A $keptical Look At The Space Program?

[Forgotten Field]

"But why, some say, the moon?... And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty-five years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?... Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it, and he said, 'Because it is there.' Well, space is there, and... the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there."

Bill, I'll let you do the search and figure out who said that. But he is a person who I know would have wanted the quantitative value of any impact the space race had. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is in the realm of possibility to accurately quantify what we have received from the space program.

Before you debate the value of the space race, you have to debate the value of every government-sponsored or underwritten technology advance. There is never a simple metric for deciding the "value" of technological advance. This is because a technological advance may not have an impact in the times in which it is developed. Gunpowder was around long before firearms made their debut, and atomic energy and the physics derived and advancing from it had long, painful, politically difficult precedent technology leaps that made their discovery possible.

The one certainty any technological advance arrives with is the fact that it will commit the human race to change inducing debate, conflict, and social mores. The atomic bomb is a good model for this. Over 2 billion dollars were spent on it. There are lots of arguments about the immediacy of its impact. There were horrible ramifications, financial fallout that remains almost to this day, global change that is still occurring. I think that the judgement of this landmark expenditure is not in. Certainly, it had an immediate impact on over 80,000,000 Japanese and 130,000,000 Americans. But its stepchildren are far and wide, from the space race to microwave ovens to the internet. Did it negatively impact our destiny? I'd submit that any total-Earth destroying technology can't have a totally positive impact. But I'll mark it down as positive the fact that it led to the internet, GPS, and the Space Race instead of world annhilation (as of now, anyway).

What I would submit to you, other than the ambiguous quotes at the beginning of what I have written, is that you need to hone the question. Did the space program improve human relations? How is that quantified? Did the space race lead to lower international security? How is that quantified? Did the space program lower total human energy requirements? How is that quantified? In human history, the "Philosopher's Stone" was the mythic substance that would convert any substance to gold. That mythical substance led to many advances. To further that concept to you I assert that the true "Philosopher's Stone" is that knowledge or foresight to tell what advances in technology really do to us as a species, to the planet as a habitat, and to the flow of the universe in general. That's bigger than what you are looking at, but as I said, you need to hone your questions. I would submit to you that if the space program leads to us not killing ourselves, not destroying our planet, and not disturbing the flow of the universe, then it is a good thing and priceless. But we have no way of knowing that for certain, do we?

[APG85]

Very well said Forgotten Field.

We Americans are very good at achieving the "unachievable", advancing the human race to unforeseen reaches, and then we sit back and whine, cry and criticize about what a waste of time and money it was and how the efforts could be better spent on_________. It was this very lack of spirit and drive that led to Apollo being cancelled after only six landings. History will shake its head at our lack of National will in the 1970's to keep Apollo going and to go on to Mars. All of that infrastructure, technology, people and will shut-down because we simply "lost interest" and the "whiners" wanted the money spent on social programs (which it wasn't and never will be - not that social programs aren't important, but...). Shame on us...

[mustangdriver]

"What if Christopher Columbus discovered America, and never came back"-Jim Lovell

[RickH]

"What if Christopher Columbus discovered America, and never came back"-Jim Lovell

There'd be more happy Indians ? er,..Native Americans,...I mean, indigenous population ?

[muddyboots]

lest we forget: Columbus came here looking for...GOLD!

Again the financial drive. People do things for the money 99% of the time. Find me a way to make money out of space, and you won't be able to stop all those illegal imigrants catching a ride to mars. And every company in existence will be fighting and clawing to fund it.

that's just reality, fellas.

[kenair]

Borman called the Apollo program a major battle of the Cold War. “We were at war, really, for the hearts and minds of people the world over,” he said. “And we won it.”

Excellent talk given by Mr. Borman at the EAA at
http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-12-18_borman.asp


Currenly we are in our own Kold War. in Winterpeg Manitoba, 2 weeks of windchill of -30 or more!.
cheers - ken k.

[Bill Greenwood]

Forgotten Field, there is an old cartoon called the Lone Ranger from back about 1970, by Lenny Bruce?, it is social satire, against societies mores. The premise is the Lone Ranger is gay, he's got makeup on under that mask. The Ranger, in a NY accent goes into a fast paced defense of himself and leaves his standard cowboy sidekick speechless. The sidekick says to the Ranger, "Woo-we you shore can talk some sugar"! It is a lot funnier to see back then than to tell it now.
So you have sort of left me speechless, even without the mask or a horse, you sure can write some stuff.
Very simply here is my premise. We have had a space program for 50 plus years. First, as Frank Borman says as a cold war thing and not to be left behind. But we did that, went to the moon, found it looked like Arizona except colder and brought back some rocks, which looked about like a zillion other rocks.
Then we kept going into space over and over, for years, again and again. It is sort of like going to the same movies 50 times, there ain't no new plot. What did the last shuttle mission do or find or bring back that was unique or better than the 3 before it?
I am aware of the "soft reasons", national pride, might stumble onto something useful, and all the discoveries NASA claims for itself or as an assist. Did you know NASA invented the internet? Actually Gore claims to, but NASA probably invented Gore, they claim most everything else. I read they are behind laptops, those guys like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates must be imposters.
It is just a very simple question, what in REAL terms, (not just I love a good fireworks show), are taxpayers getting for their dollar now? The answers to my question started out with all the side benefits NASA claims like better golf balls, and then switched to the idea that NASA is like pure art or science and should not be expected to actually provide anything real in return for $18 billion yearly. One reply was that space shots inspired science study. Fair enough, but what would some part of the $18b do for education if put into better schools or teacher pay or scholarships?
As for Mallory, and Sir Hillary, I don't think they climbed Everest on taxpayer money.
As for Rice playing Texas, you'd have to ask Mack. You'd like him, he is a Republican. I think Rice ought to also be playing Baylor and CSU, also.

