Here's where your $30 billion in tax dollars went...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by monkspider
You know where our tax dollars are really going? That damn new $20 dollar bill commercial.
It's time we put the capitalist's heads on pikes.

And its not even a very good commercial. Too vulgar. Too American.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Too American.

Heaven forbid.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Umm...that's the point

To you.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Heaven forbid.

Ha! Most (intelligent) Americans admit that American propaganda is sub-par.

[Dis]

space sux!

[DanS]

NASA couldn't convert 1:1 funding from space station into other programs. the space station infact is probably still a good money getter for them.

That would be a very good point, if true. The program with top PR value right now is the Hubble space telescope. Our Mars program does pretty good too.

The space station doesn't get much good PR. You could argue that just because it requires a lot of money, it's a good money maker, which is true in the short run, but is very wrong in the long run.

[DanS]

I get the impression that NASA should be run on a more cost benefit basis. Choose projects, sub-projects or even the very basic things like equipment that will use the money most efficiently. They appear to worry about budgets (i.e not overspending) rather than about bang for bucks. Stitch in time, and all that.

I think it would be tough to justify our entire manned program on a cost benefit basis. But even if you could justify increases in the annual space station budget, you couldn't get it through congress. The last time we allowed large increases was for the Apollo program. Apparently, the sums involved scared the bejeezus out of the check writers (about 1% of our economy for a couple of years).

Now we try to even out the expenditures. A steady $2 billion a year for the station plus the shuttle at $4 billion a year (the only mission for the Shuttle right now is the space station).

Over it's lifetime, the space station itself will be $95 billion, not including launch costs on the shuttle.

[The Mad Monk]

DanS, the station was originally meant to hold at least six astronauts, but because of cutbacks to "save money", it can only support three.

You need three astronauts to just keep it running -- that's how it was designed. The other three were supposed to do the valuble research that would justify the expense.

Of course, it can't support six anymore.

[Arrian]

While I think it is obvious NASA needs better management, the reason the ISS is having trouble is mainly that we half-assed it. We (both us and the Russians) made promises we can't really keep. We thought we could, but **** happens (like shuttles exploding during re-entry). Building a space station isn't exactly easy, and I think too many people expected everything to go according to plan. Now that it hasn't, we're hard-pressed to keep things going up there.

If we intend to keep the manned space program, I think we need:

1) a new launch vehicle
2) some grand goal (Mars), even if it's far-off
3) the will to get it done, even in the face of adversity (see: Apollo Program)

I don't think we have #3. Our attention is on other things - War on Terror/Afganistan/Iraq, recession, etc. There is no "us vs. the Soviets" competition to spur us on, either. China just reached the 1960s, so they will have to keep at it for a while before they are pushing us (though I kinda hope they do).

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

It's kinda like sending up a new space telescope, but leaving out the main mirror because, you know, mirrors of that size and quality are real expensive.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's also because we wouldn't commit the resources, and now things are halfassed and bandaided along since we no longer have any delivery capability to get up there.

This is the most important reason why U.S. government programs fail. One party mandates that the government do something, the other party kills the funding. So we get a half-assed program that pisses everyone off, and then the party that killed the funding goes, "See, see, the government can't do anything right, we never swhould have spent money on this in the first place."

[Main_Brain]

when did the ESS got renamed anyway? *curious&nonkidding*

[DanS]

Re #3, I think we have the will. No problem. The thing to remember is that Apollo required a great deal more will than does Mars, because the funding was concentrated into a 7-year program. Since time and cost are most often at loggerheads, we made things much more expensive.

Re #2, I agree that a long-term goal would be useful. More than 1/3rd of our entire space program is adrift without a raison d'etre.

Re #1, a small manned ferry would be good. The space plane is a good concept.

The irony of all of this is that by its launch vehicle choices, the Russians are in a better position to exploit a space advantage than we are. It's amazing that the chaos of the last 12 years hasn't minimized the wisdom of their choices.