@cyclohexane: Quite right - I would certainly kill public education - at the Federal level in any case. For maybe 7% of educational funding, the Feds grab 100% of the control - and screw it up as far as I'm concerned. People talk about an educated electorate being the key to a vibrant democracy. However, if the people are taught by the government, what will they learn except to perpetuate that government? To use an example some seem to sympathize with around here - would you trust Halliburton to train your children to be skeptical of Halliburton?
Did you ever notice that our middle and high schools, which are free, are middle of the pack (at best) in the developed world, but our universities - where students pay a much more significant fraction of the cost - remain the top institutions in the world?
Walk me through how a lunar base pays off. There would be spinoff technologies, no doubt, but even if we could pick up gold nuggets on the moon it wouldn't be worth it to ship them home. The spin off argument is weak, also. There is no question we have had spin off technologies, but where is the evidence that accidental byproducts of space projects are more efficient than directly researching better technologies? You still have the whole space craft to pay for, and many of the technologies, being designed for space, don't have much practical application here. We may be able to steer mineral-rich asteroids into the earth relatively cost-effectively, but who is going to play catcher?
"We spend more on beer and cigarettes than the NASA budget." Exactly. Space is not prohibitive for the private sector. There are offshore oil rigs that cost over $2 BB each. We can go to Mars for 5 offshore oil rigs, and have a Mars probe for maybe 1/4 offshore oil rig. Not exactly out of reach. If the offshoot technologies really did pay off, then GE or any other number of big companies would develop these projects and sell the offshoot technologies for a profit. We can't know if they would ever do this, though, because NASA preempts the field and ensures that only one model (governmental) will be attempted.
While I agree public education has it’s problems, they are mostly disciplinary. When you tie the hands of the educators, how can you expect results? This is a result of left wing liberalism at its finest kicking God out of schools and making spanking immoral. Public schooling, while flawed, does provide an opportunity to everyone. But I’m not going to argue with you here, I’m not a fan of the Federal government in school, I think it should be controlled at the local level of government (i.e. cities) but minimum requirements need to be established at the Federal level.
“The spin off argument is weak, also. There is no question we have had spin off technologies, but where is the evidence that accidental byproducts of space projects are more efficient than directly researching better technologies?”
You’re play on words is crafty but completely skipping the point. You said NASA is not profitable, I proved it was. You said NASA does not benefit society, I proved it did. You say that private industry can do it better. That is possible, but it is impossible to prove a negative. You say all there is the government model but the government model works with industry directly and helps make it affordable to industry to perform this research. NASA does not work against industry. If outside industry is performing a task (i.e. a certain form of testing), we are not allowed to duplicate, we must go through them.
Is there waste in NASA? Sure, there is waste in all companies but the point to take home is that the pennies on the dollar invested in taxes are returned in more ways than one (as discussed before).
ou still have the whole space craft to pay for, and many of the technologies, being designed for space, don't have much practical application here. We may be able to steer mineral-rich asteroids into the earth relatively cost-effectively, but who is going to play catcher?
No practical application? Even the most simple devices like Velcro have found a home in the market. Some of the most complex find their way into the aircraft you use to fly to that next vacation. Until you take a look at the thousands of spin off technologies developed, I don’t know what else to say to you. So satellites providing GPS, satellite TV, military defense, etc. have no application? Yes building rockets are expensive, that is why not many small business try. But guess what, NASA does provide funding to small businesses to kick start this endeavor to. Space tourism will not be the work of science fiction, it is coming, whether guys like you like it or not and it will not be from the work of industry alone, NASA is helping through grants and expertise. So I can make the argument that oil research is not needed because it doesn’t benefit the public? I mean who needs horizontal drilling techniques in their home right? Who needs better batteries that can withstand high pressures and temperatures in a harsh environment? We just want cheap oil, not any of that waste on research and development.
I know that’s not what you’re saying, you’re trying to say that industry can do it better, but it’s just not true. Industry would not take the risks NASA, a non-profit organization, would make. My point is that NASA routinely works with private industry in the form of grants, cooperative agreements, innovative partnership programs, etc. NASA helps private industry take risks. I made the point that small businesses cannot afford to get into the market, NASA makes that possible. Sure when all Americans buy beer and cigarettes, it adds to a lot of money, but even the worst alcoholic in American does not spend $17 billion in beer. The same analogy is true for small business. The high risk, high start up technologies are not going to be attempted until the risk is lower. No one wants to lose their money and as you know, engineering something to be 100% successful is not only impossible, it is wasteful.
Without the drive for space exploration, we may not see much of the technological advancements we have today. Sure I can’t prove this (can’t prove what didn’t happen), but I can prove that NASA helped drive these technologies forward. All those major multi-billion dollar industries I listed above have made America powerful, safer, and smarter. NASA does not turn a profit, it works for the benefit of the American public.
There are many reasons to return to the Moon. Once a permanent presence is setup through developing lunar engineering, the limitations are endless and become cheaper. Yes helium 3 as a nuclear fuel is a possibility but not a guarantee. Yes lunar solar panels (100% sunlight all the time with no atmospheric and unlimited real estate) beaming power to earth is possible (via microwave to receivers) but not developed. All the minerals that make up the Earth also make up the moon except for the lack of water bearing minerals (latest theory is the moon spawned from the Earth in an ancient planet size collision). Mining is possible, but not now. A science lab on the far side of the Moon could unlock secrets that not even the Hubble telescope can find. A moon base would also make interplanetary travel cheaper (1/6th the gravity of Earth). But if you are missing that basic human instinct to explore, to answer questions as old as mankind, I don’t know what else to say. I do, I believe science can fix many of today’s issues and I believe increased funding to NASA, and other research oriented government facilities, can make this happen faster while working with industry.
There is no one company that could afford to invest the amount of money it would take to kick start with the high risk involved. Not just monetary risk, but also risk to human life. It is the role of the government to make this possible and open the door to industry, just like what is being done now.
I think you completely ignored the fact that the majority of NASA is contractors and I do not know the actual percentage, but all of the money in our division is sent out to industry based on competitive contracts, many of those are small innovative businesses.
