Talk:Budget of NASA

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lensaticflare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Clean up

We need to go clean up this page and go back and check all the values because the more I check, the more that seems to be incorrect. --Craigboy (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We also need to change the constant dollar year to 2010, and possible look into only updating the constant dollar year every five years due to low activity on this page. --Craigboy (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I have recently been doing some NASA budget research. I found a link to an Excel spreadsheet on the Office of Management and Budget web site that gives historic annual budget numbers for many agencies, including NASA:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist04z1.xls

Bruce in MN (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the page where I found the above link...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

Bruce in MN (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also new to editing on the Wiki but I was doing research for a paper for class and I found an interesting discrepancy between the numbers provided by the OMB (and consequently by the World Almanac book that is the actual reference in the article) and NASA's own historical figures provided in the link below. I unfortunately don't have time now to investigate why this is, so I'll just leave this here for future reference.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o45128943_1959_1979.pdf

The Romanian Jedi (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

percentage of GDP

It would be useful to also have budget as percentage of US GDP because federal budget has changed over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.121.96 (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

GDP changes from year to year as well. Looking at this site http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/ could be a good start.

In 2007 it's .1%, In 1966 it's .7% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have data on NASA budget as percentage of GDP for 1960 through today (and estimates through 2016). Also comparisons of NASA budget as percentage of Federal outlays compared to Department of Defense and Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. I think it's pretty interesting. As a reference, see http://www.space-pictures.com/view/pictures-of-planets/planet-mars/evidence-of-life-on-mars/manned-mission-to-mars.php. However, I am new and have not edited an article on Wiki and am a bit nervous about doing this. I've read some of the documentation and tried the Sandbox but am still a bit nervous. For example, I am not sure about the best way to size and load an image. Is there a way to get a coach to help make sure I do a quality job ? Jb2012a (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel as if the change to stress the % of GDP, particularly the graph violates NPOV. Stressing percentage of budget as opposed to historical inflation adjusted values is a targeted statistical method to advocate for more funding. The federal budget itself increases yearly as a percentage of GDP. As a result any program that would simply maintain it's same amount of funding (inflation adjusted) would still see an annual reduction in its percentage. Alienfoil (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So Wikipedia now Cites Itself?

Citation #11 is a citation of this very Wikipedia article. My head just about exploded when I saw it. --66.206.187.182 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right; Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, and this has been removed, along with the sentence it was used to cite. Thanks for catching it. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed under "Economic impact of NASA funding"

As is, the quotation from the Midwest Research Institute seems to imply that the return on investment for civilian space R&D was 33% per year.
At this rate, however, a $25 billion investment in 1958 would have ballooned to $7.5 Trillion in only 20 years (and almost $100 Trillion by 1987).
Someone with access to the cited source should clarify exactly how the authors came up with that 33% figure because it's clearly NOT intended
to reflect an annually compounded ROI.

71.100.17.85 (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of data

On april 7, the table of actual funding data was removed from the article by an anonymous user with no reason given. If there's a problem with the article, shouldn't the proper response be to try and fix it? Even if something needs to go, I don't think an immediate gutting of the article with no discussion is the right route. Right now the article is completely useless, since it no longer has any information on its actual subject. Unless someone wants to justify this, I'm going to revert that edit after a few days. 68.43.60.195 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted it. That's simply an inexcusable edit and I don't think it even deserved the generous grace period it's had. Fourpointsix (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

New Data

NASA released a new paper about it's budget on March 4, 2014: [[1]]. Because I can't edit the page as effectively as I want, it would be perfect if an experienced user adds this new information. Thank you. EmreOsm95 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Image replacement

Using the data from this article, I created a new vectorized version of this chart:

Because we don't seem to have the projected federal numbers, I felt it would be WP:OR to try and recreate that section of the chart. I did, however, expand the span to be 1958-2012 rather than 1962-2014. A fairly faithful recreation of the original chart can be found here. However, since these data are really not well-represented using a line graph, I generated instead a bar graph, which looks much nicer:

I used Python and matplotlib to generate these images, so that they can be easily updated, either for stylistic reasons or when later budget reports are released. You can find the code in my userspace here. I'm not sure that's the best place for the code, long-term, but I don't see an easy way to attach image-generation scripts to images on commons. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: I notice in your most recent edit summary you suggest that the budget chart looks better on the right than on the left. I just moved it to the left because in its original form it seemed like it was on the right by default, and had no text-wrapping. That said, even with it inline wrapped on the right, I still think left might look a bit better, because the NASA insignia directly above it is also on the right. That said, when I make my browser window much wider, I find that it looks worse when the image is on the left. I'm fine either way. Let me know if a different version of this image would be better - I'm thinking part of the problem with placement may be that the text labels are rather small compared to the data, so maybe I could prepare a version of the image that has no axis labels or title, and we can arrange to have it link to the version with axis labels and the title when you click on it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the image is fine the way it is. Its appearance must be dependent on the reader's equipment; yesterday on a different computer the axes and labels were looking light and hard to read, but that's not the case on the computer I'm using today (not perfect, but good enough to read.) I don't think you need to bother removing the labels; I think once users have been around a while they should know they can always just click on any image as necessary to see it in greater detail. 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic impact dated stats

The section on economic impact is dated, citing studies from the 1970s.

