Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-04 12:24:38

What could NASA do if say their annual funding was cut to 12 billion a year and then allowed to only rise at the rate of inflation for a decade?

I've always been struck by Dr. Zubrins observation,

"In the real world, you can buy a lot with a billion dollars".

Perhaps we concentrate too much of our thoughts on increasing NASA funding than we do on better and more economical management.

cIclops · 2008-03-04 12:31:27

What could NASA do if say their annual funding was cut to 12 billion a year and then allowed to only rise at the rate of inflation for a decade?

Far less obviously. That's about a 1/3 cut in their entire budget. NASA is already stretched financially, there's very little room for cuts. So if that budget cut was spread across all NASA'a program, roughly 1/3 of them would be canceled. Alternatively the whole science program could be shut down, or both Shuttle & ISS. Great idea, destroy one of the most productive research and technology programs in the world. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would applaud.

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-04 20:27:27

I'm just not convinced that NASA is spending the money it has very efficiently.

I'm betting the Russians are getting by with far less than 12 billion dollars equivalent per year and with inferior technology at that.

Martian Republic · 2008-03-04 20:28:09

Actually, NASA should be a science driver for the US Economy for developing new technologies and generating business activities US Economy as a result of there activities in space. An example of that kind of Science Driver for the US Economy and generating business activities in the US Economy was the Moon Landing of the Nineteen Sixties. We had new technological spine off of fourteen dollars for every one dollar invested in the NASA Moon Mission Project back into the US Economy in the Business sector.

If we went back to those policies of Kennedy and his Moon Mission type space program, we would invest more money into the space program and not less. We would be more aggressive in investing in new technologies and not less aggressive in developing new technologies. We would be after the big return on our investments back into the US Economy. We would be investing in second generation shuttle, nuclear powered deep space space ships, lunar bases and planning for a Mars Mission in a twenty to thirty year time frame.

But, if we arbitrarily cut NASA budget by 1/3 and continue with no National space Goal for NASA, then that would spell the end of any serious space program from the United States for the foreseeable future.

Larry,

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-04 20:35:16

12 billion a year raised by about 5% per year translates if my off the cuff math is correct to spending 130 billion dollars over the course of a decade.

Do we really believe that the U.S. can't get anywhere in space spending 130 billion dollars?

Dr. Zubrins Mars Sem-Direct Program was once cost estimated by NASA at 55 billion dollars over 10 years. And this was after NASA deliberately scaled it up by 50%.

Zubrin originally estimated that Mars Direct should cost 30 billion dollars.

Increase Zubrins program estimate by FOUR TIMES.

You still get 120 billion over 10 years.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-05 17:03:11

NASA does a great many things besides manned spaceflight, and Bob Zubrin's MarsDirect is too small to accomplish much nor is it particularly safe.

If half of NASA's budget goes to manned flight, and DRM-V or other Mars plan costs about double what MarsDirect does, then that is really cutting your $120Bn budget figure too close if not well below what it would cost.

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-05 18:16:52

NASA does a great many things besides manned spaceflight, and Bob Zubrin's MarsDirect is too small to accomplish much nor is it particularly safe.

I don't particularly care about either point.

The most basic and rudimentary manned mission would accomplish more scientifically than 100 unmanned missions (the samples brought back alone would do that).

As for safety.

I'll say it again,

If you can get 100 astronauts volunteering for the mission knowing full well the dangers, then it is safe enough.

Martian Republic · 2008-03-05 19:42:04

12 billion a year raised by about 5% per year translates if my off the cuff math is correct to spending 130 billion dollars over the course of a decade.
Do we really believe that the U.S. can't get anywhere in space spending 130 billion dollars?
Dr. Zubrins Mars Sem-Direct Program was once cost estimated by NASA at 55 billion dollars over 10 years. And this was after NASA deliberately scaled it up by 50%.
Zubrin originally estimated that Mars Direct should cost 30 billion dollars.
Increase Zubrins program estimate by FOUR TIMES.
You still get 120 billion over 10 years.

The question is:

What are you trying to accomplish in space and what do you want to get done over the next twenty to thirty years or so?

Once you answer that question, then you can decide on the type of National Space Program that the United States Needs to have in space. Just about everybody on this board refuses to answer this question and then they doesn't understand why we don't have a good space program at NASA. A good Space Program will look like the Kennedy Moon Mission Program and what Kennedy intended to follow through other other programs like Orion nuclear space ships for deep space space mission. He understood that Chemical Rocket won't get us where we wanted to go in space and was only first effort to get us going.

