E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNASA provides a quick look at its current and future human spaceflight activities.
NASA is closing out one chapter in the multibillion-dollar effort to create new fleets of spaceships, and getting ready to open the next one. Sometime in the next month or two, the space agency will pick up to three teams of companies to receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funding for their spaceship development efforts. That's a lot of money — but it's important to keep all those expenditures in perspective.
As an accompaniment to this week's series of commentaries about the commercial space race, here's a guide to what's gone on before and what's coming up:
Cargo transports
NASA's push to commercialize transportation services to low Earth orbit began in 2006, a couple of years after the White House decided that the space shuttle fleet had to be retired, when SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler were awarded almost half a billion dollars to support the development of robotic cargo spacecraft capable of resupplying the space station in the post-shuttle era. "If it doesn't work, I've frankly made the wrong bet," said Mike Griffin, who was NASA's administrator at the time.
In Rocketplane Kistler's case, the bet didn't pay off. NASA paid the company $32.1 million, but Rocketplane failed to win enough private backing to keep going. The company lost its NASA funding and ended up declaring bankruptcy. Orbital Sciences Corp. was selected as a replacement.
With May's successful demonstration flight of the Dragon cargo capsule, SpaceX has virtually completed all its objectives for the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or COTS. It should soon get the last of the $396 million in COTS money that NASA has set aside for the company. Orbital Sciences, meanwhile, is gearing up for key flight tests of its Antares rocket and Cygnus capsule, and at last report has received $266.5 million of its $288 million in COTS money.
Even as the development program nears its end, SpaceX and Orbital are getting ready to begin routine cargo flights to the space station under a follow-on program known as Commercial Resupply Services, or CRS. SpaceX is due to get $1.6 billion for 12 flights scheduled through 2015, while Orbital gets $1.9 billion for eight flights. Citing NASA figures, NBC News' Jay Barbree says SpaceX and Orbital have each received $337.6 million in preparation for the CRS flights.
May 31: SpaceX's Dragon cargo craft returns to Earth from the International Space Station.
Space taxis
So far, we've been talking about unmanned flights to the space station, but NASA also needs U.S. spaceships capable of carrying astronauts to and from the station. Because these "space taxis" will be carrying people rather than mere stuff, the safety standards will have to be higher than they are for cargo craft. In 2010, NASA started setting aside funds to support the development of such spacecraft by private-sector partners. In the first phase of the program, NASA awarded $50 million to five companies for work on future spaceships or safety systems: $3.7 million to Blue Origin, $18 million to the Boeing Co., $1.4 million to Paragon Space Development Corp., $20 million to Sierra Nevada Corp., and $6.7 million to United Launch Alliance.
Last year, four companies won funding for the development of potential crew vehicles: SpaceX is getting $75 million for work on a crew-capable version of the Dragon. Boeing is getting $112.9 million for its CST-100 capsule. Sierra Nevada is getting $105.6 million for its Dream Chaser space plane, and Blue Origin is getting $22 million for its Orbital Space Vehicle. Three other companies are getting technical advice from NASA, but no money. Those three are ATK, Excalibur Almaz and United Launch Alliance.
Over the past few weeks, NASA has been making a string of announcements to the effect that the companies are meeting their milestones for the current phase of development. Just this week, for instance, the space agency said that it's wrapped up reviews with ATK and United Launch Alliance.
The next phase of the program will extend until May 2014. During this phase — known as Commercial Crew Integrated Capability, or CCiCap — NASA is expected to provide support for up to three teams that are offering complete systems for human spaceflight, including the launch vehicle, the space taxi and the infrastructure for ground and recovery operations. "By the end of the base period, you need to have an integrated design that you have talked with the government about," Ed Mango, program manager for NASA's Commercial Crew Program, told me.
Mango said NASA will announce who gets the CCiCap money sometime in the next 30 to 60 days. Exactly how much money is at stake? Mango won't say until the announcement is made, in part because negotiations are in progress. Each of the teams in the competition was asked to submit a confidential proposal for $300 million to $500 million in support, but NASA has been working with the teams to pare down the price tags if possible.
"It's similar to if you want modifications done to your house," Mango explained. "You can either buy the estimate as is, or you can negotiate on that estimate."
Boeing
An artist's conception shows Boeing's CST-100 crew capsule approaching the International Space Station. The CST-100 is one of several "space taxis" being developed for potential use by NASA.
Last month, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., worked out a deal under which two teams would get a full award, while a third backup team would get a partial award. The Obama administration requested $830 million for CCiCap in fiscal 2013, but it looks as if Congress is instead focusing on a funding level around $525 million.
The 2013 funding will be supplemented by extra money that NASA has been holding onto in the current fiscal year, as well as funding yet to be proposed for fiscal 2014, Mango said.
"The plan in fiscal year 2012, when we put our budget together, was always to use a large amount of the funds from fiscal year 2012 to be used for the next activity," he said. "There are hundreds of millions of dollars for FY12 that we will be putting into CCiCap once CCiCap is awarded."
There may be bonuses as well. "We have asked companies to give us optional milestones that we may or may not approve on the government side, that will bring each of the partners all the way through a crew demonstration mission," Mango said.
He doesn't expect any U.S. commercial spaceship to be ready to fly astronauts by mid-2014. "The state of the industry today is not ready to go through that in that amount of time," he said. But if a team is nearing the point at which it can send people safely into space — say, in 2015 or 2016 — there'd be an incentive for them to go for the optional milestone as part of the CCiCap phase of the program.
SpaceX and Boeing, as well as the team behind the Liberty launch system (which includes ATK, Astrium and Lockheed Martin), have said they could have their spacecraft ready for manned flights by late 2015, assuming that adequate funding is available. Sierra Nevada Corp. has said the Dream Chaser could send people into orbit in 2016, and Blue Origin is aiming for a similar time frame.
NASA wants to have U.S. commercial vehicles flying to the space station by 2017. In the meantime, the space agency will be paying the Russians as much as $63 million a seat for orbital rides. The teams vying for CCiCap money say they can beat that price. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, for example, has been quoted as saying the target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140 million, which works out to $20 million per seat for seven astronauts.
Mango emphasized that flying astronauts into space isn't just a question of dollars and cents: "Our No. 1 mission is to create a safe capability," he said.
