[OT] Sci-Fi Tax ?!

[ColonelHardisson]

What's sad is that NASA's budget is around one-half of one percent of the federal budget. In recent years NASA has been cut to the bone, and has to keep doing the high-profile shuttle missions in order to keep its funding. Everytime I hear someone complain about how going into space is a waste of time, and that the money would be better spent on more earthly concerns, it makes me wonder if the human race really deserves to have a higher destiny. There will never be a time that some won't think the money would be better spent elsewhere. Besides, that less-than-one-percent of the budget is what's keeping us from solving all the world's ills? We wouldn't have homeless people or disease if we spent the space budget on fixing those problems? That small amount of money is what's going to put us over the top in bringing about solutions to all our problems?

As for Europa vs. Pluto, the thing is, if NASA were properly funded, both missions could be done. People point out all the failed missions that have plagued NASA in recent years, using them as proof that NASA doesn't need to be funded, yet somehow don't make the connection between slashing NASA's budget and those disasters. Personally, I would rather the guys at NASA/JPL/and all the rest could make the decisions as to what missions to undertake - scientific advancement can't be legislated. It happens as a result of dedicated experts spending their lives trying to make them happen. Besides, Pluto is still virtually a mystery; I'd rather at least one mission make it there in my lifetime.

Y'know, when I was 13, in 1979, I really thought that by 2000 we'd have sent manned missions to Mars, that we'd have permanant Moon bases, that orbiatl space stations would be common enough for people to go to them on a regular basis. At the rate we advanced in space exploration in the 60s and 70s, it seemed like there was nowhere to go but up to the stars. It seemed mankind's destiny lay beyond the Earth, and we were rushing to find it. Somewhere along the way we became small-minded and myopic. It's a very saddening thing for me personally.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

As for the original topic, I can't decide whether the guy is a scifi fan who is frustrated at the lack progress in the space program, or one of those misinformed folk who thinks the space program is a much bigger drain on the budget than it really is and thinks only those who are interested in space should pay for it.

As for getting rid of NASA, I don't think it's quite time for that. The US government is really the only entity right now with the resources to pull off real missions. And by "real," I mean missions beyond putting commuications satellites in orbit. What we need is a visionary leader, someone who looks ahead and wants the US to lead the way into space, someone who looks at the long run and decides to do something that may not be the most popular thing to do right this minute but which will benefit us somewhere down the road. I don't see a leader like that appearing anytime soon in the modern political climate - there is too much catering to people to get votes for anyone to be a visionary.

 

[Henry]

Col. Hardisson:
I couldn't agree more. I would in fact go one step further in saying that NASA and Space exploration assist the economy of all governments more than anyone realizes. Without the funding that has gone into NASA over the past 40 years, many current advances in plastics, ceramics, and consumer conveniences that we now have absorbed into our daily lifestyle - WOULD NOT EXIST, or would be in their infancies even today. Space exploration, the advancement of human knowledge, and the power of cooperation engendered by the sharing of a common human task can accomplish many things that would not be considered possible.

Green Knight:
Take for example, missions and the goal of colonization to Mars. I can conceive of at least 10 to 20 new technologies that would benefit from the funding needed to enable prolonged human existance in hostile environments, such as extraterrestrial ones. Examples include:

• New techniques for feeding large populations
• Improved insulatory and energy-dispersive materials
• Improved methods for generation and recyclable sustenance of breatheable air
• Processes to ensure human survival against rapid compression and decompression
• Improved and more economical interplanetary propulsion systems

All these problems and a dozen more are necessary to solve in order to plan for colonization of extraterrestrial locations - and every single one means new jobs, new markets, new opportunities, and new standards of living for everyone on Earth in time. What seems impossible was just as impossible to war-weary 1950's and 1960's United States culture - and dozens of NASA technologies from the Apollo and Mercury programs are integrated into our society today. It is hardly wasting money if you invest it in the betterment of tomorrow's ills rather than today's.

Zappo: economic theories abound, and what works in one country does not necessarily work in another. It's a more difficult thing to encapsulate all of economics into one theory than anyone should have a person believe.

