NASA has such a tiny budget in comparison to other stuff....so they really have to stretch that money as far as they can, and especially considering spacecraft....its a very unforgiving production environment.
Am I making a joke about deploying in production? Yes, yes I am. But I also know NASA really does the best they can and I am amazed at the insane work and effort that they do to make sure spacecraft they send actually work.
Except you look at what they are spending on the entire SLS infrastructure vs what they are getting (vs other science options and/or space exploration options) and basically your mind is blown at how wasteful NASA is.
SLS is a $2-$3 billion per launch DISPOSABLE rocket. The orion capsule is going to be something like $20 billion(!). I think things like launch abort and service module with all the propulsion etc are also disposable.
I don't think NASA would have chosen the SLS platform though. It was basically mandated by Congress.
Same story with shuttle and that's why it looks the way it is and was as expensive as it was. It would have been a completely different vehicle if Congress weren't meddling.
Congress is the owner. Want a different management ideology? Get different management.
NASA is wasteful, eh? Maybe that's because they have no incentive not to be wasteful..
I think the point being made is that NASA is wasteful because the people in charge (Congress) told them to be wasteful.
You are in charge. Congress is your employee.
Except I can't do anything about Senator John Jones from Arizona who wants to keep the couple thousand jobs he brought to his constituency. He won't budge on it because non-Arizonans didn't vote for him.
You’re probably thinking about the former senator of Alabama, Richard Shelby. There is no current or former senator by the name John Jones in Arizona. Additionally it is Alabama that benefits from the SLS program, not Arizona.
Sure. It doesn't change anything, though.
NASA's doing what they're told, and Congress is doing what we asked them to.
If that's true, then I'm officially notifying everyone in Congress and the Senate, they are terminated immediately and need to clear their offices by the end of the week. Let's see if it happens or not, and then we'll know whether you were correct or not.
The leadership and composition of Congress has changed numerous times over the years without change to management ideology. It does not seem likely that electing mildly different people will change the management ideology. Management acted in accordance with the incentives they were presented with.
I can't say NASA seems particularly wasteful outside ways in which they are mandated to be so.
I think this is because local state concerns are so prevalent here. Political colour doesn't even matter, but getting the pork barrel for the state manufacturing locations is.
This won't change no matter who you vote in. It's like hardwired into the system.
Exactly. There's not actually much of an incentive for a congressperson to create something broadly positive for the US as a vague whole, like an independently-operating excellent space program.
The incentive massively is instead in favor of that congressperson to have a space program that is meets some minimum bar of competence, and past that point do everything to benefit that congressperson's voting district such as mandate certain things be manufactured there, etc.
NASA is neither a public or private company, but rather a government agency. Congress is an employee of the US taxpayer. I think that makes them more of a manager of NASA and we should hold Congress accountable.
What NASA wanted was a space station, a small tug to move stuff in space, and a small shuttle to move people and cargo from earth to that station.
The whole point of the space shuttle was to have it service the space station, but the station wasn't greenlit. Instead we got a much bigger shuttle that was useful as a military asset but was a money pit with terrible safety record. Luckily the Soviet Union collapsed and the ISS was funded as a job program for Soviet rocket scientists (out of fear they could be poached to work on ICBMs for other nations).
It's the first time that I heard this theory. Do you have any sources to read up on it?
That's the estimated cost for the first four launches only.
We developed it from scratch and it took 20 years and it's capable of sending a crew to Mars.
What do you think this _should_ have cost?
NASA also thought the Space Shuttle was going to get cheaper per-launch after a couple years of service, and they turned out to be completely wrong. Why should we trust that this time will be different?
NASA's own Inspector General says, "... NASA’s aspirational goal to achieve a cost savings of 50 percent is highly unrealistic" and "... a single SLS will cost more than $2 billion through the first 10 SLS rockets ... " [0]
[0]: https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ig-24-001.pd...
There were a lot of assumptions that turned out to be wrong. The chief among them was launch cadence and satellite capture and return missions. When these assumptions changed the cost values changed significantly as well.
Do you understand the details of this specific contract? It's limited to 10 launches. It's structured quite a bit differently than the shuttle program was.
Yes and did you read the recommendations and follow up from that same report? Or is this just a "haha NASA is dumb" rant that's become common around here?
