Re: NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars

[Jorge R. Frank]

Eddie Valiant > wrote in
:

> While I agree at first glance that there should be more to show for
> the money, let's not forget that NASA stands for the National
> AERONAUTICS and Space Agency. It's my understanding that the NASA
> budget also includes funding for such mundane things as more
> aerodynamic wings and fuel efficient engines for airliners, new
> technologies, etc., etc., etc. Alot of what that budget bought
> probably goes unnoticed by the majority of us but that doesn't
> diminish it's value or our return on the investment.

Exactly my point. Apollo dominated NASA's budget during the 1960s to an
extent that the shuttle (or even shuttle+station now) never did.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Gene DiGennaro]

I agree that aeronautics is often overlooked when looking at the
accomplishments of NASA. But Apollo did not drain away all of the
aeronautics funding either. Think of all of the lifting body,VSTOL and
SST research that went on during the 60's. Let's face it, the National
Love affair with Aerospace has long since ended and since 9/11 I might
even say that America is beginning to hate Aerospace. Especially
airliner transport and general aviation. Look at all the draconian
regs that have loaded upon GA pilots these days. In addition, it is
awfully hard to be a ramp rat these days without being branded as a
suspected terrorist.

Gene


"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message >...
> Eddie Valiant > wrote in
> :
>
> > While I agree at first glance that there should be more to show for
> > the money, let's not forget that NASA stands for the National
> > AERONAUTICS and Space Agency. It's my understanding that the NASA
> > budget also includes funding for such mundane things as more
> > aerodynamic wings and fuel efficient engines for airliners, new
> > technologies, etc., etc., etc. Alot of what that budget bought
> > probably goes unnoticed by the majority of us but that doesn't
> > diminish it's value or our return on the investment.
>
> Exactly my point. Apollo dominated NASA's budget during the 1960s to an
> extent that the shuttle (or even shuttle+station now) never did.