5 replies to this topic

[MangeMan]

And the first Swede in space is already hero of the year back home, thank you Christer and thank you NASA

[selecto]

I think the "space program" has a very substantial boondoggle component. Good for the economy, I guess, if you are in the right places with the right stuff.

[arbman]

I think the "space program" has a very substantial boondoggle component. Good for the economy, I guess, if you are in the right places with the right stuff.

... since you asked;



The FY06 says about ~$17B total spending was done this year. The preliminary NASA budget is actually reduced now by 200M for 2007.

For comparison, the cost of the Iraq war is about $350B so far since Mar 2003 or $90B/year. I believe the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) in US is around $8B and personal income is around $11B for 2006...

- kisa

[arbman]

Gross mistake there; the PCE and PI are in billions, so the numbers are actually in trillions. GDP was $12.5T in 2005, estimated to be $13.5T in 2006 --these are not real figures...

Edited by kisacik, 22 December 2006 - 07:48 PM.

[MangeMan]

Personal savings was -95billion in november so I sure hope personal income is more than $11B for 2006

[greenie]

I think the "space program" has a very substantial boondoggle component. Good for the economy, I guess, if you are in the right places with the right stuff.

I worked at NASA for last 5 years. The organization is total waste of our money - it has no sense of direction, too much politics, too much waste at each level. With every change of government, it goes through changes in several levels of management and direction. So, today they may be supporting moon to Mars human mission. Two years later, with a new prez, they may be supporting satellites for weather monitoring. All those money spent for moon/mars mission will be wasted. Internally bunch of managers fight for their share of pie, and promote projects of their own expertise irrespective of any real value.

Only people making good money out of it are the contractor companies - Lockheed, CSC, Raytheon and a whole bunch of small ones.

The organization is very good at releasing news for PR - that and a world full of juveniles, who fall for those carefully crafted news releases, keeps it alive.

17 billion for kid's entertainment? Maybe it is worth it

If I want to put my PhD and reputation behind some worthwhile project, closure of NASA will be the one.


P.S. Do not fall for those captions saying 'science budget of NASA goes up' - a significant portion of that science money goes into management, contract companies and other wasteful affairs.

Edited by greenie, 23 December 2006 - 11:32 AM.