Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

DougC · #1 by **DougC** » Feb 03, 2015 7:41 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31113216

B.B.C. Article
US President Barack Obama has requested $18.5bn (£12.3bn) to run the country's civil space agency, Nasa, in the Fiscal Year 2016.
That would represent a $519m increase on that enacted for FY2015.
The president calls once again for a big jump in funding for the commercial programme that aims to get America launching its own astronauts again.

The Space Launch System should have its maiden outing in 2018

But the request would also end financial support for the venerable Mars rover Opportunity.
As ever, the proposals are not fixed until agreed with Congress, and the politicians on Capitol Hill always insist on some changes, increasing some budget lines whilst reducing others.
This has certainly been the case in recent years with the commercial crew programme, for which Congress has repeatedly denied the requested funding.
Nasa has contracted the Boeing and SpaceX companies to develop capsule systems to ferry astronauts to and from the space station, with 2017 being their likely entry into service.

(Continues)

igorfrankensteen · #2 by **igorfrankensteen** » Feb 03, 2015 11:13 pm

If they follow their recent patterns, the GOP will reject this because it comes from him, regardless of it's merit. We'll see, though.

Jerome Da Gnome · #3 by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Feb 03, 2015 11:22 pm

He is putting out some ridiculous everyone gets paid budget.

igorfrankensteen · #4 by **igorfrankensteen** » Feb 04, 2015 2:19 am

I wouldn't disagree with that. It's obvious nothing will get through.

Horwood Beer-Master · #5 by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Feb 04, 2015 11:33 am

He never ought to have cancelled the Constellation Program in the first place.

Calilasseia · #6 by **Calilasseia** » Feb 04, 2015 4:14 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:He is putting out some ridiculous everyone gets paid budget.

Except that it's equal to just 2%of the money the US spends on its armed forces. If you want a really ridiculous budget, try the F-35 programme, which is likely to cost a whopping $1 trillion over its projected lifetime. For the money being spent on that, NASA could fund space tourism to Mars.

lyingcheat · #7 by **lyingcheat** » Feb 06, 2015 7:07 am

In the final episode of the Wonders of the Universe program Brian Cox mentions the budget for some hi-tech program he was using to illustrate one of his points. He was was in the US, at the facility, and talking about what they are trying to do - I can't remember which it was... I think it was the big (enormous) laser thing that's working on fusion, which if successful will demonstrate the means by which (practically) limitless energy might be accessed. Energy which is, according to him, not only obviously useful on Earth but which is sufficient (and needed) to drive the next level of space exploration.
Which we must undertake because, just as it was for 99% of the species who ever lived, extinction is already written in our future. Which thought he tied to the idea that we homo sapiens, as (possibly) the only 'intelligent' life in the galaxy, if not the universe, are very very valuable and important.

Anyway, he said that the annual budget the facility operates on is 1/10th of what people in the US spend on 'pet grooming' every year. He speculated, with charmingly hopeful naivety, that if the US public knew this some of them might be inclined to brush their own cat, and donate the money instead to research.

hahahahaaa!

Onyx8 · #8 by **Onyx8** » Feb 06, 2015 8:21 am

I have no idea if this is spurious or not, but when I was a kid in school and the cost of the moon shots was being attacked a soft stat was passed around that the moon program cost as much each year as USAians spent on cosmetics.

Seabass · #9 by **Seabass** » Feb 06, 2015 9:22 am

lyingcheat wrote:Anyway, he said that the annual budget the facility operates on is 1/10th of what people in the US spend on 'pet grooming' every year. He speculated, with charmingly hopeful naivety, that if the US public knew this some of them might be inclined to brush their own cat, and donate the money instead to research.

hahahahaaa!

Onyx8 wrote:I have no idea if this is spurious or not, but when I was a kid in school and the cost of the moon shots was being attacked a soft stat was passed around that the moon program cost as much each year as USAians spent on cosmetics.

Well, on the bright side, if we humans do go extinct, it will be another thing ratskep can blame on the Americans.

Onyx8 · **#10** by **Onyx8** » Feb 06, 2015 5:27 pm

Who is doing 'blaming'?

Scarlett · **#11** by **Scarlett** » Feb 06, 2015 5:33 pm

And I'm wondering if that's Ratskep as a 'thing' or a minority of individuals who use Ratskep? :ask:

lyingcheat · **#12** by **lyingcheat** » Feb 06, 2015 5:37 pm

Seabass wrote:Well, on the bright side, if we humans do go extinct, it will be another thing ratskep can blame on the Americans.

There's no 'if' about it. It's a certainty given enough time. But, on the bright side, by the time it happens (if we last until the inevitable end) it seems fairly unlikely there will be any such thing as 'Americans'.

The broader point Cox was making, in referring to technology like space exploration, is that we may be the first species with an opportunity to subvert what looks like an inevitable trend. I gathered the point of making a link between the amount people spend on pet grooming (when they could just as easily brush their own cat) and the costs of technology that may save this species was about the priorities we have (all of us, governments... individuals... ) and our seeming inability to address things, important things, that we probably should be paying attention to.

He delivered these ^^^ musings in the context of an underfunded (US) research facility investigating nuclear fusion, which added piquancy to his comments about the fact the we (the global community) still burn carbon for most of our energy needs. We aren't standing around a wood fueled fire outside the cave, but we're still just burning carbon.