We haven't had a decent Space Program since then. Oh, we have done things and we have even done good things space, but no mission orientation mission like the Apollo Moon Landing and the intended setting up of the Lunar Bases that were to follow. I watched NASA do Great things for seven years and then I watched it turn into what it is now and with no vision. They still do great things in space, but it has no purpose or reason to exist or justify our reason to keep funding it.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-06 14:10:47

I kind of agree with where MR is coming from: if all we want is a mad dash "Martian Apollo" to satisfy our "lust for red dust" with the most risk and least science return that NASA can get away with, then yeah NASA could make do with much less.

But thats not the way it should be done

Frankly, I'm sure you could find minimally qualified astronauts who would go regardless of the risk, even if it were well into the double-digits. Their risk preference is irrelevant, its kind of silly to even think about it, because the real limiting risk factor is what is morally acceptable to ask for volunteers.

And right now, that points to "a few percent" or so; I simply doubt that a cheap rendition of MarsDirect, with its crew-on-rocket launch, tiny volume & mass margins, and all-around "cut off the toothbrush handles" approach will be too risky if the mission is big enough to accomplish anything.

Also, as much as you might wish the science motive to be tossed out the airlock, a Mars mission will necessarily have some minimum science requirements. At least some people in power will not share your lust for red dust, and are in the Mars business for the science.

Lastly, we have got to move to a sustainable Mars program fairly quickly if we are to avoid a Martian Apollo situation, where people get bored and the plug gets pulled. An affordable Mars base will be crucial, and the best way to do this on a fixed budget will be to reuse and upgrade existing hardware to make a base practical. MarsDirect lacks the modularity, capacity, and upgrade options to grow beyond "just enough to get there."

So thats why a worthwhile Mars program will cost quite a bit more.

cIclops · 2008-03-06 16:08:02

The human exploration of Mars will be the most difficult undertaking ever attempted. Not only will it be enormously expensive, it will take many years of planning, development and testing. An early mission failure will likely cause very long delays in the program, not many will be tolerated unless a real change happens in the minds of the public, media and governments. Even less risk will be tolerated if it's done on the cheap, and the risk of program termination is higher.

Spaceflight is risky. ESAS estimated a LOC for a lunar mission at 1.8%, Mars will surely be far higher as the mission times are much longer. In 2008 NASA are carrying a combined LOC of 5.5% for Shuttle/Soyuz and an accumulated risk of 14% from 2005 for the current campaign to finish ISS.

The enormity of the task requires a robust, substantial infrastructure and that will need a huge amount of funding.

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-06 18:00:07

For a manned Mars mission, I think a 25% potential mission failure (crew survives but the majority of the objectives are not met) and a 10% risk of loss of the crew is acceptable.

In the early days of Mercury, the Mercury seven were told their chances of death were about 10%.

That worked out just fine.

Personally, I think danger can be leveraged in such a way to increase public support for the manned program by making it more thrilling and exciting.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-06 20:24:15

A 25% LOM is too high for any large space program, because as Ciclops says the thing will just fail too often and thus cause too many delays. It would also wreck the credibility of the program and hence its continued funding for subsequent missions.

A 10% LOC is also too high I would imagine, with NASA barely stomaching a ~1-2% LOC for Shuttle.

You should get it through your head that things have changed since the days of the Moon race are over; the Cold War really was a world war, which was a test of wills between the democratic west and communist east, and a major (if not THE major) front in the struggle was the battle of prestige. And in war, higher risks we ask of some citizens are more acceptable than in peace.

Martian Republic · 2008-03-06 21:54:30

I would like to agree with GCNRevenger on the risk that you think is too high. You don't accept risk any higher than you have to accept just because there will be some one that will agree to take those risk for you and put there life on the line for you. If we want a viable space program, we have to both go for the most efficient and as safe as possible or as safe as we can make it with what ever technologies that we can develop to do that project.

Let take your idea of a 25% loss factor and apply that loss factor to the air lines. We are going to lose 25% of our air craft every time they take off. That would be the end of the air line business in a very sort period of time.

Such loses are completely and totally unacceptable for either the air lines or for NASA and so such an idea should be forgotten of accepting 25% losses for a space flight to Mars.

Larry,

cIclops · 2008-03-07 02:38:10

Can you imagine the publicity surrounding a class action law suit filed by the relatives of the dead crew? Then imagine the uproar when NASA admit they sent them on a mission with a 1 in 4 chance of dying because of the budget. If NASA are locked into a high risk architecture then they would be forced to restart the entire program. Mars exploration would be delayed a decade or more.

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-07 06:43:36

I said a 10% chance of the crew dying.

Not 25%.

Has anyone considered that the efforts to make space exploration "routine" and "safe" is one of the major factors sapping public support?

Commodore · 2008-03-07 07:44:14

For crying out loud, this isn't a reality show.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 09:07:12

I said a 10% chance of the crew dying.
Not 25%.
Has anyone considered that the efforts to make space exploration "routine" and "safe" is one of the major factors sapping public support?

