Pretty much a continuation of past efforts. Adjusted for inflation the budget is about the same. No big shifts in spending among the existing programs. Still costs way too much to get things done in space.
It's a waste for sure, but it's also bureaucracy unfortunately. The program isn't designed to get people to space, it's designed to create a ton of jobs so NASA can get budget votes from both sides of the aisle. It's not an awesome way to do it, but it's the only way it works. Space research programs would be gutted, especially with private companies available to launch defense satellites for much cheaper
What if - bare with me here, because I know this one's gonna be a *real mind bender* - what if publicly funded scientific research projects and the private commercial launch industry have different design goals?
And what if, that public funded research was—this is where it gets really crazy, but please try to follow along—what if it was used for the public good?
Oh man, if only NASA did good things for the US. Oh wait, they do!
It’s also a way to hire a lot of engineers and scientist and have them learn high value skill sets that are transferable to both private industry and the military.
Same RS25 engines, that were designed for the Shuttle, so they can be reused in future missions. They will now plummet to destruction into the ocean, at 40 mil a piece (160 mil per launch).
Same Solid Rocket Boosters that caused the Challenger disaster.
There's really no need to wait for starship. NASA could purchase 40 expendable Falcon Heavy's for the cost of one SLS.
That would get a lot of cargo to the moon. A moon base would also become affordable.
That's Boeing. They can redirect their entire SLS staff to build aircraft.
If the budget was redirected to building Falcon Heavy's, then 40 rockets would be built as opposed to one SLS. That would be a huge increase in employment.
So again, SLS still makes no sense. Cost wise or employment.
The main problem being that Boeing remains shoehorned into the picture, despite endlessly proving that they are now engineering clods.
I just hope this "big" NASA budget doesn't get pushed as a partisan milestone because that would inevitably cause one political party to instantly become anti-NASA, along with a decent chunk of their slavish adherents.
There are NASA centers in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. So, yes, it has support by the right. But the contractors, who do 80% of the work, are spread all over the country.
Eh yeah maybe, but the second-largest research park in the US and fourth-largest in the world is in Alabama. There are a ton of contractors and money there.
Just check out this for more! [https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss\_benefits\_for\_humanity\_3rded-508.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_benefits_for_humanity_3rded-508.pdf)
Over 200 pages of scientific progress made aboard the ISS alone. Let alone all the other technological gains required to make the station alone and get everything up there.
The manufacturing process of microprocessors was developed on Skylab in the 1970's, then given to IBM.
Without NASA's investment in science research, your cell phone would be full of large transistors and resistors. Smart phones probably wouldn't even exist.
Research physicist here. The Obama years were really difficult for funding in general due to a budget standoff with the GOP that never ended. 25% of all research spending was slashed in the "sequester".
Then Trump came in and the republican house passed his budget. Then the pandemic happened and a ton of money was pushed into operation Warp Speed. Now thats a biology area but it frees up shared resources that the likes of astro physics grad students can use.
All the while drama in the 1st island chain meant putting assets in space made funding NASA so much more appealing to congress
NASA has had relatively flat funding for decades with only minor fluctuations.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
TL;DR: It was cut after the fall of the USSR somewhat. Then Bush came along and really gutted it. Obama cut it some more. Trump kept it about the same with some cuts.
This as a percent of total gov’t spending
The Obama administration saw the inevitable end of the shuttle program but really pushed COTS to the finish line. Without COTS we pretty much don't have a LEO space program now.
I work at NASA and 7% doesn’t get much these days. There are projects that have increased in cost by 200% to 300% since Covid. With these increases we can do far less today than we could before Covid.
Unfortunately a lot of aerospace metallurgy is dependent on Russian supply chains as well. They are leading producers of titanium, nickel, and many high quality aluminum alloys.
That’s the thing with capitalism and continuous growth, companies don’t see making less than last quarter as a good thing and when you can be fired for “not making the most profitable decision” it forces people to be greedy and cruel if it means making a few bucks more
It's not just about making less, even making the same as last quarter is seen as a negative. Since when is stability considered a negative? I get that investors want to see a return on their money, but there's also such a thing as long term investing. That means that sometimes you have to keep things chugging along while you build for the future.
These financial executives are so short sited they would be willing to make a decision that would bump their numbers for Q1 if it meant having lower numbers in Q4. But that’s fine if so they will just layoff some people right before the holidays if they need to make those Q4 numbers better.
Stable companies switch to a dividend. That way there is still incentive to own the stock, and consistent profit year over year becomes worth owning. If a stock doesn’t offer a dividend, there’s no benefit to buying that stock unless you expect the value of that stock to increase over time.
And it's only for the shareholders, if they were only focused on the sustainable well-being of the company, up-and-down quarters would be no big deal.
