Most want money spent on Earth, not space (Barf Alert)

Houston Comical (AP) ^ | 1/13/04 | WILL LESTER

[The_Victor]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's plan to build a space station on the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars hasn't grabbed the public's imagination, an Associated Press poll suggests.

More than half in the poll said it would be better to spend the money on domestic programs rather than on space research.

Asked whether they favored the United States expanding the space program the way Bush proposes, people were evenly split, with 48 percent favoring the idea and the same number opposing it, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Most respondents said they generally support continuing to send humans into space.

However, given the choice of spending money on programs like education and health care or on space research, 55 percent said they wanted domestic programs. Based on previous estimates for a moon-Mars initiative, the space cost would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

"You can't have a war, cut taxes, have the economy in a garbage pail and spend billions going into space," said Dallas Hodgins, a 76-year-old retired University of Michigan researcher from Flint, Mich. "How are they going to pay for all this? I don't see how it's morally justifiable. In Flint, there isn't a school roof that doesn't leak."

On Wednesday, Bush is scheduled to spell out details of his proposal to use an outpost on the moon as a jumping-off point for more remote destinations such as Mars or asteroids.

Those most likely to favor the plan to expand space exploration were men, young adults, people with more education and those with higher incomes.

It made a difference who was said to be behind the plan. When half the poll sample was asked about a "Bush administration" plan to expand space exploration instead of the "United States" plan, opposition increased.

Just over half of Democrats opposed the plan by "the United States." Once it was identified as a "Bush administration" plan, Democrats opposed it by a 2-1 margin.

Some have suggested that space exploration could be expanded more inexpensively using robots instead of humans to explore the moon or other planets. The AP-Ipsos poll indicated that option was popular, with 57 percent favoring exploring the moon and Mars with robots and 38 percent saying humans.

[chimera]

That chaps me as well. We spent nearly two orders of magnitude more money on "social programs" than NASA's entire budget. For all its faults, NASA has at least produced tangible products/benefits for its money.

Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how poll after poll keeps coming up with the result that the sheeple say the money is "better" spent on social programs than space exploration. Better by what measure? Nothing ever comes of it. Everyone says, "fund education". Well, fine, but, geez, check out how much we're already funding it, and demand results for that before asking for more. Sure, NASA has made some mistakes. It is hobbled by government bureaucracy, which tends to stifle creativity. But there have been tangible, useful results, and good, honest, hardworking, capable, taxpaying people have been employed by that work. Welfare programs for able-bodied people perfectly capable of providing for themselves (if they weren't busy breeding so prolifically) employ no one and produce nothing other than another generation of welfare dependents.

[TigerTale]

Do you see how contrived an argument it is to say the choice is between more money to NASA or money for domestic spending when the real debate should be along the lines of what you are talking about?

I am no great defender of NASA. It is a pale shadow of the Right Stuff days. My favorite space program currently is the privately funded X-Prize.

I believe the Federal government has a legitimate interest in promoting the exploitation of space, which is a potential source of uncalculated wealth. The successful history of the Federal role in expanding the American frontier provides both historical precedent and historical justification. Whether this promotion is done through NASA or via some other means is immaterial--and I admit that NASA is a money pit. Current estimates tag the price of a Mars mission at $1 trillion, which seems ridiculous, in light of Zubrin's proposal.

[dead]

So you don't think they are even interested in the military implications of their program?

You really believe they are spending the billions as a tribute to Communism?

Man, that's naïve. The "failed ruling class" could have spent a few million on a really beautiful statue and put the billions in their own pockets, if "a tribute" was truly their motivation.

Like everybody else, they want to rule the world. That's why they are going to space.

[Shryke]

It appears (correct me if I am wrong), that you feel NASA is rife with incompetency. May I ask how you came to that conlusion? Also, if this were corrected, would you change your opnion of NASA funding?

[JohnGalt]

"Like everybody else, they want to rule the world. That's why they are going to space."

