Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Space Launch System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Space Launch System
Sls block1 on-pad sunrisesmall.jpg
An artist's rendering of SLS Block 1 with Orion spacecraft on the pad before launch.
FunctionSuper heavy-lift launch vehicle
Country of originUnited States
Project costUS$18.6 billion (as of 2020)
Cost per launchOver US$2 billion excluding development (estimate)
Cost per yearUS$2.5 billion for 2020
Size
Height111.25 m (365.0 ft), Block 2 Cargo
Diameter8.4 m (28 ft), core stage
Stages2
Capacity
Payload to LEO
Mass
  • Block 1: 95 t (209,000 lb) 
  • Block 2: 130 t (290,000 lb) 
Payload to trans-lunar injection
Mass
  • Block 1: > 27 t (60,000 lb)
  • Block 1B Crew: 38 t (83,700 lb)
  • Block 1B Cargo: 42 t (92,500 lb)
  • Block 2 Crew: > 43 t (94,700 lb)
  • Block 2 Cargo: > 46 t (101,400 lb)
Associated rockets
Comparable
Launch history
StatusActive
Launch sitesKennedy Space Center, LC-39B
First flightNET 22 November 2021
Notable payloadsArtemis 1, Orion

Boosters (Block 1, 1B)
No. boosters2 five-segment Solid Rocket Boosters
Length54 m (177 ft) 
Gross mass730 t (1,610,000 lb) 
Thrust14.6 MN (1,490 tf; 3,300,000 lbf) sea level
16 MN (1,600 tf; 3,600,000 lbf) vacuum
Total thrust29.2 MN (2,980 tf; 6,600,000 lbf) sea level
32 MN (3,300 tf; 7,200,000 lbf) vacuum 
Specific impulse269 s (2.64 km/s)
Burn time126 seconds
PropellantPBAN, APCP
First stage (Block 1, 1B, 2) – Core stage
Length65 m (212 ft) 
Diameter8.4 m (27.6 ft)
Empty mass85 t (187,990 lb)
Gross mass979 t (2,159,322 lb)
Engines4 RS-25D/E 
Thrust9.1 MN (930 tf) vacuum
Specific impulse366 s (3.59 km/s) (sea level)
452 s (4.43 km/s)
Burn time480 seconds
PropellantLH2 / LOX
Second stage (Block 1) – ICPS
Length13.7 m (45 ft)
Diameter5 m (16 ft)
Empty mass3.5 t (7,690 lb)
Gross mass30.7 t (67,700 lb)
Engines1 RL10B-2
Thrust110.1 kN (11.23 tf; 24,800 lbf)
Specific impulse465.5 s (4.565 km/s)
Burn time1125 seconds
PropellantLH2 / LOX
Second stage (Block 1B, Block 2) – Exploration Upper Stage
Length17.6 m (58 ft)
Diameter8.4 m (28 ft)
Engines4 RL10C-3, later 4 RL10C-X
Thrust440 kN (45 tf; 99,000 lbf)
PropellantLH2 / LOX

The Space Launch System (SLS) is an American super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle, which has been under development by NASA since its announcement in 2011. It replaced the Ares I, Ares V, and Jupiter planned launch vehicles, which all never left the development phase. Like those proposals, it is a design derived from the components and technology of the earlier Space Shuttle.

It had been planned to become the primary launch vehicle of NASA's deep space exploration plans throughout the 2010s (now 2020s), including the planned crewed lunar flights of the Artemis program and a possible follow-on human mission to Mars. SLS is intended to replace the retired Space Shuttle as NASA's flagship vehicle. Following the cancellation of the Constellation program, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 envisioned a single launch vehicle usable for both crew and cargo. In 2013, SLS was projected to be the most capable super-heavy lift launch vehicle ever built.

The initial variant of SLS, Block 1, was required by the U.S. Congress to lift a payload of 70 t (69 long tons; 77 short tons) to low Earth orbit (LEO), but it was later planned to exceed that requirement with a rated payload capacity of 95 t (93 long tons; 105 short tons). As of 22 December 2019, this variant is planned to launch Artemis 1, Artemis 2, and Artemis 3. The later Block 1B is intended to debut the Exploration Upper Stage and launch the notional Artemis 4 through Artemis 7. Block 2 is planned to replace the initial Shuttle-derived boosters with advanced boosters and would have a LEO capability of more than 130 t (130 long tons; 140 short tons), again as required by Congress. Block 2 is intended to enable crewed launches to Mars.

As of 2018, SLS was planned to have the world's highest-ever total LEO payload capability, but not the world's highest ever injection mass. The SLS is planned to launch the Orion spacecraft and use the ground operations and launch facilities at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The rocket will use the Launch Complex 39B at the Kennedy Space Center. The first launch is currently scheduled for 4 November 2021.

Vehicle description

The SLS is a Space Shuttle-derived launch vehicle, with the first stage of the rocket being powered by one central core stage and two outboard boosters. The upper stage is being developed from the Block 1 variant to a Block 1B and 2 variant, the Exploration Upper Stage.

Core stage

The Space Launch System's core stage contains the Main Propulsion System (MPS) of the launch vehicle. It is 65 m (212 ft) long by 8.4 m (27.6 ft) in diameter and fuels the four RS-25 rocket engines at its base. The core stage is structurally and visually similar to the Space Shuttle external tank, containing the liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer. Flights 1 through 4 are planned to use modified RS-25D engines left over from the Space Shuttle program. However, the RS-25 engines were designed with reuse in mind for the Space Shuttle, so later flights are planned to switch to a expendable optimized RS-25 variant, lowering per engine costs over 30%.

The core stage is fabricated at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility and is common across all currently planned evolutions of the SLS to avoid the need for redesigns to meet varying requirements.

Boosters

SLS Booster test at Orbital ATK/Northrop Grumman's desert facility northwest of Ogden, Utah, March 2015

Block 1 and 1B boosters

Blocks 1 and 1B of the SLS are planned to use two five-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). These new SRBs are derived from the four-segment Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, with the addition of a center booster segment, new avionics, and lighter insulation. The five-segment SRBs provide approximately 25% more total impulse than the Shuttle SRB, but will no longer be recovered after use.

Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension program

The stock of SLS boosters is limited by the number of casings left over from the Shuttle program, since they modify flown boosters to add an additional segment. There are enough to last through eight flights of the SLS, but a replacement will be required for further flights. On 2 March 2019, the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension (BOLE) program was announced. This program will use new solid rocket boosters built by Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems for further SLS flights. These boosters would be derived from the composite-casing SRBs in development for the OmegA launch vehicle before it was canceled, and are projected to increase Block 1B's payload to TLI by 3–4 metric tons, which is still 1 ton below the payload capacity of Block 2.

