Is a space program important?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Serious question for once.

[Woodruff]

I believe it is immensely important for many reasons. Primarily, the concept of "getting out there" has led to so much innovation in how we do things that it's brought incredible progress and really pushed/kept America at the forefront of technology and science. But there are a lot of very good reasons.

Some of these can still be garnered by privatization of space, but not all of them. Therefore, I am a very strong proponent of giving NASA a damn realistic budget (f*ck you on this specific issue, Tea Party!).

[jgordon1111]

Agree with woodruff to this point, dont get carried away with the budget, make it realistic so it wont be one of the things that break an already broke bank

[Woodruff]

Agree with woodruff to this point, dont get carried away with the budget, make it realistic so it wont be one of the things that break an already broke bank

Absolutely. But considerably more than they're currently getting which is a pittance worth the same as zero.

[Baron Von PWN]

Maybe I read too much sci-fi but I really feel Humanity needs to get off this rock and populate the solar system and perhaps later other systems. If only to ensure we have backups if an enormous disaster strikes earth.

However I also feel that Issues here on the ground demand attention, and as a result think that Nasa (and similar programs) should receive more funding, though not to a massive degree. Perhaps alternative routes could also be taken in the private field, special tax incentives for space related industry or similar methods.

[Borderdawg]

Maybe I read too much sci-fi but I really feel Humanity needs to get off this rock and populate the solar system and perhaps later other systems. If only to ensure we have backups if an enormous disaster strikes earth.

This I must agree with.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I think a space program is laudable. tbh, I'm not really sure how much money should be devoted to it, though. Perhaps if our (assuming U.S.) spending in other areas wasn't so lavish, we could afford it.

I personally think that manned flight, however, should be all but scrapped. Robotics ftw. With an advance in robotics, we could achieve space exploration much easier, efficiently, cheaper, and safer. I've read but little on the subject, but manned space flight is ridiculously expensive. Now, atm robotics is lacking, but I think an advance in robotics would not only advance our space programs but also pretty much everything else. So that would probably be my one caveat.

We could colonize like BvP suggested once we've actually perfected space travel.

-TG

[Haggis_McMutton]

I think a space program is laudable. tbh, I'm not really sure how much money should be devoted to it, though. Perhaps if our (assuming U.S.) spending in other areas wasn't so lavish, we could afford it.

I personally think that manned flight, however, should be all but scrapped. Robotics ftw. With an advance in robotics, we could achieve space exploration much easier, efficiently, cheaper, and safer. I've read but little on the subject, but manned space flight is ridiculously expensive. Now, atm robotics is lacking, but I think an advance in robotics would not only advance our space programs but also pretty much everything else. So that would probably be my one caveat.

We could colonize like BvP suggested once we've actually perfected space travel.

-TG

This is true.
However, I wonder if we can get the same the same sense of awe and of achievment with the safe and rational robotics approach.
This even feels weird for me to say, cause I'm usually all for cold rationality over the gushy side, but this might be an area where we need the emotions. In the short term the emotions allow us to choose to spend money on such a space program when it is all to easy to find more "urgent" matters, in the medium term the emotion makes kids wanna grow up to be scientists and gives us the visionaries of tommorrow and in the long term the emotion might just make us forget some of our silly perceived differences.

I consider myself a pretty rational person, but I can't really think of any arguments that impress upon me the necessity for humans to band together more than this simple picture does:

Click image to enlarge.

*Note: I have been re-listening to Sagan lately, that might have something to do with it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Googled "$50 billion dollar google prize space launch"

https://sites.google.com/a/marssociety.org/www/home/press/tms-in-the-news/themarsprize

http://www.xprize.org/prize-development/exploration

http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize



Space programs are important, but not important enough to justify stealing people's money and throwing it into space bureaucracies.

I favor the prize method more because it requires voluntary exchange, instead of extracting your wealth via coercion. The prize method seems more humane and civilized.

