Should the US be spending money on space programs?

[rowech]

Given the economy and the severe problems the USA is facing, should any money be going to the space programs? Poll to follow...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rowech

Given the economy and the severe problems the Aztec Empire is facing, should any money be going toward "iron working" or should we just stick with spearmen? Poll to follow...

Fixed!

[stevew]

I can't remember the exact figures, but I'm fairly certain it is just a drop in the bucket of the federal budget.

There are probably thousands of programs they could cut down on first.

[NewIdentity]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't remember the exact figures, but I'm fairly certain it is just a drop in the bucket of the federal budget.

There are probably thousands of programs they could cut down on first.

This is probably going to change when NASA is forced to retire their Shuttle. I think they were originally set for retirement about 10 years ago.


But, that said, we will quickly become a 2nd rate nation if we lose the Space Race. The future of this planet's dwindling natural resources are in space.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Fixed!

When my pikemen are kicking the asses of your spearmen you'll be sorry.

[Raiders Army]

If you don't spend money on NASA, then you will lose the intellectual capital that has been built and it will be hard to recover in the future. That being said, spending should be curbed.

[Mustang]

We are throwing gobs of money at other items in the government and yet you pick NASA out of everything else. Let me guess, you see no value in NASA so, therefore it must be useless.

NASA accounts for 1/2% of the total budget of the US. It is the equivalent of cutting out super sizing your McDonalds value meal.

If you want to discuss budgetary cuts across the board, fine, but just cherry picking one area that doesn't account for much in the first place is pretty much just a political move.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Mustang

We are throwing gobs of money at other items in the government and yet you pick NASA out of everything else. Let me guess, you see no value in NASA so, therefore it must be useless.

NASA accounts for 1/2% of the total budget of the US. It is the equivalent of cutting out super sizing your McDonalds value meal.

If you want to discuss budgetary cuts across the board, fine, but just cherry picking one area that doesn't account for much in the first place is pretty much just a political move.

With all due respect, I posted the question because of an article I read and came away shaking my head at. I am fully for NASA and its programs. I posted the question/poll to see if I was in the minority or if people actually support the elimination of NASA.

That said, I think just sending up shuttles every so often is becoming a waste of time/money. I think it's time to really step up the space program to something more. Moon, Mars, etc.

[BrianD]

I recently read a book called The Case for Mars. The author made a case for why going back to the moon didn't have much point, but why going to Mars made much more sense. Points raised were how relatively inexpensively it could be done by manufacturing the return fuel on Mars, and how colonization could be done by making what was necessary to survive. I would love to see NASA take on a project like this.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by rowech

With all due respect, I posted the question because of an article I read and came away shaking my head at. I am fully for NASA and its programs. I posted the question/poll to see if I was in the minority or if people actually support the elimination of NASA.

That said, I think just sending up shuttles every so often is becoming a waste of time/money. I think it's time to really step up the space program to something more. Moon, Mars, etc.

My fault. I incorrectly assumed that you were in favor of dropping it.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Mustang

My fault. I incorrectly assumed that you were in favor of dropping it.

I tried to post the question as neutral as I could.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I recently read a book called The Case for Mars. The author made a case for why going back to the moon didn't have much point, but why going to Mars made much more sense. Points raised were how relatively inexpensively it could be done by manufacturing the return fuel on Mars, and how colonization could be done by making what was necessary to survive. I would love to see NASA take on a project like this.

The funny thing is, that book was written by an arrogant jackass who is one of the dumbest "smart" people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. His book has some good points but omits SO much, it's hard to take it seriously. Then again, I've met him, so I can't take anything he does seriously.

/tk

[terpkristin]

Dola,
I'm not voting because none of the options really encompasses how I feel. It's STUPID to send humans into space like we are. The ISS is a joke, completely overbudget and underutilized. It'll NEVER be the science laboratory it could have been and there are a lot of reasons for that.

The only reason to send humans into space right now is to keep people even somewhat interested in it, so that the paltry budget NASA has won't get cut further. There is no reason to send humans back to the Moon or to Mars unless the powers that be know something we don't about the impending end of the world...and even then, well, it's probably something we brought on ourselves.

/tk

[spleen1015]

Hasn't NASA played a key role in the advancement of microchips and lots of different technologies?

[terpkristin]

Also, I don't want to sound like I don't think NASA should exist. I think the science they're doing, in terms of astronomy, physics, biology, etc, is amazing. Not to mention that the technologies they're researching to try to send humans into space are VITAL for things here on Earth, such as waste-water recycling, food production/sustainability, and alternate energy sources, probably more vital here on earth than they are at the moment in space. Developing these technologies for the advancement of space exploration will only help things here on earth.

I'm all for the science. Humans just aren't doing enough of it that's worthwhile in space.

/tk

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't remember the exact figures, but I'm fairly certain it is just a drop in the bucket of the federal budget.

There are probably thousands of programs they could cut down on first.

+1

take these idiotic wars we're in for example

[Izulde]

Did anybody ever read the Young Astronauts series as a kid about colonizing Mars? It made me want to go to Mars.

[RendeR]

I may not know where or how humanity started, but even with my limited knowledge and faculties I know enough to understand that our end will not be here on this planet, but out there, somewhere, in space.

[RainMaker]

Hasn't NASA helped setup or innovate a number of technological advances we use in our daily lives? Weather forecasting, GPS, etc. You could make a case that a lot of their discoveries have or will save a lot of lives.

[stevew]

Doesn't NASA also recoup a decent amount of change by monitoring satellites and launching them into orbit?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by stevew

Doesn't NASA also recoup a decent amount of change by monitoring satellites and launching them into orbit?

I don't know about recoup more than just meet costs. After all, doing either of those (especially the second) is pretty expensive, so charging to cover that is a lot of money, while leaving little profit to pay other costs.

If the US charges too much, of course, supply and demand kick in, too. Prospective clients than go to the European Space Agency or maybe contact the Chinese (among other possibilities, Russia, Japan, etc.).

[Honolulu Blue]

I think the money is better spent in space than given to some banker who'll either pad his own account (or that of his buddies) or bankrolling some stupid bet that will be the cause of the NEXT crisis and the NEXT bailout.

[DanGarion]

A large number of the advancements in the last 50 years are due to the space program.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by rowech

Given the economy and the severe problems the USA is facing, should any money be going to the space programs? Poll to follow...

What other problems are we facing besides the economy?

[Marc Vaughan]

If you're a capitalist then no - if you're looking for the future of humankind then yes ...

A LOT of the inventions and improvements of the last few decades have either come out of the space program or been dependant upon its existance (ie. mobile phones, microwaves etc.) ... the problem is that to my knowledge these inventions haven't been things which have made huge profits for the space program itself (if they had I'd expect NASA's funding position would be somewhat better).

[chesapeake]

A little on the numbers for NASA.
FY 09 appropriation: $17.8 billion
FY 10 President's Budget Proposal: $18.7 b
FY 10 House-passed: $18.2 b
The Senate passed their version this week and I am too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say that the final budget will probably be in the neighborhood of $18.2 billion.

The President's complete budget proposal was $3.55 trillion, and that includes everything -- Social Security, Medicare, the wars, discretionary spending and interest on the national debt.

This is the long answer for "Mustang is right." It is about .5% of the full budget. But, still, $18 billion is $18 billion. It is a huge amount of money.

This is a very topical poll, as NASA and Congress have just received the findings of the Augustine Commission, which assessed NASA's existing plans, and explored a number of options. In a nutshell, the Commission found that nowhere near enough resources are being allocated to accomplish the existing Moon/Mars plan and that Congress and the Administration need to figure out what they want to do and then make a real budget to do it. NASA has the full report on its website.

[stevew]

I'm fascinated by the concept of the space elevator. I hope that becomes a reality in my lifetime.

[JPhillips]

Damn. TK snuck up on the space program and beat it with a tire iron.

[CraigSca]

Dude, $18 billion is $6 for each American. Think what that could do for our working families?!

