Nasa

[Yeahman]

What is the point of spending taxpayer dollars to send men into space? How do we as Americans or humans benefit? Even if there was some small intangible benefit, is it worth the enormous cost?

[kitty]

yes, but only if it became a global effort instead of a 'who's country has the biggest dick' contest.

[VV o n g B a]

there's not much point right now, but if the space elevator is built there will be a point b/c so many things will be possible and cheap.

[kitty]

isn't there something to be said for the purely scientific benefit of the furthering of our understanding of our surroundings? i don't think we should explore our environment only with the intention of exploiting it...

[kpih]

Wow, understanding how this universe works don' t matter I guess...

Think about Hubble, and the knowledge we gained from the images. Tremendous progress has been made inour comprehension of the universe.

Capitalism has a funny way of killing the natural curiosity of human species.

[VV o n g B a]

Wow, understanding how this universe works don' t matter I guess...

Think about Hubble, and the knowledge we gained from the images. Tremendous progress has been made inour comprehension of the universe.

Capitalism has a funny way of killing the natural curiosity of human species.
thats just practicality. how much are u willing to pay for new information of questionable relevance to ur daily life? yes we have gained a lot of knowledge from hubble but that didn't cost very much (relatively). but even so, how much has proving the theory of relativity or various star formation theories affected ur own life?

might it not be prudent to save the money intended for the space station or use it on something else (food, medicine, education, defense, other research) until such a time that u can more easily, quickly, and cheaply do it? the recent shuttle missions and the space station did shit for science. a few studies on loss of bone density aren't worth the cost of keeping that station occupied. even if they are for a future mars mission which we will have to go further into debt for to fund...

[YuheiCarreau]

Without NASA we wouldn't have satellites, which are used for many different kinds of communication (television, phone, radio) - as well as GPS navigation.

[VV o n g B a]

Without NASA we wouldn't have satellites, which are used for many different kinds of communication (television, phone, radio) - as well as GPS navigation.no argument there. and earlier i wasn't arguing against hubble either. satellites and pictures don't cost that much compared to keeping people in orbit. and yelloman was only commenting on humans in space anyways. not about staying out of space in general.

[kpih]

thats just practicality. how much are u willing to pay for new information of questionable relevance to ur daily life? yes we have gained a lot of knowledge from hubble but that didn't cost very much (relatively). but even so, how much has proving the theory of relativity or various star formation theories affected ur own life?

might it not be prudent to save the money intended for the space station or use it on something else (food, medicine, education, defense, other research) until such a time that u can more easily, quickly, and cheaply do it? the recent shuttle missions and the space station did shit for science. a few studies on loss of bone density aren't worth the cost of keeping that station occupied. even if they are for a future mars mission which we will have to go further into debt for to fund...

I agree it is a fine balance between knowledge and practicality. But if people believe relevance is the legitimate reason for killing off the space program (just like art, liberal arts,sociology, history, anthropology, literature, philosophy, and other 'irrelevant pursuits') then I have nothing to say.

The problem with NASA right now is the bureaucracy and management. It is poorly run. Instead of abandoning the space program, reforming and rehabilitating NASA is urgent.

[Yeahman]

I agree it is a fine balance between knowledge and practicality. But if people believe relevance is the legitimate reason for killing off the space program (just like art, liberal arts,sociology, history, anthropology, literature, philosophy, and other 'irrelevant pursuits') then I have nothing to say.
The problem is the cost. I would have no problem with the space program if it was cheap.
And there is lots of private investment in the liberal arts. I don't have a problem with private investment in space either.

[onnihs]

What is the point of spending taxpayer dollars to send men into space? How do we as Americans or humans benefit? Even if there was some small intangible benefit, is it worth the enormous cost?

in the words of the great Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell in Apollo 13:

"Imagine if Columbus never decided to return to the new world."

it's not a question of how NASA helps Americans today, but rather, how important will today's NASA be for humanity 500 years from now?

[onnihs]

The problem is the cost. I would have no problem with the space program if it was cheap.
And there is lots of private investment in the liberal arts. I don't have a problem with private investment in space either.

Private investment is undeniably the future of space exploration. however, while our venture out into space is still in its infancy, i think it's important that governments allocate and procure research and funding to establish the foundation for future privatized expeditions, research, and consumer travel. it would be errorful to abandon our space program in a time in which the universe has finally begun to make sense...

[kitty]

just out of curiousity... how're we supposed to make it cheaper if we don't research it now?

... it's not like the first telephone was $20.00 to make and install, and the first car only cost a few thousand.

it's the way invention works. first you make a ridiculously expensive prototype, then you test the living shit out of it, continue to make improvements, until you slowly discover a way to mass-produce it on a cheaper scale.

if sony had waited on making the PS2 cheaply, we would've never gotten it. The new PS2 is cheaper to make then the original, which was apparently beig sold at cost. Would Sony have been better off never developing a PS2 or sitting on the tech until those original specs "became cheaper"?

[Yeahman]

in the words of the great Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell in Apollo 13:

"Imagine if Columbus never decided to return to the new world."

it's not a question of how NASA helps Americans today, but rather, how important will today's NASA be for humanity 500 years from now?
Spain had an economic interest in exploring the New World. It more than paid for itself.
I'm not against space exploration. But I don't believe that at the moment, sending people to space it worth the cost.

Private investment is undeniably the future of space exploration. however, while our venture out into space is still in its infancy, i think it's important that governments allocate and procure research and funding to establish the foundation for future privatized expeditions, research, and consumer travel. it would be errorful to abandon our space program in a time in which the universe has finally begun to make sense...
Again, when the foreseeable benefits (tangible or intangible) outweigh the costs, it'll be a worthwhile investment.

just out of curiousity... how're we supposed to make it cheaper if we don't research it now?
Technology always gets cheaper. There are constantly improvements in computer and aerospace technology without NASA.

... it's not like the first telephone was $20.00 to make and install, and the first car only cost a few thousand.
Actually they were even cheaper and both were done without using taxpayer dollars.

it's the way invention works. first you make a ridiculously expensive prototype, then you test the living shit out of it, continue to make improvements, until you slowly discover a way to mass-produce it on a cheaper scale.

if sony had waited on making the PS2 cheaply, we would've never gotten it. The new PS2 is cheaper to make then the original, which was apparently beig sold at cost. Would Sony have been better off never developing a PS2 or sitting on the tech until those original specs "became cheaper"?
No because it made economic sense to produce it NOW. They would have lost money through decreased market share if they had waited longer. This is not the case with sending people into orbit.

[jz87]

I completely agree with ye110man, NASA is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The money spent on a shuttle launch can fund thousands of PhD candidates every year. Or alternatively, instead of spending so much money on NASA, let the taxpayers do what they want with it. Private space programs are much more efficient. The fact that Spaceship One was able to do so with only $10 million puts the government to shame. The cost of the Apollo program was astronomical and produced little good than some publicity. NASA only represents science, little actual science actually comes out of NASA. Why do you need such a huge bureaucracy to manage a space program when 20 guys in a garage can put a man into space? We need to scrap NASA and privatize the space program.

As someone who is aspiring to a PhD and a career as an ivory tower academic, I can tell you that much of what academics do is totally irrelevant to the daily lives of people on the street. My particular specialty is algorithms and complexity theory, and it produces almost no tangible benefit for society. Even if by some miracle P = NP, it will just mean that crooks will have a better way to crack the encryption that protect your credit card numbers in online transactions. But, we do have one huge advantage over NASA, we are cheap to fund. We need nothing more than a stipend to live on, an office, a computer, a library, and occasional funding to travel to conferences. You can probably fund all the complexity theorists in the country for a year on the cost of one shuttle launch.

BTW, for an essay on the practical insignificance of mathematics by a famous mathematician, read A Mathematician's Apology by Hardy. I say this as someone who is a math major and likes mathematics very much, the fact is that much of higher mathematics is completely useless and irrelevant to the average man. I consider research funding a form of charity by society in supporting the spirit of discovery embodied in the work of mathematicians. But I have no pretense that society owes funding to us mathematicians or that we have any particularly important role in society. Perhaps our work today will translate to some practical application centuries from now, just like how the work of Fourier now permeates signal analysis. But I doubt that any of my work will be of practical significance in my lifetime, so I'm particularly annoyed at NASA's waving of the science banner to justify their astronomical funding. They produce no tangible benefit to society and they should just be up front and honest about it. Be thankful for the charity and call it what it is.

[nola]

Useless research and useless PhDs are the same although useless PhDs are cheaper. What's your point?

Funding of NASA for the sake of expanding our knowledge of the universe is smart as long as it's not exorbitantly costly. Funding NASA for the sake of seeing who's dick is bigger, that is, NASA since the era of Kennedy's dick vs. Kruschev's dick is a complete waste of taxpayer money and energy. The money wasted on dick size wars should have been spent on health, shelter and education on earth.

[kpih]

Again the problem with NASA is the politics and the bureaucracy. Reform/Rehabilitation vs. Abandonment...

Manned missions might not be the way to go, I agree.

I figure the data gathered by NASA has benefited thousands of PhD candidates and sustains the career of thousands of professional astronomers.

[jz87]

but the money could've funded 10 times as many mathematicians. Unless you're saying that astronomers produce 10 times as much benefit to society on average (I know the whole benefit to society thing is not really meaningful since benefit can really only accrue to individuals), then funding mathematicians is a better deal.

[jz87]

Useless research and useless PhDs are the same although useless PhDs are cheaper. What's your point?


When funding useless things, it's best to go for the cheaper one.

[kpih]

When funding useless things, it's best to go for the cheaper one.

Ha ha. I bet sociology is even cheaper!

[kitty]

Technology always gets cheaper. There are constantly improvements in computer and aerospace technology without NASA.


it's l-l-like magic!!

ye110, technology doesn't become cheaper unless you put the money in to research how to improve production. usually it's not a question of materials, but innovations in design that decrease costs (re: the Sony PS2) -- which only comes from funnelling more money and manpower into improving an existing design by actually implementing and testing it.

and if the gov't were to let private companies do all the designs and inventions, the cheaper costs of actually producing it would be negated by patenting and copyright costs.


Actually they were even cheaper and both were done without using taxpayer dollars.


Lol. You haven't counted inflation, have you? There's a reason why only the super rich people could have cars, y'know.


No because it made economic sense to produce it NOW. They would have lost money through decreased market share if they had waited longer. This is not the case with sending people into orbit.

