Space Budgets
from Gerhard Holtkamp, 21. April 2010, 20:39
How much do we spend on space projects? Here is my biased attempt to look at space budgets in different countries...
Acting as an occasional tour guide at the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) visitors often ask me "How much does it cost?". My usual answer is that the current ESA budget stands at about 3½ billion Euro.
Knowing that people not familiar with astronomical distances or government spending often panic when confronted with words like Billion or Trillion I quickly try to put it into human terms by remarking that this amounts to about ten Euro per person per year. And before any of the visitors can figure out how many cups of coffee they have to sacrifice due to space projects I also add that the Americans spend about five times as much on their NASA.
This appeal to national pride (or shame) puts a definite end to the subject of money and I can continue my tour with more exciting topics. After all - what are a few petty billions compared to the intricacies of space operations, interplanetary trajectories or the origin of the universe itself!
But to clear myself of possible accusations of wrongful neglect I've decided that this one time I should dig a little deeper into the monetary details of space. More specifically I'd like to compare the civilian non-commercial space budgets of selected countries. In other words I try to find out what taxpayers in different parts of the world spend on space activities.
The 2009 budget of the European Space Agency ESA was 3593 M€ (Million Euro). With the population of ESA member states being 415.6 million that amounts to 8.64 Euro per person. By comparison the NASA budget was 17782 Million US Dollars and with 309 million inhabitants the per capita spending is US$ 57.54 - almost exactly five times as much as the European figure. Just as I tell our visitors.
But I haven't been telling the whole truth. 419 M€ of the ESA budget were not paid directly by the member states but came from other sources. Some of that money is from the European Union and thus taxpayer's money after all. Add to that the EUMETSAT budget for weather satellites which fluctuates between 200 and 300 M€ and we can deduce that European taxpayers spend about 3600 M€ for space.
However in addition to the European budget there are also the national budgets of the individual member states and here we find very large differences. France spends about 3 times as much on national space projects (outside ESA) as Germany which in turn spends 4 times as much as Britain.
Comparing the overall per capita spending on civilian space projects in Europe (national and ESA) France leads with €27, Italians spend €14, Germans €11 (slightly less than Swedes with €12) and Britain trails with €5.
Here is a diagram of how the ESA budget is split up between the various member states.
Just because public spending on space lags behind many other countries doesn't mean that Britain isn't an important player in this field. In 2007 the British space industry generated revenues of £5.9 billion of which £2.8 billion contributed directly to the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Commercial communication satellites played a major role. This shows that there is more to space finances than taxpayer's money.
Consequently while early on many countries handled space activities under the direction of the ministry of science and education more recently the ministry of the economy (or economic development or something like this) has taken charge.
Looking to other regions the per capita spending on space in Japan is about halfway between Germany and Italy while in Russia it's twice the ESA average. Indians spend only 7% of what Europeans do. But now I'm unfair because there are more than 3 times as many Indians than the population of ESA member states and the economy is weaker. Its better to compare spending in relation to GDP.
When comparing Europe, the U.S. and Japan you get roughly similar results for GDP and for per capita numbers but it's different for Russia and India. Comparing the (civilian) spending on space as a percentage of GDP Russia leads with twice the NASA figure and India is only slightly behind Europe's number one space nation France. I didn't find reliable figures for China but judging by the number of Chinese space missions they might close in on Russia in this category.
The Brazilian space expenditures (related to GDP) are only 1/5th the ESA figures. And that's as good as it gets on the Southern Hemisphere. There is a definite North-South gap in space programs. There are important ground stations south of the equator but they are mostly operated and payed for by northern space nations.
Given the geography of Brazil it is not surprising that 29% of the Brazilian space budget goes to Earth observations. While ESA spends over 16% of its money for Earth observation mission, 12% for space science and 11% on human spaceflight (see the diagram) the respective NASA figures are 8%, 18% and 32% reflecting the costly shuttle and ISS operations and the low priority of Earth observations by the former U.S. government.
29% of the civilian Russian space budget is for the GLONASS navigation satellite system which is half the money needed. The other half is payed for by the military. GPS in contrast is being fully payed by the U.S. military. 11% of ESA's budget is for navigation satellites which is part of a larger public/private financing scheme.
