NASA 2006 Budget

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-17 16:54:09

As I have said and pounded and repeated on so many levels so many times, that there is no possible rational point of view that going to Hubble even one single time more is in any way an acceptable scientific investment versus building a copy and starting over.

We DO, you know Dook, have an actualy written agreement with Europe and Japan to launch their modules and probobly some other bits too, which Shuttle and only Shuttle can accomplish in a timely fasion.

Dook · 2005-06-17 18:16:01

You flip flop so much it's obvious that you're only reason for being here is to argue. Years as the head of the debate club obviously wasn't enough for you.

There are recent posts of yours where you condemn the ISS, the space shuttle and it's army yet when someone else does it you suddenly come to it's rescue.

I'm sure there are written agreements about our timely launch of some modules but they quickly went out the window when the shuttle came apart on re-entry.

Our commitments is an excuse to continue risking astronauts lives, waste billions that could be put to better use, and waste many more years in LEO. That is a true lack of vision and leadership.

Agreements can be rewritten. I'm sure the ESA and others would love to be a part of a mission to the moon then mars in exchange for us backing out of our ISS agreements. We might have to offer up some funds in the beginning to smooth it over but it should still be a bargain.

I bet I could work that deal over lunch and still have time for desert.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-17 20:12:23

Well while we are on the subject of high school debate teams, maybe we could also trying a little reading comp...?

Did I say that flying Shuttle to finish the ISS was a good idea? That I supported this dubious course of action? I don't think I did, all I did was restate one of the primary reasons to continue flying Shuttle to finish the dang thing.

And actually no, I don't think that the ESA/JAXA/RSA would appritiate us pulling the plug on THEIR modules even if we did offer them a token seat or two on Moon/Mars missions. Having them be "our partners" in either program is unlikly given to any great degree given the utter disaster the ISS has been, and the dilution of national pride... so we don't have much to offer them there other then to tag along. Billions of dollars of THEIR money down the drain.

Fledi · 2005-06-17 20:24:27

It looks like there are people at ESA who look for the Moon and beyond, too, with the beginning of this "AURORA" programme (which doesn't have much financial support yet, though). But considering that one of the largest portion of ESA budget had been ISS support in recent years, I don't think they will give in easily to drop the whole issue, as wise as it would be.

Dook · 2005-06-17 21:09:02

And actually no, I don't think that the ESA/JAXA/RSA would appritiate us pulling the plug on THEIR modules even if we did offer them a token seat or two on Moon/Mars missions.

So you think the ESA and Japan would pass on an offer to go on a human mission to the moon and then mars? Yeah right. Sell your bull somewhere else.

Cancel the shuttle. Buy out our ISS commitment and sell off our ISS time to Canada or whoever else wants it. Build Ares or equivalent. Build architecture that will work for both the moon and mars. I know it wastes a few more dollars in the short run but it saves many times that in the long run in not just money but years.

Whatever launch vehicle we build to go to the moon and mars could also be used to launch ISS modules. Whatever kind of ship we are going to use to go to the moon and mars (CEV or some kind of upgraded Apollo capsule) could be launched with the ISS modules to move them and attach them to the ISS.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-17 21:35:05

Thats correct, in effect paying several billion dollars for a tag-along token seat and a little national flag under the big Stars and Stripes... maybe throw in NASA buying a little science gear. Yeah, I think the other ISS nations would balk at such an offer, especially given their relativly tiny space budgets and substantial political cost of abandoning the project (which their citizens would hold against them just as readily or moreso).

The arcitecture(s) that will work efficently for the Moon and efficently for Mars cannot be one in the same. The requirements for each destination are so utterly different, that making one vehicle do both is foolish. You will waste, not save, money by doing this in the long run. Time must be sacrificed for money, since money will always be in short supply, and if NASA can't maintain long-term support anyway... then what is the point of going at all?

By the time that alternate methods of launching ISS modules will finish the station (we're talking a few years to get to Shuttle-C even, not even Magnum), the ISS will be so old and decrepit - especially without Shuttle heavy payload - that it will take even longer then using Shuttle to do it right now. And even if NASA can meet the 2010 deadline, the ISS isn't going to have alot of life left in it... which our partners will not be happy with. Doing it with alternate methods will take too long.

I would be happy to get them to drop their support for the thing somehow, but be realistic, we don't have anything to offer them for their trouble. Should we revisit and sign the unanimously opposed economic suicide pact of the Kyoto Protocol or something?