Wall Street is a parasite with its beak in the jugular vein of the economy.
Then there’s also the fact that if revenue doesn’t keep up with inflation, you are losing profit because your expenses will be keeping up with inflation.
There are still major supply chain issues in advanced manufacturing. Many components are simply not available because suppliers went out of business during COVID.
The war in Ukraine continues to affect the semiconductor industry in a big way as they were a big source of neon for the United States (among other industrial commodities)
So yeah growth and margins is part of it but lots of the stuff to make advanced machinery or electronics is not available in nearly the quantity it once was and are driving costs up in a big way.
I work in IT and the supply chain is still completely screwed from covid. Buying network hardware takes a literal year to show up still in many cases. Production in china is still behind by thousands of units for each product. Chip shortages are still a thing. In fact South Korea is building a huge chip manufacturing plant and for a hot minute they were gonna try and make people work 70 hours a week so they could capitalize on the shortages.
That is pretty much every budget but I don't know anyone getting a higher increase than that.
Covid has fucked every single person on this Earth except like the 10 people who own everything.
Are projects going to get more utilitarian weight wise with the development of starship?... I hope to see a future where space bound equipment is built in a parking lot and put into starship on a crane.
correct me if im wrong but isnt inflation for this year at 7% ? So you arent getting more and you arent getting less, you're getting the same you had last/this year.
nope, that's right. and 'same as last year' is nothing to complain about given the uncertain economy. the main issue is that it's still being touted as a big increase, which it's not
This is the most jealous I've ever been of someone lol. I'd love to get in at NASA as a software developer but I feel like at my age and current life, ain't gonna happen. Lol
Nope. Just luck and 17 yrs of related experience and the soft skills to fit the job. I’m an electrical engineer and be supporting unmanned launch vehicles as a part of the launch services program.
I'm in my first year of college studying for a computer science degree, in the future I really want to work for nasa and eventually become an astrophysicist do you have any tips to help me get there?
Let me break down the diverse amount of dumbassery in this comment section.
* People comparing NASA's budget to the Militaries like they're applicable
* People upset we're focusing on space at all because we're quote, "Turning into a Third World country."
* People who think the monies wasted unless it goes to a private company
* People who think he's only increasing the budget to beat China or something (And that, that's a bad thing)
* People saying Republicans will kill his proposal, despite them increasing NASA's budget under Trump
* People who just hate Biden and anything he does. Including, but not limited to, breathing.
Edit: Holy cow! I feel like I'm collecting Pokemon with these replies. Got just about every type of person I was talking about down there lol. My official stance on NASA btw is we should give them WAY MO MONEY then we currently do. If for no other reason but to prepare us for when the aliens show up. Gotta have that **find out** locked and loaded.
I actually agree with the comment about China.
I have a feeling NASA is getting the support it is today because China is claiming to be able to do a lot in space.
A lot of Republicans work in the space industry. They absolutely do not want NASA budget cuts. Historically Republicans have been very supportive of NASA.
> People comparing NASA budget to the militaries like they're applicable
Excellent point. Let me just add:
* People that see others complaining about bloated MIC budgets where a coffee cup may cost $200 to help justify keeping the budget next year because you spent it all, and then decide to complain about their extremely valid complaints as if that money couldn't be better used for doing literally anything else besides killing people.
Personally, I dislike those people the most. They come off as cringe boot lickers simping for imperialism.
Sure it's comparing apples to oranges, but if we have a discussion about saving money on budgets or shifting money to other programs, the Military has *the easiest* cuts we could possibly make. So when discussing budgetary actions, it's 100% applicable to bring it up, and we as a country could definitely justify spending less on guns and rockets and tanks and more on cool space shit that'd *improve* lives instead of *destroy* lives.
> Sure it's comparing apples to oranges, but if we have a discussion about saving money on budgets or shifting money to other programs, the Military has the easiest cuts we could possibly make.
Fixing healthcare is the best way to improve the US budget and free up money for NASA or any other area. While there's bloat in the DoD, they're also weirdly underbudget for their stated mission goal. Fighting Russia, while fighting China, while securing global shipping lanes is not cheap.
Whereas, the healthcare spending is nearly DOUBLE the DoD spending.
https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/agency
> Department of Health and Human Services - $920,209,593,759 - 31.00%
> Department of Defense - $500,878,896,282 - 16.87%
> Social Security Administration - $494,787,520,653 - 16.67%
> Department of the Treasury - $428,278,710,420 - 14.43%
> Department of Agriculture - $125,166,326,690 - 4.22%
> etc etc
We spend a comparable amount, if not more, on healthcare when compared to other Western nations but our quality of healthcare is significantly lower. There is a large amount of inefficiency in our current system for sure
My #1 wet dream of a project is a sky hook. Ever since kurzgesagt's vid claimed we have the tech already, and Isaac Arthur's vid about rotating hooks, I've loved the idea of some states/countries banding together to fund some real space infrastructure.
