

Why we need a space program - mrsebastian
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/89502-why-we-need-a-space-program

======
samlevine
We have a space program. NASA isn't going away. It puts probes on/around
planets and asteroids and advances science (but not SCIENCE! which is what
people tend to get miffed about). If need be we could even start using our own
rockets to get humans into space, it's just more cost effective to pay the
Russians to do so.

Of course, throwing more money at NASA is actually a pretty good idea, even if
the sexier things people want to do are unlikely to get off the ground in the
near term (say 50 years or so). But a reusable shuttle was never cost
effective for manned spaceflight at the scale that we did it at.

------
Shenglong
I believe it was the National Research Council Canada's director who said this
(I could be mistaken, correct if necessary):

"no amount of research into the oil lamp could have invented the light bulb"

~~~
juiceandjuice
I've never heard this before, but it is a good quote.

One of the problems that people don't understand about funding research for
new science is that... it's new science. People don't always know exactly what
will happen or come of it. It could be an expensive lesson on how not to do
things, or it could be an exercise of the mundane, but even the spectacular
failures can bring about paradigm shifting change.

More importantly, people come to believe that there is often only one goal of
any mission and often dismiss the collateral benefits from attempting to solve
a _really_ hard problem, especially because they are often hard to truly
quantify.

------
TravisLS
I've been trying to find this quotation from Neil Degrasse Tyson but haven't
been successful. It's one of my favorite perspectives on NASA's budget (and
specifically the the importance of lavish, public, manned missions).

Paraphrased: Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer,
considering the return is a generation of American kids interested in math and
science.

~~~
zeteo
>Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer, considering the
return is a generation of American kids interested in math and science.

This attitude has brought NASA to the lack of relevance we see today.
Astronauts spending hours on video chat with middle-schoolers and the use of
precious payload to put ant colonies into orbit are not serious ways to
advance a space program. When NASA was about exploring and colonizing the
final frontier, kids would join in and dream along. When the space program
became about forcing science and technology in an artificial way down the same
kids' throats, they tuned out. So few youngsters with an interest in space /
SF exist today.

~~~
Jach
Yeah, I think the goal of sparking science interest (and other things) would
be better suited with mandated reruns of Star Trek: TNG in classrooms.

The thing with the ants is I only heard they were doing it, I never heard what
they found out, and they never made it sound any fun. In _Surely You're
Joking, Mr. Feynman!_ he talks about his own ant experiments in an
enlightening way, with a useful application of getting them away from his food
without using poisons. We need more of that.

------
protomyth
I don't doubt the value of a space program, but I seriously doubt having NASA
be the steward of such a program from this point on. I cannot help but think
what would have happened if the Air Force's program had been funded and
advanced past the X-15 stage. The forcing of Air Force concerns on the shuttle
and NASA's own obsession with winning a race to the moon instead of
establishing a permanent presence in space have done in our space program.

At this point, I just hope that multiple avenues are tried and regulatory
agencies are made to get out of the way of private flight.

------
Gravityloss
We need advancement towards spacefaring. We don't need space programs.

There is need for government basic research, infrastructure and science
programs. There is need for healthy commercial ventures, reasonable scale and
agile development with quick cycles and multiple concurrent paths.

Spaceflight could well be more routine, reliable and affordarble if there
never was an Apollo or Shuttle.

~~~
tjmc
Exactly. One problem that they need to solve before leaving the gravity well
again is creating sustainable biospheres - capable of recycling all CO2, waste
and water, producing food and, most importantly, keeping the people inside
happy, healthy and sane. To my knowledge this has never[1] been achieved, and
we need to work out how to do it before setting up any kind of "off world
colony".

1\. Biosphere 2 was a high profile, but ultimately unsuccessful example:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2>

------
jjmaxwell4
NASA, like most government institutions, is wasteful and inefficient. The
private sector can develop cheaper, safer, more efficient rockets, in a
fraction of the time. Elon Musk, among others, has laid out ambitious goals;
much more ambitious then the previous goals of NASA.

This is not the end of space exploration; on the contrary - things are going
to start advancing at a much faster pace.

~~~
uvdiv
It's sobering to think, nothing the entire private space industry put together
has proposed comes close to what NASA was sitting on in the 1960's, with
nuclear pulse propulsion. Now it's unthinkable. But with a slightly different
historical path, we could today be launching thousands of tons at a time into
orbit, on a trail of small atomic bombs.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_\(nuclear_propulsion\))

------
voteaccount1
We have one, it's called Air Force Space Command Center.

Their budget was increased by 700 million in 2011
([http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-airforce-
space...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-airforce-space-
idUSN1523811720110216))

------
watchandwait
The best way to fund science is to cut taxes on capital and to cut tax rates
on the wealthy.

~~~
Game_Ender
Do the wealthy fund long term scientific research projects?

~~~
jjmaxwell4
Bill Gates sure does with his Global Health Program.

------
Ronkdar
> just look back at the discovery of North America and foundation of the
> greatest, vastest, richest, and most powerful nation the world has ever
> seen.

As an American, I find this sentence somewhat embarrassing.

> There would’ve been no Cold War, no Hollywood, and no tea bags.

And nothing of value would be lost.

It bothers me how he thinks that education funding would have to suffer for
science. Why not just defense?

