This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Astronaut Pushes Next President For Larger NASA Budget

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 27, 2016
Filed under ,
Astronaut Pushes Next President For Larger NASA Budget

An astronaut’s complaint about the president perfectly captures what is wrong with NASA, TechInsider
“During a Reddit AMA from the International Space Station on Jan. 23 Astronaut Scott Kelly called out the US government for its lack of financial support for NASA. When a Reddit user asked Kelly what he’d like to see the next president of the United States do, Kelly had an interesting answer: “I would like the next president to support a budget that allows us to accomplish the mission that we are asked to perform, whatever that mission may be,” Kelly wrote. … To Kelly’s point, even though the Obama administration directed NASA to start working on a manned mission to Mars, many have criticized the administration and Congress for not adequately funding NASA, causing critical Mars projects to fall behind schedule.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

14 responses to “Astronaut Pushes Next President For Larger NASA Budget”

  1. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    He had a great AMA, well done Scott!

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Complete and utter nonsense. NASA has the money.

    Kill SLS. Fire ULA and Boeing. Elon has amply demonstrated that there is a better way. And that a billion is still a billion.

    • OldRocketDude says:
      0
      0

      I disagree. To kill SLS now would be a monumental waste of taxpayers dollars. Elon is close to showing a cheaper way to LEO, but is still a long way away from sending anything of significance beyond LEO. Continuing on with SLS, warts and all, is the prudent course of action. I sure hope the new administration doesn’t flush the baby out with the bathwater, to mix metaphors!

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        An experience in the stock market when I was a (much) younger person taught me the follow of holding on to a bad investment.

        When/if SLS is complete, at some point launch costs will dwarf development costs. We will look back wistfully.

        • Joe Denison says:
          0
          0

          I don’t see any evidence that launch costs will “dwarf” development costs (unless you are saying that operating it over 30 years would cost a lot more than development, which is the case for every rocket).

          Even assuming $1.5 Billion per launch you would need two launches a year to just get above the current development budget.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Even assuming $1.5 Billion per launch

            Just to be pedantic: There are going to be a maximum of four SLS launches between now and 2027. (Ie, the number of recycled shuttle engines they have, and the date they’ve order six new engines for.)

            [At $3b year (including Orion, which will be funded whether they fly it or not) that’s $8.25 billion per launch.]

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        To kill SLS now would be a monumental waste of taxpayers dollars

        Google “Sunk cost fallacy”.

        The only issue is how much SLS will cost starting now — tens of billions to launch just a handful of times over two decades — versus what NASA could achieve with that funding directed elsewhere.

        Killing a bad program is always a good thing.

  3. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    The President can only propose a NON BINDING budget PROPOSAL to congress. He would be better off ragging at congress.

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      Well its not like the President has zero say (he signs the budget bill and implements it). If you look at the Congressional budget in a lot of ways it follows the Presidential budget. Congress generally doesn’t get too involved in the minutia of where every single dollar goes.

      Also the direction of NASA has traditionally been seen as the purview of the President. Congress cares more about the parochial interests, it is the President’s job to set the direction of NASA and propose sufficient resources to get the job done (this was a problem under Bush too).

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        What did congress say when President Obama proposed 6 billion in new funding for NASA to fully fund commercial crew? Yes in general they follow .. but this congress has never been afraid to toss out budget proposals form President Obama or require a super majority of 60 votes in the senate.

        • brobof says:
          0
          0

          Even more frustrating IIRC was the killing off of the technological development. Especially fuel depots and automated rendezvous. Seed potatoes for the Flexible Path…
          If ARM gets cancelled then we lose the advanced ion drive as well.

  4. Gene DiGennaro says:
    0
    0

    Weird time we live in. As I have stated over and over again, all anecdotal evidence points to an American populace that has seemed to re-embrace its space program. Yet, this rekindled love affair flows everywhere but Washington, regardless of party. C’mon DC, get the message: The American citizen wants a robust space exploration program!

  5. mdocur01 says:
    0
    0

    We’d all love more money for NASA… but I’m not sure that’s what is needed to accomplish something worthwhile. With the money that NASA currently gets – let’s put it in the 17 to 20 Billion dollars per year category – you could have a different kind of space program… one that does more than run tests on human guinea pigs in low earth orbit. I’m tired of watching astronauts go around in circles around the earth and play with water bubbles (I’m sure they’re tired of it too). So what NASA actually needs more of is leadership, mission, and focus. The real question to ask is do we want to go to Mars or do we want to continue to prepare to go to Mars… NASA is stuck in the ‘preparation’ phase which could take an infinite amount of time and money.