Options
NASA coins: a galactic hit or failure to launch?
HonestMoney
Posts: 54
I have read recently about the 50 year anniversary of NASA and the Mints big idea of issuing planetary coins in gold and silver. I think that the silver may do very well. It would certainly be a set of coins unlike anything I have ever seen. Correct me if I am wrong but up until now all US coinage was of the terrestrial kind. This new set could have some special appeal, especially with talks of going back to the Moon and even going to Mars.
Your thoughts
Your thoughts
0
Comments
Instead of directing the mint to produce lots of so-called commemorative coins [e.g., the Capitol Visitors Center or these proposed solar system coins], congress should do something about our circulating coinage--the designs need to be changed, and not just on temporary bases [as with the Jefferson nickels or upcoming Lincoln cents].
I have been looking forward to something big in the commemoratives.
A $50 high relief gold coin is BIG in my book!
If you are opposed to the NASA commemoratives, don't buy them.
If you can't afford them, don't buy them.
Otherwise, don't complain about them.
It is much needed change!!!
Surely there are many creative ways to cover the solar system without dogmatically making one coin for each planet -- or, ahem, loved object -- in it.
How about a four-coin Voyager subset showing famous, captivating views of the gas giants? Coins for guys on the Moon and rovers on Mars (and whatever unfortunate device had Venus duty)? Coins symbolizing the excitement of exploration on the Space Shuttle, and remembering those lost in accidents?
It sounds like costs to collectors are a concern. I can imagine that lifetime collectors are used to making minimal cash outlays to keep up with everything from the Mint, and believing that each piece is required for a complete collection.
But, why does it have to be that way? Have you really wanted each piece churned out by the Mint? Isn't an area of specialization in specific series more realistic than the Eliasberg approach?
As the US Mint continues to morph into the Franklin mint the only winners will be those with a broad appeal to an established collector base with low mintages.
Prices are set on the margin......if there is demand for 11,000 and 10,000 are produced then its a winner. In contrast if demand is 10,000 and 11,000 are produced then its a loser.
Best coins will always be those with an established collector base such as the American Eagles.
These special runs like the FS really are orphans. No one needs them to keep their collection complete.
In the case of the FS I doubt there are more than 3-5000 people who really want and intend to collect the whole series.
In 2008 The Mint will produce a series of high relief Proof only .9999 fine $50 1oz gold coins, one for each planet in the solar system comemorating the NASA's space program 50th year, with a maximum mintage of 50,000 and a Proof only $1 1oz silver coins with a maximum mintage of 300,000 individual coins being offered. No Uncirculated versions of the coins would be produced, a first for the commemorative coin program.
The high relief $50 gold coins will be sold only as part of a set that includes the 9 silver dollars surrounding the gold coin in the center in elliptical orbits as part of a presentation case for each of the coins. All presentation cases would bear a plaque with inscriptions that include the names and dates of the spacecraft missions on which astronauts lost their lives over the course of the space program.
Bronze medals duplicating the designs of the gold coins will also be sold.
u know this rankles me. the last astronauts to die, died due to our
govt not caring about NASA anymore and not funding it properly.
sending them up in the old shuttle was close to murder in my mind.
they better hold off this coin set because they will probably kill a few
more people in the next decade.
i have no idea why our govt refuses to fund them correctly yet will
spend gazillions on a war.
it is like this coin set is coming out right when nasa is dieing when
it comes to manned exploration.
the coin set should be about unmanned rovers and their successes
or not at all.
i prefer not at all.
hm
listen bub. i read way to many nerd sites to not battle back at this.
http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_budget_010907.html
when you nickel and dime an agency like NASA, people will die.
sure accidents happen... but oi.
like i said. sorry to be snappy but this bothers me. NASA could be
the USA's big thing but our stupid govt cannot see past 25 years
into the future...
:-|
<< <i>
<< <i>Spending gazillions does not guarantee a safe program[. Just read about the V-22 Osprey in the current TIME Magazine.] >>
listen bub. i read way to many nerd sites to not battle back at this.
http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_budget_010907.html
when you nickel and dime an agency like NASA, people will die.
sure accidents happen... but oi.
like i said. sorry to be snappy but this bothers me. NASA could be
the USA's big thing but our stupid govt cannot see past 25 years
into the future...
:-| >>
I hope you are not trying to make light of the sacrifices made by Americans in the V-22 program. 30 people have already died, which I believe is more than the Apollo and Shuttle programs combined. And this is even before the vehicle is put into the field. According to some, the vehicle is going to be put into combat without requisite safety and defense capabilities.
Compared to the $4.8 billion projected cost overrun on the ISS in your link, the US has sunk $20 billion into the V-22 and expects to put in another $35 billion. Given the concerns with the V-22, it's known shortcomings may lead to many more deaths than the US space program.
to go to outer space is really apples to oranges.
i think i should just mention our industrial war congressional complex and leave it
at that.
at least NASA was done so we could dream, not kill.
--
The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.
The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering. The sociologist C. Wright Mills had in the book The Power Elite, described how an elite consisting of men from the higher circles of Economic, Military and Political order were the real rulers, beyond democratic control.
