News: 0175348355

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

NASA Generated $76 Billion For US Economy In 2023

(Tuesday October 29, 2024 @06:00AM (BeauHD) from the economic-impact dept.)


NASA's economic impact report highlights that in fiscal year 2023, the agency's initiatives [1]contributed $75.6 billion to the U.S. economy , created over 300,000 jobs, and drove advancements in areas like space exploration, climate research, and technology innovation. The agency's budget for that year was [2]$25.4 billion . Space.com reports:

> The [3]Moon to Mars program alone created $23.8 billion in economic output and 96,479 jobs, while investments in climate research and technology contributed $7.9 billion and 32,900 jobs. The report also drills down into impacts in each state, with 45 states seeing over $10 million in impact and eight states surpassing the $1 billion mark. [...]

>

> NASA's missions supported 304,803 jobs across America, according to the report -- the third agency-wide study of its kind -- generating an estimated total of $9.5 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. Additionally, NASA's technological innovations and transfers in 2023 led to 40 new patent applications, 69 patents issued, and thousands of software usage agreements. A number of NASA technology spinoffs have become everyday household items.

The full NASA economic impact report can be found [4]here .



[1] https://www.space.com/nasa-economic-impact-us-2023-report

[2] https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/nasa-budget

[3] https://www.nasa.gov/moontomarsarchitecture/

[4] https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/final-fy23-nasa-ecomomic-impact-report.pdf



Makes a good point, but uses the wrong argument. (Score:2)

by Eunomion ( 8640039 )

The economic impact of NASA is overwhelmingly in long-term technology support. The jobs it creates via direct investment could just as easily be created by any other institution being hired to do this, that, or the other - it's just Keynesian economics. So the real argument for NASA is tech creation. Unfortunately, that's come to be seen as a danger to the jobs element, hence abominations like the Space Launch System that are literally designed to be less advanced than the state of the art rather than pu

Re: Makes a good point, but uses the wrong argumen (Score:1)

by MrNaz ( 730548 )

Probably not "just as easily". The private sector does not usually deliver a 3 to 1 return to the economy.

Re: Makes a good point, but uses the wrong argume (Score:1)

by writeRight ( 1444379 )

The space.com fanboys or fangirls did not analyze what alternatives would have returned. If space spending has such great ROI let's crowdfund it and 3x our personal wealth every year.

Re: Makes a good point, but uses the wrong argumen (Score:1)

by writeRight ( 1444379 )

2024 spend was around $27 billion, which does not include federal civil service employee pensions. While we have benefitted from some space programs, we no longer can afford so much deficit spending for this non-critical group. Some reduction in NASA programs is approriate.

But gubbermint spending.... (Score:2, Funny)

by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 )

...is BAD! Everyone knows that. When you spend money it's gone, wasted, & gubbermint money is spending people's taxes. It's wasted, gone. We need more fiscal conservatism & debt ceilings to reign in gubbermint spending because reasons... and it's bad, I tell you... BAD!!!

Re: (Score:2)

by gtall ( 79522 )

Really? Then Grandma and Grandpa can come and live with you, and their meds are expensive.

EPA tries to keep your water and air clean and prevent those nice corporations from fouling them.

The air traffic system tries to keep your plane from running into another.

The NHTSA tries to keep your vehicle from become a flaming death trap and your child car seats from spewing their contents in a crash.

There is an almost endless list of things government does that you rely upon no matter now much you right wing-nuts a

Re: (Score:1)

by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

> ...is BAD! Everyone knows that. When you spend money it's gone, wasted, & gubbermint money is spending people's taxes. It's wasted, gone. We need more fiscal conservatism & debt ceilings to reign in gubbermint spending because reasons... and it's bad, I tell you... BAD!!!

If it's a magic money generator, then why not just have three more NASAs? Or thirty more NASAs?

Wow! (Score:1)

by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

We've discovered magical money multiplication!

Now we just need two NASAs!

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage
from beginning to end.
-- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"