didn’t, but otherwise neither is deserving of any special reverence.

It’s the same in the business world, where people think if you build a better mousetrap that the world will beat a path to their door. It takes more than a good idea to make a successful product, and in the case of the VSE, it takes more than saying “return to the Moon by the year 2020” to make a successful space program.

With the ISS, 14 other nations thought the ISS was a good idea too, and are contributing funding for not only building it, but using it too. It’s recognized that the ISS would not have survived if not for it being an international program, and that should be a lesson for proponents of any large NASA program in the future. Congress quickly agreed to kill the Constellation program because there were no stakeholders to disagree – no one cried out on the floor of Congress, no public outcry of not returning to the Moon. Turns out that no one really noticed. The VSE was a proposal that, in the end, was deemed to be uninspiring. Case closed. Learn from it and move on.

Should we have a “manned space program”? I’m inclined to say “No” for now. The decadal surveys that NASA’s Science Mission Directorate relies upon for direction is a good model to follow for science missions, but we have little consensus on the HSF side of the house. Not only can’t we agree on where we should go, but how we should get there. To provide funding for any new HSF program under those conditions would be stupid and wasteful. Let’s learn from the Constellation debacle, not repeat it.

Comment by Coastal Ron — March 2, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

Is there a US space program? Is there a coherent plan for US development of space? Yes and yes. The problem is that these activities are carried out by the US Department of Defense, not NASA.

Comment by Karl Hallowell — March 2, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

I saw that Daily Show episode, and Tyson was definitely wanting the audience to understand the benefits that we get from science.

Of course that’s a pretty big category, and for NASA some large swaths of it’s budget go to non-science things, so I don’t think Tyson was advocating for doubling NASA’s budget for something like the SLS, but more along the lines of doubling the funding for actual science programs – more observatories, more rovers – stuff like that.

There is known condition that happens with businesses where new companies are actually more likely to succeed long term if they don’t have too much money. And in fact studies have shown that when companies get too much money, they spend it on frivolous things that don’t strengthen their value to their customers, and are more likely to fail. Scarcity in business is really a good thing, and I think it’s good for NASA too.

For NASA, it is widely known that the various NASA centers are very inefficient. When the Shuttle program ended, something like only a dozen NASA people lost their jobs, whereas Shuttle contractors took the full brunt of the budget reductions. Politically and structurally NASA needs to be more efficient with our taxpayer money, but it is seen by politicians as a funding stream for certain political districts and beneficiaries.

So what to do? Why is Congress forcing NASA to build the largest rocket in the world? Does NASA have experience in transportation that the commercial world doesn’t? No. Has there been a recognized need for payloads larger than 22.5mt that the commercial launch industry has refused to satisfy? No. Has Congress funded a NASA, DoD or NRO program that requires a rocket bigger than what ULA can provide? No.

My point is that NASA doesn’t suffer from a lack of funds, NASA suffers from a lack of proper use of it’s funding.

Comment by Coastal Ron — March 2, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams – March 2, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

“NASA’s manned space program is supposed to be focused on beyond LEO missions.”

When did that get announced? It must be news to Congress, because they haven’t funded any beyond LEO missions, unless you count the potential test flight of the MPCV in ten years (and that might not happen because of safety issues). Congress hasn’t even funded a use for the SLS, not that you need a mega-rocket to leave LEO.

This gets back to a lack of consensus. Marcel represents a minority thinks NASA should focus on going back to the Moon. Another minority thinks we should be pushing on to Mars. And yet another minority thinks we should be going to an asteroid or otherwise becoming a space-faring nation instead of doing more flags & footprint photo-ops, or otherwise trying to turn NASA into a mining conglomerate.