In an earlier draft of this farewell address, term read military-industrial-congressional complex. When Congressional leaders saw it, they requested that he remove 'Congressional' and Eisenhower did.
--
I hope you are not trying to make light of the sacrifices made by Americans in the V-22 program.
make light of it? you mean the hot shot military pilots they "asked"
to test fly it?
zoins, after reading all this i have no idea why you think the v22 was
worth sacrificing so much over... i dont get it.
flying to space is worth dieing for. flying a stupid attack/transport war vehicle is not.
<< <i>comparing the v22, which i just googled, to a space ship designed
to go to outer space is really apples to oranges. >>
You are entitled to your opinion. In my view they are both programs that are funded by Congress and may cost lives due to execution and delivery.
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope you are not trying to make light of the sacrifices made by Americans in the V-22 program. >>
make light of it? you mean the hot shot military pilots they "asked" to test fly it? >>
You seem to be concerned about people on the shuttle but not on the V-22. Are you saying Shuttle pilots are any different? Shuttle pilots are not hotshot pilots being asked to fly it?
<< <i>zoins, after reading all this i have no idea why you think the v22 was worth sacrificing so much over... >>
I don't. I said large amounts of money do not guarantee a safe program, which you took exception to.
<< <i>i dont get it. >>
I also don't get where you're coming from.
and i am saying these pet projects of the military always work
out like this. people expect the industrial war complex to kill people.
it is their nature. why are you thinking more and more money that
they suck down because that is the relationship would make things
more safe. it is almost humorous.
nasa actually took things serious and did amazing things with
such a small amount of money when comparing it to the military.
and do it safely, until recently when they are getting even more
shafted.
stupid v22. another toy to keep us on top when the dollar falls into
worthlessness through war.
they are not. i prefer unmanned for now due to lesser cost and
allows us more time to develop new tech.
the whole point of it was to dream we could. not because it was
easy but because it was hard.
the actual products coming from the program to civilians is amazing
through the tech being released for all to use due to tax payer
money funding the research.
kids have something to dream about. really enough for me... but
i am sure you can get my drift.
the mars rover was a huge success and still going strong.
The article you linked to says that the ISS has a projected $4.8 billion overrun and that NASA may have to curtail shuttle missions if the budget isn't increased. If they can run a smaller number of shuttle missions safely on their budget then there may be nothing wrong with that. I agree safety should be first, but if there's no real reason to send the shuttle in the first place, perhaps fewer trips are better.
The ISS is scheduled to be completed in the next 5 years. The US plans to support it for 5 years after that, per our obligations, and then let it drop into the atmo and burn up. The Russians and Europeans are unhappy with this because they want the US to continue to foot the bill. Unfortunately the ISS was a boondogle compromise between the US and Russians so it is not a useful platform and requires periodic expensive altitude boosts. The US originally wanted a station high enough in the atmo to stage economic lunar launches but they also wanted partners. The Russians wanted to be a partner but required the ISS be low enough so their vehicles could make the trip. This compromise made the ISS useless for NASA's original goals which is why I'm ok with running a limited number of safe shuttle flights, winding down the shuttle program and letting the ISS die.
This is the same BAD information as was posted the last time this series was mentioned. There will only be ONE gold coin, it will have the image of the sun on it, and the silver coins of the planets will surround it in the presentation box. Personally, I would have preferred non-proof editions, but I've started saving for it already.
<< <i>NASA 50th Anniversary Com-memorative Coin Act, referred to the Senate Banking Committee after being received from House as H.R. 2750, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This was popular in the House; introduced by Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, who introduced it June 15, there were soon 296 cosponsors. This was approved 402-0.
This bill has a different twist. It requires minting and issuance of not more than 50,000 $50 gold coins that would weigh 33.931 grams; have a diameter of 32.7 millimeters; and contain 1 troy ounce of fine gold. There would also be nine silver dollars, one for each planet. "Not more than 300,000 $1 coins of each of the 9 designs specified: could be produced.
Designs are specified: the obverse of the $50 coins issued would contain an image of the sun. The reverse of the $50 coins would have a design emblematic of the sacrifice of the United States astronauts who lost their lives in the line of duty over the course of the space program.
Evidencing that a little numismatic knowledge is dangerous, the bill's author declares that the designs "on the obverse and reverse of the $50 coins issued under this Act shall be in high relief."
The reverse of the $1 coins would bear different designs each of which shall be emblematic of the contributions of the research and space centers, subject to the following requirements.
Some specifics: one reverse of the $1 coins would bear an image of the Earth on the obverse, would also bear images emblematic of, and honoring, the discoveries and missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle missions and other manned Earth-orbiting missions, and the Apollo missions to the Moon.
Bronze duplicates of the $50 gold coins would be permitted for collectors. Given the importance of American space exploration to world history, this one may move too, though it is hokey to see design specifications for Pluto, Neptune, Jupiter and others. Congress has weighed in on the controversy over Pluto's size: "PLUTO (AND OTHER DWARF PLANETS) COIN The reverse of the $1 coins ... which bear an image of the planet Pluto on the obverse shall include a design that is emblematic of telescopic exploration of deep space by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the ongoing search for Earth-like planets orbiting other stars." >>
It will be interesting to see the high relief. Perhaps more coins will be made with high relief in the near future.