Is NASA still the best use of US tax dollars?
Filed under: Budgets, Saving Money, Tax
Despite cost overruns totaling nearly $1.1 billion in nine of its flagship projects, NASA will see its 2010 fiscal year budget increase to $18.7 billion. Combined with the $1 billion NASA got from the new stimulus package, that's $2.4 billion more than the space agency received in 2008. But there are raised eyebrows among congressional auditors who have called for a "more disciplined approach" to projects. The projects currently funded include:- $5.78 billion for space shuttle and International Space Station projects, equivalent to London's original estimated cost of hosting the 2012 Olympic Games
- $577 million for heliophysics, the study of the sun and its effect on the solar system, equaling the amount of Missouri transportation projects to be funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
- $447 million for aeronautics research, matching the deficit currently facing Texas' unemployment compensation fund
- $173 million for entrepreneurs to develop commercial transport capabilities to the International Space Station, equaling the USDA's total estimated cost of providing food,shelter and other necessities to 847 middle-income U.S. children for 18 years
Here's a breakdown of the $1.1 billion in cost overruns plaguing NASA's key projects, and what that money could procure elsewhere:
- Mars Science Laboratory: Costs have risen $657.4 million since October 2007. That's equivalent to the gross domestic product of Grenada, according to the 2008 CIA World Factbook.
- NPOESS Preparatory Project: Since October 2006, the price tag for NASA's satellite to study atmospheric and sea temperatures has ballooned $121.8 million, or the amount New York Gov. David Paterson proposed to save in a December budget plan by deferring five days pay until state workers end their employment or the state's dismal financial situation allows repayment.
- Kepler: NASA's spacecraft designed to discover Earth-like planets, launched last month from Cape Canaveral after a nine-month delay and a $97 million increase in costs, or the amount Oregon lawmakers hope to save in the state's budget by asking unionized state workers to agree to 24 unpaid furlough days in 2009-11.
- Glory: Costs for the agency's $347 million global warming satellite have increased since October 2007 by $81.8 million, or the amount of cuts facing Florida's nursing homes amid the state's $6.1 billion shortfall.
- Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope: Launched in June 2008, costs for NASA's $774.5 million telescope to analyze gamma rays from a low Earth orbit has risen $51.2 million, or Virginia's portion of the latest round of stimulus funds to improve its public housing.
- Orbiting Carbon Observatory: In February, NASA's $278 million satellite to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide crashed into the Indian Ocean after failing to reach orbit. Cost overruns for the project had reached $37.9 million, or the amount of federal funding recently announced to make Delaware homes and businesses more energy efficient.
- Solar Dynamics Observatory: The $817 million satellite to study the sun has been delayed 17 months to January 2010 as costs have risen some $31.5 million since October 2006, or roughly the amount Iowa spent on its food-stamps program in February.
- Aquarius: The launch of NASA's $253 million satellite that will analyze Earth's water cycle has been delayed to May 2010, and costs have increased some $11.7 million, roughly equal to the amount of federal stimulus funding recently awarded to the Veteran Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System for emergency power distribution upgrades and a new plumbing system.
- Dawn: Launched in September 2007, this $465 million asteroid probe is expected to visit asteroids Vesta and Ceres during its 3-billion mile trip to better understand the formation of the solar system. Costs have increased $4.6 million since October 2006, roughly equal to the deficit facing the city of Bloomington, Ind.
Historically, the space program has been a matter of national pride. Fueled by a passion for exploration and curiosity about the universe, billions of dollars have been spent to be the first on the moon and other shuttle missions. Since the 1950's, when Russia launched the Sputnik, there has been a competitiveness with other countries to explore space.
While occasionally I hear how the space program is assisting all of us with 'scientific discoveries,' I really don't know what benefit NASA has for most Americans. We have been so busy driving around on the moon, we haven't questioned why we needed to do so in the first place. Is there a long term goal or outcome we are looking for with all this money?
Barbara Bartlein is the People Pro. For her FREE e-mail newsletter, please visit: The People Pro.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
11-30-2009 @ 9:35PM
Joseph said...
Maybe, but it's always good to slim up the budget.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 7:05AM
Jason said...
No one has "been busy driving around on the Moon" since the Apollo program...I guess the author should have done a little more homework on NASA and less on the budgetary problems of the states. This article compares the budgets of a Federal organization to the budgetary problems of state organizations. Apples and oranges? NASA is the most efficient Federal organization when it comes to dishing out dollars to private business and citizens(as employees). That is really all the congressional money folks care about...getting the Federal tax dollars into the hands of the private sector as efficiently as possible.
Reply
12-02-2009 @ 2:47AM
Abe Bernstein said...
NASA is anything but efficient. Astronauts having affairs and screwing each other provides entertainment value, not science.