He also noted that the Commercial Crew Program had two "separate but equal" goals. "We have a public need to create a U.S. capability to get folks to low Earth orbit ... and to the International Space Station," he said. The first goal could conceivably encompass scientific research flights or voyages to private-sector space stations, while the second goal is focused specifically on NASA's obligation to support space station operations through at least 2020.
"It's similar to when you look for a car," Mango said. "You buy a car, and then you decide where you want to go with it."
Exploration vehicles
When you count up all the money that NASA has set aside for commercial spaceships, the total comes to several billion dollars over the course of several years. That may sound like a lot of money, but it's far less than what's being spent on NASA's more ambitious effort to build space vehicles for exploration beyond Earth orbit.
As of 2010, roughly $10 billion was spent on Constellation, NASA's now-canceled project to send astronauts back to the moon. Another $2.5 billion was allocated to close out the Constellation contracts. The expenditures included $455 million for a suborbital Ares 1-X test flight that wasn't followed up on, and $500 million for the construction of an Ares 1 Mobile Launcher that was never used and now sits idle at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
That launch platform could still get a workout from the Liberty launch system, which incorporates elements of the Ares 1 rocket. It could also serve as the liftoff point for NASA's Space Launch System, a heavy-lift rocket that's being developed to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid in the mid-2020s, and perhaps to Mars and its moons sometime in the 2030s.
Sept. 14, 2011: NASA unveils the design of its next-generation rocket.
Last year, Congress and the White House agreed on a plan that calls for spending $18 billion on the SLS rocket and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle through 2017. That's when the first unmanned test flight is scheduled. About $10 billion would go to designing and building the rocket; $6 billion would go to the Orion development effort, led by Lockheed Martin; and the other $2 billion would go to launch pad construction at Kennedy Space Center.
After 2017, NASA projects that spending on SLS and Orion would amount to $3 billion a year, with the first crewed launch scheduled to take place in 2021. The further out you go, the squishier the numbers get.
The initial rocket flights would be powered by shuttle-style RS-25 engines, plus an updated Saturn-style J-2X for the upper stage, plus an extended version of the solid-rocket boosters that were used on the space shuttle. Last week, NASA announced that four companies were in the running to share $200 million in funding for the development of heftier SLS boosters.
In coming years, new rockets such as SpaceX's Falcon Heavy will probably be in the mix as well, and may even be flying commercial payloads to the moon and Mars. It'll be interesting to see how the next chapters of the spaceship saga play out. Do you have any guesses about future plot twists? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More about the commercial space race:
- Handicapping the race
- Space teams make progress
- Next steps in the new space race
- Cosmic Log archive on commercial space
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Great article. I know some will complain that "follow the money" means government handouts, but think about it for a minute. What side benefits has the space program produced? What would be the cost of NASA developing its own LEO craft? What tangible benefits do ordinary American receive?
I'm not going into the side benefits from the space program. Google it or stick your head in the sand.
The Space Shuttle was a beautiful ship, but not economically viable. Developing another single-purpose craft would take time and money, and with its limited launch schedule would be another waste of money. Turning LEO operations over to private enterprise brings the economies of scale into the picture. Why can private companies like SpaceX do it cheaper? Because NASA isn't their only customer, and you spread the R&D costs (SpaceX has put up at least as much as NASA has awarded them) around more customers.
These contracts are also a win for ordinary Americans. These are all American companies, who employ American workers. All types of workers, from scientists to janitors, from engineers to secretaries. At a time when companies are folding or sending business overseas, this industry is expanding and expanding here in the U.S.
I'd also like to point out to the "Obama gutted NASA" crowd that, as Mr. Boyle states in the article:
"The Obama administration requested $830 million for CCiCap in fiscal 2013, but it looks as if Congress is instead focusing on a funding level around $525 million."
NASA funding is controlled by Congress, so blame Obama for something else.
There is a lot of economic "naivete" regarding the rolls of government and private enterprise. The government can certainly provide great benefit to its people when developing new industries and providing opportunities for new companies to grow and develop expertise in new fields. That benefit is only realized however if it becomes self sustaining separate from government funding.
So the best way to judge "government handouts" is simply to see if there is a plan in place where the government will not be paying out money and the long term economic activities will surpass the value placed into the program to begin with. This should be separated from "cultural enrichment", like arts and sciences that generally inform and satisfy human desire for "adventure".
I don't know how much "On the hook" a president should be for his ability to leverage his party in Congress to fund his policies. Certainly to an unknown extent Obama did or did not push for NASA funding the the mix for demands and concessions.
As for, "Do you have any guesses about future plot twists? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below."
How about SpaceX and Bigelow private space station alliance? How much of a twist would it be if they are able to make a more relevant LEO platform for human activities than the ISS?
Sanescience is right that government funding, and government as primary customer, isn't really commercial space. Commercial space will come when the companies involved can do it without government money and without the government as primary customer. Until then they are just NASA contractors.
There is lots of confusion about the term "commercial". It does not mean "without any government purchases" however.
The Commercial Crew program is commercial because NASA will be buying passage, not owning and operating the equipment themselves. Sure NASA is providing some of the development money, but NASA (and Congress) is also wanting things done the NASA way.
NASA is also the only firm customer at this point, so the risk for these companies to do the development on their own is very high. In the consumer products industry, Apple provides funding for some of their suppliers for the same reason, yet everyone recognizes that Apple is in the commercial world.
Commercial Crew is commercial.
Right, I focused here on what NASA has been doing on the orbital front, but it's true that there's more activity that doesn't involve NASA... for example, Sanescience mentions the SpaceX/Bigelow marketing alliance that is looking for international orbital business that may involve Bigelow's future space stations. And of course there's the space tourism business with Virgin Galactic, XCOR Aerospace and Armadillo Aerospace/Space Adventures. Much more could be said, but this darn story was already getting too long.
Nasa's hand out????
How about the 1 trillion dollar hand out for schools loans that will never be paid back. Loans that colleges knew from the beginning that students will never be able to pay back. For degrees that mean nothing in the real world.
Congrats you have a four year degree in English, $100,000 in debt and make only minimum wage at Starbucks. What in the world do you do with a Bachelors degree in English? You can go back to school and get your master and an additional school loans.
At least NASA inventions benefit our society.
