Chump Change Budgeting: In a recent presentation in New York City before a meeting of aerospace executives and flight personnel, Michael Griffin stated that NASA is forced to operate on a "chump change" budget. According to NASA's immediate past administrator, this amounts to about 1% of the Federal budget and is less that what Americans spend annually on pizza.I wish I had been there. I find it amazing and admirable that NASA has managed to accomplish so much with so little. Nevertheless, if we are to maintain our position as a space fairing nation we must develop a broader, more coordinated and better supported space research and development program. Right now, the NASA budget forces its various divisions to compete with each other for fiscal crumbs which creates the on again, off again behavior of the agency.
Yes, I know there are clear cases of fiscal improprieties by both NASA contractors and some NASA staff. This is not peculiar to NASA, this is a pitfall that every agency in our government faces unless they each maintain a solid assessment of their operations. So yes, there has been some sloppy management at some level, but there has also been some inexcusable contractor behaviors as well. Before NASA can holler for a bigger budget, this must be fixed.
Part of the problem is how the NASA procurement specs are written and enforced. Procurement specs, unfortunately are sometimes drafted by folks who know budgets, but have no idea of how a research and devlopment agency like NASA must operate. There needs to be a closer working relationship between the operational divisions and the fiscal wizards.
So, our first new step into space should be a re-organized NASA that shows the capability to manage and apply a bigger budget. We simply cannot remain the leading space fairing nation if we must do so on crumbs.
Good Boys, Good Girls, Whataya Gonna Do? Hubble's rejuvenation will remain as one of the outstanding examples of the competence, courage, and stamina of our astronauts. How on Earth can we let this vital, dynamic resource go idle for up to possibly 10 years. That time interval depends upon when we re-start our manned exploration programs.
Yes, the shuttles are tired, but not at retirement age. Like Hubble, they too can be rejuvenated and the millions even billions NASA will spend paying others (including Russia) to service the ISS and possibly other space vehicles could be applied to a recycled shuttle fleet.
There is a decision pending about an expanded and extended program for the ISS that simply underscores the many advantages of support from our shuttle program. Yes, there have been shuttle disasters, but we have learned from each, and those lessons have shown up clearly in the success and safety of the follow on shuttle flights. Why are we throwing all that aside?
Have Shuttle Will Travel: What would be the value if we kept a shuttle on station at the ISS? Could it be done? We certainly would not need to have an ongoing supply of big boosters. Launching from the ISS could be far less shuttle stressful. So, we might have to expand the ISS to do that, well, that is just putting to further good use an already great idea. Sure, probably crazy speculation, but then again maybe not. The big idea is to reduce launch costs, delays and dangers by having a shuttle team operating in orbit from the ISS.
I guess the real consideration is that we, and our space team at NASA should not be forced to either back down or give up. They are on a roll, and we need to keep that going if we are going to persist in space. How can we be reaching out to possible life on other planets while sitting at home putting NASA into near mothballs?
Come on , lets keep the Good Boys and Girls busy.
ExoDigest (c) 2009 Waddell Robey All individual copyrights apply.


















