You’re not listening. At all.

Prominent people have repeatedly made the claim that NASA spending is at the expense of the poor, the sick, etc. They claim we would be substantially better off if NASA spending was reallocated to their favorite program. A quick look at the relative amounts spent on each gives the lie to that claim.

Who said Americans are “sickly?” That’s your comment. I simply reported research findings that came out last year that indicate that middle aged Brits are slightly healthier than middle aged, ethnically similar Americans while Americans spend a great deal more on health care. This suggests that we might learn something from the British with regard to health care and, possibly, the way we live our lives. We still might not choose to adopt British lifestyles and health care measures in whole or in part, but it would be a more informed decision.

Will we spend a bit less on health care and move the money to R&D? Perhaps not, but we won’t if no one raises the issue.

“Mommy, Johnny got the bigger piece!” That’s an argument invented by small children.

Are there NASA centers in every city and town where you can go if you’re sick or injured? No. NASA is not a hospital. They don’t do the same things. Hospitals care for the sick and injured people well. NASA doesn’t.
Just because hospitals get a certain amount of money does not mean NASA deserves to get the same amount of money.

So, exactly what is the point of whining that health care gets a bigger piece than NASA? If you expect Americans to stop spending money on health care and give it to NASA, sorry, that’s not going to happen.

> Middle aged Brits seem to be healthier than middle aged, ethnically similar Americas in spite of our
> spending double per person what the British do on health care.

“In spite”??? If Americans are as sickly as you claim, it’s hardly surprising that they would spend more on health care.

It’s still unclear to me if downward trend from the 2007 White House request to the 2008 White House request in exploration is real (and was maybe an offset for TDRSS) or just an accounting change. Will require more ferreting when I have the time.

Exploration — Griffin is still trying to stay the course on Ares I and Orion, but he admits that the impact of the 2007 reduction to exploration is unknown. In his speech, Griffin is worried about the Shuttle gap widening and its potential impact on the human space flight workforce.

As an aside, I still don’t understand Griffin’s obsession with this workforce issue. I agree that NASA needs to retain key folks with critical skills through the transition, but NASA can’t afford to build Ares V and LSAM and return to the Moon unless the Ares 1/Orion workforce is considerably smaller than the Shuttle workforce. From that perspective, a lengthy gap may be a good thing — better that non-critical folks leave on their own accord than through buyouts or forced separations. It’s odd that I have such a different impression of the Apollo/Shuttle gap experience than Griffin. It would be interesting to look at his resume. It’s almost as if he was forced to leave NASA during that time period, and it’s left a big impression on him ever since.

What I don’t yet fully understand about the exploration budget is why it’s going down from the 2007 request to the 2008 request. This may be part of a full-cost accounting change (and thus has no bearing on the Ares 1/Orion projects) or it may be driven by the Shuttle/ISS budget increase below. Regardless, the fact that the exploration budget does go down indicates that the Bush White House is not taking any steps to accelerate Ares 1/Orion or to react to the recent Congressional reduction and its schedule implications for Ares 1/Orion.

Space Shuttle/Space Station — There is a large increase in the Shuttle/ISS budget going from the 2007 request to the 2008 request. I don’t understand yet what’s driving this — if there’s been yet another increase in Shuttle operating costs, a hiccup in ISS assembly, or just another full-cost accounting change — but it bears further investigation, especially if the dollars came out of Ares 1/Orion content.

Commercial Crew/Cargo — Griffin is staying the course here as well, although there are references to budget challenges in the later years, if commercial services cost more than what’s budgeted. If that’s the case, then Griffin promises streamlining in space operations to make up the difference. But the streamlining won’t happen on his watch, so the promise means little. If Griffin really cares about the long-term future of Commercial Crew/Cargo, better that he change the budget now than promise to achieve “management challenges” that are really up to his successor.

Science — Earth science, in particular the Global Precipitation Mission, got a boost in response a National Academies report, although the timing relative to recent accusations about the Bush White House not living up to its promises on global warming research, is interesting.

Aeronautics — Aeronautics also got a boost in 2008 in response to a National Academies report. But again, the timing relative to the Democrat-controlled Congress providing a boost to aeronautics in the 2007 budget just last week is interesting.

Innovative Partnerships — It’s way down in the fine print, but it appears that Centennial Challenges funding has been restored in the amount of $4 million per year. It’s a pittance compared to the $30 million-plus budget that the program used to have, but NASA seems to think it’s enough to do some good in the areas of solar sails, lunar (human?) rovers, and “micro-reentry” vehicles. At least there will be some new prizes going forward.

There is also a passing reference in the fine print to the purchase of flight services from the emerging commercial suborbital providers. But Griffin has mentioned this in speeches for years now and nothing has happened yet. Moreover, the document is not clear on what the budget will be or where the dollars are coming from. So I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Finally, there is also a passing reference in the fine print to the elimination of the Red Planet fund. Apparently it conflicted with “Administration policy” (huh?) and the dollars were redirected to higher priorities. So much for tapping into the venture capital community to help pathfind the way to Mars…