Nasa...who Needs It?

[Nihil Obstat]

Well I'm just being a devil's advocate to be honest. I understand that we have made some great breakthoughs with the space program. Even at the cost of some lives if I remember correctly. But why do we need to go to space in the first place? Kind of ambitious that we try to explore the greatest of universes and a very expensive past time to say the least just sate our own curosity. I mean, when we haven't even scratched the surface of exploring the vastness of our own earth. For example the ocean.  They make up almost two thirds of the planet and still only 10 percent or so have been explored.  What mysteries still lie in our own planet still?  Shouldn't we know and learn everything we can learn about our own planet first before spending millions on trying to step foot on another one?  Wouldn't it be kind of strange that we would learn everything about the mountain ranges of mars and yet not know what lies at the depths of our own planet oceans?  Idk. I just have a mindset of getting our discovery priorities straight. Be more like "OK, we learned everything we can from this planet. Lets go see what the universe can offer us."  Although, more than likely, there will be something out there, in the dep recesses of space, that will teach us a great deal about our own planet....

It is not just for the sake of doing it though. That is a very false misconception.

[Luigi]

The space program is wonderful.... when the country is prosperous.

 

When we're in economic trouble, the program needs to go on hiatus and the money needs to go to paying down the debt.

 

 

 

 

The moon, planets, stars and all of space will still be there when the economy bounces back.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Was talking with my folks and the subject of the space program came up. Both of them believe that the space program is probably the biggest waste of tax payers money.

 

If NASA were as empty and frivolous as your parents seems to believe I would also not care much for it. However, it still wouldn't be the biggest waste of tax payer money. The entire NASA budget is less than half of one percent of the federal budget. That covers the many facilities that represent a wide array of development and research (e.g., JPL, Kennedy, Johnson, Langley, Goddard, Glenn, Dryden, Ames...), it includes the planetary exploration budget (e.g., Curiosity, Juno, New Horizons, MER, MRO, Mars Odyssey, Cassini...), the International Space Station, the development of our human spaceflight capabilities, the space telescopes (e.g., Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, Kepler...), NASA's Earth Sciences programs, the commercial spaceflight program, and really much more of note than I could possibly list without going teal deer. Just looking at it superficially, and considering the variety and scope of what NASA does, it seems like a pretty sweet deal for just a fraction of a percent of the federal budget - at least to me. 

 

Their point of argument was that why are we spending so much money trying to leave the planet when there are so many problems here on earth that need solving.

 

NASA contributes a great deal to solving problems on Earth; and no, I'm not talking about spin-off technologies. While I think spin-off stuff is cool, it's not a good enough reason to justify NASA, in my opinion. I suppose it's part of the collection of benefits that combine to more than justify the space agency. What I'm thinking of though is the way that NASA has enabled us to study the Earth from space and thereby acquire our present understanding of the Earth system. In addition, important insights about the Earth have come from studying the Moon, Venus, and Mars. 

But this is kind of beside the point considering that the objection not compelling to begin with. In the real world cutting funds from NASA does not actually translate to more funds to other, presumably more worthwhile endeavors. Also, NASA is not money down the toilet; it's an investment that yields returns on many levels. If there are productive causes that are lacking in funds there are plenty of things that should be higher up in line to take a cut - things that truly are decadent and wasteful, and don't enrich humanity.

 

The recent mars rover launch itself cost 2.5 Billion dollars.

 

Yeah, over about 9 years; so, about $300 million per year. This is about what American's spend on lip balm every year (according to NDT). This is also about what it cost to make Pirates of the Caribbean III (according to wiki), one of many crappy films that our culture deems worthwhile to invest in. I know an art gallery that is spending much more than this to build a new wing.
The Curiosity mission was/is an investment that should not be squandered now by gutting the planetary exploration program. We acquired new technologies, new space capabilities, in addition to the intangibles (e.g., the geopolitical clout that comes with achievement in space; the inspiration of youth to pursue STEM careers; and so on). To top it off, the Curiosity rover has an awesome mission that will advance planetary science considerably. In other words, the scientific return on investment along justifies the cost, if you ask me. I could carry on about this all day..

 

Money that could've gone to developing a better engine for vehicles, better food production or distribution, better forms of public transportation (our contenental train system is terrible) or helping the poor. 

