Any Higher and I'd Be As Baked As Tyler (NC Thread)

[lawdude]

I don't think the issue of funding is necessarily a science question. I think it's a priorities question.

Matt Yglesias in Slate had an observation that captures this. India is apparently funding a moon shot, despite that they have massive urban and rural poverty and all sorts of social problems that they haven't done enough to solve. The point isn't that a moon shot has no intrinsic good, but that the money used for it can be better spent elsewhere on more urgent problems.

Now, obviously, we are not India. And I'm inclined to say that NASA and JPL here and the Russian Space Agency have achieved such great results that they have established their worth. But the people who oppose the funding are not anti-science philistines-- they are for the most part people who want the money spent elsewhere on what they see as more pressing problems.

[anfernee]

Originally Posted by lawdude

But the people who oppose the funding are not anti-science philistines-- they are for the most part people who want the money spent elsewhere on what they see as more pressing problems.

The budget for the space program is small potatoes ~ around 20B.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by anfernee

The budget for the space program is small potatoes ~ around 20B.

Well, yes. But bear in mind that the most ambitious stuff costs a lot of money. The moon landings were pretty expensive, the ISS wasn't cheap (though the cost was shared), and the perennial calls for a Mars landing would probably involve a significant chunk of GDP.

The current posture of NASA (no manned space transit, a holding pattern on the ISS, lots of cheap robots sent to other worlds) is very much a product of the critics' worldviews. And that's why the budget is so low right now.

[anfernee]

Originally Posted by lawdude

Well, yes. But bear in mind that the most ambitious stuff costs a lot of money. The moon landings were pretty expensive, the ISS wasn't cheap (though the cost was shared), and the perennial calls for a Mars landing would probably involve a significant chunk of GDP.

The current posture of NASA (no manned space transit, a holding pattern on the ISS, lots of cheap robots sent to other worlds) is very much a product of the critics' worldviews. And that's why the budget is so low right now.

a lot of money as in....~200B dollars over the life of the entire program. ~200b (adjusted for inflation) a piece for apollo and shuttle programs from start to end. it's really not that much relative to what we spend on some other programs (cough cough f-35 jsf,...cough cough...f22...cough cough stealth bomber) in a given year.

space program was good a bang for buck program imo but i'm no expert on the topic.

there's no money in nasa. lack of kickbacks too solid.

[Cranberry Tea]

I'm typically highly skeptical of how much bang for the buck NASA delivers vs other science agencies that need funding. Heck, for a mere $140k, Cranberry could buy a new ion cutting tool and not have to waste his time using the broken-down piece of junk in the building next door.


Still, I'd rather we spend monies shooting things off to Mars instead of wasting it on silly things like wars or the olympics or whatever.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by anfernee

a lot of money as in....~200B dollars over the life of the entire program. ~200b (adjusted for inflation) a piece for apollo and shuttle programs from start to end. it's really not that much relative to what we spend on some other programs (cough cough f-35 jsf,...cough cough...f22...cough cough stealth bomber) in a given year.

space program was good a bang for buck program imo but i'm no expert on the topic.

there's no money in nasa. lack of kickbacks too solid.

Actually, $200 billion is a ton of money. That's 1/3 of the entire Pentagon budget for a year. It's almost as much as Medicaid costs every year.

And that's the point. A lot of people would argue that defense and/or Medicaid are more important priorities than space exploration. That's what the debate is about.

At the state we are in now (with a very scaled down NASA), people aren't that upset. But if someone actually tried to send humans to Mars, I suspect there would be a big-time sticker shock.

[kerowo]

They'd be wrong though.

[Cranberry Tea]

For an extra 20k, I can get the ion mill with optional cryo stage:

Cooling stage provides very low
temperature processing. With
temperatures of the sample holder and
mask down to –150 °C, extremely heat
sensitive samples such as rubber, water
soluble polymer fibers or even marshmallows
(if desired) can be processed to a
high quality.

It can cut a f***ing marshmallow! How awesome is that?

[anfernee]

Originally Posted by lawdude

Actually, $200 billion is a ton of money. That's 1/3 of the entire Pentagon budget for a year. It's almost as much as Medicaid costs every year.

And that's the point. A lot of people would argue that defense and/or Medicaid are more important priorities than space exploration. That's what the debate is about.

At the state we are in now (with a very scaled down NASA), people aren't that upset. But if someone actually tried to send humans to Mars, I suspect there would be a big-time sticker shock.

you've misunderstood what i wrote (or maybe you didn't?)...200b not for a single year....that's 200b for the entire life of the program - which spanned a decade+.

[MidyMat]

Who really gives a **** what is on Mars if I don't own hover boots

200 billion and an decade get me a pair of hover boots?

[pig4bill]

Originally Posted by bellatrix

I was on TV today talking about the Rovers. It fascinates me that this fascinates people so much. I love it!

Youtube clip?

Originally Posted by A_Schupick

It's really unfair to pretend like they are even close to the largest faction of people who hate this type of thing. You will find lots of people who think it's because because we have done all we can in space. Not saying i agree, just stuff I have heard around campus/in classrooms before.

Yeah, it seems to be the treehuggers more than religious people that want us back living in caves with no technology.

[Bona]

You really gonna run a railroad all the way out there Abe? wtf. there's nothing but savages out there for more than a thousand miles. I'll vote for that railroad when I can't find a horse.

[BigBadBabar]

postulate: lawdude posts on 2+2

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by anfernee

you've misunderstood what i wrote (or maybe you didn't?)...200b not for a single year....that's 200b for the entire life of the program - which spanned a decade+.

I understand that. The point is, that's a ton of money. Enough to buy basic medical care for poor people in America for an entire year!

ANY government program with a $200B price tag is in the higher echelon of costs for government programs.

I'm not really opining on whether a mission to Mars is a good idea. As I said, NASA and JPL have a good record (as do the Russians) and we are definitely a rich enough country to pay for these things if we want to.

But under no definition are big ambitious space programs cheap. The stuff we are doing NOW is pretty cheap, but that's because the green eyeshade types are stopping all the ambitious stuff.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by BigBadBabar

postulate: lawdude posts on 2+2

?????????????????????????????