Nasa-worthy of our money?

[TimeTraveler]

I am writing a research paper about NASA and our funding. It is an arguementative research paper, so I would like to hear both sides.

 

What benifits does NASA give to the non scientists of the world?

 

NASA's Budget for 2004 was $15.47 Billion, which is proposed to relatively stay the same and gradually increase to about $17 billion by 2009. currently it represents 0.7% of the yearly budget. You can read the 2005 budget presentation, in connection with the new vision of NASA here: (it is highlighted administrator O'Keefes budget presentation)

 

http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

 

Is this a reasonable amount for the designated tasks? What kind of benifits does this present humanity with besides just knowledge and understanding? What kind of long term goals or progress can be made from these types of missions?

[aurigus]

I'm a big fan of research for the sake of research.

 

But for those non-scientists that believe we should spend money elsewhere:

 

- NASA work has produced many things we now use in our daily lives: http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

- NASA stimulates the economy because of these products and also the raw amount of materials that must be manufactured to send things into space.

- NASA work may eventually lead to space or planet colonies which will prevent overpopulation of the earth.

- Space exploration stimulates the imagination of our young and not-so-young citizens.

[TimeTraveler]

Great reply thanks!

 

Also for this project I must interview an authority in the topic, I kind of picked a unique topic. Any suggestions for interview canidates?

 

I have six weeks to complete the project it is a 10 page essay. Im by no means looking for answers to copy or anything, just ideas and links to point me in the right directions

[ed84c]

According to this it costs 246 mil for a manned space flight yet they only spend 13 mil on 'deep impact' (checking for asteridos to hit earth i believe that means). Would the money not be more worthy invested into 'deep impact'?

[ed84c]

Not only that i have just noticed 197 million is spent on mars! SURELY there are more important matters at hand?!

[aurigus]

You'll probably have the best response, if you don't know someone that works at nasa, by contacting them here: http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html

 

See if you can arrange for someone to interview.

[aurigus]

My personal belief is that NASA could put as much money as they wanted into 'deep impact' research - meaning searching for asteroids that may hit earth or finding ways to divert them, but when that big one comes I don't have any faith we would have any ability to stop it.

[ed84c]

2800 1950DA hits, are we prepared enoguh for that on a mere 18 mil? (well if it were to hit soon)

[aurigus]

I'm more worried about the asteroid we don't see that hits us next year

 

The timeline on 1950DA is far enough in the future it isn't a worry quite yet.

 

Also, I'm hoping that by 2800 we have the technology to "evacuate the planet" - remember that show "Earth 2"

[ed84c]

Also' date=' I'm hoping that by 2800 we have the technology to "evacuate the planet" - remember that show "Earth 2"[/quote']

 

no

[Severian]

NASA are, largely speaking, a waste of money. They should take all the money off them and give it to particle physics instead!

 

Seriously though, I don't think much of NASA's program: the only decent space projects are things like Planck and Cassini.

[ed84c]

yeh human missions are expensive and pointless

[aurigus]

What about the projects which study "Earth Sciences" from outer space? Where do you think they get weather forecasts from and study global warming?

 

If you want to see what they spend money on, check out the proposal for 2005:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55524main_FY05%20Agency%20Summary-2.31.pdf

 

I do agree though, human spaceflight is too risky and has too much expensive (can you say life support systems?) to really get good 'bang for the buck'. Currently human spaceflight does not take up most of their budget and they realize robotic exploration is where its at.

[MolecularMan14]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5604

 

Personally, I feel that yes. I think that even though NASA is kind of in a crisis, it'll never recover, or advance if it is not funded. We dont want to lose an which would expand us from the Earth.

[[Tycho?]]

I'd say cut out most if not all of the human missions. Unmanned probes can usually accomplish the same task at a fraction of the cost and time.

[TimeTraveler]

Great responses thank you!

 

Do you think it would make sense economically to get other country's involved in our missions and do more joint efforts on the planned missions?

 

Do you think that any of these missions should be removed for missions you think would serve a better purpose?

