NASA Gets a $6 Billion Booster for Mars and Beyond

[Wanderermy]

Find hope in this, NASA, science and Mars fans: President Obama's new stance on NASA's funding will likely pump no less than $6 billion into the agency to create a new heavy rocket sooner than we'd hoped. Mars is its target.Over the previous few weeks we've heard rumors about what NASA's future might look like. All of them seemed attractive compared to the grim reality we'd assumed would happen: The Space Shuttle grounded, the Constellation moonshot program canceled, big delays in getting private space ventures ready to fire humans into space, and huge job losses in NASA and its supporting industries.

Now there's word that during a big space event tomorrow, Obama will unveil a new vision that includes $6 billion of extra cash for the space agency, on top of its original budget plans, phased over five years. This money has very specific purposes: Firstly it's going to create 2,500 additional jobs in and around NASA's Florida installations, and secondly it'll result in a new large rocket that'll be key in taking humans to Mars. Spin-off work will include continuing to develop the Orion manned space capsule to act as an emergency escape vehicle for the international space station.

Reuters quotes White House officials on the matter, so we can assume this is an "official" leak, and the positive PR spin is unmistakable: "This new strategy means more money for NASA, more jobs for the country, more astronaut time in space" is one fabulous line, and, "This is a rocket that is going to happen two years earlier than would've happened under the past program" is the other. It looks like the President's office really wants the public to buy in to this new strategy--and with good reason, as it's got that shiny public relations gleam that all exciting space research has, as well as banging the U.S.A drum a little too.

But what exactly will $6 billion buy us in 2010 and the next several years? The emphasis seems to be on "new" rocket research, distanced from Constellation's Ares I and V vehicles, and that implies a different approach. Ares V, the heavy-lift component of Constellation, was based on sparingly few Space Shuttle tech derivatives, and was an expensive and long-term project, needing research into new engines and other rocket systems. So maybe those rumors we heard last week of the Space Shuttle C derivative rocket are being given a boost by this news: It has the potential to be cheaper than Ares V, uses much more of the Shuttle tech that's already familiar, and since the design has been knocking around since the 1970's, it has the potential to arrive in service a little sooner than Ares V would've blasted into the skies. And its capacity to hoist heavy pieces of a space-borne vehicle, destined for Mars, is perfectly aligned with Obama's plan for NASA's future.

More

**** YEAH!!!

[Growled Member]

Sounds like good news for NASA. I'm glad. I just worry about where that extra $6 billion is coming from.

[Ridgeburner]

This is just my opinion -- but if we stopped dumping these ridiculous amounts of money into such silly areas of interest (sports, music, nasa, etc.) maybe our economy might actually be a little better off than it is. Shouldn't we be able to care for our own country before trying to learn more/visit other planets?? Should we really pay Tiger Woods $110 million a YEAR just to putt around a golf ball? Imagine how much every pro athlete out there makes COMBINED. Do these rock stars, pop singers and hip hop rappers really deserve these millions and millions? IMO no not at all, money should be given to those who provide a SERVICE, not entertainment.

[iamawesomewicked]

This is just my opinion -- but if we stopped dumping these ridiculous amounts of money into such silly areas of interest (sports, music, nasa, etc.) maybe our economy might actually be a little better off than it is. Shouldn't we be able to care for our own country before trying to learn more/visit other planets?? Should we really pay Tiger Woods $110 million a YEAR just to putt around a golf ball? Imagine how much every pro athlete out there makes COMBINED. Do these rock stars, pop singers and hip hop rappers really deserve these millions and millions? IMO no not at all, money should be given to those who provide a SERVICE, not entertainment.

If you stopped pumping money into NASA, you wouldnt be on the wonderful thing called the Internet right now.

[neufuse Veteran]

This is just my opinion -- but if we stopped dumping these ridiculous amounts of money into such silly areas of interest (sports, music, nasa, etc.) maybe our economy might actually be a little better off than it is. Shouldn't we be able to care for our own country before trying to learn more/visit other planets?? Should we really pay Tiger Woods $110 million a YEAR just to putt around a golf ball? Imagine how much every pro athlete out there makes COMBINED. Do these rock stars, pop singers and hip hop rappers really deserve these millions and millions? IMO no not at all, money should be given to those who provide a SERVICE, not entertainment.

Tiger woods isn't paid by tax money, so that is irrelevant, putting money into NASA to do research is what gives a country an advantage over another one... but other areas like pet projects like building a half billion dollar sports area... that's just a waste of money from the tax payers point of view... make the team pay for it

If you stopped pumping money into NASA, you wouldnt be on the wonderful thing called the Internet right now.

Wouldn't that be the Department of Defense that would be responsible for that? not NASA

[Astra.Xtreme]

This is just my opinion -- but if we stopped dumping these ridiculous amounts of money into such silly areas of interest (sports, music, nasa, etc.) maybe our economy might actually be a little better off than it is. Shouldn't we be able to care for our own country before trying to learn more/visit other planets?? Should we really pay Tiger Woods $110 million a YEAR just to putt around a golf ball? Imagine how much every pro athlete out there makes COMBINED. Do these rock stars, pop singers and hip hop rappers really deserve these millions and millions? IMO no not at all, money should be given to those who provide a SERVICE, not entertainment.

