This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Trump Budget Forecast For NASA? Gloomy

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 19, 2017
Filed under
Trump Budget Forecast For NASA? Gloomy

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts, The Hill
“The changes they propose are dramatic. The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations. Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years.”
Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending, Washington Post
“For example, about half of the government’s discretionary spending is on the military. Cutting all discretionary spending each year means cutting all funding for the military, which is both politically and rationally a nonstarter. The formulas for how much is spent on the non-discretionary spending can be adjusted, but Trump has pledged not to cut spending on the so-called “entitlement” programs.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

55 responses to “Trump Budget Forecast For NASA? Gloomy”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like a good start on draining the swamp. NASA’s budget could probably stand a good going over. Does it really need so many Centers and the SLS?

    Also, looking at it from the taxpayer perspective, there are 77.5 million households that pay income taxes. A $10.5 trillion reduction over a decade equals a $135,484 saving per household. The means families will get to keep $13,500 more of the money they earn each year to spend on what they want instead of giving it to Washington bureaucrats to spend.

    As a taxpayer I hope that $10.5 trillion is just the start.

    • Ted says:
      0
      0

      You’re assuming the cuts will be returned as lower taxes, which then wouldn’t help the deficit which is the whole point. You’re also assuming average families would see any of those tax cuts instead of the very wealthy. Regardless, there’s not $1T/yr that can be cut from discretionary spending even if we wanted to.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The National Debt needs to be paid down, the sooner the better. When it is then the benefits will accrue to American taxpayers.

        And even if it is only half that level it will still be a great boom to tax payers. The average household had to pay $23,070 in taxes last year so a reduction of 40% would be nice, but I will settle for 20%.

        • PsiSquared says:
          0
          0

          Given the how income distribution is skewed, a better measure of the central tendency in taxes paid would be the median household.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            I know one poor fellow who hasn’t paid a penny in taxes in twenty years. He seems to have plenty of big cars, however. He says it proves he is “smart”.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Daniel,

            That is why I favor replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. It would favor those who are thrifty and work hard. Exempt food, medicine, and health care from it and you would minimize the impact on those with low incomes.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          as most of the tax cuts will go to families with very high incomes … does that mean they will run out and spend that tax savings?

          It was my understanding the 267 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus were not very successful because so much went to the top and they do not have to spend it. Velocity of money and all that?

          • rktsci says:
            0
            0

            One problem is that over 45% of US households pay on federal income tax, so an income tax cut can’t help them directly. They only pay SS/Medicare/Medicaid tax.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, the new tax laws allowed a lot folks to drop off the tax rolls. But that doesn’t mean the folks that are still supporting the government with taxes shouldn’t get a break.

          • rktsci says:
            0
            0

            Concur. Just pointing out that it’s hard to give everyone an income tax break when only 55% of the households can get one. (Cutting SS/MCare/MCaid taxes is a very bad idea given the size of the trust funds….)

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            One problem was the money went to buying/investing in foreign goods\firms. That is a problem with the globalize economy, the stimulus doesn’t stay always within the national borders, but it “leaks” out. Another was many folks just used it to pay down their outstanding loans.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            I am always reminded of Rogers.. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          • David says:
            0
            0

            Exactly Vladislav. The tax cuts need to go to the poor and middle classes as they will spend the money thus stimulating the economy. I suggest making the Soc Sec payments on ALL income and then cutting it from 6% to 3%. This would bring in the same amount but the very rich would be paying an extra 3% – which they would hardly notice – but the poor and middle classes would have Billions to spend, which they would do.