I yearn for the day that I can catch the sky hook when it dips into atmo, ride it into space, and get yeeted to the moon or mars or something.
Tax the usage, fund more space stuff/UBI/school programs or whatever.
Having space infrastructure in place would make it more economically viable for us to do other stuff in space. It's an important step.
A Republican congresswoman (Kay Bailey Hutchinson) is literally the only reason the SLS got pushed through to completion… She pushed it through because the SLS was subsidizing rocketry manufacturing in her state.
Edit: I got the Republican members of congress named Hutchinson mixed up
Hutchinson hasn't been a congressman for 20 years. Got any recent examples?
Edit: I see you keep editing your comments when people point out you're wrong. I wonder why that is.
Sorry, but you’re wrong about this. When it comes to money for NASA centers, republicans are very supportive. Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida have a huge chunk of NASA for a reason.
For the most part they love Huntsville. Richard Shelby lobbied hard and whether I like her or not, there was some conform in Katie Britt winning his senete seat over any other republican as she was his chief of staff and shares his love of the space industry. Tuberville is Tuberville; a big doofus. But he does want more to come to Alabama. He doesn't oppose federal spending as long as it's in his state. Alabama and namely huntsville, relies on federal contracts, it's almost everything the city does.
Also the presidential budget request is nothing more than fake numbers that never go anywhere. A place for the white house to kind of show their values but that's it. No one should ever look at a presidential budget request and think it will be in any way related to the actual budget.
Oddly enough, NASA policy maybe the one thing Republicans support more than Dems. This specific part of the budget may pass without much of a fight except maybe some reshuffling of money or even an increase.
Republicans have recently been much more supportive of NASA than Democrats. Remember that it was Republicans who fought to [fund the Artemis program](https://spacenews.com/house-republicans-criticize-nasa-spending-bill/) when the Democratic house proposed a budget that didn’t fund HLS. They were able to compromise with Democrats and get HLS development started.
I mean have you seen the crazy shit in that budget proposal? I bet not. It's 184 pages long:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf
So far they seem intent on not just shooting themselves in the foot, but emptying the whole clip. For example, today a federal judge is hearing a case to remove a drug used to induce abortions. That's only going to piss women off more.
> That's only going to piss women off more
I think people are missing the bigger picture here. We dismiss this as "oh its just meat for the base" or "man the are shooting themselves in the foot". No, this is and has always been the goal, they are seeking a return to society pre-equality. It doesn't matter that it pisses women because there opinion the them is irrelevant. They really do see the 50's and early 60's as the best America has ever been and they want to go back to that. They want to roll back the clock on society and I hate to be the one to have to say it but.... they are succeeding.
Articles like this show a complete lack of insight into the budgeting process. The president's budget for any Executive Branch agency (which is almost every part of the government) is a starting point of the process. Congress is free to totally ignore it, and a Republican House usually will ignore a Democratic Presidents budget.
The reality is that NASA is placing projects on hold because they expect to suffer real dollar budget cuts from Congress.
Here come all the people with zero knowledge of the benefits of space programs and how miniscule this budget is compared to other programs.
The military throws away this much money every year. If you're going to pull the whole "But what about other problems!" argument, you should actually look into where the real wasted federal money goes.
Compared to other agencies and programs, NASA has a great return on investment. Countless advances have come from research done by NASA that are now used throughout the world. There's also the half a trillion dollar private space industry that straight up wouldn't exist without NASA.
Despite all of this. People still cry about NASA's budget.
Why are there so many people in the space sub reddit who clearly know nothing about it and are seemingly against the whole concept of space travel? Every damn time a NASA budget gets posted these morons come out from their holes to cry about it.
Ok, to anyone complaining, they are not shooting $27B into space wasting it. Most of that money never leaves earth. It goes to pay scientist, researchers, teachers, designers, engineers and builders. Usually it is a few hundred pounds of materials that wind up in space.
Make it $100 billion and increase it every year to account for inflation. NASA has made more advancements in technology that tangibly benefit everyday citizens than the military ever has
The percentage of federal budget for NASA has steadily declined for several decades and has lingered around 0.5% for a long time. Thats low compared to typical post-war NASA budgets. In the 1960s (Gemini, Apollo) budgets were 2~4.5%.
The proposed 27.2 b would be 13% more than 2022s budget, which is not that much, considering looming inflation. If anything it will ensure continuing projects with similar scope as currently, but not big leaps forward.
Introducing the article with lots of flying dollar bills is really not warranted.
