How Much Money Does NASA Spend?
Right up front, I admit I am a fan of the US Space Program (see info on working the International Space Station on 2M FM). This does not mean that I think NASA always spends the taxpayer's money effectively,but I basically support the US Government spending money on space exploration. Thus, my interest was snagged by a recent survey that shows the American public is clueless about how much money NASA spends. The question posed was what portion of the national budget is allocated to NASA?
According to The Space Review:
According to The Space Review:
NASA’s allocation, on average, was estimated to be approximately 24% of the national budget (the NASA allocation in 2007 was approximately 0.58% of the budget.)
I wonder how I would have answered the question. I probably would have gotten it wrong but would have put NASA's budget in the one to two percent category.
Even more telling is this item from The Space Review:
Even more telling is this item from The Space Review:
In October of 2006, on the 49th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, CBS NewsThanks, Katie...that is really insightful reporting (NOT). The NASA budget is roundoff error in the federal budget, so it will not make the difference in solving poverty and homelessness. I think the basic problem is that when the dollars get above about about $100M, the general public can't really comprehend the number. They just lose track of the relative magnitude since it is so freaking big. You might as well be saying "we are spending a bazillion gazillion dollars" on NASA. While $1 trillion is 1000 times bigger than $1Billion, it all pretty much sounds the same.
anchor Katie Couric summarized this attitude when she concluded her nightly
broadcast by saying, “NASA’s requested budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion.
There are some who argue that money would be better spent on solid ground, for
medical research, social programs or in finding solutions to poverty, hunger and
homelessness… I can’t help but wonder what all that money could do for people
right here on planet Earth.”
I think there should be a short math quiz at the voting booth....otherwise, we'll end up with people voting on stuff that they are incapable of understanding. Uh, oh, too late.
73, Bob K0NR
posted by bobw k0nr permalink
2 Comments:
Hi Bob!
I have nothing against NASA, or the NASA budget.
I do question the amount spent on manned spaceflight as it seems to be hugely out of proportion with the science it returns.
Instead of just floating endlessly around the planet doing little more than PR sessions talking to students around the globe -- a move calculated to make taxpayers feel better about the billions that NASA does spend -- I'd much rather be building dozens of "Stardust" and other such probes that return REAL science for the money spent...
I honestly believe NASA would prefer to do that too but they see the human element as a way to continue their funding because taxpayers and politicians like astronauts and the risks they take.
Vy 73 de Jeff
Jeff,
You have a valid point. It is exciting to have humans out exploring space but it comes at a cost. Humans aren't well suited to the space environment, so life support systems are relatively expensive. Robotic systems can be much cheaper.
There is the argument that the having humans on board increases the flexibility in responding to unexpected problems (e.g., send the astronaut out on EVA to repair a problem.) This leads to an apples-to-oranges comparision as human spaceflight systems are inherently much more complicated and expensive. The counter argument is that we could deploy many more unmanned probes and get more real science done even accounting for a higher rate of mission failure.
I suppose in the end it is a question of how much $$ goes into manned versus unmanned programs.
73, Bob K0NR
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home