4NASA budget plan saves telescope, cuts space taxis.doc

NASA budget plan saves telescope, cuts space taxis美国宇航局预算方案保住韦伯望远镜，砍掉航天飞机/nasa-budget-plan-saves-telescope-cuts-space-taxis-021416541.html;_ HOUSTON (Reuters) - A compromise spending plan forNASA preserves the over-budget replacement for theHubble Space Telescopeand halvesPresident Barack Obamas request for money to spur development of commercial space taxis, officials said on Tuesday.路透社休斯敦周二政府官员说，美国宇航局坚持超预算的替代哈勃太空望远镜，并减半奥黑提出的大力发展商业航天飞机的预算，是二者之间折衷的支出方案。over-budget超支Overall, the U.S. space agency would receive $17.8 billion for the fiscal year that began October 1 - $924 million less than the White House requested and $684 million less than it received this year.总的说来，从10月1号起美国航天局会收到178亿美元的财政拨款，比白宫要求的少了9.24亿，比去年也少了6.84亿。The compromise, approved by a House andSenate conference committee, is part of a minibus appropriations bill that also includes theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationand theFederal Aviation AdministrationsOffice of Commercial Space Transportation. The full House is expected to consider the bill on Wednesday.众参两院批准的这份妥协方案是政府财政年度支出“瘦身”计划中的一部分，美国海洋与大气管理局、联邦航空管理局办公室的商业空间运输，全众议院有望周三通过这项法案。The spending plan, which was posted on a Congressional website on Tuesday, authorizes $3.8 billion for human space exploration programs, including $1.9 billion for a proposed heavy-lift rocket and $1.2 billion for a deep space capsule to fly astronauts to the moon, asteroids and other destinations in the inner solar system as a follow-on program to the International Space Station.这份支出计划周二就贴在国会网站上了，要求为载人太空探索拨款38亿美元，包括19亿美元的大推力火箭和12亿的深空探测太空舱，从而载人去月球、小行星和其他的太阳系内的其他目的地，作为国际空间站的后继项目。A House bid to cancel NASAs over-budgetJames Webb Space Telescope, a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, was scuttled, though the compromise bill caps spending on the program at $8 billion.众议院命令取消宇航局超预算的韦伯太空望远镜，韦伯是哈勃望远镜的后继者，虽然折衷方案里空间站项目里有80亿，但是韦伯被取消了。Overall, NASAs science programs would receive $5.1 billion, about $155 million more than its 2011 budget. About $530 million of that amount would go toward the Webb telescope.总的来说，美国宇航局的科研项目需要51亿美元，比2011年预算多1.55亿美元。其中有5.3亿投给韦伯太空望远镜。NASA has said it would delay other science programs to keep the telescope on track for launch in 2018.宇航局说会推迟别的项目，以便保证韦伯在2018年按时发射。The bill cuts Obamas request for $850 million to speed up development of commercial passenger spaceships to $406 million.该法案把奥黑呼吁拨款8.5亿来大力发展商用载人太空船削减了4.06亿美元。Were always appreciative of whatever dollars the appropriators appropriate to us, Kathy Nado, a manager atNASA headquarters, said at the American Astronautical Society meeting in Houston. Whatever dollars they give us we will be able to effectively spend.美国宇航局主任凯西纳多在休斯敦美国宇航科学大会上说：“我们总是会感激拨给我们的每一分钱，我们会妥善的利用好每一美元。”appreciative pri:itiv adj. 感激的；赏识的；有欣赏力的；承认有价值的appropriator pruprieit n. 占用者；擅用者，享用者appropriate pruprieit, pruprit adj. 适当的vt. 占用；拨出The agency is currently funding space taxi development work at Boeing and three privately held companies - Space Exploration Technologies, Sierra Nevada Corp., and Blue Origin. It had hoped for enough money to keep at least two and possibly three teams working on spaceships that could ferry astronauts to the space station, a $100 billion laboratory that flies about 240 miles above Earth.波音和其他三个私营公司在资助太空飞船的研发。希望有足够的钱来保证有至少2、3个团队研发载人到空间站的飞船，空间站是距离地球240英里，价值1000亿美元的实验室。Since the space shuttle program ended this summer, the United States has been dependent on Russia to fly crews to the station, at a cost of more than $50 million per person. NASA had hoped for a U.S. alternative by 2016.今年夏天航天飞机停止了，美国依赖俄罗斯来运送宇航员到空间站，没人开销五千万。美国宇航局希望俄罗斯能支持到2016年。Nado declined to say how the shortfall would affect NASAs spending on space taxis.纳多拒绝评价拨款的不足会影响载人飞船到何等程度。The bill adds $470 million to NASAs budget to cover costs of terminating a pension fund for workers who were employed by prime shuttle contractor United Space Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp.该法案增加了4.7亿给宇航局，以建立以前研发航天飞机的联合空间联盟下岗人员的退休基金，该联盟由波音和洛克希德马丁公司建立。terminate t:mineit vt. 使终止；使结束；解雇vi. 结束，终止；结果adj. 