I'm sure others can find more info, but here are some links to start:

• [2]
• [3]

-- Beland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Economic impact POV

The economic impact section seems to be promoting the idea that NASA is well worth the economic investment in economic returns. This is a controversial claim. For example, the stats provided only claim $22.1B of benefit from 8 years of spending. It's unclear how or if these are inflation-adjusted, and it's unclear if this is just the amount NASA spent on stuff, or if this is solely the amount due to the multiplier effect. The real crux of the matter is whether or not the multiplier for NASA is greater than everything else we could be spending the billions of dollars on. I'm not taking a position on these questions, but this section needs to take in a wider diversity of viewpoints. Here are some examples not reflected in the article:

Pages that raise criticisms:

• NASA wasted $20B on canceled programs
• [4] - Arguing we should cancel manned Mars exploration program
• A Case For Cutting NASA' Budget (1968)
• Is NASA A Waste Of Money? - public debate
• [5] - Was the Space Shuttle program worth the cost? (Says arguments go both ways.)

-- Beland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The "jobs created or saved" thing is something I've only ever heard from politicians. The sources in that section are either opinion pieces or commissioned by NASA, including a little propaganda diagram about what districts NASA is spending money on. That's all highly promotional, biased material. It's definitely got undue weight in the article. I say for now we remove the section. If someone wants to write a more balanced version that's fine, though it's not clear that it belongs here instead of in NASA, or as a subsection of "public perception". I'm not really sure how the scope of the two articles are divided up. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Budget of NASA

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Budget of NASA's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lafleur20100308":

• From Apollo program: Lafleur, Claude (March 8, 2010). "Costs of US piloted programs". The Space Review. Retrieved February 18, 2012.
• From Skylab: Lafleur, Claude (March 8, 2010). "Costs of US Piloted Programs". The Space Review. Retrieved February 18, 2012. See author's correction in comments section.
• From Project Mercury: Lafleur, Claude (2010-03-08). "Costs of US piloted programs". The Space Review. Retrieved February 18, 2012.
• From Apollo–Soyuz Test Project: Lafleur, Claude (March 8, 2010). "Costs of US piloted programs". The Space Review. Retrieved February 18, 2012.
• From International Space Station: Lafleur, Claude (8 March 2010). "Costs of US piloted programs". The Space Review. Retrieved 18 February 2012. See author correction in comments.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done These are essentially identical; I used the Apollo program reference since it looks the best-formatted. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing on table.

You are missing the number of astronauts, which is an important indicator for capital finance single individual ventures.

IE: Approximately how much would an individual require, to be able to put themselves in space. (employees are there, but not the number of astronauts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.82.107 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing section on Employment Statistics

This is a page about the budget of NASA, and while it is mentioned how the budget is spent in some places, is there really a need for a chart of NASA's employment? Not to mention, this chart is based on a dataset referenced in a study that isn't being updated, so a new source would have to be found for this information. Similar pages, like the ones on the DoD budget, don't give an in-depth breakdown of their employment statistics. Maybe have one reference to the current total number of employees in the introduction of the article, but that should be the extent of it.

Lensaticflare (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, and despite there being more recent discourse on this talk page, there has been no opposition to this. I'm going to delete this section. Lensaticflare (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Political edit opens a can of worms

I am moving this recent edit here for discussion. (It was made by an editor coincidentally blocked for promotional username, which some might say justifies its reversion):

Despite Democrat President Kennedy's decision to jump-start the space program with massive funding and resource increases, the far-left have commonly been depicted as opposing NASA and space research funding on the grounds that the funds would be better spent on other programs. This can largely be attributed to misleading or politically charged statements made by conservative leaders, like President Reagan, in an effort to dissuade voters from supporting their left-leaning counterparts.

In reality, NASA is highly popular among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents equally. According to a 2015 Pew survey, more than two-thirds of all Americans have a favorable view of the space agency.

References

There are a couple of problems I see with this:

1. Off-topic: the point of this section (as its title says) is to give actual instances of political opposition to NASA funding, not to accuse political groups of making bogus charges of opposition by the other side.
2. The example given is from a known left-wing commentator (Williams) criticizing Reagan. This is a matter of opinion; the case can be made that Mondale in fact, early in his Senate career, took advantage of the Apollo 1 fire to launch criticism of NASA's handling of the Moon program, attempting to make a scandal out of the North American Aviation vendor selection process, under the guise of concern for astronaut safety.
3. This is unbalanced by counter-examples of the left wing falsely accusing the right of funding criticisms.