Block 2 – advanced boosters

Block 2 will have special advanced boosters which will enable Block 2 to carry 130 metric tons (130 long tons; 140 short tons) to LEO and at least 46 metric tons (45 long tons; 51 short tons) to TLI.

Upper stage

ICPS – Block 1

The Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) is planned to fly on Artemis 1. It is a stretched and human-rated Delta IV 5-meter (16 ft) Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS) powered by a single RL10B-2 engine. Block 1 is intended to be capable of lifting 95 tonnes to low Earth orbit (LEO) in this configuration if the ICPS is considered part of the payload. Artemis 1 is to be launched into an initial 1,800 by −93 km (1,118 by −58 mi) suborbital trajectory to ensure safe disposal of the core stage. ICPS will then perform an orbital insertion burn at apogee and a subsequent translunar injection burn to send Orion towards the Moon. The ICPS for Artemis 1 was delivered by ULA to NASA about July 2017, and was housed at Kennedy Space Centre as of November 2018. As of February 2020, ICPS (not EUS) is planned for Artemis 1, 2, and 3. ICPS will be human-rated for the crewed Artemis 2 flight.

EUS – Block 1B and 2

The Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) is planned to fly on Artemis 4. Similar to the S-IVB, the EUS will complete the SLS ascent phase and then re-ignite to send its payload to destinations beyond LEO. It is expected to be used by Block 1B and Block 2, share the core stage diameter of 8.4 meters, and be powered by four RL10C-3 engines. It will eventually be upgraded to use four RL10C-X engines instead.

Payload carrying capacity

Resilience

The SLS is planned to have the ability to tolerate 23 tanking cycles, 13 are reserved for launch attempts on Artemis 1. The assembled rocket is to be able to remain at the launch pad for at least 180 days and can remain in a stacked configuration for at least 200 days.

Development history

Diagram of four versions of the Space Launch System rocket
Planned evolution of the Space Launch System, 2018

Program history

During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program had a projected development cost of US$18 billion through 2017, with US$10 billion for the SLS rocket, US$6 billion for the Orion spacecraft and US$2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center. These costs and schedule were considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.

An internal 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41 billion for four 95-tonne launches (1 uncrewed, 3 crewed), with the 130-tonne version ready no earlier than 2030.

The Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) estimated unit costs for Block 0 at US$1.6 billion and Block 1 at US$1.86 billion in 2010. However, since these estimates were made the Block 0 SLS vehicle was dropped in late 2011, and the design was not completed.

In September 2012, an SLS deputy project manager stated that US$500 million per launch is a reasonable target cost for SLS.

In 2013, the Space Review estimated the cost per launch at US$5 billion, depending on the rate of launches. NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency (ESA) will build the Orion service module.

In 2011, NASA announced an "Advanced Booster Competition", to be decided in 2015, which would select whose boosters would be used for Block 2 of the SLS.

Several companies proposed boosters for this competition:

  • Aerojet, in partnership with Teledyne Brown, offered a booster powered by three new AJ1E6 LOX/RP-1 oxidizer-rich staged combustion engines, each producing 4,900 kN (1,100,000 lbf) thrust using a single turbopump to supply dual combustion chambers. On 14 February 2013, Aerojet was awarded a US$23.3 million, 30-month contract to build a 2,400 kN (550,000 lbf) main injector and thrust chamber.
  • Alliant Techsystems (ATK) proposed an advanced SRB nicknamed "Dark Knight", which would switch to a lighter composite case, use a more energetic propellant, and reduce the number of segments from five to four.

In 2013, the manager of NASA's SLS advanced development office indicated that all three approaches were viable.

However, this competition was planned for a development plan in which Block 1A would be followed by Block 2A, with upgraded boosters. NASA canceled Block 1A and the planned competition in April 2014. Due to this cancellation, it was reported in February 2015 that SLS is expected to fly with the original five-segment SRB until at least the late 2020s. This decision was vindicated as a later study found that the advanced booster would have resulted in unsuitably high acceleration. The overly powerful booster would need modifications to Launch Pad 39B (LC-39B), its flame trench, and Mobile Launcher, which are being evaluated.

In August 2014, as the SLS program passed its Key Decision Point C review and entered full development, costs from February 2014 until its planned launch in September 2018 were estimated at US$7.021 billion. Ground systems modifications and construction would require an additional US$1.8 billion over the same time period.

In October 2018, NASA's inspector general reported that the Boeing core stage contract had made up 40% of the US$11.9 billion spent on SLS as of August 2018. By 2021, core stages were expected to have cost a total of US$8.9 billion, which is twice the initially planned amount.

In December 2018, NASA estimated that yearly budgets for SLS will range from US$2.1 to US$2.3 billion between 2019 and 2023.

In March 2019, the Trump Administration released its Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for NASA. This budget did not include any money for the Block 1B and Block 2 variants of SLS. It was therefore uncertain whether these future variants of SLS will be developed, but congressional action restored this funding in the passed budget. Several launches previously planned for the SLS Block 1B are now expected to fly on commercial launcher vehicles such as Falcon Heavy, New Glenn and Vulcan. However, the request for a budget increase of US$1.6 billion towards SLS, Orion, and crewed landers along with the launch manifest seem to indicate support of the development of Block 1B, debuting Artemis 3. The Block 1B will be used mainly for co-manifested crew transfers and logistical needs rather than constructing the Gateway. An uncrewed Block 1B is planned to launch the Lunar Surface Asset in 2028, the first lunar outpost of the Artemis program. Block 2 development will most likely start in the late 2020s after NASA is regularly visiting the lunar surface and shifts focus towards Mars.

Blue Origin submitted a proposal to replace the Exploration Upper Stage with an alternative to be designed and fabricated by the company, but it was rejected by NASA in November 2019 on multiple grounds. These included lower performance compared to the existing EUS design, unsuitability of the proposal to current ground infrastructure, and unacceptable acceleration in regards to Orion components.

On March 18th 2021, CS-1 successfully completed its 8 minute Green Run test.

Funding history

For fiscal years 2011 through 2020, the SLS program had expended funding totaling US$18.648 billion in nominal dollars. This is equivalent to US$20.314 billion in 2020 dollars using the NASA New Start Inflation Indices.

For fiscal year 2021, US$2.257 billion.

Fiscal year Funding (millions) Status
Nominal In US$2020
2011 US$1,536.1 US$1,819.9 Actual
(Formal SLS Program reporting excludes the Fiscal 2011 budget.)
2012 US$1,497.5 US$1,755.5 Actual
2013 US$1,414.9 US$1,634.1 Actual
2014 US$1,600.0 US$1,812.3 Actual
2015 US$1,678.6 US$1,863.8 Actual
2016 US$1,971.9 US$2,159.6 Actual
2017 US$2,127.1 US$2,286.8 Actual
2018 US$2,150.0 US$2,256.6 Actual
2019 US$2,144.0 US$2,199.9 Actual
2020 US$2,525.8 US$2,525.8 Enacted
2021 US$2,585.9 US$2,585.9 Enacted
2011–2020 Total: US$18,648 Total: US$20,314

On top of this, the costs to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS and its payloads are funded separately under Exploration Ground Systems, currently about US$600 million per year.

Excluded from the above SLS costs are:

  • Costs of payloads for the SLS (such as Orion crew capsule)
  • Costs of the predecessor Ares V / Cargo Launch Vehicle (funded from 2008 to 2010)
  • Costs for the Ares I / Crew Launch Vehicle (funded from 2006 to 2010, a total of US$4.8 billion in development that included the 5-segment Solid Rocket Boosters that will be used on the SLS)

Included in the above SLS costs are:

  • Costs of the interim Upper Stage for the SLS, the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS, which includes a US$412 million contract 
  • Costs of the future Upper Stage for the SLS, the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) (funded at US$85 million in 2016, US$300 million in 2017, US$300 million in 2018, and US$150 million in 2019)

Per launch costs

The per launch costs for SLS have varied widely, partly due to uncertainty over how much the program will expend during development and testing before the operational launches begin, and partly due to various agencies using differing cost measures (for example, a marginal cost per one additional launch, which ignores development and annual recurring fixed costs vs. total cost per launch, including recurring costs but excluding development); but also based on differing purposes for which the cost estimates were developed.

There are no official NASA estimates for how much SLS will cost per launch, nor for the SLS program annual recurring costs once operational. Cost per launch is not a straightforward figure to estimate as it depends heavily on how many launches occur per year. For example, similarly, the Space Shuttle was estimated (in 2012 dollars) to cost US$576 million per launch had it been able to achieve 7 launches per year, while the marginal cost of adding a single additional launch in a given year was estimated to be less than half of that, at just US$252 million of marginal cost. However, at the rate that it actually flew, the cost in the end was US$1.64 billion per Space Shuttle launch, including development.

NASA associate administrator William H. Gerstenmaier said in 2017 that there would be no official per flight cost estimates of any variety provided by NASA for SLS. Other bodies, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the NASA Office of Inspector General, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the White House Office of Management and Budget have put out cost per launch figures, however.

Several internal NASA programs and project concept study reports have released proposed budgets that include future SLS launches. For example, a concept study report for a space telescope was advised by NASA HQ in 2019 to budget US$500 million for an SLS launch in 2035. Another study in 2019 also proposing a space telescope assumed a budget for their launch of US$650 million in current day dollars, or US$925 million for when the launch would occur, which is also in the "mid-2030s".

Europa Clipper is a NASA scientific mission that was required by Congress to launch on the SLS. Oversight bodies both internal and external to NASA disagreed with this requirement. First, NASA's Inspector General office published a report in May 2019 that stated Europa Clipper would need to give up US$876 million for the "marginal cost" of its SLS launch. Then, an addendum to the letter published in August 2019 increased the estimate and stated that switching to a commercial rocket would actually save over US$1 billion. (Although this savings may have included a portion of costs related to the delay in launch schedule; a commercial alternative could launch sooner than SLS) A JCL (Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level) analysis cited in that letter put the cost savings at US$700 million, with SLS at US$1.05 billion per launch and the commercial alternative at US$350 million.

Finally, a letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Senate Appropriations Committee in October 2019 revealed that SLS's total cost to the taxpayer was estimated at "over US$2 billion" per launch after development is complete (program development has cost US$20 billion to date in 2020 dollars). The letter urged Congress to remove this requirement, in agreement with the NASA Inspector General, adding that using a commercial launch vehicle for Europa Clipper instead of SLS would save US$1.5 billion overall. NASA did not deny this US$2 billion cost of launch and an agency spokesperson stated it "is working to bring down the cost of a single SLS launch in a given year as the agency continues negotiations with Boeing on the long-term production contract and efforts to finalize contracts and costs for other elements of the rocket". This OMB figure is dependent on the rate of construction, so building more SLS rockets faster could decrease the per-unit cost. For example, Exploration Ground Systems – whose only role is to support, assemble, integrate, and launch SLS – has separately budgeted fixed costs of US$600 million per year on facilities, spread across however many rockets launch that year. Then NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine shared informally that he disagrees with the US$2 billion figure since the marginal cost of an SLS launch should decrease after the first few, and is expected to end up around US$800 million to US$900 million, although contract negotiations were only just beginning for those later cores.

On 1 May 2020, NASA awarded a contract extension to Aerojet Rocketdyne to manufacture 18 additional RS-25 engines with associated services for US$1.79 billion, bringing the total RS-25 contract value to almost US$3.5 billion.

Constellation

From 2009 to 2011, three full-duration static fire tests of five-segment SRBs were conducted under the Constellation Program, including tests at low and high core temperatures, to validate performance at extreme temperatures. The 5-segment SRB would be carried over to SLS.

Early SLS

Engineers with Exploration Ground Systems and Jacobs prepare to lift and place the core stage of the Space Launch System rocket for the Artemis I mission on the mobile launcher and in-between the already assembled twin rocket boosters.

During the early development of the SLS a number of configurations were considered, including a Block 0 variant with three main engines, a Block 1A variant with upgraded boosters instead of the improved second stage, and a Block 2 with five main engines and the Earth Departure Stage, with up to three J-2X engines. In February 2015, it was determined that these concepts would exceed the congressionally mandated Block 1 and Block 1B baseline payloads.

On 14 September 2011, NASA announced the new launch system, which is intended to take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before and provide the cornerstone for future U.S. human space exploration efforts in combination with the Orion spacecraft.

On 31 July 2013, the SLS passed the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The review included not only the rocket and boosters but also ground support and logistical arrangements. On 7 August 2014, the SLS Block 1 passed a milestone known as Key Decision Point C and entered full-scale development, with an estimated launch date of November 2018.

In 2013, NASA and Boeing analyzed the performance of several EUS engine options. The analysis was based on a second-stage usable propellant load of 105 metric tons, and compared stages with four RL10 engines, two MARC-60 engines, or one J-2X engine.

In 2014, NASA also considered using the European Vinci instead of the RL10. The Vinci offers the same specific impulse but with 64% greater thrust, which would allow for the same performance at lower cost.

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems has completed full-duration static fire tests of the five-segment SRBs. Qualification Motor 1 (QM-1) was tested on 10 March 2015. Qualification Motor 2 (QM-2) was successfully tested on 28 June 2016.

SLS History

Artemis I core stage going into the Vehicle Assembly Building

As of 2020, three SLS versions are planned: Block 1, Block 1B, and Block 2. Each will use the same core stage with four main engines, but Block 1B will feature the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), and Block 2 will combine the EUS with upgraded boosters.

In mid-November 2014, construction of the first core stage hardware began using a new welding system in the South Vertical Assembly Building at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility. Between 2015 and 2017, NASA test fired RS-25 engines in preparation for use on SLS.

As of late 2015, the SLS program was stated to have a 70% confidence level for the first crewed Orion flight by 2023, and as of 2020, NASA is continuing to project a 2023 launch.

A test article build for the core stage began on 5 January 2016 and was expected to be completed in late January 2016. Once completed the test article was to be sent to ensure structural integrity at Marshall Space Flight Center. A structural test article of the ICPS was delivered in 2015. the core stage for Artemis 1 completed assembly in November 2019.

The first core stage left Michoud for comprehensive testing at Stennis in January 2020. The static firing test program at Stennis Space Center, known as the Green Run, will operate all the core stage systems simultaneously for the first time. Test 7 (of 8), the wet dress rehearsal, was carried out in December 2020 and the hot fire (test 8) took place on 16 January 2021, but shut down earlier than expected, about 67 seconds in total rather than the desired eight minutes. The reason for the early shutdown was later reported to be because of conservative test commit criteria on the thrust vector control system, specific only for ground testing and not for flight. If this scenario occurred during a flight, the rocket would have continued to fly normally. There was no sign of damage to the core stage or the engines, contrary to initial concerns. The second hot fire test was successfully completed March 18, with all 4 engines igniting, throttling down as expected to simulate in-flight conditions, and gimballing profiles. The core stage was shipped down to Kennedy Space Center to be mated with the rest of the rocket for Artemis 1. It left Stennis on April 24, and arrived at Kennedy on April 27. It was refurbished there in preparation for stacking. On 12 June 2021, NASA announced the assembly of the first SLS rocket was completed at the Kennedy Space Center. The assembled SLS is planned to be used for the unmanned Artemis 1 mission later in 2021.

The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: originally from late 2016  to October 2017, then to November 2018, then to 2019, then to June 2020, then to April 2021, and most recently to November 2021.

Criticism

NASA moved out US$889 million of costs relating to SLS boosters, but did not update the SLS budget to match, a March 2020 Inspector General report found. This kept the budget overrun to 15% by FY 2019. At 30%, NASA would have to notify Congress and stop funding unless Congress reapproves and provides additional funding. The Inspector General report found that were it not for this "masking" of cost, the overrun would be 33% by FY 2019. The GAO separately stated "NASA's current approach for reporting cost growth misrepresents the cost performance of the program".

The SLS has been criticized on the basis of program cost, lack of commercial involvement, and the non-competitive nature of a vehicle legislated to use Space Shuttle components.

In 2009, the Augustine commission proposed a commercial 75 t (74 long tons; 83 short tons) launcher with lower operating costs, and noted that a 40–60 t (39–59 long tons; 44–66 short tons) launcher was the minimum required to support lunar exploration.

In 2011–2012, the Space Access Society, Space Frontier Foundation and The Planetary Society called for the cancellation of the project, arguing that SLS will consume the funds for other projects from the NASA budget. U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher and others proposed that an orbital propellant depot should be developed and the Commercial Crew Development program accelerated instead. A NASA study that was not publicly released and another from the Georgia Institute of Technology showed this option to be possibly cheaper. In 2012, the United Launch Alliance also suggested using existing rockets with on-orbit assembly and propellant depots as needed. The lack of competition in the SLS design was highlighted. In the summer of 2019, a former ULA employee claimed that Boeing, NASA's prime contractor for SLS, viewed orbital refueling technology as a threat to SLS and blocked further investment in it.

In 2011, Mars Society/Mars Direct founder Robert Zubrin suggested that a heavy lift vehicle could be developed for US$5 billion on fixed-price requests for proposal.

In 2010, SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk claimed that his company could build a launch vehicle in the 140- to 150-tonne payload range for US$2.5 billion, or US$300 million (in 2010 dollars) per launch, not including a potential upper-stage upgrade. In the early 2010s, SpaceX went on to start development of SpaceX Starship, a planned fully reusable super-heavy launch system. Reusability is claimed to allow the lowest-cost super-heavy launcher ever made. If the price per launch and payload capabilities for the Starship are anywhere near Musk's claimed capabilities, the rocket will be substantially cheaper than the SLS.

In 2011, Rep. Tom McClintock and other groups called on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate possible violations of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), arguing that Congressional mandates forcing NASA to use Space Shuttle components for SLS are de facto non-competitive, single source requirements assuring contracts to existing Shuttle suppliers. The Competitive Space Task Force, in September 2011, said that the new government launcher directly violates NASA's charter, the Space Act, and the 1998 Commercial Space Act requirements for NASA to pursue the "fullest possible engagement of commercial providers" and to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space". Opponents of the heavy launch vehicle have critically used the name "Senate launch system", a name that was still being used by opponents to criticize the program in 2021, as "the NASA Inspector General said the total cost of the rocket would reach $27 billion through 2025."

In 2013, Chris Kraft, the NASA mission control leader from the Apollo era, expressed his criticism of the system as well. Lori Garver, former NASA Deputy Administrator, has called for canceling the launch vehicle alongside the Mars 2020 rover. Phil Plait has voiced his criticism of SLS in light of ongoing budget tradeoffs between the Commercial Crew Development and SLS budgets, also referring to earlier critiques by Garver.

In 2019, the Government Accountability Office found that NASA had awarded Boeing over US$200 million for service with ratings of good to excellent despite cost overruns and delays. As of 2019, the maiden launch of SLS was expected in 2021. NASA continued to expect that the first orbital launch would be in 2021 as late as May 2020.

On 1 May 2020, NASA awarded a US$1.79 billion contract extension for the manufacture of 18 additional RS-25 engines. Ars Technica, in an article published on the same day, highlighted that over the entire RS-25 contract the price of each engine works out to US$146 million and that the total price for the four expendable engines used in each SLS launch will be more than US$580 million. They critically commented that for the cost of just one engine, six more powerful RD-180 engines could be purchased, or nearly an entire Falcon Heavy launch with two thirds of the SLS lift capacity.

Former NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, who oversaw the initial design and development of the SLS, also voiced his criticism of the program in an interview with Politico in September 2020. Bolden said that the "SLS will go away because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up". Bolden further stated "commercial entities are really going to build a heavy-lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS".

Penny4NASA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Penny4NASA
Penny4NASA Logo
Formation2012
FoundersJohn Zeller,
Evan Schurr
PurposeSpace advocacy
Executive Director
John Zeller
Social Media
Curtiss Thompson
Video Development
Evan Schurr
Web Development
Joseph Spens
John Zeller,
Trevor Waddell,
Kyle Sullivan,
Nick Saab,
Evan Schurr
Parent organization
Space Advocates

Penny4NASA is a campaign run by the Space Advocates nonprofit, a nonpartisan organization seeking to promote the expansion of funding for the economic, scientific and cultural value of the United States' national space program by advocating an increase in the budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to at least one percent of the United States Federal Budget. Penny4NASA also attempts to promote public awareness of the NASA mission and budget, and has produced a series of outreach videos, as well as performing educational outreach via social media.

Overview

Penny4NASA is a campaign of Space Advocates, an initiative founded by John Zeller in 2012, and proposes an increase in the budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to promote the scientific and technological goals of the space agency. The organization works to accomplish these aims through public outreach, educational materials, and has organized petitions to the Executive and Legislative branches of the United States government toward those aims. Penny4NASA is the campaign Space Advocates is best known for.

The Penny4NASA campaign was founded in 2012 following the testimony of astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson – curator of the Hayden Planetarium in New York – before the United States Senate Science Committee. According to Tyson's testimony, “Right now, NASA’s annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that—a penny on a dollar—we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow.”

Objectives

The Penny4NASA mission statement declares that a main goal of the campaign is to call upon the White House and U.S. Congress "to increase NASA's funding from its current level of 0.48% to a whole one percent of the US annual budget." The organization hopes to meet this aim by encouraging to public to "consistently and in large numbers, [contact] members of congress to tell them what [the public] want[s]."

Another goal of the Penny4NASA campaign, as part of its larger goal to influence the public in favor of increasing the funding allotted the U.S. space program, is to communicate accurate information about how much funding has been allotted NASA over its operational history. The mission statement states that "2012 is the 2nd lowest year of NASA funding by percentage of the US budget since 1958 and 1959, their founding years."

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a stated influence of the Penny4NASA organization, has argued that NASA is not only underfunded, but that the general public overestimates how much revenue is allocated to the space program. At a March 2010 talk delivered in the University at Buffalo's Distinguished Speaker series, Tyson stated:

"By the way, how much does NASA cost? It's a half a penny on the dollar. Did you know that? The people are saying, 'Why are we spending money […].' I ask them, 'How much do you think we're spending?' They say 'five cents, ten cents on a dollar.' It's a half a penny."

Tyson has proposed increasing the budget of NASA and suggested that doing so would increase the capabilities of human spaceflight, allowing the space program to "do it all," referring to pursuing multiple avenues of exploration.

Media coverage and reception

In March 2012, Neil deGrasse Tyson was interviewed by Joshua Topolsky. Speaking of the Penny4NASA campaign and social media initiatives, Tyson said he was surprised by the online mobilization within 10 days of his Senate committee testimony, and that he was "happy to learn that" people were moved by it.

On June 10, 2012 John Zeller, then an undergraduate student at Oregon State University majoring in Computer Science, was interviewed in the Science for the People podcast. Zeller started the Penny4NASA.org web site after observing Neil deGrasse Tyson giving a testimony before the U.S. Senate committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Zeller states, "After watching this video, I went on Twitter and Facebook and I saw hashtag Penny4NASA all over the place. There had been a video put on YouTube that had hashtag Penny4NASA all over it that was trending around 300,000 views." The success of the video prompted Zeller to begin the web site and set up a petition and social media around the 'Penny4NASA' hashtag that had come to summarize the proposal of its movement.

A September 2, 2012 episode of Astronomy Cast recorded at DragonCon in Atlanta, Georgia focused on funding issues related to space exploration. Discussing the Penny4NASA proposal and supportive of its goals, astronomer Pamela Gay stated that it may not be a realistic goal to "convince the Congress to take a penny of every tax dollar and give it to NASA," but went on to say it may be possible to produce "the same ultimate effect by individuals who have the extra ten dollars and care about science and finding that science project that they believe in and giving it ten dollars."

Campaign efforts

In 2012, Penny4NASA organization released a two-part video series titled "We Stopped Dreaming" to make a case for expanding the combined efforts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, international space partnerships, private space exploration and combinations thereof. Two additional videos by Brandon Fibbs were subsequently released in 2012, "Dare Mighty Things: Curiosity on Mars" and "Audacious Visions."

A petition was created in March 2012 on behalf of Penny4NASA using the U.S. White House's We the People petitioning system. The petition argued for a reallocation of funding, stating that the investment would be smaller than recent government expenditures, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program during the financial crisis of 2007–2008. The White House issued an official response to the initial petition, entitled Doubling and Tripling What We Can Accomplish in Space, stating "NASA and space are so important to our future that we do need to be doubling and tripling what we can accomplish in this domain." The White House's response also emphasized fiscal challenges but argued that through effective spending to deliver results, "NASA is as strong as ever."

On August 9, 2012, Penny4NASA published a response in an open letter to White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, acknowledging fiscal challenges, but adding that they were "concerned that the message of [the] organization and the almost 30,000 individuals who have signed the petition is being overlooked."

As of January 2013, the petition was taken down from the We the People website for not meeting the signature threshold.

Following the White House petition, the Penny4NASA organization endorsed a congressional petition using the POPVOX widget, an online tool for communicating support or dissent for particular bills on behalf of its user base to the members of the United States Congress in a public forum.

Budget of NASA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a federal agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) receives its funding from the annual federal budget passed by the United States Congress. The following charts detail the amount of federal funding allotted to NASA each year over its history to pursue programs in aeronautics research, robotic spaceflight, technology development, and human space exploration programs.

Annual budget

NASA's budget as percentage of federal total, from 1958 to 2017

NASA's budget for financial year (FY) 2020 is $22.6 billion. It represents 0.48% of the $4.7 trillion the United States plans to spend in the fiscal year.

Since its inception, the United States has spent nearly US$650 billion (in nominal dollars) on NASA.

History of NASA's annual budget (millions of US dollars)
Calendar
Year
NASA budget
Nominal Dollars
(Millions)
% of Fed Budget 2020 Constant Dollars
(Millions)
1958 89 0.1% 798
1959 145 0.2% 1,287
1960 401 0.5% 3,508
1961 744 0.9% 6,443
1962 1,257 1.18% 10,754
1963 2,552 2.29% 21,573
1964 4,171 3.52% 34,805
1965 5,092 4.31% 41,817
1966 5,933 4.41% 47,324
1967 5,425 3.45% 42,106
1968 4,722 2.65% 35,142
1969 4,251 2.31% 30,000
1970 3,752 1.92% 25,004
1971 3,382 1.61% 21,612
1972 3,423 1.48% 21,178
1973 3,312 1.35% 19,308
1974 3,255 1.21% 17,081
1975 3,269 0.98% 15,722
1976 3,671 0.99% 16,696
1977 4,002 0.98% 17,091
1978 4,164 0.91% 16,522
1979 4,380 0.87% 15,618
1980 4,959 0.84% 15,576
1981 5,537 0.82% 15,762
1982 6,155 0.83% 16,506
1983 6,853 0.85% 17,807
1984 7,055 0.83% 17,574
1985 7,251 0.77% 17,448
1986 7,403 0.75% 17,478
1987 7,591 0.76% 17,292
1988 9,092 0.85% 19,895
Calendar
Year
NASA budget
Nominal Dollars
(Millions)
% of Fed Budget 2020 Constant Dollars
(Millions)
1989 11,036 0.96% 23,041
1990 12,429 0.99% 24,621
1991 13,878 1.05% 26,369
1992 13,961 1.01% 25,747
1993 14,305 1.01% 25,628
1994 13,695 0.94% 23,912
1995 13,378 0.88% 22,721
1996 13,881 0.89% 22,905
1997 14,360 0.90% 23,150
1998 14,194 0.86% 22,537
1999 13,636 0.80% 21,184
2000 13,428 0.75% 20,180
2001 14,095 0.76% 20,601
2002 14,405 0.72% 20,727
2003 14,610 0.68% 20,554
2004 15,152 0.66% 20,761
2005 15,602 0.63% 20,674
2006 15,125 0.57% 19,417
2007 15,861 0.58% 19,796
2008 17,833 0.60% 21,435
2009 17,782 0.57% 21,450
2010 18,724 0.52% 22,221
2011 18,448 0.51% 21,223
2012 17,770 0.50% 20,031
2013 16,865 0.49% 18,737
2014 17,647 0.50% 19,292
2015 18,010 0.49% 19,664
2016 19,300 0.50% 20,812
2017 19,508 0.47% 20,596
2018 20,736 0.50% 21,371
2019 21,500 0.47% 21,763
2020 22,559 0.48% 22,559

Cost of Apollo program

NASA's spending peaked in 1966 during the Apollo program

NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing and the Apollo program was a top national priority, consuming more than half of NASA's budget and driving NASA's workforce to more than 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors from industry and academia.

In 1973, NASA submitted congressional testimony reporting the total cost of Project Apollo as $25.4 billion (about $156 billion in 2019 dollars).

Economic impact of NASA funding

A November 1971 study of NASA released by MRIGlobal (formerly Midwest Research Institute) of Kansas City, Missouri concluded that "the $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958–1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 – and will continue to produce payoffs through 1987, at which time the total pay-off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent."

A map from NASA's web site illustrating its economic impact on the U.S. states (as of FY2003)

Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight-year period (1976–1984) and found more than:

  • $21.6 billion in sales and benefits
  • 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved
  • $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

According to a 1992 Nature commentary, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs."

A 2013 report prepared by the Tauri Group for NASA showed that NASA invested nearly $5 billion in U.S. manufacturing in FY 2012, with nearly $2 billion of that going to the technology sector. NASA also develops and commercializes technology, some of which can generate over $1 billion in revenue per year over multiple years

In 2014, the American Helicopter Society criticized NASA and the government for reducing the annual rotorcraft budget from $50 million in 2000 to $23 million in 2013, impacting commercial opportunities.

The 2017 Economic Impact Report prepared by NASA for their Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) awards found that for FY 2016, these programs created 2,412 jobs, $474 million in economic output, and $57.3 million in fiscal impact with an initial investment of $172.9 million.

Public perception

The perceived national security threat posed by early Soviet leads in spaceflight drove NASA's budget to its peak, both in real inflation-adjusted dollars and in a percentage of the total federal budget (4.41% in 1966). But the U.S. victory in the Space Race — landing men on the Moon — erased the perceived threat, and NASA was unable to sustain political support for its vision of an even more ambitious Space Transportation System entailing reusable Earth-to-orbit shuttles, a permanent space station, lunar bases, and a human mission to Mars. Only a scaled-back space shuttle was approved, and NASA's funding leveled off at just under 1% in 1976, then declined to 0.75% in 1986. After a brief increase to 1.01% in 1992, it declined to about 0.5% in 2013.

To help with public perception and to raise awareness regarding the widespread benefits of NASA-funded programs and technologies, NASA instituted the Spinoffs publication. This was a direct offshoot of the Technology Utilization Program Report, a "publication dedicated to informing the scientific community about available NASA technologies, and ongoing requests received for supporting information." according to the NASA Spinoff about page the technologies in these reports created interest in the technology transfer concept, its successes, and its use as a public awareness tool. The reports generated such keen interest by the public that NASA decided to make them into an attractive publication. Thus, the first four-color edition of Spinoff was published in 1976.

The American public, on average, believes NASA's budget has a much larger share of the federal budget than it actually does. A 1997 poll reported that Americans had an average estimate of 20% for NASA's share of the federal budget, far higher than the actual 0.5% to under 1% that has been maintained throughout the late '90s and first decade of the 2000s. It is estimated that most Americans spent less than $9 on NASA through personal income tax in 2009.