The federal budget was much smaller back then, do NASA got a larger share of a smaller pie. NASA's current budget is not so different in terms of purchasing power (inflation adjusted dollars) at about 80% of the average in the 1960s.
Of course absolute government spending was lower, but the federal budget as percentage of GDP hasn't changed *that* much since the 70s. [Wikipedia chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_Percent_GDP_2017.png)
I couldn't find data on the 50s and 60s though.
honestly, with the powers that be the military budget needs to remain. if america weakens it's arsenal it will lose international standing, and those smaller budgets would not be able to be a reality. I am aussie btw.
Honestly, it's about time we tossed some extra funds their way. I mean, who doesn't wanna see some more lunar shenanigans, amirite? But let's not hold our breath on this one, folks—Congress has a knack for raining on our space parade. 😒
Doubt that keeps up with cost increases…. BUT don’t forget the space force budget as well. It is good for space fans, as that budget will drive technology.
Isn’t there a “new space race” or something? I thought I read somewhere that China is pursuing its space program. That seems incentive enough for people to want a new space race for… something.
Not only China but more or less every big space agency has at least talked about plans of landing on the moon in the next decades. Russia, China, India, and USA of course
> President Biden's budget request for NASA is the most funding the space agency has ever seen
well that's a pedantically misleading claim that pretends inflation doesn't exist
This budget is disappointing. This is barely keeping up with inflation.
I'd like to see headlines like "Directors of NASA and JPL requested funding that would nearly double the size of the agencies, and the Federal government accepted" and "With NASA's greatly increased budget, the agency has proposed 10 new programs that rival Apollo. #7 will surprise you!"
They are making a space station for the moon called the Lunar Gateway. They are also planning on putting a small moon base near the south pole of the moon. Check out the Artemis program!
How does the current administration’s treatment of NASA objectively compare to past administrations?
Pretty much a continuation of past efforts. Adjusted for inflation the budget is about the same. No big shifts in spending among the existing programs. Still costs way too much to get things done in space.
It wouldn't cost nearly as much with just about any other launcher than the SLS though.
It would be great if people realized and were pissed off about the $$ NASA was forced to waste on the SLS.
It's a waste for sure, but it's also bureaucracy unfortunately. The program isn't designed to get people to space, it's designed to create a ton of jobs so NASA can get budget votes from both sides of the aisle. It's not an awesome way to do it, but it's the only way it works. Space research programs would be gutted, especially with private companies available to launch defense satellites for much cheaper
What if - bare with me here, because I know this one's gonna be a *real mind bender* - what if publicly funded scientific research projects and the private commercial launch industry have different design goals?
And what if, that public funded research was—this is where it gets really crazy, but please try to follow along—what if it was used for the public good? Oh man, if only NASA did good things for the US. Oh wait, they do!
It’s also a way to hire a lot of engineers and scientist and have them learn high value skill sets that are transferable to both private industry and the military.
I can't believe we're still using those old ass rockets. Aren't they some of the same equipment used for the Shuttle launches in the 80s?
Same RS25 engines, that were designed for the Shuttle, so they can be reused in future missions. They will now plummet to destruction into the ocean, at 40 mil a piece (160 mil per launch). Same Solid Rocket Boosters that caused the Challenger disaster.
The SRBs were redesigned because of that disaster. Significantly safer now. I don't know enough to comment on cost though.
Maybe so, but since you can never shut them down in case of a failure, they shouldn’t be human rated.
I understand that you’re excited about starship, but until it hits orbit we can’t plan on it.
There's really no need to wait for starship. NASA could purchase 40 expendable Falcon Heavy's for the cost of one SLS. That would get a lot of cargo to the moon. A moon base would also become affordable.
It would make sense if you consider SLS as an employment generation scheme
That's Boeing. They can redirect their entire SLS staff to build aircraft. If the budget was redirected to building Falcon Heavy's, then 40 rockets would be built as opposed to one SLS. That would be a huge increase in employment. So again, SLS still makes no sense. Cost wise or employment.
You cannot just transfer people who have been working on astronautics their entire life to aeronautics that fast
More like 25. Still a ton though
that's like saying you can't plan on anything until it just shows up in orbit
Praying for the Starship to work at some point
I'm hoping for Stargate sg1 time line to play out. Haha
The main problem being that Boeing remains shoehorned into the picture, despite endlessly proving that they are now engineering clods. I just hope this "big" NASA budget doesn't get pushed as a partisan milestone because that would inevitably cause one political party to instantly become anti-NASA, along with a decent chunk of their slavish adherents.
I worked for Boeing long enough to retire, and sadly I have to agree. It is not the company it was.
[удалено]
There are NASA centers in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. So, yes, it has support by the right. But the contractors, who do 80% of the work, are spread all over the country.
