At 11:57 PM 2/2/2003 -0600, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:51 PM Subject: NASA Historical budget> I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for > NASA's budget decade by decade. For the '60s, I had to do a bit of > estimation for '60 and 61, but the number shouldn't be too far off, because > that was before the NASA budget really took off. > > In constant 2002 dollars the budget was > > 60s 187 billion > 70s 127 billion > 80s 122 billion > 90s 163 billion > > Think of what was accomplished in the '60s compared to the '80s and '90s > put together. It isn't just the money. > Now divide it by the number of missions per decade. That would change things a bit. (Of course you have to subtract all the non-manned mission cost centers to get an accurate reading.) As a percentage of GDP is also interesting. I wish I had those figures handy too. rob
I'm a few days behind in case someone else says this in a message I have not read yet. I agree with Rob and think Westerbrokkes column (the Time Mag story) was playing fast and lose with the facts. Maybe someone has actually said this at NASA, that there is no reason for the space station/shuttle other than to support each other. I have not heard a reply to this, but there has to be more than that.
After the moon landings, what is the most successful space venture? The two spacecraft that are farthest from us, Vikings? Galileo? Pathfinder? What have they really done for us in terms of science? No matter what they discovered, there is nothing than can be gained, application wise, from these missions. Hasn't the shuttle done anything? There has to be something that had a direct impact on some field that produced money. Even worthless missions, money wise, like the one that discovered ancient trade routes in the desert, I doubt that could be done using planes in the same amount of time. Yes it could be done cheaper, if you hang the whole cost of the launch on the neck of this one experiment. But there are other experiments always being done on each launch.
I know the teaching hospital nearby had rats on this shuttle, for some test. AFAIK they were just being sent up and back, nothing was being done with them in space so no data was gathered at all. I doubt they were looking for a cure for cancer, but whatever it was it wouldn't be done without the shuttle.
Scrapping the space plane was stupid, but every single government program has costs overruns and NASA had to reign in costs, to get refocused.
I'm rambling, stupid cold.
Kevin T.
I don't want to go to work
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