Who is right? Well until we get consensus, none of them are. And until we get consensus on what we should be doing, it doesn’t make sense to give NASA any more money than what they are already getting. In fact it might be a good time to cut NASA’s budget. For fiscal responsibility reasons, I would be OK with the cancellation of the JWST if it kept similar fiscal disasters from happening in the future. And the SLS? I’d be OK with cutting that whole budget out of NASA when it gets canceled. After all, NASA is not an entitlement program – right?

Comment by Coastal Ron — March 2, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

Comment by Helen McQueen — March 1, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

If you are seriously interested in what that societal rationale you are talking about is I suggest you read the following from this website:

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2011/04/a-rationale-for-cislunar-space/

Additionally for an historical perspective you might want to read the book The Extraterrestrial Imperative by Krafft Ehricke.

Seriously to imply that no thought has gone into practical motivations is simply not true. Even if you do not agree with the conclusions reached by the sources noted above (and many others) that is not the same thing as claiming they do not exist.

Comment by Joe — March 2, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

Here are a couple excerpts from the article “Top 10 Fiscally Responsible Defense Cuts”
by Lawrence J. Korb, Laura Conley, Alex Rothman

“Terminate the Marine Corps’s Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle ($9-10 billion in savings by 2020)

Permanently reduce the number of U.S. military personnel stationed in Europe and Asia ($80 billion in savings by 2020)

Cancel the V-22 Osprey program ($10-12 billion by 2020)

Reduce procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ($16.8 billion by 2015)

Retire and do not replace two existing carrier battle groups and associated air wings ($3 billion per year)

In real terms, U.S. defense spending is now higher than at any point since World War II, an enormous 10 percent increase over the peak of President Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup.”

These numbers for tanks, planes, and ships are just a sampling of DOD budget numbers that make the NASA budget look like chump change. There a dozens of examples of programs with smaller numbers that cumulatively add up to mind boggling amounts of money. I have personal experience with a few- like Deepwater. You want to get a migraine headache just google what lockmart and grumman did with the money the coast guard handed them.

We have the money for a Beyond Earth Orbit space program. Their is absolutely no doubt about this- despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from private space cheap junk dealers.

It is just a question of what is most profitable for the defense industry. Historically the space program is hard money- spaceships have to work.

Most of the billions spent on military wonder weapons result in shiny looking machines sitting somewhere doing nothing.

That is where the money for our space program is.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 2, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

I listened to Tyson last night on Coast to Coast AM- a conspiracy theory/UFO radio show occasionally visited by celebrity scientists like Kaku and couple others. He made the point that NASA has always spent most of it’s budget on Human Space Flight and the crying about science being neglected is mostly theater (my words, not his). He also pointed out that the moon race was threat driven. When we won the space race the threat and the money receded.

IMO their is another threat now looming that has been overshadowed by the cold war and terrorism. The threat started with that crater in the Yucatan, continues with the great silence out there when their should be noise from planets like ours- and finally from recent advances in genetic modification that could easily render us extinct as a species.

The space race is not over- it has only begun. Tyson was quite explicit on the extinction of species last night. I was listening.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 2, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

Amen Paul

I would like to point out our National Defense University Space Power Theory Book.

http://www.ndu.edu/press/spacepower.html

The fundamental problem at NASA is that at least for the past two decades goals, plans, and their execution have been based only on answering scientific questions. While science in and of itself is a noble cause, it is insufficient to justify the expenditure of funds that are required.

Without economic development as a centerpiece and without people who understand this in charge of the goals and the funding, we will continue to not make progress.

Comment by Dennis Wingo — March 3, 2012 @ 11:15 am

NASAWatch crossed post and lost/never got my password word over there, and I will cross post here:)
“Steve_Whitfield

“There’s something that I didn’t see addressed in either Paul’s article or the Tyson plea for doubling NASA’s budget (although I may have just missed it), and that’s the fact that they didn’t break the budget allocations down in any detail; they just talked about the total amount being doubled. I realize that the situation (like sitting next to Jon Stewart) doesn’t always allow one to go into detail, but an extra sentence or two would probably suffice.

We know that, for better or for worse (depending on where you sit) Congress doesn’t just hand over a lump sum and say, “go to it, NASA.” They allocate and withhold money on a program by program basis, plus things like R&D, which they often try to micro-allocate for as well.

So if Congress doubled the NASA budget but specified that the added money was all to be spent on SLS, we wouldn’t really gain anything. Likewise, if Congress doubled the NASA budget but specified that none of it could be spent on either R&D or commercial programs, again we wouldn’t really gain anything, in fact, we’d lose big time.”

I think the people at NASA are smart enough to figure out what is right direction [some of them- though not all of them- or the top leadership]. That is why I think if you going to throw money at NASA, it would better to start another NASA.

But in terms details of what I think NASA should spend money on- they should do a lunar program of exploration which relates to discovery details regarding prospects of commercially mining the Moon. And Mining water being a large part of that focus. Part the lunar exploration and part exploration or space activity in general is that NASA should develop a system in which allows them to re-fuel spacecraft in space. Or develop rocket fuel depots.
The purpose of rocket fuel depots, is to lower cost of operations in space. Because it can lower operations in space, that means there is a market for rocket fuel in space. So rocket fuel depots in space is a market.
And starting new markets in space should be one of the highest priority of NASA. The more markets in space should seen as way to grow NASA budget. Markets mean more public involvement, and more perception by Congress that NASA should have a bigger budget.
If NASA was actually opening the space frontier, was a significant sector which providing lot’s of high paying private sector jobs, with businesses having high tech growth [lots of billion dollar companies] then why would NASA budget be somewhere around 100 billion dollars per year?
Now starting any market will take time- it something that could take decade or more to get to the point where it’s substantial. A measure of this would company going public which 10 billion and this occurring with different companies every year or so. You have something an Amazon or Groupon but of course something to do with space. So NASA wouldn’t get 100 billion budget within a year or two of something like start up like SpaceX or Virgin Galactic [neither have gone public] which somewhat related the market rocket fuel in space, instead such thing could take a decade or two.
The point isn’t that NASA should get increase in budget, but rather it’s just will be the result of having more markets in space and space will be more important. If it’s important, one count Congress finding ways wasting too much tax dollar on it [that isn't in doubt]. The idea the Congress is frugal is crazy- NASA’s problem is NASA isn’t important.
NASA needs to start markets. But must first help start one market. And rocket fuel in space should the first market.
Other markets will mining on the moon [will start with lunar water], transportation in Cislunar, electrical power in Cislunar, rocket fuel on the Moon, and many other markets, which could include PGM mining, lunar sample return, lunar exploration, lunar research, space tourism, etc.
So NASA should work towards being one customer for rocket fuel in space, and needs develop lunar program [which includes refilling in orbit and at lunar surface- with rocket fuel shipped from Earth. And needs to determine the scale of how much it demonstrate techniques and prototypes of actually doing lunar mining. Then NASA need to end it's lunar exploration program, transitions to exploring other bodies such as Mars.
The extent that NASA makes bases, should geared to idea that either these bases will abandoned or crewed in minimal cost so as not interfere with funding further exploration projects [Manned Mars, asteroids, outer planet major mission- doing all but assigning priority as to order these will be done- which could gain greater knowledge in terms of priority based on experience with Lunar exploration program- and simply a decade of time could affect things in unknown ways. Though favor the idea using a significant amount lunar produced rocket for Manned Mars. And I think lunar produced rocket fuel could significantly lower the cost of rocket fuel AND I think Manned Mars should huge amounts rocket fuel in order to get crew to Mars in about 2 month or less. And lunar rocket fuel could used to get crew back from Mars also very quickly. Getting quickly back to earth is not as critical, maybe 2-3 months. Though I would not put lunar rocket fuel on critical path of Mars or any other exploration. It should not a requirement to wait or hurry up any lunar mining operation- other the obvious incentive o having potential large demand for rocket fuel for the Mars program.]
So, NASA should do lunar program and be largely finished within 10 to 15 years from the start [which should be yesterday].

