User:Lensaticflare/sandbox

NASA's FY 2017 budget of $19.5 billion (in nominal dollars) represented 0.47% of the $3.98 trillion United States federal budget during that year.

NASA was allocated $601.31 billion (in nominal dollars) overall from 1958 to 2018. According to the Office of Management and Budget and the Air Force Almanac, when measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation in today's current-value dollars), the total, cumulative figure to date would equal $1.32 trillion, an average of $22.03 billion per year over its sixty-year history. NASA's proposed 2018 budget is $20,736 billion in 2018 dollars -- roughly equal to NASA's 1963 budget of $2.55 billion. However, as a percentage of federal spending, NASA's budget is significantly lower than in 1963.

*PROPOSE DELETION OF NASA EMPLOYMENT SECTION*

*MOVE THE SPINOFFS PARAGRAPH BEFORE "The American public..." IN "PUBLIC PERCEPTION" SECTION*

NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the Apollo program

NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66, when it consumed roughly 4% of federal spending. The agency was building up to the first moon landing; the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors.

In March 1966, NASA officials told Congress that the 1959–72 "run-out cost" of the Apollo program would be an estimated $22.718 billion. The total cost turned out to be between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (about $136 billion in 2007 dollars).

The costs of the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets came to about $83 billion in 2005 dollars. Apollo spacecraft cost $28 billion, including the Command/Service Module, $17 billion; Lunar Module, $11 billion; and launch vehicles (Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V cost about $46 billion in 2005 dollars).

A November 1971 study of NASA released by MRIGlobal (formerly Midwest Research Institute) of Kansas City, Missouri concluded that "the $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958–1969 period has returned $52.5 billion through 1971 – and will continue to produce pay offs through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent."

A map from NASA's web site illustrating its economic impact on the U.S. states (as of FY2003)

Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight-year period (1976–1984) and found more than:

• $21.6 billion in sales and benefits
• 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved
• $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

According to a 1992 Nature commentary, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs."

A 2013 report prepared by the Tauri Group for NASA showed that NASA invested nearly $5 billion in U.S. manufacturing in FY 2012, with nearly $2 billion of that going to the technology sector. NASA also develops and commercializes technology, some of which can generate over $1 billion in revenue per year over multiple years

In 2014, the American Helicopter Society criticized NASA and the government for reducing the annual rotorcraft budget from $50 million in 2000 to $23 million in 2013.

The 2017 Economic Impact Report prepared by NASA for their Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) awards found that for FY 2016, these programs created 2,412 jobs, $474 million in economic output, and $57.3 million in fiscal impact with an initial investment of $172.9 million.

Public reception

Public opposition to NASA and its budget dates back to the Apollo era.  Critics have cited more immediate concerns, like social welfare programs, as reasons to cut funding to the agency. Furthermore, they have questioned the return on investment (ROI) feasibility of NASA’s research and development. In 1968, physicist Ralph Lapp argued that if NASA really did have a positive ROI, it should be able to sustain itself as a private company, and not require federal funding. More recently, critics have faulted NASA for sinking money into the Space Shuttle program, reducing funding available for its long-term missions to Mars and deep space. Manned missions to Mars have also been denounced for their inefficiency and large cost compared to unmanned missions.

Under the Republican's FY 2018 Budget, NASA received support and overall funding was increased.

Recent developments

The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 marked some changes to NASA’s mission. It reaffirms interest in:

·      long-term deep space exploration

·      manned missions to the moon by 2021 and Mars by 2033

·      supersonic and hypersonic aircraft development

·      exploration of Europa

·      maintenance of current initiatives including the James Webb Space Telescope, the Orion spacecraft, the Space Launch System, and the International Space Station

The law also expanded the TREAT Astronauts Act, which provides medical diagnostic and treatment services to former astronauts. Absent from the law is any mention of NASA’s earth science programs, which some critics believe is a politically motivated move.

The proposed NASA Authorization Act of 2018 would increase NASA’s budget from $19.5 billion in FY 2017 to $20.74 billion in FY 2018, and again to $21.21 billion in FY 2019. This act supports the initiatives outlined in the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, and adds a detailed outline of goals regarding NASA’s earth science division.

References