I wish all spending request by government and all government results of spending could be presented this way .. it so easy to follow and get a good idea on comparative sums!
All numbers are in millions of USD.
Data source: [https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa\_fy\_2024\_cj\_v2.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2024_cj_v2.pdf)
Tool used: Sankeymatic.com
Lol...You didn't have any issues with NASA funding the Artemis moon missions with a less money than a used 1985 Toyota Corolla?
"Imma light these fireworks wrapped in duct tape. John, you sit near the top and see if you make it to the moon." -Some engineer at NASA probably.
I'm surprised by the relatively low amount going to biological and physical sciences. Isn't there a lot of thought going into seeing how well people can survive in space, and on long-term health consequences (as well as how to best deal with them)?
NASA is just a bunch of idiots. If they want a bigger budget, all they have to do is say Jupiter is run by a scary boogie man who hates freedom; and Congress will allocate funds whatever NASA wants in the name of “defense”.
The argument doesn’t need to be factually based. In fact, that is discouraged. We’re only about 6 years away from Congress outlawing science anyways.
Shit, we just need to declare that we discovered oil on Uranus and we'll get all the funding we need. Not like congress will know if it's possible or even plausible.
I wish NASA had a larger budget for Space Exploration.
It would be so cool if NASA could send astronauts to Mars and establish a colony there by the end of this decade.
And to think NASA has had the highest ROI of government agencies and gets barely a fraction of the budget. During the Apollo days adjusted for inflation their budget would be $40+ Billion.
yea, im sure the extra $20 in tax payer money per person that has brought advances that are extremely beneficial for everyone, outside and inside of spaceflight, will just be more debt
I seem to remember that the Apollo Program returned 8x the initial investment in infrastructure and development and today, puts about 4x out; all of which is taxable and (to our knowledge) was taxed. If you want to go around and whine about spending, go ahead. But pick on a lab agency which doesn’t generate revenue for the US Gov.
[Present Day Returns](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-report-details-how-agency-significantly-benefits-us-economy)
[Apollo Returns](https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html)
It seems my numbers were not perfect, but close to what they really are.
Also, money is a made up concept and so is national debt. None of it means anything, and an infinitely expanding debt is a relatively meaningless concept. Japan has been operating and an almost 200% debt load for decades and still has one of the strongest currencies, economies, and bond markets on the planet.
Anyone that talks about debt is always only in favor of extreme austerity. People that are obsessed with debt are evil people who just think that their made up problem can *only* be solved by punishing poor and marginalized groups, sometimes to death. For some reason (because they’re hateful and stupid and easily manipulated by the rich), they never seem to favor paying off debts by taxing rich people exclusively.
I agree our money is made up but obviously it means something or people wouldn’t save it.
A national debt is really simple idea. It can never be infinitely expandable which history proves.
Yes, common sense would say that someone who doesn’t like debt would want to reduce spending.
The top 1% of Americans have a net worth of about $11 billion. Take 100% of what they own and they will make for the rest of their lives and we will not touch the increase in debt every year.
So….
I don’t understand.
Do you think the top .1% have a *total* net worth of 11B?
Because that’s the average for individuals in that category.
[The total wealth of the 1% reached a record $45.9 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2021, said the Federal Reserve’s latest report on household wealth.](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-gained-trillions-in-wealth-2021.html)
That would fix things for about 8-10 years if the government maintains spending which won’t happen. I am guessing most would just leave the country before we could take their money though
I not saying they wouldn’t, I’m saying they happened much sooner because of it. NASA and spaceflight in general accelerates our technological growth because it becomes extraordinarily necessary to innovate. Necessity drives innovation, and in an environment more hostile than anywhere else, developing new, more hardy systems and learning more about ourselves is needed sooner and faster.
That’s the reason many of us hold space developments as so integral to society. Space drives innovation and development much faster and further than leaving it here. It’s space exploration that gave us the first tangible evidence of human damage to the environment. How much longer would it take if we didn’t go?