I don't think we want to get into this high-potential, inherently non-NPOV area. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who edited this. My previous username was blocked, but my intention with the username is not to promote any business or institution. It's what I, in jest, occasionally refer to a room in my home where I tinker with various electronics and computers, and it was the first thing I thought of when asked to come up with a username. In retrospect, I understand why it went against Wikipedia's username policy, and I have come up with a new one in an effort to comply.

In response to your issues with my revision:

1. I agree. What I originally wrote did not provide actual instances of political opposition and failed to adhere to the section title's namesake.

2. I was unaware that the author of the first article was a known left-wing commentator. I would also agree that Senator Mondale was hyper-critical of NASA after the Apollo 1 incident, and I also seem to remember his attempts to make a scandal out of the situation, blaming North American's sloppy manufacturing practices. This was re-enacted in the second episode of the 1998 HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon". I looked for substantial sources that concisely referenced these same events, but failed. I admit, I should have spent more time looking for those articles.

3. I agree that the segment of the article should stay balanced.

My initial issue with this section of the article is that it uses politically inflammatory language many times. "Welfare", "Safety Nets", "Social Programs", these are all thinly veiled synonyms for "Government Handouts to the Poor". Particularly the word "Welfare". While not the best choice of words, I could understand its inclusion of the cited article from Universe Today, "Experts React to Obama Slash to Planetary Science Exploration", but that terminology is not used in that article.

Furthermore, despite clearly being written from a politically biased viewpoint, the Universe Today article does not touch on the subject of "welfare", "safety nets", or "food-aid programs".

The line "In 2012, the Obama administration made significant cuts to NASA's budget while increasing spending on social programs." for which the Universe Today article is explicitly being cited as a source, is a blatant falsehood. Nothing in that Universe Today article references President Obama "substantially cutting NASA's budget" nor does it include any information about "increasing spending on social programs.

What the Universe Today article says is that NASA's Planetary Sciences funds were being cut from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion, that $300 million being diverted to the James Webb Space Telescope. While I feel the James Webb Space Telescope will contribute greatly to human knowledge and our understanding of the universe, it is a long stretch to claim that the Webb Space Telescope is a "social program".

Even in this very Wikipedia article, the numbers show that NASA's budget went down only 1.4% between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. To claim that a 1.4% decrease in funding is a "siginificant cut" and attribute it to Obama (or the left-wing) is misleading at best, especially if you consider that NASA's budget was increased by 2.5% in FY 2014, increased by 1.9% in FY 2015, and increased by 5.8% in FY 2016.

Rather than completely remove this inaccurate and uncited "left-wing opposition to NASA funding" portion of the text [leaving the section completely unbalanced], I tried to put together something to replace it. I'll admit that in my haste, I failed to equally balance the politics of the section.

I included a new final paragraph to the section which summarized the findings of a 2015 Pew Survey which concluded that Independents, Democrats, and Republicans all have an equal (and surprisingly high) willingness to support and fund NASA and its endevours.

I would be in favor of completely removing this "Political Opposition to NASA Funding" section, since it adds very little benefit or understanding to the topic of Budget of NASA.

I feel that this might be an unreasonable request, but the entire section from "Far-left groups have traditionally..." to the end is completely uncited. The Universe Today article referenced as a citation for that portion of the section contains no information to substantiate what is written in this portion of this Wikipedia article.

It is more unreasonable to make edits/contributions in a Wikipedia article and cite articles that are completely unrelated or do not contain any information supporting the claims made in the Wikipedia article edit/contribution.

I am all for a balanced approach to this portion of the article and I truly am not trying to start a political debate here. I am not affiliated with any political party, and have voted for politicians on both sides of the aisle.

I admit that what I wrote didn't properly balance the section politically.

I am completely open to suggestions, and I do genuinely appreciate your constructive criticism, JustinTime55. I agree with all 3 of your stated problems with my previous edit.

Please forgive the lengthiness of my reply. I was unable to proofread or make edits due to browser glitches on my mobile device.

Thank you. Kevin at the KevCo Laboratories (a Fictional Institution) (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NASA logo

Now that NASA also uses the "worm" logo (as opposed to the "meatball"), should both be on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Link in "Political Opposition to NASA funding" doesn't support text in that section

"Critics have cited more immediate concerns, like social welfare programs, as reasons to cut funding to the agency.[31]"

While possibly accurate, link 31 takes us to a 1968 article that doesn't mention social welfare programs once.