Why is NASA's budget so low?

[Lord Hakk]

what Im wondering is, why is NASA's budget so low? what is being given that part of what used to be NASA's budget?

[TheBigDog]

The study of air pollution from cow flatulence.

 

Bill

[Lord Hakk]

lol, but seriously, we already know that it hurts the ozone layer. seriously why is the budget so low?

[ck27]

I think the reason is the american public is not interested in nasa much. I mean how much excitement was there from the public for the space station? If all of a sudden a huge chunk of americans were interested in space nasa would get a increase in budget but people just are not interested or more dont care about space cause it doesn't involve there little world they live in.

[Jay-qu]

I dont beleive the general tax payer can see justification in spending millions upon millons of dollars in space, they would rather it went to building roads and better health care - things that directly help them.

[Racoon]

I dont beleive the general tax payer can see justification in spending millions upon millons of dollars in space, they would rather it went to building roads and better health care - things that directly help them.

 

Thats BS Jay.

 

We're spending that money on War. Just like we could be spending some of that money on the Environment.

 

NASA and EPA could triple their budgets if it weren't for some of the Political Pork Barrelling that goes on...;)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Because NASA thinks it's selling science to geeks. It's really selling jobs to aerospace engineers and contracts to Boeing.

 

It ought to be selling awe wonder and pride to the American public.

 

There are a few ways for NASA to go - either as a science agency, a granting agency, or an exploration agency. Right now it's all three, and so, is nothing.

 

People are willing to pay hundreds of billions for "their freedom" from a poor country full of poor people that it turns out never really represented a credible threat to us (until we invaded it.) But not to be one hundred billion for a mission to Mars - because no one cares about hundred billion dollar rocks.

 

If NASA could find a way to justify it's moon mission as "defending our freedom" their budget would be a lot higher.

 

TFS

[ronthepon]

I just though I'd make a little reference here.

If anyone feels like it, he may try the book Deception Point, by Dan Brown.

This issue has been very nicely described in it.

 

PS:I request this post to be overlooked by those not interested...

[IDMclean]

My interest in space is Industrial in nature. We need to move mining and raw, inorganic materials processing off planet. The advatages of using space as a Raw material processing area are *so* numerious.

[Mercedes Benzene]

To read this fiscal year's budget report for NASA, just Google: "2007 FY NASA Budget"

You can download NASA's report which is some few hundred pages, and breaks apart the budget into all of its "sections".

Pretty nifty.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I just though I'd make a little reference here.

If anyone feels like it, he may try the book Deception Point, by Dan Brown.

This issue has been very nicely described in it.

 

Keeping in mind that Dan Brown also posited that there is an ancient French orgy conspiracy bent on the destruction of the Catholic Church, that CERN is capable of producing more than a billionth of a nanogram of antimatter in a year, and that a decent scientist could mistake an underwater louse for an alien life form.

 

I'd take any explanation he offers with a very large grain of salt.

 

The books are FICTION.

 

TFS

[Mercedes Benzene]

Keeping in mind that Dan Brown also posited that there is an ancient French orgy conspiracy bent on the destruction of the Catholic Church, that CERN is capable of producing more than a billionth of a nanogram of antimatter in a year, and that a decent scientist could mistake an underwater louse for an alien life form.

 

Hahahhahahahhahahahhahahahah!!!!!

:hammer:

[CraigD]

what Im wondering is, why is NASA's budget so low? what is being given that part of what used to be NASA's budget?

Before considering an answering to the question, it's useful to consider what NASA's budget actually is, and what it has been.

 

Richard Braastad's "Putting NASA's Budget in Perspective" is the best document I've read on the subject. Particularly, its source data agrees with public record, which cannot be said for many enthusiast and government documents. Although slightly out-of-date, all of Braastad's small website is interesting, and, IMHO, worth reading.