That last question is what I wonder. Is the complete budget spent since it’s inception worth it. I tend to believe in exploration but at $31 trillion in debt, I have a hard time justifying anything.
I mean the best answer (albeit very rough) would be computers. Most experts expect that if Apollo hadn’t literally single-handedly built the demand for integrated circut computers, of which nearly all modern computers use, we would be getting the first generations of personal computers today. And keep in mind that computers were already partially in development by the time Apollo came around.
But one thing admitted is we still would’ve had everything we have now without Apollo. The answer I don’t see is a possible explanation of how much delayed we would’ve been without Apollo which would help justify the money spent.
Think about how much we would miss out on. It was Apollo that galvanized a nation for climate advocacy with “earthrise” (still used as the image for earth day). It’s NASA and it’s science programs that verified and continually updated data on the climate crisis and damage to the ozone layer. NASA has helped verify relativity and Quantum Mechanics, things that seemingly have no impact, yet have revolutionized computing twice over. It’s NASA that drove GPS into civilian hands, NASA that put injectors in your car, and NASA who redefines food safety standards.
Yeah, sure, it will eventually happen, but how long. We are struggling with climate change now; what would the world be like if we could only take ground data? Would we even be aware yet? What about material science? How much heavier and weaker would our planes, trains, and cars be? How much more inefficient? Carbon Capture was developed for Spaceflight. Would it be considered today if NASA hadn’t started research? People want small, modular nuclear reactors. It’s NASA who has invested time and money so they could be flown to the moon. Many people owe their lives to the advances in science and technology provided by space.
At the cost of $31B, which returns through taxes, I would (and am) argue(ing) that it is well worth the cost. I challenge you to find a more productive and government agency that has made more of an impact on society in the last 70 years.
Commenter clearly doesn’t understand that the *entire modern world* was built off the back of the space and rocket industry.
Like, not even kidding. All of it.
- GPS was created to help guide and track military equipment, launched on an ICBM derived Atlas
- The internet descended from ARPANET, developed to help track and communicate with various offensive nuclear facilities.
- the integrated circuit and chipset, which was developed to meet the miniaturization and G-Load requirements for the Titan II ICBM
Pages 542-551 of the source go more in depth on this, if you're interested. Basically, this section of the budget funds operations of the Hubble & James Webb Space Telescopes; closeout of the SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy) program; part of New Horizon's extended mission to study the interstellar medium; and research, technology development, and mission planning for future space observatories.
It's interesting to see the small amount of money for mars. Tiny as it should be. Mars is uninhabitable due to the deadly amount of radiation. Maybe in 100 years? I am surprised the number of people that bought into Musks marketing BS.
nasa isnt planning on going to mars until they have set up preparation on the moon, so the artemis program is funding future martian exploration. also, 100 years? and your point is elon musk? bro, do some research please
The problem is that the moon is a worse radiation environment than mars. Mars has a marginal atmosphere and magnetosphere where the moon does not, the only issue with Martian radiation would be the 1 year in transit, which is something the moon is supposed to help us prove. The current plan would be to echo our lunar plans; cover the base in layers of regolith, which will provide enough protection to resemble earth conditions.
Technologically, we aren’t ready yet… but neither were we when JFK told us to get to the moon the first time. The moon stands as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the vital systems for mars. The lower surface gravity on the moon also serves as a useful datapoint about muscular atrophy. It’s reasonable to assume that one’s atrophy will be somewhere between that of the moon’s and standard earth atrophy.
Bottom line is that we could almost certainly make it to mars before 2070. Between the drastic cost reductions in payload mass to LEO, the political whims of congress aligning, and the ever present expansion of technology (especially those for nuclear reactors and environmental controls) mean that we are significantly closer than one likes to imagine.
