3 ms·

I'm not much of an economist but isn't NASA's budget a drop in the bucket compared to what the United States spent on maintaining and improving its Navy fleet i

I'm not much of an economist but isn't NASA's budget a drop in the bucket compared to what the United States spent on maintaining and improving its Navy fleet in 2009? Some quick checks of the Wikipedia pages for both budgets show that US military spending dwarfs NASA spending. I'm curious why this article seems to think that NASA is "too expensive," and needs to justify such a cost. The European aristocracy fueled explorations far and wide, killed many more people, and now a large percentage of humans travel around the world daily. If we sent more people to space far and wide would it not follow the same pattern if something eventually came of it? I'm not sure that anyone knew the early explorers would come back with boats filled with gold and precious resources but perhaps we will come back with ships filled with rare elements, minerals and gasses. I found this article to be rather pessimistic. I realize that military spending is a necessity so long as our geo-political situation continues to remain unstable. However it seems to my uneducated view of the subject that the US could cut a good fraction of its military spending, continue to dominate in conventional warfare and reduce the cost of space exploration greatly in the long term. Maybe someone who knows more about it can enlighten me. I, like many, get wide-eyed when I think of space and dream, hopelessly, of one day experiencing it for myself.

maaku 13y ago
Yes, NASA is pitifully small, even measured as a slice of the non-defense, discretionary spending pie. That doesn't stop politicians from focusing on it, however...
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>isn't NASA's budget a drop in the bucket compared to what the United States spent on maintaining and improving its Navy fleet in 2009? It's a pittance, but, it's what we get to spend on space programs; and we're spending it on NASA. I'm glad to see a criticism that isn't criticism of what we think NASA'a mission is, but instead a criticism of how NASA executes that mission.
7952 13y ago
Beyond space exploration they continue to cut funding to earth observation. In tandem they spend vast quantities of money on secret military remote sensing that could have had massive public benefits if the data was made public ally available. NASA could have released global high resolution satellite and radar imagery for free which would have spawned thousands of new applications.
mcguire 13y ago
According to wikipedia[1], in 1965, NASA accounted for about 4.5% of the US federal budget. During most of the Apollo years, it was 2-3%. During the shuttle program, it was approximately 1%. In 2012, it was about 0.5%. If you wanted to fling people all over the solar system, even if you didn't care that you killed a bunch of them, you would need to spend much more than anyone is willing to do, for some unspecified and unlikely gain. On the other hand, I generally agree with you. The article's statement, "Factor in the danger, and human spaceflight becomes almost impossible to justify," is part of the problem. If you believe that you must never kill anyone, for national pride or simply "justifiably", you will never fly anything.
josefresco 13y ago
I believe I'd read the the Air Force's "space" budget is actually bigger than all of NASA. Don't have a link handy but will post if I find it. Kind of puts new light on the idea/misconception that NASA is our (the US's) only space program.

maaku 13y ago

Yes, NASA is pitifully small, even measured as a slice of the non-defense, discretionary spending pie. That doesn't stop politicians from focusing on it, however...

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>isn't NASA's budget a drop in the bucket compared to what the United States spent on maintaining and improving its Navy fleet in 2009? It's a pittance, but, it's what we get to spend on space programs; and we're spending it on NASA. I'm glad to see a criticism that isn't criticism of what we think NASA'a mission is, but instead a criticism of how NASA executes that mission.

7952 13y ago

Beyond space exploration they continue to cut funding to earth observation. In tandem they spend vast quantities of money on secret military remote sensing that could have had massive public benefits if the data was made public ally available. NASA could have released global high resolution satellite and radar imagery for free which would have spawned thousands of new applications.

mcguire 13y ago

According to wikipedia[1], in 1965, NASA accounted for about 4.5% of the US federal budget. During most of the Apollo years, it was 2-3%. During the shuttle program, it was approximately 1%. In 2012, it was about 0.5%. If you wanted to fling people all over the solar system, even if you didn't care that you killed a bunch of them, you would need to spend much more than anyone is willing to do, for some unspecified and unlikely gain. On the other hand, I generally agree with you. The article's statement, "Factor in the danger, and human spaceflight becomes almost impossible to justify," is part of the problem. If you believe that you must never kill anyone, for national pride or simply "justifiably", you will never fly anything.

josefresco 13y ago

I believe I'd read the the Air Force's "space" budget is actually bigger than all of NASA. Don't have a link handy but will post if I find it. Kind of puts new light on the idea/misconception that NASA is our (the US's) only space program.