It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Keep supporting your military industrial complex government shill!
Funny you post a chart that means nothing! that chart basically shows increased spending for NASA due to infation good job showing nothing meaningful..
This post is a little off base. The NASA R&D has created the means that facilitate countless particulars of the technological advances we enjoy today.
Syphoning money from NASA to allow private ventures to surpass whatever it is you think you wish doesn't consider the vast infrastructure NASA already has in place no private venture could approach in depth or contractor support.
I hope it doesn't come to the fact the economic separation of the rich and middle class could facilitate a better infrastructure to collectively finance better space mission objective than what NASA has, we would all suffer due to that scenario.
There is little known of all the everyday discoveries that benefit human technological existence here from the space programs and NASA 'Spinoffs'. (Look up the term NASA Spinoffs sometime).
When did I say that we should siphon money away? I merely said that we need to pay closer attention to the relationship between NASA and the private sector. Currently, yes, NASA has more infrastructure than the private sector. That will not last - and simply cannot last. As interest in the private sector grows, and space-flight capability becomes more common, the amount of investor dollars going into developing industries in space will rapidly outpace any government spending. Corporations also have the advantage of being multinational - launch facilities in more favorable locations along Central America, Africa, South America, etc can readily be purchased and accessed by corporations that would practically require annexation for NASA to carry out such operations there.
NASA's role will have to change. They have been the pioneers of space flight - but that won't last when any group that can pull together a few million dollars can have a crack at colonizing mars or setting up mining operations on an asteroid.
You see NASA is way ahead of you. Have you heard of the ISS National Laboratory yet? The operation of the lab is open to international bids (sorry the extended due date was April 1, 2011). Teams who bid on the operation of the NASA ISS NL will be consortiums of private corporations, (DOE NLs are run this way), NOT BY the U.S. government, but FOR the U.S. government with closely monitored financials.
The retirement of the Shuttle program by no means NASA is bailing out of leading the world in space exploration, but that is only the public perception of NASA.
The 5 areas of focus for the ISSNL are; Plant and microbial, Human, animal, and cell biology, Applied physical sciences, Fundamental physical science, and Earth science and remote sensing. Sounds kind of vague doesn't it, like everything that effects you in life huh? (and I forgot to mention the kids!! please consider the kids!).
I didn't pry into the near term launch vessel question while on a team to bid this opportunity very far (but couldn't help myself with an aside in one meeting), but it was implied to me that European crafts will get men to the ISS until NASA has their new manned craft ready. Russia was mentioned as well as we know they are a big player in the ISS today, and in the future as well.
Yeah, I'm just a graphics dude, afforded NASA cooperative work assignments since 1987.
The thrust of my reply is that space exploration is going to be a unified world-wide cooperative effort from now on, no more 'space races' of country-centric propaganda pride.
Do people that believe the moon landing hoax really think people in the 60's were stupider than now? Yet some of those same people say ancient civilizations on earth were smarter than now. It doesn't make sense does it. So where did all of this advanced ancient infrastructure go? Just sort of vanished from the face of the earth or something?
What current space vehicle technology has the ability to carry tons of processed material back to earth and then return for more? Is their some sort of space dump truck I'm unaware of? But seriously, are you postulating the material could be processed and then converted on site (the moon) and then the energy 'beamed' back to earth? Just kurious
As this chart shows, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo. At its peak, the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar (or 4% of the total federal budget) was being devoted to the space program. In March 1966, NASA officials briefing Congressional members stated the "run-out cost" of the Apollo program to put men on the moon would be an estimated $22.718 billion for the 13 year program which began in 1959 and eventually accomplished six successful missions between July 1969 and December 1972. According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars). The costs associated with the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets amounted to about $83-billion in 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $28-billion (Command/Service Module $17-billion; Lunar Module $11-billion), Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars)....
You are a troll your graph is not inflation adjusted do not spread lies.
NASA budget is much lower in TERMS of spending NOW so try again and fail.
The chart shows the total federal receipts (income) and outlay (spending), adjusted for inflation, during each fiscal year from 1940 to 2009, with projections through 2015.
This chart was created from historical tables included in the U.S. Federal Government fiscal year 2011 budget. The federal government adjusted its fiscal year one calendar quarter (3 months) during 1976, creating a 'transition quarter,' which has been neglected in this chart.
7) This chart includes the effect of inflation, or the changing value of a dollar. For current (not inflation-adjusted), see U.S. Federal Government Receipts and Outlays Over Time.
8) This chart says nothing about the size of the receipts and outlays relative to the size of the U.S. economy (Gross Domestic Product). See U.S. Federal Government Receipts and Outlays as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Over Time.
So you're going to stand here and tell me that 6 billion dollars in 1966 is not more purchasing power than 17-19 billion in 2011 ARE U CRAZY???? Check the graph read it hard; because its grade school math.