 

To summarize, the history NASA's budget is likely close to what most people guess: It started small at 1996$480,000,000 in 1958 ("1996$" means "US dollars, adjusted for inflation to their 1996 equivalent), then nearly doubled each year until 1964, peaking during the height of Apollo R&D&M in 1966, when it was 1996$26,800,000,000, which was 5.5% of the total federal budget. If declined rapidly afterwards, staying near 1996$10,000,000,000 / 1% of the total budget through the 1970s and 80s. From 1986 to 1991, it increased about 50% to about 1996$15,700,000,000 / 1.25% total budget, then remained about the same while the federal budget grew dramatically, to the 2007 budget of 1996$16,800,000,000 / 0.6%.

 

So, NASA's budget is now, in buying power, about half what it was at its height in 1964. It's portion of the total federal budget is about 1/10th what it was at its height. So, the reality of the size of NASA's budget falls somewhere between the hype of "it's depriving the poor of food and shelter!" and "it's making America a scientific laughingstock!"

 

Having the data in perspective, I'll hazard a guess as to why NASA's funding is what it is. I think there are 3 major factors, the first being much greater than the others

• The will/whim of the President (dominating the first half of its history). Though Congress must approve the President’s budget, NASA is small and “feel good” enough that there’s little chance of much friction between the 2 branches over it.
  
• Entrenched special interests of major aerospace contractors (dominating the second half). Though NASA’s funding may be small compared to big-budget items like defense, for a contractor like Morton Thiokol (who makes the shuttle SRBs), Boeing, and Rockwell, the money is huge. They can be counted on to lobby to preserve their revenues from NASA contracts, but not to seek to greatly increase them.
  
• ”No Buck Rogers, no bucks.” This old NASA saying means, unless it produces programs that ordinary citizens find exciting, NASA will not get much money. Manned missions are tops for drama. Cute robots come in a distant second. High value science missions that only a scientist or science enthusiast can understand are nearly dead last.
  

Everything I've learned of the realpolitics of NASA and government leads me to believe that NASA’s funding depends to a great extent on the whim of the Executive. Kennedy (61-63) loved NASA, and practically made it what it was in the 1960s. Nixon (69-74) and, to a lesser extent, Johnson (63-69) despised it, and appears to have made every effort to eradicate it. Reagan (81-89) gave it a boost because he wanted space-based US military superiority. Ford (74-77), Carter (77-81), G H Bush (89-93) and Clinton (93-01) seemed to ignore it. G W Bush (01+) has issued a few of what appear to me to be attempts at a Kennedy-esque stirring speech about returning men to the moon, but seems to me mostly another Carter or Clinton in his regard for NASA.

 

A strongly pro-science, pro-technology President could dramatically increase NASA’s budget. In so doing, he or she would both gain and loose political popularity with different voters and politicians.

 

I think it’s important to make an effort to inform voters that, even at much increased funding, NASA is a relatively small, affordable agency. Perhaps, if promising increased funding for space programs can win votes, we’ll get a President who makes (and keeps) them.

[TheFaithfulStone]

So....

 

Are you running Craig? ;)

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

On point as always Craig! I would also consider the end of the cold war as part of what deprioritized NASA. When we were in constant competition with the Soviets for space superiority there was extra motivation to do all sorts of projects. Competition breeds the best in human enginuity, and help justify what otherwise may make no sense to do. Since the globalization of the space industry it has basically slowed and miniturized.

 

I miss the days of doing things just so we did it first.

 

Bill

[ronthepon]

Keeping in mind that Dan Brown also posited that there is an ancient French orgy conspiracy bent on the destruction of the Catholic Church, that CERN is capable of producing more than a billionth of a nanogram of antimatter in a year, and that a decent scientist could mistake an underwater louse for an alien life form.

 

I'd take any explanation he offers with a very large grain of salt.

 

The books are FICTION.

 

TFS

Errrrrm...

 

It was the concept, more than anything else I pointed at...

[Qfwfq]

I would also consider the end of the cold war as part of what deprioritized NASA. When we were in constant competition with the Soviets for space superiority there was extra motivation to do all sorts of projects.

Quite right, but now both NASA and ESA may be getting a bit more competition from further east, with Soviet cooperation. Not that it's a good excuse to spend money and resources on otherwise needless things.