Comments on: Maybe you need a better hope

By: Me

Me — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:30:43 +0000

â€œsell NASA to private companiesâ€

Another clueless idea. NASA can not be ‘sold”. It is a US government agency

By: gm

gm — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:09:32 +0000

“You better include an inflation clause.”

no, since, in the early years (when NASA has great part of the R&D costs) the budget is higher

“NASA is ONLY involved in manned flight to the moon.”

an option to “close it”, could be “close the moon missions division” or “sell NASA to private companies”

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:46:46 +0000

“1. the NASA budget is/will be $20 billion per year for the next 10 years (not a cent more, not a cent less)”

If the inflation rate runs at 3 percent a year by the tenth year they would only be getting about 14 billion. You better include an inflation clause.

“3. if NASA will not accomplish the given goal, within the given time and with the given funds, it will be CLOSED”

That would be rather silly because it presupposes that NASA is ONLY involved in manned flight to the moon. NASA wears a hundred different hats for differing responsiblities. It also does not account for astronauts going to the ISS.

By: anonymouspace

anonymouspace — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:23:54 +0000

“One thing is for sure, if Hutchinson doesnâ€™t try to get the extra funding, NASA sure wonâ€™t get it.”

That’s not the point. Hutchison is a Senator, and the Senate is not the problem currently. The problem is the lack of a champion in the House.

“A clean new bill would be best,”

Not really. A stand-alone bill would face the same problems as attaching NASA funding to an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. It would also be opposed by the House, and (more importantly) get vetoed by the President as it wasn’t part of the White House FY09 budget request.

The best strategy is to get the subcommittee budget allocation increased so that there’s maneuvering room to add funds to NASA’s normal appropriations bill. I’d also lobby the White House before the budget request is sent to Congress, not after.

FWIW…

By: gm - ghostNASA.com

gm - ghostNASA.com — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:13:42 +0000

please note that, “ten years”, was then time given by Kennedy to NASA to accomplish the SAME mission, despite the old/primitive ’60s technology!

By: gm - ghostNASA.com

gm - ghostNASA.com — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:07:08 +0000

.
what do you think about the following (simple) three articles’ law for your next President?
.
1. the NASA budget is/will be $20 billion per year for the next 10 years (not a cent more, not a cent less)
.
2. the NASA goal is to land a crew of four on the Moon within 10 years (not a day later)
.
3. if NASA will not accomplish the given goal, within the given time and with the given funds, it will be CLOSED
.

By: Pheogh

Pheogh — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:41:18 +0000

This kicking and screaming in the corner is an embarrassing product of our political system. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if for once we bought what we could afford. I’ll try to avoid the temptation to point out that all of this “kicking and screaming” after all is being done over at best a flawed design and architecture. If this is what we are having to go through just for Ares-1, just wait until Ares-V. ..Amazing?

By: gm - ghostNASA.com

gm - ghostNASA.com — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:07:41 +0000

post edit: change “a bureaucracy that wants to know everything” with “a bureaucracy that wants to DECIDE on everything”

By: gm - ghostNASA.com

gm - ghostNASA.com — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:57:48 +0000

as non american (then not an expert of the US politics) I found really incredible to know how many government chains NASA must face in its work, so many, it’s difficult for me to understand HOW your space agency has accomplished its past missions with a bureaucracy that wants to know everything, from the number of lauches, down, to the number and the price of the screws and bolts used in its spacecrafts! if the US politics want to let NASA to COMPETE in the future global challenges, I suggest them to give a fixed (but known and sure) annual budget of (e.g.) $20Bn and reduce very much the chains that slows the NASA decisions and operations

By: cIclops

cIclops — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:35:54 +0000

One thing is for sure, if Hutchinson doesn’t try to get the extra funding, NASA sure won’t get it. A clean new bill would be best, but hey this is politics, all is fair.

Phoenix goes!