NASA 2008 Budget

SpaceNut · 2006-12-11 22:17:58

BOEHLERT ASKS Office of Management and Budget (OMB) FOR ADDITIONAL SCIENCE FUNDING IN FY 2008, STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).

I hope your fiscal 2008 requests for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will be at levels appropriate for a second year of ACI implementation.
NASA needs additional funding if it is to move ahead with both the Vision for Space Exploration and the space science, earth science and aeronautics research required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
There is no reason to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle before 2014, and there is every reason to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010, as planned.

Geee no reason to close the gap...

cIclops · 2006-12-12 04:00:35

Discussion on the 2008 budget starting and the 2007 budget isn't finished yet ... ain't government wonderful.

Last, but not least, NASA needs additional funding if it is to move ahead with both the Vision for Space Exploration and the space science, earth science and aeronautics research required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. There is no reason to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle before 2014, ...

There's a disconnect between the first sentence and the second, how will US astronauts reach the ISS for fours years or more? Fortunately there are many others who see lots of reasons for Orion to fly as soon as possible after Shuttle retires (which could be late 2009 if the schedule is tightened). Good news otherwise.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-12 06:47:36

Actually the solution is one that tastes bitter in that we can buy the seat during the laps of any US vehicle for manned use. It is cheap and does allow for continued US manning of the US but it comes with a price.
I think that price will be a few seats to the moon and probably ending with cash to build a few of the needed items for the moon base.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-12 09:40:09

BOEHLERT ASKS Office of Management and Budget (OMB) FOR ADDITIONAL SCIENCE FUNDING IN FY 2008, STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
I hope your fiscal 2008 requests for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will be at levels appropriate for a second year of ACI implementation.
NASA needs additional funding if it is to move ahead with both the Vision for Space Exploration and the space science, earth science and aeronautics research required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
There is no reason to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle before 2014, and there is every reason to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010, as planned.

Geee no reason to close the gap...

I can think of one good reason. Vladimir Putin! I don't want to have to depend on him for getting to the Space Station! I don't like the fact that he goes around ordering the assassinations of Russian citizens in foreign countries using Polonium 210. If Russia is going to act this way, I want to decouple our Nation;s space Program from his. I think the construction of the Orion should be accelerated to make it available as soon as possible, if this requires extra funding, then so be it. Ideally it should be available at or before the Shuttle's decommisioning so their are no gaps and we don't have to depend on Russia with not independent manned space capacity. The CEV doesn't look like that hard a vehicle to build, if we built the Apollo, the Orion should be a piece of cake.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-12 09:43:29

Actually the solution is one that tastes bitter in that we can buy the seat during the laps of any US vehicle for manned use. It is cheap and does allow for continued US manning of the US but it comes with a price.
I think that price will be a few seats to the moon and probably ending with cash to build a few of the needed items for the moon base.

I don't want US Astronauts to have to fly Putin Spaceways. Our partnership was not initially with a dictator. Since we have time to accelerate the Orion Program, as Russia seems unstable, we should, and not have to face the problem of no manned space vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-12 11:06:33

Tom you make too big of a fuss...

...since the ISS is worthless. If the Russians backslide so much that we can't politically stomach sending up astronauts on Soyuz, then the solution is just to pull the plug on the station entirely. And if not for the ISS, then there is no rush to replace Shuttle.

That would save quite a bit of money that would then go to the Moon/Mars programs.

Screw the ISS

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-12 12:05:39

Tom you make too big of a fuss...
...since the ISS is worthless. If the Russians backslide so much that we can't politically stomach sending up astronauts on Soyuz, then the solution is just to pull the plug on the station entirely. And if not for the ISS, then there is no rush to replace Shuttle.
That would save quite a bit of money that would then go to the Moon/Mars programs.
Screw the ISS

On the political side though, if we don't have something to show for the ISS effort, how can we then pursuade Congress to fork over money for Manned Moon/Mars missions? If its going to be an internationa space station, then its going to be one. I'd like to use the ISS as an incentive to hurry up on the CEV construction, having the Russians monopolize access to it, could be a good pursuader to get more money from Congress. Our resources aren't really stretched to the limit here, all we really need to do is provide Congress with a good reason to put up the extra funds, that Putin is a dictator, and is assassinating people could provide impetus to accelerate things.