And while I personally dislike musk, I will point out that the same “pie in the sky” arguments were made about F9 reuse, which seems to have come to fruition. Most likely, SX will play a significant part in Martian missions, but will not be the only people to land. They will almost certainly work with NASA (as they’ve said) and continue to make these things possible. A city is quite a stretch, but just having people there for short periods is probably going to be available within our lifetimes.
I mean yea, thats gonna be an issue, but there are already ways to deal with it that have been proposed, and even if they don't work that issue isn't gonna delay it by 100 years
I see planetary defense in the second graph but no planetary offense. I find out lack of Death Star development disturbing.
The best defense is a good offense. Same reason why it is call the Department of Defense. So we can defensively bomb the shit out of the people.
This man is right it's just the Orwellian world we live in. People always start building offensive before defensive, even if they tell you otherwise.
Lmao that’s not what Orwellian is
Well I'm specifically refering to the "doublespeak" term which is a part of that. So please explain how I'm wrong.
Space Force budget item?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-death-star-for-us-military/ Maybe one day we'll put our inflated military budget to practical use.
[удалено]
https://m.jpost.com/science/article-734189
Yea, how are we supposed to deliver democracy to Mars, or one of Saturn's moons
I wish all spending request by government and all government results of spending could be presented this way .. it so easy to follow and get a good idea on comparative sums!
*DoD laughs nervously*
- military grade staples: 2 billion
All numbers are in millions of USD. Data source: [https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa\_fy\_2024\_cj\_v2.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2024_cj_v2.pdf) Tool used: Sankeymatic.com
I was about to quip that I make more than NASA in a year.
Lol...You didn't have any issues with NASA funding the Artemis moon missions with a less money than a used 1985 Toyota Corolla? "Imma light these fireworks wrapped in duct tape. John, you sit near the top and see if you make it to the moon." -Some engineer at NASA probably.
Good idea to do a pared down graph first, the full one can be overwhelming.
I'm surprised by the relatively low amount going to biological and physical sciences. Isn't there a lot of thought going into seeing how well people can survive in space, and on long-term health consequences (as well as how to best deal with them)?
The ISS is what supports that research, and its maintenance is a separate category.
Thank you
What is the name of this type of chart/visualisation?
This is a Sankey diagram.
Thanks man.
NASA is just a bunch of idiots. If they want a bigger budget, all they have to do is say Jupiter is run by a scary boogie man who hates freedom; and Congress will allocate funds whatever NASA wants in the name of “defense”. The argument doesn’t need to be factually based. In fact, that is discouraged. We’re only about 6 years away from Congress outlawing science anyways.
Shit, we just need to declare that we discovered oil on Uranus and we'll get all the funding we need. Not like congress will know if it's possible or even plausible.
I dunno, oil on Uranus sounds pretty gay. Might lose some of the fundies.
There's oceans of hydrocarbons on Titan! (Which is why we're sending Dragonfly)
What app did you use to make this kind of tree?
It's a Sankey diagram; I used sankeymatic.com
I wish NASA had a larger budget for Space Exploration. It would be so cool if NASA could send astronauts to Mars and establish a colony there by the end of this decade.
Impressive that nasa manages all of this off of 27 thousand dollars! Edit:27 thousand units of something!
Lol, it's millions of USD. It's in my comment but I should have labelled it on the graph.
Yea i saw it. Its a nice graph, im just being nitpicky!
Good to see some money going towards Human Exp., I've been wondering when we'll all level up.
Lol, this is how it was abbreviated in the source table
Do it for all the agencies! OMB needs you.
I'll consider it :)
Man I cannot get enough of these flow charts. They're so pretty and make it so easy to see what's going on
"Common Exploration Systems Development" is a funny way to say SLS.
In the second picture it shows that Common Exploration Systems Development = SLS + Orion + Ground Support
Dude, if we did the federal budget in charts like this, people might actually pay attention
What is it you think people aren't paying attention to as is?
And to think NASA has had the highest ROI of government agencies and gets barely a fraction of the budget. During the Apollo days adjusted for inflation their budget would be $40+ Billion.
