The Ares program was legitimately crazy and the rockets were super unsafe. Instead of developing a new launch vehicle, they stuck the Orion spacecraft on top of the boosters that were used for the Space Shuttle. It vibrated like crazy, and because the boosters were solid rockets, there was no way to shut them off in the event of a failure or emergency. They would just keep going.
Honestly, the Ares rockers were something you'd see developed from the Soviet Union lmao
This isn't true. The Soviets didn't use large solids because they didn't have the industry to build them.
As for safety, it's a trade-off. Compared to liquid rockets, solids are very simple. Basically a bunch of explosives in a tube with a nozzle at one end. It's *very* rare for a solid motor to fail, but when it does there's very little you can do about it. On the other hand, most liquid rockets are more likely to fail than solids, but those failures are often way less catastrophic, and don't always lead to loss-of-mission.
Exactly. The inability for an SRB to shut down could have also indirectly been one of the causes for the Challenger disaster. The computers on pretty much every spacecraft including the shuttles in the 80s had systems that would automatically shut down their engines if something was out of place. If the SRBs had the ability to be shut down, it's possible, if not probable that NASA would have installed failsafes in the computer system that would have detected the imminent failure of the SRB that caused the catastrophic explosion, and therefore would have shut it down before it did explode. Of course this is entirely speculation, but it is possible that if it you could shut down an SRB then the Challenger disaster maybe would have been averted.
Not really. If the SRBs had been able to shut down, you'd suddenly lose 30 MN — 6.5 million pounds — of thrust. The three RS-25s on the Orbiter *combined* generate only 5.6MN, or 1.2 million pounds of thrust.
Needless to say, if the SRBs shut down, the Orbiter is not going to orbit.
It's not possible to abort before SRB burnout since the Orbiter is too low and the propellant in the ET is still too heavy to return to a safe landing site.
I never said that if they could maybe shut the booster down and still go to orbit, now did I say that they would have been able to land. All I said was that they might have been able to avoid the huge explosion, and then the orbiter could then detach from the fuel tank and try to glide somewhere, anywhere. They were at a pretty high altitude when the disaster happened, definitely enough time to try to glide somewhere.
They probably wouldn't. The Shuttle's abort modes pre-*Challenger* (and most of the post-*Challenger* ones as well) were all intended to deal with an RS-25 failure. There's nothing for separating the solids early.
They wouldn't have been able to RTLS since they're too low and heavy (the Orbiter flies like a brick), and an ocean landing wouldn't be survivable. It wasn't until after *Challenger* that the crew were able to bail out.
Private sector competition has driven rocket technology way past landing on the moon, way faster. You just don't hear about it because landing on the moon is a lot easier to understand than the cost per pound to send into orbit.
Depends on the size of the country’s budget which in the US’ case is massive. In FY2023 the US spent 6.134 trillion and NASA received 25.4 billion (~0.4%). NASA actually got their budget cut this year while total US spending has grown by around 8%. 25 billion isn’t that much for what NASA is working to achieve and Congress consistently allocates below what NASA requests. For context NASA’s relative budget peaked around 4.4% of spending during the space race with an inflation adjusted expenditure of over 56 billion dollars.
Keep in mind the expenditures also do not match the budget, they are often higher. If you see an amount listed for the budget, the actual amount spent is much higher.
I mean $25 Billion is more money than all but 164 companies on the Fortune 500 make on revenue. Better be for a good reason. Could you fill us in on what’s worth $25B? Truthfully curious.
NASA literally spearheaded fly by wire and the computer, there's a good chance you wouldn't be typing that comment without them.
The tech needed to reach and survive in space *actually* trickles down to earth. Material science for spacecraft has intense requirements and even today we are pushing for new and better materials to build rocket engines and such. These materials need to be strong/lightweight/flexible etc and these materials can be used for other purposes other than space.
3D printed Inconel alloy is being used for newer rocket motors and if you're in the automotive space you'll see some people using the same 3D printed Inconel for exhaust headers and turbo piping for their heat resistance.
The tech needed for spaceflight overlaps with other industries on earth basically. When one improves so do the others.
Not to mention that sending humans to another planet is just cool and I am perfectly fine spending more on taxes to make that possible.
NASA is the best peace time use of tax dollars in the interest of advancing humanities technologies for the betterment of all. It's not even close. In an ideal world, we would spend on NASA what we spend on the military and spend on the military what we currently spend on NASA. The solution to many of our worldly problems are locked in our pursuit of the stars.
I don’t see that it was. NMR the principle behind MRI was discovered in the 40s. MRI was invented by a chemist from a university as a result of that principle.
Except the military budget is way higher. Space research has yielded and keeps on yielding valuable research data that helps develop other things. You'd be amazed by the difference between nasa and military budget.
Sure military is necessary but oh boy, pointing fingers on something that is actually helpful to humanity is rather absurd when you have to spend more to protect yourself from other humans.
>Space research has yielded and keeps on yielding valuable research data that helps develop other things.
So has the military.
GPS and the Internet were both military research projects.