Yes, this has been discussed before many times. How "safe" is defined is part of the problem. Why should 10% be considered as acceptable or even built into the design and not 25%? Is there something special about a power of ten? Surely risk should be minimized, there is no critical urgency that would justify even a 10% risk. 10% is far too high for a single mission, and we're talking about the lives of six people. There's more than enough risk already in a voyage of three years - crew health and long abort times for example. A good architecture and good designs will seek to minimize controllable risks.

SpaceNut · 2008-03-07 09:27:53

While the facts of inflation drive just about everything it is the contractors that ask for such large sums of money for the work that gets done and even if Nasa did everything internally then you have the good old pay raises ect... to deal with.

Sure Nasa could look for cheaper contractors to do the work but then the question is one of testing the product that is delivered as most likely it will be of a lesser quality but not necessarily.

Another way around this is to ask the contractors to look at location other than the ones that they have to set up new shops in that would get lower costs from the areas as they would have lower standards of living costs and lower wage expectations.

Commodore · 2008-03-07 10:11:41

What we really need is to get the economy of scale on our side for a change.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-07 10:44:44

While the facts of inflation drive just about everything it is the contractors that ask for such large sums of money for the work that gets done and even if Nasa did everything internally then you have the good old pay raises ect... to deal with.
Sure Nasa could look for cheaper contractors to do the work but then the question is one of testing the product that is delivered as most likely it will be of a lesser quality but not necessarily.
Another way around this is to ask the contractors to look at location other than the ones that they have to set up new shops in that would get lower costs from the areas as they would have lower standards of living costs and lower wage expectations.

There is no NASA without contractors, in fact the majority of people associated with manned spaceflight don't work for NASA!

And the problem with contractors is that only a few of them are big enough and experienced enough to be up to the task of building such complex systems.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-07 10:47:10

Surely risk should be minimized, there is no critical urgency that would justify even a 10% risk. 10% is far too high for a single mission, and we're talking about the lives of six people. There's more than enough risk already in a voyage of three years - crew health and long abort times for example. A good architecture and good designs will seek to minimize controllable risks.

Exactly

And I would say that a good architecture must minimize risks, because to do otherwise is not morally acceptable to the people in charge over NASA.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 12:43:10

And I would say that a good architecture must minimize risks, because to do otherwise is not morally acceptable to the people in charge over NASA.

It doesn't make much technical sense either, who wants to spend twenty years on a project with a 30% risk of LOM and 10% LOC?

RedStreak · 2008-03-07 13:08:05

Sounds like thinking that led to the bastard birth of the disfunctionally chimeric International Space Station. :?

You might start with a proposal to save money, but in an effort to save the minimal requirements of a mediocre project you would end up paying the same for a titanic project.

To quote Luke, "We're going in and going in full throttle." I want the Moon and won't settle for less.

Martian Republic · 2008-03-07 16:30:35

Sounds like thinking that led to the bastard birth of the disfunctionally chimeric International Space Station. :?
You might start with a proposal to save money, but in an effort to save the minimal requirements of a mediocre project you would end up paying the same for a titanic project.
To quote Luke, "We're going in and going in full throttle." I want the Moon and won't settle for less.

Exactly, if we keep budget cutting and trying to get the minimum that we need to get there, but not get what we should have gotten in the first place, we whined up with the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. We got the Space Shuttle that nobody wanted because everybody wanted the Shuttle to do something different. So it was neither cost efficient nor could it do what it was supposed to do. We needed the International Space Station to give us a purpose for the Space Shuttle and a reason to have a shuttle. Now we have two pieces of hardware that we don't know what to do with. Some good science work is being done, but it devours the NASA budget for much of anything else.

Larry,

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-03-07 19:31:09

I would stick with a four man crew on the first missions to Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-03-04 12:24:38

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#2 2008-03-04 12:31:27

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#3 2008-03-04 20:27:27

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#4 2008-03-04 20:28:09

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#5 2008-03-04 20:35:16

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#6 2008-03-05 17:03:11

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#7 2008-03-05 18:16:52

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#8 2008-03-05 19:42:04

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#9 2008-03-06 14:10:47

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#10 2008-03-06 16:08:02

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#11 2008-03-06 18:00:07

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#12 2008-03-06 20:24:15

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#13 2008-03-06 21:54:30

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#14 2008-03-07 02:38:10

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#15 2008-03-07 06:43:36

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#16 2008-03-07 07:44:14

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#17 2008-03-07 09:07:12

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#18 2008-03-07 09:27:53

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#19 2008-03-07 10:11:41

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#20 2008-03-07 10:44:44

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#21 2008-03-07 10:47:10

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#22 2008-03-07 12:43:10

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#23 2008-03-07 13:08:05

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#24 2008-03-07 16:30:35

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

#25 2008-03-07 19:31:09

Re: Could NASA Make Do With LESS Money?

Board footer