To point out how inefficient and ignorant NASA is, consider the Shuttle. It was supposed to be cheaper! Instead it cost so much more and was so unsafe that finally we are back to the disposable rockets. And to go where? The moon? Again?
And going back to the moon to make sure the rocks are still there is pathetic. Again, it has entertainment value, which is why NASA is going after it, instead of renewable energy or pollution control. Those are too challenging and little on 'show-and-tell'.
And finally, most of the actual work of NASA is done by contractors, like Boeing or USA (a company, not the country). The bureaucrats at NASA just skim off some money for no real value. Engineering and research is needed, -the issue is if a corrupt old huge agency like NASA, which has no clear mission, is the best to get that money.
How corrupt? NASA has its own Inspector General, to investigate corruption, and it turned out that this Inspector General was so busy covering up for his brothers that he himself is under investigation by congress. Yup, corrupt to the bone.
So, we need this criticism and evaluation of NASA, which will hopefully help weed out the filth and create some real science and innovation for a change.
12-01-2009 @ 7:16AM
John said...
When Obama was running for President, his stand on NASA and the space program I believe was to stop the spending and put that money into something else, like healthcare or unemployment. A week after he was elected he met up with some top NASA officials, and immediately changed his stance on the NASA spending and projects.
I am not sure why, but recently there has been alot of activity with NASA and other Space Station country partners. I remember back in the '90s there was barely any flights, maybe once a year, now there is one or two every couple of months. I was told that they want to make use of the aging space shuttles before they retire them or is that just the excuse?
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 7:42AM
Mark said...
Its easy to dismiss the importance of something you dont understand, like the author does. When President Obama took the time to learn exactly what NASA does, and the value of its work he altered his opinion. Its called education.
12-02-2009 @ 1:56AM
Mike said...
There were 64 flights by the space shuttle fleet between January 9, 1990 and December 19, 1999 - an average of 6.4 per year for the decade.
Since the July 26, 2005 return to flight after the loss of Columbia, there have been 16 flights - an average of 3.2 per year for the second half of this decade.
There were five flights in 2009. All of these flights were planned well prior to 2008. The largest number of flights in a year was nine in 1985.
There are five flights scheduled for 2010, after which the fleet will be retired (mandatory 2010 retirement by the 2004 White House "Vision for Space Exploration" policy). All of these flights are required to complete construction and stowage of supplies for the ISS.
Other than ongoing Russian Progress resupply freighters (resupplying various space stations on a fairly regular basis since 1978), ISS partners (ESA and JSA) are just beginning to send resupply missions, although none of these vehicles are capable of delivering large replacement parts. Hence, the "rush" of shuttle flights.
12-01-2009 @ 7:41AM
Mark said...
I have no doubt that the money NASA receives could be used more cost effectively, something you could say about EVERY aspect of the federal budget. And I find your comparisons to everyday needs unfair. How about pointing out how much the 1 trillion we dumped in Iraq would help cure cancer, and end hunger?
We can argue over how much to spend, but spending to do research is how we advance as a civilization. We do need to have a clearer vision of what we should be doing at NASA, no argument there but considering how we are extracting ALL the natural resources here on earth, we had better find more somewhere.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 7:45AM
Ron said...
NASA is the best use of US tax dollars by far. Of course, they could try harder to keep the cost overruns under control, but we get more bang for the buck with NASA than any other government agency.
Technological spin offs from NASA have lead to multi-billion dollar industries such as those that made the computer you are using right now. Cutting the NASA budget would be short sighted.
Which do you think is a better use of our money, less than $20 billion a year for NASA or around $100 billion a year for our wars?
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 7:50AM
Sonny Clark said...
Our government has no shame. We're borrowing $$Billions each and every day just to fund two senseless wars and fund the government. Where is this money coming from? Tax revenue is way down, and there's no signs that our economy will improve anytime soon. The entire Washington Brotherhood should be put in prison for life without parole.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 7:52AM
Kevin said...
NASA performs basic scientific research and long-term engineering projects. These are the very things that corporations can rarely afford as they are focused on quarterly profits. Frankly, NASA is where the government should be spending money as it compliments, rather than competes with, private industry.
FYI, nobody at NASA ever expected the cameras designed for the Hubble Space Telescope to be used as the core of the fastest DNA sequencer built to date.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:00AM
Zorakgt said...
Please re-write this article about the bank bailouts, the war on drugs, social programs, or the war on terror. It's nice and fun to throw out how many millions of dollars are spent on projects, but you forget our government spends trillions of dollars every year. NASA is .6% of the federal budget. Penny-wise and pound foolish. This article is much better: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:20AM
frank said...
If we had spent the Saturn Budget on a smaller reusable vehicle like the Shuttle we would be a generation ahead of ourselves instead if having several hundred booster monuments sitting in
City, State and Federal Parks.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:18AM
Jim said...
