NASA to get budget boost for exploration, says analyst

This article sounded promising.

NASA is sure to get an injection of cash to rescue its faltering human space exploration programme, says a well-connected space policy analyst.

source: NASA

Former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine says NASA needs at least $3 Billion more each year to "support meaningful human space exploration".

John Logsdon, a Washington insider, believes NASA will get their budget boost, but because of the economy & political situation thinks it might not be the full $3 Billion.

So, do you think it is worth an extra $3 Billion each year to send humans to go out and explore space?

I believe they are working on a 'swarm' type recognizance system now, they work together to collect data.

Also, the rovers proved their worth I think. The companies responsible for building them did an excellent job. Hopefully, they will figure out how to free the trapped rover before winter hits it... Isn't there a 'arm' on the rover? Couldn't it just leverage itself up using the arm? Like a Back Hoe...???

Anyway, Voyageur's I & II are still flying through space (Last I heard) and are still being operated.

San Francisco, CA. - NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft has followed its twin Voyager 1 into the solar system's final frontier, a vast region at the edge of our solar system where the solar wind runs up against the thin gas between the stars.

source: voyager.jpl.nasa.gov

I think getting humans into space is important. I think a resonable goal to start with would be a Moon base. Continue to use robotics to explore asteroids, other planets, Moons, etc. But, at least get a Moon base started. No deterioration of orbit. Home base for exploration even further out once technology and advantages are realized.

So, I think it is worth the $3 Billion. Compared to the Defense Budget, a small sliver off the pie couldn't hurt...

Of course, the USA could work cooperatively with international partners to help fund the initiative.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by ByteChanger]

I hadn't given up on NASA getting more funding but I sure hope they can come up with a real plan for getting us off this rock. Even though it would be a long term plan, I'd like to see a push for manned Mars landing. But a lunar base wouldn't be too bad. I think it has to be one or the other, at least for the first half of this century.

We definitely need it. America/Earth needs a new frontier or new goal to drive towards, this stagnant era we are living in is in my eyes one of the reasons things are decaying. We are not progressing anymore, we should of had a moon base by now, if we already don't have em, but man if we could fund the space programs like we fund war, we would already be anti-grav, space colonizing species on the way towards a better tomorrow, just my 2 cents.

reply to post by Phage


Thanks guys. I'm glad there is a consensus. I totally agree you Phage, well said.

I think a Moon base would be an excellent launch pad for manned trips to Mars. Plus we would learn a lot in the process in preparation for a Mars base or other planets by that time... (hopefully) Like you said, long term.

I'd love to see a remote crew on the Moon, operating and controlling a bunch of 'rovers' or mining equipment and transmitting the data/cargo back to Earth or launching supplies to Mars.

Somewhat, like the show "Moon" (2009).

I suspect if a Moon base were setup, it would quickly become industrialized & commercialized. I can see Richard Branson (or heir) wanting to setup a hotel on the Moon for sure. Hopefully Virgin Galactic will succeed with their endeavors. I suppose its possible the original Moon base may start as a hotel. Nothing like supply & demand.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

reply to post by ByteChanger

A gentleman by the name of Robert Heinlein figured that out 60 years ago.
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 12/12/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by verastyle


Hi verastyle,

Yes, you have a very good point. I recently seen some charts depicting budgets/spending in the Apollo era, their "slice of the pie" was considerably increased at the time. I can't remember for sure, but I do think some funds were diverted from the MOD budget. But considering the USA/Russia relations at the time, I'm not positive, it may have been a bit of health, education, etc, etc...

After man landed on the moon, the budget dropped considerably... Goal accomplished.

So, you are right. If NASA could utilize just some of the MOD funding, just a slice. Technology would probably make another leap forward, hopefully towards further space exploration. Like you said, its long overdue.

It is good to hear you are strongly in favor of a Moon base. I think public opinion is a good indicator of what goals are prioritized. (sometimes)

Thanks for your reply!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ByteChanger

 

A gentleman by the name of Robert Heinlein figured that out 60 years ago.
en.wikipedia.org...

That is so cool. I'm going to have to read that book.

That reminds me... Didn't some guy actually lay claim to the moon? Stating, countries, nations, etc couldn't do it, but individuals were not mentioned in the treaty? I wonder what ever happened to that story... Last I heard, he was selling acrage on the moon.

Sounds fantastic if this guy was actually able to do it. But, it sounded a little bit like a scam. I'd want some good lawyers looking at the contracts.
And I haven't heard of him in a few years, so.... probably over ruled in court....


Thanks for the tip on the book, I like those prophetic sci-fi type stories...