Comments on: “They upped the game on me”: sequestration and the challenges of funding NASA’s exploration program

By: josh

josh — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:58:58 +0000

nasa tv is most boring biggest ego stroking non entertaining expense we pay for. I dare anyone to try to watch 4 hours of it, its just video clips of nasa officials standing in photo op lines stroking their own ego. we actualy have to pay the cable providers to carry it. its 24 hours a day 365 days a year commercial for nasa that the taxpayers pay for for nasa officials to stroke their egos.

decist and defund nasa having its own tv station without actualy having any programs is the biggest waiste of American taxes or at least in top three. you cant even find its ratings with the hubble telescope its so tiny.

big joke, stupid idea, abuse of American taxpayers cut nasa’a budget if that’s what moneys used for, I dare anyone to watch it for 6 hours straight, it cant be done its that useless and boring.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:47:45 +0000

amightywind said:

“What is the chief barrier to BEO?”

1. The knowledge needed to understand what the solutions are so humans can survive on BEO missions – which is what the ISS is for.

2. The lack of an AFFORDABLE exploration architecture.

The $3B/year SLS/MPCV pork programs don’t address either of those barriers.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:20:29 +0000

The rationales for human spaceflight don’t seem very meaningful. There was no meaningful discussion of the total program cost and who could afford to pay for a ride.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:32:44 +0000

What is the chief barrier to BEO? The $3 billion annual deferral of funds to the dead end ISS. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that. BEO is unsustainable because ISS is being sustained.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:26:25 +0000

Elbon’s comment about the importance of long term funding commitments is precisely right. To the extent that space is an arena for international competition, the U.S. is at a serious disadvantage unless it can plan for outyear expenses. As Gerst notes, it’s not even so much “stability” as it is an assured roadmap of funding commitment. If the annual investment in federally funded commercial space is going to go down, one can make the best of a bad situation by smartly planning for that decrease, years in advance. Trying to hold ones cards for both an annual increase or a decrease in funding — roll the dice — is pretty insane.

Now, it really doesn’t help much that NASA is perceived, whether as curiosity-driven science or muscle-flexing human spaceflight entertainment, as a highly optional activity. DOD funding tracks the national need for defense investment. If you need to have a war, you’d better pay for it, and it’s largely wars (cold and hot) that determine DOD budget bumps. But the national need for NASA activities is much harder to quantify.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:17:34 +0000

“In his slides opening the 90-minute event, Gerstenmaier identified six key principles for a â€œsustainableâ€ NASA exploration program.”

This guy’s shuttle era/ISS deadwood.
‘Nuff said.