Jerome Da Gnome · **#13** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Feb 06, 2015 9:08 pm

Onyx8 wrote:I have no idea if this is spurious or not, but when I was a kid in school and the cost of the moon shots was being attacked a soft stat was passed around that the moon program cost as much each year as USAians spent on cosmetics.

Nonsense propaganda.

Jerome Da Gnome · **#14** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Feb 06, 2015 9:11 pm

lyingcheat wrote: He was was in the US, at the facility, and talking about what they are trying to do - I can't remember which it was... I think it was the big (enormous) laser thing that's working on fusion, which if successful will demonstrate the means by which (practically) limitless energy might be accessed.

"if successful" "might" .. anyways,

Why does the world rely on the USA to do these thing? It is tiresome that peoples in other nations complain about what we do for the rest of the world.

lyingcheat · **#15** by **lyingcheat** » Feb 07, 2015 6:28 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
lyingcheat wrote: He was was in the US, at the facility, and talking about what they are trying to do - I can't remember which it was... I think it was the big (enormous) laser thing that's working on fusion, which if successful will demonstrate the means by which (practically) limitless energy might be accessed.

"if successful" "might" .. anyways,

Indeed. You said "if" when referring to species extinction and again "if" in reference to fusion and the potential it has.
Your skepticism is clearly deep and pure.

But species extinction is a certainty.
And nuclear fusion has apparently been achieved - small scale certainly, and very expensive, but this facility only opened in 2009.

Scientists Achieve Nuclear Fusion With Giant Laser
Feb 13, 2014.
A successful nuclear fusion process could help solve the worlds energy problems
Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory... said they'd achieved a first; A nuclear fusion system has produced more energy than it initially absorbed.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/24 ... laser.html

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Why does the world rely on the USA to do these thing? It is tiresome that peoples in other nations complain about what we do for the rest of the world.

I didn't notice that Cox suggested we should all rely on the US, or lambast the US for letting us all down. He notices when he is in 'other' countries I guess, but I gather from his perspective - the point of view of an astrophysicist talking about species extinction - nationalistic concerns, and competitiveness, probably seem kind of trivial... and a bit irrelevant.

From a personal point of view though, and to address your general point, I agree the world shouldn't rely on the US for all 'technological research'. And probably doesn't.
I'd like to see Tonga do more myself, they should just get on with it and quit whining about not having the expertise or resources.

I sympathise too that it must be 'tiresome' to constantly hear "peoples in other nations" complaining about what the US does for the rest of the world. It's probably just as tiresome as constantly hearing US claims about its natural god-given entitlement to pre-eminence in the global community, which is often tied to tedious boasting about what it does for the rest of the world.

But back to the (general) topic of funding 'tech-research' hey?

You can substitute Russia or some other country for every instance of USA in these articles if you like, along with appropriate substitution of any facilities mentioned, but what is your opinion on the disparity of spending illustrated by these links, and what do you think it says about global comprehension of the priorities we, as a species, might appropriately have?

Americans spent an estimated $52 billion on our animals in 2012. According to the American Pet Products Association we spent $6.2 billion on grooming and treats.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a federal research facility in Livermore, California, founded by the University of California in 1952. A Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), it is primarily funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). LLNL has an annual budget of about $1.5 billion and a staff of roughly 5,800 employees.

MarkS · **#16** by **MarkS** » Feb 07, 2015 9:57 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
lyingcheat wrote: He was was in the US, at the facility, and talking about what they are trying to do - I can't remember which it was... I think it was the big (enormous) laser thing that's working on fusion, which if successful will demonstrate the means by which (practically) limitless energy might be accessed.

"if successful" "might" .. anyways,

Why does the world rely on the USA to do these thing? It is tiresome that peoples in other nations complain about what we do for the rest of the world.

What things?

Jerome Da Gnome · **#17** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Feb 08, 2015 7:59 pm

MarkS wrote:
What things?

Dunkirk for one.

Anyways, I would prefer that America spends her resources on the needy at home, then the poorest of the poorest peoples before giving extravagances to the ungrateful already wealthy western nations.

Jerome Da Gnome · **#18** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Feb 08, 2015 8:05 pm

Guys, we are out of cash, hoping you guys could pitch in for these super cool things you want that you are not paying for.

Scarlett · **#19** by **Scarlett** » Feb 08, 2015 8:48 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
lyingcheat wrote: He was was in the US, at the facility, and talking about what they are trying to do - I can't remember which it was... I think it was the big (enormous) laser thing that's working on fusion, which if successful will demonstrate the means by which (practically) limitless energy might be accessed.

"if successful" "might" .. anyways,

Why does the world rely on the USA to do these thing? It is tiresome that peoples in other nations complain about what we do for the rest of the world.

Excuse me? Some parts of the rest of the world were doing 'things' for the rest of the world before your country was even a country. :lol:

We'll have our electricity, telephones, Tarmac and Internet back please. :snooty:

Jerome Da Gnome · **#20** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Feb 08, 2015 10:30 pm

heh, there are some of you that do help a bit .. :grin:

Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Re: Obama seeks to raise Nasa funding

Who is online