结束的42 commentsKirstin15 hours agoWell, Im glad James Webb has survived for another day. Im less happy about the cuts to development of space taxis. This will hurt the ability of smaller companies to get into the game. SpaceX is far enough along that they have a very good chance of success. Boeing is big enough (and aiming at other markets as well as ISS) that I think they can weather this. But will the others manage? Blue Origins? Orbital Sciences? Excalibur Almaz? We cannot grow an industry if we are not willing to invest in it.嗯，我很高兴看到韦伯又可以多存在几天。我看到研发太空飞船被削减就不太高兴。会削弱小公司参与游戏的能力。4RepliesHoratio11 hours agoRight on. We are funding the old that doesnt work and spend next to nothing on the new that will.说得对，我们资助了老旧的、没有能力的的公司，他们Motie10 hours agoMore shortsighted legislation. Commercial spaceflight is this centurys Internet.很目光短浅的法律。商业太空船就是这个世纪的互联网。MikeGolf6 hours agoPersonally, I think that the JWST needs to be terminated and its program managers fired. This project has turned into a money pit that has yet to meet its technical milestones. At the rate the program is going we are going to spend an incredible amount of moneyu and still not wind up with a space telescope that works.The space taxis program OTOH is on schedule, on budget, and SpaceX is going to be sending a demonstration capsule to the space station within a month.WrongAngle3 hours agoBurt Rutan (Scaled Composites) is the guy they should be funding.Photon Wrangler7 hours agoI had an interesting idea the other day. What if a portion - say 10% - of your total income taxes were spent at YOUR discretion. You still had to pay the taxes, but you got a form that listed the various federal discretionary spending items, and you got to assign a percentage value of your taxes to each one. My return would be heavy on the JWST (over-budget James Webb Space Telescope) and light on the JST (over-budget Joint Strike Fighter).What would your return look like?6RepliesMikeGolf6 hours agoMine would be the exact opposite. IMO the JWST needs to be killed off due to cost overruns, schedule slips and failure to meet technical milestones.PeterchaVero Beach, United States6 hours agoGreat idea, Photon. Mine would go 0% on welfare, but heavy on both national defense and the space program - in short, heavy on things that create jobs.ChristopherS5 hours agoI like it.Zero Gravity2 hours agoHow much for a gallows in DC and Wall Street, and a good supply of American made hemp rope ! For starters ! Legalize it you fascist nazi pigs !Covert2 hours agoWell ya thats called democracy.do ya know any where I can find it?Motie35 minutes ago535 people havent come up with a budget in nearly 3 years and you want to add another 147 million people into the mix? Doesnt sound like a plan for success.NaughtyVampireDogFort Worth, United States7 hours agoWithout space taxis, were going to see more incidents of extraterrestrials being run over by intoxicated astronauts . . .HoratioYesterdayMost here got it wrong. thats $1.9 billion for a heavy lift rocket and $1.2 billion for a capsule, neither of which are needed by NASA, for which no realistic mission profiles exist and which were both designed by pork distribution committee.OTOH, cutting the budget for the COTS program in half is basically a political measure to make the presidents vision for progress through actual COMPETITION fail.The fallout will be even more pork going into unworkable political designs.4RepliesJust Me, RichardKnoxville, United States18 hours agoYep, you got it wrong.Kirstin15 hours agoThis is exactly what happened to Constellation. Everybody blames Obama, but the real problem was that it was insufficiently funded and thus doomed to failure. And the funding is not decided by the White House; its decided by Congress. I agree with you that its a bad idea to cut the CCDev funding. Im sure the big companies with the funding to pursue it independently will be okay with the loss of competition, but I was really hoping we could grow some new players in the industry this way. Lack of competition has made our space industry noncompetitive in the commercial sector.Horatio11 hours agoKirstin, we completely agree. This is another opportunity lost due to poor government action. I still think SpaceX will make it. but they might be launching Chinese astronauts. and that would be sad.RobertLos Angeles, United Statesabout an hour agoYes, its just you, Richard. Everyone else