Dook · 2005-06-18 08:22:41

You see it as one or the other but the ISS countries don't have to abandon the ISS to go to the moon and mars with us. Japan's 2004 space budget was $2.5 billion, ESA's budget in 2005 is $2.9 billion Euros. Now the cost of them coming along (only $500 million for one crewmember from each) could be spread out over many years or paid in increments as we prepare and build for the missions.

To go to the moon and mars you need a launch vehicle, a lander, a habitat, and a return vehicle. The mars mission would also need an in-situ production unit and probably some kind of habitat to put in orbit over mars so the return vehicle could dock with and the crew would ride home in it.

Use the same launch vehicle for both, add a heat shield and parachute to the lander for the mars mission. The habitat could be the same for the moon and mars. And the return vehicle could be the same overall design (some kind of upgraded Apollo capsule?) for both except the one for mars would burn methane/oxygen and the one for the moon could use hydrogen/oxygen. Yes I know that means different sized tanks and different engines but what's so hard about that?

My original post funded eight space shuttle missions to the ISS and one to service Hubble.

And as a side debate, the Kyoto Protocol was NOT unanimously opposed. In fact 141 countries ratified it, the US and Australia have not.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-18 09:24:31

Irrelivent, the fact of the matter is that both space agencies have spent the equivilent of several billion dollars to build their various laboratory modules, which would all completly go to waste unless the Shuttle launches them. I would go so far as to say that even if the US pulled out of the ISS project, that the remaining US and addon Russian lab would have too little capability for them to justify their continued involvement in the project either. The ESA has recently comitted to building several cargo ships at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars apiece which would also go to waste. I think it also questionable if the ISS can even sustain its current state without heavy payload lift from Shuttle for at least a few more years... Offering our partners seats on Moon/Mars ships will at best be a token, unsubstansive act given the cost they would incur. Its just not realistic, especially since it wouldn't be a national achievement on their part, a quaint novelty for the American's missions, as payment of political capital. Get real.

"Use the same launch vehicle for both, add a heat shield and parachute to the lander for the mars mission. The habitat could be the same for the moon and mars. And the return vehicle could be the same overall design (some kind of upgraded Apollo capsule?) for both except the one for mars would burn methane/oxygen and the one for the moon could use hydrogen/oxygen. Yes I know that means different sized tanks and different engines but what's so hard about that?"

No no no, now you are just spouting nonsense. It is completly a matter of requirements, and is very simple to understand...: Because:
-We don't need a huge ship to get from the Earth to the Moon
-Man rating the HLLV is not happening, preventing direct flight
-Lunar fuel will greatly reduce the fuel bill to get to the Moon
-We don't need to put people there for very long (>6 months)

All of these things add up to building a small modular vehicle which doesn't need a huge HLLV for every sortie in order to hold down per-sortie costs, which is precisely what Mars ships aren't. Trying to use a Zubrin-style Mars return vehicle as a Moon taxi is a terrible idea because it isn't modular, it incurs a big payload penalty, and without man rating you would need a seperate flight anyway that drives up cost... Oh, and would lose its advantage of saving circulization fuel.

Speaking of which, this nonsense about Bob's ERV has got to stop, if you put those poor people in that thing for six months they are going to come back and need therapy for longer then the mission lasted... I am sick and tired of hearing the usual "suck it up soldier!" prattle in a desperate attempt to get the thing to fit in one rocket launch, and make going to Mars something that it just isn't: easy.

PS: Kyoto was unanimously opposed by the US Senate, thank you very much, if the rest of the world wants to go commit economic suicide in a big socialist profit-capping, eco-parinoia, anti-scientific love-fest, they can go right ahead... but no thanks.

Dook · 2005-06-18 09:50:53

Eight more shuttle launches completes our ISS launch commitments. Somehow you keep missing that even though I've tried to keep the sentences short and the words small.

No, we don't need a huge ship to get from the earth to the moon, BUT WE DO FOR MARS! Your plan to design, build, and test two completely different ships would cost more than twice as much in money and years.

Man rating the HLLV is not happening? Oh, you mean like when they didn't man rate the Saturn?

Lunar fuel will reduce the fuel bill to get to the moon? Sure it will, that's why the lunar in-situ will be delivered with the first and second missions and hopefully both will work so we have two lunar oxygen manufacturing machines.