Commodore · 2006-12-12 17:20:34

I can think of one good reason. Vladimir Putin!.....I don't like the fact that he goes around ordering the assassinations of Russian citizens in foreign countries using Polonium 210.

Oh dear lord, please don't tell me you bought that hook, line and sinker, at least based on what is publically known.

Theres lots of reasons to dislike Putin, ranging from his attitude towards NGO's in Russia, to opposition to meaningful enforcement of international law in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. None of that tops the need for America to have its own access to manned space flight for its own reasons.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-13 01:24:19

I can think of one good reason. Vladimir Putin!.....I don't like the fact that he goes around ordering the assassinations of Russian citizens in foreign countries using Polonium 210.

It is the most likely explainaition: Someone criticises the Russian Government ie Putin, and then that someone dies by a radioactive isotope of Polonium that has a halflife of a few months, this stuff cannot be stockpiled for very long and it needs to br produced by a reactor. I don't think the ex-KGB agent was willing to die so that he could frame the Russian government for his own murder, religious fanatics do stuff like that, not usually Russians

Oh dear lord, please don't tell me you bought that hook, line and sinker, at least based on what is publically known.
Theres lots of reasons to dislike Putin, ranging from his attitude towards NGO's in Russia, to opposition to meaningful enforcement of international law in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. None of that tops the need for America to have its own access to manned space flight for its own reasons.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-13 11:35:00

I don't want US Astronauts to have to fly Putin Spaceways.

Well this was the only line that had meaning towards the topic and thou there are many on this as well as other boards that would feel the same it just is not the total issue.

In what way can we fund the VSE if congress will give no further funding other than to flat line at current amounts which is the case for 2007.

Retiring the shuttle on or around 2010 puts the US in the non driving seat to space until Orion flys and while that frees up the cash to build it does not do anything to fix the time frame to first flight.

Now if we were able to free up cash by not flying shuttle we would already have a boat load but that is not the case.

So how does the US sustain a manned presence in space?

What would you Tom propose to accomplish this task?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-13 12:04:08

I don't want US Astronauts to have to fly Putin Spaceways.
Well this was the only line that had meaning towards the topic and thou there are many on this as well as other boards that would feel the same it just is not the total issue.
In what way can we fund the VSE if congress will give no further funding other than to flat line at current amounts which is the case for 2007?

How do you know they won't? The problem is one of pursuasion, not one of redistributing limited resources. Our resources aren't that limited. If Congress really does not want Russia to monopolize our access to the ISS, then it will find the fuinding to accelerate the CEV program.

Retiring the shuttle on or around 2010 puts the US in the non driving seat to space until Orion flys and while that frees up the cash to build it does not do anything to fix the time frame to first flight.

No you need more funds, so the tast is to pursaude Congress to allocate them.

Now if we were able to free up cash by not flying shuttle we would already have a boat load but that is not the case.

If we stopped flying the Shuttle now, then the gap would start sooner and the Space Station would be incomplete. Obviously the only way to close the gap is to increase funding to develop the CEV while we fly the Shuttle.

So how does the US sustain a manned presence in space?
What would you Tom propose to accomplish this task?

Increase funding so we can develop the CEV while we fly the Shuttle and thus operations can begin on 2010 instead of 2014.

