NASA funding cuts continue

[Ace Pace]

Great, cut R&D

The proposed budget cuts could severely hurt NASA research



Members of the U.S. Congress, aviation industry officials and scientific leaders have warned that budget cuts in aeronautics and space research at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration could harm the U.S. space industry. The cuts would limit the ability of NASA to research and create new technology that would be used for a number of future projects. NASA is already having problems paying for space shuttle repairs and for possible missions to the moon and Mars. The cuts could also impact a new air traffic system that is designed to reduce the amount of gridlock in U.S. airways.

The Next Generation Air Traffic System, a program aimed at replacing aging radars with satellite-based technology, is about to have its budget cut $54 million – NASA is the main agency doing research for the project. Government estimates claim that airlines may face more flight delays if the system is not updated. NASA has claimed that it still has the funds required to update the air traffic system.

NASA has already undergone budget cuts that have taken millions of dollars from the space agency over the past 10 years. Next year, the space agency faces a further 20% cut in aviation research.

Since launching shuttle Atlantis and shuttle Discovery earlier this year, NASA has had what many viewers consider a successful year. While European aviation research continues to increase, U.S. funding is continuing to slide.

[Broomstick]

Although I am in favor of improving air traffic control, I am actually not upset to see NGATS delayed.

Some of what is suggested with NGATS is a good thing - the preliminary testing of plane-to-plane communications in Alaska with CAPSTONE has markedly improved safety in that state, particularly in remote areas with few navigation aids and no air traffic controllers. (So did GPS - people get lost a lot less often, and when they do, it's now easier to locate them. Sometimes.)

However, NGATS is heavily reliant on computer technology and incorporates a lot of stuff that, while nice, isn't necessary. Nor will it mesh with older systems, which means a half million or more aircraft will need to be retrofitted with new tech or grounded - and a sizable number of those older aircraft can't be retrofitted because they simply don't have the capacity to generate the needed electricity to run the NGATS. Not to mention the expense of it all - estimates of proposed costs of NGATS in-plane systems often exceed the total value of the airplanes I fly. It's rather like putting a $100,000 sound system into 1960's era VW bug. (Really - I've flown airplanes that use a modified version of the engines they used to use in those old bugs).

Even for such items as in-cockpit weather reports, NGATS is a mixed blessing. We have senators such as Rick Santorum who want to end the government providing weather information free to the public - including pilots. So... sure, after you spend the money on NGATS, put an entirely new (and heavier) electrical system into your airplane (thereby reducing your allowable payload) you now have to pay a yearly subscription to access the information your government obtained by use of your tax dollars through a third-party who will profit off the transaction but provide no added benefit to you.

Nevermind what you're supposed to do when atmospheric conditions interefere with all the back-and-forth transmitting of data that needs to occur with this system.

All of this fuss and bother being justified by the so-called ATC "crisis" - which is more of an airline scheduling crisis than anything else. Airlines will do totally impossible shit like schedule a dozen flights to all take off from, say, O'Hare at precisely 10 am. Um... sorry folks, no can do. Maybe, under the right conditions, you could get 2-3 simultaneous take-offs from that airport, not more than that. The crisis is a result of MBA's in suits who know jackshit about how airplanes fly - or who wish to manufacture a crisis in order to obtain more power and control.

The NGATS promoters want every flight of every airplane to be tracked by the system. Even if all the pilot is doing is making laps around an airport to practice landings out in the middle of bumfuck, nowhere. It's ludricous and overkill. It would be like installing a traffic light at the end of every driveway and not just on busy intersections. And then making the homeowner pay for that unneeded traffic light. And then charging a maintenance fee on top of that.

NGATS promoters claim they'll cover the costs by eliminating all the old navigational systems... which would leave us totally without backup to NGATS. Which is insane. You HAVE TO have a backup, that's why even airliners still carry a compass and paper maps on board. NO system is totally foolproof.

So, if NGATS dies I won't be upset at all. While there are some good ideas for improving aviation, there are some bad ones, too.

[Darth Servo]

And inspite of this, GW monkey boy still wants us to get back to the moon in another ~10 years?

[Molyneux]

All right, that's enough.

It's two-thousand-and-fucking-six.
We were supposed to have flying cars by now, three cities on Mars and a giant colony ship en route to the nearest habitable planet.

Why the HELL aren't we giving NASA MORE money instead of less?! We're too far behind schedule as it is!

[Bugsby]

No oil on Mars. Easy as that.

[Alyeska]

What the US government is doing to the FAA is criminal. They have instituted a hiring freeze that has lasted for the last several years and there is no end in sight. The conditions that controlers work is brutal. You work a rotating shift. As in you do not work a set scheduel. Whats worse is they will call you back into work immediately after having had 8 hours of rest. The FAA is undermanned by at least 30%. The FAA as a whole claims that controlers should call in sick if they are not well rested, but its a known fact that management will severly punish you for doing so.