understands what happened here. You seem to be the lone holdout.RainYesterdaySomebody needs to tell these companies that theyre welcome to bid on a project,but they will only be paid what they bid.We dont pay for anything over-budget anymore.4RepliesArbutus Dave21 hours agoExactly.W. Axl Rose21 hours agoLook Rain, the knowledge that will come from that over-budget telescope will be more valuable than the price paid for them. Leave it to those who suffer from shortage mentality to be short sighted.DaveHTampa, United States18 hours agoRain has a point. All too often projects go over budget. The money wasted on The Constellation project alone was a crime. That was a payoff to Bush cronies that went nowhere.RobertLos Angeles, United States2 hours agoHe does, because its often assumed that a project, especially one with a lot of new technology, can go over-budget and itll be covered. Its a standard way to make a big project look cheaper up front when youre trying to get it funded. Once money is flowing, overseers are less likely to eliminate a project because of the lost investment.The little guys dont get that benefit. Im a self-employed freelancer and I try to work by time and materials. When I have to quote, Im locked in. If I accept a purchase order for a certain price, I have to deliver for that price regardless of what it costs me. A few times, its cost me a lot but I have always delivered.CosmosYesterdaySupport the James Webb Telescope!2RepliesRoth Combover22 hours agoI would like to see some pictures sent back from it before I die. If it goes as planned, it should get images that make Hubble look like amateur shots. If I were a billionaire, I would finance such a project. Id call it the Diamond Dave Star Finder.RobertLos Angeles, United States2 hours agoId be a lot more supportive if there were some way to work on this thing after deployment. Thats an awful lot of money to sink into something that will be beyond reach. Besides, one of the things that made Hubble so successful is that as new technology was developed, it could be installed into the telescope. Webb is a one-shot deal.MillerIrvine, United States22 hours agoTwo years of USPS losses would pay for the whole JWT project including overruns and then some. See same page AP news.1ReplyRobertLos Angeles, United Statesabout an hour agoIf Congress would let USPS run itself you would see a very significant improvement. There are those in Congress for whom USPS failure is part of their political agenda.MikeGolf6 hours agoThat is just wonderful - NASA guts programs that are on schedule, on budget and meeting their techical milestones in favor of a politicay popular program that has already spent 200% of its origional budget, is way behind schedule and keeps missing its technical milestones.The peopel building the James West Space Telescope have not even been able to make something that we can be confident will work in the first place. This program needs to be killed, the program managers fired, and NASA needs to issue the mission specifications and technical requirements - then stand back and let private companies design and build the thing. (Unlike NASA private enterprise knows they cannot survive unless they can meet deadlines and make something for the price they estimated in the beginning.)1ReplyRobertLos Angeles, United Statesabout an hour agoSorry, but most of its being built by contractors.Northrop Grumman is the main industrial contractor, responsible for building the optical telescope, spacecraft bus, and sunshield and preparing the observatory for launch. NG is leading a team including three major sub-contractors: Ball Aerospace, ITT, and Alliant Techsystems (ATK). The three principal beryllium mirror subcontractors to Ball Aerospace are Tinsley Laboratories, Axsys Technologies, and Brush Wellman Inc.The instruments are, as usual, being built at places like JPL and ESA, because most industrial contractors dont have the expertise to work that close to the edge of technology, and wouldnt take the risk if they could.And they have, in fact, been meeting technical milestones. Youre right that there are lots of problems, and some heads should roll, but you think youre saving money by trashing everything thats already been done? There needs to be better oversight EARLY in the process to make sure things are working, not wait until the budgets blown before discovering the managers really arent managing.