However, there has been a recent movement to communicate discrepancy between perception and reality of NASA's budget as well as lobbying to return the funding back to the 1970–1990 level. The United States Senate Science Committee met in March 2012 where astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson testified that "Right now, NASA's annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that—a penny on a dollar—we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th-century birthright to dream of tomorrow." Inspired by Tyson's advocacy and remarks, the Penny4NASA campaign was initiated in 2012 by John Zeller and advocates the doubling of NASA's budget to one percent of the Federal Budget, or one "penny on the dollar."

Political opposition to NASA funding

Public opposition to NASA and its budget dates back to the Apollo era. Critics have cited more immediate concerns, like social welfare programs, as reasons to cut funding to the agency. Furthermore, they have questioned the return on investment (ROI) feasibility of NASA's research and development. In 1968, physicist Ralph Lapp argued that if NASA really did have a positive ROI, it should be able to sustain itself as a private company, and not require federal funding. More recently, critics have faulted NASA for sinking money into the Space Shuttle program, reducing funding available for its long-term missions to Mars and deep space. Human missions to Mars have also been denounced for their inefficiency and large cost compared to uncrewed missions. In the late 1990s climate change denial political groups opposed the Earth science aspects of NASA spending, arguing that spending on Earth science programs such as climate research was in pursuit of political agendas.

Science policy of the United States

Federal funding of basic and applied research by year. The spike in 2009 is due to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Figures for 2014 are requested levels.

The science policy of the United States is the responsibility of many organizations throughout the federal government. Much of the large-scale policy is made through the legislative budget process of enacting the yearly federal budget, although there are other legislative issues that directly involve science, such as energy policy, climate change, and stem cell research. Further decisions are made by the various federal agencies which spend the funds allocated by Congress, either on in-house research or by granting funds to outside organizations and researchers.

Professor N. Rosenberg, one of the pioneers of technological innovation research, pointed out that industrial research laboratories (R&D), if not the most important institutional innovations in institutional innovation in the 20th century, are also one of the most important institutional innovations. Although not the first invention of the United States, this system has a wider spread and stronger influence in the US economy than in other countries.

The United States devoted 2.8% of GDP to research and development (R&D) in 2012. The private sector contributed two-thirds of the total. The Obama administration had fixed a target of a 3% ratio by the end of his presidency in 2016.

Legislating science policy

In the Executive Office of the President, the main body advising the president on science policy is the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Other advisory bodies exist within the Executive Office of the President, including the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Science and Technology Council.

In the United States Congress, a number of congressional committees have jurisdiction over legislation on science policy, most notably the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and their subcommittees. These committees oversee the various federal research agencies that are involved in receiving funding for scientific research. Oversight of some agencies may fall under multiple committees, for example the Environmental Protection Agency.

The number of Congressional members and other politicians with backgrounds in science, engineering, and technology has grown in recent years, with the 116th Congress setting a record with 47 of 535 members with STEM backgrounds. Therefore, most U.S. politicians refer to various Congressional support agencies for analysis on science related issues, which do not solely focus on science, but provide insight for Congress to make decisions dealing with scientific issues. These agencies are nonpartisan and provide objective reports on topics requested by members of congress. They are the Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office, and Congressional Budget Office. In the past, the Office of Technology Assessment provided Congressional members and committees with objective analysis of scientific and technical issues, but this office was abolished as a result of the Republican Revolution of 1994.

Further advice is provided by extragovernmental organizations such as The National Academies, which was created and mostly funded by the federal government, and the RAND Corporation, as well as other non-profit organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society among others.

Research and development in the federal budget

Only a small percentage of the overall federal budget is allocated to R&D. The FY2015 budget request includes $135.110B in R&D spending out of a total budget of $3969.069B, representing 3.4% of the budget. Research and development funding in the federal budget is not centrally enacted, but is spread across many appropriations bills which are enacted in the annual United States budget process. Of the twelve annual appropriations bills, the most important for R&D are those for Defense; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (which includes NIH); Commerce, Justice, and Science (which includes NSF, NASA, NIST, and NOAA); and Energy and Water Development. Other appropriations bills include smaller amounts of R&D funding.

There are a number of federal agencies across the government which carry out science policy. Some of these primarily perform their own research "in-house", while others grant funds to external organizations or individual researchers. In addition, the federally funded research and development centers, which include most of the U.S. National Laboratories, are funded by the government but operated by universities, non-profit organizations, or for-profit consortia.

The FY2015 presidential budget request defines R&D as "the collection of efforts directed toward gaining greater knowledge or understanding and applying knowledge toward the production of useful materials, devices, and methods." R&D is divided into five subcategories. Basic research is directed toward understanding of the fundamental aspects of observable phenomena. It may be directed towards broad but not specific applications. Applied research is directed towards gaining knowledge to meet a recognized and specific need. Development is the application of knowledge or understanding for the production of useful materials, devices, and methods, including production of prototypes. R&D equipment includes acquisition or production of movable equipment, such as spectrometers, research satellites, or detectors. R&D facilities include the construction or major repairs to physical facilities including land, buildings, and fixed capital equipment such fixed facilities as reactors, wind tunnels, and particle accelerators.

Defense research and development

Defense R&D has the goal of "maintaining strategic technological advantages over potential foreign adversaries." As of 2009, just over half of the R&D budget was allocated to defense spending. Most Defense R&D falls under the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RTD&E) budget, although some R&D funding is outside this budget, such as the Defense Health Program and the chemical weapons destruction program. The Department of Defense divides development further, giving each category a code: 6.1 is Basic Research, 6.2 is Applied Research, 6.3 is Advanced Technology Development, 6.4 is Advanced Component Development and Prototypes, 6.5 is System Development and Demonstration, 6.6 is RDT&E Management and Support, and 6.7 is Operational Systems Development.

Most of the Defense R&D budget is for weapon systems development, with nearly all activity in categories 6.4 and higher carried out by private defense contractors. About one sixth of it is allocated to the Science and Technology (S&T) program, which includes all of 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and medical research. As of 2013, research funding (6.1 and 6.2) was disbursed 40% to industry, 33% to DoD laboratories, and 21% to academia. The Department of Defense was the third-largest supporter of R&D in academia in FY2012, with only NIH and NSF having larger investments, with DoD the largest federal funder for engineering research and a close second for computer science.

