Obama aims to ax the moon mission

[wilheldp_PE]

Why have it? The spinoffs from the space program are all around you. We benefitted as a society far more than we paid in. ROI for the space program was incredible. It can be again.
As for the gov paying for it, right now they are the only group with the resources and knowledge to pull it off. Sure there are some private ventures nibbling at the edge, but so far none come close to being able to throw the knowledge and expertise the US government can.

Those are the only two arguments that I have ever heard for keeping the space program (well, the only 2 that make sense. The pissing match with Russia, and faux-Patriotism based on our space exploration prowess being the other, more BS argument). The thing that the first argument doesn't take into account is that the same advancements in science and technology would have taken place if the space program were privately funded. The government funding the space race did not magically make more stuff be invented as a side effect.

The second argument is the one that angers me. The government is not the only entity with the resources and knowledge to pull it off...they are just the only entity that can "afford" to piss away resources with no clear profit motivation. The private sector space industry is a small, niche industry precisely because they cannot compete with the government that has no profit motive. There are private firms that launch satellites into space, but they charge more than NASA to do it because they are not subsidized by the American people. If NASA would get the F out of the way, the private firms would expand in size and number, and the competition would likely drive the cost down to below what NASA charges now.

 

[Master slacker]

I think if you couple that article with this article "We can't be #1 forever" it makes perfect sense. I can't wait for the de-development of the United States.

That is one sad, depressing article that sums up the cluelessness and the non-chalant attitude of this administration. This ****** wants to make us worse off in order to help the "developing" nations?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

The thing that the first argument doesn't take into account is that the same advancements in science and technology would have taken place if the space program were privately funded.

No it wouldn't have. What would have been the driver for this? Without the interest in manned spaceflight from the government, none of the developments would have happened, or would have happened decades later than they did.

The second argument is the one that angers me. The government is not the only entity with the resources and knowledge to pull it off.

Really? Name one company that has successfully landed a man on the moon.

Name one company that has successfully launched and manned a space station.

Name one company that has sent spacecraft to other planets.

There are none. There may be down the road, but until then, the gov is the only show in town.

 

[Dexman PE]

My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia? Even private industry? I agree with Wil's post about the government and their lack of profit interest. The only one who profits with a massive spender like that are the vendors (most of which are overseas anyways).

Do future advancements in science and industry go away if the space program doesn't have a "Made in USA " stamp? I'm too lazy to look it up, but how much of the current US space program is supplied by foreign-made products and technology already?

"Russian components, American components, all made in Taiwan!!" - Russian Cosmonaut in Armegeddon... (Sorry, couldn't help it).

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The thing that the first argument doesn't take into account is that the same advancements in science and technology would have taken place if the space program were privately funded.

No it wouldn't have. What would have been the driver for this? Without the interest in manned spaceflight from the government, none of the developments would have happened, or would have happened decades later than they did.

The second argument is the one that angers me. The government is not the only entity with the resources and knowledge to pull it off.

Really? Name one company that has successfully landed a man on the moon.

Name one company that has successfully launched and manned a space station.

Name one company that has sent spacecraft to other planets.

There are none. There may be down the road, but until then, the gov is the only show in town.

Name one reason for a company to land a man on the moon, man a space station, or send spacecraft to other planets. There is no good reason to do any of those things except for scientist to get their jollies off. So what if we can get **** to grow in low-earth orbit? So what if there is life on other planets?

There is a commercial need to have satellites in orbit (for communications and mapping), therefore there is a commercial market for that. There seems to be growing interest in space tourism, so there is a commercial market growing around that interest. Unless there is a compelling need for something, the market will not provide a product or service for it. So, essentially, the government is funding space programs that answer questions that aren't being asked by the market. There are curious scientists, but until those scientist can come up with a good reason for their research, they should be left unfunded.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia?

Well, it comes back to 'are you willing to take a back seat to those countries?' I'm not.