Finally, regarding the whole "charge the trucking company more money" scenario: any economist worth his salt will tell you that charging taxes on a business will cost the consumer the difference. No business on this planet will suck up the cost of new taxes themselves. They will pass it to the convenience stores, who will then pass it to the consumers. The ones who will pay any road taxes are those poor web designers who don't use the roads, but instead go down to the 7-11 store to pick up a snack or a pack of smokes. Oops, those cigarettes are 3.50 a pack? Guess we see where the taxes went now. The ones who CAN'T charge somebody else down the line for the increased cost are those who actually "pay the taxes."

Sci-fi Tax? No thanks. I'll be the Snidely Whiplash who robs the NEA (or better yet the IRS) of government funds and passes their funds over to the NASA for further advancement of knowledge and the human condition. YMMV.

Good night, all.

 

[hong]

Col. Hardisson:
I couldn't agree more. I would in fact go one step further in saying that NASA and Space exploration assist the economy of all governments more than anyone realizes. Without the funding that has gone into NASA over the past 40 years, many current advances in plastics, ceramics, and consumer conveniences that we now have absorbed into our daily lifestyle - WOULD NOT EXIST, or would be in their infancies even today.

Mind you, the same argument has been made about World War II.

 

[PenguinKing]

Mind you, the same argument has been made about World War II.

Exactly - if space exploration gets you the same technological and social benefit as bombing the holy hell out of half the planet... well, I think I know which one looks more cost-effective to me.

- Sir Bob.

 

[hong]

Exactly - if space exploration gets you the same technological and social benefit as bombing the holy hell out of half the planet... well, I think I know which one looks more cost-effective to me.

Nah. The only thing that can be said is that NASA is a better vehicle for realising humankind's destiny than World War II.

Although that depends on accepting there is such a thing as "destiny", what that destiny is, and whether tangible representations of the quest for its realisation are consistent with it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think the worst way to try to realize one's destiny is to contemplate it - thinking too hard about one's destiny is bad. Just get out and do it. My brother has a saying he likes to use in humorously frustrating situations: "Do something even if it's wrong." Patton said it better in the quote I use in my sig on EZBoard: "A good plan, violently [well, let's tone down Patton a bit and say instead vigorously ] executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." Live like you have a destiny, and it may come to pass.

 

[Mistwell]

As for Europa vs. Pluto, the thing is, if NASA were properly funded, both missions could be done. People point out all the failed missions that have plagued NASA in recent years, using them as proof that NASA doesn't need to be funded, yet somehow don't make the connection between slashing NASA's budget and those disasters. Personally, I would rather the guys at NASA/JPL/and all the rest could make the decisions as to what missions to undertake - scientific advancement can't be legislated. It happens as a result of dedicated experts spending their lives trying to make them happen. Besides, Pluto is still virtually a mystery; I'd rather at least one mission make it there in my lifetime.

You know, it's nice to think that NASA's problems are because of their funding issues. But you're lying to yourself if you think that is the cause. Money had nothing to do with NASA's failure to convert american measurement units to metric units. Money had nothing to do with their failure to account for time zone changes between monitoring stations. Those were two of the major mistakes made in the last 5 years, costing BILLIONS of dollars from the NASA budget. The people who made those mistakes were not underpaid. The individual salaries of NASA folks are not low, and the complaint about money is always about funding additional missions, not increasing salaries to attract more intelligent employees.

The problem is that NASA, as an institution, is unfortunately lazy and corrupt at this point. Reliance on computers to make all the decisions, including basic fact checking, is an instutional issue, not a funding issue.

And if you think mission decisions are made based on science, you are sadly naive. Which missions get the okay is almost exclusively politics at this point. Want to guess which of two missions will be backed? Find out which congressional disctricts the proposed projects will be based out of, and which aerospace companies, and you will have the data you need. Remember, this isn't some committee composed of elder scientists studying data and making rationale, objective decisions about mission funding. This is a government agency. All its funding is approved through congress. All it's leaders are political appointees. Most of its missions are dictated in some way by military concerns.

Now take the case of Beal Aerospace, and ask yourself why it is now out of business. Don't know about the issue? Read Beal's final press release on the issue at http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0010/24beal/letter.html .

Nasa basically drove Beal out of the business, and don't tell me it was out of rational, non-political, objective scientific decisionmaking. Nobody disputes that Beal was on the road to making fairly significant scientific breakthroughs. Nope, that was all politcs.