Comment by gbaikie — March 4, 2012 @ 4:47 am

> A real goal offers an increase in quality of life for the taxpayer

I would put it more broadly. A real goal is what the taxpayer finds of value. Does seeing images from the rovers on Mars increase my quality of life? Yes, but only in an intangible way. Yet based upon how popular are the news reports about their discoveries, it seems to me that tax payers have no problem with their money being spent on the rovers even though the value basically comes down to “inspiration”. I would say that the rather expensive operations to and at the ISS are yet even less of apparent value to the tax payer and yet the ISS got funded year after year despite what value to the individual tax payer?

So, my point is that value to the individual taxpayer has not, is not, and will not necessarily be the defining criteria for what is funded and to what level. There are other factors. So, something like the construction of a cis-lunar infrastructure which results in the permanently opening up the solar system could be an adequate rationale for a new direction for our space program.

Comment by JohnHunt — March 4, 2012 @ 9:46 am

I have trouble understanding the fundamental argument against VSE… Was it “unbelievable”?

Is it unbelievable to work toward exploiting the Moon’s resources and relative convenient location for further exploration?

Is it unbelievable to develop automated material processing stations on the Moon?

Is it unbelievable to develop orbiting logistics stations for fueling, solar power collection, and vehicle integration?

Is it unbelievable to expect a sound deep space science program to benefit from all the above human space infrastructure?

Is it unbelievable to have enough funding to stem the tide of NASA’s deteriorating Earth-bound infrastructure?

From what I can tell, the only things controversial about VSE was Ares design and the overall cost of the lunar expedition architecture. All of which could have resolved with more time and, as you have estimated, an approximate one third bump to the NASA budget. That would have been peanuts to the overall stimulus package the president enacted.

I can see all the above “unbelievable” initiatives being accomplished with a 100% boost to NASA’s budget. And as Tyson eloquently describes, it would result in an incalculable invigoration of our economy and the imaginations of millions of young students wondering why they need to learn math and science.

All for less than 1% of the national budget, and less than half of what we spent on Apollo… Oh, and about what we spend on pizza and cosmetics… That’s what’s unbelievable!!!

Comment by Dave — March 4, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

“NASA and the United States urgently need a believable, strategic space goal.”

This leads to the next question of what goal is in fact “believable.”

If by this Dr. Spudis is wondering what mission has any true validity then the answer is quite simple. Just as the space race was originally threat driven the only driver sufficiently powerful to create any future changes in policy is fear.

There is no profit so for any difference there must be a threat to what profit exists. This is the binary language of money and politics.

Though there is a valid threat it is not acknowledged for the simple reason that the existing “threat” is all by itself profitable enough to inspire the powers that be to ignore any distraction such as impacts or survival colonies.

When a threat to profit such as communism or terrorism becomes the means of profit itself then the original threat must not be allowed to disappear. Getting rid of the threat- the original objective- becomes the new threat. It is bizarre and dangerous.

The most serious external threat to life on this planet is asteroid or comet impacts. The most serious internal threat is genetically modified organisms. The solution to both is in space.

Unfortunately, as Dr. Spudis kindly continues to allow me to point out on his blog, as long as the easy money of cold war weapons and classified programs keep shareholders happy and politicians in office, we are in danger of extinction.

The space race is a race for survival and it never ended.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 4, 2012 @ 5:39 pm

Re: “JPL and APL do astounding things because each mission is driven by specific objectives. Each of those missions lives under an assumption of limited budgets, with the assumption that the mission must fly on an existing rocket, and so forth.”