I guess it just my anti-social Christian libertainism that finds the space programs of these monster states a touch to Gnostic for consumption.

[JohnGalt]

The propensity for astronauts to die, albeit spectacularly, and the lack of public tar and feathering of NASA employees really gives the game away.

[JohnGalt]

That is a thoughtful post, with links, and 10x a more compelling defense of space exploration than what I have seen thus far.

You should have led the charge for debunking the dichotimy posed by the author of this article.

[Redcloak]

Personally, I'd rather see the money loaded onto a rocket and fired into the sun than see one thin dime spent on "social" spending.

[dead]

I guess it just my anti-social Christian libertainism that finds the space programs of these monster states a touch to Gnostic for consumption.

From what I’ve seen, your “anti-social Christian libertainism” often conflicts with the reality of the situation on the ground.

It would be nice if the world were all sunshine and rainbows and people staying out of each other’s hair, and countries letting each other live and let live, and Ziggy was president with the Smurfs for a cabinet…

I didn’t mean to mock there, just got on a roll.

I think military domination of space is an absolute necessity if we hope to keep even the limited freedoms we enjoy in this country through the next century. And I think this journey to the moon and then Mars will go a long way towards ensuring that happens.

And though we can argue over the methodology, we can’t deny that that is a very legitimate role for the government.

Now I have to get back to work before I becoming a loser on welfare demanding that the goverment give that money to me rather than spending it in space.

[JohnGalt]

'From what I’ve seen, your “anti-social Christian libertainism” often conflicts with the reality of the situation on the ground.'


Trust me, I have noticed this too.

Cheers to a quick work day,

[mrsmith]

"Seward's Folly"

Paying for Space is like paying for Alaska.
There's nothing there, it'll never be worth anything, there's some military advantage to owning it but it's not significant.

The money would be better spent in the Lower 48!

[TigerTale]

There's nothing there, it'll never be worth anything,

The Eros Project, designed--in part--to clarify the legal standing of private property in space, estimates the monetary value of the near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros at $15.84 trillion--approximently 1.5 times the entire GDP of the United States for 2002.

MIT researcher Scott Stuart estimates there are about 1100 near-Earth asteroids larger than 1 km in diameter. Eros has a diameter of 33 km.

Estimates place in the thousands the number of asteroids in the entire solar system with diameters between 1 km and 100 km. There are at least 220 asteroids with diameters greater than 100 km.

[Shryke]

The propensity for astronauts to die, albeit spectacularly, and the lack of public tar and feathering of NASA employees really gives the game away.

You hold the same opinion of our test-pilot programs then? Back in the heady days of Yaeger and the X-1?

[JohnGalt]

If you, a true believer, have to go back to the 1950s to make your case, I can safely rest mine.

[Shryke]

Unfortunately, I have no idea what that means. Either your opinion of those days is the same as now, or not. If you, a true cynic, wish to "rest your case" without answering a simple question or two, that's ok with me. People's opinions don't change in this forum often anyway.

[longtermmemmory]

How many of these social wackos are demanding money be spent on programs and devices which are directly resulting from prior space programs?

A two year expedition will yeild items which will make all our lives better.

heck they may even get that unified field theory to work.

[RightWhale]

Is there an ATM on the moon? An off-shore bank on Mars? If not, how in space shall one spend money on the moon or Mars?

[The_Victor]

How many of these social wackos are demanding money be spent on programs and devices which are directly resulting from prior space programs?

We need the space program's version of Discovery Channel's "Tactical to Practical."

[RightWhale]

While some worry as if they have something to do with exploring and developing The Endless Frontier, work continues on Mars:

---

http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/status.html

TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004

1704 GMT (12:04 p.m. EST)

"The final umbilical running between the lander and rover was successfully cut overnight, and Spirit performed a 45-degree turn in place atop the lander. This was the first in a series of three turns to position the rover in the direction for the drive to the surface later this week. "

---

The lander is now powerless and inert.

[Flightdeck]

What's a NASA dead-ender?