Navigation isn't the only field which sees a shift from purely military toward civilian control. There is a civilian need for security issues which is addressed by GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security). We can expect significant increases in spending on those projects over the next few years.
There is a general perception in public that space projects are astronomically expensive. But a lot has been done over the years to economize such projects. A new weather satellite system or a navigation satellite system are in the same financial category as other major infrastructure programs like the building of a new high speed railway.
Large as their space program may be Russians actually spend three times more on roadworks.
While I often hear the question about how much money is SPEND nobody ever asks me how much money we actually SAVE due to space projects. In 1967 the then U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson remarked that had there been nothing else coming out of the $35 - $40 billion spend so far on (military?) space than the pictures of reconnaisance satellites it would have been worth ten times as much. This is because it showed that the Soviet offensive weaponry was far less than had been assumed and enabled the U.S. to save that much on offensive weapons on their own.
A report by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) states that the value of civilian benifits of the new polar weather satellite system to the U.S. is estimated at $0.9 - $1.2 billion per year (in 2007 dollars). Efficient ship routing accounts for $95 million and aviation for $169 million.
We have only begun to use navigation satellites for civilian purposes but the savings to the economy by these systems will be substantial. I'm not aware of any comprehensive overall study about the money we save due to the space infrastructure we continue to set up (any student in need of a thesis?) but I would guess that for every Dollar or Euro spend we save at least ten.
Not just applied space missions but also fundamental research is important. Studying Mars and Venus has helped us to better understand Earth. The knowledge gained by close up studies of asteroids could be instrumental one day to avoid a collision with our beloved planet which would turn into the biggest money saver of all times. This however is speculation on my part in need of more careful studies.
But there is one figure I can give you exactly. How much money have all the countries together spend in space so far? The answer is ZERO. All the money has been spent on our very own planet creating new industries and employment. A tiny part of it even found its way to my bank account (somewhat less than a billion, I'm afraid).
Having thus wandered across the Murky Marshes of Money please allow me to return now to interplanetary trajectories and the origin of the universe which I find infinitely easier to deal with...
Acting as an occasional tour guide at the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) visitors often ask me "How much does it cost?". My usual answer is that the current ESA budget stands at about 3½ billion Euro.
Knowing that people not familiar with astronomical distances or government spending often panic when confronted with words like Billion or Trillion I quickly try to put it into human terms by remarking that this amounts to about ten Euro per person per year. And before any of the visitors can figure out how many cups of coffee they have to sacrifice due to space projects I also add that the Americans spend about five times as much on their NASA.
This appeal to national pride (or shame) puts a definite end to the subject of money and I can continue my tour with more exciting topics. After all - what are a few petty billions compared to the intricacies of space operations, interplanetary trajectories or the origin of the universe itself!
But to clear myself of possible accusations of wrongful neglect I've decided that this one time I should dig a little deeper into the monetary details of space. More specifically I'd like to compare the civilian non-commercial space budgets of selected countries. In other words I try to find out what taxpayers in different parts of the world spend on space activities.
The 2009 budget of the European Space Agency ESA was 3593 M€ (Million Euro). With the population of ESA member states being 415.6 million that amounts to 8.64 Euro per person. By comparison the NASA budget was 17782 Million US Dollars and with 309 million inhabitants the per capita spending is US$ 57.54 - almost exactly five times as much as the European figure. Just as I tell our visitors.
But I haven't been telling the whole truth. 419 M€ of the ESA budget were not paid directly by the member states but came from other sources. Some of that money is from the European Union and thus taxpayer's money after all. Add to that the EUMETSAT budget for weather satellites which fluctuates between 200 and 300 M€ and we can deduce that European taxpayers spend about 3600 M€ for space.
However in addition to the European budget there are also the national budgets of the individual member states and here we find very large differences. France spends about 3 times as much on national space projects (outside ESA) as Germany which in turn spends 4 times as much as Britain.
Comparing the overall per capita spending on civilian space projects in Europe (national and ESA) France leads with €27, Italians spend €14, Germans €11 (slightly less than Swedes with €12) and Britain trails with €5.