While I whole-heartedly agree with the APL portion of this claim, it is hardly believable to mention “JPL” and “lives under an assumption of limited budgets” in the same sentence. All you have to do is look at MSL, 2 years late, and billions over budget. Also, look at the Mars Sample Return efforts JPL has led for almost 20 years now-every plan comes with a huge budget and sample return is always 10 years away from the the day you read the report. Just read the NRC Planetary Science Decadal Survey. They say if we can’t come up with more affordable Mars Sample Return, then the current thinking should be scrapped, and not worked on until the next decade. JPL has done some amazing things, but hardly under budget, or even on budget.

However, it would be unfair to only pick on JPL. All NASA centers have the same mind set of, “we’ll just keep getting money because we are who we are”, and a certain expectation or entitlement mentality that the money will keep flowing. Paul’s comments, and those from others above are right, that more money will likely only mean more jobs and powerpoint charts. And as more money comes in, each center would look to expand their ‘expertise’ into more areas, duplicating what other centers are already working on, and increasing the inefficiency (though this has already happened in spades). And of course, the politicians have a vested interest in keeping things status quo, jobs and money going to their districts. Sen. Mikulski will make sure the Webb Space Telescope will fly, no matter what the cost. Sen. Shelby will make sure that work on SLS will continue, regardless if a rocket ever really gets built.

So, a doubling of NASA’s budget would no more cure the ills of our nation’s space program than the amazing elixirs of a century ago. What needs to change is the way NASA is managed, both internally at the NASA Centers, and externally by the politicians. Unfortunately, my faith in either of those two happening any time soon is fleeting.

Comment by JohnG — March 5, 2012 @ 10:12 am

The doubling of the NASA budget is not really the issue. Stability in he NASA budget has always been the issue.

There can be no debate that NASA has contributed more to the private sector in terms of innovation, technology and assitane in acquiring both, than any other agency in the US goverment. The US economic growth during the 60s and 70s are clear examples.

The problem has always been that NASA, like all government agencies, lives, and dies, by the annual appropriations grist-mill of Congress. And, when the public is not “captivated” by NASA successes, it’s a great time to raid the cookie-jar as no one seems to be paying attention.

This needs to stop if NASA is ever going to get out of its “fits and stops” reactionary cycle.

There was rumor of a connction between growth in national GNP and growth in the NASA buget in a locked proportion. This was supposed to hold NASA accountible for even greater resource sharing with private industry.

But if NASA’s budget were “locked” to a fix fraction of either GNP or to the national budget itself, say 1%, there would be a greater sense of stability, from which the agency could develop true long-term plans, without the fear of short-term budgeting.

You cannot expect tha NASA mule to pull the nation’s technological wagon into the future if you keep taking away more grain every time it get a job done. The mule will die.

Remember the words of architect Daniel Burnham…”Make no small plans. They lack the fire to stur men’s blood.”

Comment by Steven W. Jochums — March 5, 2012 @ 10:18 am

@Coastal Ron

You could totally eliminate the NASA budget and that still wouldn’t even represent a half of one percent of a reduction in Federal spending. So Congress cutting just a few hundred million dollars from the NASA’s budget to show that it being fiscally responsible is simply an exercise in futility.

But cutting a program that has historically created jobs and increased economic growth is fiscally irresponsible especially in a nation that’s having trouble creating jobs and increasing economic growth.

We live on an overpopulated world of limited resources but within a solar system of virtually unlimited resources.

Unfortunately, in the US, we appear to be in denial that NASA has had any positive effects on our economy. People seem to think that the satellite based telecommunications that we utilize practically every day somehow appeared by magic! There would be no cable or satellite television or GPS navigation technology if it weren’t for our investment in space. And without space technology, this would be a much poorer nation and a much poorer world.

Nations like China and Japan clearly understand the economic advantages of investing in lunar resources which could allow those nations to economically dominate cis-lunar space. Asian countries are focused on the Moon because they want to grow their economies.

