Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Commenting on a recommendation by Democratic strategist Mark Penn, Brother Pinkerton writes below that
the space program should be doubled, just as Penn says, because space exploration provides larger benefits to our economic well-being and national security.
We've all been hearing this since before men walked on the moon, of course, but are we sure that it's so? Leave aside national security--the Pentagon has quite enough money to spend already, and, if we need something in space to secure the defense of the nation, the Pentagon certainly ought to put it there. Just what economic benefits are we certain the space program has provided? Or--and this is really the point--just what benefits has it provided that exceed the benefits we'd have received if all those tens of billions had been invested in the private sector, not given to NASA?
I've been suspicious about this ever since posing a few similar questions to then NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe back in 2004. He lacked convincing answers. Actually, it was worse than that. O'Keefe behaved as if he considered the questions some sort of affront. (See for yourself.)
Dave Barry once wrote about a single mother who worked double shifts as a waitress. The waitress became his test for federal spending. Was a federal program going to do enough good--enough necessary good--to justify using the coercive powers of the state to tax away even a fraction of that waitress's income? I can see, of course, that sending probes to the far reaches of the solar system can do a lot to satisfy the curiosity of highly-educated, well-paid and quite comfortable scientists. I can't quite see what can do for Dave Barry's waitress.
Studies that prove me wrong? Reports? Data? Anyone?
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
China will continue to conquer space, whether we do or not. China sees the value of it, including the military value. It may take China thirty years to get where they want to be, but like everything else, Space belongs to those who show up to claim it.
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I really want to disagree with the idea that the space program should be massively slashed, but...I can't find any good reason to do so. I do believe the program helps humanity live up to a very vague potential. As Aaron Sorkin has posited, "It's what's next." We came out of the cave, discovered fire, crossed the oceans, climbed the mountains, conquered the continents, and now...it's what's next. And in a time of economic stability, I would argue there's an obligation to spend on research into areas where we aren't in certain of the outcome, as that's how some of the most astonishing and useful scientific advances have come but...we're not in a time of economic certainty, and right now I have a lot more confidence in private industry's ability to advance mankind's potential off-world than I do in that of the federal government. Dave Berry can have his waitress, but I keep coming back to the USPS. Not the people I want running multi-billion-dollar programs right now, health- or space-related.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I'm with you Peter -- you've got the Right Stuff. But are you sure this is not just passive aggressive payback for all the insider Trekkie humor in the last podcast?
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Another issue is that much of the money in the space program is wasted in ostentatious manned space flight operations. Has the manned space flight program accomplished anything since 1972? Since then, we have had tremendous gains in unmanned probes, from Voyager, to Hubble, to the Mars robots. The difference is that people and life support systems are just too heavy to do anything interesting in space without seriously increasing the size of the rockets we want to use. It may be possible to send people to Mars, but what are they going to do there, wrestle with the Gorn?
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
My thoughts exactly, Jonathan. And, Peter, I've actually spent the past 1/2 hour or so looking into this. I thought I remembered something about some breast cancer medical device developed because of, and only because of, space research. But, I can't find it. I can find lots of "spin off" successes where a medical device was used or where some sort of proteins or T-cells or something were studied, but I don't get the sense that this stuff HAD to be done in space. Like Jonathan, I'd like to be behind the space program. But, no, nothing seems to be happening (or have happened) that couldn't be done here on earth, privately.
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
etoiledunord's China comment has be rethinking my position, however. I believe the current administration (and honestly, much of the rest of the government) has resolved itself to the likelihood that China will be the sole remaining super-power within the next ten years but...I haven't. Yet, at least. It wouldn't be a space race like what we went through during the Cold War because the competitiveness wouldn't be out in the open, and I honestly don't know for sure that we can win it, but...Chinese supremacy of space is an unsettling thought.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I hate to put a pin in your Tang bubble, but that stuff actually predates NASA.
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Well, it's not too hard to find a list of economic and scientific spinoffs from NASA.
But the greatest payoffs from NASA never came to pass because NASA was cut off at the knees in the 70s. One of those payoffs would have been the full colonization of the Moon or Mars, which would have been an historical shift equivalent to coming to America in 1492. Lunar colonization would have set in motion a whole new politics, including the opportunity for libertarian politics, as imagined by Robert Heinlein in his novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." And the second payoff would have been the ability to perfect missile defense for the US and allies--relatively easy if you have "look down" capacity. (Missile offense is easier, too, from above.)
And if we wanted to, we could have a space elevator, a permanent column into the sky, enabling the dirt-cheap lifting of people and cargo into a zero-g environment. That would have made the US the Hong Kong of the 21st century. But we chose not to do any of that.
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
The prosecution rests.
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Ronald Reagan on the space program:
We've always prided ourselves on the pioneer spirit that built America. Well, that spirit is a key to our future as well as our past. Once again, we're on a frontier. Our willingness to accept this challenge will reflect whether America's men and women today have the same bold vision, the same courage and indomitable spirit that made us a great nation.
The peaceful use of space promises great benefits to all mankind. It opens vast new opportunities for our industry and ingenuity. The only limits we have are those of our own courage and imagination. When President John Kennedy challenged America to go to the Moon, he said it would not be one person going but an entire nation putting him there.