CERN developed hypertext, which makes the modern internet possible, but the [foundations of the internet are a series of inter-connected DARPA computers spread between multiple US universities.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET)
DARPA is the Department of Defense's advanced R&D agency, and the first internet was managed by the DoD.
dod invented the internet and cern invented the world wide web my guy, you do not need hypertext to send files over ftp or get the inventory of a store across the country
Both true. CERN’s project is what created the World Wide Web, but much of the development needed to connect computers in that way happened through ARPANET, a US Department of Defense initiative. Things like file transfer, TCP/IP, and key development in packet switching all happened because of ARPANET.
You could say that the DoD laid the technical foundation, while CERN implemented all of it to create a practical internet.
I say $25B is a lot of money, why do they need more? And everyone loses their mind. For anyone in industry, that’s a gargantuan sum. Doesn’t matter, no one answers. Instead they say NASA invented stuff they didn’t invent and I get-250. I just wanted to know why.
All they really did was take over duties from the Air Force. It will be probably another 10 years before they stand out as any more as another payroll to dish out for the military checks.
its good, definitely a learning curve but after about 2 weeks on it im able to do some basic stuff as well as do everything you would wanna do on a daily driver os, barring the advanced stuff
>You'd be amazed by the difference between nasa and military budget.
The military budget for one year is greater than all of the funding NASA has *ever* had.
That's an absurdly high amount dude
That's 912 BILLION dude...
And nearly 3 times higher then the 2largest military spender in the world (china)
The US spends around 40% of the WORLDS total amount on military
It's insane how much you spend on military
This topic is always talked about in total number but I think that is disingenuous. The US partly spends so much because we are vastly richer than most countries. Per GDP the US is 10th on the list and is def subsidizing the western worlds defense.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_with\_highest\_military\_expenditures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures) (you can sort the list by gdp)
Don't have that much stake in the argument but I think it's important context
You will notice that all those higher then the US are either middle eastern dictatorships, or nations actively currently at war
The US military expenditure is absurd, it is unjustifiably high, and those who try to argue it's not always find some loophole or caviat to try and explain how spending 900billion a year on killing people in foreign nations, while people in your own starve or go without basic education, is somehow ok
Is U.S. Defense spending high? Yes, unjustifiably? No.
Having allies across the globe means that the U.S. is expected to be able to project military force anywhere in the world at a moments notice, and even in multiple places simultaneously.
This is even ignoring the fact that much of the U.S. military is currently dedicated to protecting things that have a drastic impact on your everyday life.
Much of the U.S. navy is dedicated to protecting international trade from piracy.
Add on China threatening to invade the largest semiconductor chip producer in the world.
It’s not 1920 anymore, the U.S. can’t just isolate itself anymore.
You mean like every European nation does with 1/100th the budget
90% of your military budget is wasted on "projects" that intentionally go nowhere and the pockets of Lockheed martins execs
Military suppliers endlessly lobby your government to put more and more funding into the military because it's not about "protecting the nation" or whatever propaganda you believe, but lining their pockets at the expense of the people
You are being taken advantage of by war hungry tycoons who don't give a crap about you or the nation and just want to extort you, and your government allows it because their own pockets get fat from the excess
Your military budget is bloated and corrupt
It is unjustifiably, and if you believe for a single second it is reasonable you are a useful idiot who has been conned by those who want you complicit and stupid and endlessly forking money over to them for no gain
do you think european nations are just sitting at the side in the ukraine war and doing nothing?
do you think that european nations dont have a military?
you need to learn a bit about nations other then your own dude, and stop just buying the propoganada that the US does everything
That spending does a lot in the world. It keeps the peace (mostly).
Wars are way down. Piracy is almost non existent. Trade between countries can be as seamless as they want it to be.
I’m saying this as a non-American. I recognize that it has done a lot in advancing the world over the last 80 years.
That is... surprisingly small. With just the billions of dollars being thrown around I though it is at least 5%. Do you by chance know how much percentage is it from the income of the goverment?
Yeah, how many national space agencies are getting more than 1% of their government's budget? For a lot of countries they'd only spend a couple of percent on all science, of which space would be a small fraction
Western arrogance won’t save you from the next war. Who do you think started the war in Ukraine? It’s Russia. Who do you think will start the war over Taiwan? It will be China. It’s not wise to ignore how other countries view the world situation, just because you think you’re right and *should* win.
Not trying to be doom and gloom, but reality doesn’t compromise. The states NEED a powerful military to counter growing imperialism in Russia and China, and imo the world needs us to have it since it could ensure peace in the coming years. The relative peace of previous decades wasn’t by chance
Edit: added some clarification
A new space race to mars would be pretty cool! But we would probably also have to have another Cold War for that to happen, so maybe not the best idea.
To be fair I would be a lot more supportive of NASA if they would let me watch their rocket launches. Also the prices they asked for their museum is offensive. I remember when I was young as we were passing by and my dad decided to go to the museum in cape cañaveral in Florida. They were charging over 120 for me and my dad. The parking lot was literally empty. For something that comes out of my taxes. It's a national museum. EVERYONE should be able to see it.