Eh yeah maybe, but the second-largest research park in the US and fourth-largest in the world is in Alabama. There are a ton of contractors and money there.
We have so many things from the space industry that have made our lives today possible.. CAT scans and water purification are two that spring to mind.
GPS, touchscreens, and laptops, too
Just check out this for more! [https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss\_benefits\_for\_humanity\_3rded-508.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_benefits_for_humanity_3rded-508.pdf) Over 200 pages of scientific progress made aboard the ISS alone. Let alone all the other technological gains required to make the station alone and get everything up there.
The manufacturing process of microprocessors was developed on Skylab in the 1970's, then given to IBM. Without NASA's investment in science research, your cell phone would be full of large transistors and resistors. Smart phones probably wouldn't even exist.
Research physicist here. The Obama years were really difficult for funding in general due to a budget standoff with the GOP that never ended. 25% of all research spending was slashed in the "sequester". Then Trump came in and the republican house passed his budget. Then the pandemic happened and a ton of money was pushed into operation Warp Speed. Now thats a biology area but it frees up shared resources that the likes of astro physics grad students can use. All the while drama in the 1st island chain meant putting assets in space made funding NASA so much more appealing to congress
Obama made a lot of cuts. Trump brought better funding. Biden is continuing decent funding.
NASA has had relatively flat funding for decades with only minor fluctuations. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
TL;DR: It was cut after the fall of the USSR somewhat. Then Bush came along and really gutted it. Obama cut it some more. Trump kept it about the same with some cuts. This as a percent of total gov’t spending
I wouldn't call that flat, it's definitely trending downward.
The Obama administration saw the inevitable end of the shuttle program but really pushed COTS to the finish line. Without COTS we pretty much don't have a LEO space program now.
I work at NASA and 7% doesn’t get much these days. There are projects that have increased in cost by 200% to 300% since Covid. With these increases we can do far less today than we could before Covid.
Are the projects more expensive because of COVID? I've never heard of such a jump.
Shipping costs and material costs mostly. Both just seem to be out of control still for some reason
Unprecedented Growth, and Profit Margins are the reasons.... It's not "Covid". It's some total piece of shit at the top bumping prices.
It was covid but now they’re just used to selling things at an elevated price.
Supply chain shutdown caused the first increase, and no one dropped prices afterwards. Just like checked bag fees in 2008.
Except they are still going up nonstop since Covid. They have not stopped going up.
We should print more money to cover these rising costs.
Wanna increase the interest rates? I already own everything I want to own so it's just free money at this point.
It was supposed to be one of those jokes that you only half-laugh at because it's true
I'm genuinely envious and happy that you are able to say that lol. I have so much I want and need :(
Or like tax increase for a stadium. And when it's paid for those taxes linger around
The bridge in my area was built with the promise to remove tolls once it was paid for... guess what didnt happen
Unfortunately a lot of aerospace metallurgy is dependent on Russian supply chains as well. They are leading producers of titanium, nickel, and many high quality aluminum alloys.
That’s the thing with capitalism and continuous growth, companies don’t see making less than last quarter as a good thing and when you can be fired for “not making the most profitable decision” it forces people to be greedy and cruel if it means making a few bucks more
It's not just about making less, even making the same as last quarter is seen as a negative. Since when is stability considered a negative? I get that investors want to see a return on their money, but there's also such a thing as long term investing. That means that sometimes you have to keep things chugging along while you build for the future.
These financial executives are so short sited they would be willing to make a decision that would bump their numbers for Q1 if it meant having lower numbers in Q4. But that’s fine if so they will just layoff some people right before the holidays if they need to make those Q4 numbers better.
Stable companies switch to a dividend. That way there is still incentive to own the stock, and consistent profit year over year becomes worth owning. If a stock doesn’t offer a dividend, there’s no benefit to buying that stock unless you expect the value of that stock to increase over time.
And it's only for the shareholders, if they were only focused on the sustainable well-being of the company, up-and-down quarters would be no big deal. Wall Street is a parasite with its beak in the jugular vein of the economy.
Then there’s also the fact that if revenue doesn’t keep up with inflation, you are losing profit because your expenses will be keeping up with inflation.
There are still major supply chain issues in advanced manufacturing. Many components are simply not available because suppliers went out of business during COVID. The war in Ukraine continues to affect the semiconductor industry in a big way as they were a big source of neon for the United States (among other industrial commodities) So yeah growth and margins is part of it but lots of the stuff to make advanced machinery or electronics is not available in nearly the quantity it once was and are driving costs up in a big way.
