Space Policy Edition: The Big Picture on U.S. Science Funding

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: This Space Policy Edition centers on U.S. federal research and development spending, especially how science policy is shaped by Congress, the White House, and agency missions. Casey Dreyer and Matt Hoorahan discuss the structure of R&D funding, the dominance of defense and industry, why non-defense science funding has stayed near an equilibrium, the effects of the Budget Control Act, and why sustained investment matters for innovation, jobs, and exploration like Artemis and Mars missions.

Main Topics: Federal R&D definitions and structure: Hoorahan explains how OMB distinguishes basic research, applied research, development, and R&D plant, and notes that classification is often subjective and agency-specific. Defense vs. civilian R&D: The discussion contrasts Pentagon-led development with mostly civilian basic research, emphasizing that defense dominates development while civilian agencies like NSF, NIH, DOE, and NASA drive research. Long-term R&D funding equilibrium: Dreyer and Hoorahan examine why federal R&D has remained around 10% of discretionary spending for decades, with the space-race peak fading after Apollo. Industry vs. government roles: Industry now funds more R&D than the federal government and focuses mostly on development, while government funds riskier, mission-driven research that markets often avoid. Budget Control Act and lost investment: Hoorahan’s analysis shows sequestration-era caps reduced federal R&D far below historical trendlines, with major opportunity costs for science and careers. Policy, politics, and resilience of science funding: The speakers argue Congress is more supportive of science than commonly assumed, but fragmented appropriations and political oversight create instability and constrain risk-taking. Mars/Artemis and public excitement: The episode is framed by upcoming PlanetFest coverage of Perseverance’s landing and broader support for Artemis and NASA science under the new administration.

Key Arguments: Federal R&D is highly decentralized, with 12 appropriations bills and many agencies making it difficult to treat science as a single budget line. The apparent long-term stability of non-defense R&D at about 10% of discretionary spending reflects a political equilibrium rather than lack of value. Much of the historical decline in federal R&D is in development, not basic research; basic science has been more resilient over time. Defense and NIH research are often use-inspired, but defense development is especially large because of weapons and national security acquisition. Industry now funds about twice as much R&D as the federal government, but it concentrates on development and avoids much of the high-risk basic research government can support. The Budget Control Act and sequestration created real losses in research capacity, career opportunities, and missed discoveries. Government R&D can and should absorb more risk than private industry, because its role is to serve public missions and enable transformative breakthroughs. Congress often supports research more than critics suggest, even when administrations try to cut major programs such as NASA, NIH, DOE science, and others.

Data Points: Total federal R&D budget: about $160 billion per year - Approximate annual U.S. federal research and development spending discussed in the interview NASA share of federal R&D: about $20 billion - Approximate portion of federal R&D attributed to NASA within the broader federal R&D total Defense share of federal R&D: a little less than half - Current rough split of the federal R&D budget between defense and non-defense Non-defense R&D share of discretionary budget: about 10% - Long-term level of non-defense federal R&D as a share of discretionary spending Apollo-era peak share: about 25% - Rough peak of non-defense discretionary spending devoted to R&D during the space race era Industry vs federal R&D funding: industry funds roughly twice the federal government - Comparison of total R&D funding sources in the U.S. Industry R&D composition: about 80% development, 12-13% applied research, 5-6% basic science - Approximate breakdown of industrial R&D spending DOD research budget: about $7-8 billion - Hoorahan’s rough estimate of defense research spending, separate from development Non-defense research budget: about $80 billion - Approximate non-defense research spending mentioned in contrast to defense Historical federal R&D growth rate: 5.7% per year - Average annual growth from 1978 to 2008 used as the baseline for the budget analysis R&D shortfall from Budget Control Act: about $240 billion cumulative - Estimated amount federal R&D fell below the historical trend due to post-2010 caps Annual R&D shortfall: about $30 billion less per year - Approximate annual gap between actual federal R&D and the historical trend line Growth needed to regain trend line: about 9.5% per year - Estimated annual growth needed for several years to return to the pre-caps trend Recent COVID relief bill: about $900 billion - Used as a comparison to show how large one-time federal spending packages can exceed NSF’s historical total NSF annual budget: about $8 billion - Used in comparison with the recent relief package and to illustrate the scale of science funding Democratic Senate letter on Artemis: 11 senators - Bipartisan/congressional support urging full funding for the Artemis human landing system PlanetFest 21 price: $30 for non-members, $20 for members - Event pricing mentioned during the promotion of the virtual Planetary Society conference

Pivotal Quotes: "We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard." — Casey Dreyer: He invokes JFK to explain why difficult exploration like Mars missions is valuable and worth funding "The biggest driver of decline for federal RD relative to GDP is not basic science... It's the D." — Matt Hoorahan: He emphasizes that the long-term decline is largely in development, especially defense technology acquisition, not basic research "Congress does often go to bat for various parts of the research enterprise." — Matt Hoorahan: He argues that legislators are more supportive of science than many critics assume

Implications: Listeners should expect continued political support for NASA and science, but funding will remain fragmented and vulnerable to budget shocks. Sustained growth could restore lost research capacity, jobs, and innovation, especially if policymakers treat R&D as core economic infrastructure.