Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
More questions from Ricochet’s young man of science, David Strauss. (David, you may recall, is in a doctoral program here at Stanford. An electrical engineer, he’s working on sub-surface imaging, which, since I don’t even begin to grasp how anyone can use electrical impulses to look underwater or underground, is all I can tell you about his work.)
As a conservative, I always question the role of government in any process. A few of the questions I find myself asking—and that I’d like to ask everyone here at Ricochet: At what level should the U.S. government continue to fund scientific research? What would happen if the government decided to get out of the business and let all research be privately funded? Which programs might benefit the most from being pushed out from under the governmental control?
Personally, I don't think that all government funding for research and development should cease—where would that leave research for defense technology and other classified work? But where should we draw the line between research necessary for defense and research without any immediate goal or defined benefit?
One case worth discussing: NASA.
To its credit, NASA has attempted to address its image of being over budget and behind schedule. (Here’s an interesting link.)
I recently heard a talk by Dr. Braun, NASA's chief technology officer, in which he discussed renewed investment in novel technologies (think new heavy-lift rockets), new robotic missions, and the establishment of graduate/postgrad student funding opportunities and fellowships in the same vein as the well established NSF-fellowships.
Do you think that NASA can really turn itself around and reinvigorate aerospace exploration? Should it reinvigorate aerospace exploration? Should NASA plan a mission to Mars? Or should we leave aerospace to private enterprise?
And now, over to the Ricochetoise.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
Can NASA? Of course it can, given the money. The only interesting question is, "should it?" That question has been addressed at length in the previous thread,
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/From-a-Puzzled-Young-Scientist
To sum up my own view, some projects are beyond the scope of entities smaller than governments to handle. It falls to scientists and other interested citizens of the country to persuade the electorate (and their representatives) that these activities are worthwhile. There is precedent for this. We might wish for a world in which the government is smaller and the private sector has more funds to carry out such projects. Even then, it's not clear that any private entity is up to the task. Since the Erie Canal, the government has undertaken projects of large magnitude where the private sector could not.
Science funding is not an entitlement, and certainly much money is wasted there as in any other government endeavor. That is not the same as saying that all government funding of science, or of public works projects in general, is wasteful and unnecessary. NASA funding fits somewhere in the priorities of the citizens; it's just not clear where.
Oct '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
Sadly, NASA, like many scientific endeavors by government, eventually has ended up as just one more bureaucratic mountain, alive with climbers who have little knowledge or ability related to the"mission". In fact, we are at the point that many desirable goals for government have devolved into the same mountain.
Truth is, it is not important that NASA or any scientific or medical research activity should advance. At the rate that the feral government is amassing power, any good that comes from research will be diluted by the fact that the people of this country are losing their liberty, and in fact, may even be used to make us a yet more compliant people. Sorry David. Your generation is really the loser in this affair. Don't lose heart, we may yet pull this country back to Constitutional sanity, but probably the idea that taxpayer money can ever be beneficially used in science will not come in your lifetime.
May '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
Imagine the insouciance of NASA if it started deliberating on going to Mars. The macro-economy is very slowly recovering from a severe economic contraction, the government is running a fantastically large deficit, and NASA wants to go to another planet? I say we let the private sector deal with exploration. The job of the federal government is not to steal money to boost people into space.
May '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
NASA per se? I'm agnostic. I don't know enough to have an opinion. But making block grants of money available for basic research funding is an important function of government, I think. Private enterprise should fund applied research. But the idea behind basic research is that you never know ahead of time how diverse discoveries may come together serendipitously to produce something greater than the sum of its parts.
The reason that the US was able to beat the Russians to the moon was because we had a larger foundation of basic research that we were able to draw upon once the objective was clear. (Whether going to the Moon or Mars is worthwhile is a different question.)
In similar manner, the US has led the world in medicine because of that basic research foundation.
Take away the knowledge base and you take away our national advantage.
May '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
This is rather obtuse to the topic, but for what it's worth, Jacob Bronowski, in the Ascent of Man, said this about his friend and colleague John von Neumann:
"He never finished the great work that has been very difficult to carry on since his death. ...He became more and more engaged in work for private firms, for industry, for government. They were enterprises which brought him to the centre of power, but which did not advance either his knowledge or his intimacy with people...
...If we are anything, we must be a democracy of the intellect. We must not perish by the distance between people and government, between people and power, by which Babylon and Rome failed. And that distance can only be conflated, can only be closed, if knowledge sits in the homes and heads of people with no ambition to control others, and not up in isolated seats of power."
