Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yup. This sentence is exactly right:

Until space actually becomes important as a goal in itself, it doesn't matter how much money gets thrown at it.

And long term (IMHO) a desire to enlarge the human race will probably be at the core of whatever it is makes space a goal unto itself in the first place.

I have repeatedly asserted that space-faring should be defined as the ability of a species to routinely conceive, bear and raise children (safely) at multiple celestial locations and I see no reason to reconsider this definition.

Unless we start having children out there, either its just camping or robots could well be the more efficient choice for "exploration"

Posted by Bill White at July 2, 2007 09:09 AM

Rand,
It may very well be that the best thing for NASA, at least from a getting useful return on our national investment standpoint, would be to have its funding reduced. There really is such a thing as too much money, and you can see this even occasionally in commercial space companies. It is easy to find ways to spend (and justify spending) as much money as one has available, and the feedback mechanisms for NASA tend to reward pork and punish efficient work. The amazing thing is how often small groups at NASA are able to make large accomplishments *in spite of* how much money NASA currently has.

Ok, back to preparing for my thesis defense...

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at July 2, 2007 09:58 AM

I cannot think of one thing, with exception to the military, that gub'ment does that private companies can't do better and cheaper. If nothing else private enterprise people in any field of endeavor understand cash flow, quality and customer satisfaction.

If gub'ment people "need" more money they whine for it, lower services to their clients and then hire six "experts" to come in and evaluate what they did wrong. Regardless of the true problem, the "expert" answer is always the same, the gub'ment y always needs more money and more employees.

If someone discovers a reason to go, privates will get to the moon and Mars quicker and cheaper than NASA.

Posted by Steve at July 2, 2007 10:06 AM

Until space actually becomes important as a goal in itself, it doesn't matter how much money gets thrown at it. And if it were, then we could probably achieve most of what we want with the available funding, as long as it were spent more intelligently toward that goal.

Could not agree more.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at July 2, 2007 10:35 AM

well, as long as nobody is clearly articulating what their end goal is, you cant really tell whether you are getting good value for the money or not.
how do you measure the "value" when you dont know what its supposed to be ?

Posted by kert at July 2, 2007 10:36 AM

I'd argue that, if the goal is to have a robust, space-faring society
ah, thats the thing. IF it were the goal. But thats not NASAs goal, or is it ? Ive never seen it articulated as such.

Posted by kert at July 2, 2007 10:39 AM

Excuse my cynicism, but judging by the last 20 years it's pretty clear that NASA's defacto mission is to provide the circus part of the "bread and circuses" so necessary to the middle aged democratic state.

The Apollo redux program is right on target to continue that tradition so there's no reason to really increase their funding. What puzzles me is anyone expecting NASA to create the infrastructure for a space faring society. Whoever entertains that concept is showing symptoms of a major disconnect from the real, IMO.

Posted by K at July 2, 2007 10:39 AM

Giving NASA more money is indeed pointless if we don't reform that agency. And the odds of it being reformed seem slight.

Posted by Dean Esmay at July 2, 2007 10:44 AM

Gee, I’d like to offer a counter argument to stir things up a bit, but I can’t. Just about the only important things NASA has done over the last 40 years are the various planetary and solar robotic missions. Those have truly written the text books on our solar system. Even these programs are annoying since NASA actually competes against private companies that could provide the same service. Funny how it works, when JPL offers a proposal to be prime contractor on a spacecraft program (Mars rovers, and now MSL) they always win. Sorry, not much pot stirring there.

Posted by brian d at July 2, 2007 12:28 PM

if the goal is to have a robust, space-faring society

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a government agency with that goal? Because, like others have stated, that sort of behavior is not what I see from NASA. In fact I see the opposite.

Until space actually becomes important as a goal in itself, it doesn't matter how much money gets thrown at it.

I agree. When space becomes important as a goal in itself, the reason would be that investors can make a better profit by investing in space than they can by investing in something else. By that time, the money being thrown at it is being used to generate a profit.

Posted by Ed Minchau at July 2, 2007 01:11 PM

I think the question is ill-posed. For the most part, we don't "spend money on NASA". NASA's main job is to spend our money, by paying contractors to build and fly stuff. If we were spending our money on NASA, it would imply we could take our money and give it to someone else. But we can't do that. Zeroing out NASA's budget would not cause an equal pot of money to appear in the hands of private investors who are interested in space. In fact, theoretically, there is no relationship between what NASA is spending money on and what private investors have available and see as a profitable, because if it were profitable, private business would be already be doing it. If a company proves to itself that money spent on, say, a space elevator would produce a large return on investment, then it'll spend its money on a space elevator, even if the NASA Administrator says space elevators are no good.