As Beal said "We wonder where the computer industry would be today if the U.S. government had selected and subsidized one or two personal computer systems when Microsoft, Inc. or Compaq, Inc. were in their infancy." I can tell you where....you wouldn't be reading this message right now.

 

[hong]

And if you think mission decisions are made based on science, you are sadly naive. Which missions get the okay is almost exclusively politics at this point. Want to guess which of two missions will be backed? Find out which congressional disctricts the proposed projects will be based out of, and which aerospace companies, and you will have the data you need. Remember, this isn't some committee composed of elder scientists studying data and making rationale, objective decisions about mission funding. This is a government agency. All its funding is approved through congress. All it's leaders are political appointees. Most of its missions are dictated in some way by military concerns.

The same can be said of the NSF, the NIH, the FDA, or any other large government agency. NASA just gets more flak because space shuttles, rockets and interplanetary probes are more visible than clinical trials or safety trials. Unless you're suggesting that government should get out of the business of funding scientific research entirely, I'm not sure what your point is. AFAIK, no-one in the mainstream of politics has ever suggested this.

The point you made is that polls show that lots of American people want NASA to go to Europa. This is irrelevant, and would remain irrelevant even if NASA's science policy was directed by the most pure-hearted of people.

And really, what does "it's all about politics" really mean, except that people do get a say in what gets done? Unless you're completely disenfranchised and/or disillusioned, you have a say in what happens. Now that say may be less significant than Bill Gates', and the government reserves the right to ignore you, but last I checked, the US was still a democracy. It's also a lot less corrupt than many other places I could mention. The "I'm more cynical than you" schtick would be more persuasive if it was coming from someone from, eg, Liberia.

 

[Mistwell]

The same can be said of the NSF, the NIH, the FDA, or any other large government agency. NASA just gets more flak because space shuttles, rockets and interplanetary probes are more visible than clinical trials or safety trials. Unless you're suggesting that government should get out of the business of funding scientific research entirely, I'm not sure what your point is. AFAIK, no-one in the mainstream of politics has ever suggested this.

The point you made is that polls show that lots of American people want NASA to go to Europa. This is irrelevant, and would remain irrelevant even if NASA's science policy was directed by the most pure-hearted of people.

And really, what does "it's all about politics" really mean, except that people do get a say in what gets done? Unless you're completely disenfranchised and/or disillusioned, you have a say in what happens. Now that say may be less significant than Bill Gates', and the government reserves the right to ignore you, but last I checked, the US was still a democracy. It's also a lot less corrupt than many other places I could mention. The "I'm more cynical than you" schtick would be more persuasive if it was coming from someone from, eg, Liberia.

First, let me say that the "all politics" comment was a response to someone who thinks NASA mission decisions are made by expert scientists, not by politicians. The comment had a point, in the context it was made.

Second, it is relevant that people want the mission to Europa. There is scientific benefit from such a mission, just as there is from the Pluto mission. Nobody I know of made the contention that the Europa mission was not equally as valuable as the Pluto mission (and plenty of people have said that it is less scientifically valueable). It's taxes that pay for the mission. All else being equal, the decision on which mission should be funded should go with how the people funding it (the tax payers) want it to go, rather than which aerospace company has the better lobbyist.

When I said it was "all politics" i didn't mean it was all democratic politics. It isn't. It's machievellian politics. It's which congressperson has the ability to yank some pork for their district and the aerospace company there. It's lobbyist influence. I'd rather have the masses (call them / us dumb if you will) choose rather than that kind of politics.

Third, I am not suggesting that the government should get out of the business of funding scientific research entirely. I am saying that this particular agency has become too lazy and corrupt to do the job competently, and because this agency is also intentionally preventing private business from picking up the slack, it would be better if NASA ended. If you still want the government funding space missions, start over with a clean slate. Make a new agency that doesn't have the lazy institutionalized attidude that this one has (and making a point of mentioning this attitude as being one of the reasons the last agency was ended will go a long way to change the attitudes of the people in the new agency). Mandate that they not compete directly with private industry, which is the same mandate the NSF, the NIH, the FDA all have (they regulate private industry often, but they do not compete directly with it). And finally, make sure the mission choices dictated by the Agencies personnel, and have a fixed budget (much like the NSF, the NIH, and the FDA), not a variable budget based on missions planned up to the next budget vote. Then perhaps you will have a functional space agency. That isn't what we have right now.