4 ms·

We spent more money under Nixon and Ford than we do now. You’re not familiar with how much money as a percentage of GDP we spent in the 1960s? It’s noteworthy

We spent more money under Nixon and Ford than we do now. You’re not familiar with how much money as a percentage of GDP we spent in the 1960s? It’s noteworthy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget We were building the Space Shuttle and exploring the planets. I wish we could spend money on NASA like we did in the 1970’s

onion2k 6y ago
I wish we could spend money on NASA like we did in the 1970’s I absolutely agree. It's far worse now. And, not at all coincidently, NASA is doing much less science now. A return to the 70s budget by GDP would be good, but a return to the 60s budget by GDP would be even better.
aazaa 6y ago
Nixon, yes, but not Ford - at least in inflation-adjusted dollar terms. %GDP spend was higher in that period, but 72-76 dollar spend was less.
btilly 6y ago
I wish that the problem were money alone. In the 60s, they were pushing to get things out and accepted risk levels that today we would consider intolerable. Today we've developed a cost-plus contracting approach plus insane safety and success standards that mean it is almost impossible to actually get anything done. With one notable exception - SpaceX. Just throwing money into Boeing and Lockheed these days would generate profits for them, but not a lot of science for us. We need to change culture as well.
- melling 6y ago
  That’s why I’ve been arguing for over a decade that we should use more robotics and unmanned missions. I remember someone on HN telling me several years ago that Virgin Galactic would be back quickly.
pavon 6y ago
I don't see anything on that page given as a percentage of GDP, just percentage of federal budget, and inflation adjusted. And while the inflation adjusted numbers have been on the decrease since the early 90s (when shuttle production ramped down) they are still a little higher than they were in the 70s. I'd love to see NASA's budget increased, but not now - it would just get funneled into dead-end pork projects like SLS. I'd much rather wait till Starship is successfully operating (New Glenn would be a plus), and it is political viable to end the SLS entirely, and redirect all that money and some into missions (both science and exploration) rather than hardware development. Or to put it another way, it isn't worth it to me to spend 1960's era money if we are only going to get 1960's era results. If we ever want to move on to bigger things in space, like colonization, we can't just throw money at the problem, we need to find ways to bring the cost down first.

onion2k 6y ago

I wish we could spend money on NASA like we did in the 1970’s I absolutely agree. It's far worse now. And, not at all coincidently, NASA is doing much less science now. A return to the 70s budget by GDP would be good, but a return to the 60s budget by GDP would be even better.

aazaa 6y ago

Nixon, yes, but not Ford - at least in inflation-adjusted dollar terms. %GDP spend was higher in that period, but 72-76 dollar spend was less.

btilly 6y ago

I wish that the problem were money alone. In the 60s, they were pushing to get things out and accepted risk levels that today we would consider intolerable. Today we've developed a cost-plus contracting approach plus insane safety and success standards that mean it is almost impossible to actually get anything done. With one notable exception - SpaceX. Just throwing money into Boeing and Lockheed these days would generate profits for them, but not a lot of science for us. We need to change culture as well.

melling 6y ago
That’s why I’ve been arguing for over a decade that we should use more robotics and unmanned missions. I remember someone on HN telling me several years ago that Virgin Galactic would be back quickly.

pavon 6y ago

I don't see anything on that page given as a percentage of GDP, just percentage of federal budget, and inflation adjusted. And while the inflation adjusted numbers have been on the decrease since the early 90s (when shuttle production ramped down) they are still a little higher than they were in the 70s. I'd love to see NASA's budget increased, but not now - it would just get funneled into dead-end pork projects like SLS. I'd much rather wait till Starship is successfully operating (New Glenn would be a plus), and it is political viable to end the SLS entirely, and redirect all that money and some into missions (both science and exploration) rather than hardware development. Or to put it another way, it isn't worth it to me to spend 1960's era money if we are only going to get 1960's era results. If we ever want to move on to bigger things in space, like colonization, we can't just throw money at the problem, we need to find ways to bring the cost down first.