• President Obama signs $17.6 billion NASA budget
    77 replies, posted
[quote]President Barack Obama signed a budget measure Friday giving NASA more than $17.6 billion for the year, fully funding the space agency's heavy-lift Space Launch System and Orion exploration capsule while falling short of NASA's request to pay for commercial space taxis.[/quote] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/17budget/#.UtsKDxBFCUl]Source[/url]
Wasn't their budget before only a quarter of this or less? I remember looking up the figure for a class presentation and finding out that it was laughably minuscule next to the defense budget.
o shit.
Can we try to fix the economy somewhat first? That's a lot of money.
They asked for $17.72 billion but congress would only give them $17.65. Seriously? the 0.4% more was too much? And this is only 1.5% of the entire federal budget. [quote=source]In a legislative report accompanying the budget, Congress refused to commit to NASA's proposed asteroid redirect mission to retrieve a 500-ton rock from solar orbit, guide it around the moon with a robotic spacecraft, then send astronauts to visit it aboard Orion crew capsules.[/quote] Oh come on
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;43586708]Wasn't their budget before only a quarter of this or less? I remember looking up the figure for a class presentation and finding out that it was laughably minuscule next to the defense budget.[/QUOTE] last I checked it was around $20b so this is less than they normally get
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;43586708]Wasn't their budget before only a quarter of this or less? I remember looking up the figure for a class presentation and finding out that it was laughably minuscule next to the defense budget.[/QUOTE] It's around the same as previous years, a bit less actually. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA[/url]
that's still hardly anything
[QUOTE=gk99;43586730]Can we try to fix the economy somewhat first? That's a lot of money.[/QUOTE] No. We space now.
[QUOTE=gk99;43586730]Can we try to fix the economy somewhat first? That's a lot of money.[/QUOTE] who needs an economy when we can have THE UNIVERSE
You cannot efficiently bomb brown people with space rockets. If you could, NASA would get a lot more funding.
[QUOTE=gk99;43586730]Can we try to fix the economy somewhat first? That's a lot of money.[/QUOTE] "fixing the economy" that's a broad statement. And to say that NASA has no part in that would be foolish by a large margin. If anything, that's a tiny fraction of the money spent on dead end projects that haven't led anywhere or otherwise useless spending (cough cough f-35, refit of m1 tank fleet, throwing money at foreign powers that don't need it.) While I don't want to sound like a NASA fan boy, given the nature of their work, they're working miracles with figurative sticks and stones (the study of space, and especially the development of it is by almost definition, expensive.) Also, given that much of NASA's current projects involve things that are directly or indirectly involved with new developments in technology, if one were to "fix" the economy, I would almost look to NASA first, not last.
who cares about nasa when you can funnel money into the military budget and bomb the middle-east
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;43586767]that's still hardly anything[/QUOTE] 17 Billion is a lot man
[QUOTE=Ermac20;43586820]17 Billion is a lot man[/QUOTE] The military spends more on air conditioning than NASA's entire budget.
[QUOTE=Reviized;43586806]"fixing the economy" that's a broad statement. And to say that NASA has no part in that would be foolish by a large margin. If anything, that's a tiny fraction of the money spent on dead end projects that haven't led anywhere or otherwise useless spending (cough cough f-35, refit of m1 tank fleet, throwing money at foreign powers that don't need it.) While I don't want to sound like a NASA fan boy, given the nature of their work, they're working miracles with figurative sticks and stones (the study of space, and especially the development of it is by almost definition, expensive.) Also, given that much of NASA's current projects involve things that are directly or indirectly involved with new developments in technology, if one were to "fix" the economy, I would almost look to NASA first, not last.[/QUOTE] Why I don't disagree that the F-35 is a big waste of money those programs create lots of jobs. NASA fixing the economy any time soon is a pipe dream. Really encouraging the start up of private commercial space agencies is the more viable way to go which the U.S has been leading globally so far. Really cutting back on weapons R&D and production is considered to be a massive economic regressive move which is why it isn't popular on congress. Yall can hate me and chuck boxes and disaagrees but this is the reality of the situation.
Man, looking at this shows that the dollar's grown a lot since 1964-66, which appeared to be when NASA got the biggest budgets by the standards of the 2007 dollar. Back then they were really gunning for space, and now they look like an olive compared to the defence budget "hoagie". Still, at least they're not at 1975 levels of weaksauce funding; they really shoulda kept up with the space-or-bust attitude and not rested on their laurels, especially now those laurels are starting to smell bad because of them being under America's butt. Speaking of the olive-hoagie connection, if the military had bigger dealings in space we'd probably expect NASA to have way bigger budgets, though hopefully we won't have to fight China just yet, even if it means we finally get Moonbase Alpha 40 goddamn years late.
Read NASA as NSA and was really worried for a sec.
Moonbase Alpha 2 17 Billion budget Make it happen NASA
Imagine what could be done with the military's budget. Instead of penis drawings on Mars and the Moon, we could make a giant penis space station!