Less than 6 months? Fine.

You say the huge Ares can't lift my planned small hydrogen/oxygen fueled Apollo type capsule but somehow an even smaller launch vehicle will lift your modular vehicle????

I don't like Bob's earth return vehicle either. It is much too small. I would prefer the NASA DRM return vehicle and that's what I was talking about in the above post as "some kind of habitat to put in orbit over mars so the return vehicle could dock with".

I'm preaching for NASA's DRM and that's what you are arguing against. You've said in the past that you supported that kind of mission to mars but now you are flip flopping again. Sigh...you must have been a Kerry supporter.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-18 11:44:32

Well Dook, you might want to.. you know.. like try reading the news some time. The current count is 23 Shuttle flights, and at a bare absolute minimum fifteen. Not eight. And that will take some number of years at 3-4, maybe five, flights anually.

Thats correct Dook, build two different kinds of ships for two different kinds of missions to two completly different places. In the long run, the superior efficency of each of the systems respectively will be cheaper then the additional development costs, since we want to go to the Moon & Mars perminantly... IE, a really long time. So, I think it perfectly reasonable to go the route that costs more to develop, but costs less to operate: let me reiterate that, operational costs are everything because NASA will never get a much bigger budget, even if that means longer and more expensive development.

"Oh, you mean like when they didn't man rate the Saturn?"

Saturn would have probobly flunked today's safety threshold, and it was only ever somewhat acceptable because of its engine-out capability during all phases of launch, but that was okay since astronauts were expendable to beat the Commies. Neither Ares nor Magnum nor any other large rocket on the table has this, and basically all current >40MT rocket designs involve solid rocket engines, which cannot be shut down and tend to explode violently... If you are so concerned about development dollars, then you would obviously be against man rating any large rocket, because of the very large cost of engineering it to that level of safety and certification.

"Lunar fuel will reduce the fuel bill to get to the moon? Sure it will, that's why the lunar in-situ will be delivered with the first and second missions and hopefully both will work so we have two lunar oxygen manufacturing machines."

In which case you won't need an HLLV to get there anymore, and so the cost of which becomes unjustifiable you don't have to buy such an expensive rocket to get there. Such a device won't be quite as compact and easy as Zubrin's under-weight ISRU plant either, which means its even more important to maximize early payload instead of sacrificing it so you can justify rushing to Ares instead of using exsisting EELVs or easier-to-build lighter SDVs.

I didn't say that Ares was too small to do the job for the Moon, just not efficent enough. As far as Mars, its obvious that Ares is much too small for a direct payload that it is intended for.

You like DRM for Mars? Good, but I think its a terrible idea to try and use it for the Moon, again since it lacks modularity and direct flight incurs too large of a payload penalty. Not to mention, that if you would send crew with the "LAV" (MAV for Mars) as you should, it will be difficult to include enough fuel for an emergency abort, and for all payloads the throw away TLI/TMI stage is too expensive.

Getting to the Moon and getting to Mars are different, its a terrible idea to try and do both with similar vehicles, period... I grow tired of your "you are a flip-flopper" lie as an argument.

Edit: Oh, and if you like DRM, then are you supporting Ares?

idiom · 2005-06-18 16:31:42

...build two different kinds of ships for two different kinds of missions to two completly different places. In the long run, the superior efficency of each of the systems respectively will be cheaper then the additional development costs, since we want to go to the Moon & Mars perminantly... IE, a really long time.

This is an interesting point. If we do get past Apollo style thinking and begin to think about the early missions as basic infrastructure missions, should we begin to see two entirely seperate industries? Perhaps a third group that does everything that common or similar like guidance and suits, but generally keeping the two idea seperate to the point of spliting Nasa perhaps not entirely but at a department level.

How different are the two missions going to be? Would it be a better idea to make baseline Lunar sorties 700 days long? Overlap them obviously but to have commonaltiy you need to up the hardware lifetime demand on the Lunar side.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-18 17:41:32

The way I see it, NASA has to have enough money to do two things at the same time, which is to execute the current mission AND to make real progress on completing the NEXT mission.

The reality of the situation is, that NASA is never going to get any huge funding increase, so its going to have to do this within its ~$16Bn budget. In order to fulfill NASA's other charter goals of basic research, robotic exploration, and administration will take about $5-6Bn, which leaves NASA with $10Bn or so to actually do anything.

