How much does the U.S. Space Program cost?
405340
$16.5 billion \n\nSee http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/nasa.html
306277
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
759732
Astronauts begin their salary in accordance with the US Government pay scale at GS-11 (approximately $39,000 per year.) and top off at GS-14 (approximately $78,000). \n\nI don't know about lawyers.
610688
NASA is not a company.  It is a United States Federal Government agency that is commissioned with planning and executing the aerospace (airplanes and space exploration) efforts of the United States.  It does extensive research into improving and innovating aircraft.  It also sends robotic missions into space to examine our solar system and look at other galaxies.  The Space Shuttle program is also part of NASA.
255065
Hard to believe isn't it?  It's been all downhill since then.  Both the Russian and French space programs seem to be more active and appear to be actually making money, whereas NASA spends billions of $$ and to me at least, has little to show for it.
171362
A lot. At least 2000. Plus lots more space junk, old boosters, bits of metal, etc.
631160
Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit. \n\nHubble's total budget in one year is in the range $230-250 million. That money does more than simply keep Hubble operating on a daily basis. In addition to operational costs, the total dollar figure includes funds for scientific data analysis, as well as for the development of future hardware and its associated software.\n\nThe concept of servicing Hubble to upgrade its instruments rather than launching a whole new telescope has saved billions of dollars.
647211
I have seen posters of NASA images that sell for as much as $30. It really depends on the quality of printing and the stock it is printed on. Most NASA images are public domain but note that anything that contains the NASA logo or implies that it is endorsed by NASA is not allowed. (See guidelines in source link)
238482
In January 2004 President Bush announced his plan to send Americans back to the moon and onto Mars. Those bold goals—which NASA estimates it could achieve by 2018 and 2030, respectively—would at last free the nation of the 25-year drudgery of the shuttle program. The idea raised eyebrows--not least because of its price tag, distant target dates and suspicious initial timing, at the start of the 2004 election cycle. In the two years since, however, funding has been forthcoming and design work has begun, with aerodynamic testing on scale models under way at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. While political and fiscal obstacles could still scuttle the whole plan, the ships taking shape in the NASA labs are winning deserved raves.\n\nThe thing that has made the shuttles such lethal disappointments is that they have tried to do too many things--fly like a spacecraft, land like an airplane, haul cargo like a truck. Part of the reason the Apollo ships succeeded was that they had an exceedingly clear goal: to fly to the moon and strictly obey the laws of simplicity and safety on the way. Both ships were also wisely mounted at the top of the booster that lifted them off the ground--keeping them away from the fire and foam that killed Challenger and Columbia.\n\nThe new ships will follow the old rules. The centerpiece of the stack will be the prosaically named Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), a descendant of the Apollo command module but for a few significant differences. For one thing, it will be bigger, able to carry four astronauts comfortably and six a bit more snugly--twice the load of the three-man Apollos.\n\nFor another thing, it will be equipped with solar panels, a sensible addition in a sun-drenched place like the inner solar system--and one that reduces the demands on fuel cells and batteries. It will also be able to either splash down in the water as the Apollos did or thump down under a parachute on dry desert. Finally, modern composite materials and computers will improve on the ungainly weight and clanking brain of the older ships. "It's like comparing today's 737s with the ones that flew in 1967," says Scott Horowitz, an associate administrator for NASA. "Put them side by side, and they look alike. But they're entirely different aircraft."\n\nThe new lunar lander will be similarly improved, with updated electronics and materials. It too will be a larger ship than its predecessor, big enough to carry all four astronauts down to the surface while the mother ship idles empty in lunar orbit. That not only gets the most bang for the exploratory buck but also eliminates the lonely specter of the single astronaut who used to be left to mind the orbiter while the others went prospecting below.
190629
(m)\n\nLaunching NASA \n\n"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the Congress and the President of the United States created the national Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958. NASA's birth was directly related to the pressures of national defense. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold War, a broad contest over the ideologies and allegiances of the nonaligned nations. During this period, space exploration emerged as a major area of contest and became known as the space race. \n\nDuring the late 1940s, the Department of Defense pursued research and rocketry and upper atmospheric sciences as a means of assuring American leadership in technology. A major step forward came when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a plan to orbit a scientific satellite as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) for the period, July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1958, a cooperative effort to gather scientific data about the Earth. The Soviet Union quickly followed suit, announcing plans to orbit its own satellite. \n\nThe Naval Research Laboratory's Project Vanguard was chosen on 9 September 1955 to support the IGY effort, largely because it did not interfere with high-priority ballistic missile development programs. It used the non-military Viking rocket as its basis while an Army proposal to use the Redstone ballistic missile as the launch vehicle waited in the wings. Project Vanguard enjoyed exceptional publicity throughout the second half of 1955, and all of 1956, but the technological demands upon the program were too great and the funding levels too small to ensure success. \n\nGo through the following link, it will very helpful to you\nhttp://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/nasa_history.shtml
735612
I would go if I could afford it! Hopefully this commercilization of space will have the same effect as when anything becomes commercial - Things cost less and less and advancement come faster and faster. I'm waiting for a week long vacation at a space hotel.
1177130
I once heard that NASA supports a program for investigating the human brain and how to control it, as well as ESPERs. I'm not sure though.
1085944
As in up there right now..none.  A launch is set for saturday July 1 at approx 350pn EST (US).  How many are in the fleet? I would have to research the NASA site, but I think there are only 3.
269628
Did you visit www.nasa.gov?\nThere are billions of constalation, but we can't know for sure cause some are just too far...
1013886
space exploration is being slowed down, but not for reasons of the deficit.  the amount that is spent per year as a percentage of the amount spent the previous year on space exploration has been less than 100% for over a decade.\n\nthe biggest amount of deficit spending is done on the military.  hundreds of billions for the military compared to a few billion (if that) for space exploration -- and that includes ground based, satellite, probes and manned.  if you want to turn off the deficit, you have to turn off the biggest leak.  space exploration is not it.
724778
check out nasa.gov\n\nrb
591718
NASA is offering aerogel for $10-$15 try you can find on google search