US Officially Out of the Space Program

[KrazyHorse]

Back on topic, boys. Discuss the future of the space program.

KH, if you want to continue talking about the fact that insulting people is a necessary part of your debate style, you can create a thread dedicated to that and hash it out there. In the mean time, cut it out.

Eat me, Lori.

[KrazyHorse]

It's pretty amusing that the first person to resort to insults in this thread is also the one to whine about other people being mean to him.

Are you ****ing retarded, dude?

[David Floyd]

KH, presumably you are aware of the difference between a system in which the State is responsible for all science, and individuals aren't allowed to innovate in a market-based system, and a system in which the government funds certain programs that are deemed in the long term public interest, while at the same time not interfering in market-based research?

Because you make it sound like anything that involves any government funding at all, automatically creates a central planning, Soviet-style system.

Imran,

There was large scale public support for putting a man on the Moon. The support for national health care is not nearly on that scale. I'd imagine that's part of the difficulty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was large scale public support for putting a man on the Moon. The support for national health care is not nearly on that scale. I'd imagine that's part of the difficulty.

Which speaks to a massive failure in our society.

Regardless, it is fairly high to have universal health care. Far higher than other pet programs. Probably far higher than putting a man on Mars.

[David Floyd]

It's pretty amusing that the first person to resort to insults in this thread is also the one to whine about other people being mean to him.

I don't recall whining about it. Insult away.

Yes, I did use the "****ing retarded" line, and the reason was that you were being either deliberately obtuse, or were in reality incapable of understanding that when a project meets the goals it set out to meet, then the project was successful.

OTOH, I've largely backed off from the insults, because they are childish. But as I said, they don't bother me. Feel free to fire away.

[David Floyd]

Which speaks to a massive failure in our society.

Possibly - and I would probably disagree with you there - but, as has been said, politics is the art of the possible. National health care is not really possible, with the current level of support and the level of partisan politics in this country. I disagree with the concept of national health care, but that's a different subject/thread. The point here is that an ongoing space program is capable of producing tangible results, while ongoing dialogue and legislation surrounding health care probably isn't, at least judging by recent history.

[KrazyHorse]

KH, presumably you are aware of the difference between a system in which the State is responsible for all science, and individuals aren't allowed to innovate in a market-based system, and a system in which the government funds certain programs that are deemed in the long term public interest, while at the same time not interfering in market-based research?

Because you make it sound like anything that involves any government funding at all, automatically creates a central planning, Soviet-style system.

WTF are you talking about? Central planning isn't all-or-nothing.



To the extent that the government decides to engage in it, it's more likely than not to misallocate resources, unless there's some reason to think that the market is seriously broken in that area. You can attempt to make the argument that this is the case in basic science, since the results are difficult to appropriate privately, but empirically there is little reason to believe that gov't research funding does any more than feed scientists.

[David Floyd]

True. As has already been pointed out in this thread, government funding of the atomic bomb turned out rather well. For that matter, radar/sonar research that was ongoing at the same time did pretty well, too.

And speaking of atomic research, there were plenty of scientists who wrote of the atomic bomb as an impossibility, and essentially gave up. See, eg, Werner Heisenberg. The point is, just because certain well-informed people don't think a certain research path is possible or profitable, doesn't necessarily make it so.

[David Floyd]

In any case, it's been real, it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun. I'm off for pizza and poker for a while...

[KrazyHorse]

The atomic bomb and radar are examples of (primarily, at least at first) defence technologies (technologies for which the major use is a public good!). You can make this argument for ICBMs, spy satellites etc, but these have nothing to do with the manned space program (or even much of the unmanned space program since the 60s)

????

[KrazyHorse]

And speaking of atomic research, there were plenty of scientists who wrote of the atomic bomb as an impossibility, and essentially gave up. See, eg, Werner Heisenberg. The point is, just because certain well-informed people don't think a certain research path is possible or profitable, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Yes, which is why we have a MARKET, not just a central authority deciding what research path to take.

????

[Sprayber]

Something tells me we could throw 10 times the amount of money that we do now and we really wouldn't be in any better shape than we are. It seems to me that the truly beneficial gains are those that take place incrementally and involves different players. Apollo captured the imagination of millions but I don't see where it actually improved the lives of anyone. If it makes sense for us to go out into space we will go. The ego would like to see one's own country carrying the banner out into space but it will happen or not happen based on a need or the possibility of reward.

Sorry for the rambling post. My head hurts.

[Jon Miller]

How would an atom bomb, or many other things, even be considered if not for the science that was funded (and not directly useful) in the previous centuries?

If you want to argue that science as high energy people generally think of it isn't useful, I would probably agree. Fundamental science has gone far far beyond applied science. But to say that fundamental science isn't useful at all, disagrees with history. Often fundamental science makes discoveries which 10-100 years later can be turned into applications. Look at the atom bomb, semi-conductors, AMO, etc.

Just because it is actual applied science which makes the useful discoveries doesn't mean that the fundamental science is useless. The understanding needed to do the applied science wouldn't be possible without the fundamental science.

JM

[Colon™]

Wow KH...

[RGBVideo]

Private sector will not fund fundamental, pioneering R&D because it'll turn into profit in too long a time (does anyone in here think that establishing a manned, habitable colony on Mars will be feasible with under 50 years of R&D?).

That said, the required costs of public program for Apollo on Mars are currently way too high, no matter how optimistic one gets. Let private sector pick up the slack for a while and develop more cost-efficient ways for space rocket launches.