No NASA Budget Cuts

kernals12

Banned
upload_2017-11-15_16-59-1.png

As you can see in this chart, Nasa today takes up just .5% of the Federal Budget, in 1966 it was 4.5% or 9 times higher. If NASA's budget had been held constant as a percent of the budget, what would they be able to do with that money? Would we have gotten a man on mars by 1990?
 
The federal budget itself make for a fairly interesting curve by itself, and, in isolation, doesn't relate to reality. Does profligate spending on wars and bank bail-outs have to mean additional funding for NASA?
 
The federal budget itself make for a fairly interesting curve by itself, and, in isolation, doesn't relate to reality. Does profligate spending on wars and bank bail-outs have to mean additional funding for NASA?
So no man on Mars then?
 

trurle

Banned
View attachment 355051
As you can see in this chart, Nasa today takes up just .5% of the Federal Budget, in 1966 it was 4.5% or 9 times higher. If NASA's budget had been held constant as a percent of the budget, what would they be able to do with that money? Would we have gotten a man on mars by 1990?
The effect would be small because the funding would go into R&D (most of which is going to fail regardless of funding). May be VentureStar SSTO spaceplane will be developed to the stage of flying prototype, but it would still suffer from low reliability, expensive maintenance and low flight rate problems which has doomed Space Shuttle program. Of course, no men on Mars (unless on one-way trip).
 

kernals12

Banned
The federal budget itself make for a fairly interesting curve by itself, and, in isolation, doesn't relate to reality. Does profligate spending on wars and bank bail-outs have to mean additional funding for NASA?
Over time, federal spending to gdp has been fairly constant since the 1950s
upload_2017-11-15_19-17-10.png


And defense spending has shrunk dramatically as a share of the budget.
upload_2017-11-15_19-20-16.png
 
It depends on what the money is spent on. I don't think huge amounts of money are required over OTL to make the US space program quite a lot more. Skylab B with the shuttle would be sufficient, maybe 600 million over several years.
 
The US space program continuing to receive north of 4.5% of the Federal budget would almost certainly see a major (>20 person) outpost in LEO by the end of the 80s, a moon base (perhaps small, only 3-6 people to start) growing out of ALES and LESA, a fully reusable Space Shuttle from the beginning with no manned spaceflight "gap" as Apollo flies until Shuttle enters service, and a Mars landing in the 80s.

Larger infrastructure projects like launch loops or such could become feasible to investigate in practice thanks to the required throughput to space, though space elevators and such remain impossible from a materials perspective.

I have to say, though, that it'd be a pretty serious waste of funds. That'd be a continuing budget for NASA and spaceflight greater than the interstate highway program. One of those benefits almost every American directly, the other only does so indirectly and to a much lower extent. Such a proposition is one of the times you'd find me in the awkward position of agreeing with William Proxmire: cut the budget.
 
The US space program continuing to receive north of 4.5% of the Federal budget would almost certainly see a major (>20 person) outpost in LEO by the end of the 80s, a moon base (perhaps small, only 3-6 people to start) growing out of ALES and LESA, a fully reusable Space Shuttle from the beginning with no manned spaceflight "gap" as Apollo flies until Shuttle enters service, and a Mars landing in the 80s.

Larger infrastructure projects like launch loops or such could become feasible to investigate in practice thanks to the required throughput to space, though space elevators and such remain impossible from a materials perspective.

I have to say, though, that it'd be a pretty serious waste of funds. That'd be a continuing budget for NASA and spaceflight greater than the interstate highway program. One of those benefits almost every American directly, the other only does so indirectly and to a much lower extent. Such a proposition is one of the times you'd find me in the awkward position of agreeing with William Proxmire: cut the budget.

Counterpoint: it would be cool as hell.
 
That kind of funding on a sustained basis, for no objective purpose?

Tax payers would revolt.

'Beat the Russkies to the Moon', that was something people could get behind. Glory. Prestige. But even there, the funding started coming down after the initial peak.

So, really, this belongs in ASB.
 
That kind of funding on a sustained basis, for no objective purpose?

Tax payers would revolt.

'Beat the Russkies to the Moon', that was something people could get behind. Glory. Prestige. But even there, the funding started coming down after the initial peak.

So, really, this belongs in ASB.

Implausible is not the same as ASB.
 
I too don't think this is ASB but- you do have
to find a way to get the American public in-
terested in NASA again & that won't be easy!
(IOTL they cared in the 50's & early 60's
only because it looked like the Russians would beat us to the moon- once that faded
away Americans couldn't have cared less. It
reminds me of a joke by a science fiction
writer whose name escapes me. The best
way to unify the human race is fake an
alien attack)
 
Top