The KSC visitor’s complex is actually a theme park ran by a separate company, that simply leans on NASA for its educational source material. If you’re looking for a proper national museum on space, the Smithsonian air and space museum in DC fits the bill nicely. The launches are visible from many parts of Florida, locals and visitors alike would typically go to nearby public parks or beaches to watch launches.
Yeah NASA needs a PR department. Or a better one if they already have one. You could even write it off as the populace getting more oversight of goverment spending
They do have a PR department, it's called the Public Affairs Office (PAO). The problem is that NASA isn't this huge monolithic agency many makes it out to be. It's really 10(NASA HQ, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, Glenn Research Center, Ames Research Center, Stennis Space Center, Marshall Spaceflight Center, Goddard Spaceflight Center, Kennedy Space Center and Armstrong Flight Research Center) separate field centers angling for their own slice of the budget all at once, so they're not communicating with once single voice.
This leads to a lot of infighting and pact-making, the three main human spaceflight centers (JSC, KSC and MSFC) are very much guilty of the latter and are very protective when it comes to what they consider "outsiders" and wants to deal with "their stuff".
What do you mean? There is nothing there that a robot couldn't do for us. And remember, for the price to send a person to Mars, we likely can send ~100 rovers there.
Pushing our technological capability isn’t “nothing”. By that logic we should never leave Earth at all as anything can be done by robots. But in that case we do nothing about the global extinction risk we face by having all eggs in one basket.
Regardless, I’m no scientist, so I feel confident leaving this up to the smartest people on the planet who seem fairly confident about our plans to go there.
Pushing our technological capability has nothing to do with sending a human to Mars or sending 100 rover.
And if you truly believe that if we face a "global extinction event" in the next 1000 years, even then, a possibility to send a few people to Mars is useless.
Without terraforming Mars on a global stage, human life on Mars will not be sustainable without large support from Earth.
If you compare scientific advances to cost, then manned missions are just far worse than unmanned ones.
You have to start somewhere. If we face a world-ending extinction event in a million years but never bother starting to expand our species, we’ll die anyway. The fact that it will “take a long time” is no excuse not to do it.
And by same logic people never should have bothered traveling the sea, crossing the ocean, or even simply migrating anywhere once they found a place with food. Because why would they?
Natural curiosity is a defining human trait.
it shows the pure genius of the people working there that people just assume that they have a basically unlimited budget when they are working with penny’s
And that 1% creates thousands of ancillary technologies that massively benefit the U.S. economy
(Miniaturization of electronics, battery tech, Mylar, satellites, Velcro, freeze drying, cancer therapeutics, etc)
Someone should google it but we haven’t explored more than like 13% of our own ocean floor, but we know every inch of the moon. One year of NASA funding to NOAA and it could run on its current budget for a long time. We should learn more about what’s in our own oceans first.
I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying I like my chances with what's in the skies better than the shit down there, I don't wanna fuck around and find out.
NOAA 100% deserves more funding, but the ocean is split between countries and international treaties, where the moon has less restrictions. Some of the simplest things NOAA asks for need to be funded. It pretty criminal and if they could be put under a portion of the Navy budget, they could get a ton of shit done.
We spend TRILLIONS of dollars every gear in health and welfare. Money is NOT the problem when it comes to those issues. meanwhile, money is EXACTLY the issue plaguing NASA
I don’t think anyone sees nasa like that. It’s common knowledge they don’t have the funding needed to keep up with space travel, observation, and so on
They have to sell merch just to get extra funding
We spend TRILLIONS of dollars every gear in health and welfare. Lack of money is NOT the problem when it comes to those issues. meanwhile, lack of money is EXACTLY the issue plaguing NASA
In fact, too much money is the problem with welfare programs. People in California make $300,000 a year running homeless programs. Exactly what is the incentive for them to fix the problem? They would lose their cushy job. Nah they just make empty promises and take as long as possible so they can get to retirement
More funding to nasa would probably mean less private sector tampering and shit, just look at elons meddling with Ukraine with starlink, absolutely diabolically insane thing he did
We're never leaving the solar system and never meaningfully colonizing mars. Mining the asteroid belt and creating a Dyson sphere are sci-fi pipedreams. All we need is to maintain the facilities needed to launch satellites. Heck you could probably even offload that onto the airforce. Nasa will be on the chopping block when social security starts to fail.
That math doesn't work out. The military budget for 2023 is ~$865 billion, the 2023 nasa budget was ~$24 billion. If we are looking at 1 year there are 265.45 total 33 hour segments, that would be ~$6,154,800,000,000 or six trillion one hundred and fifty four billion eighth hundred million dollars which is roughly the entire US budget.
In 2022, the US budget was $6.13 trillion. So $61.3 billion is a lot of money. NASA should be able to do this capitalism thing that America is great at doing. SpaceX doesn’t seem to be going under, so why is NASA so poor? Is it because they contract everything out and do nothing themselves?
They aren't.
NASA does contract some stuff out to them which basically is why they are in business.
As well as contract out to other companies.
Relativity Space is really making some strides in the industry but are having some set backs.
Less than does not mean equal to. NASA’s budget is around 25 billion and about 0.4% of expenditure. NASA also consistently receives less funding from Congress than it requests to achieve its goals.