Commodore · 2006-12-13 14:46:19

I can think of one good reason. Vladimir Putin!.....I don't like the fact that he goes around ordering the assassinations of Russian citizens in foreign countries using Polonium 210.
Oh dear lord, please don't tell me you bought that hook, line and sinker, at least based on what is publically known.
It is the most likely explainaition: Someone criticises the Russian Government ie Putin, and then that someone dies by a radioactive isotope of Polonium that has a halflife of a few months, this stuff cannot be stockpiled for very long and it needs to br produced by a reactor. I don't think the ex-KGB agent was willing to die so that he could frame the Russian government for his own murder, religious fanatics do stuff like that, not usually Russians

I find it very hard to believe that Putin would choose to eliminate his enemies, if at all, in this way. The use of such a rare substance in a way that is sure to cause international consern will bring far too much attention. It far more likely that someone within the FSB who may have have access to the stuff did it to either shut the guy up or shine an unpleasant eye on his bosses.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-13 15:21:08

Oh dear lord, please don't tell me you bought that hook, line and sinker, at least based on what is publically known.
It is the most likely explainaition: Someone criticises the Russian Government ie Putin, and then that someone dies by a radioactive isotope of Polonium that has a halflife of a few months, this stuff cannot be stockpiled for very long and it needs to br produced by a reactor. I don't think the ex-KGB agent was willing to die so that he could frame the Russian government for his own murder, religious fanatics do stuff like that, not usually Russians
I find it very hard to believe that Putin would choose to eliminate his enemies, if at all, in this way. The use of such a rare substance in a way that is sure to cause international consern will bring far too much attention. It far more likely that someone within the FSB who may have have access to the stuff did it to either shut the guy up or shine an unpleasant eye on his bosses.

You know there are stupid people in the world running countries at this moment. The argument that Putin is too smart to do something like that, and that he should know better would also apply to him seizing power in the first place. Given Russia's history, Putin ought to know better, look what happened to the last Czar of Russia and his family. If Putin wants to be the next Czar, he'd better watch out. Someone is poisoning the enemies of Putin and so long as they are doing that, why don't they just poison the Putinistas themselves while they are at it? Seems kind of strange to oppose Putin in this way, it like someone killing Jews to make Hitler look bad in hopes that the Public outrage would cause his overthrow.

Rxke · 2006-12-14 02:17:25

Come on, guys...

This is about NASA budget, go yapping about Putin in free chat, willya?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-14 03:10:47

Come on, guys...
This is about NASA budget, go yapping about Putin in free chat, willya?

The reason we need a larger NASA budget is that we don't want to have to depend on Putin to get us to the Space Station we so laboriously built, that's all I'm saying.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-14 09:24:18

Sorry for the very lengthy post and thanks Rxke...

if we don't have something to show for the ISS effort, how can we then pursuade Congress to fork over money for Manned Moon/Mars missions?

We have science.... oh but that does not pay the bills and I have yet to see something that to which has come from it that can or that has had an impact on our day to day lives. I do not mean space spin offs since most occur though the support of the scientific activity.

I'd like to use the ISS as an incentive to hurry up on the CEV construction, having the Russians monopolize access to it, could be a good pursuader to get more money from Congress.

Since Russia is cash strapped and congress does see this. So Russia has resorted to tourism to help but even with this they can only build the ships so fast, give training to those going for the challenges of being in space...it is only a gap filler and not anything substancial.

Our resources aren't really stretched to the limit here, all we really need to do is provide Congress with a good reason to put up the extra funds

The whole vision of space exploration thou was layed out as a pay as you go within the same amount of budget money that nasa was already getting, plus some small amount of seed money to get things going. So getting congress to change there mind set is going to be hard to do.

Well this was the only line that had meaning towards the topic and thou there are many on this as well as other boards that would feel the same it just is not the total issue.
In what way can we fund the VSE if congress will give no further funding other than to flat line at current amounts which is the case for 2007?
How do you know they won't? The problem is one of pursuasion, not one of redistributing limited resources. Our resources aren't that limited.
Retiring the shuttle on or around 2010 puts the US in the non driving seat to space until Orion flys and while that frees up the cash to build it does not do anything to fix the time frame to first flight.
No you need more funds, so the tast is to pursaude Congress to allocate them.

