NASA at a crossroads:' Budget woes, aging infrastructure and hard choices ahead

[Admin]

The next few years are likely to be pivotal ones for NASA, according to a hard-hitting report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

NASA at a crossroads:' Budget woes, aging infrastructure and hard choices ahead : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This is really no surprise, given the U.S. national debt of $34 trillion and rising fast. Just the interest payments on that debt would fund NASA and much more.

Basically this is a political decision. Do we value NASA missions more or less than the other things we are spending tax money on?

So, that gets us into political discussions, which are not welcome on this forum. I'll try to keep it as examples of choices, but it will inevitably lead to political disagreements.

Specifically, the NASA 2024 budget approved by Congress is $24.875 billion. It had asked for $27.2 billion, but that is not all it would need to do the missions it already has committed to performing.

The proposed "forgiveness" of college tuition loans is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion for all loans, and if only done for loans up to $50,000 per borrower, would "only" cost about $1 trillion. Limiting loan forgiveness to $10,000 each, would cost about $373 billion.

Similar increases in the national debt were invoked to "stimulate the economy" during the COVID pandemic.

Interest payment on the U.S. national debt was $658 billion in 2023. The interest costs for 2024 will be substantially higher, both because the debt is increasing and because the government had to raise interest rates by a large amount. Expected totals are estimated at about $1 trillion for this year.

To quote a politician whom I will not name: "Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value."

 

[CactusDick]

What is NASA doing that Space X and others can't do better and cheaper? Even that assumes this is a government function, which it is not.

 

[ChrisA]

What is NASA doing that Space X and others can't do better and cheaper? Even that assumes this is a government function, which it is not.

NASA is building payloads to put on top os SpaceX rockets. The payloads are the hard and expensive part. For example, an Earth-observing satellite might cost a billion dollars to design and manufacture because it is unique. But SpaceX will launch it for $160M.

I think the division of labor is correct, NASA works on science missions and the commercial companies like SpaceX provide services like launching.

The big problems is that NASA is not holding to this 100%. Sending humans to the Moon is not a science mission. It is a PR stunt. NASA is not able to do this in a cost effective way.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I agreed with ChrisA right up to the point about sending astronauts instead of robots on scientific missions.

I think NASA is stil doing science when it sends people to take scientific data. The argument that robots "can do it better and cheaper" is not clearly true. And, "slower" is also an issue, because there is international competition that has real consequences for real countries.

"Science" does not live in a "world apart" from the rest of society.

 

[James Parker]

I like the part about not relying on nostalgic relationships with legacy contractors. There are companies with brilliant engineers and leaders who are personally driven to get stuff done. SpaceX and Blue Origin are 2 such launch companies. SpaceX can handle any transportation need with Blue Origin as a back-up (once they prove New Glenn.) NASA should also enjoy some autonomy from Congress and the President regarding its missions and contractors. Examples: The Federal Reserve Board and Military Base Realignment and Closure Commission work quite well because they operate at arm's length.

 

[COLGeek]

Bringing this one to a close. As a reminder, political commentary should not be the focus of discussions on this site. Our emphasis is on space and science.

Thank you to those who stayed on topic.