Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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

GorgeWashington t1_j1kfp0d wrote

It's crazy how much NASA does with comparatively little money

78

vibingjusthardenough t1_j1ko2or wrote

I once heard “if NASA could get to space using a rocket made of wood and duct tape they would.”

39

WontStopAtSigns t1_j1m0mju wrote

Wood is probably the rarest material in the universe.

26

iDom2jz t1_j1mjgid wrote

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

taichi22 t1_j1lnw4l wrote

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

IsraelZulu t1_j1jzn81 wrote

>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

Corbulo2526 OP t1_j1k3w8m wrote

It is a good metric, considering the Space Force was previously Air Force Space Command for decades.

29

SpaceInMyBrain t1_j1k9nqv wrote

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

benlachman t1_j1l1oti wrote

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

[deleted] t1_j1kkb3p wrote

[deleted]

11

BigDeadly t1_j1l6e8w wrote

That’s not how it works. Inflation isn’t universal across all sectors

0

perfect5-7-with-rice t1_j1l8wdk wrote

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

TareaMizou t1_j1lqsf6 wrote

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

SeeTreeMe t1_j1ls0sc wrote

Yeah, nasa doesn’t use labor, raw materials, or computer chips, so they shouldn’t be affected at all!

4