July 20, 2011
-
Nasa Myth #1; NASA is extraordinarily expensive
As I watch the US Space program as we knew it slowly come to an end I look at the budget cuts and the consequences that come from the cuts and ask why NASA? Especially when the US is in need of job creation. Probably the only government spending that really does create jobs is NASA.
At the height of the Apollo program, NASA consumed more than 4 percent of the federal budget. In the 1960s, that was a lot of money. Today, it’s a rounding error. NASA’s budget for fiscal year 2011 is roughly $18.5 billion — 0.5 percent of a $3.7 trillion federal budget. In 2010, Americans spent about as much on pet food.
And those who complain that it is a waste to spend money in space forget that NASA creates jobs. According to the agency, it employs roughly 19,000 civil servants and 40,000 contractors in and around its 10 centers.In the San Francisco area alone, the agency says it created 5,300 jobs and $877 million worth of economic activity in 2009. Ohio, a state hard-hit by the Great Recession that is home to NASA’s Plum Brook Research Station and Glenn Research Center, can’t afford to lose nearly 7,000 jobs threatened by NASA cuts.
Even more people have space-related jobs outside the agency. According to the Colorado Space Coalition, for example, more than 163,000 Coloradans work in the space industry. Though some build rockets for NASA, none show up in the agency’s job data.
Comments (5)
At least it is better than digging holes in the ground and then filling them up.
Read this: http://climbuptreestolookforfish.xanga.com/753170856/i-got-the-following-from-the-net-it-is-hilarious-isn%E2%80%99t-it/
One of the challenges is that NASA has not done a very good job selling itself to the general public. No doubt it brings a lot of value, but I would be hard pressed to explain what, exactly, we get for that money.
Exactly….they have no so called “elevator” pitch and no pitch man to plead their case either.
j
It makes me sad that they are cutting the NASA program
Really effective info, lots of thanks for the article. LINK 3 web. Goodness, there is a great deal of effective data in this post! go 0 6. It’s all wrong what you’re writing. 2 5 6. Thanks so much for this article, pretty useful material.