NASA: Give us JUST 0.5% of the federal budget and we'll take you to MARS and EUROPA President Obama has proposed raising the NASA budget to $18.5bn in 2016 - and the space agency says it would use the funds to plan missions to the water-moon Europa and to capture asteroids and bring them back to Earth's orbit for study. The budget proposal would raise NASA's funding by $519m. NASA's administrator Charles …
Here is what the article says:
"Republican senator Ted Cruz has been appointed as the congressional manager of NASA and he's said he wants to cut costs where possible. It may be that more NASA programs face the axe as the horse-trading over cash begins."
Notice the lack of a quote? We're led to understand that Ted is a mean ol' science budget slasher, with only the slenderest of reeds to prop up the assertion. But heck, that's just peanuts compared to all his other heinous crimes, so who cares if it's "really true" or not?
Could be, but I'd like to see exactly what Ted really said, in full, and make up my own mind. Particularly since he hasn't actually slashed in anger yet.
I'll assume you're not in the States as this bozo has been talking running for President and pushing his agenda for many years.
So......
Quick Google News for "Ted Cruz" + "science"... The first three will give the flavor plus one more just for the climate people.. This really isn't a good thing. I think NASA will be lucky to afford a model rocket by the time this is over with.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruzs-nasa-oversight-sparks-criticism
http://gizmodo.com/8-dumb-quotes-about-science-from-new-nasa-overseer-ted-1678965577
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/ted-cruz-nasa_n_6456270.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120180/climate-denier-ted-cruz-may-lead-senate-science-subcommittee
Gee, what about 'evidence' that doesn't read like this:
"I don't know if you're aware, but he's completely fucking batshit insane. Full bore ultra-right wing anti-science whack job with added Jesus."
I just did a fast check and apparently Ted's main science crime is that he's a climate change denier. Oh no! Quick, hide the children! That man is batshit insane!
He's a fuck of a lot more crazy than being a climate change denier, although that's pretty fucking crazy. He's pretty anti science up and down the whole of the spectrum, and touts god as the cause and reason for most things. He has demanded evolution not be taught and so on and so forth. He is fucking batshit looney tunes insane with added sky fairy. Lock 'im up, and then melt the key down for use in deep core drilling.
"NASA is firmly on a Journey to Mars. Make no mistake, this journey will help guide and define our generation."
No arsehat, your generation will be defined by 10-year-long recession followed by monetary collapse, permanent warfare in foreign lands for no discernible reason, extreme surveillance, a transformation of public forces to unaccountable authoritarian outfits working outside the law, and craven, despicable behaviour of people in public service not seen since the fading days of the roman empire. Whether it will come to a nuclear exchange over a neoconnish to enact "regime change in Moscow" come hell or high water may well be seen very soon indeed.
the horse-trading over cash begins
Meanwhile, a bit further down the road, where the rubber hits it:
DoD Releases Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Proposal:
President Barack Obama today sent Congress a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Department of Defense budget request of $585.3 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund both base budget programs and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). ... As the department rebalances the joint force after 13 years of war, it confronts an uncertain fiscal environment in the absence of congressional action to reverse sequestration (i.e. reductions in the rate of increase, ed.). The geopolitical events of the past year only reinforce the need to resource DoD at the president’s requested funding level as opposed to current law. As the budget makes clear, a return to sequester-level funding would be irresponsible and dangerous, resulting in a force too small and ill equipped to respond to the full range of potential threats to the nation.
Hey, don't be so cynical. If we found intelligences on Mars that we could go to war with for no discernable reason, pass laws allowing for the unregulated corporate exploitation of Martian resources, proclaim that everyone who emigrated could own rocket launchers, discriminate against women and all minorities, and refuse to vaccinate their children…
…why, we could be set up on Mars in a month!
This post has been deleted by its author
So what? Give me $18.5bn, and I can fix Sydney's bus network.
A 2Km trip takes about 25 minutes limping along with a cane. Public transport is three buses and an hour and a half. To my old job, 35 minutes with a motorbike. 2 fucking hours by public transport.
Europa is piss easy, stop wasting your time and try our bus network for a real challenge.
Homer Simpson was right: Public transportation is for jerks and lesbians.
</rant off>
Cruz Control issues aside, there is another problem too.
One of the major costs of doing the Europa mission is... the launcher!
Yes, they plan to use... SLS. So that's one-point-six BILLION dollars right there. If only there was some way to save on money AND still get there in three years or less...
Oh, wait, there is! Put the probe on a Falcon Heavy and take it to LEO - 53 tonnes so that's lots of volume/mass for a really good probe. Launch a second Falcon Heavy with a propellent tank and an engine - 53 tonnes of fuel, oxident & engine will get you to most places in the Solar System pretty quickly. The fuel tank docks with the probe and gives it a long, powerful shove towards Europa all the while saving... MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS!
But... Heavy Sigh... as long as NASA's stuck with building SLS, they're also stuck with having to use it so cheap, plentiful probes in the future? Nope! Watch some politician, despite having previously mandated NASA to build SLS (and blocking them from using anything else) score a few points on TV by saying, "Two billion dollars or more to go and look at Europa? What a waste of money!"
"Yes, they plan to use... SLS."
No, that's an option for the mission. An Atlas V 551 with Venus and Earth gravity assists is the baseline.
"Put the probe on a Falcon Heavy and take it to LEO - 53 tonnes so that's lots of volume/mass for a really good probe. ... The fuel tank docks with the probe and gives it a long, powerful shove towards Europa all the while saving... MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS!"
That sounds good until you remember how expensive "really good probes" get. Cassini, Curiosity, Hubble, and other "science battleships" are more expensive than an SLS launch.
Further, your suggestion is to try the novel idea of launching a 53-ton probe (even if mostly fuel, that'll be a record) and then depend on an in-orbit docking maneuver with a 53-ton booster (also a new trick). That's a lot of new engineering and development for a deep space probe, which means fortunes will be spent.
Point being: your proposal takes launcher savings, spends them and a lot more money on a new, complicated probe. You'd be better off just using a single Falcon 9 Heavy launch for Europa Clipper or, better yet, stick to the Atlas V 551 baseline and practice patience for its 6-year trip to Jupiter.
Some at NASA are pushing for a more ambitious plans, however. This would involve putting a lander on the surface and drilling down into the ice, either mechanically, or by using heat to melt itself down through the surface and then releasing a submarine to explore the water below.
Well, if you're going there anyway, you might as well push for the landing and drilling part.
Please make this happen.
Out of interest, what's ESA's annual budget in comparison.
If we don't use the expensive SLS and use Falcon/Ariane rockets like @Kharkov suggests then surely ESA should be aiming to overtake NASA and become the defacto space agency.
As much as I admire NASA it does perplex me when they (US Govt) put someone like Ted Cruz in charge of their budget. What ever happened to the 'American Dream'? I think I've been watching too much House of Cards lately though....
Paris because...it's ESA's HQ
NASA is just one of a great many government bureaucracies that needs to go to the guillotine. I like the way the US moved from NACA to NASA when they needed to re-focus on space instead of just aero.There needs to be a new approach that involves the entire World, one that can make use of the new, lower cost rockets like SpaceX can provide, without all of that baggage that NASA currently drags along. Let's face it, NASA used the NAZI rocket team to get to the moon, they just funded it!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