It also makes economic sense to improve space travel on the off chance that there is a way to exploit it -- you want to already be in the market when space tourism takes off. you can't be like "oh look, this private corporation has got space tourism off, let's now roll our sleeves up and see about how to get a man into space!" -- you'll be several steps behind everyone else.

But I brought up the PS2 because Sony lost money producing it. Round 2 is cheaper to make -- but it's not cheaper to make because of materials getting cheaper. It is cheaper because Sony took input on what worked and what was buggy with the first PS2 that had been replaced, and made some critical changes in design ... that could've only been developed had they put the work into the first one. Get it?

Waiting longer when it comes to space travel won't make anything cheaper because by the time materials become cheaper, we'll have such outdated research that we won't be able to efficiently implement it.

Consider the expensive space program as a trial one of the PS2. Sure, we're not making any money, but it gives us the kind of research we need to make everything cheaply later yet still do what the PS2 needs to do (play games and DVDs).

[Yeahman]

I guess this is an area that most liberals and conservatives can agree on. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

[VV o n g B a]

But I brought up the PS2 because Sony lost money producing it. Round 2 is cheaper to make -- but it's not cheaper to make because of materials getting cheaper. It is cheaper because Sony took input on what worked and what was buggy with the first PS2 that had been replaced, and made some critical changes in design ... that could've only been developed had they put the work into the first one. Get it?

Waiting longer when it comes to space travel won't make anything cheaper because by the time materials become cheaper, we'll have such outdated research that we won't be able to efficiently implement it.

Consider the expensive space program as a trial one of the PS2. Sure, we're not making any money, but it gives us the kind of research we need to make everything cheaply later yet still do what the PS2 needs to do (play games and DVDs).
ps2 doesn't work as an example b/c the loss sony took on the hardware was intended to be covered by the profit they made on the software. xbox is an even more extreme example of this as sony didn't lose very much on their hardware but microsoft did. but microsoft had to bring their hardware out or sony would have had an unchallengeable customer base. nasa produces no such software to subsidize itself.

but the solution is already at hand. there are plans for a space elevator that can be constructed within 25 years for $6 billion (fraction of the cost of space station and shuttle missions). with that, lift costs that now range around $100/lb can be brought down to $1/lb. no reason to beat a dead horse imo. and the shuttle horse has been rotting for a decade.

[YuheiCarreau]

Lemme tell you something we DEFINITELY need that we wouldn't have gotten without manned spaceflight funded by NASA: memory foam beds. I have a memory foam mattress pad (can't afford a whole bed yet), and that thing is awesome. Awesome, awesome, awesome.

[Yeahman]

it's l-l-like magic!!

ye110, technology doesn't become cheaper unless you put the money in to research how to improve production. usually it's not a question of materials, but innovations in design that decrease costs (re: the Sony PS2) -- which only comes from funnelling more money and manpower into improving an existing design by actually implementing and testing it.

and if the gov't were to let private companies do all the designs and inventions, the cheaper costs of actually producing it would be negated by patenting and copyright costs.
And computers got cheaper how? Shouldn't the patents and copyrights have negated all that improvement?

Lol. You haven't counted inflation, have you? There's a reason why only the super rich people could have cars, y'know.
Yes, phones and cars were a lot less complicated back then.
But again, shouldn't patents and copyrights have negated all that and maintained a high price? With all this evidence, you are still very pessimistic about private investment.

It also makes economic sense to improve space travel on the off chance that there is a way to exploit it -- you want to already be in the market when space tourism takes off. you can't be like "oh look, this private corporation has got space tourism off, let's now roll our sleeves up and see about how to get a man into space!" -- you'll be several steps behind everyone else.
Huh? Who's "you"? The US government?
Will public funding of space travel benefit society more than its cost? The answer is no.

But I brought up the PS2 because Sony lost money producing it. Round 2 is cheaper to make -- but it's not cheaper to make because of materials getting cheaper. It is cheaper because Sony took input on what worked and what was buggy with the first PS2 that had been replaced, and made some critical changes in design ... that could've only been developed had they put the work into the first one. Get it?
Sony would not have done any of that if they had thought they were going to lose money in the gaming industry!

Waiting longer when it comes to space travel won't make anything cheaper because by the time materials become cheaper, we'll have such outdated research that we won't be able to efficiently implement it.
hahahaha
I hope you don't really believe that. Computers and aerospace techonology will not keep up? Rethink what you just posted.

Consider the expensive space program as a trial one of the PS2. Sure, we're not making any money, but it gives us the kind of research we need to make everything cheaply later yet still do what the PS2 needs to do (play games and DVDs).
It all made money eventually. The profit was foreseeable. What PROFITS do you foresee as a DIRECT result of space travel today?

[Yeahman]

Lemme tell you something we DEFINITELY need that we wouldn't have gotten without manned spaceflight funded by NASA: memory foam beds. I have a memory foam mattress pad (can't afford a whole bed yet), and that thing is awesome. Awesome, awesome, awesome.
Well worth the $16 billion a year NASA budget?

[jz87]

Ha ha. I bet sociology is even cheaper!

But Sociology is less than useless, it produces propaganda for all sorts of political non-sense. Sociology can't be called a science, it's about as much of a science as scientology. They use statistics and numbers, but then again, I can statistically analyze coin tosses and pick the results favorable to my hypothesis that men will flip more heads than women, regardless of proper experimental procedure. Then I can report this to the New York Times and it will appear on the next front page titled: "Women scientifically proven to give less head".

[kitty]

ps2 doesn't work as an example b/c the loss sony took on the hardware was intended to be covered by the profit they made on the software. xbox is an even more extreme example of this as sony didn't lose very much on their hardware but microsoft did. but microsoft had to bring their hardware out or sony would have had an unchallengeable customer base. nasa produces no such software to subsidize itself.


true, it doesn't. but it does illustrate the problem of just 'sitting back until the technology becomes cheaper to make'.

imagine if either company had done that, instead?

[kitty]

I guess this is an area that most liberals and conservatives can agree on. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

how did you conclude that from this thread? there are as many people saying that the money needs to be spent on space as there are saying no.

or are you just trying to blanketly call all who oppose you 'dumb' again?

[kitty]

ye110, i will respond to your lengthy and snarky post later. i'm just going to give you an example of how patenting can kill an industry with costs.

in molecular bio labs, one of the greatest technological innovations of the past ten years has been PCR reactions. it's a way to simply and easily amplify a small fragment of DNA, and has quickly become a staple in the way we do research.

Unfortunately, the technology (and theory) was produced or sold to a private company that now has an exclusive patent on it. A cheap, easy reaction, cheap costs of ingredients, that is absolutely essential to what molecular biologists now do (i.e. there is no way a good lab can get around doing PCR) costs massive amounts of money in patenting, alone. a reaction that could've cost pennies to do actually costs us roughly $20/20-40 reactions (depending on reaction size) ... all of it goes to the patents. and that's my lab buying from a company that is currently raising prices because it was actually losing money in order to undercut the market -- most manufacturers charge at least double that for ingredients and thermocyclers.

and we don't really forsee it getting any cheaper. the reason? the reaction itself is patented. no amount of other people building new thermocyclers or getting other sources of the ingredient will help. we can't legally use PCR unless the patent-holding company gets a cut of our grant money.

the only fortunate thing is that there's currently some big legal battle over PCR patenting and selling ingredients. that's why other companies can currently sell ingredients with a disclaimer that says that they in no way endorse actually using the PCR ingredients to run PCR reactions.

now imagine if every component of a rocket ship were like that? how exactly does letting private corporations hold patents help make things cheaper?

[nola]

But Sociology is less than useless, it produces propaganda for all sorts of political non-sense. Sociology can't be called a science, it's about as much of a science as scientology. They use statistics and numbers, but then again, I can statistically analyze coin tosses and pick the results favorable to my hypothesis that men will flip more heads than women, regardless of proper experimental procedure. Then I can report this to the New York Times and it will appear on the next front page titled: "Women scientifically proven to give less head".Men are scientifically proven to give less head. Anyways. Sociology and social sciences even if they are propoganda as you call them have done infinitely more social good than space scientists and mathematicians.

[kpih]

But Sociology is less than useless, it produces propaganda for all sorts of political non-sense. Sociology can't be called a science, it's about as much of a science as scientology. They use statistics and numbers, but then again, I can statistically analyze coin tosses and pick the results favorable to my hypothesis that men will flip more heads than women, regardless of proper experimental procedure. Then I can report this to the New York Times and it will appear on the next front page titled: "Women scientifically proven to give less head".

I think you might want to understand the discipline better before dismissing it entirely. Some people actually try to divorce their own political views from their work. Mind you.

[nola]

Sociology has mostly been driven/funded by empiricists that is those who believe in numbers.

[Yeahman]

true, it doesn't. but it does illustrate the problem of just 'sitting back until the technology becomes cheaper to make'.

imagine if either company had done that, instead?
It doesn't illustrate that problem either! Sony saw a profit and went for it.
Please provide an example of a product that was intended to always lose money and not provide any social benefit.

ye110, i will respond to your lengthy and snarky post later. i'm just going to give you an example of how patenting can kill an industry with costs.

in molecular bio labs, one of the greatest technological innovations of the past ten years has been PCR reactions. it's a way to simply and easily amplify a small fragment of DNA, and has quickly become a staple in the way we do research.

Unfortunately, the technology (and theory) was produced or sold to a private company that now has an exclusive patent on it. A cheap, easy reaction, cheap costs of ingredients, that is absolutely essential to what molecular biologists now do (i.e. there is no way a good lab can get around doing PCR) costs massive amounts of money in patenting, alone. a reaction that could've cost pennies to do actually costs us roughly $20/20-40 reactions (depending on reaction size) ... all of it goes to the patents. and that's my lab buying from a company that is currently raising prices because it was actually losing money in order to undercut the market -- most manufacturers charge at least double that for ingredients and thermocyclers.

and we don't really forsee it getting any cheaper. the reason? the reaction itself is patented. no amount of other people building new thermocyclers or getting other sources of the ingredient will help. we can't legally use PCR unless the patent-holding company gets a cut of our grant money.

the only fortunate thing is that there's currently some big legal battle over PCR patenting and selling ingredients. that's why other companies can currently sell ingredients with a disclaimer that says that they in no way endorse actually using the PCR ingredients to run PCR reactions.

now imagine if every component of a rocket ship were like that? how exactly does letting private corporations hold patents help make things cheaper?
hahahahahha
Of course patents don't make things cheaper! That wasn't the point! You claimed that if NASA is abolished, space travel 100 years down the line will be just as expensive as it is today. Somehow the cost of computer power is supposed to remain unchanged? You're the one that said that cars and phones got cheaper! How? Please explain that and then explain why space travel doesn't not follow the same economic principles.