NASA is dumb. They are funding this thing (SLS) at cost+ - and despite paying for it don't own it! That is totally ridiculous. If I hire someone to build a website for me, at the end I own it. NASA has given away the rights to SLS. So they can only do a deal for SLS with current contractors. WHATEVER price those contractors want to charge, they can't let anyone else compete to build it.
I also think there is almost no chance anyone of these folks is going to do fixed price for EUS or whatever. Contractors are getting something like $600 million / year on this thing and have been hoovering the gravy for 7-8 years.
Remember that these types of forever contracts that take 20-30 years are also liked by the NASA centers who work with the contractors - it's very stable career / funding (ignore the waste). So NASA at the centers level is not fighting against this stuff (ie, it's not just congress that pushes this stuff).
All these pork projects got a huge win with Biden picking Bill Nelson as NASA admin. Do wonder if a bit of SpaceX hate played a role there :)
SLS as currently launched doesn't have enough delta-v to even really get to the moon with Orion.
That's why SpaceX is supposed to fly an absolute gargantuan amount of mass both into lunar orbit, then down to the moon, then back off the moon! They are supposedly going to do 5,000 tons out to the moon, orbit, land and take off the entire 5,000 ton starship. Payload may be 100 tons +. It's a big if, but if they can anything close to this it'll be crazy.
Orion is weirdly heavy for the SM, and the SM is weirdly weak (I don't think it got redesigned when SLS came along).
They are trying to fix this at $600m - $1B / year with the Block 1B upper stage.
But SLS after $20B (+ another $20B for orion) definitely CANNOT get folks to moon and back. Orion payload is truly tiny.
I think SLS will be good for maybe some flyby missions to the moon? One way to keep it going would be to do a one rocket mars sample return option / dump Orion totally... That actually seems like a useful approach.
But its not clear to me that old space can do a fixed price contract, they are so used to cost+ they really need to be able to overrun budget. All these projects had initial budgets that are fractions of what they are now but with cost+ that actually is a positive for the contractor. And the headaches on a mars accent and return vehicle would be high.
I think a matching industry company, but not necessarily a better counter example, would be SpaceX vs. NASA, for better or worse, and obvious reasons. They are trying to change the launch-and-trash model to reuse, so this requires a paradigm shift. When NASA chose SpaceX and Boeing to compete in 2014, SpaceX won, and after seeing Boeing's current fiasco decline, that's a good thing.
I was a member of the L5 Society [1] in the 80s where we would meet on the Intrepid aircraft carrier in Manhattan to discuss all things space and space colonization (L5 being the Lagrangian point in the Earth-Moon system to place space habitats 60-degrees behind or ahead of the Moon's orbit for stable gravitational equilibrium to minimize fuel or energy to maintain that position). L5 later merged with the National Space Institute under the National Space Society (NSI was Werner von Braun's baby).
I had read O'Neill's 1974 article, "The Colonization of Space" when I was 10, in Physics Today that got me hooked before L5. I bought a Commodore PET 2001 in 1977/78 and was writing a program to show the on orbital plane view of Jupiter's 4 major moons - Io, Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa to better identify which was which when using my binoculars at night. I left L5 in 1988/89. Good times at the Galaxy Diner after the monthly meetings on the Intrepid.
I stopped devoting time to space around then and didn't pick up an avid interest again until SpaceX, even though I had done some machining work for some models of subassemblies for the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers in the early 2000s. I am now back at making machines and dreaming of space again!
The issue here is a couple of things:
- Boeing won the crew launch contract. I think their per seat cost was around $90 million or 63% more than SpaceX per seat.
- The person inside Nasa who fought for the commercial program side (Kathy) instead of being rewarded (she would have made a great NASA admin) got taken off Human Exploration and Operations and Exploration Systems Development and got dumped into Space Operations
- NASA got a new admin, and despite having folks who'd made GREAT and courageous calls on things like SpaceX went super old space / old white guy (Bill Nelson) who had made a name for himself fighting Commercial Crew. Guess what pork he pushed - SLS! That's right. He and Hutchison ("The two lawmakers have been pressuring NASA and the White House for months to commit to building the Space Launch System").
So money going through NASA on things like SLS are just a total waste. And despite all the happy talk from Biden about supporting women - they go with some anti-spaceX NASA administrator in the form of an old white guy!