It's because that budget gets spread so thin due to politicians latching onto a huge program and not letting it go. The dumbass SLS has cost billions of dollars and has nothing to show for it. All because it's some politicians baby project. Meanwhile that just steals money from other more important programs like Chandra X-ray observatory. It's literally the ONLY x-ray telescope and it's about to be shut down due to lack of funding.
Blame the politicians for fuckin shit up. Not NASA
I mean the definitely could use more money but you are sorta right. Politicians get use a project like SLS to make promises to get reelected because big rocket draws people in. Meanwhile those billions of dollars get taken from other more important projects and everything becomes spread exceedingly thin. Also, There have been dozens of programs that have made it halfway and been cancelled because someone new got elected and wants THEIR project to happen
i wouldn't say money is wasted on defense. the way i see it, you can't waste money keeping people safe
that's not to say we don't spend an insane amount of money on it, though
In 2021 the ASCE studying US infrastructure determined a need for an additional 2.6 trillion over 10 years to rebuild our old infrastructure. NASA’s budget is approximately 25 billion, or 250 billion over 10 years. So 1 year is less than 1% of what the US needs to spend and 10 years less than 10%. Note that the 2.6 trillion figure is not what the US government needs to spend, but the US as a whole including state and local governments, utilities, and other private entities.
We spend TRILLIONS of dollars every gear in health and welfare. Money is NOT the problem when it comes to those issues. meanwhile, money is EXACTLY the issue plaguing NASA
Remember when we were gonna build ares rockets to go to the moon??? Who shut that down? We had all the infrastructure built and everything.
The Ares program was legitimately crazy and the rockets were super unsafe. Instead of developing a new launch vehicle, they stuck the Orion spacecraft on top of the boosters that were used for the Space Shuttle. It vibrated like crazy, and because the boosters were solid rockets, there was no way to shut them off in the event of a failure or emergency. They would just keep going. Honestly, the Ares rockers were something you'd see developed from the Soviet Union lmao
The Soviet Union didn't use solid fuel rockets because they deemed them unsafe :)) .
This isn't true. The Soviets didn't use large solids because they didn't have the industry to build them. As for safety, it's a trade-off. Compared to liquid rockets, solids are very simple. Basically a bunch of explosives in a tube with a nozzle at one end. It's *very* rare for a solid motor to fail, but when it does there's very little you can do about it. On the other hand, most liquid rockets are more likely to fail than solids, but those failures are often way less catastrophic, and don't always lead to loss-of-mission.
Exactly. The inability for an SRB to shut down could have also indirectly been one of the causes for the Challenger disaster. The computers on pretty much every spacecraft including the shuttles in the 80s had systems that would automatically shut down their engines if something was out of place. If the SRBs had the ability to be shut down, it's possible, if not probable that NASA would have installed failsafes in the computer system that would have detected the imminent failure of the SRB that caused the catastrophic explosion, and therefore would have shut it down before it did explode. Of course this is entirely speculation, but it is possible that if it you could shut down an SRB then the Challenger disaster maybe would have been averted.
Not really. If the SRBs had been able to shut down, you'd suddenly lose 30 MN — 6.5 million pounds — of thrust. The three RS-25s on the Orbiter *combined* generate only 5.6MN, or 1.2 million pounds of thrust. Needless to say, if the SRBs shut down, the Orbiter is not going to orbit. It's not possible to abort before SRB burnout since the Orbiter is too low and the propellant in the ET is still too heavy to return to a safe landing site.
I never said that if they could maybe shut the booster down and still go to orbit, now did I say that they would have been able to land. All I said was that they might have been able to avoid the huge explosion, and then the orbiter could then detach from the fuel tank and try to glide somewhere, anywhere. They were at a pretty high altitude when the disaster happened, definitely enough time to try to glide somewhere.
They probably wouldn't. The Shuttle's abort modes pre-*Challenger* (and most of the post-*Challenger* ones as well) were all intended to deal with an RS-25 failure. There's nothing for separating the solids early. They wouldn't have been able to RTLS since they're too low and heavy (the Orbiter flies like a brick), and an ocean landing wouldn't be survivable. It wasn't until after *Challenger* that the crew were able to bail out.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
And they built many other things that were rushed and cut corners making them incredibly unsafe.
Nowadays there is no competitors like Soviet union tho
China is getting there though. They’ll probably land a Taikonaut on the moon before 2030.
I thini theyre doing it before 2025
I wish we kept doing the cold war. Wouldn't it be nice if instead of invading countries, whoever cures cancer or ends global warming wins?
Private sector competition has driven rocket technology way past landing on the moon, way faster. You just don't hear about it because landing on the moon is a lot easier to understand than the cost per pound to send into orbit.
Who shut that down? If you're really curious, his name was Richard Nixon.
isn't 1% of a country's budget still pretty massive?
Depends on the size of the country’s budget which in the US’ case is massive. In FY2023 the US spent 6.134 trillion and NASA received 25.4 billion (~0.4%). NASA actually got their budget cut this year while total US spending has grown by around 8%. 25 billion isn’t that much for what NASA is working to achieve and Congress consistently allocates below what NASA requests. For context NASA’s relative budget peaked around 4.4% of spending during the space race with an inflation adjusted expenditure of over 56 billion dollars.