[Yeahman]

Men are scientifically proven to give less head. Anyways. Sociology and social sciences even if they are propoganda as you call them have done infinitely more social good than space scientists and mathematicians.
Either way, let the laws of supply and demand dictate whether or not they are a good use of resources. Let's not have NASA creating artificial demand for space travel with our tax dollars.

[Martino]

I guess this is an area that most liberals and conservatives can agree on. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

Was the money better spent elsewhere before the US had a space programme? If NASA was closed now, would the money be well spent, or would it simply disapear into myriad other budgets?

America already pumps billions into its entertainment complex, into meritless film and television, or into 'events' like the Olympics, whose only benefit to humanity is a few weeks of entertainment or distraction. Invest in some long term constructive goals instead!

No ... wait ... come to think of it, it would be great if the US pulled out of space, and leave the future to Europe, to China, to Japan ...

[bluemonq]

the point is tho, there will be certain things that would not happen - regardless of profit - with the laws of supply and demand, just due to the sheer mass of the objective. this is *not* crossing the atlantic for passage to the far east (btw, when columbus first returned to europe, he brought back some native vegetation, some animals, trinkets from the natives - no silver. no profit potential, right?). space can kill you in a dozen ways in a blink of an eye: besides the mundane starvation, dying of thirst, and caught in a bad weather system, there's explosive decompression, asphyxia, falling to your death, etc. fun. you'll bring up, "b-b-but what about spaceship one?" spaceship one is nothing. it is absolutely nothing. don't get me wrong; it's pretty hard to get anything up to the edge of space, much less the equivalent of three people and bring them down safely. but spaceship one is to NASA what an estes d-engine model rocket is to a V2. the people at scaled composites had the previous 80 years of missile/rocket research to work with, a relatively simple goal: throw someone as highup in the air as possible, and then make sure that on the way down the capsule is slow enough that the occupants aren't killed. that *is* impressive. but rutan himself has said it's not a simple matter of sticking on a larger gas tank to go around the world. orbital spaceflight, with human occupants, is an entirely different ballgame. and i'd give it at least another two decades before some private company, with no government contract, will succeed in putting a man into orbit.

and another thing. you know why the space shuttle is crap, why the iss is an albatross (a disabled one at that) right now? because it was about money early on. the original specs were to have launches every week, or at least every other week. a large fleet of shuttles were supposed to be built. these shuttles would be able to deliver technicians to launch, move, retrieve, and fix satellites. the really troublesome ones could be brought back to earth. meanwhile, huge construction and manufacturing projects were suppose to occur. but because people complained that the orbiter system was too expensive, they cut down on the capabilities of the shuttle, so EVERYTIME IT LAUNCHES, it's AT RED-LINE performance! also, it's pretty much impossible to bring almost any satellite of considerable size back to earth. and the damn overcharges of the contractors for all the parts, so, oh, we're going to make the station much smaller than planned, cutting out most of the lab modules. and then Congress went, ooh, developing the new spacecraft for delivering seven people at a time to the space station is to expensive, so we're going to cut that. so before the shuttle blew up again, we were down to three people at a time in the iss. oh wait, developing a shuttle replacement is too expensive, so we're going scuttle the design project while they're working on a mockup! so pretty soon, you got the world's most exclusive condo for two floating in LEO above the earth, and a flying mack truck for it! people point out that the two are just a drain of money. you're right; the iss can't exist without the shuttle, and the shuttle can't exist without the iss. and neither of them do anything. and you're right, now it's an absolute waste of money, with no considerable science done, because there's not much you can do with two people. and you know what? it's the damned fault of all those people back in the 80s and early 90s who complained about the cost of everything.

question: i assume that if you were alive in the sixties you would have considered mercury and apollo to be a waste of money? after all, even though landing men on the moon was pretty impressive, it was pretty pointless and expensive show of national pride. not like you needed either program to develop icbms or satellite launchers. not really any return on investment on those.

EDIT: i agree with martino. it's great if we have an extra $16 billion to help the impoverished, fix the national infrastructure, boost the education program, etc. but do you really think that's where the money will go if we recover it? now, bush's tax cut was $1 trillion; $16 billion isn't that big a percentage of that. i'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't mind a tiny portion of their $300/$600 refund be held back to improve those things. and how much money are we spending on iraq each month? no return on investment there either; bush finally admitted no wmd will be found, and the UNITED STATES (not united nations) survey group in charge said that iraq did NOT have the capability to restart its weapons program). alright, fine, ignore all of that, i just might believe that this entire war was an honest mistake. but do you think that $16 billion will be better spent?

[Yeahman]

Was the money better spent elsewhere before the US had a space programme? If NASA was closed now, would the money be well spent, or would it simply disapear into myriad other budgets?
It would probably not be spent/borrowed reducing our national debt.

America already pumps billions into its entertainment complex, into meritless film and television, or into 'events' like the Olympics, whose only benefit to humanity is a few weeks of entertainment or distraction. Invest in some long term constructive goals instead!
Actually the Olympics bring economic benefits.

No ... wait ... come to think of it, it would be great if the US pulled out of space, and leave the future to Europe, to China, to Japan ...
Except that PRIVATE US space travel is already ahead of Europe and Japan.

[hooligan]

ye110, i will respond to your lengthy and snarky post later. i'm just going to give you an example of how patenting can kill an industry with costs.

in molecular bio labs, one of the greatest technological innovations of the past ten years has been PCR reactions. it's a way to simply and easily amplify a small fragment of DNA, and has quickly become a staple in the way we do research.

Unfortunately, the technology (and theory) was produced or sold to a private company that now has an exclusive patent on it. A cheap, easy reaction, cheap costs of ingredients, that is absolutely essential to what molecular biologists now do (i.e. there is no way a good lab can get around doing PCR) costs massive amounts of money in patenting, alone. a reaction that could've cost pennies to do actually costs us roughly $20/20-40 reactions (depending on reaction size) ... all of it goes to the patents. and that's my lab buying from a company that is currently raising prices because it was actually losing money in order to undercut the market -- most manufacturers charge at least double that for ingredients and thermocyclers.

and we don't really forsee it getting any cheaper. the reason? the reaction itself is patented. no amount of other people building new thermocyclers or getting other sources of the ingredient will help. we can't legally use PCR unless the patent-holding company gets a cut of our grant money.

the only fortunate thing is that there's currently some big legal battle over PCR patenting and selling ingredients. that's why other companies can currently sell ingredients with a disclaimer that says that they in no way endorse actually using the PCR ingredients to run PCR reactions.

now imagine if every component of a rocket ship were like that? how exactly does letting private corporations hold patents help make things cheaper?

ironic, i'm trying to get a PCR recipe to work right now. i know the story too, that guy didn't make that much money, but i forgot whether it was invitrogen or NEB making craploads of money over them?

[Martino]

It would probably not be spent/borrowed reducing our national debt.

Probably? I don't think such a golden age of American fiscal frugality ever existed.

Actually the Olympics bring economic benefits..

The Olympics require massive investment but offer very little quantifiable long term benefit. Try revisting Barcelona, see if they're still reaping the rewards of the Olympics there.

Except that PRIVATE US space travel is already ahead of Europe and Japan.

LOL. Private space travel? You mean paying for the privilege of sitting on a chemical rocket and going into low orbit for a few hours? No benefits to science, just an indulgence for the rich and bored. I don't know why you even mention it.

[Faithless]

I guess this is an area that most liberals and conservatives can agree on. The money can be better spent elsewhere.
I don't know if they do or not, but I'll agree with you. :rolleyes:

This may not be what you're thinking of, but it occured to me to be a waste of money --

NASA launches rocket to smash into comet (http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/13/nation_world/news01.txt)
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- A NASA spacecraft with a Hollywood name -- Deep Impact -- blasted off Wednesday on a mission to smash a hole in a comet and give scientists a glimpse of the frozen primordial ingredients of the solar system.

With a launch window only one second long, Deep Impact rocketed away at the designated moment on a six-month, 268-million-mile journey to Comet Tempel 1. It will be a one-way trip that NASA hopes will reach a cataclysmic end on the Fourth of July.
...
The entire mission costs $330 million, all the way through the grand finale.
I mean, there's your inauguration money, right there!

[kimpossible]

What is the point of spending taxpayer dollars to send men into space? How do we as Americans or humans benefit? Even if there was some small intangible benefit, is it worth the enormous cost?

To find hot green slave girls and have sex in zero g.

And if that's not enough where would we be without tang and velcro? Think about it, you could send missionaries to Mars, build a church on the moon.

[Yeahman]

Probably? I don't think such a golden age of American fiscal frugality ever existed.
It was called the Clinton Administration. Many complained that he held down spending too much.

The Olympics require massive investment but offer very little quantifiable long term benefit. Try revisting Barcelona, see if they're still reaping the rewards of the Olympics there.
That may be true. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other.

LOL. Private space travel? You mean paying for the privilege of sitting on a chemical rocket and going into low orbit for a few hours? No benefits to science, just an indulgence for the rich and bored. I don't know why you even mention it.
Because that's exactly what we're talking about. Sending men into orbit today with taxpayer dollars does not contribute much to science. At least not $16 billion worth.

I don't know if they do or not, but I'll agree with you. :rolleyes:
For all the talk about helping the poor that liberals do, they don't seem to want to pay for it. As if welfare checks grow on trees. The president's $40 million inauguration isn't worth it but NASA's $16 billion '05 budget is? They're both a waste of money. Provide the poor with some decent healthcare instead.

[ism]

For Pax Americana to continue, we need to maintain leadership in space exploration. The reward is obvious -- land rights and resources. Sure, there are no land rights in space right now, but wait til we can put a giant laser on the moon.

[Martino]

It was called the Clinton Administration. Many complained that he held down spending too much.

Huh ... the Clinton administration wasn't pre-NASA. What are you talking about?

Because that's exactly what we're talking about. Sending men into orbit today with taxpayer dollars does not contribute much to science. At least not $16 billion worth.