So now, in a total irony, despite being told what a misogynist he is, we have Elon Musk who has a smart and capable women running SpaceX (Shotwell) and another smart and capable women running Starbase (Kathy)!
Meanwhile, NASA has a super old white guy who has made almost all the wrong calls.
This will be a bit off-topic, but I can't resist.
"The person inside Nasa who fought for the commercial program side (Kathy) instead of being rewarded... got taken off Human Exploration and Operations and Exploration Systems Development and got dumped into Space Operations"
LtCdr Joseph Rochefort, leading a team in Hawaii during the early months of WWII processing Japanese encrypted messages about an impending attack, got both the location (Midway Island) and the date (early June) right, while other cryptanalysts near Washington DC got both wrong. Rochefort was recommended for an award by Admiral Nimitz (CINCPAC, in Hawaii), but this was turned down by Admiral King in DC. Eventually Rochefort was re-assigned to command a floating drydock in San Francisco, about as much of a demotion as he could get. At the end of the war, Rochefort did get a medal, still over the objections of Admiral King. Some think this bad treatment was because Rochefort and his team in Hawaii embarrassed the crypt analysts in DC.
She first headed commercial crew which outperformed tremendously by comparison to almost all NASA programs (in terms of budget and execution).
She then got promoted to lead Human Exploration and Operations - which is absolutely a promotion. In terms of putting US Astronauts in space, her crew dragon program as significantly outperformed SLS at an absolute fraction of the per seat cost. So yes, very embarrassing.
I'd have to look at timelines, but my instinct is Nelson likely came on and that pretty much marked the end of her career at NASA as a result.
She wasn't afraid to make the calls she thought were right, she was pushing towards fixed price awards even on things like HLS, and having her in Exploration Systems Development would just have ruffled too many feathers over time.
The whole lunar landing architecture was so comical. SLS launching Orion to lunar gateway? Lunar gateway in a nonsensical orbit that would have needed an an entire separate transfer vehicle to get to LEO where it should have been to start with?
“Why would you want to send a crew to an intermediate point in space, pick up a lander there and go down?” asked Buzz Aldrin, who called the Gateway concept “absurd.”
Kathy was involved in HLS selection I think - and when I saw they were going to maybe leave gateway out of architecture for first lending... you knew that common sense couldn't last!
The ihab module on gateway (currently getting maybe 800 million per year in funding) is going to have 53 cubic feet for FOUR PEOPLE!! The entire module has a diameter of maybe 4 feet BEFORE life support? And gateways orbit mean you can only get to it at a very specific time once a week basically .
NASA's manned mission division does seem to have the bigger problem with bloated contracting budgets and inefficiency, relative to the rest of the organization. I'd guess that's due to direct political influence (the Richard Shelby - Bill Nelson effect in that case). From 2010:
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62767_Page3.html
Yep, the whole SpaceX thing was unpopular with Biden admin - I think they brought Bill Nelson back from retirement - he'd really fought for SLS and fought against "wasting" money on SpaceX. The Biden admin have some kind of beef with Elon.
They also needed to get Kathy L out who had started to push down manned mission cost (crew dragon etc) and I think they succeeded there - there was a push to get her off new projects and into just operations I think to keep her from disrupting the pork - even just by showing the contrasts to other approaches.
NASA looks efficient because you’re comparing it to the rest of government.
I love the work they do. I wish they did more with what they have. And then I wish they had more to work with.
When they are constrained, like they are with spacecraft already in flight, their ability to problem solve with the tools and systems they have available is absolutely impressive.
I'm sure at NASA as at all government agencies there are teams who work very efficiently and do more with less, and other teams whose mission does not have that characteristic and constraint.
The majority of inefficiency seems to leek into NASA via our Congress.
This isn’t specific to NASA or Congress. U.S. Government agencies will utilize whatever budget they are given, period.
There is no incentive to be efficient. If there is leftover money in the final fiscal quarter you are highly encouraged to use every penny, even if that means buying new furniture and office supplies that you don’t really need. Any leftover money will be given to someone else and you will receive a smaller budget the following year.
I think they are commenting on the requirements imposed on NASA with regards to where parts are made (what states), etc.
I've have personally seen instances where it is recommended to go over your budget, so it appears your budget needs to be increased.