In 2013, China plans to land the first object from Earth on the lunar surface (a rover) since 1976. China plans a sample return mission in 2017. Manned missions are planned by the Chinese by the 2020s. As the top lunar scientist in China says: “If China doesn’t explore the moon, we will have no say in international lunar exploration and can’t safeguard our proper rights and interests.”

Unfortunately, President Obama and his science advisor, Holdren, seem to view manned spaceflight as simply a flag planting exercise instead of a long term investment in our technological and economic future.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 5, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

“National Defense University Space Power Theory Book”

Thanks for the link.

I continue to be very excited about beam propulsion and so I do not discout the importance of space based solar power. Unfortunately very few people take the idea of titanic solar power space stations providing cheap electicity seriously.

Not when covering Nevada in solar panels would power the entire country at far less cost.

Considering the NASA research going on under Kevin Parkin with microwave power transmission for beam propulsion, would not this be a more practical avenue for utilizing space base solar power?

Beam propulsion is the only likely candidate besides nuclear energy that can actually get us out into the solar system.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 5, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

@JohnG: Fair comments.

Comment by Ron Menich — March 6, 2012 @ 9:47 am

Perhaps there is one sad consensus out there: that BEO human exploration is a bad joke. Gingrich proposed a lunar base and was pilloried on Saturday Night Live and elsewhere. Columnists trumpeted that Gingrich’s comments on a lunar base would be his Michael-Dukakis-in-the-tank moment that would deep-six his candidacy. Other candidates hem and haw on what NASA should do and say pleasant nothingnesses.

I’m not arguing for Gingrich’s particular lunar base vision. But my observation is that a significant portion of the American public didn’t react too positively to his idea of a lunar base. My speculation is that the public have come to perceive human spaceflight as a waste of money.

Comment by Ron Menich — March 6, 2012 @ 9:55 am

[...] good article called “The Once and Future Moon,” brings up some of the issues. Neil deGrasse Tyson was on the Daily Show recently. He [...]

Pingback by How to get from here to there… « rocketscientistsays — March 6, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

When Romney lied and said that a Moon base would cost trillions of dollars, most folks weren’t too happy. But most Americans have no idea how little is spent on our manned space program. A poll back in 1997 showed that most Americans thought we were spending about 20% of the Federal budget on Space. That would be over $700 billion a year instead of nearly $18 billion a year. Maybe we should convince that American public that we can reduce the NASA budget by 90% and only spend $70 billion a year on our space program:-)

Either NASA is doing an extremely poor job at communicating how much its spending to the American people or most Americans are just extremely ignorant about how much the Federal government actually spends on various programs.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 6, 2012 @ 8:49 pm

“And until we get consensus on what we should be doing, it doesn’t make sense to give NASA any more money than what they are already getting. In fact it might be a good time to cut NASA’s budget.”

So terrified of the SLS is private space that their advocates moan out loud like this constantly.
Doesn’t make sense?
A good time to cut?

Puh-lease.

When the true agenda of commercial space is exposed to the public- endless circles at high altitude for rich tourists- The hobby rocket companies will close their doors and there will be nothing but scorn and disgust for the whole silly scam. The Enron of the space age.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 6, 2012 @ 10:50 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 5, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

“So Congress cutting just a few hundred million dollars from the NASA’s budget to show that it being fiscally responsible is simply an exercise in futility.”

No, it shows they are being fiscally responsible if the program was being mismanaged or otherwise not meeting it’s intended goals. Waste is waste, not matter if it’s $1 or $1B.

“But cutting a program that has historically created jobs and increased economic growth is fiscally irresponsible especially in a nation that’s having trouble creating jobs and increasing economic growth.”

First of all NASA is an agency, not a “program”. NASA runs lots of “programs”, and other than the hoped for spin-offs from the ISS (new medicines, new materials, etc.) I’m not aware of any “jobs and increased economic growth” that NASA produces that are different than spending money at NIH, NPS, DOT, DOD or any other agency.

“There would be no cable or satellite television or GPS navigation technology if it weren’t for our investment in space.”