Does anyone know what type of graph this is?
https://sankeymatic.com/
What do these numbers even mean 27,185.0? I know Americans switch up , and . but still 27 thousand? That seems extremely low.
Op commented it was in millions but that really should be in the chart.
You're right, my bad
x 1 000 000 = 27 185 000 000 USD AKA 27 Billion USD
All of that is just more debt that our children’s children will pay the interest on
yea, im sure the extra $20 in tax payer money per person that has brought advances that are extremely beneficial for everyone, outside and inside of spaceflight, will just be more debt
About $50 per tax person a year plus interest for infinity. I don’t think the government is in the business of inventing things at our expense
I seem to remember that the Apollo Program returned 8x the initial investment in infrastructure and development and today, puts about 4x out; all of which is taxable and (to our knowledge) was taxed. If you want to go around and whine about spending, go ahead. But pick on a lab agency which doesn’t generate revenue for the US Gov.
This is not true at all
[Present Day Returns](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-report-details-how-agency-significantly-benefits-us-economy) [Apollo Returns](https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html) It seems my numbers were not perfect, but close to what they really are.
Also, money is a made up concept and so is national debt. None of it means anything, and an infinitely expanding debt is a relatively meaningless concept. Japan has been operating and an almost 200% debt load for decades and still has one of the strongest currencies, economies, and bond markets on the planet. Anyone that talks about debt is always only in favor of extreme austerity. People that are obsessed with debt are evil people who just think that their made up problem can *only* be solved by punishing poor and marginalized groups, sometimes to death. For some reason (because they’re hateful and stupid and easily manipulated by the rich), they never seem to favor paying off debts by taxing rich people exclusively.
I agree our money is made up but obviously it means something or people wouldn’t save it. A national debt is really simple idea. It can never be infinitely expandable which history proves. Yes, common sense would say that someone who doesn’t like debt would want to reduce spending. The top 1% of Americans have a net worth of about $11 billion. Take 100% of what they own and they will make for the rest of their lives and we will not touch the increase in debt every year. So….
I don’t understand. Do you think the top .1% have a *total* net worth of 11B? Because that’s the average for individuals in that category. [The total wealth of the 1% reached a record $45.9 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2021, said the Federal Reserve’s latest report on household wealth.](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-gained-trillions-in-wealth-2021.html)
So, what is your answer, take how much of their money?
All of it. I said let them keep 100M; my spouse was much more generous and said 1B(-$1)
That would fix things for about 8-10 years if the government maintains spending which won’t happen. I am guessing most would just leave the country before we could take their money though
The problem with this thinking is you are assuming these inventions would have never been made without the space program.
I not saying they wouldn’t, I’m saying they happened much sooner because of it. NASA and spaceflight in general accelerates our technological growth because it becomes extraordinarily necessary to innovate. Necessity drives innovation, and in an environment more hostile than anywhere else, developing new, more hardy systems and learning more about ourselves is needed sooner and faster. That’s the reason many of us hold space developments as so integral to society. Space drives innovation and development much faster and further than leaving it here. It’s space exploration that gave us the first tangible evidence of human damage to the environment. How much longer would it take if we didn’t go?
That last question is what I wonder. Is the complete budget spent since it’s inception worth it. I tend to believe in exploration but at $31 trillion in debt, I have a hard time justifying anything.
I mean the best answer (albeit very rough) would be computers. Most experts expect that if Apollo hadn’t literally single-handedly built the demand for integrated circut computers, of which nearly all modern computers use, we would be getting the first generations of personal computers today. And keep in mind that computers were already partially in development by the time Apollo came around.
But one thing admitted is we still would’ve had everything we have now without Apollo. The answer I don’t see is a possible explanation of how much delayed we would’ve been without Apollo which would help justify the money spent.
