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:
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Well, if you include the SDI as part of the space program, some of the same instruments and software that was designed to differentiate between real and dummy warheads was adapted to tell the difference between cancerous cells and harmless growths. That is at least a contribution to civilian life. Of course, the problem with it relating to this discussion is that SDI was a defense expenditure. This may what Ursula referred to in the response above.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Kill GISS, and thus retire James Hansen and all of his CAGW cronies. Encourage the private space entrepreneurs and give them the necessary support to address the things they can't do without government through generous CRADAs. Work with DoD to ensure military security on sats, EMP, commo security, etc. Do the unmanned probes. Let the rest go. Especially Bolden's diversity outreach.
But by all means, kill the Education Deptartment anyway.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
I think the discussions about the many side benefits of the space program aren't all that relevant. These inventions are mainly incidental to the larger task, and could be researched on their own if we are looking for things to throw public money at.
The space program is really about national priorities. I have a serious question for the more historically knowledgeable members: How much of the Earth's surface was explored by privately funded voyages and how much by state funded voyages during the Age of Exploration? I can only guess that it was much more state funded, and maybe that will shed light on the current conversation.
There seems to be no immediate profit available to incentivize Lockheed Martin and Boeing to spend IRAD money on large scale space exploration like the Jovian moons. Who else would do it if it weren't funded by the government? And if the answer is nobody, is that something we should care about?
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Here's my argument for space:
One thing we know from space exploration and astronomt is that Bad Things happen to Good Planets all the time. Big things crash into planets. Other kinds of catastrophes, both sudden and gradual, occur. Stuff happens.
I'm fond of humanity. If that makes me a species-ist, so be it. If something devastating happens to the earth, I'd like humanity to survive. I'd like people around who can appreciate human art, music, literature, and thought, who can build on that and see where it all leads.
Having all our eggs in one basket, in a thin membrane of air surrounding one particular rock hurtling through space, strikes me as a bad idea. Unavoidable for most of our history, but bad nonetheless. I back up my computer offsite, and what's my iMac next to Shakespeare's works, and people who can read them? Space colonization is a species insurance policy.
We spend money on short and long term needs. We should spend some money on very long term needs, like laying the groundwork for space colonization in 20, 50, 100, or 500 years. Our descendants may be very glad we did.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Is there anything significant that humans do in space that can't be done with robots? And the robot technology might have applications on Earth.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
There is no tool so versatile as the human hand and no problem solver so capable as the human mind. Robots are great for a wide variety of applications, but they are not nearly ready to be a universal replacement for human beings. As one of my engineering professors told me freshman year, "There's no substitute for being there."
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
After watching a long video of a spacewalking astronaut making repairs to Hubble, I'm pretty confident the answer to your question is yes, quite a long list of things.
Robotics has lots of potential for new applications here on earth. And there are things in space only robots are good (we can, for instance, send them to Saturn without worrying about them getting home safe) but I'm doubtful that we're anywhere close to the point where robots can fully substitute for things humans can do in space.
And there's no substitute for manned spaceflight if we intend to colonize places other than earth, as I argue we should, as an insurance policy for our species.
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Peter, your question and posting prompted me to join.
My background: I am a mechanical engineer with 15 years experience working as a design engineer for various NASA contractors at Johnson Space Center. For the last four years I've been designing components and test equipment for Orion. I admit to a bias to continue Orion for personal reasons (employment, as well as time and effort invested), but more important to me is the big picture:
The value of US investment in human spaceflight can't be established via a listing of spinoff products, but you can look here http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off. One can always argue that the invention would be invented anyway, absent a NASA need.
My post is quite long, so it's split into three parts. Bear with me...
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
NASA's value is intangible, summed up brilliantly by JFK:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
In other words, the value is in the challenge, to reach beyond our grasp.
Of course, there is the corollary question: should taxpayers foot the bill? The libertarian answer is: no - if it's going to be done, do it on your own dime. Meanwhile in the real world, there are very few billionaires willing to spend their money on ventures without any plausible return on investment. The only "commercial" profit is from selling rides to NASA. Since NASA is the primary customer, they will have significant influence and involvement in the design of the spacecraft.
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
A resulting "commercial" man-rated spacecraft designed to NASA specifications and oversight will be as expensive and nearly indistinguishable from Orion, which is designed by Lockheed to NASA specifications and oversight. The only difference between the two will be that the former is leased by Uncle Sam.
Even as a devout conservative, I would argue that human spaceflight is appropriately lead by government. There simply isn't a market to support a truely privatized human spaceflight program. It can be argued that there may be one someday, and that day may be accelerated by gov't funding and X-Prizes.
Which brings me to the question of financial liability. Will government indemnification be extended to SpacEX in the event of an accident? If not, where will Musk find insurance if he doesn't personally underwrite the liability?
Please note that the above is my opinion and not reflective of my employer or NASA...
Jun '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Mr. Wells, welcome to Ricochet and thanks for your posts. You wrote:
I would agree that this is true today, but I wonder if long term, the direction should be towards privatization. As for the commercial market for private human spaceflight, energy and material industries would seem to have most to gain, at least initially. While I'm not suggesting that folks should hitch their conestogas to the family rocket in search of frontier territories to claim, I don't think "readiness" for privatization will happen of its own accord. If the capability exists, then I believe the market can be incentivized to exploit the capability to meet its profit motive. Government can provide the initial capability and infrastructure, but in the interest of long term ROI, should not that capability be marketed and even outsourced to those industries that can take advantage of it?
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
"Privatization" and "commercial" are both terms with respect to human spaceflight that have yet to be agreed upon. Here are a few definitions:
1) administration proposal - companies developing LEO-capable human-rated spacecraft with gov't funding (oversight?)
2) traditional NASA - competition by various companies of proposals, then selection and development with NASA oversight - gov't funded
3) true privatization - self-funded development of spacecraft.
Both the House and Senate counterproposals are a mix of 1) and 2), though both are as devoid of "vision" as the administration's plan. The merit of each is that, while limited, they don't kill America's leadership in manned spaceflight.
Space is a frontier with an environment less forgiving than pissed off indians. Privately funded manned spaceflight is in its infancy now, despite (perhaps because of) the lack of gov't funding - thanks to NASA's having blazed a trail to LEO.
May '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
If something is of broad public benefit and in the national interest, yet no individual person or entity is likely to do it themselves because it is not likely to be profitable, isn't that when the government has a legitimate role? Infrastructure, military, exploration of the frontier, exploration of the deep oceans, exploration of the final frontier?
Jul '10
Re: Okay, Tang. But What Else?
Mark, I agree and you make my point well in many fewer words.
In the future, manned spaceflight may become profitable without gov't contracts. I'm eager to see if Bigelow, Virgin, SpaceX, et al can make a business case, but I fear that real commercial profitability is still a long way off.