Continuing my trend of outsourcing most of my blogging to others with more time on their hands, here’s a great question [from a guy named SpaceXULA] on NASASpaceflight.com:
You must ask yourself this question. “Given that NASA is national prestige program purely funded by deficit spending, do you feel a 30% increase in NASA’s budget, that itself would come out of further deficit spending, is justifiable?”
The following two tabs change content below.
Jonathan Goff
President/CEO at Altius Space Machines
Jonathan Goff is a space technologist, inventor, and serial space entrepreneur who created the Selenian Boondocks blog. Jon was a co-founder of Masten Space Systems, and is the founder and CEO of Altius Space Machines, a space robotics startup in Broomfield, CO. His family includes his wife, Tiffany, and five boys: Jarom (deceased), Jonathan, James, Peter, and Andrew.
Jon has a BS in Manufacturing Engineering (1999) and an MS in Mechanical Engineering (2007) from Brigham Young University, and served an LDS proselytizing mission in Olongapo, Philippines from 2000-2002.
Latest posts by Jonathan Goff (see all)
- AAS Paper Review: RAAN Agnostic 3-Burn Departure Methodology for Deep Space Missions from LEO Depots (Part 2 of 2) - September 17, 2018
- AAS Paper Review: RAAN Agnostic 3-Burn Departure Methodology for Deep Space Missions from LEO Depots (Part 1 of 2) - September 15, 2018
- Random Thoughts: Why Cameras Might be Critical to Venus Settlement - July 21, 2018
Yup, NASA ought to go, because of that pesky budget deficit.
Also, we’d save a bunch of money by closing down Guantanamo Bay and releasing the prisoners there, by pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistian, and accepting many many more immigrants who would like to become tax-paying US citizens. These actions might even boost US prestige in places where it now stands poorly.
Let’s go for it, fellow!
I like Mike’s sarcasm, but I’ll take a stab at being slightly more serious:
It depends on how the money would be spent.
I would be prefer: 1) an expanded COTS program, and 2) ambitious new propulsion testing and development.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but 30% amounts to at least $5 billion more for NASA. Split that 45-10-45 between COTS, X-prize money, and advanced propulsion R&D.
Hey Jon, thanks for giving me credit for the question! [bending legs of Xombie XA-0.1B voodoo doll]
Does NASA provide justifiable prestige value for money?
I advocate NASA put the money into a prize program for private industry to build earth to LEO, orbital, lunar, interplanetary infrastructure with in addition to prize money give recurring contracts to maintain the infrastructure for NASA exploration initiatives, i.e. generating in situ water, LOX, LH2, methane, aluminum, iron, and silicon resources for life support and fuel needs.
In keeping with this I submitted to NASA the other day a proposal for a prize program for ISRU water depot units to deploy to the lunar surface prior to the return of humans to the moon.
I think some people might be missing the point behind the existence of NASA… which is the same point behind the existence of it’s predecessor, NACA… basic science. Now that orbital space is well within the confines of smart people in private industry, NASA should be.. and might possibly be, after a little jogging, pursuing science that does not necessarily produce commercial or national value…. no way to know if you can create methane on Mars without going there and trying, is there?
Do you think Lockheed or even Elon Musk are willing to try?