This isn't specific to the US Government either, it applies to almost any government agency in the world.
I agree, NASA would be much further along without that bunch of turnips.
Perhaps if they used Raspberry pi, they wouldn't be in such a pickle? (Sorry)
Pork-barrel politics are ugly and make federal programs like NASA less efficient. But in this case it serves a strategic value in preserving a geographically distributed aerospace industrial base. This ensures we won't lose too much capacity from a single disaster or enemy attack. If that "insurance" means fewer space missions then it's a premium worth paying.
NASA also looks quite efficient when you compare it to many tech companies. NASA has 18k employees and $25bn budget in 2023, let's compare it with some companies:
Spotify and Stripe are each equal to half of NASA both in terms of employees and budget.
Snapchat and Airbnb are both approx 1/3rd of NASA in both employees and budget.
Yahoo has 1/2 the employees and 1/3 the budget of NASA.
ByteDance is 6x larger than NASA on both metrics.
Meta is 6x larger in budget and 4x larger in head count.
These are just companies making social media apps and selling ads.
How do I read this employees/budget metric to properly rank efficiency?
Is 1,000 employees each with an average burn rate per employee of a $1,000,000/y supposed to be more or less efficient than 2,000 employees with an average burn rate per employee of $500,000/y? If so, why is that a sign of an inherently more efficient company when we haven't even mentioned things like output yet? E.g. some of the companies in the list post a large loss, others post a large gain. If a company doubled it's employee count and posted a 10% change in profit due to staffing budgets why should that result in 100% or 50% change in this metric?
Is 1,000 companies with 1 employee each and a budget of $1,000,000/y inherently supposed to be the same efficiency as 1 company with 1,000 employees and a budget of $1,000,000,000/y even if the other company is posting a profit and the small company just spending it all each year?
I'm generally on the side of NASA but in this case I just don't understand how to apply this metric in a meaningful way. It seems almost everything else about the company is more relevant to overall efficiency the "amount of money spent in the last year for a given number of people working there". I.e., at the end of the day in terms of efficiency I don't really care if 1 person works at NASA or 100,000 people work at NASA I care how quickly they get meaningful missions completed at a given budget.
I'm not saying look at those two numbers divided by each other. In fact the ratio seems to be quite constant across companies.
What I'm saying is, take what Spotify is actually producing, and compare that to half of what NASA is producing. Or compare Snap to a third of NASA, etc.
Similarly just because you and I don't like what Spotify produces as much as what NASA produces doesn't really help weigh their efficiency without a whole lot of other data that's more important (before even getting into the debate of what everyone considers worthwhile output). The most efficient pasta producer in the world could premix their pasta with pesto and I don't get to claim it's the same efficiency as every other place just because I despite pesto.
I mean I get wanting to shit on adtech over NASA, the latters is... significantly more cool. I just don't get why it's related to explaining how efficient or inefficient NASA is at the significantly cooler stuff.
I think the point was these massive ad companies have similar resources as NASA and don't do anything particularly useful* for society.
* For some definitions of useful
Spotify has a 12bn budget? What are they spending it on? Does it include licensing fees?
Spotify doesn't have a great bargaining position against the record labels, they don't make much profit.
This is why they've been trying to move into all the other stuff like podcasts
Employees is a horrible metric to use since NASA contracts out nearly everything.
The NASA budget is $25B, or about $75 per American.
That’s an average for the year 2024, but as income taxpayers we only pay around half of that, or around $36.40 per American (using the $24.9B 2024 budget and 342M for the 2024 population), or maybe about one week’s morning Starbucks habit for some of us. :P The rest is paid by businesses and other sources. Of course, compared to the amount the military costs & spends, NASA’s really small.
The treasury receives 85% of it's income from individual income tax payers, 7% from business taxes, and 7% from excise taxes.
Around 50% of your taxes go to social security and medicare, and the other 50% are available for program revenue.
I guess we both need to cite our sources. Mine is this one, which shows the federal budget revenue being comprised of 50% individual income tax in 2023: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59727
NASA’s budget comes from the the federal budget, managed by congress, not directly from the Treasury. I don’t necessarily think that matters, but I don’t know if the federal budget’s revenue differs from the Treasury’s for any reason, so it seems worth mentioning.