I know this does not specifically address the topic of government funding of NASA, or scientific research in general, but maybe it will bring a little insight to how a scientist might approach his patronage, not as a strictly technical, but a human, being.
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
I have a good friend who was intimately involved with NASA in the early days and he echoes this sentiment exactly. He's fond of saying that NASA was never as lean or creative as when it was a handful of guys operating out of the Little White House on H Street in Washington.
For what it's worth, I had a conversation with Buzz Aldrin a few weeks ago and he's convinced that travel to Mars is the next step, but that private exploration is the way to get there.
Dec '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
An interesting read on the subject of govt funding of science, a collection of essays titled "Liberty and Research and Development."
The book appeals to the reader familiar with the basic concepts of R&D from the perspective of the free market. After the read, it seems pretty clear how easy it is to simply make a long list of "things" NASA has "created" (velcro, etc. we've all heard that list). Just becuase you compile a list doesn't mean a longer or better or equal list wouldn't exist if those resources had been put to use according to market forces.
I wish I had joined this conversation theme earlier. I'm also a PhD student, working in medical research. Perhaps I'll post a cathartic libertarian rant on the member forum about the guilt I feel being funded by the NIH.
Aug '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
One of the more poisonous effects of government funded science is the grant process. Back in the day when I was a Real Scientist™, the faculty members I worked with spent the bulk of their time writing grant proposals or reports to sustain the grants they had. Then there was all the politics that came with getting grants--grantsmanship they called. It was the post docs like me that did all the actual science with grad students doing the monkey work. (Which is why schools manufacture many more PhD's than can ever hope to work in research as a career.) Unsurprisingly, government funding introduces a lot of distortions into the process of science.
Is it worth it? I don't know. If the government absolutely abstained from funding basic science, would the most promising projects still be funded through charity? Again, I don't know. The question is probably irrelevant since the government is unlikely to get out of the science funding game anyway.
Oct '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
Government is a grand human experiment concerning the organization of society. The exploration of space has been man’s quest since emerging from the primordial ooze and gazing upwards to the stars. NASA puts both of these concepts together.
Name one other government program or agency that has the positive externalities of NASA.
Technological advances applicable to the private sector? Check. Examples too numerous to mention here.
Tangible outcomes of a government programs that citizens look to and admire with pride? Check. Go to the Smithsonian Air & Space museum. Wealth transfer payments, not so much.
Gather the aspirations of the human race to achieve collectively that which individuals on their own could not? Check. The US flag still waves on the surface of the moon. JFK’s “New Frontier” speech did more for education in science and math than any legislation.
Once we decide on a tangible goal (Mars) and stop funding distractions (global warming hysteria), NASA will once again serve as a beacon to the world that America’s excellence furthers humanity’s achievements.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 5:19pmNov '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
I believe NASA could be at the point of radical change or it will slowly die. It has been one of the more successful government endeavors but as with anything government, it has devolved into an impotent organization.
In the same vein, the US National Lab complex, Sandia, Los Alamos, Idaho National, Lawrence Livermore, they are all supposed to perform research and work that is to risky or expensive for private industry to take on. Like NASA, they have all become a bloated tangled bureaucracy and are completely risk adverse. My dad calls it white collar welfare. Radical change is necessary.
May '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
One thing conservatives can look to is history. Probably the closest historical analogy we have to NASA's moon and Mars missions is the exploration of the globe during the European Age of Exploration. As far as I know, most of the famous exploratory voyages (Columbus, Magellan, etc) were government sponsored, if not fully funded by the government. Is there anyone who knows more about this?
So with that in mind, the question is, would the Earth's oceans and continents have been explored as pervasively and effectively by purely private enterprises? Would they have kept their maps and routes secret and proprietary? Would private companies have had the right to claim North America as private property, for example?
Sep '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
I remember that quote well, though I never thought it was a satisfactory explanation of von Neumann's career path. The fact is that most scientists work for the government, directly or indirectly, Bronowski included. But Bronowski's larger point is a good one: scientists need to connect with the people paying the bills. As it pertains to NASA, I think people were engaged in the space race of the 1960s, and not just because they feared the Soviets. It was exciting, and that excitement reached everyone. It can be so again.
