Comments on: NASA: funding of some extended planetary missions depends on additional funding

By: seamus

seamus — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:27:58 +0000

Additional funding for all of NASA is essential. Accelerate SLS, boost Commercial Crew, advance planetary science. Invest in terrestrial and space infrastructure and get the economy going.

Republicans in Congress are more interested in playing politics than in real-world solutions.

By: Curtis Quick

Curtis Quick — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:27:10 +0000

I predict that if Sens Shelby and Brooks get their way and are able to use the Crimean crisis to fool Congress into more funding for SLS then funding for NASA science missions will all but dry up. SLS is the great destroyer of NASA exploration and ender of American human spaceflight programs. On the other hand, it is a great jobs program for Alabama!

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 03:59:41 +0000

The chance of addiional funding is poor. We have to jettison something. preferably something big, and useless. No, I don’t mean ISS, or NASA HQ.

By: James

James — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:59:15 +0000

Grunsfeld, speaking of a $1B Europa mission: “Maybe, just maybe, thereâ€™s a way to do the preponderance of the planetary decadal science objectives for less than a billion dollars

No there isn’t. Come on Dr. G….you are smarter than this.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:07:29 +0000

c/software/soft power/

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:50:33 +0000

“Many politicians will want more more for their constituencies, so NASA may get extra money.”

… and you think a good way for them to get money to their constituents is through NASA?? Um, guess why NASA budgets have not been rising fast, and even decreasing as a fraction of the total federal budget for the last two decades. Politicians know that’s not how to please your constituents, unless you happen to live in a few special districts. It’s also pretty clear from NASA budgets that investment in NASA hasn’t been considered a way to reduce unemployment or recover from the recession. Were that the case, the NASA budget would be flying high. Besides, considering this thread, the constituency for planetary science missions is pretty small. Not much of a voting block there.

Might add to your questions. How well would this money … f. reduce the national debt, g. build 21st century infrastructure for the populace, and h. equip Americans with high quality education and skills they need. Those, as well as reducing unemployment, are established national needs.

BTW, shoving a few more billion dollars into NASA will improve morale among space enthusiasts, but it’s not clear what it will do for everyone else. Improving morale for space enthusiasts is decidedly not a national priority.

“Provide software by improving the country’s reputation”? Whatever does that mean? You mean, if we’re admired, other countries will share their spying software with us? Or maybe their wool coats.

Historically, there is little correlation of NASA budgets with election years.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:48:21 +0000

The House is up for election in the Fall and 1/3 the Senate. Many politicians will want more more for their constituencies, so NASA may get extra money.

How will this extra money:
a. reduce unemployment?
b. help the country recover from the long depression?
c. safeguard the country or the ISS or the replacement space station?
d. raise morale?
e. provide software by improving the country’s reputation?