Space plans are out of this world

Enterprise ^ | 1/13/04

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

No agency in the history of the world has been more efficient at throwing away money than NASA. It has wasted billions of dollars on failed space programs and often seems to exist as nothing more than an exorbitant full-employment agency for scientists who might otherwise have to get real jobs.

[r9etb]

Was Columbus a fool? Are entrepreneurs?

No, and no. But the author of this little screed may yet prove the existence of fools.

[MineralMan]

"WAY too much money is wasted outside of the space program for this to even be an issue.
"

Sure. But hey, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. Myself, I'm in favor of cutting back all the cool stuff until the government gets control of the more important basics.

We can live without NASA, IMO. I know, it's just a few billion, but like I said, a billion here....

[CyberCowboy777]

I just think that more damaging and more costly "programs" need to be cut.

NASA has promise of at least limited military gains, the DOE is a drain on tax dollars and society.

[robertpaulsen]

"No agency in the history of the world has been more efficient at throwing away money than NASA."

Oh, I don't know. Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty managed to burn through around 5 TRILLION dollars, and we didn't even get Teflon out of that program.

[r9etb]

Here's an idea: If exploring space is such a great idea, let's leave it to private enterprise to do it. Then, they can profit from all the terrific discovery's to be made out there.

Taking it a step further: if an Interstate highway system is such a great idea, let's leave it to private enterprise.... Or, if military forces are such a great idea, let's leave them to private enterprise.

The problem with private enterprise in the space business is return on investment. For things where there is a readily available market and a good expectation of early returns -- COMM satellites being the best example -- then private enterprise is interested.

But with things like the R&D side of space exploration, or laying the infrastructure for something like commercial space mining, the return on investment would only be realized decades in the future, if ever -- something no sane private company would do.

Some things require a government boost to get started, because the up-front costs are just too high -- the original transcontinental railways being a prime example. Another good example is communications satellites, which probably couldn't have reached commercial viability without a lot of initial government R&D and operations.

Which brings us to the real question: given that there are some things for which it is a good investment for the government to get something started, would this initiative be a good investment of the right sort?

That's an excellent question, but I don't think there's a real answer to it as yet.

[Soulfull]

We need to go to Mars to check up on our roots.

[Flightdeck]

Yep, that about sums up all we will find out from this trip. And by that I mean not even close. In this case, getting there is way more than half the problem. The innovative engineering developed just for this mission, I guarantee will be of great value in the future. The fact that Spirit arrived intact is by itself a giant piece of information for the landing concept.

Some of the things on your list are in fact very important, and a lot of people do care about them. Figuring out what compounds are present on Mars could be huge, for mining and self-support uses. You were right on one of your next posts when you said we don't NEED NASA. We could survive without, but then we wouldn't be the greatest country on earth. We'd be just some stupid rich country like Saudi Arabia that has to rely on countries with programs like NASA.

[CyberCowboy777]

Quoting RadioAstronomer:

"However, we can spend 15 billion on Africa. Sigh."

Lets worry about the good for nothing waste before we cut the good for somthing spending.

[roadcat]

NASA didn't throw away all that money on their own. In many cases they were held hostage by politicians and the military. Most of their aims and goals are noble, but go awry when politicians interfere. For example, they originally drew up plans for a small nimble space shuttle capable of reaching a distant outer orbit. Designed by engineers and scientists for themselves. Then outsiders interfered, and we ended up with a large expensive shuttle that can't break out of a low inner orbit. We could have had hundreds of space shuttles in our fleet by now, traveling to an inexpensive space station parked midway between the Earth and Moon. All at a fraction of what was spent for our existing small fleet. So don't arbitrarily blame the dreamers and scientists at NASA.

We're going to get some competition from the Chinese and Japanese in a race back to the Moon. And they've probably learned from our mistakes not to do it the same as us. And they'll reap the benefits from the technological benefits that trickle down to everyday consumer items. (Teflon, velcro, computers, energy converters, medical goods, etc., the list is lengthy.)

[MineralMan]

""However, we can spend 15 billion on Africa. Sigh."

Lets worry about the good for nothing waste before we cut the good for somthing spending"

I say let's worry about all the spending that isn't called for by our Constitution. What do you say?

[CyberCowboy777]

Sure.

Lets leave space to China.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

You make good points, and the first place to research them should NOT be your profile. Learn about LaGrange points instead, MinMan, and see the future.

[MineralMan]

"Learn about LaGrange points instead, MinMan, and see the future."

Thanks. I know about LaGrange points. My position is that we should not be in the business of spending tax dollars on space exploration (not exploitation) until we've figured out how to stop wasting tax dollars on the other useless nonsense we spend them on.

Get rid of the useless expenditures and then I'll be 100% behind the space program, as I was in the early days. This little nit-picky program Bush is proposing will accomplish little.

Instead, how about we get rid of the DOE, NEA, and a few other alphabet organizations, then take about 25% of the savings and do a _real_ space program?

Until we do that, I oppose these niggling little feel-good expenditures with lofty goals that cannot be met with the money available.

Let's straighten out our economic mess, put the Federal goverment out of a lot of the areas it's spending so much money in, and then budget for a genuine space program.

Until then, Mars rovers are just fine.

[Truth666]

Go NASA Go

for that water in Mars !

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Fair enough then. I just got all hot & bothered when the only counter-point you offered was that jpl works in a field that sees fiscal benefits from space work. I see now that your position is very thought-out. Plus, it's just cool to bring up LaGrange points.

[tet68]

No agency in the history of the world has been more efficient at throwing away money than NASA.

If the first line is a lie, what must the rest be?