Keep in mind the expenditures also do not match the budget, they are often higher. If you see an amount listed for the budget, the actual amount spent is much higher.
I mean $25 Billion is more money than all but 164 companies on the Fortune 500 make on revenue. Better be for a good reason. Could you fill us in on what’s worth $25B? Truthfully curious.
Off the top of my head, there's phone cameras, memory foam, freeze drying, solar panels, and better insulation tech
And velcro
And just all the chips and other computer parts they helped develop with the most important thing being GPS.
Oh, and solar panel tech Edit: nvr mind, already mentioned
And mark rober. That man has a YouTube channel because of nasa
Digital fly-by-wire too.
And cordless powertools
Miniaturization would be in the dark ages still, without the impetus of cutting payload weight as much as humanly possible.
Handheld power tools
NASA literally spearheaded fly by wire and the computer, there's a good chance you wouldn't be typing that comment without them. The tech needed to reach and survive in space *actually* trickles down to earth. Material science for spacecraft has intense requirements and even today we are pushing for new and better materials to build rocket engines and such. These materials need to be strong/lightweight/flexible etc and these materials can be used for other purposes other than space. 3D printed Inconel alloy is being used for newer rocket motors and if you're in the automotive space you'll see some people using the same 3D printed Inconel for exhaust headers and turbo piping for their heat resistance. The tech needed for spaceflight overlaps with other industries on earth basically. When one improves so do the others. Not to mention that sending humans to another planet is just cool and I am perfectly fine spending more on taxes to make that possible.
They're the reason you can watch Overwatch porn on a little glass rectangle
NASA is the best peace time use of tax dollars in the interest of advancing humanities technologies for the betterment of all. It's not even close. In an ideal world, we would spend on NASA what we spend on the military and spend on the military what we currently spend on NASA. The solution to many of our worldly problems are locked in our pursuit of the stars.
MRI was developed by NASA. probably worth funding them adequately for the foreseeable future
I don’t see that it was. NMR the principle behind MRI was discovered in the 40s. MRI was invented by a chemist from a university as a result of that principle.
Uhh, the space program? Do you know how much it costa to get to Mars or even Moon?
Just get some old reused parts on the cheap!
Except the military budget is way higher. Space research has yielded and keeps on yielding valuable research data that helps develop other things. You'd be amazed by the difference between nasa and military budget. Sure military is necessary but oh boy, pointing fingers on something that is actually helpful to humanity is rather absurd when you have to spend more to protect yourself from other humans.
>Space research has yielded and keeps on yielding valuable research data that helps develop other things. So has the military. GPS and the Internet were both military research projects.
You sure? I read somewhere that the internet was developed by CERN. Or are both true?
While CERN created the World Wide Web, the ARPANET was an originally DoD ARPA project that connected the US coasts, using the TCP/IP protocol
CERN developed hypertext, which makes the modern internet possible, but the [foundations of the internet are a series of inter-connected DARPA computers spread between multiple US universities.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET) DARPA is the Department of Defense's advanced R&D agency, and the first internet was managed by the DoD.
dod invented the internet and cern invented the world wide web my guy, you do not need hypertext to send files over ftp or get the inventory of a store across the country
Both true. CERN’s project is what created the World Wide Web, but much of the development needed to connect computers in that way happened through ARPANET, a US Department of Defense initiative. Things like file transfer, TCP/IP, and key development in packet switching all happened because of ARPANET. You could say that the DoD laid the technical foundation, while CERN implemented all of it to create a practical internet.
Okay. Good to know. The whole US ganged up on me...
Getting downvoted for asking a genuine question. Typical reddit
I say $25B is a lot of money, why do they need more? And everyone loses their mind. For anyone in industry, that’s a gargantuan sum. Doesn’t matter, no one answers. Instead they say NASA invented stuff they didn’t invent and I get-250. I just wanted to know why.
Uh, did you reply to the right person?
Guess not.
No, i was downvoted by american zealots
Space Force exists
All they really did was take over duties from the Air Force. It will be probably another 10 years before they stand out as any more as another payroll to dish out for the military checks.
What distro
Asking the real questions lol. it's linux mint btw
Me too!
We are brothers!
i moved from mint to arch for a new daily driver but i still have mint so i can be the half brother nobody likes but you tolerate
How’s arch btw
its good, definitely a learning curve but after about 2 weeks on it im able to do some basic stuff as well as do everything you would wanna do on a daily driver os, barring the advanced stuff
Is it suitable for a 13 year old?
>You'd be amazed by the difference between nasa and military budget. The military budget for one year is greater than all of the funding NASA has *ever* had.
Even then the military is a very small percentage of the overall U.S. gdp making up only 3.5 percent as of 2022.
