Talk:Budget of NASA

message: Citation #11 is a citation of this very Wikipedia article. My head just about exploded when I saw it. --66.206.187.182 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right; Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, and this has been removed, along with the sentence it was used to cite. Thanks for catching it. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Wikipedia now Cites Itself? 

message: As is, the quotation from the Midwest Research Institute seems to imply that the return on investment for civilian space R&D was 33% per year. 
At this rate, however, a $25 billion investment in 1958 would have ballooned to $7.5 Trillion in only 20 years (and almost $100 Trillion by 1987). 
Someone with access to the cited source should clarify exactly how the authors came up with that 33% figure because it's clearly NOT intended 
to reflect an annually compounded ROI. 
71.100.17.85 (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed under "Economic impact of NASA funding" 

message: On april 7, the table of actual funding data was removed from the article by an anonymous user with no reason given. If there's a problem with the article, shouldn't the proper response be to try and fix it? Even if something needs to go, I don't think an immediate gutting of the article with no discussion is the right route. Right now the article is completely useless, since it no longer has any information on its actual subject. Unless someone wants to justify this, I'm going to revert that edit after a few days. 68.43.60.195 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have reverted it. That's simply an inexcusable edit and I don't think it even deserved the generous grace period it's had. Fourpointsix (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of data 

message: NASA released a new paper about it's budget on March 4, 2014: []. Because I can't edit the page as effectively as I want, it would be perfect if an experienced user adds this new information. Thank you. EmreOsm95 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Data 

message: Using the data from this article, I created a new vectorized version of this chart:
Because we don't seem to have the projected federal numbers, I felt it would be WP:OR to try and recreate that section of the chart. I did, however, expand the span to be 1958-2012 rather than 1962-2014. A fairly faithful recreation of the original chart can be found here. However, since these data are really not well-represented using a line graph, I generated instead a bar graph, which looks much nicer:
I used Python and matplotlib to generate these images, so that they can be easily updated, either for stylistic reasons or when later budget reports are released. You can find the code in my userspace here. I'm not sure that's the best place for the code, long-term, but I don't see an easy way to attach image-generation scripts to images on commons. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image is fine the way it is. Its appearance must be dependent on the reader's equipment; yesterday on a different computer the axes and labels were looking light and hard to read, but that's not the case on the computer I'm using today (not perfect, but good enough to read.) I don't think you need to bother removing the labels; I think once users have been around a while they should know they can always just click on any image as necessary to see it in greater detail. 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image replacement 

message: The section on economic impact is dated, citing studies from the 1970s.  
I'm sure others can find more info, but here are some links to start:
* 
* 
-- Beland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic impact dated stats 

message: The economic impact section seems to be promoting the idea that NASA is well worth the economic investment in economic returns.  This is a controversial claim.  For example, the stats provided only claim $22.1B of benefit from 8 years of spending.  It's unclear how or if these are inflation-adjusted, and it's unclear if this is just the amount NASA spent on stuff, or if this is solely the amount due to the multiplier effect.  The real crux of the matter is whether or not the multiplier for NASA is greater than everything else we could be spending the billions of dollars on.  I'm not taking a position on these questions, but this section needs to take in a wider diversity of viewpoints.  Here are some examples not reflected in the article:
Pages that raise criticisms:
* NASA wasted $20B on canceled programs
*  - Arguing we should cancel manned Mars exploration program
* A Case For Cutting NASA' Budget (1968)
* Is NASA A Waste Of Money? - public debate
*  - Was the Space Shuttle program worth the cost?  (Says arguments go both ways.)
-- Beland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The "jobs created or saved" thing is something I've only ever heard from politicians. The sources in that section are either opinion pieces or commissioned by NASA, including a little propaganda diagram about what districts NASA is spending money on. That's all highly promotional, biased material. It's definitely got undue weight in the article. I say for now we remove the section. If someone wants to write a more balanced version that's fine, though it's not clear that it belongs here instead of in NASA, or as a subsection of "public perception". I'm not really sure how the scope of the two articles are divided up. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic impact POV

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Budget of NASA's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "lafleur20100308":
From Apollo program: 
From Skylab:  See author's correction in comments section.
From Project Mercury: 
From Apollo–Soyuz Test Project: 
From International Space Station:  See author correction in comments.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: These are essentially identical; I used the Apollo program reference since it looks the best-formatted. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Budget of NASA]] 

message: You are missing the number of astronauts, which is an important indicator for capital finance single individual ventures.
IE: Approximately how much would an individual require, to be able to put themselves in space. (employees are there, but not the number of astronauts).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.82.107 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing on table. 

message: This is a page about the budget of NASA, and while it is mentioned how the budget is spent in some places, is there really a need for a chart of NASA's employment? Not to mention, this chart is based on a dataset referenced in a study that isn't being updated, so a new source would have to be found for this information. Similar pages, like the ones on the DoD budget, don't give an in-depth breakdown of their employment statistics. Maybe have one reference to the current total number of employees in the introduction of the article, but that should be the extent of it.
Lensaticflare (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing section on Employment Statistics 

message: I am moving this recent edit here for discussion. (It was made by an editor coincidentally blocked for promotional username, which some might say justifies its reversion):
There are a couple of problems I see with this:
#Off-topic: the point of this section (as its title says) is to give actual instances of political opposition to NASA funding, not to accuse political groups of making bogus charges of opposition by the other side.
#The example given is from a known left-wing commentator (Williams) criticizing Reagan. This is a matter of opinion; the case can be made that Mondale in fact, early in his Senate career, took advantage of the Apollo 1 fire to launch criticism of NASA's handling of the Moon program, attempting to make a scandal out of the North American Aviation vendor selection process, under the guise of concern for astronaut safety.
#This is unbalanced by counter-examples of the left wing falsely accusing the right of funding criticisms.
I don't think we want to get into this high-potential, inherently non-NPOV area. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political edit opens a can of worms 

message: Now that NASA also uses the "worm" logo (as opposed to the "meatball"), should both be on the page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA logo