A couple of new commentaries have taken some swings at NASA’s exploration program and NASA in general, but they arguably stand on shaky ground. First up is a piece by Alexander Villacampa on LewRockwell.com. Villacampa, speaking with all the experience of a college sophomore (which he is), argues that NASA should be abolished and space exploration completely privatized. “In order to save the taxpayer from having to pay the increasing costs of a hopeless space exploration program, simply disband NASA and allow the market to decide if such practices are needed in society.” He speaks highly of SpaceShipOne and Virgin Galactic, although he doesn’t appear to quite grasp the fact that SS1 was a suborbital vehicle, hence it and its successor will cost far less to operate than the shuttle or any other orbital vehicle in operation or under development. And Villacampa ignores the fact that society does indeed “decide if such practices are needed in society” through the electoral process; at the very least, they decide that they don’t care too much one way or the other.
In an op-ed published on the environmental web site Mongabay.com, Russell A. Mittermeier, president of Conservation International, decries the lack of money being spent on ocean research compared to space exploration. His most dubious claim: “Then there’s the latest $230 billion to send us back to the moon, and beyond. How much is the government spending each year to probe Earth’s still-unexplored frontier – the deep oceans? About $30 million. That’s million, with an ‘m.'” Mittermeier doesn’t provide a source for that $230 billion figure, which is far higher than previous estimates for exploration spending through the end of the next decade (perhaps he’s added a fudge factor for cost overruns?), which doesn’t help his argument. He tries to be careful not to put space exploration versus earth science, but sometimes he crosses the line. “I believe that some of those billions of NASA dollars would be more wisely invested on discovering and safeguarding Earth’s biodiversity that we earthlings ultimately depend on for survival.” This is not a zero-sum game: if we care enough about both, we can spend money on both.
I totally agree with you Jeff. If history has shown us anything it’s that central planning is way more efficient than market allocation of economic resources.
If the skills and capabilities of what are still the world’s two most significant space programs — that of the United States and Russia — are anything to go by, central planning has produced a rocketry industry at least the match of our supposedly free market economy. Of course, as certain people on this list will happily point out, the United States’ space program has hardly been a model free market economy, and Asif Siddiqi’s Challenge to Apollo argues that it was the Soviets’ essentially unplanned, chaotic, and dispersed effort that lost them the race to the moon.
Mr. Villacampa has been drinking too much of the cultural cool aid around him; his arguments appear as thoughtlessly simplistic as a college student’s arguments in the 1960s. Different, but hardly better.
— Donald
> This is not a zero-sum game: if we care enough about both, we can spend money on both.
Okay, first of all, the $30 million figure is bogus. NOAA’s annual budget is about $3.5 billion.
That aside, Jeff, I’m wondering, is there *any* social program you don’t believe we can afford if we just care enough?
If you don’t believe government spending is a zero-sum game, where do you think tax dollars come from? Do you think taxpayers have infinite bank accounts, from which government can extract as much as it wants? Or that government can just “print” infinite sums of money?
Your oft-repeated statement is a new version of the old liberal saw. The classic version was usually followed by the explanation that all the money would come from the military, which should be forced to hold bake sales to build aircraft carriers.
However, the military gets its money from the same finite pool of tax dollars as the rest of the government. The government is already cutting ships, fighter wings, and military readiness to pay for all the social programs you say we can afford.
If government spending were not a zero sum game (or a negative sum game), none of those cuts would be necessary. Surely you recognize that. I’ve never seen you (or anyone else) state that we can afford both VSE and military space plane or military readiness (for example).
Sure, we can cut the military further to plant flags on the Moon, study the oceans, and do all the other things you say we don’t need to choose between. But what’s the point of spending American dollars to plant flags on other planets and study the oceans if those planets and oceans fall under the domination of another nation’s military someday because we cared more about bread and circuses?
__
Donald: You may consider laying off astronauts and building a more-expensive Shuttle replacement more “significant” than lowering the cost of space transportation, creating new jobs and new industries, and protecting the national defense.
Many of us disagree with you.
“But what’s the point of spending American dollars to plant flags on other planets and study the oceans if those planets and oceans fall under the domination of another nation’s military someday because we cared more about bread and circuses?”