Here is the kicker. 30% of the FAA workforce is eligable to retire in the next 2 years. There is absolutely no incentive to continue working for the FAA beyond eligable retirement because a lot of the former benefits also got cut.

So the FAA is overworked and undermanned, has refused to hire any new employees, and has 1/3 of its workforce about to walk in the next 24 months.

So hello to increased aircraft accidents.

[Molyneux]

No oil on Mars. Easy as that.

That explains it for the fucktards in charge of our government...what about everyone else?

Why don't people CARE about the goddamn space program? Even if they don't want to be involved themselves, they can't be ignorant about the hundreds (or has it gotten to 'thousands' yet?) of technological advances NASA gave us...hell, Teflon's just the very tip of the iceberg.

...can they?

[SeeingRed]

And inspite of this, GW monkey boy still wants us to get back to the moon in another ~10 years?

Don't forget Mars! It's vitally important to U.S. national security that we land human beings on Mars! There's a lot that humans can do that portable labs-on-a-robot cannot!

[Stofsk]

No oil on Mars. Easy as that.

That explains it for the fucktards in charge of our government...what about everyone else?

Why don't people CARE about the goddamn space program? Even if they don't want to be involved themselves, they can't be ignorant about the hundreds (or has it gotten to 'thousands' yet?) of technological advances NASA gave us...hell, Teflon's just the very tip of the iceberg.

...can they?

Of course they don't care. This is the same society who's idea of sound use of taxpayer dollars is being spent in the quagmire that is Vietraq.

Getting to the Moon and Mars and beyond is a particular technological and innovational challenge that requires a strength of will as well as it does money and scientific acumen. The will is simply not there, to say nothing of the money. How long do you expect a piece of shit research station takes to get built? More than a decade?

But you guys have the DEA and $300 billion USD blown in democratising Iraq... give yourselves a round of applause.

[Broomstick]

We were supposed to have flying cars by now, three cities on Mars and a giant colony ship en route to the nearest habitable planet.

Well, at least we have the "flying cars", though they're more properly referred to as "airplanes" and "helicopters".

Alyeska, your quote is a little off, some I'm going to make some minor edits:

What the US government is doing to the air traffic controllers is criminal. They have instituted a hiring freeze that has lasted for the last several years and there is no end in sight. The conditions that controlers work is brutal. You work a rotating shift. As in you do not work a set scheduel. Whats worse is they will call you back into work immediately after having had 8 hours of rest. Air traffic control is undermanned by at least 30%. The FAA as a whole claims that controlers should call in sick if they are not well rested, but its a known fact that management will severly punish you for doing so.

Here is the kicker. 30% of the air traffic control workforce is eligable to retire in the next 2 years. There is absolutely no incentive to continue working for the FAA beyond eligable retirement because a lot of the former benefits also got cut.

So air traffic control is overworked and undermanned, has refused to hire any new employees, and has 1/3 of its workforce about to walk in the next 24 months.

Add in to this the facts that you can not enter training as a controller if past the age of 30, and they are forced to retire from the job at 55, which further shrinks the available pool of applicants. Perhaps someone in government has the bizarre notion that this job can be outsourced to India or given to illegal immigrants. It's ominous when the head of the FAA states that controllers "make too much money for people who don't have college degrees" - they may not have a degree, but they DO have to undergo years of rigorous training to do the job, a job that regulation permits for only half the time of most careers due to retirement rules.

The FAA claims this problem will be solved by "greater efficiency" (make the remaining drones work harder) and technology. Technology! What a laugh! This is the agency that STILL hasn't upgraded it's air traffic technology past 1976! It's still common for control towers to be using equipment older than the people operating it. Of course, since putting an end to all tours of air control facilities 5 years ago fewer and fewer people are aware of this fact. Makes it easier to sweep such unpleasentness under the rug.

So hello to increased aircraft accidents.

No one in government will do anything until bodies start falling out of the sky. Sad, but true. And then they will blame the overworked, exhausted people instead of their own unwillingness to fund an adequate system instead of pissing away dollars.

The other scary area that's undergoing a staffing crisis is inspectors - starting with the Reagan years, the funding and staffing for people inspecting airlines and other operations for safety and regulatory compliance have been cut drastically. There are fewer people trying to cover more aircraft and businesses than ever before. It was all part of "deregulation" which was supposed to improve aviation. It's given us cheaper airfares, I'm not sure what, other than that, it's "improved".

[K. A. Pital]

GW monkey boy still wants us to get back to the moon in another ~10 years?

Conspiracy theorists gave him a hint, and the Wonder Chimp has thought that perhaps making the second landing a fake is not such a bad idea...

[Drooling Iguana]

No oil on Mars. Easy as that.

That explains it for the fucktards in charge of our government...what about everyone else?