It's a low-cost action to say that some thing is important. Voluntarily offering one's money, aid, etc. starts to provide actual meaning behind one's assertion.

[rockfist]

I believe it is immensely important for many reasons. Primarily, the concept of "getting out there" has led to so much innovation in how we do things that it's brought incredible progress and really pushed/kept America at the forefront of technology and science. But there are a lot of very good reasons.

Some of these can still be garnered by privatization of space, but not all of them. Therefore, I am a very strong proponent of giving NASA a damn realistic budget (f*ck you on this specific issue, Tea Party!).

The space program is more important in the long run than social spending programs. We should cut Social Security, Medicare, and and Medicaid to fund it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Googled "$50 billion dollar google prize space launch"

https://sites.google.com/a/marssociety.org/www/home/press/tms-in-the-news/themarsprize

http://www.xprize.org/prize-development/exploration

http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize



Space programs are important, but not important enough to justify stealing people's money and throwing it into space bureaucracies.

I favor the prize method more because it requires voluntary exchange, instead of extracting your wealth via coercion. The prize method seems more humane and civilized.

It's a low-cost action to say that some thing is important. Voluntarily offering one's money, aid, etc. starts to provide actual meaning behind one's assertion.

Yep, in theory that'd be best.

However I do not think we yet have the right culture and society for the private sector to completely replace the public one in matters such as this.

[Dukasaur]

Space travel could be completely funded by private enterprise, without stealing a single penny from the taxapayers. The only thing standing in the way is government. Potential investors are scared away by the knowlege that if they build something worthwhile out there, some greedy politician is going to expropriate it.

The world's governments don't need to invest a penny. They just need to agree to a believable accord on protecting property rights in space.

[the carpet man]

space programme is just one giant, international penis comparison competition.

look at me i am russia, i am better than usa because i put first man in space
look at me i am usa, i am best because i put first man on moon

it is really sad. like when you see two men argue about who has the fastest car or the biggest muscles.

the only useful thing is satellites, like china making its own GPS or communications satellites. put a man on the moon? what a childish pursuit.

[BigBallinStalin]

Googled "$50 billion dollar google prize space launch"

https://sites.google.com/a/marssociety.org/www/home/press/tms-in-the-news/themarsprize

http://www.xprize.org/prize-development/exploration

http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize



Space programs are important, but not important enough to justify stealing people's money and throwing it into space bureaucracies.

I favor the prize method more because it requires voluntary exchange, instead of extracting your wealth via coercion. The prize method seems more humane and civilized.

It's a low-cost action to say that some thing is important. Voluntarily offering one's money, aid, etc. starts to provide actual meaning behind one's assertion.

Yep, in theory that'd be best.

However I do not think we yet have the right culture and society for the private sector to completely replace the public one in matters such as this.

The private sector can't replace an industry if it's being heavily subsidized by the government because the demand for space R&D in the private sector is crowded out (i.e. it's already being provided). What kind of culture and society are you talking about? How do you justify state intervention?

[saxitoxin]

I think this is one of the least-heralded, but my favorite, moments of the 2008 Republican presidential debates. I don't agree with Tancredo on much but I do like the juxtaposition of how Huckabee peddled out this rambling, expected politician's answer ("Do you like that? Then I support it!") to the fan-boy geek question about space exploration versus Tancredo's response ("Everyone's trying to be everything to all people!").

Of course, I suppose this is why Tancredo only got 2% of the vote (that, and his fear of Mexicans).

[saxitoxin]

the only useful thing is satellites, like china making its own GPS or communications satellites. put a man on the moon? what a childish pursuit.

I have to agree with Carpet Man on this one.

Much of space spending seems to be driven by fan boys and their NASA/ESA friends who hold out the carrot of space colonization.

Right now human civilization doesn't have the resources or technology to establish a livable, self-sustaining, productive civilian colony on Antarctica. Establishing such a settlement on Mars will be 100,000 to 1 million times more difficult and expensive. Most space discussions seem to me to be similar to people in the 12th century worrying about wiring new homes for electricity because eventually a light bulb might get invented.

