Talk:Budget of NASA/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conversion of data to chart

I'm going to redo this data as a chart and convert it to 2005 dollars. Please post any objections or suggestions. Monkeyman 19:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't want to be a jerk, but...

Could you please add a link for your source on these numbers?

Nice numbers and graphics, but what source do you have? I just tried to check some of them and found [1] and [2] at nasa.gov, which are somewhat different - without any trend, about 44 % higher for 1963 and 13 % lower for 1966. -- srb 09:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

then years?

What are "Then years". I don't understand. Is it everything priced in 1958 dollars?

I think it means the amount that the budget that year called for, unadjusted for any inflation. 68.39.174.238 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

fraction of US budget, population effects

Sice the number of taxpayers has been increasing, it would also be good to put it in perspective of constant-dollars-per-capita, and fraction-of-the-US-budget. --NealMcB 14:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, seeing what the NASA budget is in terms of % of total federal budget would be VERY enlightening.

Added sections

I added two sections to this article, because the graph and table are two representations of the exact same data. The state breakdown is something else. In the earlier structure, the article showed 1. yearly budgets (graph), 2. state breakdown, 3. yearly budgets again (table), which was kind of confusing. I also felt it was even more important because the data in first two representations are unsourced too. It became easier to show what the "unsourced information" template was about by doing these sections too. -- Northgrove 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

possible source data

The uncited data on this page may have come, at least in part, from this reference that I found on the nasa website:

http://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/sect%20D/NASA%20Budget.pdf

Iiyt 03:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Here is another probable source of much of the data: http://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/sect%20D/Fin%20Sum.pdf 69.140.170.242 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Column heading clarification

As I understand it, the column headed "Dollars In 1958 Adjusted For Inflation" is really "Dollars Unadjusted For Inflation", i.e. the actual budget figure allocated. Is that right? If so, the heading could do with changing. Mikes42 2006-12-12

Lots of work, new graphs needed

All of this talk about "then" and "now" dollars ignores a simple principle of inflation: there is not a single inflation rate. There are multiple rates. The three relevant to this discussion:

Consumer Price Index (CPI): The CPI, developed by the Department of Labor, is based on a grab bag of common consumer goods that your typical American purchases.

GDP Deflator: This is generated by the OMB. Another consumer goods-based index, it tends to run lower than the CPI. One might suggest that since the OMB's job is to figure out how much the White House's projects will cost before presenting them to congress, it's in their best interest to make them look cheaper.  ;)

Using either of those indices is deceptive. NASA is not the typical American. They're not buying cars and loaves of bread; they're buying rockets and paying scientists. While common consumer goods are now mass-produced in factories and assembled by cheap labor in China, unlike how they were when NASA was founded, NASA still is paying for the same high-cost domestic labor without mass production that it was in the 1950s. Hence, NASA has their own inflation index, the NASA New Start Index (NNSI). This reflects what *NASA* buys, and is the only index to which it's fair to compare NASA's buying power. The CPI could show us what we could buy by taking NASA's money away from it, but the NNSI shows what NASA can buy with the money we give it. While the CPI factor from 1959 to 2000 is 5.92, and the GDP Deflator factor is 4.82, the NNSI factor for that time period is a whopping 8.35.

I would recommend starting out with a discussion on the concept of inflation rates, and then presenting a graph that shows the different rates, then discussion elaborating on the implications of it. -- Rei 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for comparing

What is the cost of the Iraqi war?--Mazarin07 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the National Priorities Project [3], over $456 Billion and counting.
Put another way, about NASA's budget for the next 26 years. . . WSpaceport 21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nasa dollars "boost the economies of every state in the U.S."

This is not fact. This is propaganda, and should be edited out of the graphic provided (it's not surprising it's propaganda, since it actually came from NASA.) NASA's money comes from tax dollars, which drain the economy, and not all of the tax dollars are recouped--actual wealth is left in space. Thus, the idea that it "boosts the economies" is total propaganda, and has no place in a "neutral" article. 206.124.6.154 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


No. Sorry. It *is* very much fact.

Trying to estimate the economic value of the space program to the US is surprisingly easy. A 1971 study of NASA by the Midwest Research Institute 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.”

This statement is plausible since those were the years when NASA’s spending on Apollo was at its height. However, NASA also invested in other programs, and they are included in the mix, so the conclusion is not as definitive as one would like. Also, a 33% return on investment (ROI) is not really big enough to make the normal venture capitalist go wild, but for a government program, however, it is quite respectable.

A short article in the prestigious British science journal, "Nature" (January 9, 1992, pp. 105-106), reported: 

      "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:

Confirmation that "Space pays" may also be found in the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined just 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;
   — $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

Other benefits, not quantified in the study, include: state corporate income taxes, individual personal income taxes (federal and state) paid by those 352,000 workers, and incalculable benefits resulting from lives saved and improved quality of life.