        • Ted says:
          0
          0

          Do you want to pay down the debt? Or do you want to cut taxes? Choosing to pay down the debt (which we don’t HAVE to do) would almost certainly require raising taxes. There simply isn’t enough savings possible from non-defense discretionary spending to even come close to breaking even, much less reducing the debt. I get the impression that you view the debt as a large burden on taxpayers. It’s not. Interest on the debt is a very small portion of overall expenditures.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Its only small because interest rates are near zero. When they return to normal it will become a burden. The deficit for 2016 was $590 billion, about half of discretionary spending, so its doable, especially if we stop being the world’s police and let Europe and Japan start paying for their own defense instead of freeloading on American taxpayers.

            The EU has a combined GDP greater that the US but pays only a quarter of what we paid for their military. Its way pass time for them to pay their fair share. Actually if they were honorable they would offer to pay off some of out national debt since a lot of it was run up paying for their defense during the Cold War allowing them to spend their tax money on health care and infrastructure instead of defense.

          • cb450sc says:
            0
            0

            Pay their fair share? I don’t think it’s a given that our military spending needs to be as high as it is – it’s not a zero-sum game. Perhaps the EU, having been literally burned to the ground during the last world war, prioritized other things beyond war machines. The US military is more powerful than the rest of the earth put together. Just the money that got misplaced during the Iraq war could have paid for college for every student in the US. But somehow military spending is simply off the table in budget negotiations. This issue really chafes me, because the public generally believes the space program has a budget commensurate with the military budget (you’d be amazed how many assume NASA is a branch of the military). Imagine what we could with even a tenth of that. Do we need to spend $600B? Would $300B be enough?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            300B would probably be enough if other nations contributed their fair share to their own defense. That is the problem. The want Uncle Sam to spend American money and send Americans to die to protect them while they just spend token monies on their military.

            Maybe if other nations did pay their fair share America would have money to spend on NASA.

            BTW you see this same issue of Europe under spending on Space. ESA combined GDP is greater than the U.S. but they only spend a quarter as much space depending on the U.S. to take the lead. Europe always puts its domestic needs first, why shouldn’t we as well? Its been 70 years since WWII ended. Its far past time for Europe to stand on its own both in space and national defense and stop looking to Uncle Sam for more handouts.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      You need to look at the distribution of income, not just the total, Under Trump’s tax plan 50% of the cuts will go to the top 1%, with those with income of $1M getting an average tax cut of $317,000. However a single parent with two children and an income of $75,000 would see a tax increase of $2,400.
      http://www.npr.org/2016/11/
      Extremely rich people (such as those recently appointed to the cabinet) will get richer. The poor and middle class will get poorer.

    • Mr.Anderson says:
      0
      0

      draining the swamp? have you been paying attention to the people he’s put in his cabinet?

      i’m all for saving money, and i think we need to get serious about tackling our deficit, but cutting taxes like he’s proposed wont do it.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        To be fair to Trump, he didn’t specify into whose pockets he would be draining it.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Trump Reverses Obama’s Mortgage Fee Cuts on First Day

          “Soon after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, his administration undid one of Barack Obama’s last-minute economic-policy actions: a mortgage-fee cut under a government program that’s popular with first-time home buyers and low-income borrowers.

          The new administration on Friday said it’s canceling a reduction in the Federal Housing Administration’s annual fee for most borrowers”

          https://www.bloomberg.com/p

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Good move. The last thing we need is another housing bubble. Why do you think President Obama waited until the end of his Administration to do it?

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            So that Trump would cancel it … they probably even talked about it in the days they were meeting.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            on a 200,000 dollar loan .. it would mean a savings of about 500 dollars a year.. I do not see a housing boom coming over 500 bucks.

        • Mr.Anderson says:
          0
          0

          You’re correct on that one.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Who would you put in charge? Some starry-eyed lawyer with no idea of how the world works?

        When Franklin Roosevelt decided to clean up the stock market and regulate it he put Joe Kennedy in charge of the brand new SEC. He made his fortune by stock manipulation and knew every trick in the book. Who better to draft regulations to outlaw such tactics?

        The best way to defend against hackers is to hire a hacker.