I'd rather my taxes go to space exploration than numerous things the gov spends money on. Much better return for the amount of money spent.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Well, it comes back to 'are you willing to take a back seat to those countries?' I'm not.

The pissing match with Russia, and faux-Patriotism based on our space exploration prowess being the other, more BS argument.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Well, it comes back to 'are you willing to take a back seat to those countries?' I'm not.

The pissing match with Russia, and faux-Patriotism based on our space exploration prowess being the other, more BS argument.

Looks like you are willing to take a backseat. I'll remember this the next time you post anything about America going downhill.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Looks like you are willing to take a backseat. I'll remember this the next time you post anything about America going downhill.

Right-o.

 

[benbo]

Separate manned spaceflight from un-manned (satellites).

I'll admit that the prime motivation behind manned space flight is just the cool, pride aspect of it. I like it, and would have voted to support it. I'm not going to argue it from a financial value point of view - although I'm sure a lot af technological advancement came from the space program (and a good deal of my dad's income from the 1960s). That may have developed anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, the main initial motivator of satellite development was not communication per-se, but earth observation. Namely spying. It was started by our Army and by the Russians. THere is no obvious private sector profit motive in spying, unless a gvt is paying you for it (although something tells me somebody will stretch things to show how this would have worked). And although ATT launched Telstar shortly after Sputnik, I doubt the long-term financial motivation would have been enough to get them to do it without being able to use government launch vehicles and government/defense industry technology. It would have happened, but I believe it would have been delayed. Of course, like "jobs created or saved" there is no way to know for sure.

 

[jmbeck]

Name one reason for a company to land a man on the moon, man a space station, or send spacecraft to other planets. There is no good reason to do any of those things except for scientist to get their jollies off. So what if we can get **** to grow in low-earth orbit? So what if there is life on other planets?

Once again, the spinoffs from the space program.

"Oh, they'd have happened anyway." No, no they wouldn't have. More items than you realize are because we had the greatest consortium of minds working on solutions. This wasn't one person developing these items. These were teams brought together for a special purpose.

Besides, where is the profit in a system that can sterilize water to IV grade that can fit in a suitcase? NASA just finished developing it, because it would be needed for long term space exploration. Oh, and it will probably help a lot of our troops when needed.

NASA is the pinnacle of United States ingenuity. As was stated at the beginning of this thread, the "Space Race" drove many to choose science and engineering as a career.

Besides, the portable electric cooler (the kind you plug into a car outlet) and the Sports Bra were all spinoffs of the space program. Can't we all agree that if NASA is helping us to protect beer and ****s, it's worth whatever money it needs?

 

[benbo]

Deleted. Look's like it was already discussed. No need to beat the horse.

 

[Dexman PE]

Also deleted...

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Name one reason for a company to land a man on the moon, man a space station, or send spacecraft to other planets. There is no good reason to do any of those things except for scientist to get their jollies off. So what if we can get **** to grow in low-earth orbit? So what if there is life on other planets?

Once again, the spinoffs from the space program.

"Oh, they'd have happened anyway." No, no they wouldn't have. More items than you realize are because we had the greatest consortium of minds working on solutions. This wasn't one person developing these items. These were teams brought together for a special purpose.

Besides, where is the profit in a system that can sterilize water to IV grade that can fit in a suitcase? NASA just finished developing it, because it would be needed for long term space exploration. Oh, and it will probably help a lot of our troops when needed.

NASA is the pinnacle of United States ingenuity. As was stated at the beginning of this thread, the "Space Race" drove many to choose science and engineering as a career.

Besides, the portable electric cooler (the kind you plug into a car outlet) and the Sports Bra were all spinoffs of the space program. Can't we all agree that if NASA is helping us to protect beer and ****s, it's worth whatever money it needs?