I don't see a rich business man climbing out of his little rocket to repair an orbital sensor, test new imaging equipment, or perform six month long experiments in microgravity. You only have to interrogate the websites of even small national space agencies like JAXA or the BNSC to learn about the commercial and scientific benefits of research in space, in fields like microgravity, mobile telephone communications, chemical sensing satellites, all of which require and offer greater scope for a human presence in space.

And, eventually, it would be folly for humanity to keep all its eggs in one basket, by confining our existence to one obviously quite fragile planet.

Not spending on space would not make for a "better use" of money. It will not necesarily free up funds to create a social paradise in America. America could budget more for health care, social reforms, free education, what have you, at any time as it is. It has the money, it is the worlds richest nation. If NASA's budget was scrapped, the money would be soaked back up by the defence industry, not local social projects.

[applehead]

Lemme tell you something we DEFINITELY need that we wouldn't have gotten without manned spaceflight funded by NASA: memory foam beds. I have a memory foam mattress pad (can't afford a whole bed yet), and that thing is awesome. Awesome, awesome, awesome.


really?
i didn't know that.

wait till you're really old with brittle bones.
those things are going to be a godsend.
it's helped my grandparents and my parents
a lot.

[kitty]

It doesn't illustrate that problem either! Sony saw a profit and went for it.
Please provide an example of a product that was intended to always lose money and not provide any social benefit.


Actually the analogy does work. For space travel, the social benefit is a better understanding of our environment and the advancement of science. The money benefits could include colonization, space tourism, and new alloys and minerals that might help solve the natural resource crisis we'll be facing in the next hundred years as our own fuels are depleted. More importantly, AS space travel becomes a booming industry in the next hundred years (to take a page out of your book, i think both liberals and conservatives can agree that the future will involve an increase in space travel and a subsequent booming industry in it), the major benefit for the US is to ALREADY be in the market.

Which is why I used the Sony PS2 to illustrate how it pays to just BE in the market, even if you're losing money, because as things become cheaper to make and game consoles become more popular, you stand to gain by already having a foot in the door. Before the PS2, the XBox and the GameCube, game consoles did not enjoy the kind of popularity they do now. It's hindsight to say that Sony went into the market *knowing* that they would make the money back on software, because frankly, they didn't. It was a gamble, one that they took because they knew that it would be more important to stay competitive by keeping up their game console department than to just sit back for a hundred odd years letting Xbox develop cheaper and easier memory cards.

Besides, exactly why do you expect me to find an example that fits YOUR understanding of what space travel is about when I disagree with those basic criteria?


hahahahahha


Oh, that's mature. For someone who loves 'debate', you seem to have a problem with civilized academic discourse in which you respect your opponent and don't belittle or condescend towards them.


Of course patents don't make things cheaper! That wasn't the point!

Yes it is.


You claimed that if NASA is abolished, space travel 100 years down the line will be just as expensive as it is today.


*more* expensive. assuming that 100 years from now, we'd be wanting to build rockets that reflect the technology of a 100 years from now rather than building a rocket as it is designed today. otherwise, that'd be like a new computer company startup trying to compete in the computer industry by trying to manufacture a room-size computer that still used punchcards and trying to sell it next to a Dell laptop.

... patents don't make things cheaper... but... space travel in a hundred years will be cheaper if the US just pulled out of the 'space race' now?

.... if the US pulled its space program, it would come back in in a hundred years and the vast majority of the components it would need to use to design a rocket would be owned by private companies. Who would own patents. Which would make things more expensive.

... as opposed to investing money now to stay in the space race and actually work towards developing components on its own.



Somehow the cost of computer power is supposed to remain unchanged? You're the one that said that cars and phones got cheaper! How? Please explain that and then explain why space travel doesn't not follow the same economic principles.

Cars and phones started out more expensive because the technology didn't exist to make a cheap phone or car. The early car took a long time to build (this is pre-Ford), so they cost ridiculous amounts of money.

It was only through having someone LIKE Ford who stayed IN the car industry, made cars, and innovated the assembly line for the car industry that cars became cheap enough for everyone to own one.

Space travel as you describe it wouldn't follow the same principles because you're talking about some sort of scenario where Ford saw how expensive it was to make a car, and decided to sit on the design specs and not make cars until some other company designed a better, cheaper engine (that he would then *magically* be able to employ that technology in his *own* car??). Had Ford pulled out of the car industry, there would not have been continued research and innovation on his part into how to make a car more cheaply... basically, things won't get cheaper to make a car unless you actually... stay in the industry of making cars. In both the phone and the car industries, people didn't exactly sit around waiting for new technology to just appear out of thin air -- they stuck it out through the times when the technology was for the rich and the elit, and slowly developed new and better ways to mass produce the technology and *that's* why it got cheaper.

BTW, the computer industry doesn't really run into patenting issues because computers are largely manufactured by a few major companies. Which stuff their computers full of their own components (basic soundcards, hard drives, etc). They only got cheaper to produce because computers got less the size of a room, and the computer industry was taken over by a few large companies that pretty much monopolize it. A new company trying to get into the computer manufacturing industry would get KILLED because of manufacturing costs of the components -- they'd have to either invent their own technology (which requires massive startup) or pay the patent rights on existing technology (which requires massive startup).

[Martino]

really?
i didn't know that.

wait till you're really old with brittle bones.
those things are going to be a godsend.
it's helped my grandparents and my parents
a lot.

NASA has and continues to conduct research into osteoporosis, to gain understanding and develop treatments for bone loss under microgravity. Another example of space science having direct applications in the life sciences, improving the human condition overall.

Research under microgravity conditions is also helping research into T-Cells (immunology) and cancer.

[VV o n g B a]

a treatise on why manned space flight is currently wasteful:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17011

[bluemonq]

I don't know if they do or not, but I'll agree with you. :rolleyes:
This may not be what you're thinking of, but it occured to me to be a waste of money --
NASA launches rocket to smash into comet (http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/13/nation_world/news01.txt)
I mean, there's your inauguration money, right there!
you call *THAT* a waste of money? i'd rather see them trash the iss! we don't really know the composition of a comet. yes, there's ice, but what's inside? handy stuff to know when, oh, i don't know, the next comet-like body heads for earth to wipe out all life. why not just nuke it? because there's the possibility that it *is* hard rock. or it might split into *two* still pretty large chunks and kill countries. btw, the reason nukes do so much damage is because they have something to push against: air. or in armageddon, rock, because they drilled a hole in it and dropped it in (they would need a f**k load of nukes for that though). planting one on the surface doesn't really do anything... or it might. but we have to test to find out!!!

a treatise on why manned space flight is currently wasteful:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17011
that's nice. yes, it's currently wasteful. but after reading his entire treatise, you could draw the same conclusion about the ENTIRE manned space race, that it was really nothing but a cock walk. after all, you don't need a saturn V to lift half a dozen megaton warheads; that's definitely overkill. the engines were to lift the entire crapload of stuff to be able to travel to the moon.

i've noticed that neither he nor anyone else yet has addressed my three assertions:

1) going by the return on investment principle, or even scientific/defense principle, humans should have NEVER (no mercury, no apollo, no skylab series) gone into space
2) the reason why it costs so much now is a combination of the pussy-assed (wow, there's a mental image right there) officials who couldn't handle spending the money from the late 70s to current day on space technology, and the damn money-grubbing space contractors of the same period.
3) private industry will not create any true manned-spaced project for at least another two decades, if even that.

and until all of these points are addressed, i don't believe this topic is even WORTH mentioning.

[jz87]

Ok, I will address your points.
1. It's irrelevant, so what if we never went into space if it was entirely left up to the private sector. That just means that people have other priorities besides going into space. Who are you to say that space is such an important goal that other people have to give up their other priorities in order to fund it? I think we should go to the center of the earth too, are you gonna fund it? I think we should dig a big hole in the ground just to see what's underneath us. Afterall, isn't it more important that we understand what causes Earthquakes and Tsunamis than what's up in the sky?
2. The reason why it cost so much is because the government is funding the program. Everything the government tries to do costs too much. Government bureacracy simply has no incentive to deliver the maximum bang for our buck. This is because no one derives personal benefit from any of this, there's no profits/losses at stake and no investors breathing down their necks.
3. Refer to 1, why don't we just fund every single Jules Verne novel there is? How about Journey to the Center of the Earth?

[nola]

that's nice. yes, it's currently wasteful. but after reading his entire treatise, you could draw the same conclusion about the ENTIRE manned space race, that it was really nothing but a cock walk.War is mostly a cock walk too. There should be more women leaders. I read a study that said women are more peace-loving than men. If manned space flight is not a dick size competition and it's not too expensive I say we explore space and the center of the earth.

[bluemonq]

Ok, I will address your points.
1. It's irrelevant, so what if we never went into space if it was entirely left up to the private sector. That just means that people have other priorities besides going into space. Who are you to say that space is such an important goal that other people have to give up their other priorities in order to fund it? I think we should go to the center of the earth too, are you gonna fund it? I think we should dig a big hole in the ground just to see what's underneath us. Afterall, isn't it more important that we understand what causes Earthquakes and Tsunamis than what's up in the sky?
2. The reason why it cost so much is because the government is funding the program. Everything the government tries to do costs too much. Government bureacracy simply has no incentive to deliver the maximum bang for our buck. This is because no one derives personal benefit from any of this, there's no profits/losses at stake and no investors breathing down their necks.
3. Refer to 1, why don't we just fund every single Jules Verne novel there is? How about Journey to the Center of the Earth?
1) we pretty much know what causes earthquakes and tsunamis; if you said predict or prevent, i would agree with you wholeheartedly, as i live in california. also, the airline industry benefitted GREATLY in its early days with government help. and still does, actually, with all the bailouts after 9/11. why aren't you saying, "Why the f**k is AA, United, and all those other airlines getting government bailouts (i.e., taxpayer money)?!? They should deal with it themselves, those lazy assholes, get their act together themselves; Southwest and JetBlue are doing perfectly fine." why should the government decide that commercial air travel is more important than universal health care, or a better-funded education system. hell, veteran pilots get payed up to $100,000 or more! why didn't MY FOURTH GRADE TEACHER who has been teaching for almost TWO DECADES get paid that well, huh?or how about mass transit? people running metro systems, bus systems, hell AM-FUCKING-TRAK who can't get to a station on time about half of the time, why should the companies running those get taxpayer money to help them out? while we're on the subject of trains, how about the national system of railways? even back in the 1800s, the rail companies got money and land for building tracks. what's their excuse back then, national security? or how about hoover dam? i bet you think that FDR was a frickin commie bastard for the entire new deal program! screw that, we should have left the PANAMA CANAL to the fucking idiot french back when they were all falling over and dying because of malaria; private industry can handle their own maritime business!

whew. sorry, not a personal attack. i've been hearing this sort of crap about all sorts of things.

still, moot. my point was that one of the conditions of me shutting up is that i get a solid, no dodging the point "the mercury and apollo programs can kiss my ass; it was a pointless waste of billions and billions of dollars and amounted to nothing worthwhile." do you agree with that?

