It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9 big NASA projects over budget

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Ok, it seems to me that these over runs are a bit extreme.

That being said, I have no idea how much money it takes to make an object space worthy.

Here is a link and some project cost quotes...www.msnbc.msn.com...


Mars Science Laboratory. Price: $2.3 billion, up $657.4 million since October 2007. Launch delayed 25 months to October 2011.

NPOESS Preparatory Project a satellite to study atmosphere and sea temperatures. Price: $794.6 million, up $121.8 million since October 2006. Launch delayed 26 months to June 2010.

Kepler Earth-like planet hunter. Price $594.8 million, up $97.3 million since October 2006. Launch delayed 9 months to March 2009.

Glory global warming satellite. Price: $347.9 million, up $81.8 million since October 2007. Launch delayed 6 months to June 2009.

Fermi Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope. Price: $774.5 million, up $51.2 million since October 2006. Launched June 2008, 9 months late.

Orbiting Carbon Observatory global warming satellite. Price: $273.1 million, up $37.9 million since October 2007. Launch delayed 5 months to February 2009; equipment failed after launch, project destroyed.

Solar Dynamics Observatory sun-studying satellite. Price: $817 million, up $31.5 million since October 2006. Launch delayed 17 months to January 2010.

Aquarius Earth water probe. Price: $253.1 million, up $11.7 million since October 2007. Launch delayed 10 months to May 2010.

Dawn asteroid explorer. Price: $465 million, up $4.6 million since October 2006. Launched in Sept. 2007. No delay.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this looks like bad money management to me. Most of these pieces of hardware come in many, many million of dollars over budget.

Does anyone know why this is???

To me the only other thing that I can come up with, except for what I stated above, is that they artificially inflate the cost of current projects to help fund other ones.
Not being quite sure that I've expressed this thought correctly, the only analogy that I can put close to what I'm thinking is this...

It's like the Air Force paying $200 for a toilet seat or $400 for a hammer.


Maybe the extra money is for "black projects"???

Anyone???

(ex tags)

[edit on Thu Mar 5 2009 by Jbird]




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Here is the deal.

In all those cost estimates, about 10 to 30 percent of each project's total cost is the actual cost to the up front space program..the rest goes to the secret space program and its hardware and people.

Its a perfect way to rip off the taxpayer. Legal stealing is the way of capitalisim of the US Government.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I believe I saw McCain speakinf of this on C-NET earlier.

It's a well oiled job security program leaking known facts years after discovery to keep funds coming in for redundant projects.

Good thread.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Looks like development overruns to me, maybe the scientists suffer the same fate, they give a optimistic timescale/budget for the programme then they are pulled this way and that for other projects thus delaying the whole project cycle.

Well that or..... The cost is being eaten up for the SpaceArc project for the super elite to survive 2012.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
So basically whatever money is left goes onto "Black Projects". Seems obvious to me.


jra

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
In all those cost estimates, about 10 to 30 percent of each project's total cost is the actual cost to the up front space program..the rest goes to the secret space program and its hardware and people.


I don't suppose you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up that claim?


The initial proposed budget of these projects tend to be minimum cost estimates based on ideal conditions. But rarely do things work out perfectly (try never) and all Government agencies tend to be inefficient with money and NASA is no exception.

I have yet to see the slightest shred of evidence of a "Secret Space program". Where is the HQ for this secret space program? What rockets do they use? Where do they launch from? What do the launch into space? How many people work there? etc, etc, etc...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Rockets... I think the stuff we don't know about do not make use of rockets.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I could use the job, perhaps I'll check out the companies
building these projects.

Nothing like hardware to define what you are working on.

Things like paper work in tall or one story buildings just
don't fit my personality.

A contract is a contract, protected by laws and lawyers,
unless some thing really bad happens and the job never
gets done. I imagine something will ship but will it work.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I think I worked on one program that had some funding controversy.

It might have cost too much to build the ship and then finally got
more funding so we could make it more operational or more give it
more bells and whistles in engineering language.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join