CNN/Reuters: NASA chief: Money will be tight for astronomy

[DeepModem Mom]

NASA chief: Money will be tight for astronomy
Wednesday, January 11, 2006


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- NASA chief Michael Griffin warned astronomers on Tuesday that funds for their programs will be tighter than they have been in the past decade as NASA focuses more on manned space missions.

"The growth of science within NASA has been in the 5 to 7 percent range, annualized over the last decade or so, and that's been great," Griffin told members of the American Astronomical Society.

"We're in a budget environment right now when that level of growth can't be maintained, although science at NASA will still have growth. But we are all hurting."

Astronomers have voiced persistent concerns that the Bush administration's vision for space exploration -- which calls for human missions to the moon and eventually Mars -- unduly concentrates on human exploration to the detriment of robotic space missions.

Roughly two-thirds of NASA's $16.4 billion budget for fiscal 2006 goes to support the space shuttle, the international space station and the development of a new system to get people into space. Space science programs will be getting about $5.4 billion this year, compared to $5.5 billion in 2005....


http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/11/space.nasa.funding.reut/index.html

[rodeodance]

1. no or little $$ for those in dire need of heating fuel assistance.

[Salviati]

2. But plenty for those making guns...

Please, science spending in this country is chump change. And cutting it further is not going to help our long term standing in the world.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

9. Some approximate numbers to back up your claim

The NSF and NASA both have about $5-6B each annually to spend on scientific endeavors. The completely worthless Star Wars program that has produced absolutely nothing has a budget of about $10B annually. Our government throws away more money each year on that ONE STUPID PROGRAM than it spends on scientific endeavors. And that program is only a tiny chunk of the money our government wastes on the military industrial complex each year.

Or another way to look at it, NASA's annual scientific budget is equal to about 1.5 months in Iraq.

[mike_c]

3. money spent on science is a good investment in the future, unlike...

...HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS spent to murder people in Iraq. NASA's entire budget is a drop in the bucket compared to just the cost of the war against Iraq, let alone the entire military budget. This country has its priorties seriously screwed up. We could triple NASA's science budget and provide needed services for all Americans and still have money left over if we weren't pissing away America's future in Iraq. :grr:

[HuffleClaw]

4. if only they claimed their astronomical research was intended to

prove the validity of 'intelligent design' !

[Ian David]

5. Bush's plan: No Astronaut Left Behind. n/t

[madmark]

6. 2 trillion for bush vanity war; squat for space research

[DrDan]

7. this should not be a surprise

In the past 2-3 decades, corporations have found less and less money for R&D. Accountant-types have taken over the CEO roles and decisions are now based on quarterly results. Money to be spent on projects that will not have immediate results is very hard to find. Hence, R&D has suffered.

Why would we expect anything different from an administration that claims be be business-oriented, led by a scumbag-MBA.

(btw, I have an MBA also.)

[megatherium]

8. The manned space program costs vast amounts of money

and produces very little actual scientific knowledge (I'm referring to the Space Station and the Shuttle). This is interfering with the programs of NASA that do produce large amounts of high quality science (unmanned probes to other planets, such as the Mars rovers and the Cassini mission to Saturn).

Still, it would be cool if we sent astronauts back to the Moon, and then to Mars ...