Columbus was highly motivated by greed and wealth.
Come to think of it, so is NASA. Except with NASA, they don’t want the wealth for themselves so much as all of humanity, someday.
NASA can study the possibility of sending miners to a nearby asteroid.
Exxon Mobil will never touch that. No profit in collecting rock in the most expensive no-ROI havin’ way imaginable.
But someday, mining asteroids could benefit humanity. Or a private corporation. We’ll see I guess.
Read the link.
The same numbers going into STEM programs from High School into college now as then. Unless you are saying that it is our High Schools that are full of “foreign students” … (And indeed the children of immigrants are over-represented in these programs and are among our best and brightest … but that would be a hijack of a hijack!)
I apologize for not carefully reading each sentence of your 53 page citation – I was in a hurry as I was leaving work, and I’m perfectly willing to be corrected when I’m wrong. So are you saying is that there is some correlation between NASA doing cool things and Americans studying science? Because that was my underlying point.
Several reasons:
-Space is the key to long-term human safety and survival. In short if a natural disaster hits Earth, we can still survive in Mars or Luna or somewhere else.
-The space program is a source of national pride and a sign of strength. Thus even if we keep losing ground to China or India, a strong demonstration such as landing men on Mars will exhibit both to American citizens and the rest of the world that we are and will be a superpower.
Reading the brief summary statement might not be much to ask though.
As to your “underlying point” … no, as I stated, I was merely debunking a popularly held but false belief about how “… the number of Americans studying math and science is in the toilet. … the number of Americans going into the sciences keeps going down.” I was making no comment about NASA as a means for promoting interest in science. Your assertion that it fails to do so, however, will have to be supported by something other than that false factoid.
It must also be noted that the other part of your argument made in that point is also false: NASA funding has not been stable but has progressively decreased as a share of the overall budget. That share is down to 60 to 75% of what it was during the 90’s and under 14% of what it was at its peak.
Yes, even with a much smaller budget NASA has done some cool stuff. But it has not been the showy man on the moon stuff; more actual science - things like the Mercury Messenger. (Planned to complement the data that should be collected by the joint EU-Japan probe, the BepiColombo, due to launch in 2014.) And its Earth Science division. And cool rovers and sophisticated probes and understanding our planet’s climate better just aren’t as sexy as manned exploration.
Eh…not really. Weaponizing space and having true full spectrum dominance would do the trick though.
I stand corrected.
When adjusted for inflation, NASA’s budget has been pretty close to $16.5 billion for the last 20 years. Cite.
Percentage of the budget is a meaningless measure, because by that measure, defense spending has been cut by 60% in the past four decades. But hardly anyone would say that that’s a real problem; which must lead one to a conclusion that it isn’t a useful measurement.
More accurately, they’ve already been fixed well enough in the US (they’re in a state of constant advancement). Outside of conquering most of the rest of the planet, there’s no much we can do about any other country.
Does the OP recommend global conquest?
For some people that are intelligent and curious, space exploration teaches us about the earth, our solar system and the universe. We learn and grow . That is what people do.
It also appeals to the explorer in us. Lots of people want to know what is there. We have always explored and expanded our knowledge.
Your point that the inflation adjusted dollars has not significantly changed and is perhaps a better metric than percent of budget is reasonable. As for military spending as a percent of budget decreasing since Cold War day peaks (until the increases after 2001 anyway), I do not see how that leads to a conclusion that it is not a useful measurement. In fact it tells us (as best as I can find figures), meaningfully I think, where our national priorities have been. During the immediately post WW2 Cold War days it was a highest share, coming down substantially in the late 60’s through 70’s until Reagan’s 80’s years, up during his tenure, down after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and not going back up again until G.W. Bush’s years. That is not meaningless information.
Its noticeable that anti space Luddites seem to move the goalposts as time goes by.
The people who used to be dead set against sending ANYTHING or anyone into space now include the waiver, “Oh yes of course we need satellites for Earth observation, communication etc. but we don’t need to send people up there” .
No doubt when we hopefully colonise other planets and they realise the benefits; they’ll cavil against Interstellar exploration and so on.
Accepting the benefits of previous space exploration while opposing future space exploration.
The experts in hindsight.
We fund NASA because of politicians are mostly older men who grew up with pop science fiction and the Cold War and now have the ability to direct money towards their childhood dreams. The look towards space is essentially a new form of manifest destiny for a generation that believes their manhood/national pride/human purpose depends on “conquering frontiers” and that science will save us, a distinctly modernist rhetoric that was probably heavily promoted during the cold war. Anyway, I bet if more kids had been into dinosaurs than space we’d see heavy government funding of paleontology.
For comparison, development expert Jeffrey Sachs estimates that if every developed country gave .70% of their GNP towards development, we could achieve the Millenium Development Goals and effective eliminate extreme poverty from the planet. Many believe that concrete progress against the worst forms of poverty (starvation, preventable infectious disease, lack of education) can be made rather easily if the commitment is there.
Furthermore we have made concrete and measurable progress against extreme poverty. Many countries are on track to meet the Millenium Development goals and eliminate extreme poverty Others have made significant measurable progress. Things like infant mortality (an indicator that has implications for nutrition, reproductive rights, and a number of good things) rates are on a worldwide downward trajectory, while education rates are rising. Things are getting better. And this benefits us directly- eliminating poverty opens up new markets and reduces security threats.
The US is one of the few countries that is not meeting it’s Millenium Development Goal funding targets, and we are giving around .30%.
Let’s not compare NASA with AIDS research. Let’s compare it with The War In Afghanistan, or the War In Iraq, Sugar Subsidies, Campaign Financing, The TSA, The DEA, The Mississippi-Missouri Leavy System.
Come up with a list of benefits for those that come close to what we have gotten from NASA funded research and development.
I do think that manned exploration beyond low earth orbit is probably better left for at least one more generation, and perhaps several. Refining our cababilities and efficiency for fifty years before trying to drag around all the stuff you need for humans is just too sensible a proposal to ignore.
Tris
And that is a wonderful thing. Why are you opposed to it?
Get rid of corn subsidies, double NASA’s budget.
It’s a lot of money to satisfy a very specific demographic’s fanboy fantasies.
The government is supposed to spend tax dollars in the best interests of society as a whole, not on a niche group with questionable motivators.
I’m for doubling the budget of NASA and for other research and development. Technology is one of the few things that the US still excels in.
Lets get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now and the savings from those two fiascoes will easily pay for the additional funding with money left over for deficit reduction.
The money this country pisses away each month in the Middle East makes me want to cry or hit something.
We have left Iraq. As for Afghanistan we still have to wipe out the mediaeval jihadists who will use it as a base for terrorism.
As for NASA space programs being supported only by a few-consider this, today’s citizenry has not been enthralled by the space program due to the lack of any truly exciting events-returning to the Moon or better yet landing on Mars will do the trick.