NASA’s Planetary Science Division research and analysis portfolio lost 30% of its inflation-adjusted value between FY2011 and FY2025, according to an investigation by planetary scientist Mark V. Sykes reported by Eos. That is a finding about planetary science—not all NASA research. Separately, Sykes’s September 2026 update says costs recorded for FY2025 through June 30, 2026, were more than 50% below the amounts budgeted in aggregate. Those figures measure different things, and neither establishes why the gap occurred.
What “underspent” means in this report
The headline refers to NASA’s Planetary Science Division (PSD) research and analysis, or R&A, portfolio. It does not describe every NASA directorate, all agency research, or a single budget line. R&A funding is distributed across programs and missions, so calculating a total requires decisions about which activities to count. Sykes reconstructed the portfolio using public records and information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); the National Academies has separately cautioned that there is no standard definition of the R&A portfolio.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
It is important to distinguish a long-term loss in purchasing power from an annual budget underspend. The reported 30% decline compares the inflation-adjusted value of the reconstructed portfolio in FY2011 and FY2025. The separate FY2025 comparison concerns budgeted amounts versus costs incurred through a later cutoff date. Neither statistic alone shows that NASA deliberately cut a particular program or explains what happened to unspent funds.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteWhat the spending figures measure
| Measure | Reported finding | Source and qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Inflation-adjusted portfolio value | Down 30% from FY2011 to FY2025 | Sykes’s investigation, summarized by Eos in 2026; applies to reconstructed planetary R&A. |
| R&A as a share of PSD’s budget | 14% in 2010; less than 8% projected for FY2023 | The National Academies’ 2023 decadal survey, using its definition of R&A. |
| FY2023 share and target comparison | 2.5% of the PSD budget; about $185 million below a 10% target | Eos’s 2026 account of Sykes’s analysis. This is distinct from the National Academies’ projected-share series. |
| FY2025 budget versus costs incurred | More than 50% below aggregate budgeted amounts through June 30, 2026 | Sykes’s September 2026 update, based on FOIA records. This is a budget-to-incurred-cost comparison, not a final audit. |
These figures should not be combined into one trend line. They differ in accounting method, time period, inflation treatment, and whether they compare budget shares or costs incurred. In particular, the National Academies’ percentage series is not the same accounting reconstruction as Sykes’s investigation.
#1 Best Overall
How planetary R&A supports NASA science
R&A supports openly competed proposals for basic research and data analysis. The work helps develop scientific questions, interpret observations, and connect mission data to scientific findings. The National Academies describes research as helping define scientific goals, design missions, and develop needed technologies; analysis turns data from flight projects into knowledge. That work can support research connected to space telescopes, interplanetary spacecraft, and lunar science.
Competition matters because researchers submit proposals for limited funding. The National Academies’ 2023 survey reports that R&A proposals submitted increased by more than 30% since 2010, while proposals selected decreased by more than 40% over that period. Those figures indicate a widening gap between proposal volume and selections, but they do not by themselves identify the cause or establish the success rate for any particular program.
Rank #2
How the 10% recommendation fits the figures
The National Academies’ 2023 planetary science and astrobiology decadal survey recommends that NASA raise planetary R&A to at least 10% of the PSD’s annual budget by mid-decade, through a progressive ramp-up focused on openly competed programs. Its reported decrease from 14% of the budget in 2010 to less than 8% projected for FY2023 provides the context for that recommendation.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteEos also reports that the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act set a goal for relevant NASA R&A grants to reach 10% of relevant division funding by FY2025. The survey recommendation and the statutory goal should be described as targets, not as a binding spending mandate. Their definitions and accounting boundaries also need to be kept clear when comparing them with other estimates.
Rank #3
Why reported R&A totals can differ
R&A is not tracked as one universally defined portfolio. Activities may sit in program or mission budgets, and different investigators or agencies may classify them differently. The National Academies says this makes investment comparisons difficult. That caveat matters when interpreting both long-term totals and percentage-of-budget claims.
The Academies also reports that an earlier midterm review found FY2016 spending had risen 32% relative to FY2011 under its method, exceeding the growth specified in the 2011 survey. NASA’s definition and the survey committee’s definition differed. This is a methodological disagreement, not proof that either series is necessarily wrong; it is a reason to identify the accounting method whenever a funding figure is quoted.
For historical context, Eos reports that FY2013 actual R&A funding was $119 million, compared with $140 million recommended in the 2011 planetary science decadal survey. That comparison is specific to those figures and that survey; it is not an inflation-adjusted measure of the FY2011–FY2025 decline.
What the FY2025 cost gap does—and does not—show
In a September 2026 update, Sykes says FOIA records showed planetary R&A costs incurred through June 30, 2026, for FY2025 were more than 50% below aggregate budgeted amounts. The cutoff is after FY2025 ended, but the reported comparison remains one of budgeted amounts against costs incurred by that date. It does not establish the final disposition of funds or explain why the recorded costs were lower.
Best Value
Eos quotes Sykes describing the departure as unusual: “For years, money budgeted has been very close to money expensed.” That is Sykes’s characterization of the historical pattern, not an agency finding or an explanation for the FY2025 difference. The update identifies a FOIA spreadsheet received by Sykes on September 23, 2026; it should be understood as an investigator’s analysis of records rather than a final NASA audit.
What readers can conclude
- The reported 30% real-term decline applies to an investigator-reconstructed planetary R&A portfolio from FY2011 to FY2025, not all NASA research.
- The National Academies’ 10% recommendation reflects a separate accounting framework and a policy target for PSD funding.
- The FY2025 figure is a budget-versus-incurred-cost comparison through June 30, 2026; it does not establish motive or final fund disposition.
NASA’s budget and reports index is the agency’s official route to current and previous budget requests and financial reports, but it does not itself verify Sykes’s reconstructed series. The figures are most useful when their source, definition, period, and accounting basis travel with them.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