Why don't people CARE about the goddamn space program? Even if they don't want to be involved themselves, they can't be ignorant about the hundreds (or has it gotten to 'thousands' yet?) of technological advances NASA gave us...hell, Teflon's just the very tip of the iceberg.

...can they?

But we have to fix all our problems here before going into space!

[K. A. Pital]

But we have to fix all our problems here before going into space!

Could've been an argument if the Bush administration actually did something to fix them...

[Lord Zentei]

No oil on Mars. Easy as that.

There is H-3 on the Moon, though, which may very well be better.

[Dave]

You missed the point. There's no oil for the oil companies on mars.

I really have no idea why the public isn't more enthused about space colonization. Heaven knows there's all the resouces we need out there, (pun not intended) all we need to do is go and get them.

We're going to run out of resources down here. Lets go up there and get fresh supplies.

Personaly, I think the public is just too stupid to realize all that Space Tech has done for them. Why go anywhere else when you can just watch TV at home?

Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain. --(Friedrich Schiller says you are not alone in your complaints.)

[Lord Zentei]

You missed the point. There's no oil for the oil companies on mars.

Oh, I get the point all right. The oil companies need not restrict themselves to only one energy source, you know.

[Shinova]

There is no public enthusiasm cause they're all occupied with watching the newest ep of Survivor, or wondering what Brad Pitt is wearing tomorrow, or about work, or God speak, etc.

[Winston Blake]

There is no public enthusiasm cause they're all occupied with watching the newest ep of Survivor, or wondering what Brad Pitt is wearing tomorrow, or about work, or God speak, etc.

More importantly, when they get bored of this season of Survivor, they'll go to the next. The next celebrity. The next big televangelist.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Let's go into space? 'Been there, done that, left the flag'.

The Space Age? 'What a passe term.'

Spread humanity into space? 'You mean you think all that laser-bolt scifi stuff is real?'

Then, of course, there are no longer any dirty commies who might exploit space and develop powerful ICBM tech. So with no real motivation for the general public or governments to stay interested in space, all you've got left is commercial interests.

A corporation builds a spaceship and plans to fly any regular joe into space? 'That's kinda cool, since it may actually have an effect on me.'

[Molyneux]

There is no public enthusiasm cause they're all occupied with watching the newest ep of Survivor, or wondering what Brad Pitt is wearing tomorrow, or about work, or God speak, etc.

More importantly, when they get bored of this season of Survivor, they'll go to the next. The next celebrity. The next big televangelist.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Let's go into space? 'Been there, done that, left the flag'.

The Space Age? 'What a passe term.'

Spread humanity into space? 'You mean you think all that laser-bolt scifi stuff is real?'

Then, of course, there are no longer any dirty commies who might exploit space and develop powerful ICBM tech. So with no real motivation for the general public or governments to stay interested in space, all you've got left is commercial interests.

A corporation builds a spaceship and plans to fly any regular joe into space? 'That's kinda cool, since it may actually have an effect on me.'

And just to show EXACTLY how stupid people of that mold are (drawn shamelessly by a speech made by R.A. Heinlein himself before a Congressional committee):

"If it involves microminiaturization of any sory, minicomputers, miniaturized long-life power sources, highly reliable microswitches, remotely-controlled manipulators, image enhancers, small and sophisticated robotics or cybernetics, then, no matter where you find the item, at a critical point in its development it was part of our space program."

"The most ironical thing about our space program is that there are thousands of people alive today (this speech was made in 1979 - by this point the number must be in the tens of thousands, at least) who would be dead were it not for some item derived from space research - but are blissfully unaware of the fact - and complain about 'wasting all that money on stupid, useless space stunts when we have so many really important problems to solve right here on earth.'...The entire 10 years of the Moon program works out to slightly less than five cents per citizen per day."


The entirety of the speech can be found in "Expanded Universe", under the title "Spinoff"...and here's another list, from the Ethical Atheist at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/bene ... ogram.html :

1. The most accurate topographical map of the Earth. This data is used to develop safer navigation techniques and better communication systems.
2. Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.
3. Heart pump based on technology of space shuttle's fuel pumps. It's two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs less than four ounces.
4. Efficient autos and planes benefiting from NASA wind tunnel and aerodynamic expertise.
5. New metal alloys based on research for the space station program.
6. Thermal protection blankets used in everything from fire fighters suits to survival gear for cold environments.
7. Robots and robotic software with wide-ranging uses that include auto-assembly plants, hazardous material handling, monitoring in dangerous environments, distribution and packaging facilities, etc.
8. Lightweight composite materials that benefit cars, airplanes, camping gear, etc.
9. Perfect protein crystals grown in zero gravity; used for more pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other crystalline-based products including insulin for diabetes patients.
10. Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring quality of our oceans and fresh water.
11. Commercial space communication systems for personal phones, computers, video transmissions, global positioning satellite systems, etc.
12. Improvements in energy use efficiency.
13. More responsible use of air and water in private and commercial buildings.
14. Automated maintenance functions for buildings and new lower-cost building construction techniques.
15. Smoke detectors for homes and commercial buildings.
16. Air purification systems used to by hospitals to provide pure oxygen for patients.
17. High-bandwidth and optical communications systems.
18 Technology for cordless tools such as drills, shrub trimmers and rechargeable flashlights.