        • Mr.Anderson says:
          0
          0

          Oh, I don’t know, How about experts to start? Trump had an energy security who at one time advocated the dismantling of the very agency he’s now heading, and he’s only got a BS in animal studies. Maybe a HUD secretary with ZERO experience in urban or housing development is a better choice–someone who got the position only because he was black and is going to work on inner city issues. Don’t get me wrong, Dr. Carson is a highly educated man, but he’s in the wrong job. Or how about an education secretary that’s never taught a day in her life, doesn’t hold a education degree of anytype, and advocates voucher programs? Maybe you’re more comfortable with his son-in-law being in charge of Middle East peace when he’s never been to there nor has any experience in that area–which trump has made all but impossible now that he’s going to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The problem with “experts” is that they usually end up micromanaging an agency instead of doing their job of being an administrator.

            NASA is a good example. James Webb was probably the best Administrator NASA had, leading it to the Moon. But he only had a Bachelors in Education and a Law Degree. That is why he was such a good Administrator, he didn’t second guess his engineers but instead focused on his job of getting support from Congress and the Administration to go to the Moon.

            By contrast Dr. Mike Griffin was an “expert” with multiple degrees in science and engineering. But rather than building support for VSE in Congress and the Administration he wasted his time micromanaging NASA to the point of even designing the rockets and mission architecture. He not only threw away the best chance NASA HSF had to break out of LEO since Project Apollo but he made NASA dependent on Russia for its HSF needs. NASA is still picking up the pieces from his “expert” reign as Administrator. I pity the USAF if he gets put in charge of it, he will probably be having fun spending his time designing new aircraft they don’t need rather than getting Congressional support for it.

            Gov. Perry is well qualified to administer the Dept. of Energy having been government of a state where energy is the main industry. And his wanting to shut it down is a plus because not only will he not try to expand its reach but will likely be cutting it down to the size it should be. Indeed, maybe he even will find most of it is unnecessary and will just spinoff those part that are saving taxpayers billions 🙂

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Exact opposite with non experts: no experience, no regulations, profit or votes over national interests. Give us all a break with your deception.

            HSF lost when depot centric was cast aside by the 2000s Congress for CxP/Griffin/’mooning’.
            How many will continue to deceive making false claims –under testimony!– given:
            a) citizen’s united b) gerrymandered districts
            c) lobbyists seeking tax dollars or tax breaks
            d) regulatory agencies being controlled by the various companies they are supposed to be scrutinizing via Congress/Admins/POTUS
            e) false news and deception by Congress and companies beyond ‘marketing’

          • Mr.Anderson says:
            0
            0

            Just because I can work on a Ford doesn’t mean I should run the company. Texas does produces a lot of oil, but the energy departments main job isn’t oil, it’s nuclear weapons.

            you makes some great points with Mike Griffin and Jame Webb, but you’re also cherry picking the facts. It’s obvious preferable to have someone with experience in the field to run a project / agency then a complete novice. Trump has filled his cabinet with people that lack even a basic understanding of the jobs they now lead. His education secretary for example–Devos–has never held a job. She was born rich, and donated millions to Republicans over the years. She said she’s “singularly focused on accountability.” Accountability without any meaningful assessment, education, or learning is just a penalty. Her focus on Christian values and pushing of her religious views into mainstream education is frightening. The head of an agency shouldn’t be there to push a personal religious agenda considering she would work for all of us, not just the far-right or her particular religion. The Republicans (or a vast majority of the US population) wouldn’t stand for a Muslim pushing Sharia law into our education system, yet are fine with this?

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      >Does it really need so many Centers and the SLS?

      Does the money that go to the Centers spend on jobs at the Centers or is it vectored out to companies? Like other have implied if SLS is cut there will be a huge uproar from AL and UT.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        So? There always is an uproar when you take folks entitlements away. But all you have to do is look at how Boeing and Lockheed responded to President Trumps tweets. Boeing said it would aggressively find ways to lower the cost of the replacements for Air Force One. Lockheed’s CEO also indicated they WILL find ways to significantly lower the per unit cost of the F-35.