Good topic, Haggis!

(I like space, BTW, I just don't feel the need to spend money to express my love for something.)

[john9blue]

I have to agree with Carpet Man on this one.

Much of space spending seems to be driven by fan boys and their NASA/ESA friends who hold out the carrot of space colonization.

Right now human civilization doesn't have the resources or technology to establish a livable, self-sustaining, productive civilian colony on Antarctica. Establishing such a settlement on Mars will be 100,000 to 1 million times more difficult and expensive. Most space discussions seem to me to be similar to people in the 12th century worrying about wiring new homes for electricity because eventually a light bulb might get invented.

Good topic, Haggis!

(I like space, BTW, I just don't feel the need to spend money to express my love for something.)

but would you agree with bbs and dukasaur that a privatized approach is better than using public funding?

[Haggis_McMutton]

space programme is just one giant, international penis comparison competition.

look at me i am russia, i am better than usa because i put first man in space
look at me i am usa, i am best because i put first man on moon

it is really sad. like when you see two men argue about who has the fastest car or the biggest muscles.

the only useful thing is satellites, like china making its own GPS or communications satellites. put a man on the moon? what a childish pursuit.

This sounds to me like:
A flying machine? What a childish pursuit.

On a practical level: Do you realize how many applications and improvements to our daily life have come from the space program?
On an ideological level: Do you really want us, as a species, to only be concerned with killing one another down here? That should be our highest concern? Space exploration is one of the fundamental things that say: "You can be more than monkeys fighting for scraps of land, you can achieve great things"

Yes the environment in which we did the first space walk and moon landing was a shitty one, but now, almost half a century later, all that shit doesn't even matter anymore. Who cares that it was Russia or USA, it was just humans.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpph1Bw0yXE&t=1m56s

I have to agree with Carpet Man on this one.

Much of space spending seems to be driven by fan boys and their NASA/ESA friends who hold out the carrot of space colonization.

Right now human civilization doesn't have the resources or technology to establish a livable, self-sustaining, productive civilian colony on Antarctica. Establishing such a settlement on Mars will be 100,000 to 1 million times more difficult and expensive. Most space discussions seem to me to be similar to people in the 12th century worrying about wiring new homes for electricity because eventually a light bulb might get invented.

True, but if we sit on our asses and just worry about the latest important issue (pick one, there's several going on at any time), we never will have the resources or technology to do that.
You don't just wait for 100 years without spending money on research and hope the technology will pop out.

Besides, like I said, I think space exploration is important from a cultural point of view as well, maybe it'll finally give us some well needed perspective.

Yep, in theory that'd be best.

However I do not think we yet have the right culture and society for the private sector to completely replace the public one in matters such as this.

The private sector can't replace an industry if it's being heavily subsidized by the government because the demand for space R&D in the private sector is crowded out (i.e. it's already being provided). What kind of culture and society are you talking about? How do you justify state intervention?

You're gonna have to go gentle on this one with me, I've got little knowledge on the subject so I may be speaking from my ass. Here use this:


My concern is that the private sector is still too concerned with the short term. I can see them getting "vacations to space", hell maybe a "earth orbit hotel" in another couple decades. I'm not really seeing them do stuff like going to Europa's oceans to search for life. Or even worse, doing some of the less sexy things, say investigating the asteroid belt or whatever.

Basically I'm wondering if for the type of stuff where there's no concrete benefit for the people putting out the money(and maybe the mission isn't very sexy either) will voluntary donations ammount to a comparable ammount to what the government can "extort"?

[BigBallinStalin]

You're gonna have to go gentle on this one with me, I've got little knowledge on the subject so I may be speaking from my ass.

Put away the lube and just spread 'em, baby! We don't have time for that.

Just so you know, Honey Haggis, I really like astronomy and physics. If I valued studying astronomy more than human behavior, then I'd have taken the astrophysics route. I want what's best for people, but I have moral qualms with appealing to a government to extract wealth from people in order to provide something. Nevertheless, we can avoid all moral arguments for now and stick with positive economics.