So, another nation might start launching brigades to other planets? Wouldn’t this be ineffective as well as cost prohibitive?
As for the budget, while national defense should be a primary concern, I say if the military would cut even half the waste I saw during my service, we wouldn’t even have to have this guns versus butter argument. I know my observations weren’t unique, every soldier or sailor has there own set of examples, and the fraud waste and abuse have only gotten worse since the wars began. How many billions are unaccounted for in Iraq again? Isn’t it like $18 billion?
I’m all for the free market, and think yeah, it probably will do much, much, better than NASA, in like 30 years. I just wish people would acknowledge that the free market can be a force for bad as well as good, if not properly regulated.
> So, another nation might start launching brigades to other planets? Wouldn’t
> this be ineffective as well as cost prohibitive?
Brigades? One infantry squad could overpower any crew NASA plans to send into space. You also overlook the possibility that another nation might invest in cheaper launch systems, rather than just trying to recreate Apollo.
> I say if the military would cut even half the waste I saw during my service,
> we wouldn’t even have to have this guns versus butter argument… How many
> billions are unaccounted for in Iraq again? Isn’t it like $18 billion?
“Unaccounted for” does not necessarily mean wasted, it means unaccounted for — soldiers didn’t keep proper financial records in a combat zone. So what? Have you seen the GAO comments on NASA’s accounting system?
Even if the whole $18 billion was wasted, “half” of that would not be enough to pay for NASA, let alone all those other goodies. In FY07, the proposed military budget is $466 billion, out of a $2.8 trillion budget.
> I’m all for the free market, and think yeah, it probably will do much,
> much, better than NASA, in like 30 years.
You’re off by 32 years. In 2004, private enterprise launched more astronauts than NASA did. NASA now launches fewer astronauts than it did in the 1980’s, and it doesn’t even *want* to do more. The number of NASA astronauts will decline further when “Orion” replaces the Shuttle, and they consider that a good thing. “Significant,” as Donald would say.
> I just wish people would acknowledge that the free market can be a force
> for bad as well as good, if not properly regulated.
Okay, so the free market ran over your cat or something. How does that relate to the market price of rice in China? Or $2 trillion worth of social spending programs?
As for the budget, while national defense should be a primary
What are we defending ourselves against, hoards of mongols and barbarians beating at the walls? If that is the case, then we as a so called modern civilization are doing something seriously wrong.
Whatever could it be?
If that is the case, then we as a so called modern civilization are doing something seriously wrong.
Ofcourse we are. Instead of spending $500B putting boots on the ground with rifles to fight savages armed with IED’s, we should instead be using our much more efficient ‘modern civilization’ weapons. ICBM’s armed with MIRVed 2MT hydrogen bombs.
Unfortunately the doctrine of minimum use of overwealming force that kept us safe during the 1960’s and 70’s now seems to be out of fashion.
we should instead be using our much more efficient ‘modern civilization’ weapons. ICBM’s armed with MIRVed 2MT hydrogen bombs.
Nuking the oilfields will certainly help civilization create a rational space program and promote international space cooperation.
Let me guess, you’re an American, no? For the rest of you mentally and intellectually challenged Earthlings out there, choose now : weapons or space.
Let me guess, you’re an American, no? For the rest of you mentally and intellectually challenged Earthlings out there, choose now : weapons or space.
Firstly, that’s a false dichotomy. Until we are all rational modern democratic nations with industrialized capitalist economies, both powerful weapons and space based sigint, surveillance and reconnaissance are going to be required.
Secondly, no, I’m one of those 6 billion people who live in “foreign” who thought that bastardised nation building exercises in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq were a bad idea for the reasons which are only now slowly becoming apparent to Americans. My personal philosphy is that my country should only consider military intervention in three cases. 1. Peacekeeping in failed states. 2. Preventing a nation state from committing genocide. 3. Detering a direct invasion of my homeland or that of an allied nation.
Firstly, that’s a false dichotomy. Until we are all rational modern democratic nations
Hint : America is not a rational modern democratic nation. The fact that we, as a nation, have violated all three of your first principles, several times over, should have been your first hint.