2) everything the *united states government* is funding is a bunch of cost overruns, you mean. especially the $500 wrench or $2000 toilet or whatever. if another country did that, we'd hear about it because then we could laugh at them... but we haven't heard about that, have we?

still, partially moot. part of the blame lies with the contractors: late deliveries, "re-evaluations of the scale/capabilities of the project," etc. as a taxpayer, why should I have to pony up more money when it was some dickwad at lockheed martin who made a few calculation errors before submitting a bid? it's their fault for underestimating the cost; they should eat it.

you also haven't addressed the fact that NASA funding has been generally decreasing the past three decades. i don't hear anyone complaining about the massive spending deficits that reagan created in order to "outspend the Soviets." meanwhile, we are at a SIXTY BILLION dollar trade deficit with china just in one month, november. our deficit this year will definitely be over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS.

3) moot. i am asking someone, anyone, to back up their claims that private industry is on its way to solve this problem and compete with nasa. you may say, where's your proof that it will take that long? i wasn't the first to make a claim on that statement; once someone provides some credible evidence that private companies are dedicated to, within this decade of - ok, not trips to the moon, i'll make it easy - making LEO trips, launching space hotels, and the like, i will gladly negate said evidence.

whether or not we should fund all of the jules verne novels...travelling to the moon has been done. actually, he was pretty smart; he suggested that the first launch facilities would be in or around the equatorial region, to pick up a speed boost from the earth's rotation... and we're launching rockets from southern florida. and someone has already been around the world in 80 days; it was an old tv program on pbs, tracing the journey of phileas fogg. and, addressing 20,000 leagues under the sea, navy subs have visited the mariana trench, the deepest known part of the pacific -- and all -- oceans. did i miss any books? in which case, if journey to the center of the earth is indeed the last book, and is physically feasible without disturbing the environment too much, go ahead! the metals engineered to survive the atmospheric pressures and extremely high temperatures; the fuels developed to power such a craft; and the onboard sensor equipment would all be quite useful in future space missions, manned or not. in fact, they'd be quite useful on the surface of our own planet.

ok, rant done.

btw, i'm enough of a bastard that if no one replies to this, i'm going to say that the collective silence means that i have a point in what i'm saying :tongue:

[kitty]

1) going by the return on investment principle, or even scientific/defense principle, humans should have NEVER (no mercury, no apollo, no skylab series) gone into space


Nor should the government invest in art, education, national health programs, or religion.

The real meat of the problem is that people can agree that certain things would be beneficial to them, but they just don't want to feel like they have to pay for them.

[jz87]

Well that's the problem now isn't it kitty? How about, everyone pays for what benefits them, and stop trying to get others to pay for their own pet programs.

I'm in support of ending government funding for education, art, national health programs (and since when is religion funded by the government, if indeed it is I'd say it's an outrage). I'm also in favor of suspending social security, government environment programs, medicare, drastically cutting military spending, and the list of government programs that I want cut is too long to list. In short, I'd like to cut everything except a small army, the justice system, the foreign service, and funding to pay the president and congress their salaries.

Now to address bluemong.
1. I will not say that no benefits were produced by the mercury program, but benefits have to be weighed by cost. I will say that the mercury and apollo programs produced benefits that was dwarfed by their cost. If I threw enough money at something, I'm almost bound to produce some benefit, but the real question is whether it was worth it? Is there some even greater good I could've done with that money.
2. It's true the contractors are to blame. But the reason why they get away with it is because the government is running the program. If the customer was a private company or individual, you think the contractors will get away with that kind of delay and cost over run? They'd be sued and dumped by the customers in a heartbeat.
3. I'm saying that private industry shouldn't have to match what NASA has done. Because it may just be that people don't consider NASA's achievements to be worth the cost and therefore divert our scarce economic resources to more urgent ends. There is no guarentee that private industry will develop a space program to match NASA's, but then again, neither does it matter. One can argue that if we had an administration for damming the arctic ocean and filling it up with water, private industry will not match this accomplishment. But then again, that'd be a good thing since this would be such a waste of money.

[applehead]

NASA has and continues to conduct research into osteoporosis, to gain understanding and develop treatments for bone loss under microgravity. Another example of space science having direct applications in the life sciences, improving the human condition overall.

Research under microgravity conditions is also helping research into T-Cells (immunology) and cancer.

really??
is that how the memory foam came about?
i did NOT know that!!

[Martino]

...I'm saying that private industry shouldn't have to match what NASA has done. Because it may just be that people don't consider NASA's achievements to be worth the cost and therefore divert our scarce economic resources to more urgent ends ...

Scarce economic resources?? What country do you live in - Moldavia??

[kitty]

Well that's the problem now isn't it kitty? How about, everyone pays for what benefits them, and stop trying to get others to pay for their own pet programs.

I'm in support of ending government funding for education, art, national health programs (and since when is religion funded by the government, if indeed it is I'd say it's an outrage). I'm also in favor of suspending social security, government environment programs, medicare, drastically cutting military spending, and the list of government programs that I want cut is too long to list. In short, I'd like to cut everything except a small army, the justice system, the foreign service, and funding to pay the president and congress their salaries.


faith-based initiatves = gov't funding of religion

1) what about the police? who enforces the law if there are no police being funded? what's the point of having a court with no police protection?

2) history tells us that that form of extremely small government can lead only to a totalitarian dictatorship of an undereducated, unhealthy citizenry or a private sector oligarchic control where we no longer have democratic states, but unimpeachable corporations able to buy control of the country.

[bluemonq]

Well that's the problem now isn't it kitty? How about, everyone pays for what benefits them, and stop trying to get others to pay for their own pet programs.

I'm in support of ending government funding for education, art, national health programs (and since when is religion funded by the government, if indeed it is I'd say it's an outrage). I'm also in favor of suspending social security, government environment programs, medicare, drastically cutting military spending, and the list of government programs that I want cut is too long to list. In short, I'd like to cut everything except a small army, the justice system, the foreign service, and funding to pay the president and congress their salaries.

Now to address bluemong.
1. I will not say that no benefits were produced by the mercury program, but benefits have to be weighed by cost. I will say that the mercury and apollo programs produced benefits that was dwarfed by their cost. If I threw enough money at something, I'm almost bound to produce some benefit, but the real question is whether it was worth it? Is there some even greater good I could've done with that money.
2. It's true the contractors are to blame. But the reason why they get away with it is because the government is running the program. If the customer was a private company or individual, you think the contractors will get away with that kind of delay and cost over run? They'd be sued and dumped by the customers in a heartbeat.
3. I'm saying that private industry shouldn't have to match what NASA has done. Because it may just be that people don't consider NASA's achievements to be worth the cost and therefore divert our scarce economic resources to more urgent ends. There is no guarentee that private industry will develop a space program to match NASA's, but then again, neither does it matter. One can argue that if we had an administration for damming the arctic ocean and filling it up with water, private industry will not match this accomplishment. But then again, that'd be a good thing since this would be such a waste of money.

i'm going to take a stab at it and say that you're either a libertarian, or what i like to a call a "true republican"; either way, i honestly believe we need more people like you in the government.

in kitty's defense, i believe she meant the federal funding of faith-based charities and assistance organizations when she talked about the government funding religion.

1) you have managed to placate me somewhat with your response; most people hold the apollo and mercury missions in high esteem while trashing the current manned programs, even though there is little more than technical achievement that separates the two. however, you seem to be contradicting yourself. in the beginning you seem to state your aversion to federally-subsidized programs, seemingly regardless of benefit; yet on this point you seem to suggest that IF apollo and mercury had shown itself to be worth the cost, then it'd be ok? also, you ask, "could i do something better with the money?" shouldn't you also ask in practical terms, "what will i really do with the money?" if nasa's manned space program were cancelled, where do you honestly believe that the money will be redirected?

looking at your "small government" beliefs, i think what i questioned earlier now *does* apply: how do you feel about the construction of the creation of the united states banking system in the start of the 19th century? the panama canal? continental railroad? faa? airline bailouts? interstate highway system? public utilties? a large amount of the infrastructure in the united states was created at least in part through heavy government funding; according to what you're saying, none of this should have happened, as the private sector could have easily been counted on to take on these tasks. (remember that none of these would have threatened national security)

2) again, i said that the contractors deserved at least part of the blame. the government indeed should be more vigilant. however, is it not us the voting public's fault too, for not electing more responsible officials, ones who will not only do their job properly but also appoint competent assistants and correctly delegating jobs? simply saying "it's the government's fault" is too simple and removes the blame from us and the tens of millions of other voters.

3) concede the point, on the assumption that what nasa is doing is a waste of money.

[nola]

If it's done for the right reasons and doesn't come at an exorbitant price we should explore space, the center of the earth (for geothermal power among other things) and oceans (after all, it covers 75% of the planet). Oceans still hold many mysteries.

[jz87]

Scarce economic resources?? What country do you live in - Moldavia??

All economic resources are by definition scarce, if it weren't scarce it wouldn't be called an economic resource. The official definition of an economic resource is one for which available quantities are not sufficient to cover all of our available uses for it, so we have to allocate it and prioritize its utilization. This is directly tied to the notion of cost, because of the relative scarcity (to available uses), using an economic resource for one end prevents it from it being used for another (hopefully, less urgent) end, thus incurring an opportunity cost. Living in the United States does not change this fact, I think you have the wrong idea of scarcity.

[nola]

Huh?

The US has too much money in the hands of too few who have their priorities upside down. There's enough money but the priorities have been upside down. War should come after health, education and shelter. So...more women leaders! They know what's important because it is mostly they who raise the children. What mother would raise a child for 18 years and declare war? Mothers know what is at stake in war, that is years of hard work in raising children. How about no president can declare war unless they were the primary caretakers of their children for at least 18 years.