Sanescience wants you to believe that the U.S. government's role is to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the the development of cutting edge technologies (which we have been doing for at least a hundred years) then simply hand off the latest and greatest to the "entrepenuers" for a pittance. I would argue that this precisely the problem, and not the solution. Private enterprise has played a significant and meaningful role in the growth and development of the Space Program from day one. ATK, Lockheed, Boeing and countless others have raked in billions of federal dollars over the course of several decades. There is certainly room for private enterprise going forward, the question is, if the United States will be buying "seats" on future space flights, why are we giving the wealth of our knowledge away for free?
Why are my replies deleted before even being posted?
Thankyou. This is the wrong TIME.
I laughed when Newt brought it up.
I get angry when the Government brings it up.
I shudder and am positively frightened out of my mind when "Private" brings it up. Its an Egotistical (exciting) but luxurious hobby for the 1% who have Ownership and Profit in their demented minds. We don't have enough information for them to go messing around up there. There will be Consequences. What rules do we have. Bankers Rules??? To let these maniacs loose is insane! They should lock their brains up until they can think of goals to progress humanity and the Earth.
It was wise of NBC to post this story at the end of Jay Barbree's 5-part commentary; which showed a bias towards a particular architecture by an "old-space" organization. This article was an update on where the players in various segments of space commercialization are and was much more valuable to me.
Allowing these companies to compete in low-earth operations is the best way to reduce costs and improve access to that region of space for the general public. This also allows NASA to to turn their attention to more difficult problems such as advanced space propulsion systems that will require higher risk missions. At the beginning of this effort, opinions varied on why NASA's involvement on any level was a bad idea, and many of the companies themselves were skeptical, but they seemed to have done a good job by sharing their extensive knowledge and experience with these companies. I'm sure it's been valuable for NASA as well to see new approaches to old problems with different tools.
The partnerships are challenging to develop because of the political environment in the US Congress. The success of these companies is disruptive to businesses and funding related to Congressional districts, which always results in tough conversations .. or active opposition. However; NASA and it's partners have continued to take ground at every opportunity and they are showing enough progress so that even their detractors are noticing. It is exciting to watch and let us hope momentum continues to build.
There are two things that America does, and does well: Go to war and go to space. It's a shame our priorities are so out of skew with what we really should be doing.
Our current Defense budget sits at about 687Billion dollars while our NASA budget sits at a paltry 18Billion dollars.
As a comparison: China spends about 111Billion dollars on their defenses (about a sixth of what we spend) and they are the second biggest defense spender on this planet. Russia, France, United Kingdom? They are all well under the 100Billion dollar mark.
Imagine, just imagine what we could do if we shifted 100Billion out of our annual Defense budget and reallocated it towards space and space exploration. After a decade, we would have spent a Trillion dollars building a space infrastructure that the rest of the world would be throwing money at us to use (LEO spacecraft, space stations, lunar bases, interstellar spacecraft).
Instead we fritter away money on maintaining 11 nuclear aircraft carriers (when all other countries only have 1 or 2). We spend 75 Billion dollars alone in just defense R&D figuring out new and imaginative ways to kill people. I understand the need for a strong defense, but c'mon...!
We are the single most, gun-enjoyingest country in the world. We have 88 guns for every 100 people in our country and this amounts to nearly 270Million guns in the US alone in private hands. Think we really need that strong of a defense budget when we have so many yahoos in our country who'd be willing to grab their guns to defend their homeland?
We don't. We just like the term "Superpower" and we really are enamored with the idea of being the "Toughest Guy on the Block". Terrific. Why can't we be the "Coolest Cat in Space" instead? Bet it'd give us a much better return on our money.
"Imagine, just imagine what we could do if we shifted 100Billion out of our annual Defense budget and reallocated it towards space and space exploration."
But first ask precisely how it's to be spent. On programs that will actually enable itself and other US entities to do more manned space activities. or pork-barrel projects where 'keep feeding money to my state/district' process becomes more important than actually producing useful, economic results? (*cough* SLS *cough*)
The National Aeronautics and Space administration doesn't deserve a blank check, any more than the Department of Defense does...
"After a decade, we would have spent a Trillion dollars building a space infrastructure that the rest of the world would be throwing money at us to use (LEO spacecraft, space stations, lunar bases..."
That's what I mean. This should not take dollars in the trillions (or even multiple hundreds of billions) to achieve. But if you go in expecting to spend that much money to do so, you will.
"..interstellar spacecraft)."
Depends on what you mean by that. Unmanned probes getting seriously outside the solar system? (like the old 'Tau' [for 'Thousand Astronomical Unit'] probe proposal) Sure. Actual manned vehicles that can reach another star in any reasonable time? A great deal more hard, basic engineering has to be done, before we can even know what the price tag might be...
"We are the single most, gun-enjoyingest country in the world. We have 88 guns for every 100 people in our country and this amounts to nearly 270Million guns in the US alone in private hands. Think we really need that strong of a defense budget when we have so many yahoos in our country who'd be willing to grab their guns to defend their homeland?"
First, if our enemies are that close, it may already be too late.
Second, what's that got to do with commercial or other manned space flight? Remember (well, I do), we reached the Moon at the height of the Vietnam War, and we don't need anything like Apollo-level funding to do great things, because we have a greater foundation of engineering knowledge then at that time, and we're in an environment today where we're not pressed for time (Before the decade is out, and before the Soviets), and can proceed in a reasonably paced, non-crash program, non-narrowly focused manner...as long as we do in fact proceed.
Frank-
I agree in principle, but let's not assume he means that NASA should get a blank check. It is just that we are killing our future over our obsession with warmaking. Even a fifth of the money used for the Pentagon, spent on hardcore r+d could transform the world in a handful of years. Of COURSE there has to be vigorous oversight and review, and the goals have to be well reasoned and fairly specific. But, if we did this, think of how many industries and aspects of life could be advanced in the coming years.
Imagine if we spend even a quarter of that money (of the 100B) on a Manhattan Project to make non-fossil fuels commercially viable, thus removing the cause of many future wars (and there WILL be wars over energy). It would be as Earth shaking as the Industrial Revolution was itself! The huge bonus is, the same engineering expertise, test program investments and labor of all kinds will be needed as are now dedicated to the war industry- so, not only there would be no loss of jobs, but likely as not, many ore would be created.
Clearly, we cannot abandon military prowess, but it is a sickening logical fallacy to say it's either all or nothing. That seems to be what too many people on either side are implying (while I know that was not your own position).