This has already been stated by the actions of congress, since these are basically all new people that have been put into the once republican held positions of power it will take some time to convince them to side on Nasa's course of action.
Nasa must present more complete plans for justification for the additional funds.

Now if we were able to free up cash by not flying shuttle we would already have a boat load but that is not the case.
If we stopped flying the Shuttle now, then the gap would start sooner and the Space Station would be incomplete. Obviously the only way to close the gap is to increase funding to develop the CEV while we fly the Shuttle.
So how does the US sustain a manned presence in space?
What would you Tom propose to accomplish this task?
Increase funding so we can develop the CEV while we fly the Shuttle and thus operations can begin on 2010 instead of 2014.

While increasing the funding is obviously the way to go it is the amount that gets the no go by those in the drivers seat. It would needed to be on the order of another 3 to 5 billion between now and shuttle retirement to make any real effort to get the orion flying sooner while still using the shuttle.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-14 10:11:15

Sorry for the very lengthy post and thanks Rxke...
if we don't have something to show for the ISS effort, how can we then pursuade Congress to fork over money for Manned Moon/Mars missions?
We have science.... oh but that does not pay the bills and I have yet to see something that to which has come from it that can or that has had an impact on our day to day lives. I do not mean space spin offs since most occur though the support of the scientific activity.

Colonizing the Solar System will have an impact on our lives, especially who colonizes it, us or somebody else. Democratic countries must be able top do it themselves, and should not have to lean on dictators for help. The ways spae travel will impact our daily lives has more to do with technology than science. Science just tells us what's out there. We already know there is plenty of stuff out in the Solar System that we can use, but a manned Mars program will fore us to develop the technology that will make getting out their easier

I'd like to use the ISS as an incentive to hurry up on the CEV construction, having the Russians monopolize access to it, could be a good pursuader to get more money from Congress.
Since Russia is cash strapped and congress does see this. So Russia has resorted to tourism to help but even with this they can only build the ships so fast, give training to those going for the challenges of being in space...it is only a gap filler and not anything substancial.

I heard Russia was awash in oil revenue, is this not true?

Our resources aren't really stretched to the limit here, all we really need to do is provide Congress with a good reason to put up the extra funds
The whole vision of space exploration thou was layed out as a pay as you go within the same amount of budget money that nasa was already getting, plus some small amount of seed money to get things going. So getting congress to change there mind set is going to be hard to do.

Some seed money may be required to close the four year gap.

How do you know they won't? The problem is one of pursuasion, not one of redistributing limited resources. Our resources aren't that limited.
No you need more funds, so the tast is to pursaude Congress to allocate them.

This has already been stated by the actions of congress, since these are basically all new people that have been put into the once republican held positions of power it will take some time to convince them to side on Nasa's course of action.
Nasa must present more complete plans for justification for the additional funds.

They don't care that we have to rely on a Russian dictator to get to the Space Station we built? I thought it was called the Democratic Party. Putin is certainly not a Democrat, I can tell you that.

If we stopped flying the Shuttle now, then the gap would start sooner and the Space Station would be incomplete. Obviously the only way to close the gap is to increase funding to develop the CEV while we fly the Shuttle.
So how does the US sustain a manned presence in space?
What would you Tom propose to accomplish this task?
Increase funding so we can develop the CEV while we fly the Shuttle and thus operations can begin on 2010 instead of 2014.
While increasing the funding is obviously the way to go it is the amount that gets the no go by those in the drivers seat. It would needed to be on the order of another 3 to 5 billion between now and shuttle retirement to make any real effort to get the orion flying sooner while still using the shuttle.