[jz87]

i'm going to take a stab at it and say that you're either a libertarian, or what i like to a call a "true republican"; either way, i honestly believe we need more people like you in the government.

Yes well me too. But I'm too disgusted by our current government to ever consider employment in it. However, I will vote for Schwarzenegger when he runs for President.


1) you have managed to placate me somewhat with your response; most people hold the apollo and mercury missions in high esteem while trashing the current manned programs, even though there is little more than technical achievement that separates the two. however, you seem to be contradicting yourself. in the beginning you seem to state your aversion to federally-subsidized programs, seemingly regardless of benefit; yet on this point you seem to suggest that IF apollo and mercury had shown itself to be worth the cost, then it'd be ok? also, you ask, "could i do something better with the money?" shouldn't you also ask in practical terms, "what will i really do with the money?" if nasa's manned space program were cancelled, where do you honestly believe that the money will be redirected?

looking at your "small government" beliefs, i think what i questioned earlier now *does* apply: how do you feel about the construction of the creation of the united states banking system in the start of the 19th century? the panama canal? continental railroad? faa? airline bailouts? interstate highway system? public utilties? a large amount of the infrastructure in the united states was created at least in part through heavy government funding; according to what you're saying, none of this should have happened, as the private sector could have easily been counted on to take on these tasks. (remember that none of these would have threatened national security)

2) again, i said that the contractors deserved at least part of the blame. the government indeed should be more vigilant. however, is it not us the voting public's fault too, for not electing more responsible officials, ones who will not only do their job properly but also appoint competent assistants and correctly delegating jobs? simply saying "it's the government's fault" is too simple and removes the blame from us and the tens of millions of other voters.

3) concede the point, on the assumption that what nasa is doing is a waste of money.

1. Strictly speaking, I'm not anti-government in the sense of being against all government programs regardless of benefit. It's just that in the vast majority of cases government programs are wasteful and achieves less economic efficiency than the private sector. Also, the notion of benefit, whose benefit? I believe in individual responsibility. So the party that receives the benefit should pay the cost. Government programs tend to distort this and eliminate incentives to find the best value for the money. Government programs is essentially bureaucrats spending other people's money on other people, there is no incentive to control costs or demand quality.
Suppose the government does have a program where costs and benefits are properly attributed, I have to ask, what is the role of the government in all of this? If those who are benefited received more benefit than what they paid, then can't a private company provide the service also?
2. Rather than assigning blame, I find it more constructive to talk about solutions. Given the nature of our government, how do you propose that government can increase economic efficiency of their programs to private sector levels? I don't see a way that they can do it, which is why I'm in favor of axing these government programs and letting the private sector handle it.

[jz87]

Huh?

The US has too much money in the hands of too few who have their priorities upside down. There's enough money but the priorities have been upside down. War should come after health, education and shelter. So...more women leaders! They know what's important because it is mostly they who raise the children. What mother would raise a child for 18 years and declare war? Mothers know what is at stake in war, that is years of hard work in raising children. How about no president can declare war unless they were the primary caretakers of their children for at least 18 years.

There is no such thing as wrong priorities, priorities are simply value systems. I might think a new computer is more important than food, who are you to tell me that my priorities are upside down? If I'm willing to forgo eating for 2 days to buy something I want more badly, who are you to tell me what my priorities should be?

I personally didn't support the war in Iraq, it's a waste of my tax dollars. But I don't think the government should be funding healthcare and education either, they're also a waste of my tax dollars. I'd say that 99% of government is a waste of my tax dollars, but then again, this country is filled with socialists so it cant be helped.

And what is it with you and women make better leaders? That's such non-sense, there are smart women and stupid women, just like there are smart men and stupid men. Women can be just as cruel and inhuman as men. Just look at that Texas woman who murdered all 7 of her own children.

[nola]

The priority of war before children is fucked up. Fucked up priorities, fucked up values. This country is mostly conservative and needs more socialists in power. There is a study that says that women are more peace-loving than men. As I stated before it is because they know intimately that their children and the environment are at stake. It's true that once women get near the top they become like the men who preceded them like Condoleeza Rice or Margaret Thatcher. They are called female impersonators. More women in power, ideally 51% of lawmakers and leaders, would make peace a bigger priority. The more women in power the fewer token female impersonator women in power.

[jz87]

A study that shows women are more peace-loving than men? I don't know any girl that is more peace-loving than myself. I'm so peace-loving that I shut myself up in my room to mediate about peace. Where's your studies on that?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I personally didn't support the war in Iraq, it's a waste of my tax dollars. But I don't think the government should be funding healthcare and education either, they're also a waste of my tax dollars. I'd say that 99% of government is a waste of my tax dollars, but then again, this country is filled with socialists so it cant be helped.

Just curious...where would you like your tax dollars should go towards in replacement of healthcare and education? Forgive me if you already covered this, I didn't take the time to read the whole thread.

Where does socio-economic inequality come into play here? Does it matter to you that some individuals are born in a disadvantaged state making it much more difficult to access adequate healthcare or educational services and that no amount of "individual responsibility" is going to significantly or sufficiently help things without government intervention or assistance? Just say, oh well, life's not fair, tough shit, and move on? Maybe it's not even in your interest to make things fair because of course life wasn't fair before why should we try to make it as fair as possible now, right? I personally place human life above national economic growth, but then again, as you say, priorities and moral framework vary from individual to individual. Regarding your opinion that there are too many 'socialists' around, chances are unless they're hard-core economists trained to worship the bottom line (or just um...extremely capitalist, to put it in a nice way), people are usually going to have other priorities and values in mind besides monetary profit and 'progress' that can be measured with hard numbers.

A study that shows women are more peace-loving than men? I don't know any girl that is more peace-loving than myself. I'm so peace-loving that I shut myself up in my room to mediate about peace. Where's your studies on that?

What is your definition of peace-loving? To me it means actually going out of your way to ensure that peace is promoted or flourishing rather than simply meditating in your room and being able to say at the end of each day that you haven't supported any wars or beat anybody up.

[jz87]

Well it's understandable that you haven't read the whole thread, there's nothing like a debate to rack up post counts. In any case, I'd like my tax dollars returned to my pocket so I can pay for education and healthcare that suits me and my family. I think it's a myth that public education actually produces education, I've seen what public schools are like, it's the rare public school that actually produces educated pupils, the rest are more like minimum security prisons. Throwing more money after it won't solve the problem, because it's not a problem of funding but of management. I've seen the freshman at my university, it's simply disgusting how low the academic capabilities of the entering freshman are even at an Ivy league university. Now wonder most of my class are foreigners. As my advisor said, freshman mathematics is pretty much high school level nowadays, because they stopped teaching proofs in most high schools and we can't teach them anything higher without it. It's true that more people go to college nowadays, but to hear what some of my friends who went to high school in China told me, the first 2 years of college in the US (using an Ivy league university as reference) is essentially the equivalent of high school in China. I think this is unacceptable. To spend so much tax payer money to produce high school graduates who compare unfavorably to junior high graduates from other countries. And no, US student's aren't more creative, contrary to whatever excuses that apologists for the US system has come up with. The system is simply broken, and there's no way to fix it without dismantling it. I'm in favor of cutting education out of federal funding, and if that's too much to ask, then at least use vouchers rather than direct funding.

As for healthcare, let me just say that HMOs made a mess of health care, and nationalized health care would make it even worse. There's no one that should stand between a patient and a doctor, only the patient can decide what's right for him/her, and the doctor has the duty to give the best medical advice. There is no role for the government to tell the doctor what he can or can't charge for his services or tell the patient what doctor he can or can't go see. When you take the government's money, you get them with a whole load of strings attached. Then a huge amount of money gets wasted in bureacracy and everyone end up with worse health care. The poor will get access to some health care, but of such poor quality that I don't think is worth the cost to everyone else. Case in point, Canada, Britain. Animals receive better care in those countries.

[nola]

A study that shows women are more peace-loving than men? I don't know any girl that is more peace-loving than myself. I'm so peace-loving that I shut myself up in my room to mediate about peace. Where's your studies on that?Statistically women are more pro-peace than men according to what I read and it makes sense because of the hard work they put into children they don't want sent to war. I was an activist for twelve years for numerous causes including anti-war peace protests and rallies. I'm tired and old now and am not physically out there but I try to spread my progressive knowledge and experience every day.

[jz87]

Hmm, so you spent your life as an activist? Well 36 isn't so old, lots of people in their 30s are in pretty good shape. There are tons of people who are in their 30s and 40s who go to the same gym as me, and they can do everything that I can do (although seen from a different perspective it could also mean I'm out of shape for a 20 year old) Look at Lance Armstrong, he's 34 and he's won the Tour de France 5 times. There guys who run marathons and triathlons into their 50s and 60s. I think the best part of being American is our can do spirit and individualism. The most valuable asset that I have as an individual is my body and my mind, so I'd like to keep my body in shape and my mind sharp so that I'm ready to tackle whatever challenges that life has to offer. The reason why I look down on socialists who rely on the government is because my parents raised me to be self reliant and always encouraged me to solve my own problems and take responsibility for myself. Consequently they also afforded a lot of freedom that most Asian parents don't give their kids. I didn't used to understand why my parents were so strict with me, but now I understand because now I see how many weak people there are in society and how dependent they are upon others, especially the government. They never become independent, they just go from being reliant on their parents to being reliant on social programs and other outside help. Now I understand that true freedom is earned, because one who depends on others will never be free.

[hooligan]

Hmm, so you spent your life as an activist? Well 36 isn't so old, lots of people in their 30s are in pretty good shape. There are tons of people who are in their 30s and 40s who go to the same gym as me, and they can do everything that I can do (although seen from a different perspective it could also mean I'm out of shape for a 20 year old) Look at Lance Armstrong, he's 34 and he's won the Tour de France 5 times. There guys who run marathons and triathlons into their 50s and 60s. I think the best part of being American is our can do spirit and individualism. The most valuable asset that I have as an individual is my body and my mind, so I'd like to keep my body in shape and my mind sharp so that I'm ready to tackle whatever challenges that life has to offer. The reason why I look down on socialists who rely on the government is because my parents raised me to be self reliant and always encouraged me to solve my own problems and take responsibility for myself. Consequently they also afforded a lot of freedom that most Asian parents don't give their kids. I didn't used to understand why my parents were so strict with me, but now I understand because now I see how many weak people there are in society and how dependent they are upon others, especially the government. They never become independent, they just go from being reliant on their parents to being reliant on social programs and other outside help. Now I understand that true freedom is earned, because one who depends on others will never be free.

