4 ms·

The US paid for the vast majority and are responsible for getting this to Mars. The crazy landing, and $2.5 billion at risk on a project with a 30% historic su

by jcnnghm 14y ago

The US paid for the vast majority and are responsible for getting this to Mars. The crazy landing, and $2.5 billion at risk on a project with a 30% historic success rate, wase not shared. US total annual space spending is about $60 billion a year. The entire rest of the world combined is only about $22. The entire EU is under $6 billion. This is an American achievement. If you aren't from the US, you should try to encourage your government to step up. If everyone committed at US levels by GDP, annual global space spending would be about $240 billion instead of $82 billion. Biomedical research is the same way.

damoe 14y ago
NASA's budget is about 18B, not all of which is space related. Where does your other 42B come from?
- jcnnghm 14y ago
  The total 2010 US Space budget was $64.6B. The entire rest of the world combined spent only $22.5B. NASA's 2010 budget was $18.7B, 83% of the spending for the rest of the world. The Air Force Space Command is the remainder, they run many projects, including GPS.
  - damoe 14y ago
    Thanks for the info, but shouldn't we be comparing civilian space budgets? Obviously dual use projects like GPS should be included but most of that 40B+ is purely military in nature.
    - jcnnghm 14y ago
      It would be almost impossible to get a reliable estimate for other countries, most do not have separate civilian and military space programs like the US. For example, the ESA is building Galileo, a positioning system similar to GPS, primarily for strategic military needs. The Russians and the Chinese, who make up almost the entire remainder of global space spending after the EU, spend quite a bit on military space, but there is not reliable data. In fact, there is basically no data on Chinese spending at all, it's an industry estimate of their spending based on outside observations. In addition, there is some crossover each way. Hubble, in particular, received substantial benefit from military research into spy satellites, not to mention the recent gift of two space telescopes to NASA from NRO. At best it's unclear how to decouple the spending in the US, and nearly impossible internationally. I believe going with the totals is fair, as the approximate civilian to military ratio would be pretty close internationally, given the obvious military implications of space, like ICBM's and spying, the interchangeable nature of the fundamental research in each field (e.g. ICBM guidance systems research can be applied to landing on Mars, spy satellites are space telescopes if you turn them around), and the countries involved.
      - damoe 14y ago
        I see a company called Euroconsult publishes estimates of governmental space expenditures. Unfortunately it costs over 4000 euro! But a summery is available here: http://www.geospatialworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24389%3Aglobal-space-programme-budget-reaches-usd-70bn-euroconsult&catid=72%3Abusiness-market-survey-research&Itemid=1 http://www.geospatialworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&...
ballooney 14y ago
As much as anything, those guys were doing their bit to secure funding at a time when their budgets are under really huge pressure. A lot of that stuff is aimed at Senators who decide budgets. They respond well to this kind of thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Bolden also has political ambitions, that was quite a 'statesman-like' speech he gave. It also plays well to the people who don't know any better, the people who say 'why are we spending all this money on space when I can't get a job?'. You'll notice that the straighter and more senior heads - Pete Theisinger the PM, and John Grotzinger the chief scientist, did not go all Team America during the press conference, but did make similar points - 'The money isn't sent to Mars, it's spent here on Earth' - again speaking to the pressure that they're under.

by jcnnghm 14y ago

damoe 14y ago

NASA's budget is about 18B, not all of which is space related. Where does your other 42B come from?

jcnnghm 14y ago
The total 2010 US Space budget was $64.6B. The entire rest of the world combined spent only $22.5B. NASA's 2010 budget was $18.7B, 83% of the spending for the rest of the world. The Air Force Space Command is the remainder, they run many projects, including GPS.
- damoe 14y ago
  Thanks for the info, but shouldn't we be comparing civilian space budgets? Obviously dual use projects like GPS should be included but most of that 40B+ is purely military in nature.
  - jcnnghm 14y ago
    It would be almost impossible to get a reliable estimate for other countries, most do not have separate civilian and military space programs like the US. For example, the ESA is building Galileo, a positioning system similar to GPS, primarily for strategic military needs. The Russians and the Chinese, who make up almost the entire remainder of global space spending after the EU, spend quite a bit on military space, but there is not reliable data. In fact, there is basically no data on Chinese spending at all, it's an industry estimate of their spending based on outside observations. In addition, there is some crossover each way. Hubble, in particular, received substantial benefit from military research into spy satellites, not to mention the recent gift of two space telescopes to NASA from NRO. At best it's unclear how to decouple the spending in the US, and nearly impossible internationally. I believe going with the totals is fair, as the approximate civilian to military ratio would be pretty close internationally, given the obvious military implications of space, like ICBM's and spying, the interchangeable nature of the fundamental research in each field (e.g. ICBM guidance systems research can be applied to landing on Mars, spy satellites are space telescopes if you turn them around), and the countries involved.
    - damoe 14y ago
      I see a company called Euroconsult publishes estimates of governmental space expenditures. Unfortunately it costs over 4000 euro! But a summery is available here: http://www.geospatialworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24389%3Aglobal-space-programme-budget-reaches-usd-70bn-euroconsult&catid=72%3Abusiness-market-survey-research&Itemid=1 http://www.geospatialworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&...

ballooney 14y ago

As much as anything, those guys were doing their bit to secure funding at a time when their budgets are under really huge pressure. A lot of that stuff is aimed at Senators who decide budgets. They respond well to this kind of thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Bolden also has political ambitions, that was quite a 'statesman-like' speech he gave. It also plays well to the people who don't know any better, the people who say 'why are we spending all this money on space when I can't get a job?'. You'll notice that the straighter and more senior heads - Pete Theisinger the PM, and John Grotzinger the chief scientist, did not go all Team America during the press conference, but did make similar points - 'The money isn't sent to Mars, it's spent here on Earth' - again speaking to the pressure that they're under.