 

Do you think we should put more funds into nasa to build a lunar or martian base, and if so, how would this in the future save us money on future missions?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

'']I'd say cut out most if not all of the human missions. Unmanned probes can usually accomplish the same task at a fraction of the cost and time.

What about medical missions? Doing tests on medicine in space is a lot better - the drugs can form differently in weightlessness. Also, for example, burn patients could be treated much better. They don't have to sit on a bed, on their burns, they can float around with no weight on the wounds.

Also humans can do a lot of things probes can't - they can do complicated experiments and such, repair their ship ingeniously, and so on.

[coquina]

Timetraveler -

 

My company (my dad started it) took off during the years of the space race. My dad was a machinist at NACA, the "National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics" http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ when we entered the Space Race, the acronym was changed to NASA.

 

He worked Langley Research Center, which initially was the lead center for manned space flight. When Kennedy made his challange to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade, my dad saw that in order to do it, NASA would have to outsource a lot of this work. Therefore, he took early retirement. He had a small shop that he ran part time, he bought more machinery and went into it full time.

 

I grew up in this very exciting time period, and learned the machinist's trade in the process. I remember when Surveyor landed on the moon and started sending pictures back to earth - one could see part of the craft in the pictures and in one of them, we could see a piece that we had built right here in this shop sitting up there on the moon. Oh - man, was that ever exciting!!!

 

We manufactured parts for Mercury, Gemini, Appolo, Viking (went to Mars), and Sky Lab. We also made parts that went on LDEF, the Long Duration Exposure Facility that stayed up much longer than expected, due to the Challanger explosion.

 

In the early days, we worked very closely with the engineers. They understood that machinists could teach them a lot about economical ways to build parts. If a machinist had an idea that would save time and money, it would be implemented.

 

We built all kinds of parts that eventually found there way into "spin-offs". We didn't always know what the end use would be of the parts we built. I was called once by a researcher from Johns Hopkins because our name was listed as the source for a part of a medical instrument.

 

You asked:

What benifits does NASA give to the non scientists of the world?

 

One example is carbon/epoxy. My company was involved in testing the very early samples of this material. We made "test specimens" - lots of pieces made to precisely length and width (to a tolerance of .0005" a half of 1/1000 of an inch. For those of you who think in milimeters that is about .013 mm) of different thicknesses, with different numbers and directions of laminations. This gave the scientists controlled material on which to perform their tests.

 

Carbon epoxy is now used in all sorts of sports equipment - tennis rackets, dirt bikes. It has dozens of other industrial uses too - in areas where light weight and high strength are critical.

[TimeTraveler]

Thanks Sandi. Is the company you grew up in still around today and if so do you still make parts for NASA?

[Guest wild_card_my]

WHy don't you interview Sandi instead? Or his dad... he should know how much nasa funding has helped him and his family...

[coquina]

Time Traveler -

 

Yes, my company is still around (it is 55 years old) - no, we don't make parts for NASA anymore. (They changed their contracting procedures, I can elaborate if you want.) My dad is dead, but I will be happy to try to answer your questions. I can tell you a lot about why NASA achieved success in the Apolo project and what I think needs to be changed for them to be successful now. I may be able to put you in touch with some people who work at NASA Langley now, or at least send some of your questions to them and see if they will answer.

 

I am a "she", BTW. No offense taken - it's a mistake that occurs often - not to many females that grew up in my line of work.

 

About the funding.... Space exploration is an extraordinarily costly venture, and an extraordinarily dangerous one. A piece of space junk the size of a marble can wreck a vehicle, despite our best precautions, but that doesn't mean we should not build the best we can. Recently a mistake was made that lost a vehicle because someone made a mathmatical miscalculation. People make mistakes - the programs need to be checked and rechecked. Perhaps they ought to have three people do the same calculation - if you don't get three answers that are exactly alike, somebody screwed up.

 

The corner cutting has got to stop.

 

I think NASA needs to concentrate on one major space project at a time. I think they need to put together the best vehicle money can buy.