[SportsDino]

The 'NASA isn't practical' thinkers out there are generally the same ones that would take that 18 billion and shove it straight into graft. Hell, we spend more than that on military projects to kill people that we do not need since we do a decent job of killing folks as it is!

NASA does need good goals, and pursuing those goals will lead to all sorts of advancements such as those terpkristin described. We need low waste systems perhaps more than anything, we are destroying massive amount of resources the way we currently do things, all in the name of 'economics'. The cost of those will be felt down the line when we turn to recovering all the materials we threw away down the landfills.

People keep wanting to do zero-sum reallocation to fix the economy, thinking it just a matter of shoveling money from one hand to another. The point is we need functioning economy that is DOING something, money that is building something, and that the goods it produces have some benefit to humanity. The 1% of the economy in wild ideas is where 90% of the growth probably comes from.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

The funny thing is, that book was written by an arrogant jackass who is one of the dumbest "smart" people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. His book has some good points but omits SO much, it's hard to take it seriously. Then again, I've met him, so I can't take anything he does seriously.

/tk

This I find very interesting. I did get the feeling while reading the book that he was glossing over some stuff, or painting it in too pretty a light, but I don't understand the science well enough to have a gut feel on the validity. Do you have any suggestions for readings on this topic that is accessible to a novice like me? I'd love to get a more accurate picture of the subject.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Dude, $18 billion is $6 for each American. Think what that could do for our working families?!

Teach them how to carry a zero?

On the original question, yes, unequivocally, and hopefully more of it. It's a disgrace that we could go to the moon or to the bottom of the Marianas trench 40 years ago but now it's too dangerous and/or we're unwilling to spend the money. I hope the Chinese surpass our achievements soon so we can regain the drive necessary to advance.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Hell, we spend more than that on military projects to kill people that we do not need since we do a decent job of killing folks as it is!

A vast majority of weapons research that has happened since the end of the Cold War has been on ways to lessen the impact of war, not increase it.
It's true that we could save billions of dollars, but we'd have to go back to firebombing entire cities strategy (or dropping tactical nukes we already have in our inventory), I think spending money on "smart" bombs that target military buildings and have astronomically reduced collateral damage to civilian populations is pretty good spending. Also, the R&D that has gone into fighting IED warfare and supporting troops downrange has likewise been money well spent.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Dude, $18 billion is $6 for each American. Think what that could do for our working families?!

It's $60 per person for the Space Program. $11,500 per person for the entire budget proposal.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's $60 per person for the Space Program. $11,500 per person for the entire budget proposal.

LOL, you're right. That's embarrassing.

[MJ4H]

We definitely need to always continue space exploration.

[flere-imsaho]

It seems to me that since most of the big projects take a considerable amount of time to complete, funding should be kept, but it should be "protected" over a longer period of time. This year-by-year funding insecurity seems to create as many problems with the space program as any other factor.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

What other problems are we facing besides the economy?

Aparently, congress thinks that people are dying in the streets because of the failed health care system in America and that's why they are ram rodding health care reform through as fast as they can instead of concentrating on fixing the economy or other things that are more pressing in my opinion.

[Coffee Warlord]

Space program as a whole == big huge yes. Whether or not NASA/US government should remain doing it, however, is another question. The level of bureaucracy within NASA these days is just mind numbing. Politics have pretty much obliterated them.

I think there's much more promise (as far as manned space travel goes) by the private sector than NASA these days. Virgin & SpaceX have already done some pretty impressive work as it is.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Aparently, congress thinks that people are dying in the streets because of the failed health care system in America and that's why they are ram rodding health care reform through as fast as they can instead of concentrating on fixing the economy or other things that are more pressing in my opinion.

Given that studies show that people do die due to lack of healthcare, perhaps it's not outrageous to try to fix that problem.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given that studies show that people do die due to lack of healthcare, perhaps it's not outrageous to try to fix that problem.

People die due to life.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given that studies show that people do die due to lack of healthcare, perhaps it's not outrageous to try to fix that problem.