        President Trump has been working with contractors all his life and has dealt before with contractors padding expenses and knows what to do about it. Unlike the beltway chorus he is not going to look the other way.

        NASA is further down the pecking order, but he will get around to it.

  2. JadedObs says:
    0
    0

    Just because Trump wants to cut doesn’t mean the Congress will go along and even so, there has been zero mention of NASA in these articles; they are mostly the same Conservative Republican targets they always go after – kill PBS, the national endowment for the arts, Amtrak, mass transit subsidies and kiss your Tesla rebate goodbye… George W Bush had many of the same targets early in his Presidency as did Reagan. NASA wasn’t on those lists then even if it didn’t get a big boost.

    Politicians with this political perspective don’t see these things as legitimate functions of government – but they usually support NASA in areas where commercial companies can’t do the job. They also still need to get re-elected so anyone thinking that SLS is on the same list as PBS and Amtrak doesn’t understand the politics of places like Alabama and Texas. Sorry SLS haters, until we see it axed in the President’s budget, I wouldn’t get my hopes up – and even if it were, it still has to get through the Congress.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      NASA and the LV industry need missions and payloads combined with economic access to space to enable new markets. NASA also needs common hardware elements with the goal of reuse per the VSE. Fortunately, depot centric is 10Bs less than SLS in a LV independent architecture.

      I did not realize that LV apartheid and wall building for BEO exploration with no competition, not to mention a complete ‘disregard for human suffering in the pursuit of profit’ (oil and corn subsidies, deregulation, repeal) and zero missions, all justified with manipulated data, false news and deceit, is more important than PBS, the Arts which inspire, Amtrak, warming of 2 to 6 deg at an ‘unpresidented’ rate 20x higher than ever, new markets and more deep space exploration. Go Figure. I didn’t.
      I do know that many do not want ‘to win’ this way. Congrats?

      SpaceX returned to the Titan I with only one engine type (Merlin) instead of the LR87, 92s, without solids focussed on “we really need to get behind a reuseable first stage” per shuttle designer Max Faget, and this proposal and others were *repeatedly* denied funding for decades, even with Bs per yr.

      Lost opportunities, just like L2 satellite servicing for Orion ‘to return to the moon again’ and PICA for asteroids and Mars.

      Would Tx/Al want to work on adv. propulsion, depots, actual DRMs, ISRU, instead of decades old stuff? Lost for words.

      Godspeed with your plan and this legitimate function of USG to buy votes with the goal to have the democrats own ACA.

      BTW: 2003 Bush Medicare Part D has added ~400B to the deficit. Forcing down drug prices would diminish the drug companies’ profits and Republicans were adamantly opposed. Despite their oft-repeated opposition to new entitlement programs, they made sure there was no cost-containment provision. ‘Free enterprise’ paid for by USG tax dollars.

      America First! .. and then the sinking feeling settles in.

  3. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    Those national debt charts are not just gloomy, they are terrifying. One chart places the U.S. as the 3rd worst developed country in the world, behind Japan and Greece.

    And now, we might have a president who actually wants to fix things, He will be very unpopular, just like the credit counselor who cuts up an addicts credit cards right in front of them.

    Out of control Government spending R.I.P.?

    • Convert says:
      0
      0

      >Out of control Government spending R.I.P.
      US debt is elevated because of low tax revenues not spending. Also debt service as % of GDP is a very low levels. Hardly a reason to stop investing in national R&D.

  4. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    They may want to add to the sermon to the economically uneducated that with a 146M/yr cut to the Arts, it would take ~10,000 yrs without inflation to achieve 10T. If applied to the debt, $ are *LOST*.
    If, OTOH, they gut DOD, it would take 20 yrs @ 500B/yr. Oh 10 yrs!

