Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Corbulo2526 OP t1_j1jxitk wrote

NASA’s budget, part of a $1.7 trillion government spending bill that still needs to be voted on by Congress, is 5.6 percent more than last year's budget. It falls short of the $26 billion requested by the White House. For the first time NASA's budget is smaller than the $26.3 billion dollar budget for the Space Force.

129

H-K_47 t1_j1jzlvu wrote

> Earth science is a top priority for President Joe Biden, and the budget provides $2.2 billion (6 percent more than last year's funding) to address climate research priorities. An additional $935 million is provided for aeronautics, which includes improving airplane fuel efficiency and conducting research and development for electric propulsion.

> Then there is $3.2 billion provided for planetary science. Roughly a quarter of this, $822 million, is for the Mars Sample Return mission where NASA and the European Space Agency are partnering to bring Martian rocks back to Earth in the early to mid 2030s. Dreier said this program is at a crucial stage of development, and Congress is providing a level of funding greater than what NASA's entire Heliophysics division is receiving to study the sun ($805 million).

> "Congress is willing to fund ambitious exploration missions," Dreier said. "Those are the projects that got the funding they needed."

> Lawmakers also recognized the importance of the Near-Earth Object Surveyor, a space telescope that would help NASA discover potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that come within 30 million miles of Earth's orbit. The White House budget had requested $40 million — down from NASA's planned 2023 budget of $174.2 million — but Congress allocated $90 million for this planetary science mission.

Good to see lots of stuff is getting funded. Tho it doesn't seem like the small increase is enough to counter inflation this year. But lots of projects are getting the go ahead, so we'll see great results over the years. Artemis, Mars Sample Return, etc. plenty to look forward to.

299

IsraelZulu t1_j1jzn81 wrote

Replying to Corbulo2526 (#1,045,942)

>For the first time NASA's budget is smaller than the $26.3 billion dollar budget for the Space Force.

I mean, considering how young the Space Force is, isn't this a bit of a weak comparison point?

38

Ragnoroksaj t1_j1k2rd0 wrote

Is this some kind of message that NASA needs to switch over to the metric system?

2

right-arrow t1_j1k387p wrote

Maybe Russia needs to invade space, then Nasa can get trillions

78

CrimsonEnigma t1_j1k4ywt wrote

Replying to Ragnoroksaj (#1,046,394)

  1. NASA already uses the metric system (they've officially been 100% metric since 2007, and used a mix of metric and customary since the Apollo era).

  2. What does $25.4 billion have to do with the metric system?

30

Quasi-San t1_j1k84by wrote

Imagine if NASA got what the Defense Department got? We’d have colonies on Titan.

37

SpaceInMyBrain t1_j1k9nqv wrote

Replying to Corbulo2526 (#1,046,492)

We all have to consider that the personnel costs that used to be the Air Force's are now just transferred to Space Force. So it's all just Department of Defense costs, which are huge. That's costs for salary, uniforms, equipment, healthcare, and other benefits. We have to figure out how many personnel and functions have been transferred to Space Force - afaik it's more than just what used to be in Space Command. (Of course, we can't figure all that out.) I have no idea what research programs are now under Space Force but that could easily be a factor. I think things like that definitely have been increased since the creation of Space Force but can't quote anything. Spending on satellite systems has been going up for years and the rate is increasing.

16

Erockius t1_j1kejvc wrote

Ahhh, barely raised it enough to count for inflation.... In fact less than inflation.

22

wallsemt t1_j1kjep8 wrote

Yes finally! One of the few federal agencies I approve of vastly higher budgets for

29

Fuzakenaideyo t1_j1kk4js wrote

I wonder if the office of planetary protection will switch agencies

4

megjake t1_j1kscz3 wrote

Replying to H-K_47 (#1,046,146)

I really wish we had a more direct say in what our taxes went towards. Idk how popular nasa is with your average voter but I know personally I would be voting for a much bigger budget for the agency.

40

Blackoutttt t1_j1ktku5 wrote

ahh yes so we can keep creating ancient rockets using outdated technology

−9

ZeroTransPat t1_j1kvvb8 wrote

Apes need to go to space, but can't spend any money on helping people with free health care.

−18

benlachman t1_j1l1oti wrote

Replying to SpaceInMyBrain (#1,047,090)

We all have to consider that the US of America loves its military much more than any civilian science and technology agency. The space force needs to work on space lasers, new Babylon 5 uniform designs, and more rockets that look even more like phalluses. That costs real dollars, folks. Meanwhile NASA is just studying climate change, high efficiency flight, and the origins of the solar system. It was a hard decision… we really sweated bullets over which we should spend more money on. But in the end we went with the space force. I mean, come on, more rockets that look like dicks? Sign our tax payers up!

0

Astralthinker7 t1_j1l3aim wrote

Of only it was atleast half of defense budget

−1

perfect5-7-with-rice t1_j1l8wdk wrote

Replying to BigDeadly (#1,051,427)

CPI is just an estimated average, it's the best metric we have.

It's not like NASA isn't going to be affected by increased costs here; using CPI when comparing years is more useful than pretending inflation doesn't exist

10

Iwanderandiamlost t1_j1ljgok wrote

Fighting off ruskies and getting to space - American taxpayers should be pretty happy where their taxes go.

4

Blackoutttt t1_j1lmruw wrote

Replying to North_star98 (#1,052,969)

you are correct and it’s super cool to see it do well, but it’s an expendable rocket that’s super expensive for no other reason than to keep the contractors rich. i’m surprised they haven’t even tried looking into reusable boosters.

−1

taichi22 t1_j1lnw4l wrote

Replying to vibingjusthardenough (#1,049,016)

Technically this is possible, but I agree with the spirit of the saying.