Our space program has done so much to bring us together because it gives us the opportunity to be the kind of nation we want to be, the kind of nation we must always be—dreaming, daring, and creating.
The defense rests.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I would shut down the Department of Education, fold Veteran's Affairs back into Defense and kill all arts subsidies before I'd kill NASA.
"Mr. President! There's a killer asteroid out there!"
"Didn't we used to have a space-thingy for that?"
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I would love to double the size of the space program if I believed it could be funded by savings from some of the steps EJHIll proposes.
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
If not Tang, then how about Velcro? I can't imagine parenting without it.
Actually, I think the only real defensible benefit of having an ongoing space program is its "option value" -- what is it worth to be able to gear up from something other than a standing start in the event that (a) a hostile power shows signs of beginning to use space for hostile purposes, (b) an economically competitive power discovers some large-scale source of advantage up there, or (c) some other eventuality that it is in our interest to respond to arises?
Whether the cost of efficiently maintaining this option is greater or less than the current NASA budget, I have no idea.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I admit it. I'm a sentimentalist, which is my biggest reason for not folding NASA. We need frontiers, unexplored spaces into which we push a little farther day after day, year after year. Without them, our spirit atrophies and we become, well, a bunch of folks who can't imagine a program that has any worth beyond sheer dollars and cents.
That said, I don't think we need to increase NASA's current budget all that much. I would like our government to release its monopoly on manned spaceflight and offer a number of contests like the X-Prize for all sorts of manned and even unmanned missions (to the moon, to Mars, to all the Jovian moons save one, to the asteroid belt). Our government does not need to get us to the stars, but we do need an effort toward more than low-Earth orbit that carries the message of "So say we all".
Jun '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
In the 1960’s, many were convinced that the technocratic centrally-planned economies of Russia and China were the wave of the future, that they had transformed two rural peasant subsistence farming societies into modern industrial, military, and scientific superpowers in a few short decades. The United States was still a superpower to be reckoned with in the short term, but the claim was that the Communist powers would soon leapfrog us with more advanced technology and “scientific” social engineering. And what better arena to demonstrate the superiority of Communist technology and industry than manned spaceflight? Instead the world saw Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin fly the Stars and Stripes on lunar soil.
I agree the costs are hard to justify, but I do think etoiledunord has hit the core issue. Tang, Velcro, moon rocks and jobs created are just rationalizations, and not very good ones. The real question is: what will the world think if the flag of Red China flies over the Red Planet, while NASA confines itself to celebrating the achievements of Muslims in science and mathematics?
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I've always found it curious that conservatives are so regularly willing to demand mandatory contributions from every taxpayer for government-operated space exploration.
While I agree that space is now a necessary aspect of military defense, I don't understand why it should be publicly operated. Let the Air Force or some new military branch operate space installations and vehicles. Let private corporations, like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, do the research.
Other benefits are derived from space research, but I see no reason that we could not expect similar results from privately funded and/or operated exploration.
Where taxation is concerned, the burden of proof should always be on the side arguing why a program should exist, rather than why it shouldn't... even if that program has been around for decades.
Jun '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
We need a space program so that I can dream of putting some real distance between myself and the ex-wife.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
What widely used commercial technologies have emerged from NASA? I've put that question to several friends over the years and have never heard a compelling response. Most can't cite anything significant and neither can I. I'll check James Pinkerton's list (thanks for posting that, by the way), but I've always found it interesting that the benefits of the space shuttle and space station programs aren't common knowledge. So, are there wonderful benefits that NASA has done a poor job of publicizing or the benefits few and far between?
Jun '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I'm late to the party today on a topic that fascinates me (space exploration). And while I understand that the question centers on economic benefits, I find myself thinking about 4 I's: Inspiration. Imagination. Illumination. Information. I cannot help but to look through the eyes of Hubble and be filled with wonder at the expanse of Creation. A generation was inspired to pursue science and technology - and whether they came directly from taxpayer-funded NASA, I submit that some of the advancement & achievement we enjoy was indirectly inspired by the pursuit of future frontiers.
I'll allow that I live in an area with long association with NASA. But that does not blind me to the realities of government-run agencies (JPL, which uses a different business model, produces much science). Personally, I advocate the release of space exploration - including heavy lift - to the private sector. But NASA still has a role to play, and the institutional knowledge collected over the last 5 decades still has value. It seems that people only complain loudest about NASA in times of economic turmoil. Understandable, I guess. But new discovery awaits. I'd hate for us to stop looking.
Jun '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I am not a scientist, but my guess would be that a great deal of what we know about rocket propulsion has been learned in the NASA labs. What about all the satellite technologies? We need some scientists posting . People seem pretty darn uninspired here.
From a practical everyday usage POV, there is something called Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD). It is a process whereby a metal or sometimes plastic object is placed in a Zirconium gas chamber and the finish of the object is molecularly altered to make it look like polished brass, brushed nickel, polished nickel, and even oil rubbed bronze. These finishes differ from common plating in that they are so hard that they are truly permanent and impervious. This process is commonly used today for decorative brass products in our homes. Most especially, products that are in constant water contact like faucets.
This PVD process was, I am told, invented by NASA to coat exposed metal objects on the Shuttle. It is truly miraculous.
I would also suppose that dealing with zero gravity should also, based on the theory of opposites, shed light on intense high pressure (oil drilling at 5000 feet)..