This is enough money to go to both the Moon and Mars perminantly, but it is not enough to do either one very quickly. However, if we can't hold down the cost of operating a Lunar base, then we'll never have enough money to go to Mars. The secret to doing this is to make the Lunar system at least partially reuseable... but reuseability isn't very practical for early missions because of the extra fuel needed to get the ship back would have to be carried from Earth and would kill your payload, not to mention refueling is a pain.

What to do then? Make an expendable system with options to convert to a reuseable system once Lunar rocket fuel is available (or at least the oxidizer). Boeing thinks that their lander can be made reuseable without too much trouble, and so a bigger one with extended fuel tanks and refueling capability would be reused as both the lander and TLI/TEI stage. The CEV or a decent Lunar payload, since it would no longer carry (at least oxidizer) fuel for the trip, could thus get to the Moon with only a single medium EELV class rocket.

Doing this, you would have plenty of money left over from that $10Bn pie to work on a mission like NASA DRM-III. The DRM plan too can be made partially reuseable with the addition of a much bigger MAV and access to Martian water. With the ability to make all the fuel needed to get crews or lighter payloads from Mars orbit and back to the ERV, the ERV and MAV could be reused which eliminates the biggest cost of each mission. Bring the ERV back to LEO and send up a fresh load of TEI fuel/supplies/equipment, a new nuclear TMI rocket, and a crew on CEV... Thus cutting the number of HLLV launches per sortie from six to two... One if you can use the reuseable MAV to refuel the ERV for its trip back to Earth.

Use the savings to build a Mars colony ship or a manned mission to Jupiter...

As far as commonality between the Moon and Mars, there will be a few things you could reuse, but not much. On a fundimental level, neither system can share much, since the Moon and Mars are so different... the reactor cooling systems, radiators, space suits, ISRU plants, rocket engines, and many other things won't work in both environments, but you could copy the core of the reactor or the liquification pumps on the ISRU plant and the like, but not transplant the whole system from one to the other.

Dook · 2005-06-18 18:00:28

One little problem. That $10 billion is going to be spent on the space shuttle and ISS so forget it.

We DO, you know GCN, have an actualy written agreement with Europe and Japan to launch their modules and probobly some other bits too, which Shuttle and only Shuttle can accomplish in a timely fasion.

Flip. Flop.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-18 21:27:56

Thats $10Bn per year Dook, and the Shuttle is going way come 2010, and probobly the ISS too not that long afterwards. Bush, Griffin, and I bet ol' Rummy are all set against Shuttle, and by the end of 2008 the end of Shuttle will be irreversibly set into motion as the capability of maintaining the orbiters is gradually eliminated. As far as the ISS, I don't think it will last all that long given its present shape.

"We DO, you know GCN, have an actualy written agreement with Europe and Japan to launch their modules and probobly some other bits too, which Shuttle and only Shuttle can accomplish in a timely fasion."

How small of you Dook, trying to read into what I say to feign a meaning that is not present, as a swipe against me. Did I say that the agreement was a good or bad one? Did I say that we should fulfill or break the agreement? Did this statement contain a preference in either direction? It most certainly did not, and it is plainly obvious that I was simply stating for fact one of the big reasons why we are going through with Return To Flight and that there are no alternatives to finishing ISS.

idiom · 2005-06-19 01:04:34

Could an ISS module be launched with/under a CEV module? Could a CEV module manouver it? That would be ~ 85MT of hardware to LEO so I guess not, but say 2011 rolls around and the ISS is still hanging in there.

Huge pitfalls of course in limiting the CEV design to using the ISS docking ports, people being encouraged to design stopovers and refuels at the ISS etc.

I was wondering because we talked previously about the trouble of launching 'dumb' modules on their own. If you dropped the shuttles and switched to CEV and a huge launcher, is that even doable in 3 years?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-19 06:55:32

Long story short, no.

We don't want to launch CEV on the big heavy lift rocket anyway (be that SDV or Delta superheavy), since making such a big rocket man rated is hard and expensive.

CEV will take a while to develop, even if Shuttle went away tomorrow, and its questionable if it even has thrusters powerful enough to effectively move payloads that weigh tripple what it does.

