Comments on: House appropriations subcommittee shakeup?

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:35:41 +0000

DoE is playing a significant roll in future robotic and man mission within the framework of VSE. Energy is the most important component of transportation, as oil has shown us in the past and present. The more energy available increases the distance and speed of any vehicle. Mechanically one of the biggest hold back on robotics is energy; the power system usually weighs as much as the robot itself.

Science projects should be separated from spaceflight technology programs and each one their own protected budget. NASA cannot set its own priorities since they have a conflict of interest, perhaps we need governing board of scientist and engineers to help congress set priorities for space policy. Something more in line with the group that develop the Hubble report with scientist, engineers and astronauts.

Almost any change to the organization of the committees would be an improvement. I would like to see a line item veto but that won’t happen.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:19:54 +0000

I’m very pleased this issue is being examined, and all credit to those who brought it up.

In an ideal world, I would want NASA to have to compete for their dollars with other (perhaps underperforming) civil agencies involved with space, aeronautics and R&D. For example this might be the FAA and/or NOAA.

I’m not sure it’s wise to trade off NASA’s budget against the NSF though. That confuses sciense with engineering.

When large engineering projects are in progress, as they are at NASA and DoD, they often go over budget. I’ve seen firsthand how that’s paid for with the science budget, decimating research groups and projects that otherwise would have born fruit. Basic research is a high inertia game and should have a completely separate money supply to engineering. And that goes for NASA internally too.

I make this point explicitly because so few lawmakers are scientists, and this needs to be pointed out if deliberations are underway.

By: Matthew Brown

Matthew Brown — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:49:53 +0000

heh, I think thats “Same”. if it wasn’t a typo thats something i expected from you Sam in your tounge in cheek way

Mayhaps its a feudian slip and he was thinking insane subcommitie

But yeah i personally thought it was insane to have them in the same subcomittie as vets and low income housing.

By: Sam Dinkin

Sam Dinkin — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:30:41 +0000

Jeff,

Are you sure NASA’s in the sane subcommittee?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/206/1

Sam

By: TORO

TORO — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:41:39 +0000

Let’s put NASA in with DOT, and then compare the ethics. Say there were no infant car seats, or it was up to parents to take the risk of a child in the front seat with an airbag that could blow their head off…”my child knows the risk it is taking, just like them astronauts.” The 1950’s pre-seat belt automaker ethics slogan “The driver understands the risk” is the 2005 NASA astronaut slogan. Ethically comparing, NASA is about 50 years behind the automaker schedule for a new human LEO transport. I wonder how long it took the French to get rid of the Guillotene. It is no longer ethical for this nation to shove its finest into the three remaining Doo Doo birds. Everyone agrees trash day is approaching…I’m simply suggesting setting the garbage out now before it rots and stinks. Ivan and the Sinosaurus have better vehicles. This nation’s utilitarian space program and the moon have something in common: a seemingly permanent dark side. The automakers stepped forward, and NASA stepped backwards. Automakers add the crash dummy test, NASA takes it away. Leadership? The space shuttle should have been canceleld STS-1 or prior.