Where would we be today if the U.S. hadn’t funded the Transcontinental railroad? How far back in history are you going to keep pointing? It doesn’t matter what glorious things NASA did 40 years ago, it only matters what it’s doing with our taxpayer money today. What value is NASA providing today? Knowledge for sure, but that’s like filling up a piggybank for the future.

What has NASA contributed in the past ten years that has made it to the marketplace and produced significant revenue? DARPA drives far more innovation than NASA does, mainly because NASA spends so much money on salaries, facilities, contractors and big pieces of metal (i.e. rockets) that it doesn’t have much left over for real innovation.

NASA should be funded for the things that we feel benefit our citizens, which I think should include exploration, but not exploration at any cost. Economists understand that scarcity can be a good thing, and the lack of scarcity (i.e. no threat of losing funding) is bad. I vote to keep NASA’s budget as is, and use the threat of loosing funding as one of the ways to keep programs on budget/schedule.

Comment by Coastal Ron — March 7, 2012 @ 1:54 am

“I vote to keep NASA’s budget as is,”

Good for you Ron!

I vote to cut all the funding for SpaceX which is years behind schedule and has yet to deliver anything anywhere.

And cannot deliver a thing beyond earth orbit anyway.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 7, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

Comment by GaryChurch — March 7, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

“I vote to cut all the funding for SpaceX which is years behind schedule and has yet to deliver anything anywhere.”

We all have our favorites, both to keep and to kill. However in the spirit of nonpartisanship there should be an agreed upon criteria for determining what programs that are currently funded should go on the chopping block.

The Department of Defense is constrained by the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment which requires cost growth of more than 15% to be notified to the United States Congress, and calls for the termination of programs whose total cost grew by more than 25% over the original estimate, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation certifying that the program is essential to the national security, that no suitable alternative of lesser cost is available, that new estimates of total program costs are reasonable, and that the management structure is (or has been made) adequate to control costs.

That doesn’t address whether a program is worthwhile, although by default Congress and the President feel a program is worthwhile if they have approved it, but it does make it more likely to catch programs before they get out of control. Such a mechanism applied to NASA might have forced a quicker resolution to both JWST and the Constellation program, and it’s possible each would have had opposite results (i.e. JWST canceled and CxP restructured and continued).

Regarding SpaceX, if you’re referencing the COTS program then both SpaceX and Orbital are within their approved budgets, and according to NASA, which approved a soft schedule for the program initially, they are not late (late being letting the ISS run out of needed supplies). We’ll know by the end of the year whether that changes.

Oh, and in a couple of years I would hope you would apply the same criteria for the SLS and MPCV that you do for SpaceX – are they are on schedule, and have they delivered anything anywhere. Guess we’ll have to wait to see…

Comment by Coastal Ron — March 7, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

Comment by GaryChurch — March 7, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

Hi Gary,

Space X was originally intended to fly its first cargo mission to ISS in November 2009 and has yet to fly a prox-ops test mission, so it is indeed more than two years behind schedule.

I really like the contention that NASA now says Space X has a “soft” schedule (which basically means no schedule at all).

Comment by Joe — March 8, 2012 @ 8:50 am

Hi Joe,

Even if if was anywhere close to being on the schedule they promised, the real trick is to get beyond earth orbit with a hobby rocket. It cannot be done. There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

The fuel depot deception continues with no one wondering why after 30 years of space stations no one has ever bothered to try and store even mildly cryogenic LOX, let alone hydrogen a few degrees above absolute zero.

They will be wondering soon enough when it is realized that flying tourists to a tin can going in endless circles and escaping earth’s gravitational field and traveling to another body are two very different things.

Private space is a dead end. The only hope for beyond earth orbit human space flight has two five segment SRB’s on the bottom and a capsule with an escape tower on top.
And it is on the way.

Comment by GaryChurch — March 8, 2012 @ 7:59 pm