[LINK] Finally up to date on the Shuttle
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:41:10 +1100
Mmmm .... if you accept as reasonable that NASA is simply referring
to operating costs. :)
Factor in admin devoted to the program - and it goes up.
Factor in fixed costs (shuttle infrastructure maintenance, vehicle
maintenance, launch platform maintenance, visitor services related to
the shuttle, promotional services related to the shuttle, contractor
relations etc etc) - and it goes up.
If you off-set revenues from launches from third parties it goes down.
Hell you could even factor in opportunity cost (what NASA could have
done with the shuttle moolah had they spent it on something else) and
it would go up.
Accounting can be weird science ... and like statistics very
misleading ... especially when conclusions based on it are given out
in a one sentence summary at a press conference. :)
There are a lot of warm bodies at NASA that depend on the Shuttle
program remaining operational, and who would feel threatened if the
nasty scientific types got funds for deep space, interplanetary and
other programs. The shuttle made NASA 'steady state' ... which is
what a large number of non-techo people wanted there in the mid
1970's (with threatened cut-backs, massive aero-space industry
unemployment) and was what NASA adopted as its raison d'etre after
the glory years. And as I said ... I regret that.
At 4:09 PM +1100 3/2/2003, Grant Bayley wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>> 2. The shuttle program currently absorbs the lions share of NASA's
>> budget - even after 22 years.
>During the NASA press conference this morning, I seem to recall that the
>shuttle/space station program combined cost them something like 1/3 of
>their total budget. Is this "lion's share"? It might be the single
>biggest, but that still leaves 2/3 for everything else.
>On the topic of the shuttle in general, I had the URL of this funny CNNism
>posted to me: