Rebudgeting NASA -- Dr. Henry Throop, ASTR1110, 23-Jun-2000
----------------

The year-2000 budget recommended by the House for NASA is $12 billion
(reduced from a $13.4B request).  Using this budget, it is your job to
allocate money for the appropriate programs.

1. Choose a broad overview of your goal for NASA from those below, or 
   make up your own.

2. If you are sending spacecraft missions out, choose a destination
   (Mars?  Earth?  Pluto?  A comet?  Saturn's Rings?)

3. Allocate the budget -- make sure it balances!

Broad approaches
----------------
Several broad approaches are possible.  Consider some options:

  o Many small projects (e.g., multiple spacecraft; research funding
    to every area) at the expense of one large project

  o A focus on one large project while sacrificing several small ones

  o A mixed solution where no one is completely satisifed, but
    most projects are given some money

  o An investment in money for long-term, expensive projects now in
    hopes that they will not be cancelled in a future funding decision

  o A focus on science (e.g., research, planetary missions, telescopes,
    etc.)

  o A focus on engineering and technology (space station, shuttle,
    aerospace research, etc.)

Fixed costs / Support
---------------------
  o Telecommunications
  o Machinists / engineers
  o Computer support
  o Safety
  o Benefits
  o Maintain buildings and hardware at 10 NASA centers

  Assume fixed cost of $3B/year

Shuttle launches / Space Station
--------------------------------
  $1B for a science launch
  $1.5B for a launch + space station component 

  o The International Space Station, as currently designed, requires a
    total of ~ 60 Shuttle missions to construct within 12 years.

  o Other missions can be used for science (microgravity, life
    sciences, Earth observation, etc.)

  o Assume one shuttle mission ($1B) is necessary to repair the Hubble
    Space Telescope, or else it may fail.

  o The recent (Aug-1999) congressional cuts criticized NASA for flying too-few
    shuttle science missions.

  o Option: spend $1B/year bailing out the Russian space program to
    keep the space station dates on target.






Planetary exploration
---------------------
  o Small missions (Discovery): high risk, fast projects to close 
    targets: Moon, Venus, Mars, asteroid belt, etc.  Science return
    is proportional to mission risk.
    $200M each (split over 2 years)

  o Large missions (Cassini, Galileo, etc.): do-everything spacecraft
    to Jupiter, Saturn, etc.
    $2B each (split over 5 years)

  o Pluto Mission
    $400M (split over 4 years)

  o For any of these, multiple missions from each category are fine.

Science
-------
  o Space telescopes: $1B each
    Replacements/complements for Hubble, using IR, UV, X-ray, etc.

  o Ground-based telescopes: $100M each
    Larger mirrors than current telescopes, but building too many will
    use up the few high mountain sites left, and none deliver the
    overall performance of space-based telescopes.

  o Space Science Research: $200M/year
    If missions or telescopes are cut significantly, scientists will
    defect to other fields.

  o Life Sciences research:  $200M/year
    Requires shuttle launches to support ($1B each)

  o Aerospace/Aeronautics research: $200M/year
    More investments in Aero research may payoff in reduced 
    launch vehicle costs later (Shuttle, etc.)

  o Earth observation research: $200M/year
    Requires shuttle launches, or researchers will become
    disillusioned.

  o Technology research: $200M/year
    Design high-technology components for spacecraft, with possibility
    of selling them to industry at a later profit.

Education
---------
  o Fund graduate students: $50M/year
    Graduate students may later become more expensive NASA employees,
    but lack of graduate student funding may hurt NASA's current
    research ability.

  o Fund K-12 education, public outreach, museums, speakers, etc: $50M/year
    Is the public interested in NASA's missions and results?  Or is
    public outreach a waste of research money?