The Defense Research Enterprise (DRE) consists of S&T programs within each of the three military departments within DoD. The budget is prepared by each department's acquisition secretary, namely the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. Air Force and Space Force S&T is executed by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Navy and Marine Corps S&T is executed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), with medical research performed by the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. For the Army, 72% of the S&T budget is in Army Materiel Command's Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), with the remainder in Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC) and the Deputy Chief of Staff (G1-Personnel) to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). Each agency supports both in-house intramural research as well as grants to outside academic or industrial organizations.

Intellectual property policy

Inventions "conceived or actually reduced to practice" in the performance of government-funded research may be subject to the Bayh-Dole Act.

The Federal Research Public Access Act (111th congress S.1373, introduced 25 June 2009 but still in a Senate committee) would require "free online public access to such final peer-reviewed manuscripts or published versions as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months after publication in peer-reviewed journals".

The America Invents Act of 2011 moved the US from a 'first to invent' system to a 'first to file' model, the most significant patent reform since 1952. This act will limit or eliminate lengthy legal and bureaucratic challenges that used to accompany contested filings. However, the pressure to file early may limit the inventor's ability to exploit the period of exclusivity fully. It may also disadvantage very small entities, for which the legal costs of preparing an application are the main barrier to filing. This legislation has also fostered the rise of what are familiarly known as patent trolls.

Science in political discourse

Most of the leading political issues in the United States have a scientific component. For example, healthcare, renewable energy, climate change, and national security. Amongst U.S. public opinion, 60% of Americans believe scientific experts should play an active role in policy debates over relevant issues, although this view is divided amongst Democrats and Republicans. Broadly, a majority of Americans believe that scientists should be involved in shaping policies related to medical and health, energy, education, environmental, infrastructure, defense, and agriculture policies.

Science policy in the states

State government initiatives

There are also a number of state and local agencies which deal with state-specific science policy and provide additional funding, such as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

Overall research spending in the states

Contribution of each state to US research in 2010, in terms of funding (public and private sectors) and science and engineering occupations. Source: Figure 5.6 from the UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030, based on data from National Science Foundation

The level of research spending varies considerably from one state to another. Six states (New Mexico, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, California and Michigan) each devoted 3.9% or more of their GDP to R&D in 2010, together contributing 42% of national research expenditure. In 2010, more than one-quarter of R&D was concentrated in California (28.1%), ahead of Massachusetts (5.7%), New Jersey (5.6%), Washington State (5.5%), Michigan (5.4%), Texas (5.2%), Illinois (4.8%), New York (3.6%) and Pennsylvania (3.5%). Seven states (Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Dakota and Wyoming) devoted less than 0.8% of GDP to R&D.

California is home to Silicon Valley, the name given to the area hosting the leading corporations and start-ups in information technology. This state also hosts dynamic biotechnology clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego. The main biotechnology clusters outside California are the cities of Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts, Maryland, suburban Washington DC, New York, Seattle, Philadelphia and Chicago. California supplies 13.7% of all jobs in science and engineering across the country, more than any other state. Some 5.7% of Californians are employed in these fields. This high share reflects a potent combination of academic excellence and a strong business focus on R&D: the prestigious Stanford University and University of California rub shoulders with Silicon Valley, for instance. In much the same way, Route 128 around Boston in the State of Massachusetts is not only home to numerous high-tech firms and corporations but also hosts the renowned Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

New Mexico's high research intensity can be explained by the fact that it hosts both Los Alamos National Laboratory and the primary campus of Sandia National Laboratories, the two major United States Department of Energy research and development national laboratories. Maryland's position may reflect the concentration of federally funded research institutions there. Washington State has a high concentration of high-tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon and Boeing and the engineering functions of most automobile manufacturers are located in the State of Michigan.

Microsoft, Intel and Google figured among the world's top 10 corporations for research spending in 2014. They shared this distinction with Johnson & Johnson, a multinational based in New Jersey which makes pharmaceutical and healthcare products, as well as medical devices, and were closely followed by automobile giant General Motors (11th), based in Detroit, and pharmaceutical companies Merck (12th) and Pfizer (15th). Merck is headquartered in New Jersey and Pfizer in New York. Intel's investment in R&D has more than doubled in the past 10 years, whereas Pfizer's investment has dropped since 2012. Several pharmaceutical companies figure among the top 15 corporations for research spending. The US carries out almost half (46%) of all research in the life sciences, making it the world leader. In 2013, US pharmaceutical companies spent US$40 billion on R&D inside the US and nearly another US$11 billion on R&D abroad. Some 7% of the companies on Thomson Reuters' Top 100 Global Innovators list for 2014 are active in biomedical research, equal to the number of businesses in consumer products and telecommunications.

History

The first President's Science and Technology Advisor was James R. Killian, appointed in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower after Sputnik Shock created the urgency for the government to support science and education. President Eisenhower realized then that if Americans were going to continue to be the world leader in scientific, technological and military advances, the government would need to provide support. After World War II, the US government began to formally provide support for scientific research and to establish the general structure by which science is conducted in the US. The foundation for modern American science policy was laid way out in Vannevar Bush's Science – the Endless Frontier, submitted to President Truman in 1945. Vannevar Bush was President Roosevelt's science advisor and became one of the most influential science advisors as, in his essay, he pioneered how we decide on science policy today. He made recommendations to improve the following three areas: national security, health, and the economy—the same three focuses we have today.

Creation of the NSF

The creation of the National Science Foundation, although implemented in 1950, was a controversial issue that started as early as 1942, between engineer and science administrator Vannevar Bush and Senator Harley M. Kilgore (D-WV), who was interested in the organization of military research. Senator Kilgore presented a series of bills between 1942–1945 to Congress, the one that most resembles the establishment of the NSF, by name, was in 1944, outlining an independent agency whose main focus was to promote peacetime basic and applied research as well as scientific training and education. Some specifics outlined were that the director would be appointed and the board would be composed of scientists, technical experts and members of the public. The government would take ownership of intellectual property developed with federal funding and funding would be distributed based on geographical location, not merit. Although both Bush and Kilgore were in favor of government support of science, they disagreed philosophically on the details of how that support would be carried out. In particular, Bush sided with the board being composed of just scientists with no public insight. When Congress signed the legislation that created the NSF, many of Bush's ideals were removed. It illustrates that these questions about patent rights, social science expectations, the distribution of federal funding (geographical or merit), and who (scientists or policymakers) get to be the administrators are interesting questions that science policy grapples with.

Hydrogen-like atom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-like_atom ...