----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:57 PM Subject: Re: NASA Historical budget
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:51 PM > Subject: NASA Historical budget > > > > I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for > > NASA's budget decade by decade. For the '60s, I had to do a bit of > > estimation for '60 and 61, but the number shouldn't be too far off, > because > > that was before the NASA budget really took off. > > > > In constant 2002 dollars the budget was > > > > 60s 187 billion > > 70s 127 billion > > 80s 122 billion > > 90s 163 billion > > > > Think of what was accomplished in the '60s compared to the '80s and '90s > > put together. It isn't just the money. > > > > Now divide it by the number of missions per decade. Why? Are you aruging that we are running too many missions? Look at where space flight was in 1960 vs. 1970. Then compare 1970 and today. Could you really say more was done in 2002 than in 1970? > That would change things a bit. (Of course you have to subtract all the > non-manned mission cost centers to get an accurate reading.) You would, but the manned missions get the lions share of the money: no bucks without Buck Rogers is a NASA motto. They even hide a lot of the shuttle money as "microgravity experiments" and "biology experiments". > > As a percentage of GDP is also interesting. I wish I had those figures handy > too. That has certainly gone down. But, to first order, romantic feelings are the results of the manned spaced program. Look, its romantic to me too, but I can also do the hard numbers at the same time. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
