The biggest ‘spinoff’ isn’t technology. It’s education. How many little boys and girls were inspired by NASA to seek out careers in science? One of the reason George Bush is such a fan of NASA and space exploration is because he recognizes how important large, bold, glamorous scientific programs like this are in inspiring future generations into staying in school and studying.
The United States’ huge technological advantages are in no small part due to the existence of NASA.
Hardly! There was a clear and convincing popular mandate for the Apollo missions. It was widely (if erroneously) accepted that the race to the moon was closely related to our national prestige and stake as a superpower.
The shuttle program has no such mandate, and no mission to speak of. It is a boondoggle, pure and simple, which launches public relations missions into space to the tune of $500 million and which has a catastrophic failure rate easily surpassing that of WW II bombers in combat missions. How on earth can anyone see the shuttle program as a success in any way whatsoever?
As for convincing kids to get into science, well…that is simply your opinion. It’s also only opinion that there is some intrinsic and overwhelming value to that. My opinion obviously differs from that.
I, for one, have never heard the claim that the space program was responsible for teflon. Nor was I claiming that NASA was solely responsible for the development of computer technology, they were however responsible for the acceleration which it received in the past.
As for expecting NASA to have a significant impact on the US’s economy with an annual budget of $15 billion, look at GM and what it cost to launch Saturn. GM spent $5 billion dollars to launch the Saturn division. That’s 1/3 of NASA’s budget, has Saturn become a significant force in the automotive world? Have all dealers switched to Saturn’s “no haggle” pricing? Nope. Gillette reportedly spent $1 billion developing the Mach III razor, the main innovation being it has three blades!!! So let’s see here, you’re expecting an agency with a budget of $15 billion dollars, to do more than a car company, which spent 1/3 of NASA’s budget to develop a car that’s little more than an afterthought in the automotive world and to be more efficient than a razor blade company that spent $1 billion to make a razor with three blades. Wow! Pretty amazing considering all the money the US government has spent on fighting the drug war, and still hasn’t managed to quash it. (In 1997, the requested amount for the drug war was $16 billion, one billion more than NASA’s budget. Seen any results from that?)
In the 1960’s $15 billion was enough money to put men on the Moon and a new car cost $2000. Forty years later, you’re asking NASA to do something equally spectacular for the same amount of money?
Now you’re claiming that flying the shuttle’s more dangerous than combat missions in a WWII bomber. The record holder, The Memphis Belle flew 25 missions before being retired. The shuttle Challenger was lost on the 25th mission launch of the shuttle program. So, based on those numbers, the shuttle’s only slightly more risky than the most successful bomber of WWII. You might not like those odds, but, I, and others have no problems with those odds.
You don’t have to be involved with design to have a big influence. Being a very demanding, wealthy and trustworthy customer is often enough.
In any case, it’s impossible and unreasonable to justify NASA spending with spinoffs alone. NASA is doing exploration and scientific research whose benefits cannot be measured in dollars.
Too true - at the heart of the human animal is a desire to know where we are, where we came from, and where we are going. That is the service that NASA provides through many elements. Missions such as the Voyagers have had an incalcuable impact on the human mindset. The shuttle and ISS are driving the concept of human habitation of space - our future. That is the real pay-off - to see these things become practical. Any economic benefit is entirely the spin-off, not vice-versa.
Wow, you are absurdly confused! The Memphis Belle was NOT the most successful US bomber in World War II - it was simply the first to reach 25 missions. Since the earliest B-17 raids were unescorted over much of Germany and in low numbers, the loss rates were exceptionally high and until the introduction of the P-51 in large quantities, the average heavy bomber’s life expectancy in combat was <96% per mission, hence the difficulty (at least initially) in getting to 25 missions (for the simple folks, here’s the math - 4% chance of being lost in mission x 25 missions = 100% chance of loss). However, in 1944 this situation changed with the introduction of the P-51 to bomber escort duty in significant numbers, and loss rates for heavy bombers dropped dramatically.
Remember, also, that there were more medium bombers operating more missions than heavy bombers. Many medium bombers, B-26’s in particular, completed hundreds of missions. The famous B-26 “Flak Bait” completed over 200 combat missions! So your rebuttal that “Memphis Belle” was the most successful U.S. bomber of WW II is just ridiculous and makes no sense at all.
Regarding your comparison to Saturn, remember that Saturn is a publicly owned corporation and can choose to invest in whatever it wants! It’s not taxpayer-funded and the risk of investing in a new product line imbues only to Saturn’s stockholders! You’re making one of the faultiest analogies I’ve ever read!
That’s your opinion, but is is ONLY an opinion. Why is NASA exempt from the same basic economic rationalization to which every other publicly-funded endeavor is supposed to conform? Just because you think it’s neato? Because otherwise scientists wouldn’t have jobs? Give me a break!
Please show me ANY evidence that human inhabitation in space could ever be practical, affordable, and/or desirable. Please show me any reason to think that it could possibly be worth the cost. Or ar you one of those Malthusian doomsdayers who believes that we are going to populate ourselves off the planet, and the only way we can survive is to ship our population elsewhere?
And…I repeat from another post…why is NASA exempt from having to justify the cost of its missions? Why the free ride after such an abysmal safety record and such a lowly record of achievements?
Are you saying we should not spend any money on theoretical science and basic research? Science and exploration are quests for knowledge, and all we can say is that more knowledge is always better than less. And before you go out and acquire that knowledge there is no way to predict what the benefits, if any, will be. Sometimes you get lucky and get immediate monetary returns; other times the only knowledge you gain is “to do such-and-such is very difficult, and requires more money/technology/whatever than we had for our attempt.” That’s okay, we’ve still learned something useful.
I’m saying that it’s not the government’s damn job to provide endless funds in the fruitless quest for knowledge that has no economic benefit - is that clear enough?
Yes, the evidence is called “history.” Every time we tried to expand our horizons we have gained valuable resources and knowledge. There is no reason to think that space will give us anything less.
Do you have any idea how rigorous and strict the screening process is for a NASA project? And what makes you say their achievements are “lowly”? You think it’s easy to land a probe on Mars, or to fly a manned spaceship over 100 times with only two failures?
Besides, is it any easier to justify the enormous cost of high-tech weapons and military operations?
It is the government’s job. The public (or a huge fraction of it) wants it done, and no private company is willing to spend the money, so it has to be done by the government.
Except, of course, you’re forgetting what happens to Saturn’s employees if the board of directors of GM screws up and makes a bad decision. The stockholders in GM lose their investment and the workers lose their jobs. NASA costs the individual taxpayer of few dollars a year (roughly $42) and if they screw up, nothing happens to the taxpayers for the most part. (So far, only 16 tax payers have lost their lives because of NASA.)
Okay, so you’re now asking us to be prophets and prove that someone will find a cheaper way into space than what we currently have. I’ve linked to pages detailing NASA’s research into alternative means of propulsion, here’s another page detailing NASA funded research into a drive system that could put something to orbit for the price of a few kilowatts. Of course, because the designer hasn’t completed her work on the project, you probably think that it’s not worth funding. :rolleyes:
As for desirable, that’s entirely dependant upon the individual, wouldn’t you say? If I want to live in a rustic log cabin in the middle of the mountains, that’s entirely my choice, not yours. And even though I live out in the middle of nowhere, I can still benefit from state, local, and federal programs.
Of course, 200 years ago, $2,500 was a lot more valuable than $2,500 today. (It todays money, it’d be something like $35,000+. That’d be enough to pay the salary of one explorer today, to buy his equipment and hire assistants for the same kind of trip today, you’d need a hell of a lot more money. After all, one can’t find Native-Americans willing to work for free anymore.)
So in other words, you’re saying that the government never should have funded research into the laser? After all, the laser sat around on the shelf for at least a decade before anyone figured out a good use for it.
And if someone does come up with a cheap method of space travel, you can say goodbye to all precision manufacturing on Earth. NASA (and other space agencies) have proven that one can make purer silicon chips in orbit, also parts made in a micro or zero gravity are more accurately made than parts made on Earth using identical processes and materials. That means parts can be made to closer tolerances and with higher quality than their earthbound counterparts. There’s even been research showing that metals cast in space are lighter and stronger than metals cast on Earth. If you can’t think of beneficial uses for that, then there’s no hope for you at all.
Regarding Lewis & Clark: While the initial expenditure was $2,500, upon their return “A list of expenses provided by Lewis on August 5th, 1807 reached a final cost of $37,722.25, thirteen times the amount allocated by Congress.” From the sitesponsored by the Lewis & Clark College, in Portland, Oregon. The source they reference for the $37,722.25 amount is Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with Related Documents, 1783-1854. Jackson, Donald, ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978.