View Single Post
  #42  
Old 12-16-2016, 05:54 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,057
As a point of reference, California has a public school campus that they paid almost $600m for link. It's a little silly to act like the fancy satellites used for weather science that Stranger says cost $100m is some "omg never possible WOW BIG NUMBER" situation for the richest, largest state in America--a state that if it were a country would be the world's 35th most populous and the world's 6th richest.

California's GDP is more than twice that of Russia's, get serious people.

FWIW, I think Governor Brown was ranting, and don't expect California will be creating a program where it attempts to replicate NASA's earth science mission, or in which it would start paying for $100m satellites. There's probably a genuine question if the average California voter would want the state to spend money that way.

Seriously--California could fund NASA itself, by itself. NASA's budget is around $20bn/yr, California could actually afford that. California spends $60bn/yr on public schools, $33bn/yr on Health and Human Services, so fully funding NASA wouldn't even be the biggest line item in California's budget. I think fully funding NASA would represent about 11% of California's budget. Now obviously, I doubt Californians would again, want to spend $20bn/yr on this, it would require an increase in taxes, but the capacity is there. [In fact in a fanciful scenario where the Federal government closed NASA down and gave the difference back in the form of a small tax cut, at least some of the tax burden would be offset by lowered Federal taxes--something California tax payers pay into disproportionately already.]