Is NASA spending too much?

[fairlyoddone]

I'm just trying to find out how much money NASA actually spends on their missons and other projects. Are the missions, projects, and all those testings worth the amount of money the government is giving NASA? How much did the Government just give them for 2007? I heard it was something like $750 Billion.. I don't know if I'm correct on that, but I can't seem to find an exact number.. I'm just trying to do a little research for a school assignment. If anybody could help me at all, that would be great.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Welcome to SPace.com.<br /><br />That's a very complicated question.<br />FYI, NASA's budget is about $17 billion, not 750 billion.<br /><br />I don't think that's anywhere near enough.<br />We spend that much each month in Iraq. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Research for such numbers is best started with google, or your favorite web search engine.<br /><br />Googling on <br /><br />nasa budget by year<br /><br />for example gives one some interesting links.<br /><br />You might also want to look for the total government spending figures in a similar way - it will give you a perspective on what fraction of the budget the dollars are.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

You also can drop by Wikipedia and find something like this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget<br /><br />Which has numbers and graphs. Note that the nature of wikipedia is such that checking is warranted.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[owenander]

If the private sector had 17 billion to work with.<br />The Moon, Mars, and the asteroids would be colonized already.

 

[bpfeifer]

These other guys gave you some great links. I would also suggest looking at the federal budget as a whole for the same years you look at NASA's. Just look on your favorite search engine, and I think you can also find it on whitehouse.gov, or at least that's where I found it.<br /><br />I did some reasearch on this a year ago, and was surprised. The entire science budget, which includes NASA, is less than 1% of the entire federal budget. The vast majority of the budget goes to support the military and social security. Our federal court system has a higher budget than NASA. We even spend more on refugee assistance than we do on space exploration. <br /><br />NASA's budget may be large in absolute terms, but when you compare it to other programs our nation supports, it would be hard to argue that it's too large. NASA is a reletively small investment in the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[nasaonwrongtrack]

"The joint resolution that cleared the House Appropriations Committee Jan. 30 provides no increase for NASA over its 2006 budget of $16.2 billion. NASA had been seeking $16.79 billion for 2007."<br /><br />This is great news! NASA is trying to reinvent the Apollo project with the Orion! What a mistake to go back 50 years instead of forward in manned space exploration! CEV is not sustainable .. Good news!<br /><br />NASA should move this Country past the Shuttle and develop fully reusable launch vehicles that will get us into space cheaply. Then .. once we are there "cheaply" .. large space exploration craft can be assembled in earth orbit to be used for the exploration of the planets! Building an Apollo again is NOT the answer! <br /><br />If NASA is not able to do this then lets completely privatize the space program and provide the private sector with the resources to do the job!

 

[kdavis007]

Uh no...

 

[solarspot]

NASA gets 16.2 billion USD per year... that's small compared to the US federal budget, but still far more than should be necessary to perform space exploration in an efficient system.<br /><br />They aren't about to bancrupt the USA, but they're still spending more than they need to if you ask me...

 

[JonClarke]

And your opinion is based on what exactly?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[owenander]

Well he said space exploration. NASA spends a lot on climate science and such, so in that aspect he is right.<br /><br />Though private enterprise could do more then NASA is currently doing on half the budget.

 

[3488]

NASA'a budget is no where near enough IMO. NASA does much more on what I consider to be a small budget than we are aware. <br /><br />Remember NASA develops & tests aircraft designs, wing shapes, more efficient engines, light weight composites, etc. They also carry out climatic research & work with NOAA, regarding the interactions of the Earth's oceans & atmosphere.<br /><br />Astronomy & Space Exploration is less than half of their budget & even a big part of that is the Space Shuttle & ISS program. <br /><br />Projects like Cassini, New Horizons, Deep Impact, the MERs, etc cost just a pittance literally. I am amazed that they work at all on their budgets!! <br /><br />NO WAY NASA is not funded nearly well enough.<br /><br />The people of the USA do not realise how lucky they are to have NASA. Dollar for Dollar, they are a huge worthwhile investment & value for money regarding results & technology.<br /><br />AS said already, NASA is not going to bankrupt your country, more likely the opposite. If you want to look at what is costing an awful lot of money, what about the war in Iraq? <br /><br />NASA's yearly budget I think is barely a fortnight's fighting in Iraq. <br /><br />What about the trade deficit??<br /><br />Leave NASA alone & let them carry on with what they need to do.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Though private enterprise could do more then NASA is currently doing on half the budget."<br /><br />Most of what NASA does it not of interest to private enterprise. So private industry would not do more than NASA on half the expediture.<br /><br />Whether private enterprise could do anything that NASA does for significantly less is an assertion which has yet to be demonstrated.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[why06]

Do I sense a political debate coming on...? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />My side: money can be recovered if we remove the many un needed goverment officials. If we American didn't work so hard we would have more happiness, free-time, and extra money to use on NASA.<br /><br />-Don't blame NASA they're hard working men and women like you and me. Its not their fault.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Politics<font color="white">=<font color="yellow">Loss of money<font color="white">=<font color="yellow"> More taxes<font color="white">= <font color="yellow">Angry tax payers</font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[owenander]

"Most of what NASA does it not of interest to private enterprise. So private industry would not do more than NASA on half the expediture.<br /><br />Whether private enterprise could do anything that NASA does for significantly less is an assertion which has yet to be demonstrated. "<br /><br />The COTS program is a perfect demostration of how and why the private enterprise could and will be more integrated. Everything NASA does, could be done by the private enterprise, you think enterprise wouldn't do it because there is no profit. Well that is where government contracts come in just like COTS.