And we continue:

My concern is that the private sector is still too concerned with the short term. I can see them getting "vacations to space", hell maybe a "earth orbit hotel" in another couple decades. I'm not really seeing them do stuff like going to Europa's oceans to search for life. Or even worse, doing some of the less sexy things, say investigating the asteroid belt or whatever.

The new technology, innovations, and numerous way of organizing the capital structure for Space Vacations!(C) and a luxurious, grand Earth Orbit Hotel!(C) can eventually be applied to Haggis-approved Sexy Space Projects, which would be more affordable at a later time.


I'll try to explain below.... but we need to go over basic economics before I can answer your question, so that we can both understand each other.

Basically I'm wondering if for the type of stuff where there's no concrete benefit for the people putting out the money(and maybe the mission isn't very sexy either) will voluntary donations ammount to a comparable ammount to what the government can "extort"?

Short answer: You can never know if the government continues crowding out demand.

I would be extremely surprised to find that there are no wealthy people out there who have no desire to fund all kinds of sexy projects. The price on space vacations may be high now, but so were Model Ts when they first came out. Individuals voluntarily exchanging in the market lead to better "Model Ts" at a higher quality and lower cost over the decades of competition, entrepreneurship, innovation, and profit and loss.


The Market Process (emphasis on prices)

(simple economics)

show

In the market, prices convey information to buyers and sellers. Prices show producers how much people want of a certain kind of good at a specific time; simultaneously, prices reflect the nominal value of customer preferences, i.e. what they want for how much.

(nominal v. real price)

show

With the government-provision of goods, it's difficult to get prices to work because the government disrupts this process by "cheating," i.e. by forcing people to pay with the threat of IRS agents, fines, and jail time. Essentially, the government sets the price, and the people are always forced to pay. So, prices aren't accurately reflecting consumer preferences (i.e. what the people actually prefer, at what quantity, and at what time in addition to what else they would prefer instead).-


Would these donations be enough? We'll never know if we allow the government to continue crowding out demand.

But there's an underlying issue here. We are basing costs on only the government's capital structure. Since NASA is a monopoly (or is the only main, historic beneficiary of government funding), then I'm going to assume that their capital structure and the allocation of resources during the production processes of Sexy and Boring Space Projects was very inefficient, i.e. they wasted a ton of money.

If it's true they wasted a lot of money, then the costs in Sexy and Boring Space Projects might be significantly lower--especially if the field is opened up to the private sector. It's up to the private sector to find ingenious new ways in organizing capital, collecting funding, and reducing costs.

Now, the private sector may take longer to colonize Mars or provide you Sexy Nude Pics of your precious Uranus (sorry, couldn't help myself), but the faster rate of innovation and increased efficiency in the Space Production from the private market could surpass the government-provision method.

It's really an issue of time (or in your possible case; impatience ). Over the decades, would you rather the government allocate funding for the production of cars by taxing people to do so, or would you rather the private sector provide the cars?


[I'm gonna leave decision-making with dispersed costs, unintended consequences, legal barriers to trade, and rent-seeking out for now. These are additional problems with government spending. Sorry for the long post, but that's the basic framework of my argument for pretty much all of these kinds of issues.].

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Whatever happened to the pioneers, the explorers?

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Whatever happened to the pioneers, the explorers?

-TG

"Where have all the cowboys gone?"

[rockfist]

"Where have you gone Joe Dimmagio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you."

[Aradhus]

You're gonna have to go gentle on this one with me, I've got little knowledge on the subject so I may be speaking from my ass.

Put away the lube and just spread 'em, baby! We don't have time for that.

Just so you know, Honey Haggis, I really like astronomy and physics. If I valued studying astronomy more than human behavior, then I'd have taken the astrophysics route. I want what's best for people, but I have moral qualms with appealing to a government to extract wealth from people in order to provide something. Nevertheless, we can avoid all moral arguments for now and stick with positive economics.