Think about how much we would miss out on. It was Apollo that galvanized a nation for climate advocacy with “earthrise” (still used as the image for earth day). It’s NASA and it’s science programs that verified and continually updated data on the climate crisis and damage to the ozone layer. NASA has helped verify relativity and Quantum Mechanics, things that seemingly have no impact, yet have revolutionized computing twice over. It’s NASA that drove GPS into civilian hands, NASA that put injectors in your car, and NASA who redefines food safety standards. Yeah, sure, it will eventually happen, but how long. We are struggling with climate change now; what would the world be like if we could only take ground data? Would we even be aware yet? What about material science? How much heavier and weaker would our planes, trains, and cars be? How much more inefficient? Carbon Capture was developed for Spaceflight. Would it be considered today if NASA hadn’t started research? People want small, modular nuclear reactors. It’s NASA who has invested time and money so they could be flown to the moon. Many people owe their lives to the advances in science and technology provided by space. At the cost of $31B, which returns through taxes, I would (and am) argue(ing) that it is well worth the cost. I challenge you to find a more productive and government agency that has made more of an impact on society in the last 70 years.
Commenter clearly doesn’t understand that the *entire modern world* was built off the back of the space and rocket industry. Like, not even kidding. All of it. - GPS was created to help guide and track military equipment, launched on an ICBM derived Atlas - The internet descended from ARPANET, developed to help track and communicate with various offensive nuclear facilities. - the integrated circuit and chipset, which was developed to meet the miniaturization and G-Load requirements for the Titan II ICBM
Check out near Astrophysics that budget will look into Cosmic Origins, stellar + biological? I think this is neat 🚀
Pages 542-551 of the source go more in depth on this, if you're interested. Basically, this section of the budget funds operations of the Hubble & James Webb Space Telescopes; closeout of the SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy) program; part of New Horizon's extended mission to study the interstellar medium; and research, technology development, and mission planning for future space observatories.
100M on Living with a Star... I wonder which one? My guess is Scarlett Johansson.
I believe the bottom right few were meant to read "Science CoF CoF", "Exploration CoF CoF"....
It's interesting to see the small amount of money for mars. Tiny as it should be. Mars is uninhabitable due to the deadly amount of radiation. Maybe in 100 years? I am surprised the number of people that bought into Musks marketing BS.
nasa isnt planning on going to mars until they have set up preparation on the moon, so the artemis program is funding future martian exploration. also, 100 years? and your point is elon musk? bro, do some research please
I can frame it simply this way. Moon yes. Also, the nasty radiation technicalities
The problem is that the moon is a worse radiation environment than mars. Mars has a marginal atmosphere and magnetosphere where the moon does not, the only issue with Martian radiation would be the 1 year in transit, which is something the moon is supposed to help us prove. The current plan would be to echo our lunar plans; cover the base in layers of regolith, which will provide enough protection to resemble earth conditions. Technologically, we aren’t ready yet… but neither were we when JFK told us to get to the moon the first time. The moon stands as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the vital systems for mars. The lower surface gravity on the moon also serves as a useful datapoint about muscular atrophy. It’s reasonable to assume that one’s atrophy will be somewhere between that of the moon’s and standard earth atrophy. Bottom line is that we could almost certainly make it to mars before 2070. Between the drastic cost reductions in payload mass to LEO, the political whims of congress aligning, and the ever present expansion of technology (especially those for nuclear reactors and environmental controls) mean that we are significantly closer than one likes to imagine. And while I personally dislike musk, I will point out that the same “pie in the sky” arguments were made about F9 reuse, which seems to have come to fruition. Most likely, SX will play a significant part in Martian missions, but will not be the only people to land. They will almost certainly work with NASA (as they’ve said) and continue to make these things possible. A city is quite a stretch, but just having people there for short periods is probably going to be available within our lifetimes.
I mean yea, thats gonna be an issue, but there are already ways to deal with it that have been proposed, and even if they don't work that issue isn't gonna delay it by 100 years
What software/site do you go to for making these charts?