We look at NASA and see space shuttles, NASA looks at Earth and sees down chimneys and could probably hear conversations from measuring the smoke. One meeting with Obama and they convinced him to completely change his stance.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:53AM
Dan said...
"NASA looks at Earth and sees down chimneys and could probably hear conversations from measuring the smoke."
I think you're referring to the CIA and other covert intelligence gathering agencies (Homeland Security?), who's budget, BTW, is MUCH higher than NASA's. Take a look at this chart to put the NASA budget in perspective and get an idea where we should really start cutting spending. http://www.federalbudget.com/
12-01-2009 @ 5:05PM
dave said...
Really? You're worried about less than .5% of the federal budget being spent on something like, oh I don't know, science and engineering? Something that this country is sorely lacking these days. You ask this at a time when taxpayers completely wasted 1 Trillion dollars on banks who continue to screw them over?
This is by far, the dumbest, most unfair, and just downright ignorant thing I have ever read.
You should be ashamed. I am ashamed for you. Your the reason this country is in such a mess. People like you, who have no curiosity, and no relevant education continue to destroy this country. Can anyone out there have their eye more OFF the ball? The citizenry of this country continues to hit new lows...
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:46AM
Dan said...
Obviously this author has something against NASA. Perhaps she should spend a little more time looking at everything NASA actually does and how many businesses have been created from spun-off technologies. Can the same be said for the $1 Trillion spent in Afghanistan so far? Considering what a small percentage of the federal budget NASA gets and what a huge contribution they've made to our daily lives, I think this article is totally off base.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 1:14PM
ivan said...
The author should attempt to do a little homework before writing a piece that attempts to justify "any" federal expenditure much less NASA. No other agency in federal goverment delivers more spinoff ideas and innovations than NASA and their collegiate partners. These in turn eventually work their way to the "free market and industry and then to us as employees and consumers. The shrinking of electronics into incredibly smart machines with applications to cell phones, satellite TV,, medical procedures the internet, smart cars, better batteries I can go on and on about the positives from NASA. Name one positive "miss author" on the 750 billion dollar TARP bailout? What return will u or I get for our investment?
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:53AM
jaybandit said...
Perhaps this author should actually do some research before shooting her mouth off on things she is clearly ignorant on. A simple search of "benefits of NASA" sent me to the following site full of great scientific advances that help all of humanity:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
Solar Energy
Fire Resistant Materials
Breast Cancer Detection
Firemen Air Tanks
Better Car Brakes
Better School Bus Design
These are just a few I found in 3 minutes of cursory research. NASA is probably the best government program because it recognized early on that private business is more efficient than the bureaucracy of the government. Let's cut back our spending on freebies for those not paying taxes before we take away scientific advances for society.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:55AM
Brian said...
The author of this article really needs to think things through a little better. She has obviously decided that the world would be a better place if we just forget about education and put our heads in the sand.
NASA is one of the most beat up organizations; however they are responsible for a large number of American jobs. They are also the source of most of our modern conveniences. Due to the amount of money that NASA receives, the head gurus agonize over which projects to fund. Look at the list the author throws out without thinking: global warming; water supply; the study of the sun (the changes in the sun effect our communications and our health). If anything, this organization is underfunded.
The real story with the over runs is the contractors. Anytime a company does work for the government, they jack the price up 3 or more times over the going rate. Then they ask for more money when they don't deliver. That is the real crime! As NASA is restricted to who they can use, there is very little opportunity to get a competitive price.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 9:06AM
Irv Bruckstein said...
The author exudes a complete lack of understanding of the past benefits and the future promise our investment in NASA has and will provide. The budgetary comparisons of NASA projects to social services budgetary needs is misplaced and misleading.
Long term, it is a mathematical certainty that our survival as a species can only be achieved by our mastering the cosmos so that we can survive and thrive in space long after our planet is no longer habitable.
Short term, in the here and now, the problem is not our funding of NASA, rather our lack of integrating these endeavors to further our national interests as best as they can be. We have things like modern computers, viable fuel cell technologies, and a laundry list of other accomplishments which were a direct result of NASAs efforts during their heyday of Mercury and Apollo. For example, instead of outsourcing our innovation and manufacturing and importing our energy, I submit a strategy to align NASA's endeavors to our national needs is a win-win recipe. Let's invent the next generation of energy sourcing and export that around the world, made in the USA. Let's invent new technologies to allow us to utilize the vast resources of our solar system for the benefit of mankind of which the Earth comprises less than 1% of.
Give NASA more money I say, but couple it with proper focus and strong accountability. Properly managed and properly focused, there is nothing we as a nation can not accomplish. Somehow we have lost our way, NASAs efforts can be a great asset for us to re-energize our leadership in many aspects...we just need to do it right.
....Former Chief Technology Officer, Ivy League
Reply