Just imagine if we diverted that money to improve daily life and Society?
Just imagine if we cleaned up the mess we made here on Earth and gave people a life they could feel happy and proud of? Employed the populace as Teachers, Firemen, Forest Protection, How to clean up oil spills still sitting in our Gulf, ignored..Alternatives to NUC waste no one knows where to store, Public Servants!!
Just imagine if we balanced our budget, and paid down our debt.
Make no mistake (and stop fantasizing), any defense cutbacks will serve that end, nothing else.
Julea,
You are aware that the space program (including NASA, its contractors and the private space companies) all employ Americans in jobs ranging from computer technicians to janitors, mechanical engineers to cafeteria workers. It's not just astronauts.
Given your logic, I guess its not time for creating new, U.S. based jobs right now. Tell that to the 10% who are unemployed and see how far you get.
@ Frank Glover
My reference to public gun ownership was proportional to my comment about our huge defense budget:
Let's break it down again: The USA outspends the entire world when it comes to defense budgets, and our national defense budget per year alone is about 687-711 Billion dollars. Why do we need to spend this huge amount of money (41% of the total world's expenditure); especially, when we know our nearest competitor (China) is only spending around 140 Billion a year?
Tie this now to our privately held gun ownership. There are over 270 Million privately owned weapons in the United States. Even if a foe could get past our Army, Navy, and Airforce they'd be facing 350 Million Americans carrying 270 Million handguns, rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles.
My point of tying the two together (DoD budgets and Private Gun Ownership) was to clearly indicated that we're pretty safe. Matter of fact, when it comes right down to it, it's the rest of the world that has to worry about us, and not the other way around. We really are the 500-pound bully on the block.
So...
Trim some of that pork off of the DoD budget, send it towards NASA, and let's try to leave behind the one thing we do really well (waging war), and get back to that other thing we do really well (exploring space).
I'm really a fan of a country pursuing the peaceful exploration of space over a a country looking for a reason to use all the planes, bombs, tanks and guns that it spends so much money on.
Let China do it. We can't afford it.
China will do whatever it thinks it needs to do, regardless of our plans and policies...
We can't afford to what, compete? How in the Hell can we afford not to??
We surely seem to think we can borrow money from China and others to keep spending more on war than almost all other nations combined!
Don't you see how f____d up our priorities are?
What do you mean let China do it. We can't afford it.
Actually with all the interest we're paying to China to finance our debts we're funding the Chinese space efforts. How nice of us.
Please explain to me why Orbital is getting $237.5 million per flight, and Space X gets only $133.3 million. I don't recall that Orbital's capsule has the extra payload capacity to justify the extra charge.
When you have two suppliers that don't operate the same equipment or have the same capabilities, that happens. It may also be partly because NASA is OK paying a higher premium for a 2nd supplier, especially since the second supplier has higher costs than the 1st provider. Likely we won't hear the complete run down, but the government does audit supplier costs as part of the contract negotiations, so it's not the case of "whatever the market will bear".
However the Cygnus does provide a larger internal volume than the Dragon - 18.9 m3 vs 10 m3 for the initial version of Cygnus (~2X more volume), and 27 m3 vs 10 m3 for their 4th vehicle and beyond (~3X more volume).
I think the larger volume is probably the key factor. Also, this sort of thing is a negotiation ... Sometimes it happens that if you want a second vendor, you may have to pay a bit more than you otherwise would.
It is more of an insurance policy for NASA. If one provider
has a problem the other one can pick up the slack. The space Shuttle accident
made that abundant clear.
For the price difference Space X main goal is to colonies
Mars. So all of their decisions’ are base on achieving that goal. And to make that goal they need to bring the price down and bring up the safety and reliability up.
Also Space X has control over most of his operation and hardware. Unlike the old space where the milking profits where the main driving goal.
Orbital still has its foot stuck in the old space door so there is a lot more built in cost they have little control over. They still really on contractors that are out to get as much profits as possible. That’s why the big cost difference.
When you use a triad of Titans of industry from the Military Industrial Complex arena to " design" and build your next booster and manned space capsule --- which really are just upgrades from 40 year old Apollo technology --- it costs an astounding $ 18 billion. ( Expect overruns and delays ) That's how the defense contractors work the arena .
When a California startup begins with a blank sheet of paper and vertically integrates its all-new engines, booster and capsule under one roof , it costs about ten percent as much.
You really don't want to hear what I truely think about THAT disparity and discongruity , and the underlying meaning to our American values and NASA's competency ...
Indeed, Boeing now thinks that part of the reasons its 787 Dreamliner was behind schedule, was that it did less vertical integration on that development than it usually does.
Compare that to a major space (or military, for that matter) project where politically you almost have to spread the work across as many states/congressional districts, to get the legislative votes to do the thing at all. How far would a NASA project attempting to do what SpaceX did manage to get, if it was clear that all the money would be spent only in the states SpaceX operates in?
Ad to that, NASA's own costing models which would indeed said that it would have cost about 10x as much as it did...
Vendors operating almost purely commercially, and not in the classic manner of NASA contractors (who also benefit from the above), cannot afford to spread their limited funding around, concentrating instead on what works, and the shortest route to get there.
These are the kinds of reasons that the one-penny, simple doubling of the NASA budget would not get the spectacular results that supporters of the idea think it would.
The other reason I attribute to Dreamliner being behind is it is a composite aircraft that while in the midst of development would have needed to adjust to the new lightning protection requirements released by the FAA a couple of years ago. Lightning protection on composite can be incredibly challenging without the spec changing in the middle of development so that certainly didn't help them. That in addition to the issues they were working through anyway and it is what it is in regards to schedule. Of course they'll never come out and say we had to redesign aspects of the plane for lightning protection - who'd want to board the thing then?
I want my taxes to benefit people On Earth. I want private to be blocked from Space. Obciously, Obviously they aren't capable of messing around with our rightful Place in the Scheme of Life.
So, the state should be in full control on anything done in space, because it can always be completely trusted...?
More private activity in space means more jobs on Earth in support of it. Or do you think everyone working for SpaceX (for example) works for free? Well spent tax money up front to kick start that (which will ultimately be made back in corporate profit tax), as it did with mail contracts for aviation, is fine with me.
BS excuses. We should not be in space at all untill we can evolve enough to handle things on earth. Private ruins everything it touches. I don't know why, but it does.
