A visual alignment like the one you mention wouldn’t have been useful for spacecraft to get to the planets more easily.

An alignment in the scale of the one that enabled the Voyager flybys of the outer planets won’t happen until sometime in the 23rd century.

> An alignment in the scale of the one that enabled the Voyager flybys of the outer planets won’t happen until sometime in the 23rd century.

Only if you're particularly concerned with using a single probe to visit all of them. Jupiter provides the main boost and launch windows from jupiter to anywhere come by every decade.

Parent did mention a single craft. Of course NASA can’t even afford that these days so it’s all moot anyway.

Ah, I did not know it was just visual. I thought it was odd and too quick for another alignment :)

Thanks

NASA’s budget is larger today adjusted for inflation than during the Voyager program. https://images.app.goo.gl/qai42hiZ8RMtfViw6

People usually measure this as percentage of GDP, not absolute dollars.

Why would I measure it that way? What matters is the capacity of NASA's ability to do things, based on its funding.

You can argue that an outfit like NASA should get more or less funding, but it should be based on what you want them to be able to do, not some arbitrary measure like a percentage of GDP.

No they don’t. Why would a budget scale with GDP?

A couple of reasons. One is that NASA is an arm of the United State's advanced research, and if you want to get compounding returns there the goal is that you allocate a proportion of your spending there rather than a fixed value, because every year some of that research will drive gains to your GDP. Another is that the services that NASA provides gradually expands as it provides more things to society: I expect that alongside space exploration there is an increasing budget allocated to dealing with civilian spaceflight. So if you keep the budget constant then you are necessarily prioritizing some things over others, which means a net decrease to specific programs.

Of course, none of this means it should be pegged at a specific fraction of the GDP, it's just a helpful metric to compare against when we look at overall spending. I expect its budget to fluctuate naturally as our needs from it change, and there are certainly programs that have fixed budgets (or even need less money as time goes on) that we should still be looking at. But in general the spending for things like NASA should gradually increase because of its goals.

I agree with that. But that’s different than saying “NASA's budget has been cut so back over the years.” The military budget has been shrinking as a share of GDP since the 1980s as well. It would be odd to say the military budget had been cut back though.

Arguably it makes more sense for military budget to reference GDP since military capability is relative to that of one’s adversaries. If their capability has increased, then so must ours to achieve a net zero difference. And their capability is proportional to their spending ability with everything else kept equal.

You're too smart to make that comparison. 1980s we were in the middle of a VERY strong cold was with the USSR. Every American agrees that military focused has decreased since then, while scientific focus/interest/value has increased.

While you seem to imply NASA is wasting money how many legacy projects did that Voyager era budget have to support? Oh yeah, close to zero. When a company implements an ERP system, a HR system, etc. the IT budget tends to increase to more than before.

How many weather satellites did NASA operate during the Voyager program verses now?

How many Landsats like Landsat 8 and 9 now https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/data/projects/hls

Anything like GRACE and GRACE-FO?

Perseverance rover? https://phys.org/news/2025-04-perseverance-rover-witnesses-m...

Were Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) missions ongoing?

Anything like the Juno project around Jupiter?

Complex projects like OSIRIS-REx?

Telescopes matching the ongoing requirements of James Webb Space Telescope?

Were there Psyche style missions ongoing? https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/psyche/

I’m not implying any of that. I’m simply pointing out that when you tell people “budget for X was cut” they think that means absolute terms, or inflation adjusted. They don’t think that you mean that it wasn’t growing fast enough relative to some perceived needs.