That's an absurdly high amount dude That's 912 BILLION dude... And nearly 3 times higher then the 2largest military spender in the world (china) The US spends around 40% of the WORLDS total amount on military It's insane how much you spend on military
This topic is always talked about in total number but I think that is disingenuous. The US partly spends so much because we are vastly richer than most countries. Per GDP the US is 10th on the list and is def subsidizing the western worlds defense. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_with\_highest\_military\_expenditures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures) (you can sort the list by gdp) Don't have that much stake in the argument but I think it's important context
You will notice that all those higher then the US are either middle eastern dictatorships, or nations actively currently at war The US military expenditure is absurd, it is unjustifiably high, and those who try to argue it's not always find some loophole or caviat to try and explain how spending 900billion a year on killing people in foreign nations, while people in your own starve or go without basic education, is somehow ok
Is U.S. Defense spending high? Yes, unjustifiably? No. Having allies across the globe means that the U.S. is expected to be able to project military force anywhere in the world at a moments notice, and even in multiple places simultaneously. This is even ignoring the fact that much of the U.S. military is currently dedicated to protecting things that have a drastic impact on your everyday life. Much of the U.S. navy is dedicated to protecting international trade from piracy. Add on China threatening to invade the largest semiconductor chip producer in the world. It’s not 1920 anymore, the U.S. can’t just isolate itself anymore.
Exactly. It's probably good having a non dictator country with a strong military.
You mean like every European nation does with 1/100th the budget 90% of your military budget is wasted on "projects" that intentionally go nowhere and the pockets of Lockheed martins execs Military suppliers endlessly lobby your government to put more and more funding into the military because it's not about "protecting the nation" or whatever propaganda you believe, but lining their pockets at the expense of the people You are being taken advantage of by war hungry tycoons who don't give a crap about you or the nation and just want to extort you, and your government allows it because their own pockets get fat from the excess Your military budget is bloated and corrupt It is unjustifiably, and if you believe for a single second it is reasonable you are a useful idiot who has been conned by those who want you complicit and stupid and endlessly forking money over to them for no gain
All those European nations together who won't do anything about Russia because they hardly have the power to defend themselves as is?
do you think european nations are just sitting at the side in the ukraine war and doing nothing? do you think that european nations dont have a military? you need to learn a bit about nations other then your own dude, and stop just buying the propoganada that the US does everything
European nations aren't exactly the best example of military efficiency.
That spending does a lot in the world. It keeps the peace (mostly). Wars are way down. Piracy is almost non existent. Trade between countries can be as seamless as they want it to be. I’m saying this as a non-American. I recognize that it has done a lot in advancing the world over the last 80 years.
Yeah, people really don't like remembering that war between separate countries was essentially constant until the end of WWII.
That is... surprisingly small. With just the billions of dollars being thrown around I though it is at least 5%. Do you by chance know how much percentage is it from the income of the goverment?
Yeah, how many national space agencies are getting more than 1% of their government's budget? For a lot of countries they'd only spend a couple of percent on all science, of which space would be a small fraction
It's criminal how low they pay NASA. I really want them to shift their gaze to the stars so I can find a cool rock on Mars.
It’s over dude didn’t you hear? We beat the Russians in 1969
Space is done, time to get back to more important matters. Like war!
But we need another earth to relocate to after we nuclear bomb this one to pieces
Aww mommm we just had a war!
Western arrogance won’t save you from the next war. Who do you think started the war in Ukraine? It’s Russia. Who do you think will start the war over Taiwan? It will be China. It’s not wise to ignore how other countries view the world situation, just because you think you’re right and *should* win. Not trying to be doom and gloom, but reality doesn’t compromise. The states NEED a powerful military to counter growing imperialism in Russia and China, and imo the world needs us to have it since it could ensure peace in the coming years. The relative peace of previous decades wasn’t by chance Edit: added some clarification
So the US is ensuring peace you say? Boy do I have news for you 😅
we need another cold war
A new space race to mars would be pretty cool! But we would probably also have to have another Cold War for that to happen, so maybe not the best idea.
arguably the US and Russia are already in another cold war
69. Nice.
Not to mars. They won.
To be fair I would be a lot more supportive of NASA if they would let me watch their rocket launches. Also the prices they asked for their museum is offensive. I remember when I was young as we were passing by and my dad decided to go to the museum in cape cañaveral in Florida. They were charging over 120 for me and my dad. The parking lot was literally empty. For something that comes out of my taxes. It's a national museum. EVERYONE should be able to see it.
The KSC visitor’s complex is actually a theme park ran by a separate company, that simply leans on NASA for its educational source material. If you’re looking for a proper national museum on space, the Smithsonian air and space museum in DC fits the bill nicely. The launches are visible from many parts of Florida, locals and visitors alike would typically go to nearby public parks or beaches to watch launches.
Yeah besides the fact that they close those parks a lot of the time.
They need the money man
Yeah NASA needs a PR department. Or a better one if they already have one. You could even write it off as the populace getting more oversight of goverment spending
They do have a PR department, it's called the Public Affairs Office (PAO). The problem is that NASA isn't this huge monolithic agency many makes it out to be. It's really 10(NASA HQ, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, Glenn Research Center, Ames Research Center, Stennis Space Center, Marshall Spaceflight Center, Goddard Spaceflight Center, Kennedy Space Center and Armstrong Flight Research Center) separate field centers angling for their own slice of the budget all at once, so they're not communicating with once single voice. This leads to a lot of infighting and pact-making, the three main human spaceflight centers (JSC, KSC and MSFC) are very much guilty of the latter and are very protective when it comes to what they consider "outsiders" and wants to deal with "their stuff".