Wow. :: golf clap :: Right on Horatio Alger. You know what? If you realized how much the government has actually helped people you'd be surprised to find out how much we really need the government. I'm guessing you're a second generation Chinese American? Your parents probably came over here from Asia?

If so, then if they weren't independently wealthy already, they probably had some governmental assistance on the way here. I know my parents did and the same for most of the youth from ethnic enclaves. If you were independently wealthy, then they probably could afford a lot of the priveleges that many other people could not and so your view on being "independent" comes from a narrow mindset that the government never helped anyone.

Look, some of the people with the least amount of money probably have more responsibility than you ever will have. It's just the way that life works. Now, go back to your Apple computers and your nice little, sheltered college life and stop lecturing people on their individual responsibilities.

[nola]

Hmm, so you spent your life as an activist? Well 36 isn't so old, lots of people in their 30s are in pretty good shape. The reason why I look down on socialists who rely on the government is because my parents raised me to be self reliant and always encouraged me to solve my own problems and take responsibility for myself. Consequently they also afforded a lot of freedom that most Asian parents don't give their kids. I didn't used to understand why my parents were so strict with me, but now I understand because now I see how many weak people there are in society and how dependent they are upon others, especially the government. They never become independent, they just go from being reliant on their parents to being reliant on social programs and other outside help. Now I understand that true freedom is earned, because one who depends on others will never be free.So you're a neo-con? You don't know how much governmental programs you're taking for granted.
I was joking about being old but I am burned out from activism after 12 years. I was raised conservative but my thinking changed at 24. I'm a democratic socialist. I think democratic socialism or the middle ground is our only hope.

[Martino]

All economic resources are by definition scarce, if it weren't scarce it wouldn't be called an economic resource. The official definition of an economic resource is one for which available quantities are not sufficient to cover all of our available uses for it, so we have to allocate it and prioritize its utilization. This is directly tied to the notion of cost, because of the relative scarcity (to available uses), using an economic resource for one end prevents it from it being used for another (hopefully, less urgent) end, thus incurring an opportunity cost. Living in the United States does not change this fact, I think you have the wrong idea of scarcity.

America is an economic and military superpower. Its resources are VAST.

[Yeahman]

What mother would raise a child for 18 years and declare war?
Margaret Thatcher. In her case, and I think it would be the same for the first American woman president, she had to overcompensate to prove herself. So women, at least at first, will probably be more war-mongering. And that would make people weary of reelecting another woman.

The priority of war before children is fucked up. Fucked up priorities, fucked up values. This country is mostly conservative and needs more socialists in power. There is a study that says that women are more peace-loving than men. As I stated before it is because they know intimately that their children and the environment are at stake. It's true that once women get near the top they become like the men who preceded them like Condoleeza Rice or Margaret Thatcher. They are called female impersonators. More women in power, ideally 51% of lawmakers and leaders, would make peace a bigger priority. The more women in power the fewer token female impersonator women in power.
I opposed the war. I think government should pay for education until college. But I also want to privatize schools. It is precisely because I believe that children should come before government fatcats that I want to privatize schools and provide vouchers instead.
I can have the same exact values as you do yet abhor socialism.

So you're a neo-con? You don't know how much governmental programs you're taking for granted.
You have no idea what neo-conservativism is, do you?

America is an economic and military superpower. Its resources are VAST.
Wow, there are quite a lot of people here who don't have even basic understanding of economics. "Scare" does not mean "rare." It simply means that they are limited.

[nola]

I opposed the war. I think government should pay for education until college. But I also want to privatize schools. It is precisely because I believe that children should come before government fatcats that I want to privatize schools and provide vouchers instead.
I can have the same exact values as you do yet abhor socialism.

You have no idea what neo-conservativism is, do you?

Wow, there are quite a lot of people here who don't have even basic understanding of economics. "Scare" does not mean "rare." It simply means that they are limited.Neo-cons are pro-war, pro-big business and I was referring to jz not you. Vouchers will produce private fatcats and I trust them less that government fatcats. Vouchers would be a nightmare. I discussed this on filipirish's privatizing education thread. Martino said "vast" he did not say unlimited but would you say trillions of dollars is limited? The US has way too much money in the hands of a tiny few assholes whose priorities are war first children last.

[Yeahman]

jz, said he was opposed to the war. I don't think there are any neo-cons in this forum.

Just look how wonderfully your government fatcats have managed our public education. At look how the private fatcats have managed private education. That's some blind fath you've got there. Join us in reality.

Yes, money is limited. Otherwise everyone would be rich! Economics 101, people. You're supposed to learn this before supply and demand. It should have been taught on the first day of class. Economics is the study of the allocation of scare resources.

[nola]

If money was unlimited a few people would be rich. The amount doesn't corrrelate to who gets it. The more money there is the more hoarding there is. Again trillions of dollars is as close to unlimited as we get in the world. Join the rest of us in reality by getting your nose out of economics books and classes.

[Martino]

Wow, there are quite a lot of people here who don't have even basic understanding of economics. "Scare" does not mean "rare." It simply means that they are limited.

Wow, there are a few people here who don't have an understanding of the economic capabilty of the countries they live in. The resources of the US are 'limited', but what are these limits compared to what it can do with the resources in the short, medium and long term? Again I say, the resources of the US are VAST.

What is the point of spending taxpayer dollars to send men into space? How do we as Americans or humans benefit? Even if there was some small intangible benefit, is it worth the enormous cost?

There are huge benefits, and it is an investment that humanity will benefit from in the long term. In the short term, humans (not just "men") are only being sent into space to do the jobs machines can't do. The vast majority of space activity and exploration is still by unmanned instruments and probes.

[kitty]

no personal attacks. no one is "opposed to common sense" (re: stupid) and if the conversation is "hopeless" then please don't continue the debate.

however, i think this is an interesting discussion so i see no reason why people can't keep this civil.

There is no such thing as wrong priorities, priorities are simply value systems. I might think a new computer is more important than food, who are you to tell me that my priorities are upside down? If I'm willing to forgo eating for 2 days to buy something I want more badly, who are you to tell me what my priorities should be?

I personally didn't support the war in Iraq, it's a waste of my tax dollars. But I don't think the government should be funding healthcare and education either, they're also a waste of my tax dollars. I'd say that 99% of government is a waste of my tax dollars, but then again, this country is filled with socialists so it cant be helped.


true, but i think it is understandable for there to be an accepted right priority for a government to maintain its own existence which, if you were to live in a democracy, would require the gov't to provide a safe, educated citizenry. y'know... that whole 'life, liberty, and property' thing. your small government model does not provide for those three basic principles upon which america was founded.

Well it's understandable that you haven't read the whole thread, there's nothing like a debate to rack up post counts. In any case, I'd like my tax dollars returned to my pocket so I can pay for education and healthcare that suits me and my family.


The problem with ultra conservatism though is that if there are no public education alternatives, returning tax money to citizens doesn't necessarily provide that that citizenry will be able to get educated with their 'tax returns' (i.e. money that would usually go to funding public education). if all education were privatized, there is no guarantee beyond the theories of capitalism (which usually don't reflect basic reality) that all areas would have proper education coverage.

basically, the poor, even with no taxes, would still be poor and now would have no education alternative with which they can turn to. thus, while the public education system in this country is poor, it is a better alternative to educating *the masses* than complete privitization. what needs to be done to improve education in this country IS to socialize it (so that all schools are equal regardless of the income of the immediatley surrounding areas).

jz87, your education model only allows the rich to become educated and keeps the poor uneducated and thus shut out from ever improving their lot.


I think it's a myth that public education actually produces education, I've seen what public schools are like, it's the rare public school that actually produces educated pupils, the rest are more like minimum security prisons. Throwing more money after it won't solve the problem, because it's not a problem of funding but of management. I've seen the freshman at my university, it's simply disgusting how low the academic capabilities of the entering freshman are even at an Ivy league university. Now wonder most of my class are foreigners. As my advisor said, freshman mathematics is pretty much high school level nowadays, because they stopped teaching proofs in most high schools and we can't teach them anything higher without it. It's true that more people go to college nowadays, but to hear what some of my friends who went to high school in China told me, the first 2 years of college in the US (using an Ivy league university as reference) is essentially the equivalent of high school in China. I think this is unacceptable. To spend so much tax payer money to produce high school graduates who compare unfavorably to junior high graduates from other countries. And no, US student's aren't more creative, contrary to whatever excuses that apologists for the US system has come up with. The system is simply broken, and there's no way to fix it without dismantling it. I'm in favor of cutting education out of federal funding, and if that's too much to ask, then at least use vouchers rather than direct funding.


It sounds like you don't have a problem with the funding so much as what is being taught though... the solution wouldn't be to axe the program. at least there ARE stupid people getting into cornell in our status quo. if you were to axe federal funding of education, you'd only get rich legacy students getting into ivy league schools.


As for healthcare, let me just say that HMOs made a mess of health care, and nationalized health care would make it even worse. There's no one that should stand between a patient and a doctor, only the patient can decide what's right for him/her, and the doctor has the duty to give the best medical advice. There is no role for the government to tell the doctor what he can or can't charge for his services or tell the patient what doctor he can or can't go see. When you take the government's money, you get them with a whole load of strings attached. Then a huge amount of money gets wasted in bureacracy and everyone end up with worse health care. The poor will get access to some health care, but of such poor quality that I don't think is worth the cost to everyone else. Case in point, Canada, Britain. Animals receive better care in those countries.

being a canadian... i'm just saying "???"... the gov't doesn't stand IN-between me seeing my doctor... he encourages me to go see my doctor because my doctor is paid for. my doctor doesn't have to worry about getting as many patients as possible and tricking them into buying the most expensive pharmaceuticals which thus line his own pocket from commission. plus, the gov't DOES impose regulations on doctors only to protect the patients from sleazy doctors who, in a capitalistic system, would be sacrificing the hippocratic oath for a few extra thousand.

Wow. :: golf clap :: Right on Horatio Alger. You know what? If you realized how much the government has actually helped people you'd be surprised to find out how much we really need the government. I'm guessing you're a second generation Chinese American? Your parents probably came over here from Asia?