And we continue:

My concern is that the private sector is still too concerned with the short term. I can see them getting "vacations to space", hell maybe a "earth orbit hotel" in another couple decades. I'm not really seeing them do stuff like going to Europa's oceans to search for life. Or even worse, doing some of the less sexy things, say investigating the asteroid belt or whatever.

The new technology, innovations, and numerous way of organizing the capital structure for Space Vacations!(C) and a luxurious, grand Earth Orbit Hotel!(C) can eventually be applied to Haggis-approved Sexy Space Projects, which would be more affordable at a later time.


I'll try to explain below.... but we need to go over basic economics before I can answer your question, so that we can both understand each other.

Basically I'm wondering if for the type of stuff where there's no concrete benefit for the people putting out the money(and maybe the mission isn't very sexy either) will voluntary donations ammount to a comparable ammount to what the government can "extort"?

Short answer: You can never know if the government continues crowding out demand.

I would be extremely surprised to find that there are no wealthy people out there who have no desire to fund all kinds of sexy projects. The price on space vacations may be high now, but so were Model Ts when they first came out. Individuals voluntarily exchanging in the market lead to better "Model Ts" at a higher quality and lower cost over the decades of competition, entrepreneurship, innovation, and profit and loss.


The Market Process (emphasis on prices)

(simple economics)

show

In the market, prices convey information to buyers and sellers. Prices show producers how much people want of a certain kind of good at a specific time; simultaneously, prices reflect the nominal value of customer preferences, i.e. what they want for how much.

(nominal v. real price)

show

With the government-provision of goods, it's difficult to get prices to work because the government disrupts this process by "cheating," i.e. by forcing people to pay with the threat of IRS agents, fines, and jail time. Essentially, the government sets the price, and the people are always forced to pay. So, prices aren't accurately reflecting consumer preferences (i.e. what the people actually prefer, at what quantity, and at what time in addition to what else they would prefer instead).-


Would these donations be enough? We'll never know if we allow the government to continue crowding out demand.

But there's an underlying issue here. We are basing costs on only the government's capital structure. Since NASA is a monopoly (or is the only main, historic beneficiary of government funding), then I'm going to assume that their capital structure and the allocation of resources during the production processes of Sexy and Boring Space Projects was very inefficient, i.e. they wasted a ton of money.

If it's true they wasted a lot of money, then the costs in Sexy and Boring Space Projects might be significantly lower--especially if the field is opened up to the private sector. It's up to the private sector to find ingenious new ways in organizing capital, collecting funding, and reducing costs.

Now, the private sector may take longer to colonize Mars or provide you Sexy Nude Pics of your precious Uranus (sorry, couldn't help myself), but the faster rate of innovation and increased efficiency in the Space Production from the private market could surpass the government-provision method.

It's really an issue of time (or in your possible case; impatience ). Over the decades, would you rather the government allocate funding for the production of cars by taxing people to do so, or would you rather the private sector provide the cars?


[I'm gonna leave decision-making with dispersed costs, unintended consequences, legal barriers to trade, and rent-seeking out for now. These are additional problems with government spending. Sorry for the long post, but that's the basic framework of my argument for pretty much all of these kinds of issues.].

Ever read Moby-Dick?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Just so you know, Honey Haggis, I really like astronomy and physics. If I valued studying astronomy more than human behavior, then I'd have taken the astrophysics route. I want what's best for people, but I have moral qualms with appealing to a government to extract wealth from people in order to provide something. Nevertheless, we can avoid all moral arguments for now and stick with positive economics.

1. Thanks for explaining things clearly BBS, darling.
2. I actually agree on the moral issue, I just don't see the practical side of anarcho-capitalism. Though like I said, I have little knowledge about it so it's not like that means anything. I've got this big ol' book on the subject lying around, need to find time to read that thing at some point.

Short answer: You can never know if the government continues crowding out demand.