Posted by Artemus at July 3, 2007 02:21 PM

I think the question is ill-posed. For the most part, we don't "spend money on NASA". NASA's main job is to spend our money, by paying contractors to build and fly stuff.

If that's true for NASA, it's true for any government agency. Just substitute "Department of Defense," for example.

Imagine if the same arguments made about NASA budget were applied to DoD. "We don't really spend money on Iraq. The money is spent right back here in the United States, creating jobs for people who sew uniforms and make bullets. Preserving that workforce is our first priority." See how silly it is?

In fact, theoretically, there is no relationship between what NASA is spending money on and what private investors have available and see as a profitable

That's a bad theory, unless you theorize that investors don't pay taxes.

The relationship between taxation and investment has been the subject of numerous books.

If a company proves to itself that money spent on, say, a space elevator would produce a large return on investment, then it'll spend its money on a space elevator, even if the NASA Administrator says space elevators are no good.

Assuming private companies have infinite money and never have to go to outside investors. That is not true.

You also assume that companies prove things to themselves in a vacuum, and no one who works for a private company would ever be influenced by a public statement from a NASA Administrator. If that were true, why would NASA Administrators bother making public statements?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 3, 2007 05:23 PM

I'm not getting my point across. It's fallacious to criticize NASA for having the wrong mission. It's the same mistake Easterbrook made. Rand said that "if the goal is to have a robust, space-faring society, that we've gotten very poor value for the money." Although maybe it should be, that's not the goal. A politician who talked about a space-faring society in a campaign would henceforth be called "Senator Skywalker" or a similar droll epithet.

No, there is a laundry list of lesser goals. The President and Congress decided that's what NASA should do and NASA is trying to do it. I believe what Brooks was trying to say is that if NASA had more money, it could execute its mission better. That's a different question with an obvious answer.

Going back to your example, suppose you wanted the Iraq war stopped. Would you say, "It's all the Army's fault. If they would just stop shooting people, the war would be over." Of course not. If you wanted the Iraq war stopped, you would criticize the President and Congress for directing the Army to go and shoot people.

That's a bad theory, unless you theorize that investors don't pay taxes.

Sure they pay taxes, and as you hear ad infinitum on space blogs, NASA's budget is 0.6% of federal spending, which means it's less than the cost of a gumball, or whatever, to the average taxpayer. The interaction is negligible.

Posted by Artemus at July 4, 2007 08:21 AM

I want to blather on a little more.

There is an argument that has some validity, that goes like this: Lots of people need to launch things into earth orbit and are willing to pay someone to do it. Private companies could provide all those launches, but are crowded out of the market because not only does NASA interfere with the market using its own government-subsidized launchers, but they use those launchers for their own payloads instead of paying private companies to launch them. (Grossly speaking. I know about the role of USA and other similar arrangements.) Therefore, if we took away the money NASA spends on its launchers, we would be opening up the market to free enterprise and reap gains in efficiency and innovation.

I believe many people have taken this basically sound argument and leapt to the conclusion that the problem with space in general is NASA involvement. Ergo, abolishing NASA would be a big step forward.

But the logic is not sound. There is as yet no private-sector demand for human spaceflight except for joyrides. (I don't mean to use the term joyrides disparagingly. I'd really enjoy one of those rides.) Abolishing NASA, in other words getting the government out of the field of spaceflight, would mean not just preventing NASA from sending humans into space, but removing the incentive for others to do so as well. The government is who is asking that astronauts be sent into space. Almost nobody else is.

Maybe the "grand challenge" scenario is the best way out. You make it simple - the first guy to plant a foot on the moon gets $5 billion, or something like that. But nothing ever works out that simple. You'd have competitors suing each other for unfair tactics, people interfering with each other's telemetry, and other nonproductive things.

Posted by Artemus at July 4, 2007 09:09 AM

It's fallacious to criticize NASA for having the wrong mission.

"Fallacious"? Why is questioning a government agency's mission a logical fallacy? What logical principles does it violate?

Rand said that "if the goal is to have a robust, space-faring society, that we've gotten very poor value for the money." Although maybe it should be, that's not the goal. A politician who talked about a space-faring society in a campaign would henceforth be called "Senator Skywalker" or a similar droll epithet.

So? Ronald Reagan talked in terms like that, and he was called far worse names.

What's your point? That it's better to be a George W. Bush than a Ronald Reagan?

No, there is a laundry list of lesser goals. The President and Congress decided that's what NASA should do and NASA is trying to do it.

