Бюджет NASA-2014

[Mark]

Georgij пишет:

Mark пишет:
Про Discovery програм можно увидет на наса.гов Так например мися НАСА ИнСигхт 2016, бурение на Марсе, рамках программы Discovery.

вы реально тупые? я говорю о БУДУЩИХ КОНКУРСАХ! кто претенденты и в какие годы намечаются старты. писец!
если не в курсе то нехрен выеживаться.

Будьте немножко серьезны.
 
Я хорошо знаю, чтитал много на nasa.gov, пишет тоже и википедиа что вобще NASA's Discovery Program. Тоже и полеты как Mars Pathfinder, Stardust, MESSENGER, Dawn и другие были сделаные в програме  Discovery.  Будущие миссии Discovery-Programm ето InSight, Titan Mare Explorer. Comet Hopper (Chopper).

из википедиа:

Das Discovery-Programm der NASA ist eine Serie von kostengünstigen, hoch konzentrierten, wissenschaftlichen Weltraum-Missionen. Sie wurde nach NASA-Chef Daniel Goldins Vision der ,,schnelleren, besseren und billigeren" (engl. ,,Faster – Better – Cheaper") Planetenmissionen gegründet. Das Programm besteht aus eigenen Raumsonden und sog. ,,Discovery Missions of Opportunity", von der NASA gebauten Instrumenten in Raumsonden anderer Raumfahrtagenturen. Bisher einziger Fehlschlag war die CONTOUR Mission. Mars Climate Orbiter und Mars Polar Lander waren nicht Teil des Discovery-Programms.[1]

[Valerij]

Блин, ну, тупыыыеее.....
   
Бесполезный и раззорительно дорогой супертяж полезен для американского престижа, а скромное приглашение всем желающим прокатиться на Луну за какие-то полтора миллиарда долларов для американского престижа разрушительны?
     
Ну тупыыыыеееееее........

[Bell]

Valerij пишет:
Блин, ну, тупыыыеее.....
 
Бесполезный и раззорительно дорогой супертяж полезен для американского престижа, а скромное приглашение всем желающим прокатиться на Луну за какие-то полтора миллиарда долларов для американского престижа разрушительны?
 
Ну тупыыыыеееееее........

Ну тут либо все тупые, либо один вайлерий...

[Veganin]

Спойлер

Спойлер

Валерий, наверное, имеет ввиду голден спайк, которые хотят использовать уже разработанные РН, корабли, а им остается только сделать скафандры и лунный посадочный модуль. Точно также можно сказать, что у России все уже есть для лунной экспедиции - нужно "только" доработать несколько советских железяк

[свернуть]

[свернуть]

[Valerij]

Просто что бы всегда было под рукой:
 

NASA Budget: Flat is the New Up
Posted by Doug Messier on January 14, 2014, at 11:31 am in News
 

 
More than three months into the fiscal year, Congressional appropriators have finally released the FY 2014 omnibus budget. If approved, NASA would do very well given the constrained fiscal environment, with essentially a flat budget of $17.65 billion that is only marginally lower than the $17.7 billion requested by President Barack Obama.

Orion and the Space Launch System are fully funded at more than $3 billion, the commercial crew program gets nearly $700 million but far less than requested, and a provision prohibiting space cooperation with China would remain in place.

NASA Budget Overview
 
Exploration: $4,113,200,000

Exploration funding is broken down as follows:
$1.9 billion for the Space Launch System, including $318.2 million for exploration ground systems;
$1.19 billion for the Orion crew vehicle
$696 million for the Commercial Crew Program, of which $171 million shall be made available after NASA Administrator Charles Bolden "has certified that the commercial crew program has undergone an independent benefit-cost analysis that takes into consideration the total Federal investment in the commercial crew program and the expected operational life of the International Space Station."
$302 million for exploration research and development.

The Obama Administration had requested $3.9 billion for Exploration in FY 2014, with Congress wanting to spend about $200 million more here than the President.

The Administration would have funded commercial crew at $821.4 million, so Congress is proposing a $125.4 million reduction in the request. The amount represents a compromise between the Senate, which proposed $775 million, and the House, which only wanted to put $500 million in the program.

