TheAgitator.com
To the Moon!
Sunday, December 7th, 2003So let’s see, you’re the biggest spending president since FDR. Polls show you’ve blown your rally-round-the-flag bump presidents generally get from going to war, because Americans are growing ever skeptical of the motives and planning for that war.
What do you do? You ask your national greatness neocon advisors for an expensive, patriotism-building endeavor that will make you seem bold, visionary, and forward-thinking.
You announce a grand, money-pit plan to boldly go where….um….we already went. Thirty years ago. And to do it, you’ll need to hand over a ton of money to NASA, a federal agency that has done little to win public confidence over the last ten years.
I’m fairly sure this “go back to the moon” thing is still in trial-balloon mode. But it’s monumentally stupid. There’s nothing on the moon for us, save for a plan to install a telescope, which most scientists think can be done with an unmanned spacecraft.
Advice to the president: You wanna’ put a man on the moon in the next five years? Dissolve NASA. Immediately. At the very least, lift the monopoly the agency has over domestic space flight. Open space up to the private sector. Let rich sci-fi geeks buy lunar landing thrill vacations.
Not only will you put another man on the moon, in ten years, there’ll be a Starbucks. In 20, the first lunar Star Trek convention.
He does know that there aren’t any Muslims on the moon, right?
And we’re going to keep it that way!
USA! USA! USA!
We should all keep in mind that the Chinese have already declared their intention to go to the moon.
So while we are beating up other kids on the block, they are playing Columbus.
NASA or not, we should be pushing for space exploration because it leads to valuable spin-off technologies.
There was an outstanding article called “Columbia’s last flight” in last month’s Atlantic about the Columbia disaster. Absolutely brilliant stuff. It’s still available on line. It broke down not only the technological problems that caused the break-up but also got to the root management and beaurocratic problems with NASA. It is a great read.
That article also highlighted how the international space station, which only a decade or so ago was the great cooperative project that would establish a home for astronauts in space, is now used sparingly and seen largely as a mistake. All that money, and all those shuttle trips to supply the station, and now a number of people think it should just be junked.
Radley Balko: I’m fairly sure this “go back to the moon” thing is still in trial-balloon mode.
Gee â?¦ do you think?!?
File this under: Never gonna happen in reality.
But it will score some points with the Cult of SETI and the secularist/atheist crowd.
Radley Balko: â?¦ patriotism-building endeavor that will make you seem bold, visionary, and forward-thinking.
You mean itâ??s not working on you Radley?
Think of it like this, for every dollar Bush spends building the starship Enterprise that is one dollar less he has to spend fighting brutally unnecessary wars against people hell-bent on destroying us.
“Think of it like this, for every dollar Bush spends building the starship Enterprise that is one dollar less he has to spend fighting brutally unnecessary wars against people hell-bent on destroying us.”
Sadly, this just isn’t true. With the miracle of deficit spending, there’s plenty of money for both.
“NASA or not, we should be pushing for space exploration because it leads to valuable spin-off technologies.”
Unfortunately, this is another case of Bastiat’s Seen and Unseen. Yes, some valuable spin-off technologies came out of the space program. But given the billions (trillions?) of dollars that have been pumped into it, that’s not necessarily any great accomplishment.
The real question is what would have been done with that money had it remained in private hands and not been taxed away in the first place. The question is impossible to answer, but given NASA’s incredible track record of bureaucratic waste and inefficiency, it’s not hard to believe that private industry could have done more.
Anonymous: Sadly, this just isn’t true. With the miracle of deficit spending, there’s plenty of money for both.
Deficit spending isnâ??t a miracle.
It is a well established scientific fact that when you die you cease to exist, and once you have ceased to exist all of your debts vanish by the â??magicalâ? and stochastic nature of quantum mechanics.
Anonymous: Unfortunately, this is another case of Bastiat’s Seen and Unseen. Yes, some valuable spin-off technologies came out of the space program. But given the billions (trillions?) of dollars that have been pumped into it, that’s not necessarily any great accomplishment.
Obviously you havenâ??t had any Tang in a while.
Mmmmm â?¦ Tang!
Big Idea
The “floating” proposal about a US return to the moon has garned a lot of discussion. Last few days I’ve seen the National Review offer an opinion endorsing the idea, Radley Balko scoff at it, and the Washington Post editorialize
Anonymous, I am not promoting NASA’s ways at all. I have worked in aerospace (not NASA) for too many years and have seen the lack of focus and direction that this agency suffers from.
However, the private sector hasn’t stepped up to the plate so far, when it comes to space travel. Some wacky ideas are being pushed around, but they will run out of cash before anything useful happens. Sad, but true.
NASA’s monopoly isn’t much of a monopoly when it comes to space craft, but only they have pockets deep enough (tax payer’s money) to accomplish anything in this expensive game.
Serpent, add this to your Tang:
1. Error correction used for Satellite down link (used in Satellite TV)
2. Space imaging technologies
3. Bar Coding
4. Eye exam systems for infants who can’t tell you if they can see things ‘well’
5. Ear thermometers (IR based)
6. Fire resistant fabrics (now used by fire departments)
7. Smoke Detectors
8. All kinds of protective lens technologies used in welding among other areas
9. pushed industries to adopt numerous CAD tools
10. Cordless tools
11. Thermal Gloves, boots etc.
12. All kinds of shock absorbing materials foams etc.
13. Lithium batteries
14. ceramics used in ‘invisible braces’
15. Edible toothpaste – can’t spit in 0 G – it will come back to haunt you ;-)
16. Joysticks
17. Numerous types of plastics / polymers, adhesives, composites.
There are probably a number of other technologies that I can’t think of right now.