$16.67 per person. Well Congress wants to scuttle the War in Iraq, that should more than make up for the additional cost of closing the gap. We have to pursuade the Congress of 2007 and the Congress of 2009.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-14 11:13:59

Colonizing the Solar System will have an impact on our lives, especially who colonizes it, us or somebody else.

Yes agreed that we should colonize but space is for everyone and so is this great planet that we live on. I can no more say that you can not go to space anymore than I can say where you can live.

Science just tells us what's out there. We already know there is plenty of stuff out in the Solar System that we can use, but a manned Mars program will force us to develop the technology that will make getting out their easier

Technology developement is something that should be done under another department.

Some seed money may be required to close the four year gap.
$16.67 per person. Well Congress wants to scuttle the War in Iraq, that should more than make up for the additional cost of closing the gap. We have to pursuade the Congress of 2007 and the Congress of 2009.

I will say again; While increasing the funding is obviously the way to go, it is the amount that gets the no go by those in the drivers seat. It would needed to be on the order of another 3 to 5 billion between now and shuttle retirement to make any real effort to get the orion flying sooner while still using the shuttle.

They don't care that we have to rely on a Russian dictator to get to the Space Station we built?

This is the comment that I put in bold for a reason at the start of the thread.

"BOEHLERT ASKS Office of Management and Budget (OMB) FOR ADDITIONAL SCIENCE"
There is no reason to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle before 2014, and there is every reason to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010, as planned.

This was from the previous person that was in the place of power... and as you can see they do not have a problem with the US space program being supported for manned missions. Myself I would prefer that it was not this way but thats how it is.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-14 11:39:48

Colonizing the Solar System will have an impact on our lives, especially who colonizes it, us or somebody else.
Yes agreed that we should colonize but space is for everyone and so is this great planet that we live on. I can no more say that you can not go to space anymore than I can say where you can live.

There is a phenoninon called leading culture. The people who get there first establish the precident and all people who follow must adapt. We want democracies to get there first. The two other leading space powers are China and Russia, neither one is a democracy right now. The Europeans and the Japanese choose to participate only in a small way, while focusing on their domestic agendas. I think its worth the extra $16.67 per person to get there first, rather than just stare at our shoes while the dictators take the lead.

Science just tells us what's out there. We already know there is plenty of stuff out in the Solar System that we can use, but a manned Mars program will force us to develop the technology that will make getting out their easier
Technology developement is something that should be done under another department.

NASA is also a technology development agency, it develops the technology it needs to go into space, it also does aeronautical research which is basically technology development.

Some seed money may be required to close the four year gap.
$16.67 per person. Well Congress wants to scuttle the War in Iraq, that should more than make up for the additional cost of closing the gap. We have to pursuade the Congress of 2007 and the Congress of 2009.
I will say again; While increasing the funding is obviously the way to go, it is the amount that gets the no go by those in the drivers seat. It would needed to be on the order of another 3 to 5 billion between now and shuttle retirement to make any real effort to get the orion flying sooner while still using the shuttle.

Why waste time? Time is a commodity just as valuable as money. I think the bean ounters overestimate the time we've got. China's growing pretty fast, do they think the World will wait for us as we wait to finish the Shuttle? Too many people seem to think that space can be put in a tiny little box in the corner of our universe. We spend outrageous sums to protect stupid little backwards societies that sell us oil, yet suddenly we get all miserly and frugal when we talk about the future of the human race. trying to get off the planet should be our major concern.

They don't care that we have to rely on a Russian dictator to get to the Space Station we built?
This is the comment that I put in bold for a reason at the start of the thread.
"BOEHLERT ASKS Office of Management and Budget (OMB) FOR ADDITIONAL SCIENCE"
There is no reason to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle before 2014, and there is every reason to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010, as planned.
This was from the previous person that was in the place of power... and as you can see they do not have a problem with the US space program being supported for manned missions. Myself I would prefer that it was not this way but thats how it is.

