How much should we spend on Space?

1 Feb 2003 | sonofatpatcher2

[sonofatpatcher2]

How much should we spend on Space?

14 Billion as we do now? 20 Billion? 50 Billion? 100 Billion a year?

[sonofatpatcher2]

We spent about 20 Billion from 1961 to 1973 to fund the trips to the Moon. Then, we retreated. Nearly 30 years since we stood on the Moon.

I have always loved space exploration and dreamed of going there myself. But that was a pipe dream for me personally. Yet I have vivid memories of watching our journey to the stars. I remember the black & white images of the Vanguard blowing up on the pad.

The Redstone putting Discover 1 into orbit.

All the Mercury launches. Gemini. Apollo.

The color view of the Earth rising over the Moon from Apollo 8.

The fuzzy view of Neil Armstrong taking Man's 1st step on another world.

Had we continued spending at the same levels, where would we be now? Surely a working, thriving colony on the Moon supported by several Space Stations in low and high Earth orbit.

Man would be on Mars right now and probably mining the riches of the Asteriod Belt.

I say we should spend at least 100 Billion a year from now on to put Mankind out among the planets and eventually the stars.

The best way to insure Mankind will survive is to colonize the Moon, Mars and the distant stars. It would be the best investment this nation ever made.

[NonValueAdded]

I don't remember who said it but it's a keeper ... "Not one penny of the money is spent in space; it's all spent here on earth."

This is true investment in our future. It isn't time to back off but rather time to increase spending so we do it right. I won't bother with the list of all the modern miracles we take for granted that have their genesis in the space program or related research.

If the human race doesn't expand beyond our planet then we stand to meet the same fate as the dinosaurs. Maybe it will be an asteroid but more likely it will be at our own hands.

[Cicero]

The basic problem is politicization and misallocation of funds, which got much worse under clinton. To be specific, the Internation Space Station is an enormous boondoggle, with no useful purpose. It sucks up all the money that should go to other projects. Its original intent was to prove that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could work together on something, thus making a cute political point and to delight the peaceniks. But the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, and Russia would be delighted to back out and save their money.

We don't so much need more funding as better use of the funds provided, which are very substantial.

[Godebert]

How about we take that $15 Billion of our tax dollars Bush wants to spend on AIDs in Africa and put it into NASA instead. Not that I'm insensitive to AIDs infested Africans...but does anyone actually think that money would do much good in changing the behaviors which contribute to the spread of that disease?

[fightinJAG]

Let's talk about the money tomorrow.

[Republic of Texas]

Money would be NO object if we didn't spend 75% of the Federal budget on socialism.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Do you realize that $100 billion is only 5.5% of the National Budget? And how far could we have gone with it?

[July 4th]

The space program has two beneficial aspects. One is the great pride we all feel when we accomplish something incredible. The second is all of the wonderful things that have worked their way into our lives because of the research supporting the space program.

Frankly, these two benefits are more tangible than most things the government spends its money on. Should we be spending more? Yes. But rather than just spend, the govenment needs to get its house in order in re-allocate funds from its billion dollar boondoggles. Mohair wool subsidies do nothing for me or anyone else these days.

[Iris7]

Over at Jerry Pournelle's website there is expert analysis of the space program. I find it persuasive. In my opinion under current management the situation is hopeless.

[sneakypete]

How much should we spend on Space?

The answer to that is both simple and obvious,as much as it takes.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: To be specific, the Internation Space Station is an enormous boondoggle, with no useful purpose. It sucks up all the money that should go to other projects.

I strongly disagree!

Space Stations play a part. I agree they should not take funds away from spacecraft, they should be funded in addition to spacecraft.

As to, "the Internation Space Station is an enormous boondoggle, with no useful purpose," might I recall a gentleman who suggested we close the Patten Office as everything has already been invented. I believe he made that suggestion in the 1870s.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: How much should we spend on Space?
The answer to that is both simple and obvious, as much as it takes.

Give that man a cigar! That is, if he means 100 Billion a year for the next ten years while we colonize the Moon, Mars, the L-Points and the Asteriod Belt.

Otherwise, make it an exploding cigar.
};^) Thanks, first smile I've had since this morning...

[inquest]

Sorry to be the spoiler, but there's no constitutional justification for federal spending on space exploration, except that which can be tied to a specific grant of power to the federal government.

[mrsmith]

Judging by the relative helpfulness of the programs to us, a reasonable amount would be ten times the amount we spend on welfare programs.

[mrsmith]

Consider it a Louisiana Purchase type expenditure. < g >

[don-o]

How about tax breaks for private businesses who want to get into space exploration?

Breaking up the NASA monopoly is the next step.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: Sorry to be the spoiler, but there's no constitutional justification for federal spending on space exploration, except that which can be tied to a specific grant of power to the federal government.

constitutional justification? You might as well say Man never walked on the Moon, 'cause it ain't in the Bible.

[metacognative]

In an ideal world, you'd be correct. In ours, let NASA spend our taxes on somehting useful. A LOT more out there!

[MainFrame65]

I was sitting in my freshman physics class back in 1957 when I first heard about the Russian Sputnik satellite that first orbited the Earth. I remember both the excitement of the accomplishment and the disappointment with the tottering American space effort, which had by then had experienced several embarassing failures, and would suffer several more before it finally got its act together.

I also remember that a major effort to improve education followed, and a lot of technology grew out of our space efforts. My career at IBM, which started with the explosion of computers in business a few years later, was an indirect result of all of that.

I believe it is worth the effort, but within the limits of what we can afford. Maybe we ought to be able to check off favored (and disfavored) discretionary programs on our tax forms. If we could, I would vote for space and against, for instance, acquiring more government land, public broadcasting, and the national endowment for the arts.

[Hunble]

Oh, as general rule, we should spend 3 times the amount for Space research as we do for welfare programs.

Why?

Because Space research advances American industry and the government will get a portion of the profits in return.

Welfare programs are supporting the people who have failed, and are often directly responsible for the decline of our current economy.