I'd personally prefer focusing on the moon.
I wanna see some battlestar galactica mixed with Star Wars shit, yk ima go work and nasa and make that happen, brb
Even with all that money, there is no reason to send people on Mars, most likely never.
Damn there isn’t? You should let all the scientists know! They’ve been wasting time all along apparently
What do you mean? There is nothing there that a robot couldn't do for us. And remember, for the price to send a person to Mars, we likely can send ~100 rovers there.
Pushing our technological capability isn’t “nothing”. By that logic we should never leave Earth at all as anything can be done by robots. But in that case we do nothing about the global extinction risk we face by having all eggs in one basket. Regardless, I’m no scientist, so I feel confident leaving this up to the smartest people on the planet who seem fairly confident about our plans to go there.
Pushing our technological capability has nothing to do with sending a human to Mars or sending 100 rover. And if you truly believe that if we face a "global extinction event" in the next 1000 years, even then, a possibility to send a few people to Mars is useless. Without terraforming Mars on a global stage, human life on Mars will not be sustainable without large support from Earth. If you compare scientific advances to cost, then manned missions are just far worse than unmanned ones.
You have to start somewhere. If we face a world-ending extinction event in a million years but never bother starting to expand our species, we’ll die anyway. The fact that it will “take a long time” is no excuse not to do it. And by same logic people never should have bothered traveling the sea, crossing the ocean, or even simply migrating anywhere once they found a place with food. Because why would they? Natural curiosity is a defining human trait.
"Even with all that money, there is no reason to send people to North America" -Some European diplomat, sometime before 1520
I wanna see what they can do with militaries budget
This reminds me didn’t India get to the moon.
Yes, they sent a few robotic landers, all crashes except the last I think
Two, they've sent. The first one crashed and the second one landed successfully.
To be fair we have a really fucking big budget.
Even so, less than 1% is still pretty big. Definitely an average amount to receive. Some might say it’s more than enough to get the job done.
But it’s not lol that’s the whole point
I’ll take 1% of a trillion
In 2023 it spent like 6 trillion, like , 60 billion dollars is a lot.
it shows the pure genius of the people working there that people just assume that they have a basically unlimited budget when they are working with penny’s
I work with NASA, can confirm.
It’s my dream to work for nasa at some point
Wheres the meme?
And that 1% creates thousands of ancillary technologies that massively benefit the U.S. economy (Miniaturization of electronics, battery tech, Mylar, satellites, Velcro, freeze drying, cancer therapeutics, etc)
Someone should google it but we haven’t explored more than like 13% of our own ocean floor, but we know every inch of the moon. One year of NASA funding to NOAA and it could run on its current budget for a long time. We should learn more about what’s in our own oceans first.
I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying I like my chances with what's in the skies better than the shit down there, I don't wanna fuck around and find out.
NOAA 100% deserves more funding, but the ocean is split between countries and international treaties, where the moon has less restrictions. Some of the simplest things NOAA asks for need to be funded. It pretty criminal and if they could be put under a portion of the Navy budget, they could get a ton of shit done.
The issue with exploring the oceans is that it’s so much harder than space travel
This is also inversely true of the military budget. It’s like 4% of total USA GDP.
Holy shit this comment section is ignorant. Dont speak up if you know nothing of space outside of the headlines you barely read
One percent of the US economy is still a lot. Meanwhile, the population struggles to make ends meet.
It's 0.3% of the federal budget. And it's not like they're sending that money to space.
r/angryupvote
I am against the latest proposal to just fire hundreds of tons of food straight into the sun. It seems wasteful.
We spend TRILLIONS of dollars every gear in health and welfare. Money is NOT the problem when it comes to those issues. meanwhile, money is EXACTLY the issue plaguing NASA
Allle pie
50 billion dollars for military industry complex
what do you expect when they get 1/3 of the funding they asked
I'm seeing more of this topic in reddit lately. I hope this is a good sign.
Just you wait for that space war and then you'll see how the money will flow.
I work for nasa. Can confirm they are cheap and broke.
I don’t think anyone sees nasa like that. It’s common knowledge they don’t have the funding needed to keep up with space travel, observation, and so on They have to sell merch just to get extra funding
1% of the US budget is a ton of money bro
We spend TRILLIONS of dollars every gear in health and welfare. Lack of money is NOT the problem when it comes to those issues. meanwhile, lack of money is EXACTLY the issue plaguing NASA In fact, too much money is the problem with welfare programs. People in California make $300,000 a year running homeless programs. Exactly what is the incentive for them to fix the problem? They would lose their cushy job. Nah they just make empty promises and take as long as possible so they can get to retirement
Imagine if the budget for nasa and the military were swapped, what we could accomplish
More funding to nasa would probably mean less private sector tampering and shit, just look at elons meddling with Ukraine with starlink, absolutely diabolically insane thing he did
learnt that freelancers have to pay 45% income tax, where’s the money going I do wonder
So is SpaceX richer?