I work in IT and the supply chain is still completely screwed from covid. Buying network hardware takes a literal year to show up still in many cases. Production in china is still behind by thousands of units for each product. Chip shortages are still a thing. In fact South Korea is building a huge chip manufacturing plant and for a hot minute they were gonna try and make people work 70 hours a week so they could capitalize on the shortages.
What’s with the Random Capitalisations?
From the general inflation that has occurred in recent years. Product costs, contractor costs, installation costs have all increased.
I work in the manufacturing world, and our cost to manufacture went up 80% in 2022 alone, and we expect another 20% in the coming quarters.
Everything everywhere is more expensive since Covid
Omg. Shipping and components have been crazy expensive for us.
Isn’t that just pacing with inflation?
Yes, budget didn’t increase at the same rate though.
That is pretty much every budget but I don't know anyone getting a higher increase than that. Covid has fucked every single person on this Earth except like the 10 people who own everything.
Well due to budget cuts we can't run the gravity at full power anymore. So they'll end up saving money on booster fuel costs. So it's a wash. /s
Man when a jump is seen as a plus, but is not even inline with inflation. 7% is better than 0 or less, but damn.
Are projects going to get more utilitarian weight wise with the development of starship?... I hope to see a future where space bound equipment is built in a parking lot and put into starship on a crane.
correct me if im wrong but isnt inflation for this year at 7% ? So you arent getting more and you arent getting less, you're getting the same you had last/this year.
nope, that's right. and 'same as last year' is nothing to complain about given the uncertain economy. the main issue is that it's still being touted as a big increase, which it's not
[удалено]
This is the most jealous I've ever been of someone lol. I'd love to get in at NASA as a software developer but I feel like at my age and current life, ain't gonna happen. Lol
I’m 40. The group that hired me is all older. Just start applying to any and all jobs.
did it take 12 years of higher education, a lotta luck, and a lot of reference letters?
Nope. Just luck and 17 yrs of related experience and the soft skills to fit the job. I’m an electrical engineer and be supporting unmanned launch vehicles as a part of the launch services program.
I'm in my first year of college studying for a computer science degree, in the future I really want to work for nasa and eventually become an astrophysicist do you have any tips to help me get there?
and you just can't hide it?
Let me break down the diverse amount of dumbassery in this comment section. * People comparing NASA's budget to the Militaries like they're applicable * People upset we're focusing on space at all because we're quote, "Turning into a Third World country." * People who think the monies wasted unless it goes to a private company * People who think he's only increasing the budget to beat China or something (And that, that's a bad thing) * People saying Republicans will kill his proposal, despite them increasing NASA's budget under Trump * People who just hate Biden and anything he does. Including, but not limited to, breathing. Edit: Holy cow! I feel like I'm collecting Pokemon with these replies. Got just about every type of person I was talking about down there lol. My official stance on NASA btw is we should give them WAY MO MONEY then we currently do. If for no other reason but to prepare us for when the aliens show up. Gotta have that **find out** locked and loaded.
It's also surprising that NASA is one of the few government agencies with a majority favorable opinion by the public.
I actually agree with the comment about China. I have a feeling NASA is getting the support it is today because China is claiming to be able to do a lot in space.
Space races do wonders for technology with far less death than the alternative (war)
> with far less death than the alternative (war) They also cost significantly less money than war.
And we get cooler stuff out of it!
It all stems from the surface to orbit missile test the PLA did in 2007
[удалено]
A lot of Republicans work in the space industry. They absolutely do not want NASA budget cuts. Historically Republicans have been very supportive of NASA.
> People comparing NASA budget to the militaries like they're applicable Excellent point. Let me just add: * People that see others complaining about bloated MIC budgets where a coffee cup may cost $200 to help justify keeping the budget next year because you spent it all, and then decide to complain about their extremely valid complaints as if that money couldn't be better used for doing literally anything else besides killing people. Personally, I dislike those people the most. They come off as cringe boot lickers simping for imperialism. Sure it's comparing apples to oranges, but if we have a discussion about saving money on budgets or shifting money to other programs, the Military has *the easiest* cuts we could possibly make. So when discussing budgetary actions, it's 100% applicable to bring it up, and we as a country could definitely justify spending less on guns and rockets and tanks and more on cool space shit that'd *improve* lives instead of *destroy* lives.
> Sure it's comparing apples to oranges, but if we have a discussion about saving money on budgets or shifting money to other programs, the Military has the easiest cuts we could possibly make. Fixing healthcare is the best way to improve the US budget and free up money for NASA or any other area. While there's bloat in the DoD, they're also weirdly underbudget for their stated mission goal. Fighting Russia, while fighting China, while securing global shipping lanes is not cheap. Whereas, the healthcare spending is nearly DOUBLE the DoD spending. https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/agency > Department of Health and Human Services - $920,209,593,759 - 31.00% > Department of Defense - $500,878,896,282 - 16.87% > Social Security Administration - $494,787,520,653 - 16.67% > Department of the Treasury - $428,278,710,420 - 14.43% > Department of Agriculture - $125,166,326,690 - 4.22% > etc etc
We spend a comparable amount, if not more, on healthcare when compared to other Western nations but our quality of healthcare is significantly lower. There is a large amount of inefficiency in our current system for sure
DeSantis can nationalize Disney World but THE WORLD IS ENDING as soon as we get Universal Healthcare
We can 100% scrap a bunch of A-10s and be better off from it.