Again, No one should be in Space until we learn to handle life ON Earth. We are yet to infantile to travel there without destruction and people here need the help more. So much more. This is NOT the right Time.
We should not be in space at all untill we can evolve enough to handle things on earth.
. We should not fly until we can all ground transportation issues solved.
.. We should not cross the ocean until we have completely explored and resolved all problems related to our own coastline.
... We should not start a new village until the one we live in now is functioning to perfection and cannot be improved upon.
.... We should not leave this cave unless we have all the rocks in it smooth enough so that no one will stub their toe or possibly poke themselves on one.
..... We should not start a fire until we have learned to live in complete darkness all the time.
I am glad that not everyone in human history shares your philosophy, Julea Bacall. Progress and a better life for society as a whole is made through exploration. The universe is a very big place that has much to teach us. Staying in our own tiny corner of it is neither our nature nor in our best interests.
"BS excuses. We should not be in space at all untill we can evolve enough to handle things on earth."
First I simply do not believe that. Second, who is to judge when we are 'evolved' enough? You? Me? 'The Universe?'
"Private ruins everything it touches. I don't know why, but it does."
The alternative is to leave it up to government. How far do you trust the state? (and of you don't know why, perhaps you should find out...)
And where is the dividing line? 'Commercial' has been in space since the first communications satellites. Would I be forbidden (and by whom?) to merely fly around the Moon? Can I land n it and maybe bring back one rock? Can I sell it when I get back? (Uh oh, I guess I'm 'commercial' when I do that...Ive despoiled a 2100 mile, dead, meteor battered, airless, extremely hot/extremely cold, radiation exposed 'wilderness')
Do I have your permission to just pay to spend some time in low Earth orbit, not touching some sacred, pristine object somewhere else? Providing jobs to some people along the way? (Yes, by paying for that service, I helped the life of someone on Earth. I'm a middle-class working stiff myself, I get the value of that. And I'd personally welcome working for such a company, even if I could never afford to d it myself.)
And all the 'problems on Earth' will not be one step closer to being fixed, by not doing this. (You've heard that Elon Musk of SpaceX also manufactures electric cars, right?) But you lose out on any chance of finding new resources and solutions...
@Frank: we may be wasting our keystrokes on someone who is either trolling or represents a viewpoint that will impede any type of progress ... in any domain but their own interests.
The empire strikes back ... what a calamity ... Mr Obama shout it down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFpregq5eJ4
How, exactly, is it a "calamity"?
Somebody always has to play the space-race card
If we are in a race for anything, it is to be competitive, or even relevant. This is about far more than who gets there first. It is about who gets to continue living life in the first world, with a high standard of living. Military supremacy will not deliver that. It can only help to provide a secure environment in which we might again prosper.
I read a piece written by a college freshman, which proposes that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world labels need a new 4th-world partner. That new label would designate those nations which were once 1st world, but fell into decline and lost their standard of living. Such nations would be effectively post-development and post-decline.
How is it a calamity?? Get real. Look around. Not inside your own head but at real life and how people are destroying it. Look at the waste...look at the oil spills ignored...look at the poisoned oceans...
take a good look before before you endose the same in our Universe. People are not yet capable.
privatizing the programs that the government wil fund is a cost plus winner ....ill bet there are government officials that hold an interest in these companies....and when the y go public our senators and congressman are going to be very rich,and when they are found out they will retire and sit on the boards of these companies along with retired military officials.... and we the taxpayers will foot the bill........
Random FYI - if not previously discussed in this forum the reason the government funds what is called the commercialization of space is because Space X, etc., platforms aren't mature enough to get insurance companies to cover the mission in the event of failure. Too much risk. But the government can bite the bullet and cover the cost in the event of a catastrophic failure. Space X is very close to crossing this threshold. There's a mix of payload types they need to show successful mission completion on before they will be underwritten by insurance companies. This maybe a few years out which is nothing in space platform development time - the mission candidates are actually already picked out. After that the government won't have to back certain commercial launch vehicle's developed by the likes of Space X at least for insurance aspects and will only need to pay the cost for the ride. That's when we'll see the cost reductions. Also, NASA's forgotten more than the commercial houses coming up to speed will ever learn near term. They are there to help them come up to speed and they are doing a good job of it. The component pedigree selection process alone would astonish the uninitiated. You can't build these things with Radio Shack parts, well not if you want them to work. 'Nite all.
In my opinion, there are far too many companies chasing the limited funds for "Commercial" space. The list should have been winnowed down a long time ago to just one or two companies, starting with SpaceX.
@Kurt-682400
Yeah because, as we all know, fewer choices is always better.
Oh...wait.
'Picking winners' and reducing competition early on, is precisely what you want to avoid. The knowledge that others also want a piece of ISS servicing and crew rotation keeps a company on its toes, and less complacent.
And while I'm not as certain of Boeing or Sierra Nevada on this, it's clear that SpaceX and Blue Origin would soldier on, on their own dime. It would just take somewhat longer to get independent maned access from them. And the less time we have to pay about $60 million per seat to the Russians for ISS access, the better.
And Robert Bigelow's inflatable commercial space station technology is pretty much ready, he's only waiting for operational Commercial Crew vehicles to appear, and already has some tentative agreements with Boeing and SpaceX working.
One day we may look back and ask; 'Which came first, commercial manned spacecraft, or orbital destinations for them to go to?' We're just about at that 'chicken/egg singularity' where both begin...
I guess no one has heard. The "space age" is OVER.
Pure hubris... there's nothing out there.
Anyway, we're dealing with the unravelling of industrial civilization down here on earth, which is a one way ride... and all downhill from here. Humanity will never have the inspiration, energy, industrial base, or resources to fool around in space again, and certainly not to go anywhere in it. That's all folks... thanks for the memories.
LOL! If that was meant to be a joke it sure was a funny one.
You're right Popeye. No one hears you.
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."
- Chinese Proverb
Unless he is hurting many people and the environment. Man is not capable yet of safely doing anything...Prove it to us. Show us we can have healthy food on Earth. Show us we can still have good, uncontaminated water and air. Show us we can have a Socity where people don't need drugs with side effects just to cope. Show us here on Earth.
If we wait for Earth to be perfect before doing anything else, nothing else will happen.
The things you describe need to be done. But there is no reason to make exploring space and developing space resources hostage to that. None.