If so, then if they weren't independently wealthy already, they probably had some governmental assistance on the way here. I know my parents did and the same for most of the youth from ethnic enclaves. If you were independently wealthy, then they probably could afford a lot of the priveleges that many other people could not and so your view on being "independent" comes from a narrow mindset that the government never helped anyone.

Look, some of the people with the least amount of money probably have more responsibility than you ever will have. It's just the way that life works. Now, go back to your Apple computers and your nice little, sheltered college life and stop lecturing people on their individual responsibilities.

it's frightening that some really buy into the idea that the poor really are reagan's 'welfare queens'. poor people aren't necessarily lazy.

[nola]

In fact only 5% of the poor are lazy layabouts. Most are looking for a job, have a job or two, too young (children) or too old to work.

[kitty]

the problem is that for the poor, it's really hard to be not poor. if you're homeless, you can't get most jobs, because they require a home phone number or address by which employers can contact you. poor people might really want to afford a private school, but if they were given money back, they might have to spend that money on rent or food and education would become an even lower priority than it is now.

giving poor people back some tax money is like adding an extra $20 or $30 to their paycheque, but taking that $20 or $30 provides the poor with many services they couldn't afford on their own with just that $20. federalized programs are able to stretch that money out by pooling taxes together to provide services for the people.

[kuilong]

It's not like the funding for NASA goes into a black hole: a lot of technology is developed in the process of research and other projects, e.g. the famous examples of velcro, kevlar, plastics, bone marrow transplants, sattelite technology, etc.

A lot of people seem to think NASA hasn't really provided anything useful since the 60's -- but back in 1966, NASA accounted for 5.5% of total federal expenditures, as opposed to 0.8% in 1999 (probably even less today). Apparently, back in the day, Jesse Jackson used to do commercials encouraging funding for the space program, as one of its earlier results had been bone marrow transplants?

If nothing else, NASA provides us with knowledge. I don't buy the argument that all government expenditures should go towards providing quantifiable benefit to someone -- if so, why would we fund museums? There's also the case that there are very significant benefits we're not aware of today. I'm sure George Boole had no idea that his work would be applied to switching by Claude Shannon almost a century later. If you also want a romantic argument, you can say that it's not possible to put a price on knowledge. There's the story of Euclid's student who asked him, after his studies were done, what exactly geometry is good for. To which Euclid had a servant throw the student out, and toss him a copper lepton.

If we're looking for things to cut, perhaps we should turn our attention first to farm subsidies?

[Yeahman]

the problem is that for the poor, it's really hard to be not poor. if you're homeless, you can't get most jobs, because they require a home phone number or address by which employers can contact you. poor people might really want to afford a private school, but if they were given money back, they might have to spend that money on rent or food and education would become an even lower priority than it is now.

giving poor people back some tax money is like adding an extra $20 or $30 to their paycheque, but taking that $20 or $30 provides the poor with many services they couldn't afford on their own with just that $20. federalized programs are able to stretch that money out by pooling taxes together to provide services for the people.
But obviously, as we see from historial evidence, the government cannot do it as efficiently as the free market. I'm not with jz87, when he says that the government shouldn't pay for education. But that does not mean that it has to be socialized. Vouchers give the poor what they need while still maintaining a great deal of financial freedom and leaving the government bureaucracy out of it.

It looks like jz87 is of the Freidman school of libertarian economic thought which I don't agree with but it does have its merits. We all agree that the poor should be helped. At least Friedman, kitty, and I do. The question is how to accomplish it. Those who want government to get out of education altogether, point to the historical fact that the poor were still getting educated prior to the socialization of education. Private donation and the fact that most private schools are non-profit ensured that even the poor got educated. Personally, I don't have a problem with compulsory philanthropy in the form of taxation which is why I support a voucher system. But I do have a problem with replacing non-profit institutions of learning with bureaucratic public daycare centers.

It's not like the funding for NASA goes into a black hole: a lot of technology is developed in the process of research and other projects, e.g. the famous examples of velcro, kevlar, plastics, bone marrow transplants, sattelite technology, etc.

A lot of people seem to think NASA hasn't really provided anything useful since the 60's -- but back in 1966, NASA accounted for 5.5% of total federal expenditures, as opposed to 0.8% in 1999 (probably even less today). Apparently, back in the day, Jesse Jackson used to do commercials encouraging funding for the space program, as one of its earlier results had been bone marrow transplants?

If nothing else, NASA provides us with knowledge. I don't buy the argument that all government expenditures should go towards providing quantifiable benefit to someone -- if so, why would we fund museums? There's also the case that there are very significant benefits we're not aware of today. I'm sure George Boole had no idea that his work would be applied to switching by Claude Shannon almost a century later. If you also want a romantic argument, you can say that it's not possible to put a price on knowledge. There's the story of Euclid's student who asked him, after his studies were done, what exactly geometry is good for. To which Euclid had a servant throw the student out, and toss him a copper lepton.

If we're looking for things to cut, perhaps we should turn our attention first to farm subsidies?
I agree with ending farm subsidies but that's another matter.

I'm all for the knowledge. But sending people into space no longer provides much knowledge. At least not enough to warrant the cost. I'm not against museums or the Hubble telescope or public television. I'm just against waste. Space travel does not provide enough benefits (tangible or intangible) to warrant the cost.

So it comes down to this... imagine a proposition on the next ballot...
"Authorization to use $1 billion taxpayer dollars to send 2 people into space for the 50th time to study the effects of zero-gravity."
Would you vote for it?

[Martino]

So it comes down to this... imagine a proposition on the next ballot ... "Authorization to use $1 billion taxpayer dollars to send 2 people into space for the 50th time to study the effects of zero-gravity."
Would you vote for it?

Uh-huh ... put science, R&D, civic projects, social health, everything to the ballot, and nothing will get done. Who will look beyond their own petty interests and prejudices?

[Yeahman]

^ And if the decision was entirely in your hands, you would authorize it?
I would vote for many projects with intangible benefits. But space travel does not provide sufficient benefits of any kind to warrant its cost.

[Martino]

^ And if the decision was entirely in your hands, you would authorize it?
I would vote for many projects with intangible benefits. But space travel does not provide sufficient benefits of any kind to warrant its cost.

So there is nothing in your life, or the lives of the people you care for, that isn't a spin-off of space technology?

[kuilong]

So it comes down to this... imagine a proposition on the next ballot...
"Authorization to use $1 billion taxpayer dollars to send 2 people into space for the 50th time to study the effects of zero-gravity."
Would you vote for it?

I have no clue as to most of the research being done by NASA, nor their implications or importance, so I'm certainly not qualified to decide anything like that. But as I pointed out, there was a time when NASA was popular, and seen as useful and good -- during Kennedy's administration, when NASA made up a twentieth of the federal budget. I understand many people at NASA are frustrated with the immense amount of bureaucracy that's developed in the past few decades, so perhaps some reform would be more fruitful.

Look when Bush announced a new "space vision" [1 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/index.html)]. When Kennedy announced his lunar landing goal in 1961, within five years NASA's budget had increased nearly eight-fold -- but today, "[t]he overall NASA budget would stay at about 1 percent of the federal budget". Kennedy set a goal of "before the decade is out", whereas Bush's plan calls for a manned landing sometime between 2015 and 2020. Much of the innovation that came out of a healthy space program has been lost.

[jz87]

Actually, I'm not with Friedman. I don't agree with his monetarist program of central banking and currency manipulation. As I said in another thread, I identify more with the Austrian school.

This tired argument of NASA's benefits is being re-iterated over and over again. Again, no one is saying that NASA's funding isn't providing benefits, but as with everything in economics, you has to consider both costs and benefits to decide whether the benefits are worth the cost. My argument isn't that NASA does not provide benefits, but that there are better uses we can put the money we allocate to NASA to. Of course better is a subjective preference on my part, it could be that for some of you NASA is really such a huge priority that you're willing to give up a lot for it. But I'm not, this is purely a subjective value argument, neither me nor ye110man think that NASA's costs justify the benefits. You simply have to ask yourself, can I think of something where an extra $1 billion a year in funding would yield greater benefits than NASA launching another probe? If the answer is yes, then why do you support NASA funding?

Kitty, there are no guarentees in life. The government can't guarentee that you'll receive an education. I have to say that my experience in public education could've done more harm than good. I had an awful 4th grade teacher, who purposely and maliciously segregated me from the rest of the class and ostrcized me. I was hurt so bad that I couldn't make friends for years afterwards. Is there any guarentee under the public system that this sort of emotional abuse won't happen? As my case demonstrates, it doesn't. Of course there's no such guarentee under the private system either, but there will be more accountability. The fact that the principle stood up for the teacher in question rather than me as a child shows where their priorities lie.

There really isn't any direct accountability in a public system, because of unions and all sorts of politics. In a private system, if they treat their customers badly, the customers will simply vote with their feet. I place far more trust in private for profit enterprises than public bureacrats. As my mom (a tenured public school teacher) has told me, a tenured teacher would have to molest a student or something to get fired, otherwise there's perfect job security. There is simply no institutional accountability.

Let me ask those who have such trust in government. What makes you think that the government actually cares anything about you. What gives you such faith in government? Why do you trust the government which forces you to pay for its services over private enterprise which has to convince you to pay for their services?

[Mr.Lum]

I came across this thread right after I watched a segment on the news about how the Euro space agencies landed a rover type thing on one of Jupiter's moon, or one of those large outer planets. I heard this from some of the conservative members on christianforums as well. I personally could not give to ass craps what goes on in space so long as it's not militarized. NASA isn't a waste of money IMO though. With adiquate funding it can do a lot of good. It gives historians something to write about as well. But over all, I really do not care. Sure it's interesting to some people, but I do not like science. I like biology and thats it. And I'm not even interested in other planets. Mars can kiss my ass. Earth is where it's at. Nothings going down on Mars. Theres a lot here though. We should be trying to fix problems here more. Space exploation should be a tirtiary concern to Earthly matters. It was a however a better way for the US and USSR to show whose jock was bigger instead of nuking each other. Thats another thing I think is a waste. Nuclear power. Fuck that. It takes to long to get rid of and it's overly hazardous and it's not like if we get rid of them our lights will go out. We could use space for that. Toss the nukes out inot space. That's better than those bullshit "I wont make anymo