/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16147660
>>16147666
>>16147670
I think the problem with recent inflation, as it pertains to spaceflight, isn't the inflation itself, rather it is the interest payments on US federal debt. Interest payments are increasing rapidly, and will keep doing so the longer the Fed has to keep interest rates high, which it needs to do to keep the inflation rate down. The more the US government has to pay in interest, the less money will be left for vanity projects, because vanity projects are among the politically easiest things to not fund.

Interest payments are already 3.1% of GDP and projected to reach 3.9% of GDP by 2034. In parallel to this, mandatory spending is projected to increase from 13.9% of GDP to 15% of GDP. Federal nondefense discretionary spending is 3.3% of GDP, projected to be 2.6% of GDP by 2034, because something has to compensate. And this assumes that federal defense discretionary spending goes down a lot as a % of GDP, despite a spiraling cold war with China & co who have faster economic growth than the US & co have

Of course, GDP will increase in the meantime, so 2.6% of GDP wouldn't be a 21% reduction in absolute terms. Still, it means less money *than otherwise could have been available*

>>16147660
>>16147666
>>16147670
I think the problem with recent inflation, as it pertains to spaceflight, isn't the inflation itself, rather it is the interest payments on US federal debt. Interest payments are increasing rapidly, and will keep doing so the longer the Fed has to keep interest rates high, which it needs to do to keep the inflation rate down. The more the US government has to pay in interest, the less money will be left for vanity projects, because vanity projects are among the politically easiest things to not fund.

Interest payments are already 3.1% of GDP and projected to reach 3.9% of GDP by 2034. In parallel to this, mandatory spending is projected to increase from 13.9% of GDP to 15% of GDP. Federal nondefense discretionary spending is 3.3% of GDP, projected to be 2.6% of GDP by 2034, because something has to compensate. And this assumes that federal defense discretionary spending goes down a lot as a % of GDP, despite a spiraling cold war with China & co who have faster economic growth than the US & co have

Of course, GDP will increase in the meantime, so 2.6% of GDP wouldn't be a 24% reduction in absolute terms. Still, it means less money *than otherwise would have been available*