3 ms·
That’s because federal spending has increased across the board. NASA’s funding isn’t that much different now than then.
by garmaine 5y ago
That’s because federal spending has increased across the board. NASA’s funding isn’t that much different now than then.
- adventured 5y agoNASA's spending was near $5 billion in the mid 1960s. [1] That's equal to $42 billion today per the BLS. NASA's fiscal 2021 budget is $23.2 billion. So while you're correct that Federal spending has increased as a share of the economy (declining NASA's share of spending even faster), NASA's funding is realistically down by at least half now vs then when you adjust for inflation. That BLS figure is also the questionable official conservative take. Gold was $35 / ounce back then, it's around $1,800 now (51 fold increase). The average new car was near $3,000 in the mid 1960s, it's now $41,000. Oil was $3 / barrel in the mid 1960s, it's in the $70s now. [1] https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol4/ch1.htm https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol4/ch1.htm - NASA's spending fell to $3 billion by 1974. Inflation adjusted that would be $17.5 billion today, so at least they're ahead of that.
- garmaine 5y agoSo adjusted for inflation, NASA's budget is merely half what it was in the peak of the 1960's, whereas the statistic quoted makes it sound like it is 1/10th. Cherry-picking a peak date is a bit dubious though. If you average over the duration of the Apollo program, you get a number much closer to today. So most, maybe even all of the difference in budgetary size is due to increase in size of the rest of the federal budget.
- bumby 5y agoTo be fair, the GP comment said “at its peak”. They weren’t cherry picking, just following the initial thread. But your point about relative % of GDP may not be the best measure