Just because the President and Congress decide something, that doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

I believe what Brooks was trying to say is that if NASA had more money, it could execute its mission better. That's a different question with an obvious answer.

That's the chronic whine of every government agency.

The military could do its job better if it had more money, too. Why doesn't it ever apply to them?

The comparison of a New Horizons probe to a B-2 bomber is insulting and inane. A B-2 bomber can fly hundreds of missions, not just one, and those missions are vital to the national security. Nothing New Horizons does will affect our national security.

Moreover, the US Air Force is not buying any more B-2 bombers. The heavy bomber fleet is smaller than its been at any time since the Great Depression, and half of the remaining B-52 bombers will soon be be retired without replacement.

So, why is Brooks trashing the military to call for more NASA spending?

Going back to your example, suppose you wanted the Iraq war stopped. Would you say, "It's all the Army's fault. If they would just stop shooting people, the war would be over."

Bad comparison. The justification for the Army's mission is right in the preamble of the Constitution. The justification for New Horizons or Shuttle isn't.

Brooks wants to raise NASA spending to 5%, not "0.6%." If there are 200 million taxpayers in the US, that's $696 per taxpayer every year. Where do you get your gum balls?

Let's compare it to something more relevant. For $696, every taxpayer could buy six shares of stock in Apple, one share of Google, or 20 shares of Microsoft.

Would taxing away hundreds of millions of shares of stock be "negligible"?

Alternatively, Apple Computer had profits last quarter of $770 million. That's roughly $3 billion per year. NASA consumes the total earnings of six Apples every year, and Brooks wants to consume an additional 40 Apples every year.

Do you think taxing away the total earnings of 46 companies the size of Apple would be negligible effect?

Let's look at another comparison. The Air Force plans to retire its entire fleet of F-117 stealth fighters -- again, without replacement -- to save just over $1 billion a year.

NASA's current budget is equal to 17 F-117 fighter wings, and Brooks is asking for the equivalent of 139 fighter wings.

Is that "negligible"?

If so, why are we cutting the number of fighter wings, when the savings are less than "negligible"? Why not increase them, instead?

By the way, Brooks says it is "highly questionable" whether "the solving of social or geopolitical problems was merely a matter of allocating sufficient money to those problems."

Yet, he assumes NASA can solve all its problems and make socialism work in space just by throwing enough money at the problem.

Do you notice an inconsistency in that argument?

Posted by at July 5, 2007 12:46 AM

There is as yet no private-sector demand for human spaceflight except for joyrides.

There is no public-sector demand for human spaceflight except for joyrides, either.

Unless you count the military, which is prohibited from doing human spaceflight by unwritten government policy.

Abolishing NASA, in other words getting the government out of the field of spaceflight, would mean not just preventing NASA from sending humans into space, but removing the incentive for others to do so as well.

That's a flawed argument. First, getting NASA ought of the space transportation business is not equivalent to "abolishing NASA." In fact, it would allow NASA to do much more than it does at present.

Second, the incentive for humans to want to go into space has nothing to do with the fact that NASA is in the space transportation business.

Third, NASA is not "the government," it's only part of the government. If NASA got out of the human space transportation business, the US military might be allowed to develop manned spacecraft again. That would have some serious positive implications for our national security.

The government is who is asking that astronauts be sent into space. Almost nobody else is.

You have it backwards. Virgin Galactic is talking about flying 50,000 astronauts over the next decade. NASA wants to fly fewer than 40 astronauts a year. Fewer than 20, if they build Orion.

So? How many lawsuits is Microsoft fighting right now? Or Apple?

We should be so lucky to have problems like that.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 5, 2007 01:08 AM

Criticizing NASA for how it implements the VSE is legitimate.

Criticizing NASA because you think the VSE is the wrong mission is fallacious, a waste of time, barking up the wrong tree, a fool's errand, a snipe hunt, a red herring...you get the idea. The political and organizational reasons for this are well known. Go complain to your elected officials.

I never claimed that NASA's budget was negligible. What I claimed was that zeroing out NASA's budget would have a negligible effect on private spaceflight efforts. In fact, it would slow down private spaceflight efforts because the industrial base (such as it is) would dry up and blow away, and NASA research would stop.

The military had its dalliance with manned spaceflight with MOL. There is no "unwritten policy" that the military can't launch astronauts. They don't do it because the cost/benefit is crappy, and because Space Command has little influence in the USAF, which is run by ex-pilots.

Virgin Galactic says it will fly 50,000 astronauts? Talk is really cheap in "newspace" or however you spell it, but that takes the prize. If they actually start doing it, then I guess you can laugh at me.

Posted by Artemus at July 9, 2007 10:44 AM

Post a comment