As for NASA today, it is bloated, bureaucratic hulk. It would be best to burn it to the ground and start over. But in the real world, we must build on what we have. To paraphrase a practical man, we must go to space with the space agency we have.
Dec '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
I'm puzzled by why this question should be worth discussing among conservatives. National defense is a legitimate and necessary function of government. Fulfilling that function properly means doing research so that our country can keep foiling our enemies thoroughly and effectively. Sending people to the moon is not a legitimate function of government and no conservative should support it. Is it more complicated than that?
David Strauss, don't worry, there's a limitless supply of productive scientific research that entrepreneurial dreamers can and will want to fund if they're not made to spend their days filling out environmental impact statements and the like.
Sep '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
.....
I wish I had joined this conversation theme earlier. I'm also a PhD student, working in medical research. Perhaps I'll post a cathartic libertarian rant on the member forum about the guilt I feel being funded by the NIH. · Dec 27 at 1:31pm
Don't feel guilty, libertarian views notwithstanding. Ideological purity is the luxury of academics and of the insane. The rest of us must be more pragmatic. There is probably not one person posting at this site that does not accept the benefits of government largesse, just as their paychecks are raided by the tax collector.
Think of your use of government this way: you provide a service for which you are paid. It is not a gift. Presumably, your work is valued; if it stops being valued, the money will stop too.
Dec '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
Oh, and about the parallels to the age of exploration: the explosive economic growth that created the largest increases in living standards in history started in the late 18th/early 19th centuries. Whatever you might think of the heroism and glamor of the Magellan, Columbus, Vasco de Gama, etc., I don't think you'd find much evidence that their efforts did much for their fellow subjects. In short, the various monarchs' spending on exploration may have glorified their reigns and, if they were lucky, gratified their avaricious dreams, but did little or nothing for the general populations who were the ultimate source of the funding.
Sep '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
Greg Adams:
...
... it seems pretty clear how easy it is to simply make a long list of "things" NASA has "created" (velcro, etc. we've all heard that list).
One more thing. As for the idea that spinoffs are the raison d'etre, let's please put that to rest right now. Velcro is not the reason for going into space, and it never was. Attempts to justify NASA this way are doomed. These things are only brought up to salvage the flagging reputation of an agency in trouble, which might well describe NASA.
Jack Kennedy never said, "Let's go to the moon so we can have Tang and Velcro." It was more like this:
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.
May '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
I don't think anyone is expecting "explosive economic growth" as a result of lunar or Martian exploration. You didn't directly address my question, which was, would the new world have been explored by strictly private enterprises? Whatever immediate benefit this government funded exploration gave to the concurrent rulers, the result was an expanded world that could, centuries later, be exploited by private enterprise to everyone's benefit.
Edited on Dec 28, 2010 at 3:54pmSep '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
A key fact missing from this analysis is that the subjects of those autocratic regimes has no say over these expenditures. In a democracy, the people have the sole power (in principle if not always in practice) to make the decision about how their money is spent.
As for benefits received, those Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth were quite glad that some explorers (Brits included) found a place for them to go. The Columbian exchange brought benefits to Europeans too. Think of maize and potatoes.
Dec '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
I am inclined to agree, given one caveat: The government must not regulate the civilian space exploration effort in any way. Total laissez-faire. No great outcry when/if people die in this effort, no justified encroachment in the name of safety, nothing.
What will actually happen is that NASA will not do anything (or go away entirely), but they will also insist in leaving behind a regulatory environment that will stifle the civilian effort to the extent that their glacial rate of progress can later be used to justify NASA's re-authorization.
Also, totally unrelated, but is there always a 200 word limit? 'Cause I see posts that are much longer, but cannot make them myself. What manner of deal is that?
May '10
Re: Our Young Scientist Asks of NASA, 'Whatup?'
drlorentz
I remember that quote well, though I never thought it was a satisfactory explanation of von Neumann's career path. The fact is that most scientists work for the government, directly or indirectly, Bronowski included. But Bronowski's larger point is a good one: scientists need to connect with the people paying the bills. As it pertains to NASA, I think people were engaged in the space race of the 1960s, and not just because they feared the Soviets. It was exciting, and that excitement reached everyone. It can be so again.
I have long had a deep sentimental attachment to the early years of the American space program through the Apollo years, because it was so exiting and stirred the imagination so. So I have a hard time embracing the argument that government has no business being involved in such enterprises. I agree with my head, but not with my heart. At least most of the work was done through competive bidding and subcontracting.