Indeed I would prefer to use the resources of dead airless rocks, instead of damaging the one planet we currently know has life.
Popeye incorrectly says we're in a downward spiral, and you seem to want to insure it, by not even trying...
We need progress on Earth. Face our problems and find solutions. Not escape to Space and ruin it in the process. Especially at this time!! The 1% is doing better than ever before. Maybe you are one of them. The rest of us And the Earth you would leave behind are in dire need of repair FIRST. None of your excuses can change what is. We need the minds of NASA to work on the real problems here.
You seem to want to ensure that we don't even try....just leave it all behind.
"We need progress on Earth."
Last I looked, things wee 'progressing.' Have you actually looked?
"Face our problems and find solutions."
People are doing that. Have you looked?
"The 1% is doing better than ever before."
So everyone tells me...
"Maybe you are one of them"
Excuse me while I stop laughing....this is yet another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.
"The rest of us And the Earth you would leave behind are in dire need of repair FIRST."
A civilization worth the name can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you don't believe that, then which of our problems must be fixed FIRST? What's that? We need to fix all of them? The yes, it's possible to handle more than one thing at a time...
"None of your excuses can change what is."
None of your ignorance and hyperbole can change what is.
"We need the minds of NASA to work on the real problems here."
What exactly makes the 'minds of NASA' any better than any others to do this?
"You seem to want to ensure that we don't even try....just leave it all behind."
And yet I keep pointing you to agencies and people whose job and calling already is to do them...but you seem stuck in the belief that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration possesses some special 'magic' that would do the trick for you.
A good friend of mine (who had once been a firefighter an EMT in her home state) was once a contract researcher at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Her formal training is in geology (among other things, she did some work on reflection spectra of the moons of Jupiter) but also did some work in radiation protection for the Orion spacecraft, and image analysis in the Columbia investigation. She lost this job, with the cancellation of the Constellation program (a program I opposed myself, because it was an exceptionally inefficient way to get into deep space, not because I didn't believe it should be doe at all...I've been a space geek since childhood)
Today, she's a teacher. And teaches...geology. Sorry, she can't eliminate pollution, cure cancer, or eliminate war. She's a kind, generous person who would wave that wand and cure all the world's ills if she could, but she can't. She does what he knows, it's just not at NASA now.
And you think it's all so damn simple...
And as noted elsewhere, I'm a lower middle class working stiff, following a childhood passion. I know people who have died of AIDS, cancer, Alzheimers, heart attacks, and auto accidents. Others who have assorted other medical conditions. I knew someone who was one of the last victims of a local serial murderer. I'm a member of a minority. You have nothing to tell me about how tough life can be. And I know full well that there are a great many who are far worse off than I.
And I follow other sciences and technologies enough to know what's being done on these and other problems. Do you?
Civilizations don't do one thing at a time. But smart ones look outward for knowledge, information, matter and energy resources, at the same time it takes care of what happens at its core. And others will, even if it does not.
Get back to me when you've actually learned something, Julea. Right now it's clear that you can spout slogans and platitudes, but you have no deep understanding of what actually goes on, or how anything really works...
Disgusting.
America is poor, and rulled by politicains who expect a cut.
This should never have been farmed out, but maybe the Chinese
should be asked to put in a bid.
And we know there's no corruption in the Chinese government, right?
I'm serious. Go ask the Chinese people...
Our lessons from the past and our new innovations look like they are coming together really nice now in the space race ....
What another nice article ....
And the count down continues for the landing of "The Rover Curiosity" on Mars ....
16 more days ....
Thanks Alan ....
Stay curious ....
We should spend our money on some worthwhile like welfare checks for illegal aliens. Science is only the future of civilization so that's a good place to cut, just ask ACORN.
You can't get an MRI when the doctor is commuting by horse and buggy to the hospital. All science feeds off one another, when one lags they all lag.
NASA needs the courage to take the next step, which would be atomic powered 'Alpha Drives' which rely upon the instantaneous heating of internal hypersonic air streams (SCRAM type engines) using intense bombardment by high energy alpha particles, which can provide trans-atmospheric propulsion into orbital space at the lowest possible cost using either nuclear or thermonuclear means of generating these high energy alpha particles. FYI, NASA! - Rick Carter
A nuclear ramjet (id that's what you're saying, under the technobabble) was considered in the 60's. Some hardware development was done. It as Called Project Pluto. Look it up.
And don't count on it being revived.
If you mean some of the exotic electrostatic confinement forms of fusion (Polywell, Focus Fusion, Crossfire and the like) and applying them to propulsion, a fair amount of paper study has been done there (unfortunately I can't post URLs), but like more 'traditional' fusion approaches, you have to first show you can get practical net power out of the thing first, before expecting NASA to be interested..
And that's okay. Personally I think it can work, and enough people are working on it (including US Navy support)...
Let NASA fix our energy problems ON Earth.
Rick:
I'm surprised you didn't mention the space based army manned by Non-Terrestrial Officers already in operation.
Julea, where in 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration' do you see anything about terrestrial energy production? That is not their job.
How about talking to the DOE (Department of Energy) for that?
#15.2
Julea, Have You, done the best you could? have you installed PV panels and hence are you as self sufficient as you, can, be? If yes, then tell me what are you doing to encourage others to do the same and hence " save the Planet"?
1.Acknowledge the problem.
2.Do what I can.
3.Stop others from doing more damage.
4. Ask the best minds to help.
As for space, untill we evolve, best to leave it alone. Watch without interferring.
Like Zimmerman with Martin. He should have watched only.
#15.6 Thank you, So then, would you stop gathering food for the weeks to come, because you need to mend the clothing of yesterday, can one not deal with the needs of the past and as well as progress for the future?
Not at this time of economic peril, corruption, war, starvation, homelessness, Bankers without rules, Militaries without Rules, Corporations without rules, etc.
NO! Not at this TIME. Not to mention how we would disturb the fragil balance by expecting to Mine, for God's Sake!! Mine and/or pilfer resources from outside.
Infantile destruction!!!
#15.8
Well, lets do what we should do " those that do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes " so tell me, did the fact that so many fled from the " Old world " to seeks a better place, did, that end badly or was it a good time for some to make the needed changes? What would YOU have done had you been in that predicament?
