Emergency Funding

> > 15 bill - Planetary explorer craft (using a host
> of
> > new technologies)
>
> JPL is firing these babies off pretty inexpensively
> these days.
> Right? Would the new tech add a lot to the cost, or
> would you just
> send out 30 different probes?
I am more thinking cassini type scale. Yes JPL has
been making faster, better, cheaper mission but I am
still not sold that a cheap mission to europe or titan
is worth it. I would like to see about 2-4 billion
spent on each mission.

I would like to continue sending not only more mars
landers/orbiters but also explorers that try out new
technologies like in-situ manufacturing.

>
> > 15 bill - Research on Closed Life Support Systems
> > (geared towards habitats)
>
> Would this research being going on simultaneously or
> would it be
> sequential? Considering that $15 bill is the annual
> NASA budget, I
> think that this is a huge amount of research, but
> then I'm not
> really up on the tech side of CELSS and what still
> needs to be done.
> Can you really spend that much?

I think so. To this day we have yet to really build
one. The ISS is very dependent on supplies from
Earth. This money would not only put together all the
research needed but also pay for some of the
construction cost. Even with this I do not think it
is enough but its a good start.

>
> > 10 bill - Reusable vehicle design
>
> I know that the Shuttles cost about $2 bill apiece
> when the last one
> rolled out. Do you have any idea how much the R&D
> was for the
> program?
>
> I hope that this R&D is managed more efficiently
> than what I've read
> about the Shuttle programs development.
>
The reason I put so much money here is I really think
we need to pursue several basic designs
simultaneously. Don't just put out a competition and
downselect it to one or two. Pay for more maglev
facilities to sling payloads out to orbit, for air
breathing engines, for SSTO, for nuclear propulsion,
for a space tether and for other things I forgot.

We could build some kerosene based engine that would
would be somewhat reusable that would be very cheap.
But in the long run, we need to push the envelope of
what we know about.
>
> > 10 bill - SPS
>
> What still needs to be researched? Or is this the
> final design
> criteria down to the last item. A final blueprint?
>

This also includes construction costs and
infrastructure costs.

> > 10 bill - Advanced computing (lets face, our
> computers
> > are not advanced enough, a true orbital facility
> is
> > going to have cover many factors in real time to
> keep
> > humans alive)
>
> Do you think that this could be multiplied by
> private sector funds,
> or be offset by technology licensing?
>

This will definitely be multiplied by private sector
funds. Ames is already doing this in fact. They are
currently teaming up with Carnegie Mellon and making a
center for super computing. There is still a long way
to go but I put it in here just to emphasize how
important I think this is to long term space.

> > 5 bill - Self healing material research
>
> Can you give more details. Sounds interesting.
>

Again, this is already being research but its
essentially material that once they get hit by all
that space debris out there, it is able to heal
itself.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/self-healing-spacecraft1.htm.
There is also private money going into this which
will multiply this amount, but I don't have the
numbers. Just think its cool and needed for humans to
be safe in space.

> > 5 bill - Autonomous Lunar observatory (i really
> want
> > one of these)
>
> Let me get to this one before Mike Combs :) Why
> lunar? Why not free
> orbiting with a shield behind it?
>

I've heard the arguments back and forth but I've also
talked in length with Frank Drake on this and I tend
to agree with his proposal for a lunar radio
observatory.

> > 5 bill - Start a research lab dedicated towards
> human
> > colonization. Kind of like a Sandia or Los Alamos
> but
> > dedicated to human colonization. You never know
> what
> > 50 or 100 really bright people can come up with.
>
> I like this idea! Perhaps endow it and thereafter it
> won't be as
> dependent on annual appropriations for its entire
> budget.
>
> I'm wondering why you favor not actually building
> any type of
> infrastructure in orbit that could serve to ease the
> effort for
> subsequent missions of national, international and
> private origin?
>
Not sure if I want to open up this can of worms but
you asked. :)

In all honesty, I think alot of this infrastructure
will happen commercially. I am a firm believer that
it is the role of the government to do basic research
and develop new technologies. NASA was at its
greatest when it was pushing the limits and breaking
new grounds like with mercury and gemini and apollo,
not doing operational support for an aging shuttle
fleet.

This is not to say that the government does not have a
role in operations. I think that the government
should also be involved in infrastructure. I just
think it should be the Department of Transportation
and Department of Commerce that pays for it not NASA.
In fact, the DoT in general should be running the
shuttle fleet. They are already in charge of
overseeing commercial launch facilities.