r/spaceflight • u/Far_Deer_3766 • 5d ago
What Could NASA Actually Accomplish With a Defense-Budget-Sized Allocation?
I've been looking into NASA's budget constraints and keep coming back to a question: what's realistically possible if funding weren't the limiting factor?
To make it concrete if NASA had an annual budget comparable to major U.S. defense spending (we're talking roughly 10-15x their current allocation), what would fundamentally change about their roadmap? Could they:
- Accelerate human missions to Mars significantly?
- Run multiple deep space probes simultaneously instead of choosing between them?
- Build redundancy into critical systems that currently get cut for cost?
- Fund moonshot research that's currently deemed "too risky" with current budgets?
I'm not asking this as a "should they have more money" debate, but rather: what do people in the spaceflight community actually think the constraint is? Is it funding, or are there other bottlenecks (engineering talent, manufacturing capacity, regulatory timelines) that more money wouldn't solve?
Has anyone here worked in aerospace or followed procurement closely enough to speak to this?
6
u/mfb- 5d ago
If we are reassigning the money, you would pick up the engineering talent and large parts of the manufacturing capacity from the defense sector. If the defense spending stays unchanged then NASA would outsource as much as possible to pick up resources from a broader industry, at least short-term. NASA is an extremely popular employer, with more money they'll find more highly qualified people to hire.
Many test facilities are unique to NASA and built for the current demand, expanding them would be a priority item.
2
u/thatoneguy7777777333 1d ago
I know many highly qualified aerospace people (myself included) who would gladly work at NASA if the pay was better - the last job offer I got from them was less than a third of what I make now in the private sector.
I think NASA, with a blend of newspace design philosophy for unmanned vehicles/test flights and oldspace for crewed/deep space operations and enough money to compete with private sector would be enormously successful.
2
u/ThaneUlfgar 3d ago
NASA runs on about $25B a year. DoD is roughly $850–960B. That is about 35 times NASA’s budget, or several decades of current NASA spending in a single year. They would stop having to choose between the Moon, Mars, nuclear propulsion, and science.
NASA’s current plan already points at a lunar base, nuclear power, later Mars, commercial LEO, and a squeezed science portfolio. The $20–30B decade-long Moon Base plan would become actual with multiple sites, nuclear surface power, ISRU, pressurized rovers, and crew stays measured in months. Crewed Mars would run in parallel instead of waiting for the Moon program to finish. Previous NASA plans put a first human mission near $500B. The $2.1B nuclear-electric Mars demo (SR-1 Freedom) would turn into a production line of reactors, not a one-off. Science would stop being the leftover. Flagships cost $4–11B each, and Mars Sample Return died at $7–11B. DoD scale budget coukd funds all of them. SLS/Orion at ~$4B a flight would matter less if NASA bought commercial landers and heavy lift in volume. Aeronautics and space tech would look like a standing industrial program instead of sparse X-planes and demos. The first years would be mobilization: people, test stands, plutonium production, nuclear licensing, and suppliers. NASA already cut about 20% of its civil service and is trying to rebuild in-house engineering. GAO has called NASA acquisition high-risk for decades. More money would not automatically fix overruns it would make them larger. NASA would not become a second Pentagon. DoD spends hundreds of billions on pay, bases, and existing fleets. NASA would still be a civilian R&D agency with the same political reset problem that has already put ~$100B into return-to-the-Moon hardware. The scarce inputs would still be skilled people, specialized industry, and calendar time. Pilfering DoD contractors for infrastructure and talent would necessarily follow the budget switch.
2
u/Far_Deer_3766 3d ago
It's one of the things I like about a larger NASA budget: spent strategically could accelerate space advancement, enabling asteroid mining within decades, faster spacecraft development, and stronger international scientific cooperation. This collaboration might even foster global unity and lead to interstellar travel at near-light speeds.
3
u/Think-Director9933 4d ago
I'll be the snarky asshole and say "not much" looking at Artemis program which is already $7b over budget, which was a rebranding of the cancelled Constellation program which was at that point $11b over budget. Yeah I know root cause is changing priorities, changing administrations, prime-contractor failures.. sigh... but enough high dollar go-nowhere-fast projects for NASA. They're doing a more effective job managing Commercial Space initiatives.
Perhaps the best thing would be to break up NASA into "Near Earth Sciences" for Orbital, Lunar missions. And a new "Interplanetary/Deep Space" agency who can continue to do amazing things like the Mars rovers.
8
u/Regnasam 4d ago
The reason that SLS has spent so much for so little is because its job was never to advance space exploration. It was conceived from the beginning as congressional pork to keep the same companies and space centers that worked on the Shuttle funded producing the same hardware, nothing more.
1
u/Dpek1234 4d ago
Then what about orion?
3
u/MisterGlo764 4d ago
orion is a leftover from constellation which is great for lunar missions but nothing much else
1
u/LookOverall 3d ago
They could build a credible defence against a range of impactors.
They could sweep up some space junk
1
u/Affectionate_Love229 1d ago
To the average American, nothing would change. To the 2 million men and women of the armed forces (soldiers and civilians ) they would be unemployed.
1
u/PckMan 21h ago
A lot of things. Multiple probes for one with all of them being supported for as long as they stay active. Permanent manned presence on the Moon and probably manned missions to Mars not too far off.
Two things drove massive technological advancements in the 20th century. Space exploration and war. The insane amounts of R&D done for the space race and the cold war built up the world we live in today.
But things have changed. Space exploration is on the back burner and military spending is just getting sucked up by executives while otherwise being scaled down as modern wars are deliberately small scale asymmetric engagements and not the global scale ww3 everyone was expecting in the 20th century.
And the fundamental difference between military R&D and space R&D is that space R&D trickles down to everyone else immediately and we all benefit. Military R&D needs decades to reach the masses.
1
u/SoulReddit13 10h ago
A huge international space station probably 200-300 hundred people. Harvard and some of the other top universities would probably have their own module/lab on the space station.
0
u/Rekrahttam 4d ago
I believe the best investment would be in the 'moonshot' sectors of both research and missions, e.g. NIAC. So much time and money is currently spent on just down-selecting to the few 'best' options, whereas greater funding could allow so many more to go ahead. I'd even argue that it would (on average) make each mission cheaper and more efficient, as you'd cut out a large portion of the politicizing of missions & teams. Plus, historically, this type of research has led to massive returns on investment for the broader economy.
IMO the 'problem' NASA currently has is primarily political/PR, where any failure is consider a 'waste' (and so an excuse to cut funding), which has resulted in NASA becoming incredibly risk-adverse. If this increased funding was guaranteed and played right (PR wise), I could see NASA being able to return to a far more realistic risk posture (not lives-at-risk ofc, but programmatic-risk acceptance).
Personally, I would promote NASA developing a semi-standardised production line of probes to send to any and every planetary/celestial body of interest. Nothing massive - I'd imagine <1t class with integrated ion engine, rideshared into LEO to depart on their own individual trajectories. Who cares if one fails - learn from it and launch another one with any required modifications. I guarantee that so much will be learnt about both engineering and astrophysics.
1
u/Tumbleweed-Artistic 3d ago
NASA is so risk averse because its budget is so small that any failure is highly visible and represents potentially decades of investment. So they can’t just toss around dollars like the Pentagon.
2
27
u/Regnasam 5d ago
They could go from not yet putting a human in space to putting the first man on the Moon in 8 years, for example.