Science buff- Like Barack Obama? Better not like manned spaceflight then

[Arrian]

I don't want to totally give up on manned spaceflight, but firing off robotic probes is pretty clearly where it's at right now, given our current technology. Of course, one can argue that an ambitious (and, therefore, very expensive) manned program like Apollo would result in more technological advancement. That may be. And I'd be all for cutting something else to fund that (say, oh, certain military procurement programs). But between education and manned flight? Education.

-Arrian

[DanS]

NASA is a real boondoggle and should be disbanded. But Obama's proposal is a real boondoggle as well.

How about sending that money back to the taxpayers?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
How about sending that money back to the taxpayers?

That would go against the wishes of his supporters.

[DanS]

Admittedly, it's a radical idea.

[dannubis]

yes... eum, how many of those tax dolars pumped in Iraq have you seen back ?

[Arrian]

No, no, that's ok. That money goes straight to mom & apple pie, wrapped in the American flag.

Education, though, that's a boondoggle.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

See?

[Arrian]

Actually, I'd be fine with returning both money spent on unnecessary wars (and unnecessary military procurement, and unnecessary subsidies of this and that, and so on) and "boondoggle" education programs.

But that's crazy talk.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

I agree robots are more efficient at exploring our solar system, but they have little inspirational value, so in the long-term as a result of this, fewer probes would be sent in a non-manned space program than in much more expensive and wasteful manned program.



The thing is I think most of the costs of developing space technology can’t be skipped. If we wait for thirty years, I can guarantee that progress will be next to nil, sure probes will be sent our bottle rockets will be a bit better, but that’s it. And when the thirty year deadline is up, try convincing the US senators and public to grant funding for something they haven’t seen in a generation. And once they do get back out there (after at least a decade of delays) they'll realise that we can’t build much better spaceships than the ones they had 30 years ago.

This Orion thingy is a clear example of this. NASA facing a low budget, made a bet, it used most of its budget for the space shuttle hoping it would work letting NASA afford the other stuff later. They lost their bet, and now they want to do stuff. The program they have come up with is basically slightly modified 1970’s engineering, sure they added better computers, solar panels and made it a bit bigger and shiner but it has the same practicality. Who knows perhaps in the course of the program they’ll learn something new about how to design space ships, but the process wouldn’t be much easier or cheaper than it would have been in 1975. And the likelihood of spin-off is a lot smaller, since other fields have stumbled on to the stuff they might have found earlier in such program.

[DanS]

The costs for developing space technology can't be skipped, but why is this a concern of the government? Why not return this money to the taxpayer, who will allocate the funds based on what he thinks is important to support?

[Ramo]

I don't know the specifics about his education program (do you?), but some people value public education...

No, manned space flight IS Hubble.

From the corrective optics installed early on, through the gyroscope replacements and other repairs and upgrades, to the upcoming service mission that may yet NOT happen, Hubble has been exceedingly dependent on manned spaceflight.

My point is that it could've been done far cheaper unmanned. Just shoot off a new one if it's breaking down. Given the costs of maintaining and putting up Hubble thus far using manned flights, we could've shot up several Hubbles unmanned.

I understand there may not be a TON of scientific value now (although my understanding is that there is some)

Like what?

Yes, but we won't get any closer unless we try.

The point is that we don't have the basic research to economically utilize any dividends from manned flight. Prioritizing manned space flight over K-12 education is absolutely absurd.

We could have made the same argument back in the 1950s, and as a result, we could be without all kinds of technological advances today.

There may be some interesting tech that comes from manned flight, but that would be an extremely inefficient way of getting to that tech (as opposed to direct investment into the research).

My major IMMEDIATE concern is that another nation may pull ahead of the US in space - if the PRC in 20 years were to have a significant lead on the US in space, that could potentially be a disaster.

Suppose China wastes an absurd amount of money getting a man on Mars in the next 20 years (and therefore not prioritizing actually important things like education). What would you suppose happens? What's the disaster?

I try to temper it with realism. I understand that high minded Libertarian principles don't mean **** if we allow a nation like China, or a force like radical Islam, to dominate the future, technologically/militarily/economically/politically.

Radical Islam?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you accept evolution as fact - and how can you not? - how can you not also accept the fact that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere, in the past 15+ billion years, and, while not common, probably exists in more than one place in our galaxy?

It's called the Fermi paradox. Look it up.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's called the Fermi paradox. Look it up.

The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

[Heraclitus]

It doesn’t have to. But countries tend to outlast companies as such it is possible that American businesses will have large benefits in a century or two, thus paying more taxes thus eventually paying back the government its investment with interest. A company than works for a decade or two is very unlikely to reap the benefits of its investments.

[DanS]

In all other endeavors, the US does best when the private sector takes the lead. The tendency to become communist when it comes to space is really baffling.