Sunday, November 14, 2010

Was the loss of Columbia all NASA's fault?

No doubt that NASA made a lot of mistakes.  But how about the rest of us?  Why did we forget space?  Why did spending revert to such low levels?  The following chart shows that if NASA doubled its budget, it will still only be half the size of what it was during the Apollo era.  Yet NASA is expected to do more.  If NASA had gotten more funding, it could have spent more on safety and saved both shuttles.  The cost would have minimal.  Yet the space program is seen to be expendable.  Why should it be surprising then when it fails?

Here's the history of the budget from the pdf:


By the same token, if you eliminate NASA entirely, you don't even begin to balance the budget.  But cutting NASA is cutting muscle not fat.  This is what I am trying to get across.  "Saving" money by scrimping on NASA is self defeating and does not save money in the long run.  It will end up costing more.

By looking at this chart, I noticed that the spending now is comparable to spending level (as a percentage of the Federal Budget) as it was in the early sixties.  For NASA to accomplish as much as it did in this political environment is a stupendous achievement.

No comments: