That’s because science is not the only purpose of the manned space program. The main purpose is to develop the technology to live and work in space. Not all the technological advances get written up in journals; much of it stays within the company that built it. That’s OK though, it’s still there to be applied to other projects and products.
I like to recall how many objected to the estimated $25b that was spent for the manned space program in the 1960’s. I think that price tag includes all three manned space projects.
But hey, at least we got something for that money. We got a few trips to the moon. We got all the space flight experience leading up to that, and the much vaunted technological spinoffs. How tangible these yields are can be debated, but at least we got something.
On the other hand you can look at something like the S&L scandal of the 1980’s, which cost us $500B and gave us nil.
The discoveries we make on our jaunts both manned and unmanned are important for all of us. Think about all the technology we recieved since the begining of the space race.
We need humans up there because not only do we learn about what is out there but we learn about ourselves. Medicine has greatly benifited from exploration. Cat scans, pacemaker technology, ultrasound, laser surgery etc these come from spin offs of NASA technology put into use.
Even Computers benifited from this exploration.
The technology had to be improved to get men from the moon and back.
Think about it : Wireless transfers of technical data
Navigational computers that had to be made small enough to fit in the capsule. That seems like nothing today but remember by the 1960s most average Computers took up entire rooms.
The list goes on.
And of course don’t forget TANG. damn it TANG: the drink of Astronauts!
Most importantly these venture when made big and bold enough have the effect of unifying a group of people to the optimistic goal of doing what others would consider impossible. Human’s need this to grow and learn. I defy any of you to honestly say “big deal” when you see men put their first steps on Mars. It will be one of those great positive moments of an age and now more than ever we need that type of moment.
“A billion here, a billion there, and before long it adds up to real money.”
–Sen. Everett Dirksen (loose paraphrase)
I’m personally of the opinion that $14B is “real money”. Like efalken said, you can justify a lot of spending on the grounds that “it’s only 1% of the Federal budget.” Even as a liberal, I’m willing to admit that the Federal budget is fairly sizable, and that 1% of that is hardly trivial. (It’s weird to hear a rock-ribbed conservative like Sam Stone refer to that much money as “almost trivial.” What sort of alternate universe is this thread in?)
BTW, we haven’t had a “manned space exploration program” in 30 years. We have already explored low earth orbit. All space exploration since 1972 has been done by unmanned vehicles.
I’d also question what Sam had to say about NASA’s sterling reputation. Whatever the reputation may be, I read what Feynman wrote about the Challenger and its aftermath. I’m less than convinced that NASA is run substantially better than any other government bureaucracy.
I think one of the great problems with the manned space program today is that it’s got no particular focus, other than to provide a platform for experiments that need to be done in space. And as a result, we wind up putting teachers and U.S. Senators in space - which tells you space on the shuttle isn’t at a premium.
When we were going to the moon, there was a goal, and even a sense of urgency - we wanted to get there before the Russians got there. After that, the space shuttle, with its Phyrric reusability, was created as a way of justifying NASA’s continued existence, as any bureaucratic beast will fight for survival.
You have just been royally “whooshed” by Dr. Robert Park! Hint: he was kidding. 
This has been very instructive; lots more support for the space program than I expected, though it may be due to the peculiar slice of life which finds intellectual meanderings interesting (as in, say, The Straight Dope).
I think facts make the difference in this debate: What approximately is the market value of products produced due to space research? If, as asserted here, spin-offs include the internet, computers, and satellites, then it’s an obvious yes; if it’s just Tang, it seems no. This would get into the intellectual development of these complex technologies, trying to assess the unique importance of various people and products. Clearly outside my time parameters.
Considering at least one other poster has cited Park as being against manned space missions, I’m not the only one being whooshed. (As to which ones of us are being whooshed, that’s another matter.)
You still seem to be implying that spinoffs are the only benefits of the space program. Most posters here are arguing against this very point. There are many benefits we can’t put monetary value on (at least none that we can agree on) such as national pride, public awareness of science, and basic research and development. Space exploration may some day mean the difference between extinction and survival of our race and culture. You can’t calculate the dollar value of that.
Even financial benefits are difficult to calculate. If NASA pays Boeing $50 million to design build a new navigational sensor, that may seem like a waste of money at that time. But Boeing could use that experience to design a sensor for their next airliner, which may give them a slight edge over Airbus. That means more jobs at Boeing and its numerous contractors. You can’t track down such effects and add it up, but it’s there.
He is opposed to manned space missions, because he regards them as a misapplication of resources. Unmanned missions, for the same money, could accomplish far, far more, when it comes to purely scientific inquiry. Manned missions are mostly just grandstanding. Using the space shuttle to put satellites into orbit is a prime example (unmanned boosters are way cheaper, and less risky, to boot). The ISS, as far as Park can tell (and I’m inclined to agree) has no identifiable scientific purpose. It’s an expensive boondoggle, in search of a mission.
In the article you’ve cited, what Park was kidding about was the notion that the U.S. had somehow “lured” China into wasting its resources just the way we’ve been wasting ours. He’s saying, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, that that’s the only possible explanation for the Chinese doing something so foolish. Sheesh, get a sense of humor!
BTW, lest anyone think I’m opposed to space exploration, I’m in the camp that says that the NASA budget should be greatly increased, but I think the money should be used on more unmanned probes, and things like the Hubble telescope, which actually do advance science.
Early Out, I’m not going to repost all the arguments here, but if you haven’t read this thread there’s some debate as to the value of manned vs. unmanned missions.
[Fixed link. – MEB]
Implicit in this arguement is that we have gotten oodles of useful technologies, from the basic research conducted as part of the space program. Well, i hate to rain on the parade, but it just aint so…consider the transistor! The development of the transistor, which lead to the microprocessor, was a TOTALLL privately funded effort, by bell Labs. In fact around the same time that the transistor came out, the USAF was funding an advanced technology called “OPERATION TINKERTOY”-this was the “next generation” of electronics (based on the development of miniature VACUUM tubes!). The Air Force spent >30 million $ on this totally obsolete technology, which the transistor made obsolete.
This kind of spinoff is useless!
Of course ralph that all happened before NASA was created.
First transistor-December 1947;
Creation NASA-October 1, 1958
You know, I thought I’d go digging for the actual numbers. Here’s the link to the 2001 NASA budget:
http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2001/
Quick Summary
Total Budget 13.5 Billion
Human Spaceflight: 5.5 Billion (40%)
Science+Aeronautics: 5.5 Billion (40%) (weep for the aero guys they only got 1.3B)
Mission Support: 2.5 Billion (20%)
Now comparison to the US budget of 1.7 Trillion http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/maindown.html
NASA budget: 13.5 Billion (.8%)
Human Spaceflight: 5.5 Billion (.32%)
Science+Aeronautics: 5.5 Billion (.32%)
Mission Support: 2.5 Billion (.15%)
So this is what we’re debating the value of, the inherent value of 0.32% of the US budget.
And before you ask (because you know you will. :)) the no-discretionary spending on Medicare/Medicaid was 342 Billion (20% of the US budget) or 62 times the Human Spaceflight budget