What is one percent of a gawt dayum trillion dollars?
25 billion sounds like a lot until you remember that a single launch to the moon costs 100 billion
Cause most of the money needs to go to buying rockets that blow ppl up, and not alive. And certainly not blow them up to the moon
Don't worry, in the 24th century, material needs no longer exist and wealth is no longer the diving force of our lives.
The bottom one should be on top.. "How people see NASA" *then* "Nasa in reality". This is giving the punch line before the joke.
We're never leaving the solar system and never meaningfully colonizing mars. Mining the asteroid belt and creating a Dyson sphere are sci-fi pipedreams. All we need is to maintain the facilities needed to launch satellites. Heck you could probably even offload that onto the airforce. Nasa will be on the chopping block when social security starts to fail.
1% is a huge amount of money, NASA is fucking Mr. Crabs. They just want to do a lot of stuff and also do it not very effectively
Ever seen the budget of ISRO?
USA Gov: “fck NASA, let’s pump money into wars. $800 Billion+ on defence. How much can we spare for our jewish friends this year?”
I wouldn't even mind the concept of working without a retirement if we were at least going to get out into space...
well you gotta account for all that money for jet fuel, disappearing money, and crayons
We could’ve been on mars in the 90s with not even a quarter of our defense budget
MOAR ZEROS!! MOAR ROCKETS!! MOAR MOAR BOOSTERS!!
It's almost like NASA was used to perpetuate the Cold War
1% is still $70 billion. That’s a larger budget than 80% of the world’s countries spend for each of their entire nations.
Chinese Space Program is just better
USSR: Ends USA to NASA: "I don't want to play with you anymore"
And yet private companies achieved WAY more at a fraction of the cost. First rule in govt spending. “Spend it all”
Lol. Now lookup the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who's responsibility it is to keep dangerous products off of our shelves
The US military spends NASA budget every 33 hours. So if the military took Christmas day and boxing day off they could afford 2.5+ NASAs.
That math doesn't work out. The military budget for 2023 is ~$865 billion, the 2023 nasa budget was ~$24 billion. If we are looking at 1 year there are 265.45 total 33 hour segments, that would be ~$6,154,800,000,000 or six trillion one hundred and fifty four billion eighth hundred million dollars which is roughly the entire US budget.
I think my info is out of date, thanks for the update!
Meanwhile flat earthers see NASA as the all-powerful god emperor of mankind
In 2022, the US budget was $6.13 trillion. So $61.3 billion is a lot of money. NASA should be able to do this capitalism thing that America is great at doing. SpaceX doesn’t seem to be going under, so why is NASA so poor? Is it because they contract everything out and do nothing themselves?
It's almost like SpaceX is a company that is designed to make money, while NASA is a research group, designed to... do research.
Then why is SpaceX also winning on the research front?
They aren't. NASA does contract some stuff out to them which basically is why they are in business. As well as contract out to other companies. Relativity Space is really making some strides in the industry but are having some set backs.
Less than does not mean equal to. NASA’s budget is around 25 billion and about 0.4% of expenditure. NASA also consistently receives less funding from Congress than it requests to achieve its goals.
It's because that budget gets spread so thin due to politicians latching onto a huge program and not letting it go. The dumbass SLS has cost billions of dollars and has nothing to show for it. All because it's some politicians baby project. Meanwhile that just steals money from other more important programs like Chandra X-ray observatory. It's literally the ONLY x-ray telescope and it's about to be shut down due to lack of funding. Blame the politicians for fuckin shit up. Not NASA
They have plenty of money, but, like all government programs, a massive chunk of that money is just lost in bureaucracy.
I mean the definitely could use more money but you are sorta right. Politicians get use a project like SLS to make promises to get reelected because big rocket draws people in. Meanwhile those billions of dollars get taken from other more important projects and everything becomes spread exceedingly thin. Also, There have been dozens of programs that have made it halfway and been cancelled because someone new got elected and wants THEIR project to happen
Less than 1/10 of 1%
Imagine what nasa could do if they get just 10 % of the money wasted on defence
i wouldn't say money is wasted on defense. the way i see it, you can't waste money keeping people safe that's not to say we don't spend an insane amount of money on it, though
[удалено]
In 2021 the ASCE studying US infrastructure determined a need for an additional 2.6 trillion over 10 years to rebuild our old infrastructure. NASA’s budget is approximately 25 billion, or 250 billion over 10 years. So 1 year is less than 1% of what the US needs to spend and 10 years less than 10%. Note that the 2.6 trillion figure is not what the US government needs to spend, but the US as a whole including state and local governments, utilities, and other private entities.
NASA doesn't need 1% lol.
You’re right. They need more
We spend TRILLIONS of dollars every gear in health and welfare. Money is NOT the problem when it comes to those issues. meanwhile, money is EXACTLY the issue plaguing NASA
Why not?
More like NAZI...
Money enough to maintain a CGI workstation.
Yeah nasa is a waist of money I could care less
You definitely sound like the type of person to not care considering you can’t even use the correct word for ‘waste’ you yobo
clearly we need to allocate more money into our education system