US Officially Out of the Space Program

[KrazyHorse]

Why the **** does Obama need to propose an alternative to ****ing NASA? If there are such wonderful benefits up in space why the **** does the government need to spend my money to encourage us to go up there?

[David Floyd]

BTW, I'll be the first to admit that DanS and KH are an order of magnitude more knowledgeable than I am on many subjects, this probably being one of them. If it comes down to a debate of specifics, they'll win.

My main overriding point, though, is what I've been saying all along - because of the benefits of the space program over the past 50 years, especially relative to most other federal spending, it's inexcusable to ignore the space program in favor of other programs that are much more expensive. That's especially true when those programs are relatively likely to end up being large wastes of money with few to no benefits.

[KrazyHorse]

God, you're a ****ing comrade, David.

[Elok]

Sooo...I take it you're a fan of the NEA too, DF? Even less money, and about as much "objective benefit."

[David Floyd]

Why the **** does Obama need to propose an alternative to ****ing NASA? If there are such wonderful benefits up in space why the **** does the government need to spend my money to encourage us to go up there?

Oh for Christ's sake. There are certain things that governments can afford to do, that are going to be beneficial, that individuals or corporations cannot afford to do. You already pointed out the interstate highway system. National defense is obviously another. It isn't even remotely socialist to support either one. I fail to see how the space program is different. No one is saying private enterprise can't do it at all, or even, eventually, do it better. I do think it's clear, though, that without the Apollo Program, which was entirely federally funded, the US space program wouldn't have gone nearly as far, nearly as fast, and that would almost certainly have resulted in us missing out on certain technological benefits.

[David Floyd]

Sooo...I take it you're a fan of the NEA too, DF? Even less money, and about as much "objective benefit."

*shrug* I don't know. What are some objective benefits the NEA gives us, that impact our daily lives?

[KrazyHorse]

because of the benefits of the space program over the past 50 years, especially relative to most other federal spending

THIS IS NOT THE RELEVANT MARGIN.

The relevant margin is between space and no space. Not space and some other budgetary priority. Congress has shown itself completely insensitive to deficit considerations of the size of the space program.

[David Floyd]

The relevant margin is between space and no space. Not space and some other budgetary priority. Congress has shown itself completely insensitive to deficit considerations of the size of the space program.

OK, then.

What practical benefits do we see from "bridges to nowhere", for example? Or how about Congress voting pork military spending into the budget, that the Pentagon doesn't even want, just because it brings federal money to their home districts?

In other words, if the choice is between space and no space - or in other words, having spent $1.4 trillion in the past 50 years, and having spent the same money either on nothing or "something else", I'll take space every time.

[KrazyHorse]

There are certain things that governments can afford to do, that are going to be beneficial, that individuals or corporations cannot afford to do. You already pointed out the interstate highway system. National defense is obviously another.

National defence and the highway system aren't properly gov't expenditures because they're too big for the private sector, you jackass. They're gov't expenditures because (definitively for defence, arguably for the highways) they are PUBLIC GOODS.

Secondly, NASA's budget is well within the reach of the private sector to finance, if financing it showed ANY signs of being a worthwhile use of resources. For instance, Google's revenues in 2008 were slightly larger than NASA's budget for that year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

(NASA budget ~17 bill)

[KrazyHorse]

What practical benefits do we see from "bridges to nowhere", for example? Or how about Congress voting pork military spending into the budget, that the Pentagon doesn't even want, just because it brings federal money to their home districts?

In other words, if the choice is between space and no space - or in other words, having spent $1.4 trillion in the past 50 years, and having spent the same money either on nothing or "something else", I'll take space every time.

You must be ****ing retarded. You say "okay" to my claim that the relevant margin is between spending money on space and simply NOT SPENDING THAT MONEY, then go on to AGAIN make the assumption that if the money had not been spent on NASA it would have gone to some other wasteful government program.

[David Floyd]

So is your argument that the federal government should in no way be involved with science, or R&D in general?

I'm not sure that I agree with that assertion. I do agree that the government shouldn't impose political restrictions on R&D, but I don't see anything wrong with the government funding science.

[DanS]

Financing a good space program in the private sector is well within the range of many.

As an example, there are at least two private astronaut corps that are being built -- at Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX. Both programs are well below the $1 billion total investment range.

[David Floyd]

You must be ****ing retarded. You say "okay" to my claim that the relevant margin is between spending money on space and simply NOT SPENDING THAT MONEY, then go on to AGAIN make the assumption that if the money had not been spent on NASA it would have gone to some other wasteful government program.

That's not what I said at all. I said I'd rather the $1.4 trillion over 50 years be spent on space than on nothing. I'm not assuming it would have been spent on something else, although then again, the federal government didn't always run the deficits that it runs today, so it's a little disingenuous to assume that the what the federal government did or didn't spend in the past was not related to federal revenues.

[KrazyHorse]

So is your argument that the federal government should in no way be involved with science, or R&D in general?

Is this not clear from what I've said so far in this thread?

[David Floyd]

As an example, there are at least two private astronaut corps that are being built -- at Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX. Both programs are well below the $1 billion investment range.

Yes, I'm aware that there are some private corporation out there involved with space, and I am 100% supportive of them.

Look, I'm sorry guys. I fully see your point. I also think that there are some things out there, that the market and private sector may not see a benefit in, that we should still fund regardless. To me, the space program is one of those things. There are too many possibilities - national defense is one, discovery is another. Yeah, it may turn out there is nothing worthwhile in space, and that it's a giant waste of money. But the opposite may be true as well. Whether the private sector wants to take the risk is irrelevant to me. The consequences of not investing in space, and being wrong, are potentially too great, in my opinion.