Point in case: I'd say it ended very badly for the millions of Native Americans living here...."Indians" they were called out of ignorance. It was a disaster for the pristine lakes and streams, for the wildlife which took so long to evolve here. A disaster for all the natural resources and the very air itself. Measles and siphyllis had been unknown. Disaster, disaster and you can't even remember or acknowledge what people in their ignorance brought to the New World which belonged to someone else. We have no idea what is really out there or what natural laws prevail...let alone what life may be waiting for destruction. WE DON"T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING YET.
lol Touche' , but I think you forget what " discoveries " that allowed , if properly used will make a " better world " I also think that far too many have a " sterilized " view of the " nations " as the locals like and liked to be known, they did not have a " Sangrila " they had wars, and famines, and they also had extinction periods, so please, view reality along with " romanticism" thank you for sharing with me your thoughts.
What was before and what is now is No Romance. We have even less repect and observation powers than before. Crazy, Crazy. No one wants to go back. Traveling to Space in Capitalistic Commercial Ships for Profit with all the pollution and waste is taking a giant step backward. (I can't imagine a real insurance Co. covering them. Be sure to read the fine print) Crazy,crazy.
But you sound like an openminded guy...What I am saying is this is Not the right Time.
Of all the private efforts to develop new crew vehicles, only the one from Sierra Nevada is based on a lifting body that will allow the craft to land on airport runways similar to how the Shuttle used to. Unlike the Shuttle though, the vehicle is mounted on top of the booster to mitigate the risk to crew. Parachutes are fine, but access to space needs to become routine to the point that it becomes mundane. At that point, we will have crossed the rubicon, and the discussion will get even more interesting.
Hopefully, the UK 'Skylon' will be that kind step...
next year WARP DRIVE!!!!! Whoopee!!!
Meanwhile back at the ranch: Is anybody hungry? Is anybody homeless? Is anybody suffering or dying for lack of medical care? Yes, we really have our priorities in a row in this nation of Christians. Here's to corporate welfare. Long may it wave.
" you will always have the poor and the humngry ... "
Will one more person be fed, if we stop doing this?
A civilization worth the name can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Only with the system we now use, without even questioning if it works well, will we Always have poor, sick and hungry. Instead of carrying this plague to Outer Spaces we should work on Changing what we did wrong On Earth.
Here's a tap, tap, tap on the shoulder's of those in charge at NASA. You are falling into the same hole our Country THREW THE USSR INTO A FEW YEARS BACK. Why is every one so blind as to not see this. That is unless they want to join the likes of the new Russia and China. I believe this might be the theory behind the Republicans who have such a need to remove President Obama. The Democratic Party is the only and I mean ONLY thing that stands between the 1% and We The People. That's RIGHT. Imperialists vs the people slaves. Oh I won't leave out those who have a gift whereby the 1% can benefit but they'll just throw you down the elevator shaft after you are no longer needed. Unless they get to REALLY like you. Know what I mean!!!
Like everything else, you want to make it clear that Obama should be blamed "for something else", let's see, jobs,welfare, not letting business's to prosper so they expand and hire, oh let's not forget about the EPA and all their regs. Would you like me to continue or do you just like a welfare government. I pay taxes, can you say the same?
"NASA also needs U.S. spaceships capable of carrying astronauts to and from the station."
I found this perusing amsat news.... http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/120703gallery/
notice how the wheels go round and round? neat huh? no bouncy bouncy. So why isn't rockwell in this little mule race anyways? Hey I got an idea, let's not make it so ANY company can join the space race, let's make it so we HAND pick just a few and give them BIG INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX TYPE MONIES to make something AND CALL it space privatization.....hey alan, I agree, that is one way to follow the money, but are there other money trails out there? Nice article, so when is nasa going to call for an rfp to pave a runway on the moon? After or before someone else makes one? not at all? surely we private entreprenours are not going to be happy parachuting down to the moonbase, and surely the chinese shintu program does not include little sketches of a thousand chianauts parachuting to their first lunar tour of duty.......are we really on the right path here? or are we, once again, taking the hugh aircraft carrier, the uss america, into a three walled gullie of a lagoon? cause if we are, I for one gotta say it's getting quite old to keep jumping off into the muck to push the thing back out before the captain runs us aground,......again......... IN spite of all that, at least WE have a commercial space program...I think russia does too, depends on how you look through the rose colored glasses..but soon other countries will want in on the proverbial buck.....on the side note, note england is now rewriting their outer space act (sometimes called a treaty)...for one it is going to be nicer to cubesats....and finally, YEA WE GOT THREE MORE HAMS IN SPACE!!!! wanna be an astronaut? git yer ham license....(and stay in school (and don't turn off spell checker)).....'tanks again al, once again a nice article...keep it up and hit the amsat newsletter from time to time....
"so when is nasa going to call for an rfp to pave a runway on the moon?"
You're joking, right?
KA2WQA
seems to me so many do not understand " cost " you see cost is not only monetary< it is also " the cost of progress " as< some< have rightly said< when one fails to progress< one then naturally retrogrades< so what is the " cost"?
The cost is to the people still suffering here ON Earth with oil spills, Nuc waste, air and water pollution, food pollution, war pollution, cancers, radiation, flesh eating bacteris, e-coli spread by GMO's. The cost and the impossible complecations is on us and the balance of the Solar system we live in. I say Stop. Especially at this time in our still infintile evolution.
Look but don't touch. Watch but don't put your fingers in it.
"Look but don't touch. Watch but don't put your fingers in it."
At some point, they'll ask why we even do that much. Then even unmanned, pure science probes will no longer be sent into space. 'It takes food from somebody's mouth.'
Then they'll come for the astronomers telescopes...
Sorry, no.
Look, but don't touch. We lack the needed wisdom and good judgement as is very very clear from our problems, yet unsolved, here on Earth. Solve problems here first. We need the best minds to do that.
Please explain how NASA can save the taxpayeres money by shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to several private contractors for spacecraft developement?
By spending hundreds of millions, in a competitive, multiple design decided by the contractors, limited oversight, 'but you have certain developmental milestones to meet or you don't' get paid environment, you get several vehicles that not only serve ISS, but jump-start manned commercial spaceflight for other applications.
The alternative is to use the traditional, NASA produces the design itself, various contractors bid on it, the one winner then gets a cost-plus contract that insures they'll make money even if they exceed the budget, or fail altogether...and cost about 10x times the above, to get the same result.
Essentially that's how.