And as I think you are aware, but I will repeat for the bennefit of other readers, that if you were to just fling an ISS payload into orbit "dumb" (without attitude sensors & control) on a regular rocket, then that payload will begin to spin thanks to gravity perturbations. And spinning things are the most hazardous objects, because you can't grab onto them except at the spin axis, and you can't do that if its spinning in two axies at once. Adding attitude control would be expensive, time consuming, and heavy.

Then there is the trouble that alot of the ISS payloads are loose bits intended to be clamped to the Shuttle's cargo bay floor, and none of the payloads are designed to push from the end (like a rocket) rather then pull from the side (Shuttle), a distinction which could cause serious damage during the multi-G acceleration of launch. Building a "cradle" appropriate would add substantial weight (basically aluminum girders), and today's unmodified rockets are just barely powerful enough as it is... attitude control and a payload cradle would likly put you over mass budget.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-28 11:21:56

The last page of Griffins testimony on The future of nasa hearing from the 28th contains the budget goals though 2010.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 07:22:38

More politics for the vision as a result of the testimony:

H.R.3070 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

SEC. 6. REPORTS.
(a) Immediate Issues- Not later than September 30, 2005, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on each of the following items:
(1) The research agenda for the International Space Station and its proposed final configuration.
(2) The number of flights the Space Shuttle will make before its retirement, the purpose of those flights, and the expected date of the final flight.
(3) A description of the means, other than the Space Shuttle, that may be used to ferry crew and cargo to the International Space Station.
(4) A plan for the operation of the International Space Station in the event that the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 is not amended.
(5) A description of the launch vehicle for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
(6) A description of any heavy lift vehicle the Administration intends to develop, the intended uses of that vehicle, and whether the decision to develop that vehicle has undergone an interagency review.
(7) A description of the intended purpose of lunar missions and the architecture for those missions.
(8) The program goals for Project Prometheus.
(9) A plan for managing the cost increase for the James Webb Space Telescope.
(b) Crew Exploration Vehicle- The Administrator shall not enter into a development contract for the Crew Exploration Vehicle until at least 30 days after the Administrator has transmitted to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report describing--
(1) the expected cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle through fiscal year 2020, based on the specifications of that development contract; and
(2) the expected budgets for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2020 for human space exploration, aeronautics, space science, and earth science--
(A) first assuming inflationary growth for the budget of the Administration as a whole and including costs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle as projected under paragraph (1); and
(B) then assuming inflationary growth for the budget of the Administration as a whole and including at least two cost estimates for the Crew Exploration Vehicle that are higher than those projected under paragraph (1), based on the Administration's past experience with cost increases for similar programs, along with a description of the reasons for selecting the cost estimates used for the calculations under this subparagraph and the probability that the cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle will reach those estimated amounts.
© Space Communications- Not later than February 15, 2007, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a plan for updating the space communications and navigation architecture for both low Earth orbit and deep space exploration so that it is capable of handling the activities described pursuant to section 4(b) and (d). The plan shall include life-cycle cost estimates, milestones, estimated performance capabilities, and 5-year funding profiles. The Administrator shall consult with other relevant Federal agencies in developing the plan under this subsection and shall include in the plan an estimate of the amount of any reimbursements the Administration is likely to receive from other Federal agencies during the expected life of the upgrades described in the plan.
(d) Public Relations- The Administration shall not initiate the national awareness campaign required by the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 until 30 days after the Administrator has transmitted a report to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, describing the activities that will be undertaken as part of the awareness campaign and their expected cost.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-30 09:16:45

That is an awful lot of concrete information they are asking for

clark · 2005-06-30 09:28:34

Well, to be fair, the VSE has been nothing more than a Bush "faith based" program.

Griffin admitted as much in the QA. 18 months since VSE acceptance by Congress. Budgetary increases for NASA. Yet nothing concrete explaining how NASA is going to get from point A to point B.