 

Again, I think this is short-sighted and dubious. NASA actually does contribute to the betterment of humanity. Cutting money to one worthy cause does not translate to improvement for another worthy cause. Solving poverty and creating innovation are NOT mere matters of throwing money around. The US has spent trillions of dollars in Africa in modern history with pretty unimpressive results. Similarly, you can't just throw money at a lab and say, hey, invent something totally paradigm changing. Having a culture that values basic scientific research and exploration is *actually* the way to drive innovation and the creation of new economic possibilities, as I think the history of NASA demonstrates to a large extent. On top of this, the scientific understanding of the Earth, ourselves, and the cosmos that we have attained is of inestimable value. It is shortsighted and foolish to dismiss this.

 

I sort of agree, and sort of disagree. Like all things goverment funded entities have the positives and negatives.

 

There is plenty to be critical about in NASA. Many valid debates about particular things. I'm not really anti-government though. I do have opinions about what the role of NASA should be. I think the emerging private space industry is awesome but it's mistaken to suppose it's an either/or thing. Government agencies have an important role to play. 

 

 

We can detect falling asteroids and predict their trajectory...

 

The serious work being done on that at the moment is actually privately funded. NASA is essential to this in other ways though. The privately-funded project I'm alluding to wouldn't be possible without the heritage of NASA and its present capabilities.

 

 

but is it necessary to spend so much. IDK. 

 

I'm actually pretty convinced that doubling NASA could seriously boost the United States economy and culture. There are many awesome missions that would be immensely worthwhile if NASA were more of a priority. Also, the leadership of the United States in space has been hugely beneficial to this country both economically and politically. When you're the main country that invents these technologies and capabilities, and opens up these new possibilities for humanity, it's kind of a big deal. There are other players out there eager to pick up the slack. Anyway, sorry to cut this short but I've g2g...

[Laudate_Dominum]

The space program is wonderful.... when the country is prosperous.

 

When we're in economic trouble, the program needs to go on hiatus and the money needs to go to paying down the debt.

 

 

 

 

The moon, planets, stars and all of space will still be there when the economy bounces back.

The problem is that it doesn't really work that way. When you burn your fleet of Saturn V rockets they're gone. You've lost a capability. The people involved move on. You may never have that capability again, and reacquiring it may come at great cost. Similarly, there is a lot of planetary exploration heritage that is simply squandered by the current budget cuts. It's gone. These things are not like a light switch you can flick off and on. The current administration's NASA management is idiotic. Also, the government investment in NASA isn't simply a drain on the economy, it is a positive force on the economy. The money on Curiosity supported thousands of engineers, scientists, and other skilled workers that are an asset to America. We're losing aerospace clout left and right. People are increasingly looking to Europe, and elsewhere, for their space hardware and other investments. I think we need more long-term thinking. Some cuts to NASA wouldn't bother me, it's the nature and extent that seems ridiculous and unwise.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Aw man, we need to get L_D down here. last week I think he spent about two hours going over reasons that space exploration is extremely important for humanity. He is still out of town though.

He posted this on FB the other day:

 

Modern civilization has been immensely enriched by space technology. I suppose most people take this for granted, sadly. The Apollo-era is just one chapter, and its enduring impact transcends geopolitics of the 1960s--it's an expression about the human experience. 
What do you think is highly questionable, exactly? Are you referring to basic space capabilities, scientific space exploration, human spaceflight, space-based industry, space settlement, or something else? The first three are realities of the modern world; the second is in its earliest stages but is quite plausible (at least many of the world's most successful investors seem to think so); the third is a broad topic with degrees of futuristic speculation, some that is plausible in the near-term and much that is highly speculative.

Dude, you read my random FB posts? I'm touched. *sheds tear*

 

Maybe I'll go teal deer to flesh out those categories a bit (these topics are bigger than NASA so I'll be more general): 1. Basic space capabilities; 2. Space exploration; 3. Human spaceflight; 4. Space-based industry; 5. Space settlement.

 

 

 

1. Basic space capabilities

 

Some of what this entails: telecommunications (e.g., phone, internet, television), transportation (e.g., airline industry, GPS, shipping), monitoring (e.g., weather, power grid, infrastructure, military), research (e.g., climate, oceans, earthquakes, ecosystems, astronomy).

 

Having basic space flight capabilities creates new industries and opens up new possibilities for society. The world as we know it could not exist without the massive investment in space that has taken place over the past 60 years. There is still a great deal of untapped potential.

