Comments on: Aeronautics vs. exploration

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:19:13 +0000

Leonard,

The aerospace sector is unwilling or unable to invest in R&D at an internationally competitive scale. Without the Feds filling the shortfall who’s left? Can we change the companies? If so, how?

The Europeans would argue that NASA is in effect a subsidy to the US aerospace industry in order to justify their subsidies, and the argument is used in reverse too. But if NASA is supposed to be a shot in the arm for US aerospace, then we’re not well-served by it.

Here’s a suggestion: Take NASA’s aeronautics budget and use it to subsidize (tax breaks etc.) the formation of corporate R&D centers, analogous to Bell Labs or IBM research labs but for the aerospace sector. There will probably always be unfair subsidies to overseas competitors, so we will always have to match that monetarily. But at least let’s maximize the bang for our buck and put the research back into the aerospace companies rather than a Federal bureaucracy whose present benefit is debateable.

By: Leonard C Robinson

Leonard C Robinson — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:26:25 +0000

Part of the problem in discussing “Aeronautics v. Exploration is the reference from which we discuss the problem. As long as the Federal Government is involved in the issue, we will have the annual whines by the adherents of social programs v. NASA spending. Whittington mentioned the contest in his fiction, while Clarke laid it waste in his comments in the Time/Life “Beyond Apollo.” What we need to do is to get the Feds out of the picture, unless other National Governments get into the picture (examples are the PRC & the Republic of India).

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:50:26 +0000

Part of the reason there’s such a deficit in the first place is lack of investment in science and technology.

By: mrearl

mrearl — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:16:13 +0000

This editorial is exactly what a good “home town” newspaper should be writing to protect the home team but it is hardly unbiased, hence it’s inclusion in the editorial page.
What we are talking about here is a new direction or vision given to NASA, something that it hasn’t had since July 24th, 1969. This new direction is MANNED and unmanned exploration of solar system. This vision was left intentionally vague to allow for flexibility.
As far as this spending increase being irresponsible in light of a large budget deficit, that’s just so much hot air. NASA’s increase is infametesimal compared to the full federal budget or even the deficit. NASA’s entire budget can be written off as miscellaneous in the defense budget, or fraud in the welfare budget. If every agency included in the budget bill that included NASA was eliminated, all $300 billion bucks worth, there would still be a deficit of over $100 billion bucks!

By: Toro

Toro — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:10:42 +0000

A good “exploration” start would be simply to “explore” ways of getting los personas to and from Earth orbit … at some peso fraction of both the current dollar cost and deficit spending style (unacceptably high) fatality rates. No cargo or food service needed. That brave “exploration” could then be applied later to personas entering & leaving Mars… seems among the most obvious dangerous future task. Its obvious where the “clear and present” and future dangers are. And what’s the rush? The rush is an Apollo era tequila sunrise hangover. Do some crash dummy testing instead of one or two Enterprise drops and pretending all is perfect.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:50:45 +0000

While I deplore the NSF cut, these quotes reveal an interesting ignorance of the history of science. Exploration _is_ science — remember, among countless other examples, Darwin and the Beagle? In fact, I would argue that there is no purer form of science.

Physical exploration and observation are close to synonomous, and observation is _the_ key to good science.

— Donald

By: Sam Dinkin

Sam Dinkin — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:04:42 +0000

Watch out when you roll out the X vs. butter trump card. There are no people clamouring for faster airport service. They are clamouring for subsidized medical care. Watch out how far you go down the road when you NASA bash.

By: Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:22:36 +0000

Let me see here.. An increase in NASA is bad, but spending money on failed social programs is good.. Go figure..

By: Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:22:32 +0000

Let me see here.. An increase in NASA is bad, but spending money on failed social programs is good.. Go figure..