(There's about 50 more in the list on that site - a list which is itself incomplete - but I'd rather not gum up the whole topic with one huge post.)

[Vendetta]

You missed the point. There's no oil for the oil companies on mars.

Oh, I get the point all right. The oil companies need not restrict themselves to only one energy source, you know.

No, but they're quite happy to squeeze every drop of profit out of the one they've got before going to all the expense and risk of finding new ones out in the black. Exploiting space based resources would require vast costs, for unknown benefits. Which is why companies are not going to do it. Sure, they might be first into a new market with a huge lead on the competition, but there's far more chance that in the short term they'll spend a shitload of money and not get much out.

[wilfulton]

I find this somewhat ironic. You know who is running around prancing up and down about how "Human beings are headed into the cosmos!"

On what, the power of motherfucking hot air!?

It's days like this that make you want to throw up your arms and say, "What are we supposed to into the cosmos on, empty promises and missed deliveries?"

That sounds more to me like a ticket for us humans to into the cosmos in memory only. If you put your money anywhere, put it into R&D. Shit, I learned that by playing Master of Orion, and that's a freaking GAME!

[Hawkwings]

So when do we all move to the SDN-founded island nation and actually get all this stuff done?

People are so apathetic... and as Kreia has recently told me, "Apathy is death"

[Uraniun235]

It's ominous when the head of the FAA states that controllers "make too much money for people who don't have college degrees"

That makes me want to throw things. What an absurd remark.

And then they will blame the overworked, exhausted people instead of their own unwillingness to fund an adequate system instead of pissing away dollars.

I hope the controllers up and strike once some of them start dropping unconscious on the job, because that's probably the only thing that'll motivate any change.

[Sikon]

I find this somewhat ironic. You know who is running around prancing up and down about how "Human beings are headed into the cosmos!"

On what, the power of motherfucking hot air!?

It's days like this that make you want to throw up your arms and say, "What are we supposed to into the cosmos on, empty promises and missed deliveries?"

That sounds more to me like a ticket for us humans to into the cosmos in memory only. If you put your money anywhere, put it into R&D. Shit, I learned that by playing Master of Orion, and that's a freaking GAME!

Definitely, more funding could help, but such would need to be combined with other changes to really make a large difference.

Imagine history if ocean ships had cost as much as dozens of times their mass in gold like the International Space Station. The ISS will mass several hundred tons and cost $100+ billion at planned completion. There can be no real future in space until its economics change.

NASA is making little progress. The Saturn V cost $430 million in 1967 dollars for a launch capable of putting 130 tons into LEO: $2.6 billion in 2006 dollars. The Space Shuttle delivers less than one-fifth of the payload mass, yet it has cost $1.3 billion per mission in total.

Energy/fuel costs are not the problem, not 1% of launch costs. Propellant is mostly liquid oxygen costing cents per pound. Studies suggest present costs are unnecessary. For example, NASA verified that the Sea Dragon proposal might drop launch costs several times or more. There are even alternatives to rockets alone, such as a Sandia National Laboratories study on an electromagnetic launcher, a LLNL study on a gas gun, and more (SNL & LLNL studies, LEO on the Cheap).

The electrical energy equivalent at $0.05/kw-hr of sending an object to orbit is $0.20 per pound before inefficiencies. The preceding Space Shuttle launch costs are a million times greater: $26000+ per pound of payload. Normally all transportation systems from ships to aircraft only cost a few times energy expense. One need not assume a particular proposal is the solution, but trying almost anything could be better than continuing the status quo, decade after decade. No proposals like the preceding have ever received a single billion dollars of funding.

The present commercial launch market involves too few tons of satellites annually to make private investors interested in spending even one billion dollars to develop a new launch system. Yet half of NASA's $300 billion per decade funding is 15000 times the $10 million Ansari X-prize. If enough funding was used to provide motivation, private investors might develop a system cheaper than present rockets, which are like throwing away a 747 after one flight. The government would not have to spend anything if success did not occur, instead just guaranteeing such a reward if one of the competitors succeeded. Unfortunately this is not happening. Congress cripples the space program with poor funding decisions.

[Sikon]

The preceding Space Shuttle launch costs are a million times greater: $26000+ per pound of payload.

I thought I checked all figures before, but I see now that should be approximately a hundred thousand times greater, not a million times greater.