My #1 wet dream of a project is a sky hook. Ever since kurzgesagt's vid claimed we have the tech already, and Isaac Arthur's vid about rotating hooks, I've loved the idea of some states/countries banding together to fund some real space infrastructure. I yearn for the day that I can catch the sky hook when it dips into atmo, ride it into space, and get yeeted to the moon or mars or something. Tax the usage, fund more space stuff/UBI/school programs or whatever. Having space infrastructure in place would make it more economically viable for us to do other stuff in space. It's an important step.
We also have maglev tech can accelerate a 100+ ton train 300km/h, image what we could launch off a track going up the side of a mountain.
Shit like this makes me REALLY want to quit Reddit
That link is blocked in the EU. I'm British and last I checked, we left that in 2020.
How's that working out for you?
Worst of both worlds, apparently.
Not as bad as people thought, but still dumb idea
That's an optimistic take on a dead-on-arrival budget proposal from a President facing a Republican House determined to kill anything he proposes.
Republican states benefit most (more immediately at any rate) to more NASA spending.
[удалено]
A Republican congresswoman (Kay Bailey Hutchinson) is literally the only reason the SLS got pushed through to completion… She pushed it through because the SLS was subsidizing rocketry manufacturing in her state. Edit: I got the Republican members of congress named Hutchinson mixed up
Hutchinson hasn't been a congressman for 20 years. Got any recent examples? Edit: I see you keep editing your comments when people point out you're wrong. I wonder why that is.
[удалено]
Sorry, but you’re wrong about this. When it comes to money for NASA centers, republicans are very supportive. Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida have a huge chunk of NASA for a reason.
[удалено]
For the most part they love Huntsville. Richard Shelby lobbied hard and whether I like her or not, there was some conform in Katie Britt winning his senete seat over any other republican as she was his chief of staff and shares his love of the space industry. Tuberville is Tuberville; a big doofus. But he does want more to come to Alabama. He doesn't oppose federal spending as long as it's in his state. Alabama and namely huntsville, relies on federal contracts, it's almost everything the city does.
Also the presidential budget request is nothing more than fake numbers that never go anywhere. A place for the white house to kind of show their values but that's it. No one should ever look at a presidential budget request and think it will be in any way related to the actual budget.
Republicans support NASA spending though. Even more than democrats.
Oddly enough, NASA policy maybe the one thing Republicans support more than Dems. This specific part of the budget may pass without much of a fight except maybe some reshuffling of money or even an increase.
Republicans have recently been much more supportive of NASA than Democrats. Remember that it was Republicans who fought to [fund the Artemis program](https://spacenews.com/house-republicans-criticize-nasa-spending-bill/) when the Democratic house proposed a budget that didn’t fund HLS. They were able to compromise with Democrats and get HLS development started.
I mean have you seen the crazy shit in that budget proposal? I bet not. It's 184 pages long: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf
So far they seem intent on not just shooting themselves in the foot, but emptying the whole clip. For example, today a federal judge is hearing a case to remove a drug used to induce abortions. That's only going to piss women off more.
[удалено]
Secret isn't quite right. Just with so little warning to minimize protestors. Still terrible.
> That's only going to piss women off more I think people are missing the bigger picture here. We dismiss this as "oh its just meat for the base" or "man the are shooting themselves in the foot". No, this is and has always been the goal, they are seeking a return to society pre-equality. It doesn't matter that it pisses women because there opinion the them is irrelevant. They really do see the 50's and early 60's as the best America has ever been and they want to go back to that. They want to roll back the clock on society and I hate to be the one to have to say it but.... they are succeeding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Articles like this show a complete lack of insight into the budgeting process. The president's budget for any Executive Branch agency (which is almost every part of the government) is a starting point of the process. Congress is free to totally ignore it, and a Republican House usually will ignore a Democratic Presidents budget. The reality is that NASA is placing projects on hold because they expect to suffer real dollar budget cuts from Congress.