[QUOTE=Ermac20;43586820]17 Billion is a lot man[/QUOTE] Compared to what is spent on other less necessary/more menial things (ie: bloated military industrial complex) 17.6 billion is chump change. Aerospace research is something that's not staggeringly useful at the moment, but is something that will eventually be very useful and most likely very necessary for distant generations; practical extraterrestrial ventures in the future won't be possible unless somebody actually builds the infrastructure and researches the means right now. Considering that our generation/previous generation literally does nothing but harvest non-renewable resources (oil, uranium, coal) in order to basically promote a life of rampant consumerism, I think aerospace engineering research for future generations can be sort of like a [I]"I'm sorry we used up most of the non-renewable resources before you were born, but here's how you can cheaply and effectively mine asteroids for rare earth elements"[/I] sort of deal. Education, Health, Computers and Aerospace are some of the only avenues for practical advancement of the human species so it doesn't make sense to give aerospace a big slashing just because it doesn't suit [I]your [/I]particular needs right now.
[video=youtube;3WzHXI5HizQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WzHXI5HizQ[/video] One can hope... Can anyone tell me why i can't link to youtube, even when i press in the right code?
this is great! i'll buy more products from usa in order to help finance NASA in taxes if that'll help
[QUOTE=woolio1;43586787]You cannot efficiently bomb brown people with space rockets. If you could, NASA would get a lot more funding.[/QUOTE] but you could make a moon station that has bomb throwing devices to bomb brown people FROM [B]FUCKING SPACE[/B]. Do you even know how cool that is? Man, brownies will be boot shaken in no time! clearly obama knows how to bomb brown people more than you
[QUOTE=gk99;43586730]Can we try to fix the economy somewhat first? That's a lot of money.[/QUOTE] nasa is actually huge in developing new markets and technologies; they've got a pretty impressive rate of return on the spending. basically the money that gets funnelled into nasa eventually makes its way into the private markets both directly and indirectly (nasa is a very, very big provider of research grants, and a lot of the tech they developed is also usually patent free iirc) know where laptops came from? nasa basically, building nasa is a great way to build the economy.
What was their previous budget?
[QUOTE=J!NX;43587110]but you could make a moon station that has bomb throwing devices to bomb brown people FROM [B]FUCKING SPACE[/B]. Do you even know how cool that is? Man, brownies will be boot shaken in no time! clearly obama knows how to bomb brown people more than you[/QUOTE] We tried that. Then a few whiny UN letters later about how the USSR and the USA has their loaded six guns at their sides, and everyone threw out the awesomeness that was the Orion Project.
[QUOTE=Saxon;43586890]Why I don't disagree that the F-35 is a big waste of money those programs create lots of jobs.[/QUOTE] And NASA projects don't? Completely disregarding scientific benefit, inspirational value for future generations, and spinoff technologies, those projects make a [I]lot[/I] of jobs for engineers, scientists, material manufacturers, etc. But we can't disregard scientific benefit, inspirational value and spinoff technologies, so uh. [QUOTE=Saxon;43586890]NASA fixing the economy any time soon is a pipe dream.[/QUOTE] Anything "fixing" the economy soon is a pipe dream, but how can you say NASA wouldn't help get it on the right track when pretty much everyone who investigates the subject finds that it would? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Economic_impact_of_NASA_funding[/url] [quote]A November 1971 study of NASA released by the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, Missouri ("Technological Progress and Commercialization of Communications Satellites." In: "Economic Impact of Stimulated Technological Activity") concluded that "the $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 -- and will continue to produce pay offs through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent." A map from NASA's web site illustrating its economic impact on the U.S. states (as of FY2003) A 1992 article in the British science journal Nature reported:[14] "The economic benefits of NASA's programs are greater than generally realized. The main beneficiaries (the American public) may not even realize the source of their good fortune. . ." Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports ("The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending: Preliminary Executive Summary.", April 1975. Also: "Relative Impact of NASA Expenditure on the Economy.", March 18, 1975) and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight-year period (1976–1984) and found more than: — $21.6 billion in sales and benefits; — 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved,and; — $355 million in federal corporate income taxes According to the "Nature" article, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs." In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees (source: Federal Aviation Administration, March 2004).[/quote] [QUOTE=Saxon;43586890]Really encouraging the start up of private commercial space agencies is the more viable way to go which the U.S has been leading globally so far.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah really, because one of the things they are cutting back on in this budget compared to previous budgets are the commercial programs. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rastadogg;43587125]What was their previous budget?[/QUOTE] 17.8
[QUOTE=Rastadogg;43587125]What was their previous budget?[/QUOTE] Did you even read the thread....
Also I don't know why the article says the entire federal budget is $1.1 trillion, according to Wikipedia it's much bigger: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_federal_budget[/URL] [quote]Total revenue - $3.03 trillion (requested) Total expenditures - $3.77 trillion (requested)[/quote] Does anyone know what it actually is/what the article really means?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.