 

[JonClarke]

I think you are rather confused over several things, including what private industry can and cannot do and of the relationship between private indutry and NASA<br /><br />Private industry of itself has little interest in back sky space research and exploration. Which is quite reasonable. Private industry exists to make a profit on the short term, typically 20% ARR in the companies I have worked for. There is no direct commerical interest in astronomy or planetary exploration, or space physics. Private industry therefore will not and should not do these things. <br /><br />Black sky space research the province of NASA. This is for the public good, not private gain. However the research can pave the way for commerical developments. This too is as it should be. It is not the province of most government agencies to supply commerical services, but to provide the context in which new and exist private industry and flourish.<br /><br />However NASA does not build hardware itself, it develops the requirements and contracts the work out to private industry. This allows private industry to develop the technology and expertise that enables them to idfentify and exploit commerical opportunities. This too is as it should be.<br /><br />Launch services are a classic example from this. Originally a purely NASA function they have moved onto a commerical <br />basis for unmanned spacecraft and, assuming COTS is a success, will start to supply manned services as well.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[why06]

NASA is a goverment program that has procedures and is organized and safe. Sure private programs have more will-power, but this falls apart at longer distances. <br /><br />Try getting any Private program to go to mars. All they want to do is get paid for sending civilians to space. Their first interest is to their share holders. NOT the people or the Space Program. So Thats That. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[owenander]

Private enterprise will do anything they get paid for (would NASA be doing what they are doing if they werent getting paid).<br /><br />You put that 17 billion dollars entirely into private contracts, the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids would already be colonized.

 

[why06]

yes, but NASA does work in many other fields than just space researching. When you talk about blasting people into space on huge rockets maybe it is best to take a slow methodical approach to it. You can't just assume that a private industry would get it done any better.<br /><br />Look at microsoft 100s of billions of dollars and Windows Vista still looks crapy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[solarspot]

"Projects like Cassini, New Horizons, Deep Impact, the MERs, etc cost just a pittance literally. I am amazed that they work at all on their budgets!!"<br /><br /> So why does New Horizons need to cost the $700m USD that it does?? It's Atlas V launch vehicle is only $200m USD if I recall... what makes a 400kg probe cost half-a-billion USD when theres nothing that exotic (aside from a small RTG) on that thing?<br /><br /> The two MER rovers were over $650m USD... the two Delta II launch vehicles cost less than $150m USD together... why are those rovers so expensive to make the final budget so much larger?<br /><br /> Did the companies who built those spacecraft really need as much cash as they got in those two cases?

 

[JonClarke]

Why are they so expensive? Because failure is not an option. You have to build one-off extremely complex systems that have to last for years to decades in extremely hostile environments out of the smallest and lightest material possibility to standards of extreme cleanliness. <br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

"Did the companies who built those spacecraft really need as much cash as they got in those two cases?"<br /><br />Yes the MER projects spent over one million dollars to build black and white one megapixel digital cameras. But what would happen if you just went out to Wallmart and bought a digital camera and dropped it on the surface of Mars? It would die from the extreme temperature swings, the radiation envornment, and dust. It is unfortunate that they cost as much as they did, but that cost was necessary for them to function the way the scientists needed them to.<br /><br />Is there economic waste in NASA? Of course there is. That's true of any government program. NASA adminstrator Dan Goldin tried to do things differently with his "faster, better, cheaper" model, but he was only partially successful, and only in unmanned programs. COTS is another good example of how NASA is trying to reduce future costs by supporting the evolution of private space flight capabilities.<br /><br />Do you realize that NASA was controversial from the day it was founded? I am impressed with what they do, and I wish they had a larger budget. Less than a penny of every dollar I pay in taxes goes to support NASA. Something on the order of 70 cents goes into the military budget, and social security. These are not my priorities, but that's the way it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Why are they so expensive? Because failure is not an option. You have to build one-off extremely complex systems that have to last for years to decades in extremely hostile environments out of the smallest and lightest material possibility to standards of extreme cleanliness.</font><br /><br />They're expensive because you're only building a single unit, the majority of the expense is incurred in development. I'm sure that for less than twice the price you could build a dozen.

 

[qso1]

This question has been asked many times during and since Apollo. Fact is, NASAs budget was cut by roughly 50% after Apollo ended (1973-74) and has been at roughly that level since. Minor increases at times, decreases at other times but spending levels at approximately 50 % of the mid 1960s to early 1970s budgets.<br /><br />The record year for NASA spending was 1966 when Apollo spending peaked at $5.5 B dollars (In todays dollars, over $32B).<br /><br />NASA gets just over half what it could get had 1966 spending levels been maintained.<br /><br />The arguments for cutting NASAs budget are noble ones but therein lies another flaw. People asking to have NASA cut to better spend money here on earth apparently believe the government can be trusted to redirect saved NASA spending to somewhere other than their pet pork projects.<br /><br />Imagine if we could cut NASA entirely out next year at a savings of $17B dollars...only to see that and much more wiped out by the deficit...or maybe spending on the Iraq reconstruction effort or whatever it is, or some as yet unforseen new government crisis that requires huge funding.<br /><br />Or consider.<br />We have probably spent close to 200B dollars on NASA manned and unmanned programs since NASAs inception (1958). In just one year, we loose $200 plus billion dollars to deficit spending.<br /><br />Go figure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Sort of like the Project for the New American Century. All we need is a new Pearl Harbor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>