Oh, and you no longer have to rely on an adversarial foreign transportation supplier to ISS, at about $60 million per seat...
Spend the money for People on Earth. Clean up the mess made here first.
There are many things to be done. We must do as many of them as practical.
There is no need to wait.
There most definitely is a need to wait. Are you a private contractor, perchance?
Are you part of the "Private" 1% gobbling too many lotus dreams while your room is mess and your dirty laundry is growing?
"There most definitely is a need to wait. Are you a private contractor, perchance?"
So, if I disagree with you, I must be 'the enemy?'
My present employer makes many things. At this time, making a portion of the air duct support of the Boeing 787 airliner is the only aerospace connection that I know we have. Others go into things like medical instruments, automobiles and firearms. And I'm not an office guy (not that there's anything wrong with that), I'm out there on the production floor. Is that sufficiently far down the ladder for you?
But I would knock on the door of SpaceX, Bigelow, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada or Boeing tomorrow, if I had a skill they wanted. If I can't fly spaceships, I'm more than happy to build them.
"Are you part of the "Private" 1%..."
I wish I was wealthy. You will never hear me apologize for that.
"...gobbling too many lotus dreams while your room is mess and your dirty laundry is growing?"
As if you had to be part of this 'one percent' for that to be so.
News flash: Wealth is not inherently evil. Poverty is not inherently noble. A lack of morals or ethics is only loosely connected to your income. A little time in 'the Hood' might show you that...
The poor don't try to make Disneyland in Space for the rich and famous. They poor don't entertain stupid unthoughtout ideas of Fracking the moon or bringing rocks back to sell? Whats even in those rocks? Do you know what contaminents are? Is that rock important to the life of the moon? Yes life of. Do you know the extermemly important role the moon has on our Earth? It keeps us on track. It gives us our weather. Earth would die without the moon.
I appreciate your interest in Space. I have great interest too. Even when you visit Hawaii, your not supposed to bring lava (for their growth) back here. You can't bring fruits or many substances. We are too,too ignorant to go poking around with our limited knowlege and crazy mind set of everything for monetary profit. Further out from the solar system there is life without mass. Don't mess with it.
You ask these questions about the nature of the Moon (we have actual pieces of it down here now, but never mind that), but you would deny any attempt to find out.
You claim to know what 'the poor' want (most would like to be wealthy, as do I) without asking. Even 'the poor' have dreams. The Moon causes tides and all that comes from that, but does nothing for weather.
And did anyone say anything about removing it? Do you know what would be required for such a thing? Do you even know what the mass of the Moon is? What you do not know, shows loud and clear, in that statement.
Again, you claim to know, and you clearly know nothing. Ignorance is okay, as long as you're willing to do something about it, for none of us are born knowing everything.
You don't care to know. It's not my job to reduce your ignorance. I have no more time to spar with you.
(Oh, and the National Park Service simply doesn't want every tourist and his brother grabbing lava rocks, they're perfectly willing to invoke the Hawaiian belief that the volcanic goddess Pele will make life trouble for those that do, until they return it. Professional geologists go in and take the limited amount they need for research purposes all the time...this from an NPS employee. But you know everything, I guess...)
We don't have a future as a species it we don't spread out the capacity and technology to go into space and learn to live there. Call it a dream if you want, but making dreams become real is as important as eating and breathing. We had dreams in the 60s but now, all i hear is whining. We have the greatest level of living in history and we still get whining. You want to know why America is slowly slipping away from you? That's because, in good part, too many people have lost the ability to dream great dreams, like those the immigrants had when they came to America. To those who have lost hope and are content to sit and complain, I say the only future you have is one of misery and slavery. But I find reasons for optimism, many of the preceding comments tell me that I'm not alone. I probably won't live to see men walking on Mars, but I'm very happy to see that things are moving in the right direction.
Keep up writing Allan. I just wrote a sci-fi novel with the action happening 60,000 years from now. How's that for optimism and hope? It will be published soon. My little part to keep the dream alive.
Sure we could have a future on Earth. But we need to change. Let NASA work on that for a change. We have no Ethical business ruining Space like we have ruined things here. Prove we can sanely make it here first. Tackle the problems, not run away.
A sane world? You're even a bigger dreamer than I am. Humanity has always thrived on insanity. It drives evolution and progress. The universe itself is insane in many ways. Your best shot for sanity is getting a life in space. What do you mean ruining space? It's already full of space junk, radiation, cosmic rays, blowing stars. Without ruined stars, we wouldn't even exist.
Why waste our best minds "out there" when they could solve our problems On Earth if funded for that! Our bodies are remarkable Universes that , if thoroughly studied, could unlock the secretes of Healthy living on this planet. The Government should unite its bests minds, and my tax dollars to do that. Clean up Earth first.
"Why waste our best minds "out there"..."
Not everybody is itching to do something space related. Plenty of the 'best minds' are doing other things. And they're not 'our' best minds. Not yours not mine. Allow people to decide for themselves what legal thing they want to do. Shut down all the 'space programs,' and these 'best minds' will most likely do something else in aerospace.
"...when they could solve our problems On Earth if funded for that!"
How do you know they're not? Do you have any idea how much is already being spent, with government or (gasp!) private money on the things you think are more important? Have you checked? The NASA budget this year is roughly $17 billion US dollars. That's about .5% (one-half of one percent) of the total Federal budget. And not all of it is spent on humans in space. See what the 'more important' things are getting, and how well it's being spent, before you try to dip into the pockets of NASA.
"Our bodies are remarkable Universes that , if thoroughly studied, could unlock the secretes of Healthy living on this planet."
And no 'best minds' are studying human biology? You really need to get out and search the Internet more...I'm pretty sure guys like Ray Kurzweil, Craig Venter and Aubrey deGray have been profiled even on this web site before. (What? Who are they? Look it up.)
"The Government should unite its bests minds, and my tax dollars to do that. Clean up Earth first."
You've heard of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), right? How about going to see what they already are doing about that (with your tax money), instead of railing about what an unrelated agency of the government is not doing?
It would be much easier to take you seriously, if you informed yourself, first. And the fact that you're on the Internet means you have the tools to do so. This is what search engines are for. Use 'em.
@ Michael: As someone who has long been a reader of, and is trying his hand at writing SF, good luck!
Thank you Frank!
Look for Random-Time, by M.H. Carter. (Dorrance) Should be out by next february.