窗体顶端HankypankyLos Angeles, United States7 hours agoIf NASA was allowed to hold nationwide lottories it would not need to go to congress for money it could generate all the money it needs.1ReplyZero Gravity2 hours agoThere aint nothing out there but a great unsurvivable void ! Calling to sailors like the sirens on the rocks ! Sounds like a #$%$ good drink though !窗体顶端W. Axl Rose21 hours agoThe government should be investing trillions in to NASA for a mission to mars. So well be there in 10 years. The new technologies required will eventually trickle down to the private sector creating economic growth that we will experience on earth. Look at all the cool technology that came from the Apollo and Space Shuttle developments? Our lives are completely different now because of it. And new industries arose out of it.3RepliesMillerIrvine, United States8 hours agoMars is altogether different class of problems including long-term exposure to intense radiation to which humans do not take well.WrongAngle3 hours agoNeed a craft that can spin to simulate gravity, nuke powered to have enough juice to create a magnetic field capable of shielding the interior from cosmic rays and solar radiation. Then the occupants can remain strong and healthy.RobertLos Angeles, United Statesabout an hour agoMiller is right, and WrongAngle is taking, well, the wrong angle. WA, youre reading too much science fiction and not enough physics. Spinning vehicles sound good, but they have to be huge due to coreolis effects, and there isnt enough nuke power you can lift that will generate a field that intense. Besides, now everything in the vehicle is subjected to that magnetic field, with all the associated weird Hall effects in the electronics, problems with ferrous metals, etc.窗体顶端TAXPAYER ALYesterdayI am disgusted. This is less than 25% of what we are FORCED to spend in illegal aliens every year.I want my money back. I want my vote back. Space exploration and development is the next frontier, and our government is squandering our lead in this critical area.2RepliesJust Me, RichardKnoxville, United States18 hours agoYeah, youre disgusting, all righty. You want you money back, go whine to the government about it; it sure isnt going to happen on Yahoo.Kirstin15 hours agoIts a fraction of many things. There are places where more money is *wasted* (not just spent on things some of us dont like, but actually wasted, as in nothing really came of it or the same job could be done for millions less) far in excess of what NASA gets in funding.窗体顶端HarryYesterdayEnd corporate welfare and you will see trillions back into projects that are important. If outside corps want to build a taxi, let them, but not off the backs of Americans. Americans can pay for the ride, but not the ride and the taxi.4RepliesArbutus Dave21 hours agoYes, Obama NEVER should have bailed out GM and the banks.DaveHTampa, United States18 hours agoObama didnt bail out the banks.Bush did.Harry11 hours agoSimple minds make great sheep. keep up the zombie act Arty, it fits you.RobertLos Angeles, United Statesabout an hour agoDont be a dolt, Dave. Bush bailed out the banks, and they paid it back with interest. GM is working on it, and hundreds of thousands of GM jobs are still paying workers.And Harry, dont inflate numbers. Nobody has spent trillions on anything except war. Besides, SpaceX did all the original development work out of its founders wallet. It wasnt until they could prove they were up to the task before NASA gave them a contract. The contract is largely to make some cargo flights to the ISS, so they are already doing what you want. They paid for most of the taxi, were paying mostly for the rides.Dont forget, if you want private enterprise to build something, there needs to be money in it for them. They wont take those risks and spend billions just to make it cheap for the taxpayers.窗体顶端My Clone Did It Not MeYesterdayWe spend more on war3RepliesPynaetlb18 hours agoWe spend more paying off Obamas political contributors, $535 million just to Solyndra.DaveHTampa, United Sta