Here is a diagram of how the ESA budget is split up between the various member states.Just because public spending on space lags behind many other countries doesn't mean that Britain isn't an important player in this field. In 2007 the British space industry generated revenues of £5.9 billion of which £2.8 billion contributed directly to the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Commercial communication satellites played a major role. This shows that there is more to space finances than taxpayer's money.
Consequently while early on many countries handled space activities under the direction of the ministry of science and education more recently the ministry of the economy (or economic development or something like this) has taken charge.
Looking to other regions the per capita spending on space in Japan is about halfway between Germany and Italy while in Russia it's twice the ESA average. Indians spend only 7% of what Europeans do. But now I'm unfair because there are more than 3 times as many Indians than the population of ESA member states and the economy is weaker. Its better to compare spending in relation to GDP.
When comparing Europe, the U.S. and Japan you get roughly similar results for GDP and for per capita numbers but it's different for Russia and India. Comparing the (civilian) spending on space as a percentage of GDP Russia leads with twice the NASA figure and India is only slightly behind Europe's number one space nation France. I didn't find reliable figures for China but judging by the number of Chinese space missions they might close in on Russia in this category.
The Brazilian space expenditures (related to GDP) are only 1/5th the ESA figures. And that's as good as it gets on the Southern Hemisphere. There is a definite North-South gap in space programs. There are important ground stations south of the equator but they are mostly operated and payed for by northern space nations.
Given the geography of Brazil it is not surprising that 29% of the Brazilian space budget goes to Earth observations. While ESA spends over 16% of its money for Earth observation mission, 12% for space science and 11% on human spaceflight (see the diagram) the respective NASA figures are 8%, 18% and 32% reflecting the costly shuttle and ISS operations and the low priority of Earth observations by the former U.S. government.
29% of the civilian Russian space budget is for the GLONASS navigation satellite system which is half the money needed. The other half is payed for by the military. GPS in contrast is being fully payed by the U.S. military. 11% of ESA's budget is for navigation satellites which is part of a larger public/private financing scheme.
Navigation isn't the only field which sees a shift from purely military toward civilian control. There is a civilian need for security issues which is addressed by GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security). We can expect significant increases in spending on those projects over the next few years.
There is a general perception in public that space projects are astronomically expensive. But a lot has been done over the years to economize such projects. A new weather satellite system or a navigation satellite system are in the same financial category as other major infrastructure programs like the building of a new high speed railway.
Large as their space program may be Russians actually spend three times more on roadworks.
While I often hear the question about how much money is SPEND nobody ever asks me how much money we actually SAVE due to space projects. In 1967 the then U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson remarked that had there been nothing else coming out of the $35 - $40 billion spend so far on (military?) space than the pictures of reconnaisance satellites it would have been worth ten times as much. This is because it showed that the Soviet offensive weaponry was far less than had been assumed and enabled the U.S. to save that much on offensive weapons on their own.
A report by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) states that the value of civilian benifits of the new polar weather satellite system to the U.S. is estimated at $0.9 - $1.2 billion per year (in 2007 dollars). Efficient ship routing accounts for $95 million and aviation for $169 million.
We have only begun to use navigation satellites for civilian purposes but the savings to the economy by these systems will be substantial. I'm not aware of any comprehensive overall study about the money we save due to the space infrastructure we continue to set up (any student in need of a thesis?) but I would guess that for every Dollar or Euro spend we save at least ten.
Not just applied space missions but also fundamental research is important. Studying Mars and Venus has helped us to better understand Earth. The knowledge gained by close up studies of asteroids could be instrumental one day to avoid a collision with our beloved planet which would turn into the biggest money saver of all times. This however is speculation on my part in need of more careful studies.
But there is one figure I can give you exactly. How much money have all the countries together spend in space so far? The answer is ZERO. All the money has been spent on our very own planet creating new industries and employment. A tiny part of it even found its way to my bank account (somewhat less than a billion, I'm afraid).
Having thus wandered across the Murky Marshes of Money please allow me to return now to interplanetary trajectories and the origin of the universe which I find infinitely easier to deal with...
Gerhard,
You have done it again!
Congratulations!