It is just two years till the end of the next Congress, we can ask this question a little later. Why wait? We spend so much money on trying to solve our problems on Earth, but they have often proven irretractable. The middle east has not become a peaceful place, no matter how much money we've spent there, yet we continue to devote a major share of our attention to that primitive place, while space travel and colonization is a distant after thought. We spend too much resources trying to manage the current situation and not enough trying to prepare for the future.

publiusr · 2006-12-22 16:04:14

AMEN!

SpaceNut · 2007-01-02 06:56:51

Just an item that will cost NASA's Mission to Service Hubble in 2008 Will Cost $900 Million

The cost includes about $500 million for keeping the Hubble team together from 2004; Some of the $500 million already has been spent to pay for studies into the feasibility of a robotic servicing mission that would not require astronauts. Griffin said that option was rejected by NASA and advisory panels who all concluded that it was not feasible given the limited amount of time and money available.
The gyroscopes, batteries and instruments slated for Hubble will cost another $200 million,
the agency will need to spend $100 million for the extra shuttle external tanks and solid-rocket boosters that will have to be ordered to squeeze another mission into the shuttle manifest.
Another $100 million will go to pay for processing another shuttle for launch.

Talk about funny numbers....

Using these numbers per launch means Nasa should have a bucket full of money each year regardless of the number of flights that a shuttle will take.

cIclops · 2007-01-31 06:04:32

FY 08 Budget Press Conference

WASHINGTON - NASA Administrator Michael Griffin briefs the media about the agency's Fiscal Year 2008 budget at 1 p.m. EST, Monday, Feb. 5. The press briefing is in NASA's main auditorium located at 300 E Street S.W. in Washington.
Griffin will be joined by Deputy Administrator Shana Dale and the agency's associate administrators from the Space Operations, Science, Aeronautics and Exploration mission directorates.
The news conference will be live on NASA Television and the agency's Internet homepage with questions from reporters at Headquarters and participating agency field locations.
The NASA budget and supporting information will be available at 1 p.m., Feb. 5, on the Internet at:
http://www.nasa.gov/budget

SpaceNut · 2007-02-03 19:12:05

The White House will ask Congress to give NASA $17.3 billion for 2008, a 3.1 percent increase over the budget it had sought for the U.S. space agency for 2007, according to sources familiar with the agency’s forthcoming budget request.
The $17.3 billion request, due to be sent to Congress Feb. 5, matches what the White House expected to seek for NASA for 2008 this time last year.

cIclops · 2007-02-06 04:50:43

NASA publically release the 2008 budget request for $17.3 B

SpaceNut · 2007-02-06 08:38:48

Thanks for the link since it also garners some other information as it regards the proformance of how Nasa did do with the money that they recieved in previous years.

2006 Strategic Plan, Performance and Accountability are all part of the review process to see how succesfull Nasa thinks it was.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-12-11 22:17:58

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#2 2006-12-12 04:00:35

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#3 2006-12-12 06:47:36

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#4 2006-12-12 09:40:09

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#5 2006-12-12 09:43:29

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#6 2006-12-12 11:06:33

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#7 2006-12-12 12:05:39

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#8 2006-12-12 17:20:34

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#9 2006-12-13 01:24:19

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#10 2006-12-13 11:35:00

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#11 2006-12-13 12:04:08

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#12 2006-12-13 14:46:19

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#13 2006-12-13 15:21:08

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#14 2006-12-14 02:17:25

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#15 2006-12-14 03:10:47

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#16 2006-12-14 09:24:18

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#17 2006-12-14 10:11:15

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#18 2006-12-14 11:13:59

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#19 2006-12-14 11:39:48

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#20 2006-12-22 16:04:14

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#21 2007-01-02 06:56:51

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#22 2007-01-31 06:04:32

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#23 2007-02-03 19:12:05

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#24 2007-02-06 04:50:43

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#25 2007-02-06 08:38:48

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

Board footer