[APG85]

But we did that, went to the moon, found it looked like Arizona except colder and brought back some rocks, which looked about like a zillion other rocks.

If you think that's all the Apollo landings amount to, I highly encourage you to do a little research. How you can simplify Apollo/lunar geology into a statement like that emphasizes your lack of knowledge on this subject...

[Broken-Wrench]

[quote="Bill Greenwood"]Then we kept going into space over and over, for years, again and again. It is sort of like going to the same movies 50 times, there ain't no new plot. What did the last shuttle mission do or find or bring back that was unique or better than the 3 before it? [/quote]

If that is so why bother to educate intercity kids. It is kind of like going to the movies over and over again. In the long run they will be getting goverment assitiance just like their parents and that doesn't require an education.

[Kyleb]

Very simply here is my premise. We have had a space program for 50 plus years. First, as Frank Borman says as a cold war thing and not to be left behind. But we did that, went to the moon, found it looked like Arizona except colder and brought back some rocks, which looked about like a zillion other rocks.
Then we kept going into space over and over, for years, again and again. It is sort of like going to the same movies 50 times, there ain't no new plot. What did the last shuttle mission do or find or bring back that was unique or better than the 3 before it?

The shuttle was probably a mistake in that it was too big of a technological leap given the time and funding available. Also, given
NASA's budget, it was a space truck with no destination. That said, I don't think you can just boil the space program down to the shuttle. There is far more to the space program than that.


It is just a very simple question, what in REAL terms, (not just I love a good fireworks show), are taxpayers getting for their dollar now? The answers to my question started out with all the side benefits NASA claims like better golf balls, and then switched to the idea that NASA is like pure art or science and should not be expected to actually provide anything real in return for $18 billion yearly. One reply was that space shots inspired science study. Fair enough, but what would some part of the $18b do for education if put into better schools or teacher pay or scholarships?

You asked what we get for our dollar? Weather satellites. The GPS constellation. Early warning satellites. Spy satellites. Communication satellites. Low-E coatings for the windows in my house. Accelerated development of solar panels, batteries, fuel cells, and miniaturized computers. Plus a bunch more.

You also asked what the $18B space budget would do for education. Given that education already gets $56 billion in federal money a year and the states, counties, and cities provide substantially more than that, I'm not sure throwing more money at education would do much good. History shows that educational success is far more related to the home environment (i.e. putting a premium on educaton) than how much the school system spends. If $/student correlated to effective education, the Washington DC school system would be one of the best in the country. Instead, it is one of the worst.

On another tangent, I would argue that the space program, at least through Apollo, made being a scientist, engineer, or test pilot something to aspire to as a grade school student. That probably did more for math and science education than virtually any amount of money you could have thrown at education.

As for Mallory, and Sir Hillary, I don't think they climbed Everest on taxpayer money.

I'd offer Columbus as someone who used state funding in successful exploration...

[cozmo]

What a tough crowd.

Lots of things like Velcro have been attributed to the space program that the space program didn't cause to be invented.

scroll to the bottom of the page

I've heard lots of arguments against the space program and concluded it isn't worth the time to debate it. No matter what a pro-space person brings forth, it isn't worth it to some one who is against it.

But, like giving money to other countries, it is not something that is going to change soon. Its easier to hit NASA's budget than just about any other part of government.

I figure, the space program will have justified its cost if it gets some of our eggs into another basket before the next "dinosaur killer" comes calling. I think it was Heinlein who said something to that effect

[brucev]

Problems with the internet...always make me suspicious of the rest of the stuff.
Gary found a list of things supposedly the result of the Space Race and I think a lot of those are accurate, but...that list also claimed that satellites allowed us to see the assassination of JFK. Well, that would be false. There was a not a live broadcast from the grassy knoll, otherwise the Zapruder film would be insignificant. We did see Oswald get it in the basement "live" and we did see everything related to the funeral "live" that weekend.
When I see that type of mis-statement, I am suspicious of the accuracy of the rest of that list.
No offense meant to Gary..ever...he's one of my personal warbird hero's.

i'm far from all know and all seeing but it's obvious to me the statement you're referencing is itself referring to how we all got to see the JFK assassination film in our living rooms because of satellites, not as if it was some live broadcast we were privy to.

now mr greenwood as a liberal, surely you see the value in a 17 billion dollar stimulus package for the economy every year.

[muddyboots]

Doood what an awful argument!

How many people does taht 17 billion hire? Certainly not as many as say...17 Billion in roads work

Or 17 Billion put to hiring police every year...Or...say...put towards getting rid of trucking as the primary means of transport we now have and replacing it with Mag Rail

[brucev]

Doood what an awful argument!

can you not read the sarcasm dripping from my post?

[bdk]

Two good posts by Zachary and bdk.

...You can spend $100 and get $10,000 in return, or you can get nothing...

Was there ever an expectation of any financial return from space research?

Since NASA isn't a business, probably not. Does NASA sell anything besides t-shirts and patches? Intellectual capital stimulated from these investments can be hard to quantify.

On the other hand, what is the ROI for public schools? Can that be quantified?

I think that the ROI (cost avoidance of recidivism) for police and prisons are far easier to quantify.

The bottom line here is that Bill thinks that NASA is a waste of money. Perhaps it is, but in my opinion far more money is squandered by government on far less productive endeavors. We have perpetually funded social programs that drive the wrong behavior.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.

Last edited by bdk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.