    10T over 10 yrs, 1T/yr is what, 20 million jobs?– all lost if to deficit.
    Simple, lack of thought solutions to complex problems. With all these cuts, folks are going to need the Arts and PBS without private bias.

    PBS and the Arts inspire: Priceless. How is this swamp draining?!

    “Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” ― Pablo Picasso

    “If you want to really hurt you parents, and you don’t have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts. I’m not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven’s sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.”
    ― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country

    • rktsci says:
      0
      0

      The problem with arts funding is that it gets politics involved in their decisions. The money doesn’t go to starving artists like in La Boheme, it goes to opera companies that perform La Boheme.

      Perhaps there are too many professional symphony orchestras, corps de ballet, and opera companies. If Broadway can flourish with one major theater center in NY and traveling shows, perhaps the other performing arts can do the same. All the arts have a real problem with Baumol’s cost disease, as their productivity lags the economy in general.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      “The American Enlightenment is a period of intellectual ferment in the thirteen American colonies in the period 1714–1818, which led to the American Revolution, and the creation of the American Republic. Influenced by the 18th-century European Enlightenment and its own native American philosophy, the American Enlightenment applied scientific reasoning to politics, science, and religion, promoted religious tolerance, and restored literature, the arts, and music as important disciplines and professions worthy of study in colleges. The “new-model” American style colleges of King’s College New York (now Columbia University), and the College of Philadelphia (now Penn) were founded, Yale College and the College of William & Mary were reformed, and a non-denominational moral philosophy replaced theology in many college curricula; even Puritan colleges such as the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) and Harvard University reformed their curricula to include natural philosophy (science), modern astronomy, and mathematics.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      The key here is not the money, its the government being involved in activities the private sector does better. There are thousands of nonprofits, local and national, that support the arts, why does the government have to use my tax dollars to do so in competition with them? Same with PBS, why should the government be in competition with private TV channels?

      PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts are classic example of mission creep that have occurred in government since WW II. Part of draining the swamp is getting the government out of activities the private sector is able to do.

      Sure it makes the elites mad they will be cut off of their stream of tax payer dollars, but with only a little extra effort they will find private donors.

      As for jobs lost. Please, study some Macroeconomics. The jobs don’t disappear, they just go from the government column to the private column in terms of the economy.

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        “The National Debt needs to be paid down, the sooner the better. *When* it is *then* the benefits will accrue to American taxpayers. A $10.5 trillion reduction over a decade ” — ThomasLMatula (see below)

        10T = 20ys @ 500B/yr then the ‘benefits’ to taxpayers, so there would be ~20M jobs lost for 20 yrs, no DOD.

        The estimated costs of all USG workers (not outsourced) is what 100B? So with private 10 to 200% efficiency, USG could outsource 100B, multiplies to 200B and it would only take 50-1000 yrs to achieve 10T. Private companies on USG dole have less incentive to complete the work, but clearly not all.

        PBS is superior and unique to private TV in many ways (Fox news ROFL), and they do not compete for superbowls, reality TV, etc, invaluable for those unable to pay $130/mo for mostly nonsense. Most gladly pay their taxes for PBS and the Arts.

        DTS: The issues are
        a) citizen’s united b) gerrymandered districts
        c) lobbyists seeking tax dollars or tax breaks
        d) regulatory agencies being controlled by the various companies they are supposed to be scrutinizing via Congress and Adminstrators and POTUS
        e) false news and deception by Congress and companies beyond ‘marketing’

        On whether its better in the private sector (vs the environment, pay, benefits): this would lead to a needed long discussion on macroeconomics. It would need to consider outsourcing (RD-180s, crew), allowing undocumented workers to increase profits and productivity in the cattle, chicken, fast food, hotel, etc, not to mention a disregard for human suffering in the pursuit of profit.