What exactly do you mean by this. Why can't, say, private commercial projects like the space hotel and whatever be funded in parallel to scientific public projects like exploring Europa ?

But there's an underlying issue here. We are basing costs on only the government's capital structure. Since NASA is a monopoly (or is the only main, historic beneficiary of government funding), then I'm going to assume that their capital structure and the allocation of resources during the production processes of Sexy and Boring Space Projects was very inefficient, i.e. they wasted a ton of money.

If it's true they wasted a lot of money, then the costs in Sexy and Boring Space Projects might be significantly lower--especially if the field is opened up to the private sector. It's up to the private sector to find ingenious new ways in organizing capital, collecting funding, and reducing costs.

Now, the private sector may take longer to colonize Mars or provide you Sexy Nude Pics of your precious Uranus (sorry, couldn't help myself), but the faster rate of innovation and increased efficiency in the Space Production from the private market could surpass the government-provision method.

It's really an issue of time (or in your possible case; impatience ). Over the decades, would you rather the government allocate funding for the production of cars by taxing people to do so, or would you rather the private sector provide the cars?

Yeah, I agree there likely are inefficiencies. 2 things:
1. Couldn't the inefficiencies be reduced to a large extent by instituting competition but only from a certain level down? Say competition within NASA, or even multiple agencies fighting for the money the government rightfully stole?
2. I think there's a fundamental difference between the model T's where you'd be hard pressed to argue that government should have a right to decide what the "better" car is rather than the public and scientific research. More exciting details below.

In the market, prices convey information to buyers and sellers. Prices show producers how much people want of a certain kind of good at a specific time; simultaneously, prices reflect the nominal value of customer preferences, i.e. what they want for how much.

With the government-provision of goods, it's difficult to get prices to work because the government disrupts this process by "cheating," i.e. by forcing people to pay with the threat of IRS agents, fines, and jail time. Essentially, the government sets the price, and the people are always forced to pay. So, prices aren't accurately reflecting consumer preferences (i.e. what the people actually prefer, at what quantity, and at what time in addition to what else they would prefer instead).-

Ok, I agree with this. I'm not convinced however that consumer preferences is the best way to decide the worth of a project in all areas of human existence.
I guess this is what I originally meant by "right culture and society".
If you lived in a hypothetical world where everyone is completely altruistic and only cares about the common good and so on, some version of communism might actually work nicely. Of course that isn't the case.
Similarly if we lived in a less-hypothetical world were everyone was just a bit less short-sighted and less prone to all sorts of cognitive biases( THEM TERRORISTS ARE COMING, SHUT UP AND TAKE MY FREEDOMS ), this might work.

I guess I'm comparing what you're saying to a pure democracy. That might work well, at some point, right now I'd rather not have fundamental rights up for vote though.
Similarly I'd rather not have the worth of scientific research be determined purely by consumer preference. The public has a less than stellar record when it comes to estimating the worth and validity of scientific research.

Maybe that's elitist, I dunno, I've got to go now, I've run out of tissues and APOD is beckoning.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Btw, if any of the space geeks are still reading.

How freakin' cool is this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

Highlights:

• Optics: 6.5 meter to hubble's 2.4m ones
• Distance from earth:1.5 million km (at the L2 point where it'll maintain the same relative position vs earth and the sun) to hubble's 559 km near earth orbit
• Sexy folding honeycomb style beryllium mirror(TM KLOBBER industries), cause the damn thing is just too big
• tennis court sized sunshield, that keeps the optics nice and cool(85 Celsius facing sun, -233 Celsius other side)
• It looks like a freakin' death ray
  

All at the cheap price of $8 billion. Well okay, probably more, but still.

As a side note, NASA seems to be hilariously bad at estimating costs. Here's how their estimate for this project changed as the years went by:

1997 0.5
1998 1
1999 1
2000 1.8
2002 2.5
2003 2.5
2005 3
2006 4.5
2008 5.1
2010 6.5
2011 8.7

I mean 0.5 billion? Isn't that like what it costs to make a video game these days?