It’s just worth remembering that a solid rocket booster on a wooden body can definitely make it up to space, it’s just a matter of dV — just wouldn’t really be all that useful up there, and reentry would basically be a non-starter, lol.

10

TareaMizou t1_j1lqsf6 wrote

Replying to BigDeadly (#1,051,427)

In the semiconductor industry it’s much worse than CPI would indicate, some of my parts have doubled in price from 2 years ago even after production issues have been solved.

6

mike-foley t1_j1lrs5y wrote

Still wondering why the national aeronautics and space administration is doing earth science/climate change stuff that, Imho, should be done by NOAA.

7

bookers555 t1_j1lrtxf wrote

Replying to megjake (#1,049,570)

Not much, sadly. Even during the height of the space race, when the Apollo 11 landed on the Moon, not even half of the population in the US approved of the Apollo program.

22

Magneto88 t1_j1lscs7 wrote

Replying to megjake (#1,049,570)

If you did NASA would probably get budget cuts. Unfortunately a lot of people buy into the stupid ‘why spend money on space when we have problems on earth’ thinking.

13

A_Slovakian t1_j1lwi82 wrote

Replying to Ecuni (#1,049,194)

Not intentionally, but a lot of things that I’m excited about are getting funded, and my personal job is going to get funded, which I’m obviously happy about. Obviously, I’d love it if NASA’s budget was 5 times this, but that’s unrealistic.

14

sporksable t1_j1lzrs4 wrote

Replying to ZeroTransPat (#1,050,077)

Bad take. Medicare is the 2nd most expensive line item in the federal budget, following closely social security.

Over half the US is covered under some form of government paid healthcare scheme (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Tricare, IHS etc.)

9

bookers555 t1_j1lzuzx wrote

Replying to Ylossss (#1,054,395)

The thing is, it's the same kind of ignorance as today, people think space travel is exclusively about sending weird looking machines to space, and don't know of the technology we use all the time these days that wouldn't exist, or would be far less advanced if space exploration didn't force us to develop them.

Not to mention the money spent by NASA is negligible compared to the vast majority of government institutions. Lost count how many people think the 25 billion NASA gets every year would make a difference, when the US already spends upwards of a trillion on welfare.

Not to mention just for the sake of exploration, wish more people understood how fascinating it is that we are working towards letting humans live in places and environments that our bodies can't withstand, how interesting it is the act of overcoming our own nature.

10

megjake t1_j1m5bm5 wrote

Replying to Magneto88 (#1,053,575)

Which is so unfortunate because NASA does a lot of earth related research and development too. I mean this new budget even has money said aside for climate related research.

6

iDom2jz t1_j1mjgid wrote

Replying to WontStopAtSigns (#1,054,640)

I actually have never put that into consideration. I just looked up at my dad playing giant Jenga with my nephew that he made out of worthless scrap 2x4’s. Seemingly to be priceless on another world.

10

abark006 t1_j1mttxi wrote

I work with NASA almost daily. Trust me when I tell you a big chunk of this will be completely wasted.

−6

The_Masturbatician t1_j1murai wrote

Replying to bookers555 (#1,054,534)

it is about jobs and economics. this is the world we live in.

space tech stacks were invented to hurl nuke missles. thats what us was made for. billions n billions for weapons n jobs for nerds. your opinion is beyond child level naieve.

any funding to nasa is first b fore.ost to support those aims.

−8

mike-foley t1_j1n088e wrote

Replying to laserwolf2000 (#1,056,692)

That’s my point. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be budgeted for this and they could use some of that budget to hire NASA to take care of the launching of necessary. NASA should be looking outward, NOAA should be looking inward. So much of our climate is affected by the water that covers this planet.

3

Trek_Quasi7 t1_j1n1gcc wrote

Replying to megjake (#1,049,570)

Not sure who you are but I really appreciate you for saying that :). In college so many of my peers shit on nasa without realizing how helpful their research in space and on earth has helped millions of people on this planet. They def deserve more!

4

orincoro t1_j1n3c5g wrote

Congress still gives the Defense department more than it asks for every year.

3

bustathymes_ t1_j1njxtu wrote

Replying to abark006 (#1,058,414)

Okay, I'll choose to trust you as your comment says. I do have one question, though. In your experience, how have you seen NASA waste its budget? I can think of a few possibilities but I'm curious what you think, since you seem pretty sure about it.

Sorry, I'm being a tiny bit facetious lol, but mostly, I really am curious what you think.

3

TerpenesByMS t1_j1nl30h wrote

Replying to megjake (#1,049,570)

Especially NEO surveyor, file that one under "for the benefit of all humanity", deserving of funds on the first priority pass, no expenses spared! At least they gave it enough to keep the lights on.

2

patrickisnotawesome t1_j1ntvt7 wrote

Replying to mike-foley (#1,059,147)

So NOAA does have some space missions (like the GOES weather satellites), but instead of standing up a whole new space design, acquisition, and management arm within NOAA, NASA tends to manage the day to day construction and operations of these missions. This ensures the taxpayers aren’t paying for two separate civilian agencies with redundant capabilities. NOAA gets to work on earth science (their expertise) and NASA builds and flys spacecraft (their expertise). It’s a win-win

2

Taron221 t1_j1ocipo wrote

Replying to Corbulo2526 (#1,064,764)

“Force” isn’t even descriptive of it is, what it does, or most of what it’ll do. It seems pretty clear to me it was just a thrown out name by someone who didn’t give it much thought. Which is why it’s disappointing to know the significance of the branch was not being properly acknowledged when they spun it off the Air Force. The Space division will inevitably grow into a much bigger and extremely diverse department of the military—much more so than the Air Force given some time.

1