        If you are interested in Americans First, check out these links and/or Future Generation: Charter Schools.

        http://documentary-movie.co

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/fro

        https://economix.blogs.nyti

        https://www.youtube.com/wat

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016

        • Eli Rabett says:
          0
          0

          Raise taxes back to the 1993 law. That worked.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Trump promised a huge tax cut, a huge infrastructure spending program, a balanced budget, and no cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.

          • Eli Rabett says:
            0
            0

            Hard to tell whether you have the . .sarcasm – – /sarcasm tags up.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          If folks like PBS they could just subscribe directly. Indeed, they is how they already get most of their funding, from members and donors. It wouldn’t take much more for the federal government to spin them off completely as an independent nonprofit.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Folks who cannot ‘to subscribe’ would miss out from quality, unique TV without bias instead of being overwhelmed with Reality TV nonsense, sports, both filled with commercials.

            PBS would drift toward a false news maker, answering to the corporate CEO bias rather than national interests. — No Thanks!

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Then I guess we should say that astrophysics and planetary science, and all government-funded human spaceflight are examples of mission creep and should be eliminated. Maybe we should eliminate public education as well. Go back to the model where health and education are reserved for those with the money to pay for them. But that pretty much eliminates the need for NASAWatch.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Public education goes back to before the founding of the Unites States, its nothing new. What is new is federal micromanagement of it.

          The problem with mission creep is tasks are added with good motives but then drift away from those goals. PBS and the National Endowment for Arts are two good examples. Did you know that both the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities were created because it was felt scientists needed more insight into ethics and morality?

          https://www.neh.gov/about/h

          “As Glenn Seaborg, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission, told a Senate committee: “We cannot afford to drift physically, morally, or
          esthetically in a world in which the current moves so rapidly perhaps toward an abyss. Science and technology are providing us with the means to travel swiftly. But what course do we take? This is the question that no computer can answer.”

          Yet how much of their current work serves that purpose? Have they made you more ethical as a scientist?

          On good thing about a Trump Administration is it will start a debate on exactly what should the function of government be. Two key measures will be if benefits to the nation outweigh costs and if private spending would be able to replace
          government ones.

          But even if the answer is no for astrophysics it wouldn’t be the end of the world. Remember almost all of astronomy, except for the Smithsonian and U.S. Navy, was privately funded before WWII and many private groups like the Keck Foundation are still heavily into it.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            I think if you read the entire article, you will agree that Dr. Seaborg’s statement was not directed toward scientists, but toward the nation an a whole.

  5. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    Let’s look at what the Donald’s administration says they want to spend money on. First is a big wall – we have seen estimates that start at 10 billion and go up. Then greatly increasing the military and our nuclear weapons inventory. Possibly that is one item? They have talked about a trillion dollar infrastructure program.

    Add to that – big tax cuts.

    With that as a baseline – if we cut discretionary spending to the bone we only “greatly” increase the deficit. Certainly the deficit is about to go up steeply, the question is: how steeply. Cuts in spending are a popular idea but does the Administration plan on cutting in one area while holding the rest stable?

    If Donald has the choice between his wall and the SLS – which do we think that he will choose? He campaigned on building a wall.

    A person who can do basic addition will see that the chance of the NASA budget even staying level is not good.

  6. rktsci says:
    0
    0

    You would still need Marshall/Stennis for development of upper stages and human landers, JSC for human mission control.

  7. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    The US federal budget as a percent of GDP has been almost constant, about 20%,since 1953. https://fred.stlouisfed.org
    It’s actually quite sustainable and relatively low. What’s unusual in the US is not that the federal budget is unusually high but rather that we often cut taxes below the level at which we can actually pay it.

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Does wasting tax payer money make you happy?

    Yes, the contractors who grew fat on the present system will need to go on a diet, but it will make them more competitive in private markets which they will be forced to turn to. And that empty seat could probably be sold off to a private researcher or foreign government, accelerating the transition to a space commerce economy.