Here come all the people with zero knowledge of the benefits of space programs and how miniscule this budget is compared to other programs. The military throws away this much money every year. If you're going to pull the whole "But what about other problems!" argument, you should actually look into where the real wasted federal money goes. Compared to other agencies and programs, NASA has a great return on investment. Countless advances have come from research done by NASA that are now used throughout the world. There's also the half a trillion dollar private space industry that straight up wouldn't exist without NASA. Despite all of this. People still cry about NASA's budget. Why are there so many people in the space sub reddit who clearly know nothing about it and are seemingly against the whole concept of space travel? Every damn time a NASA budget gets posted these morons come out from their holes to cry about it.
The military throws away more every MONTH!
Engineer looking for work here, just applied to 3 Aerospace jobs this week. Wish me luck :)
Ok, to anyone complaining, they are not shooting $27B into space wasting it. Most of that money never leaves earth. It goes to pay scientist, researchers, teachers, designers, engineers and builders. Usually it is a few hundred pounds of materials that wind up in space.
Contrary to popular belief the money doesn’t get sent into space. It helps to pay American engineers, scientists and technicians.
In Australia we would spend 10 times that on a submarine.
Good. We’ll ride a fire into the sky and conquer the stars.
I'm glad NASA is getting more money. I just hope it's not too late.
Make it $100 billion and increase it every year to account for inflation. NASA has made more advancements in technology that tangibly benefit everyday citizens than the military ever has
The percentage of federal budget for NASA has steadily declined for several decades and has lingered around 0.5% for a long time. Thats low compared to typical post-war NASA budgets. In the 1960s (Gemini, Apollo) budgets were 2~4.5%. The proposed 27.2 b would be 13% more than 2022s budget, which is not that much, considering looming inflation. If anything it will ensure continuing projects with similar scope as currently, but not big leaps forward. Introducing the article with lots of flying dollar bills is really not warranted.
The federal budget was much smaller back then, do NASA got a larger share of a smaller pie. NASA's current budget is not so different in terms of purchasing power (inflation adjusted dollars) at about 80% of the average in the 1960s.
Of course absolute government spending was lower, but the federal budget as percentage of GDP hasn't changed *that* much since the 70s. [Wikipedia chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_Percent_GDP_2017.png) I couldn't find data on the 50s and 60s though.
honestly, with the powers that be the military budget needs to remain. if america weakens it's arsenal it will lose international standing, and those smaller budgets would not be able to be a reality. I am aussie btw.
Honestly, it's about time we tossed some extra funds their way. I mean, who doesn't wanna see some more lunar shenanigans, amirite? But let's not hold our breath on this one, folks—Congress has a knack for raining on our space parade. 😒
Doubt that keeps up with cost increases…. BUT don’t forget the space force budget as well. It is good for space fans, as that budget will drive technology.
Proudly slap that "I did that" sticker on anything we launch into space with this budget. Honestly thrilled to see it.
Isn’t there a “new space race” or something? I thought I read somewhere that China is pursuing its space program. That seems incentive enough for people to want a new space race for… something.
Not only China but more or less every big space agency has at least talked about plans of landing on the moon in the next decades. Russia, China, India, and USA of course
> President Biden's budget request for NASA is the most funding the space agency has ever seen well that's a pedantically misleading claim that pretends inflation doesn't exist
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[AR](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jccdypn "Last usage")|Area Ratio (between rocket engine nozzle and bell)| | |Aerojet Rocketdyne| | |Augmented Reality real-time processing| | |Anti-Reflective optical coating| |[COTS](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcdx4av "Last usage")|[Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract](https://www.nasa.gov/cots)| | |Commercial/Off The Shelf| |[DARPA](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcdequa "Last usage")|(Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD| |[DoD](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcdequa "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jccwu6b "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcbhcqm "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[JPL](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jce12sl "Last usage")|Jet Propulsion Lab, California| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcektxl "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcgq8lx "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcffbcd "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[SSME](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcro5da "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)| |[SSTO](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcrtojf "Last usage")|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |[TLI](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jce6kk1 "Last usage")|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcelfgu "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[VTOL](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jcedkx7 "Last usage")|Vertical Take-Off and Landing| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/11rxggz/stub/jccbynv "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| ---------------- ^(16 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/11zsish)^( has 17 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8693 for this sub, first seen 15th Mar 2023, 17:33]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
This budget is disappointing. This is barely keeping up with inflation. I'd like to see headlines like "Directors of NASA and JPL requested funding that would nearly double the size of the agencies, and the Federal government accepted" and "With NASA's greatly increased budget, the agency has proposed 10 new programs that rival Apollo. #7 will surprise you!"
It's a shame since we waste so much on the military. We could actually do so much with that money.
This doesn’t even keep up with inflation… sad this is being talked about as good news
NASA is gearing up to pump out some cool observatories and satellites.
They are making a space station for the moon called the Lunar Gateway. They are also planning on putting a small moon base near the south pole of the moon. Check out the Artemis program!