These 259 applications represent only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs. These benefits were in addition to benefits in the Space industry itself and in addition to the ordinary multiplied effects of any government spending.

In 2002, the aerospace industry contributed more than $95 billion to U.S. economic activity, which included $23.5 billion in employee earnings, and employed 576,000 people -- a 16% increase in jobs from three years earlier (source: FAA, March 2004).

Just 15 firms that received an initial $64 million in NASA life sciences research added $200 million of their own money and created a $1.5 billion return on investment in the form of sold commercial goods and services during 25 years (source: Space Policy Institute, George Washington University).

The real value of space exploration to our nation’s economy will be a subject of debate among experts for many years to come. Like the Apollo program of 1961-1975, its impact will be hard to measure, but will be evident in the new industries that will spring up around it.

Supporters of space exploration have long known intuitively that the investments America has made in space technology have helped maintain the country as the world’s number one technological superpower. The infinitely complex nature of economic decision-making in a free market system may mean that no one will ever be able to show a direct cause and effect relationship -- but that does not mean that it is not there.WSpaceport (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

    • That is just a ridiculous assumption. Using this logic, increasing taxes and then spending the money in states would be considered "economy boosting." You should also have a graphic on the source of all those billions of dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.97.59 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More un-sourced propaganda = "clear understanding that the science-driver effect"

a) "With a clear understanding that the science-driver effect of the space program increases productivity throughout the entire physical economy" -> where is this supported?

i) (Who (proponents only?) has this "clear understanding", and where is it documented?)

ii) (Does the space program have a science-driver effect, or an engineering-driver effect? in other words, Where does the money go?)

iii) (Does the space program have a science-driver effect, or a science-receiver effect? in other words, Science receives the benefit of scientific exploration in knowledge, but how does the space program drive science-based consumer businesses, presumably that raise quality of life? )

b) "especially in technologies and designs of infrastructure" -> where is this supported?

i) (technologies unused?, designs abandoned?)

c) "and creates future generations of scientists and engineers" -> where is this supported?

i) (does it create future or current (layoffs?))

d) "the increase in this budget can play a major role in spurring economic recovery" -> where is this supported?

i) (the increase (versus ?)),

ii) (major role = ?),

iii) (spurring economic recovery = ?)

iv) (define: "role", "spurring", "economic", "recovery", compared to what (otherwise predicted without the space program's (increase, current (finding levels))?) SalineBrain (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add GDP, NNSI, per-capita, and US-budget-fraction columns to the table

Please add GDP Deflator factor, NNSI factor, constant-dollars-per-capita, and fraction-of-the-US-budget columns to the table.SalineBrain (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


excellent article. Maybe a graph for past budgets would be a cherry on the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.11.143 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

2007 not equal to 2007 in 2007 dollars?

Um... how come the budget in 2007 is worth more than the budget in 2007 in 2007 dollars?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FY2009

We're almost into FY2009, but the 'Current' section is still about 2007... --AndersFeder (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This get's deleted everytime

Traviskicks:

I've tried to add this in a few times and it has been deleted in about 15 seconds each time:

"For a dissenting view, some conservatives and many Libertarians argue that government spending causing economic growth is counterintuitive and uneconomical. They argue that NASA's primary accomplishments have been political such as, 'national pride in a moon landing', and that the private sector would fulfill many, if not most of NASA's useful functions more efficiently."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Traviskicks (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 September 2008 {UTC)

Well, you need to cite, verifiable sources to back up the claim. Also, any additions need to follow our neutral point of view. Repeatedly re-adding something after being warned is not the proper way to go about improving an article and will get yourself blocked for disruption. -MBK004 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Afghanistan and Iraq wars comparison

I don't see how this is possibly relevant to an article about the NASA budget. It's inflammatory and incites debate, which detracts from Wikipedia's objective to inform. The subsequent link to the 2008 Federal Budget should be adequate. If a reader is curious about how the NASA budget compares to the War on Terror, or Social Security outlays, or anything else, he can go there. Jogar2 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I included the cost of world war II. I think its just as arbitrary. If no one objects in a week, I'll remove both references--Work permit (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Added NSF

Since comparisons are being made to the department of defenses spending, I've added the total NSF budget. The NSF budget is at least as good a comparison, since Nasa's mission is closer to that of the NSF then it is to the DOD. Nasa's mission is to To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.. The NSF's is to To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. The Department of Defense is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our country. --Work permit (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost of Apollo

The first three paragrahps need citations, the rest is wp:or from what I can see--Work permit (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Budget of NASA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Budget of NASA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Budget_of_NASA/Archive_1&oldid=1027932864"