:appl: :appl: :appl:

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Government is not a person or an entity...it is a collection of people. So the people that invented the sports bra, electric cooler, and water sterilizer would have had the capability to invent those things if they weren't employed/funded with money collected by the government. You are correct that things may have been delayed if it weren't for the space program, but implying that we'd all still be beating rocks together if not for the ever benevolent government is asinine (yes, I realize that is a straw man...no need to point it out).

 

[Chucktown PE]

A quick google search indicated that we have spent roughly $1,000,000,000,000 on NASA (in 2010 dollars) since its inception. I would like to think that the private sector could have invented a sports bra, a portable beer cooler, and a water sterilizer for somewhere south of $1 trillion. I can't verify the $1 trillion dollar number. My only point being, I don't think you can make the argument that we have received $1 trillion in value from the space program. Yes, it's "cool" that a man walked on the moon, but other than some moon dust sitting in the Smithsonian and winning the pissing contest with the USSR, what value did it provide?

 

[jmbeck]

Government is not a person or an entity...it is a collection of people. So the people that invented the sports bra, electric cooler, and water sterilizer would have had the capability to invent those things if they weren't employed/funded with money collected by the government. You are correct that things may have been delayed if it weren't for the space program, but implying that we'd all still be beating rocks together if not for the ever benevolent government is asinine (yes, I realize that is a straw man...no need to point it out).

Would the problems/solutions have been identified as early? How many lives were saved?

The NASA technoligies as applicable to the average person certainly weren't forethought. Yes, we'd eventually identify problems and find solutions. But space exploration allowed us solutions to problems we hadn't yet identified. Our country's industry and military are better because of NASA.

Sure, NASA does a whole lot of stuff just to see if they can. All pioneers do things just to see if they can.

The private sector will only do things if there is money to be made in it.

 

[Wolverine]

Multiple Quotes:

My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia? Even private industry? I agree with Wil's post about the government and their lack of profit interest. The only one who profits with a massive spender like that are the vendors (most of which are overseas anyways).

For the sake of argument, I would propose replacing "Space Program" with Microsoft, Boeing, or Coca-Cola and test if it makes sense to let other countries develop those industries (I throw in Coke because of it's market cap and significance to the economy and also because I can't think of another major product off the top of my head that I would prefer developed in the U.S.... but granting my point, maybe somebody else can give other good examples of things we want to keep in house.)

A quick google search indicated that we have spent roughly $1,000,000,000,000 on NASA (in 2010 dollars) since its inception.

If I count the zeroes correctly, that's exactly one Brazillian dollars. Who wouldn't be willing to give up a Brazillian for a ride on the Space Shuttle?

But what I really want to know is, getting back to the topic of the thread, what question does the president aims to ax the moon mission?

(ba-dump-bummp, chssh) (sorry, it's Freaknik weekend in the Atl) (is okay to ax me to stop)

 

[Dexman PE]

A quick google search indicated that we have spent roughly $1,000,000,000,000 on NASA (in 2010 dollars) since its inception.

If I count the zeroes correctly, that's exactly one Brazillian dollars. Who wouldn't be willing to give up a Brazillian for a ride on the Space Shuttle?

No, that's $1 trillion (remember, numbers go hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, trillions)

 

[Dexman PE]

Multiple Quotes:

My argument is that just because the US isn't doing the space program doesn't mean the space program around the world is dead. Why does the US have to do it? Why can't China? India? Russia? Even private industry? I agree with Wil's post about the government and their lack of profit interest. The only one who profits with a massive spender like that are the vendors (most of which are overseas anyways).

For the sake of argument, I would propose replacing "Space Program" with Microsoft, Boeing, or Coca-Cola and test if it makes sense to let other countries develop those industries (I throw in Coke because of it's market cap and significance to the economy and also because I can't think of another major product off the top of my head that I would prefer developed in the U.S.... but granting my point, maybe somebody else can give other good examples of things we want to keep in house.)

But Microsoft, Boeing, & coke are private corporations and not 100% funded by the US government... This just reinforces wil's point of letting the private industry develop these things...