Of course the private sector has come up with an even greater number of new technologies, but when you look at their roots, most go back to either military projects or aerospace.
Then there are all the ‘black’ programs, which despite having developed new technologies, will not be credited for such in the near future.
Joker, as I understand it in the years leading up to the 1968 Moon landing and for several years afterwards a HUGE portion of the U.S. GDP was devoted to the space program. Are you saying that the American public got there money’s worth?
Are you claiming that in the hands of the private sector the money spent on the Apollo program would have made less discoverys and technilogical advances?
Look, I am proud of the space program — don’t get me wrong. But the fact is we put Men on the Moon for almost the EXACT same reason that the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. It was more an homage to what we are capable of when we work together towards a common goal.
Can you put a price on Inspiration?
All valid points Serpent, but as pork goes, space exploration is about ‘advancing’ civilization as opposed to the countless other pork barrel projects that just fuck things up.
Again, forget NASA – it’s just an agency that posts RFPs to companies, which then try to innovate.
To use another example, the private sector didn’t attempt to study the problems associated with supersonic flight (very expensive R&D). It would have happened eventually, but thanks to the work done on the X-1, we could safely fly jet planes at Mach 0.85 without the wings falling off a decade or two earlier than we could have if the private sector attempted to duplicate the work.
All I’m saying is that despite the inefficiencies of a gov’t body, certain expensive & risky ventures would never have occurred in our life-times.
Imagine a scenario: A venture capitalist wants to invest. Opportunity X requires $1 billion & offers positive NPV 20 years in the future, opportunity Y requires half the money and has positive NPV 10 years from now (i.e. before said individual dies of old age). Which one will he/she choose?
Aerospace is like that – long schedules, very risky projects (high prob. of complete failure, risk factoring for liability). The private sector just isn’t interested, when you can invest in Nokia.
Contrast that spending against some loser who wants to spend your money teaching frogs how to swim or some damned thing….
I completely agree that money taxed, is money inefficiently spent, but if a politician is going to buy my vote, I’d rather see the money go to constructive work.
Another example is the computer. Initially developed to crack cipher codes of ‘the enemy’, now we all enjoy their benefits. The private sector wasn’t exactly jumping up and down to create computers in the 40s was it? I mean the nintendo market just wasn’t there, or was it?
Joker: All valid points Serpent, but as pork goes, space exploration is about ‘advancing’ civilization as opposed to the countless other pork barrel projects that just fuck things up.
Iâ??d agree that space exploration is more worthwhile than a lot of the other things that the government wastes money on, but other than for purposes of defense I donâ??t see how space exploration is a valid function of government.
Joker: Again, forget NASA – it’s just an agency that posts RFPs to companies, which then try to innovate.
True, however, NASA controls the funds â?? its â??government moneyâ? â?? and even though it is private companies doing the work and the research it is still NASA setting the priorities and the goals. If the private sector controlled the whole process the whole process would undoubtedly be more efficient â?? donâ??t you think?
Joker: To use another example, the private sector didn’t attempt to study the problems associated with supersonic flight (very expensive R&D). It would have happened eventually, but thanks to the work done on the X-1, we could safely fly jet planes at Mach 0.85 without the wings falling off a decade or two earlier than we could have if the private sector attempted to duplicate the work.
Okay, but supersonic flight has a definite military application, and one of the chief functions of government is national defense. In so far as the government is conducting legitimate government business I donâ??t have a problem with them getting involved in this kind of R&D.
Joker: All I’m saying is that despite the inefficiencies of a gov’t body, certain expensive & risky ventures would never have occurred in our life-times.
I agree. But you could make the same statement about the pyramids.
Joker: Imagine a scenario: A venture capitalist wants to invest. Opportunity X requires $1 billion & offers positive NPV 20 years in the future, opportunity Y requires half the money and has positive NPV 10 years from now (i.e. before said individual dies of old age). Which one will he/she choose?
You are correct. Societies have the capacity to persist long beyond the lifespan of an Individual, so the Society has a whole has the ability to plan and act much farther in the future than any single Individual. And I agree that is one of the points of having a government in the first place.
Joker: Aerospace is like that – long schedules, very risky projects (high prob. of complete failure, risk factoring for liability). The private sector just isn’t interested, when you can invest in Nokia.
But I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the private industry sees very little potential profit in space travel even into the distant future. I think there is a core group of space/science fanatics who are very obsessed with the idea of space travel, and futuristic technologies. They have an unrealistic view of what the future will be like, and they are using that vision to push forward their objectives.
The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence any intelligent aliens, and until very recently there was no hard evidence that planets even existed beyond our solar system. Even in our own solar system colonization of other planets or moons is unrealistic, as the most inhospitable places on Earth are far less hazardless to humans than the most ideal locations on other heavenly bodies.
Joker: I completely agree that money taxed, is money inefficiently spent, but if a politician is going to buy my vote, I’d rather see the money go to constructive work.
I agree, but realize that is how they sucker in the majority in the first place.
Joker: Another example is the computer. Initially developed to crack cipher codes of ‘the enemy’, now we all enjoy their benefits. The private sector wasn’t exactly jumping up and down to create computers in the 40s was it? I mean the nintendo market just wasn’t there, or was it?
You are correct; however, once again I would point out that computers (used for cracking enemy codes) have a definite military application, and national defense is one of only a few key functions that a legitimate government should even be involved in.
jonny