 

Additionally, basic space capabilities can contribute toward mitigating certain existential risks. It helps enable a more connected world which diminishes xenophobia. It opens up new possibilities in the flow of information and access to information. I don't think I need to carry on about how revolutionary the information age has been--fully enabled by space. 

The ability to monitor and understand weather alone has had tremendous positive effects on civilization. Our present understanding of the Earth's climate system would not have been possible without space. It's integral to modern society and the continued positive trajectory of growth. I happen to think the impact of simply seeing images of the Earth from space can hardly be overstated. We may take such things for granted now, but I think what happened in the '60s changed society's consciousness in a profound way. An awareness of the Earth as a finite system; of a borderless globe which does not recognize our cultural and political distinctions.

 

There are many other reasons why space capabilities are valuable but probably one that matters most to me is that it paves the way for additional capabilities. It expands the horizon of human potential and makes possible the further development of space-based industry, as well as the fulfillment of a dream that was pure fiction just decades ago: space exploration.

 

2. Space exploration

 

Some of what this entails: understanding the Earth; understanding the cosmos; exploring innumerable basic science questions; possibly understanding astrobiological questions; getting at the nature of reality. This really is so big a topic that I could carry on all day, but I'll spare you. A sample of specific questions: What are planets? How do they form, evolve, and what is their ultimate fate? What is life, as a planetary phenomenon? How many other worlds are there and what might they be like? What is the universe? What is the structure and nature of the cosmos? What are stars and what do they do? What kinds of phenomena exist in the universe at large? Are there phenomena comparable to what we call 'life' elsewhere in the universe? What is the history and fate of our solar system? How did the elements of which everything is composed come to be? And so on. Perhaps most exciting are the questions that we thus far don't even know to ask. Many of the more startling and fascinating phenomena in the universe have been discovered only because we bothered to look. Also, the true vastness and complexity of the universe. More recently, the fact that there are least sextillions of other planets out there. This is not fantasy, it is reality in the here and now. The mysteries of the universe are effectively inexhaustible. Why would we choose not to explore?

 

Of course there are situations in which it could be irresponsible for a government to spend money on scientific research and exploration, but these are particular discussions that are separate from the basic question of whether space exploration has value and should be reasonably pursued.

 

In more concrete terms this exploration largely involves the development of technology. For instance, there is only so much you can do with telescopes on the ground. To really pursue modern astronomy and astrophysics space telescopes are necessary, which assumes a fairy sophisticated level of space capabilities. Additionally, interplanetary probes are invaluable for exploring the variety of worlds within our planetary system, and the scientific value of these endeavors has been absolutely immense, and we've only just begun.

 

In modern times we have discovered that our own world is a tiny point in an immense cosmos containing at least sextillions of other worlds of incredible diversity. We have thus far begun to look at a couple thousand of these worlds, and we have a road map on how to continue this exploration on increasingly deeper levels.

 

So, there is the driver of pure exploration and discover, which broadens our horizons, expands our world, opens up new possibilities, and enriches humanity.

 

These capabilities have also given us an awareness of previously unknown existential risks and the ability to mitigate some of those risks. For example, a society capable of launching spacecraft to nearby worlds also has the ability to track and very likely avert dangerous--even civilization-threatening--asteroids. By exploring other worlds in our solar system we have also learned a great deal about the Earth itself and have developed remote sensing technologies that have contributed greatly to our present understanding of the Earth's climate. For these and other reasons, aspects of space exploration have an important role in the stewardship of the Earth.

 

With some exception, such as the invaluable repairs and upgrades to the Hubble Space Telescope, space-based observatories have not required human spaceflight. Similarly, we can explore the solar system with robotic probes alone, can we not? Is it worth it to send human beings in harm's way when space can be explored in other ways? This is a perfectly valid debate, which raises the question, Why human spaceflight?

 

 

To be continued...