 

There is an old, old saying that goes:

For want of a nail , the shoe was lost:

For want of the shoe , the horse was lost;

For want of the horse , the rider was lost;

For want of the rider , the battle was lost;

For want of the battle , the kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a nail.

 

A more modern comparison would be putting el cheapo tires on a Rolls Royce - you're cruising down the interstate at 70 and a tire blows out - car and passengers, all toast. You still have to accept the fact that if you put the best tires money can buy on the car, somebody can still run a stoplight and the result is the same.

[YT2095]

isn`t Teflon also a product developed by Nasa?

 

no more Eggs welded to the frying pan

I`de consider that a humble but worthy contribution

[TimeTraveler]

Yes, my company is still around (it is 55 years old) - no, we don't make parts for NASA anymore. (They changed their contracting procedures, I can elaborate if you want.) My dad is dead, but I will be happy to try to answer your questions. I can tell you a lot about why NASA achieved success in the Apolo project and what I think needs to be changed for them to be successful now. I may be able to put you in touch with some people who work at NASA Langley now, or at least send some of your questions to them and see if they will answer.

 

Sorry to hear about your dad, sounds like he lived an extraordinary life. I will take you up on your offer to put me in touch or send some questions to NASA, but it won't be for a few more weeks if that is okay with you. I need to chew through these books and do some of the outline/thesis first. After that I should have a good idea of what questions I want to ask.

 

I appreciate your help very much

 

NASA are, largely speaking, a waste of money. They should take all the money off them and give it to particle physics instead!

 

Seriously though, I don't think much of NASA's program: the only decent space projects are things like Planck and Cassini.

 

What do you think we should do differently Severian?

[Ophiolite]

What kind of benifits does this present humanity with besides just knowledge and understanding? What kind of long term goals or progress can be made from these types of missions?

A couple of points, that have perhaps already been made in a slightly different way.

 

I think it is important not to dismiss the importance of the knowledge and understanding to the general public. Without NASA we would not know what the face of Mars looks like; the Galilean satellites of Jupiter would be specks of light, not distinct worlds; the complexities of Saturn's rings would be unknown; no man would have stepped on the moon. The world we inhabit today has a feel that is different for everyone because of these discoveries. As an example, concern for the environment began to be a public concern when the first photograph of Earth in its entirety was published.

 

And to emphasise an earlier post, without satellites our navigation (at sea and in the air), communications, news media, weather forecasting, land management, environmental monitoring would cease to function. Now the majority of satellites fulfilling these roles were not put there by NASA, but without the lead provided by NASA it is doubtful they would have been developed.

Which leads, neatly, to my final comment. NASA is most effective when it is pioneering, not when it is operating a trucking service to near Earth orbit. It should function as a catalyst, and that way it can avoid becoming a catastrophe.

[coquina]

Which leads, neatly, to my final comment. NASA is most effective when it is pioneering, not when it is operating a trucking service to near Earth orbit. It should function as a catalyst, and that way it can avoid becoming a catastrophe.

 

I think NASA is spread too thin and is trying to do too much with too little.

 

Here's the web site for NASA's Langley Research Center.

http://www.larc.nasa.gov/

It has 4 components, aeronautics, earth science, space technology, and structures and materials.

 

Here's the page that shows all the NASA Facilities:

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/OrganizationIndex.html They are into all kinds of things that have nothing to do with space.

 

I think there is too much under the same umbrella. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

 

This is probably true for a lot of other government entities. Take Earth Science, for instance. We already have the USGS, NOAA, and God only knows how many other government facilities with their finger in this pie. Sure, a lot has been learned about earth science by using satellites, and if the government wants NASA to launch them, so be it. However, NASA shouldn't have to be involved with the actual research and development of how the satellite works.

 

Also - structures and materials - a lot of them were initially developed for space and were spun off into the private sector. However, the Military also develops materials - why not have one agency whose task it is to develop new materials, whether they be for space, the military, or other uses.

 

Then - create the National Organization for Space Exploration and limit its agenda to human space exploration. ( acronym, NOSEX.)