So, where would the funding cut from Commercial Crew Program go? That's an easy question: the Orion and Space Launch System. The Administration has proposed spending a combined $2.730 billion on these programs, well below the $3.1 billion in the Congressional spending plan.

The Administration also requested $364.2 billion for exploration R&D, which Congress would trim by $62.2 million.
 
Science: $5,151,200,000

Congress would spend slightly more on science than the $5 billion requested by the Obama Administration. The measure would fund the science budget as follows:
$1.82 billion for Earth science
$1.34 billion for planetary science
$668 million for astrophysics
$654 million for heliophysics
$658.2 million for the James Web Space Telescope
Total spending on the James Webb Space Telescope would be capped at $8 billion.
NASA would spend $80 million for "pre-formulation and/or formulation activities for a mission that meets the science goals outlined for the Jupiter Europa."

The main differences are a slight decrease in proposed Earth science spending (from $1.84 billion) and a modest increase in the planetary science budget (from $1.2 billion). Astrophysics was also boosted by $26 million from $642 million. Spending on the other budget items would remain essentially the same as the request.
 
Space Operations: $3,778,000,000

Space operations funding supports the International Space Station. The administration had requested $3.88 billion for these operations.
 
Space Technology: $576,000,000

The Obama Administration had requested $742.6 million for space technology development. Congress appears to have shifted over to the Exploration budget to fund Orion and the Space Launch System.
Aeronautics: $566,000,000

Congress' aeronautics budget is in line with the Administration's 565.7 million request.
 
Space Education: $116,600,000

Space education funding includes:
$18,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
$40,000,000 for the National Space Grant College.

The Administration had requested $94.2 million for space education. This would have been a sharp reduction from the approximately $137 million spent in FY 2013.
 
Cross-Agency Support: $2.790,000

Congress would slightly reduce the Administration's $2.85 billion request for cross-agency support, which funds NASA's day-to-day operations.
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $515,000,000

The Administration had requested $609.4 million in funding for this budget category.
Office of the Inspector General: $37,500,000

NASA's watchdog would receive $500,000 more than requested by the Administration.
   
China Restriction

"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act."

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/01/14/nasa-budget-flat/#more-51366

[Valerij]

ASAP Worried About Commercial Crew Funding, Acquisition Strategy
Posted by Doug Messier on January 28, 2014, at 8:15 am in News
 

   
The commercial crew gap: the Obama Administration's requested funding is in blue, with Congressional amount in red. (Credit: ASAP, FY 2014 budget data)

Спойлер

Sounding much like a broken record (or a buffering webcast, for those not only enough to LPs), NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has once again identified Congressional miserliness as a major threat to the success of the space agency's Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

"While the budget request to appropriated funding ratio was slightly improved in 2013, as depicted in the figure below, the shortfall remains a top concern and the 2014 budget remains uncertain," the panel said in its 2013 annual report. "This shortfall is seriously impacting acquisition strategy, and there is risk that force-fitting the CCP into a fixed-price contract with only the funds available has the potential to adversely impact safety."

Well, what else is new?

Although ASAP praised NASA's move from Space Act Agreements to more defined Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracting as a "positive step," the panel questioned whether firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts were the best way to go as opposed to traditional cost plus agreements. FFP contracts should only be used when "technologies are well known and mature, risks are clearly understood, independent cost estimates are available and accurate, and requirements are firm and fixed, ASAP wrote.

"In an effort to devise a program that fits within available funding, the CCP is requesting proposals to develop a new system to transport humans into space by means of a fixed-price contract and source selection criteria that cause some within the space flight community to worry that price has become more important than safety," the panel said. "Competition between two or more CCP contractors potentially fosters improved attention to safety. However, the ability to sustain a competitive environment may fall victim to further funding shortfalls."

With insufficient funding, companies have taken longer to formalize vehicle designs, leading to uncertainties in the requirements needed to certify the vehicles for human flights. This situation could lead NASA to make a premature down sel ect fr om the three competing crew system proposals the space agency has been funding in order to meet a 2017 deadline for commercial flights, ASAP said.

[свернуть]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/01/28/asap/