[Laudate_Dominum]

Well I'm just being a devil's advocate to be honest. I understand that we have made some great breakthoughs with the space program. Even at the cost of some lives if I remember correctly. But why do we need to go to space in the first place? Kind of ambitious that we try to explore the greatest of universes and a very expensive past time to say the least just sate our own curosity. I mean, when we haven't even scratched the surface of exploring the vastness of our own earth. For example the ocean.  They make up almost two thirds of the planet and still only 10 percent or so have been explored.  What mysteries still lie in our own planet still?  Shouldn't we know and learn everything we can learn about our own planet first before spending millions on trying to step foot on another one?  Wouldn't it be kind of strange that we would learn everything about the mountain ranges of mars and yet not know what lies at the depths of our own planet oceans?  Idk. I just have a mindset of getting our discovery priorities straight. Be more like "OK, we learned everything we can from this planet. Lets go see what the universe can offer us."  Although, more than likely, there will be something out there, in the dep recesses of space, that will teach us a great deal about our own planet....

I agree with Nihil's reply; there are tons of reasons for exploring space - it really depends on who you ask. Broadly speaking, why space? You will get different answers from different people, but for me the lofty answer is, To enrich humanity while seeking a positive, long-term future for civilization. (ETA: And no, I'm not just talking about the asteroid thing--that's one small part of the discussion.)
I think it's an immense privilege and responsibility to be a nation that can even contemplate such pursuits. I was not born with this perspective and I don't consider it to be obvious. I understand the concerns that many have about space in general, and NASA in particular. I agree with some of these concerns.

As to your concerns above, I should point out that NASA's mission includes studying the Earth from the vantage point of space. The value of this can hardly be overstated. Also, learning about other planets feeds in to our understanding of the Earth. Having other instances of geochemistry, geological history, atmospheres, volcanism, and so on, is analogous to having more than one sample in the lab. It's critical to scientific inquiry.

In effect, the dichotomy you're assuming does not actually exist. To me it's like saying, we shouldn't study the rest of nature until we've fully understood humans. 
 

Edited March 2, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[Era Might]

L_D dropping knowledge.

 

One question: what is the purpose / goal of human knowledge? Is it to know everything? To pursue everything as though we could know everything? To pursue all knowledge and then conceive a way to use it?

 

I think the story of the tower of babel is relevant to the discussion.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

To make life more livable? :)

[Era Might]

To make life more livable? :)

 

What is livable? Can one live a happy, healthy life without space exploration? Can one have a civilization without space exploration? I think the answer is clearly yes, since people did it for thousands of years...that alone doesn't make space exploration worthwhile or not worthwhile, just trying to flesh out these larger reasons for it. It goes without saying that space exploration has all kind of practical benefits, but at what cost and are there limits to knowledge and ambition?

[Nihil Obstat]

What is livable? Can one live a happy, healthy life without space exploration? Can one have a civilization without space exploration? I think the answer is clearly yes, since people did it for thousands of years...that alone doesn't make space exploration worthwhile or not worthwhile, just trying to flesh out these larger reasons for it. It goes without saying that space exploration has all kind of practical benefits, but at what cost and are there limits to knowledge and ambition?

I said more livable.

[Era Might]

I said more livable.

 

Understood, but before we make something more livable, we have to define what livable is. Some people want a mansion and a ferrari for a livable life. Some people live quite well in a hut.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

Understood, but before we make something more livable, we have to define what livable is. Some people want a mansion and a ferrari for a livable life. Some people live quite well in a hut.

And if that is what makes them happy, then so be it. :)

[Era Might]

And if that is what makes them happy, then so be it. :)

 

Live and let live? I guess, but their choices affect me. When men start to conceive of a society of ferraris and highways, that is going to impact how I experience the world. Ditto with space exploration.

 

I think human beings can certainly dream up anything. Suppose we wanted to install cameras to observe and record data on everyone in the world 24 / 7? Is that beyond the limits of knowledge? Does the ability to do something, whether it is spy on people 24 / 7 or stretch humanity into space, justify doing it?

[Nihil Obstat]

Live and let live? I guess, but their choices affect me. When men start to conceive of a society of ferraris and highways, that is going to impact how I experience the world. Ditto with space exploration.

 

I think human beings can certainly dream up anything. Suppose we wanted to install cameras to observe and record data on everyone in the world 24 / 7? Is that beyond the limits of knowledge? Does the ability to do something, whether it is spy on people 24 / 7 or stretch humanity into space, justify doing it?

I think we have been pretty clear that we are not talking about doing something simply for the sake of doing it.

[Era Might]

I think we have been pretty clear that we are not talking about doing something simply for the sake of doing it.

 

Of course. :) Everyone has reasons for doing what they do. But that's what I'm trying to figure out...what are the noblest motivations? Can noble motivations be counterproductive? Should we put limits on our motivation / ambition?