That said, I just looked and the Treasury’s own website matches the congressional budget office’s claim, and says that 52% of the 2024 revenue was individual income tax … so where did you get the 85% number?? https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/gover...
From your own link. What's 52% + 34%? 86%. That's where it comes from. The money you pay in income taxes is divided between these two categories. So, 60% of what you pay as an individual in taxes goes to programs.
They like to break this up so that it's harder for average people to apprehend that 86% of all government spending comes out of their pockets and very little from businesses.
In the 1950s it used to be 50% was from citizens, 25% from business and 25% from excise taxes. This is why I think about the problem this way, but these facts only tangentially intersect with your original point.
Yes, but where are those actual accounts held? At the Treasury. Which is why you pay your taxes to the Treasury or receive refunds from the same.
Are you adding in Social Security and Medicare taxes? Those don’t go to NASA.
The OP posted:
I'm saying using half is incorrect because the ratio isn't as simple as the OP assumed. The correct figure would be 60%, or $43.68 per _citizen_, this because a large chunk of your taxes go elsewhere, and because business pays so very little.
Anyways.. it's a parsimonious point about how taxes are intentionally obscure and widely misunderstood and miscalculated.
I don’t know where 60% comes from since you didn’t explain it, but the percent is a subjective matter of what you choose to include or exclude, and I think you’re still including revenue sources that are not used to fund NASA, and being nonspecific about what spending you’re talking about. If you want to claim which number is “correct”, you need to explain it fully and carefully. Do note the difference between 50% and 60% is smaller than the percentage deficit, so we’re debating something smaller than the margin of error, and there’s no such thing as the “correct figure”. For example, 50% is the revenue portion of the budget that is comprised of individual income taxes, but if we look at the individual income tax revenue of $2.2T versus the total spending of $6.1T, then individual income taxes are actually only 36% of spending, so it can legitimately be argued that the average NASA share per citizen is closer to $26.50. Since that’s an average, it’s always incorrect relative to any given citizen; we haven’t even touched on income brackets and regressive/progressive taxes.
I agree that businesses pay too little, and yes taxes are a bit complicated. I’m not seeing intentional obscurity at this level, just that there are multiple different valid ways to frame NASA’s budget. The top comment was correct that the average per citizen cost to fund NASA in 2023 was slightly under $75. This is already very low, so that was the point from the top. Mine was simply that the actual amount we pay is even lower. Whether it’s 36% or 50% or 60% or even 85% doesn’t matter much, that ends up being about 1 or 2 cups of coffee either way.
I wonder if this spending split is common in all other highly developed nations (think: OECD level). My guess: Yes.
Compared to the cost of the by far most powerful military organization in human history, which is the foundation for the security order of the planet, pretty much every cost is really small.
There's a billionaire who has offered to do a repair mission. NASA considers this too risky to let some random guy go up there and fix it. If they worked together on a plan I feel like they could get this done in a way that reduces the risk, but it seems like they just don't want to.
It's worth adding that the proposal was mainly for reboosting the telescope, which can still be done later if needed.
Trying to EVA and work on Hubble would be very risky right now with Dragon since you have to vent the entire capsule first, and this creates all sorts of optics contamination risks.
They're also balancing this against upcoming technologies, possible cost reductions and the much improved capabilities of ground based telescopes due to advanced adaptive optics.
Couldn't they vent the capsule well before docking with Hubble? I assume the contamination comes from venting the capsule nearby the telescope.
They could, but it might be considered risky or maybe outright not possible with the current design, since the EVA hoses would be different from the ones normally used within the capsule.
It isn't that the problems can't be solved, just that NASA doesn't think it's worth working on just yet. Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if they're hoping to get government funding so that they can be the controlling party (vs a private mission, where, ultimately, they have to compromise with the specific things Isaacman would be willing to fund and within the timeline within which he's willing to keep funding).
Imagine the leaps the humanity would see if the US spent a tenth on NASA as it does on "defense" (it'd likely still outspend the next 10 countries, combined, even then on the war-dept.).
JFK, come back.
Used to do radio astronomy before switching to software, and we would joke that you could fund all of US science grants for a decade by driving to the local airforce base and stealing couple of jets and their loadouts. It wasn't that far off from accurate, sadly.
Its insane how far quality can push things, even with a tiny budget. And yes, Im also making jokes about burning money.. tech is a strange world!