Griffin has till the end of September to start giving all the details that have been left out of the "vision" thing.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 10:25:29

Lots more concrete where that came from but to reduce the workforce will take some real effort.
under the findings section:

Workforce-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall develop a human capital strategy to ensure that the Administration has a workforce of the appropriate size and with the appropriate skills to carry out the programs of the Administration, consistent with the policies and plans developed pursuant to this section. The strategy shall cover the period through fiscal year 2011.
(2) CONTENT- The strategy shall describe, at a minimum--
(A) any categories of employees the Administration intends to reduce, the expected size and timing of those reductions, the methods the Administration intends to use to make the reductions, and the reasons the Administration no longer needs those employees;
(B) any categories of employees the Administration intends to increase, the expected size and timing of those increases, the methods the Administration intends to use to recruit the additional employees, and the reasons the Administration needs those employees; and
© the budget assumptions of the strategy, and any expected additional costs or savings from the strategy by fiscal year.
(3) SCHEDULE- The Administrator shall transmit the strategy developed under this subsection to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than the date on which the President submits the proposed budget for the Federal Government for fiscal year 2007 to the Congress.
(4) LIMITATION- The Administration may not initiate any buyout offer or Reduction in Force until 60 days after the strategy required by this subsection has been transmitted to the Congress in accordance with paragraph (3).

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 10:28:32

Also from document is the gate to which approval for the cev will occur even after down selection has happened.

Crew Exploration Vehicle- The Administrator shall not enter into a development contract for the Crew Exploration Vehicle until at least 30 days after the Administrator has transmitted to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report describing--
(1) the expected cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle through fiscal year 2020, based on the specifications of that development contract; and
(2) the expected budgets for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2020 for human space exploration, aeronautics, space science, and earth science--
(A) first assuming inflationary growth for the budget of the Administration as a whole and including costs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle as projected under paragraph (1); and
(B) then assuming inflationary growth for the budget of the Administration as a whole and including at least two cost estimates for the Crew Exploration Vehicle that are higher than those projected under paragraph (1), based on the Administration's past experience with cost increases for similar programs, along with a description of the reasons for selecting the cost estimates used for the calculations under this subparagraph and the probability that the cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle will reach those estimated amounts.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-25 17:51:33

Reversing Course, NASA Moves Ahead With Glory Mission

By the time NASA rolled out its 2006 budget request in February, the decision had been made to cancel Glory while continuing work on the spacecraft's aerosol polarimetry sensor.
NASA intends to finish and fly the Glory climate-monitoring satellite, reversing a decision the U.S. space agency made just six months ago to cancel the $208 million mission.

Gee I wonder how much this flip flopping cost?

SpaceNut · 2005-08-22 11:51:14

Well in many of the threads we come back to a common pause in going forward and that is we must live within the available budget cash flow.

The NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) budget request for Fiscal Year 2006

This report does break down what each Nasa facility gets.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-16 05:43:22

This is more of a budget article for what Nasa has on its wish list.
NASA forms space exploration wish list REQUESTS COMPETE WITH PLAN FOR MANNED MOON MISSION

NASA's request, scientists have given the space agency a detailed wish list of missions they hope to see conducted over the next 30 years.
The proposals range from something as down to earth as a satellite to measure all the rain that falls on our world to a far-out mission looking back to the dawn of time.

These all have an impact on the future of the VSE.

NASA is pondering how many of the ideas can be squeezed into the space agency's tight budget. Future scientific missions are supposed to cost no more than $6 billion annually -- about what NASA is spending on science this year.
Exact costs for most of these projects, under the $6 billion overall ceiling, aren't yet available. But they fall into three categories: missions costing $300 million to $500 million, missions costing $500 million to $800 million and those costing up to $2.8 billion.
For example, a spaceship to land on Titan -- the largest moon of Saturn, with an atmosphere that could resemble early Earth's -- would cost $1.4 billion to $2.8 billion.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-06-17 16:54:09

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#52 2005-06-17 18:16:01

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#53 2005-06-17 20:12:23

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#54 2005-06-17 20:24:27

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#55 2005-06-17 21:09:02

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#56 2005-06-17 21:35:05

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#57 2005-06-18 08:22:41

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#58 2005-06-18 09:24:31

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#59 2005-06-18 09:50:53

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#60 2005-06-18 11:44:32

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#61 2005-06-18 16:31:42

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#62 2005-06-18 17:41:32

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#63 2005-06-18 18:00:28

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#64 2005-06-18 21:27:56

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#65 2005-06-19 01:04:34

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#66 2005-06-19 06:55:32

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#67 2005-06-28 11:21:56

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#68 2005-06-30 07:22:38

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#69 2005-06-30 09:16:45

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#70 2005-06-30 09:28:34

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#71 2005-06-30 10:25:29

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#72 2005-06-30 10:28:32

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#73 2005-07-25 17:51:33

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#74 2005-08-22 11:51:14

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#75 2005-09-16 05:43:22

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

Board footer