You make it sound like all that money that goes to sports, NASA, music, etc. has a return of $0. That is completely false because the return on every one of those is tremendous. It wouldn't even make sense to pay out millions and millions of dollars if there wasn't money to be made. Those 3 things have a massive part in the economy and without them, we wouldn't even be close to where we are right now.

Sports and music create a huge cash flow between consumers and companies, and NASA engineers a huge amount of technology that we eventually become accustomed to. It all has to start somewhere.

Money wasted is paying for illegal aliens to live in this country. Definitely not this.

[iamawesomewicked]

Tiger woods isn't paid by tax money, so that is irrelevant, putting money into NASA to do research is what gives a country an advantage over another one... but other areas like pet projects like building a half billion dollar sports area... that's just a waste of money from the tax payers point of view... make the team pay for it

Wouldn't that be the Department of Defense that would be responsible for that? not NASA

I was talking about technology in itself, not the internet specifically.

[Josh]

This is just my opinion -- but if we stopped dumping these ridiculous amounts of money into such silly areas of interest (sports, music, nasa, etc.) maybe our economy might actually be a little better off than it is. Shouldn't we be able to care for our own country before trying to learn more/visit other planets?? Should we really pay Tiger Woods $110 million a YEAR just to putt around a golf ball? Imagine how much every pro athlete out there makes COMBINED. Do these rock stars, pop singers and hip hop rappers really deserve these millions and millions? IMO no not at all, money should be given to those who provide a SERVICE, not entertainment.

has anyone really been as far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[neufuse Veteran]

has anyone really been as far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

:blink:

[Kerm]

has anyone really been as far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I had a really well thought out reply for this topic, however after reading that I almost forgot my own name... :blink:

[planetik]

I had a really well thought out reply for this topic, however after reading that I almost forgot my own name... :blink:

Origins: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Has_anyone_really_been_far_even_as_decided_to_use_even_go_want_to_do_look_more_like

[Reacon]

This is great. I'm glad Obama isn't putting such a small part of our budget aside to make room for another gov't department. Instead, he improves it! This is one of the first few things I've agreed with him on: we need to keep an advantage, especially in science.

[mduren2445]

check this site out about the benefits of the space program

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

the benefits we now enjoy far far out weigh the cost..I wonder what invention or benefit we may lose because of cuts...the cure for cancer? remember how the microwave oven was invented by an accident in testing radars :laugh:

[Ridgeburner]

You make it sound like all that money that goes to sports, NASA, music, etc. has a return of $0. That is completely false because the return on every one of those is tremendous. It wouldn't even make sense to pay out millions and millions of dollars if there wasn't money to be made. Those 3 things have a massive part in the economy and without them, we wouldn't even be close to where we are right now.

Sports and music create a huge cash flow between consumers and companies, and NASA engineers a huge amount of technology that we eventually become accustomed to. It all has to start somewhere.

Money wasted is paying for illegal aliens to live in this country. Definitely not this.

Fair enough, let me ask you this then: Where do you believe the money comes from, initially, to pay for or fund these musical artists or sports players? Their support/advertising money has to come from somewhere. Sure, the return may be greater -- but what does that give us? MORE sports icons? Music artists? What about better education funding, housing, medical research, banks, etc. My point was, the initial 'investors' or proprietors should be dumping this money into aforementioned facilities -- giving us not only a better economy and quality of life assurance -- but also making it easier for people to get car loans -- more people paying off a loan = more money being pressed through. Or better education -- so children CAN get a proper one and become someone of great asset or importance.

Now what was said about NASA, i will agree on. I was quick to judge the topic without giving it much thought -- but $6 BILLION :blink: Just seems like a lot to us middle class I guess :laugh:

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

has anyone really been as far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

so i was just wondering that if what happens begins that an afterwards, how is that at then greater through was what before?

roflmao

[amon91]

Now what was said about NASA, i will agree on. I was quick to judge the topic without giving it much thought -- but $6 BILLION :blink: Just seems like a lot to us middle class I guess :laugh:

It's actually not a lot for building overwhelmingly expensive equipment, along with research and employee pay. I'm not for excessive government spending, but I think space exploration is something worth putting money on. Then who knows, the US might even license and sell their discoveries to others (and make money that way). They definitely can't let other countries catch up, it would be an embarrassment.

[Treemonkeys]

More money spent bailing out big business than for going to mars. :rofl:

[Growled Member]

Not everyone is happy with the new plans:

Moon Men to Obama: Your NASA Plans Suck Space Void

Not everyone's pleased with NASA's future, as defined by the Obama-led new fiscal plans for the space agency...and three particularly significant chaps would just assume tell him to shove it up Uranus. They're names are Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan. Ring any bells?

[PricklyPoo]

such silly areas of interest...nasa, maybe our economy might actually be a little better off than it is.

Oh god, my ears! :pinch:

[ATGC]

should be 600 billion

[Fish]

Nearly 40 years ago, the then-president promised the country that they would send men to the Moon and back within the decade, and did just that.

In 2010, the current president makes a vague promise about sending men to Mars "by the mid 2030's... And a landing on Mars will follow". As much as I'd love to see this, I can't help feeling that these are hollow words.

[iamwhoiam]

That 6 billion would be put to better use somewhere else instead of [eventually; maybe not even then] sending it into space.

[Growled Member]

That 6 billion would be put to better use somewhere else instead of [eventually; maybe not even then] sending it into space.

It might be worth if it if we made it back to space. I doubt if we ever will now.