I'm sorry, but, the economy is in far greater need of fixing than our health care system. Our system of health care in America is not perfect, but, it isn't in some sort of deep crisis or state of failure by any stretch of the imagination. You are going to have people die regardless of them being insured or not. You will never be able to eliminate administration mistakes or workers who don't pay attention or doctors reading a chart wrong, no matter what system is in place. Incompetence by a few does not make a failed heath care system or require a major overhaul.

And yes, NASA should be getting more funding.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

People die due to life.

But people who have insurance die later!

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But people who have insurance die later!

After insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, medical professionals, etc have reaped millions from it.

[JPhillips]

I'll back out an let NASA talk continue.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This I find very interesting. I did get the feeling while reading the book that he was glossing over some stuff, or painting it in too pretty a light, but I don't understand the science well enough to have a gut feel on the validity. Do you have any suggestions for readings on this topic that is accessible to a novice like me? I'd love to get a more accurate picture of the subject.

I've been thinking about this for awhile, the only one I can come up with so far is Jack Schmitt's book. It's interesting to look at his thoughts then, and then to have listened to him a few months ago on the 20th anniversary of the moon landing. I became interested in his book after listening to him on NPR's Science Friday, where he kind of made the same points I do about not sending people to space just for the sake of doing it.

What I think all these engineer types really overlook is the human aspect (which I never really thought about until graduate school where I took 3 classes devoted directly to space human factors and had other classes where human spaceflight was a big topic...and now, working in industry, I've consulted on some items for human spaceflight missions). I fully believe that we'll overcome the technological issues, even if it doesn't happen soon. We'll figure out how to produce food in an orbiting or space-traveling vehicle, enough food to provide for a crew. We'll figure out energy sources for propulsion and long-term electricity generation without the ability to use solar arrays that are used nearer to Earth. We'll figure out the water issues. I did an internship at KSC over 10 years ago now, and studies for all those things were well-underway, and progress is definitely being made.

But there are aspects of sending humans to space that we haven't figured out, psychology being only a part of the issue. There are issues of medicine in space, how to handle emergencies that could be handled easily on the ground while in space (heart attacks, appendectomies, etc), the ethics of sending women of child-bearing age to space, long-term effects for the body systems, above and beyond the severe bone density loss and muscle mass loss that people face, and I see no indication that these issues are seriously being considered by the likes of Zubrin (and to some extent, Schmitt). That was a run-on sentence, but I think you get the jist. I apologize for my horrible grammar.

And, to be honest, a lot of the question comes back to "why." On ISS, the astronauts aren't doing MUCH science. They spend a lot more time on general upkeep than they do on science, and, for as long as it's been up there (compared with how long the Mars rovers have been up in space and how long Hubble has been up, for example), the science just isn't happening. The only article I've seen in the last year that was directly related to science on-board ISS was about reproduction in mice aboard ISS (I've spent the last 20 minutes looking for the article and now I can't find it). Frankly, robots are good at doing science in space and they don't require much by way of food, and there's a lot less to worry about with them (radiation poisoning on your robot?! oh well...). Are robots perfect? No. But until we can address the human factors issues and the question of "why" send humans, I think they fit the bill.

/tk

[Dutch]

NASA finds water on the moon
NASA finds water on the moon - Yahoo! News

[Klinglerware]

I agree that spending on NASA generates innovation that benefits society as a whole.

But in ways more significant than if NASA were de-funded, I wonder though if the US may lose quite a bit of its relative advantage in innovation because of its post-9/11 policies on student visas. Breakthroughs coming from university research are often generated on the backs of talented graduate students, many of them foreign (especially in the more technical fields). Since it is more difficult to get a visa now, many students are less willing to go through the hassle and are looking elsewhere for graduate training, especially now that many more countries (like China) are ramping up their university research capacity and quality. The concern is that other countries will benefit from the shift in brain power, while it will be more challenging for American graduate programs to attract the levels of talent they used to get easily. Consequently it may be more difficult for the US to keep pace in the technical innovation race.