...of space economics fallacies, the topic of my panel discussion at Space Access on Friday night:

...did you ever think about what is involved in presenting anything to the general public? When is the last time you purchased, studied, or otherwise became interested in a subject that was not in some way advertised to you? I would say, "never". The time, and sometimes dollar, investments are heavy, but necessary if there is anything worthwhile to say. Getting information out to people costs a lot, but the return will, hopefully, be worth it. How? In terms of public support for the program, backed up with funding to make it possible. This, in turn, provides jobs for engineers, scientists, and, well, you. They, subsequently, provide jobs and income for car salesmen, lawyers, doctors, service providers, restaurant owners, teachers, website owners, and all who get pieces of the income spent by the space workers.

Yes, it's all about job creation. Who cares if anything useful is accomplished, or wealth created?

This (flawed) argument would apply to any government program--there's nothing unique about NASA with regard to it. I beat this one to a pulp a few years ago, but people still fall prey to it.

there are two parts of the argument here. first, generating public support can actually be considered a sort of wealth. like better education in general or on given topic in this case.
the second part where merry space workers spend money on merry websites and buy flashy cars with their salaries earned for doing nothing in particular is of course bollocks as you point out

The "job creation" apologia is bad, of course, but I view it as a bit of counterweight for the even worse fallacy held by many members of the public: That we're throwing money away in space (accompanied by vague mental images of hundred dollar bills being tossed out of the shuttle bay).

That we're throwing money away in space (accompanied by vague mental images of hundred dollar bills being tossed out of the shuttle bay).

The only place I have ever seen this bit of silliness is in the writings of space advocates. It's a straw man argument that takes a metaphor ('we shouldn't be spending money in space') and interprets it literally.

As long as it's phrased as 'in' space, rather than 'on' space (as some critics indeed do), that admittedly silly image is unavoidable...

Still, the 'jobs creation' argument isn't a bad one, as long as it's understood to be in the sense of new private aerospace (with more of an emphasis on 'space' than 'aero') companies taking root, as opposed to a bloated government 'techno-welfare in my district' activity.

Unfortunately, there's a political benefit in the latter, as it tends to involve more (presumably grateful) voters, unlike political actions that smooth the way for the startups, where a small, dedicated team (at least initially) seems to be a virtue...

I just keep getting mental flashbacks to the arguments in support of NASA based on "ancillary" discoveries like velcro (which isn't true, velcro was invented,NASA is just credited with it, because of it's possible uses "in space") I think I read something to that effect in this, basicaly saying "would we have had those cool shoes for 3 year olds with velcro instead of laces if we didn't spend way too much money on NASA?" then going on to explain about the economics of trickle down from large projects.

That little bit of semi-but not real agreement with the source article, the idea that we engage in anything for any purpose other than the basic defined purpose, there are extra bennies, but those beenies are not the primary purpose for the task to be done. We do not really want to spend huge amounts on space, so that we have a cool pen, or velcro or tang, but rather, we spend huge amounts on space, so that we can go to space. all of the other stuff is cool, but not why I spent that money to begin with. Private companies (I think) would understand that, stockholders won't say "yeah, we didn't make it to space, but we have a cool new form of webcasting!" no, space, get my ass in space, SPACE SPACE SPACE! and proffit. everything else is cool, but it's not space.

>>"That we're throwing money away in space (accompanied by vague mental images of hundred dollar bills being tossed out of the shuttle bay)."

Well, that would have next to zero cost. You've just reduced the money supply, the treasury can just print more.

As long as it's phrased as 'in' space, rather than 'on' space (as some critics indeed do), that admittedly silly image is unavoidable...

No, it's quite avoidable. Communication is not a passive activity, it requires interpretation and inference on the part of the person receiving the message. When receiving a message you don't like the important thing is to interpret it honestly, not to skew the meaning in the way that's most convenient to your opposing position. Picking a bizarre interpretation just because it makes the sender seem stupid doesn't win you any points.

"...so that we have a cool pen, or velcro or tang..."

Although popularized due to its use by astronauts, Tang pre-dates the space program by a couple of years; it was invented in 1957 by General Foods Corporation.

And, velcro was invented in 1948 by a Swiss engineer.

Ed? I might have been to truncated in my grammar but my point was that "velcro was invented(before nasa) but nasa took credit"

I knew that, actually, it was originaly conceptualized by a colloradan who herded sheep, OR! he had a ROUGH patent, that was later refined. My understanding of the creation of Velcro, was based on a sheepherder, I THINK he was from colorado,and he noticed that the cloven (a 4 prong seedling, with 2 closely angled prongs, a third acting as an outrigger, and the fourth being a long and reaching thumb, the POWER of this particular innovation, is that claw shaped prongs, reaching into, in this case wool, but into any fibrous material was directional. Whatever direction the "thumb" of velcro pointed, was the "back" so you can dislodge it and move forward (I'm too poorly descriptive, Discovery put 20 minutes JUST into velcro) so I will shut up now, ain't slept in a LONG LONG while) and he wasn't an engineer he was a wool guy, and he pointed it out to a friend, and that friend knew a guy who knew a guy and so on and so on, thats how all things work.

I think, I have seen as many sunrises in a single waking as the civilian astronaught vito.

ACK! Summary Ed?

The "ancillary benefits of space exploration created by nasa" were not.

EVERY ANCILLERY benefit will be created anyways, we don't need billions of dollars, to make cool shoes for our kids, or tasteless but healthy drinks for our kids, we do all of that anyways, ever have baby food? The invention of Tang, is AT BEST a humanitarian effort to allow our infants to LIKE! healthy things. :)