TheAgitator.com
Spaced Out
Saturday, January 10th, 2004President Bush: Vowing to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at a wasteful federal bureaucracy is not “bold.” It does not make you a “visionary.” In fact, it only solidifies your place among all the other mediocre presidents who freely spent tax dollars in an effort to make themselves look grand.
Want to be bold? Two suggestions. First, read this Anne Applebaum column, which might be the smartest thing I’ve read yet on space exploration.
Then, abolish NASA. Open space up to free enterprise. That would be bold. It would probably get man to Mars a lot faster, too.
Amen.
I propose that the Bush administration take it a step further and begin drafting LAFTA, the Lunar-American Free Trade Agreement. Under the provisions of LAFTA, American workers would be promised several acres of Lunar frontage, and American corporations would have yet another venue to which they could export American jobs. Certainly, the labor market on the moon’s surface is presently lacking, but the incentive of free real estate could solve that problem in a few decades. Wages for the lunar workforce would be a pittance since these folks wouldn’t have mortgages to hold down.
Oh, I know there are a few holes in this plan, but what the heck.
Nobody in the free market has the drive or the power to get us moving.
Left to their own devices the space-fanatic orgs and corps would build a bunch of L5-imitation habitats and -in the very long term- bustle uselessly around the asteroid belt and Jupiter. Dumping people on Mars can be left to the corporate-commies or we can spearhead it ourselves.
NASA, as it stands, is a complete waste of money. But the idea that government-driven space exploration has to be a massive drain on taxpayers with little results is a myth.
I’m all for tearing NASA’s bureaucracy apart and getting rid of those stupid laws forbidding extraterrestrial property but, fact is, the space-movement needs a heart. Weâ??re the only ones with the strength to provide it.
(Sorry if I’ve argued a use for the feds outside of typical Libertarian dogma, but, hey, thatâ??s the way it is.)
Bush has proposed appox. an $800million increase in NASA’s budget, which happens to be close to the cost ONE shuttle launch (not including it’s payload and associated science). He has not proposed spending billions and billions of dollars, but hugely smaller amounts for investigating feasibility. The shuttle program has been a disaster since it’s inception, having been linked to the internat’l space station, which didn’t exist until many years after the first shuttle launch. Manned space flight has always been about politcs and not science. The cold war set the terms and the bureaucracy bloomed from there.
Now technology has developed to the point that there is no real reason to include manned missions, as is now proven by the current Mars project. Space explorations should be about science, not politics. The day will come when a private organization will claim the X Prize and the stage will be set for the commercializion of space, presuming the effort will provide benefit to earthlings. In the interim, it would be a glorious day to hear the shuttle program and the space stations have been taken out of service, the space budget slashed in half and only UNMANNED exploration becomes the only function of the tax supported space program.
In my view, completely shutting down NASA would be a mistake, as the private sector may or may not take up the effort. Regardless, haven’t the
curious always tooked out at the horizon and wondered about the (currently) unknown?
meek
I don’t think we’d get a manned mission to Mars faster with free enterprise, because there’s simply no point in going except as a publicity stunt (which is what Bush is doing). More than likely, were free enterprise instituted in space, the focus would be on delivering payloads into space very cheaply.
- Josh
Right Josh. Only government has the power to deliver products that nobody wants, like a manned mission to Mars. It’s pure waste.
have to agree with matt. corporations often get slammed for “forcing” people to desire things they don’t really want. that’s exactly what the goverment is doing now. so what if private enterprise doesn’t pick up the slack (which I doubt, anyway). that would just mean that no one is interested enough to make the investment with their own money. sounds fine to me. but of course the government isn’t spending it’s own money, so why should it care if a manned mission to mars is the way we want our money spent.
W. Gillis-
But the idea that government-driven space exploration has to be a massive drain on taxpayers with little results is a myth.
Hmmm…. that’s actually the reality. The myth is that government can do anything but drain taxpayers with little results.
Is there one good reason for a manned mission to Mars? Given the success record of unmanned Mars missions, it’s almost certainly a suicide mission anyway. Unless Mars has metals or minerals that are rare and valuable or nonexistant and valuable on Earth, I predict Mars gets super uninteresting when we finally accept there is not and was not a civilization there.
I have some concerns about privatizing space travel and exploration.
First, much of our defense and national well being sits in space. Communication satellites. Some carry nothing more than TV signals, some carry encrypted communications from around the world. If we can all agree that the government is inept at managing more than one thing at a time, imagine the job of monitoring every sensitive satellite to ensure it is not tampered with by any one of the multitude of private space explorers. Increasing the amount of traffic in space is a legitimate national security concern as long as we depend on secure satellite transmissions.
Second, managing the amount of objects in space takes a full-time staff. Each object, from a satellite to a bolt fallen loose from Hubble, has a unique orbit and a NASA team constantly monitors these orbits to ensure the safety of important satellites, the space station, and the shuttle. Multiply the number of visits into space and the number of potential objects circling the earth at breakneck speed and it all becomes an unmangeable problem resulting in space travel and exploration becoming even more hazardous not to mention the danger posed to sensitive satellite equipment.
Third, it is common practice to inform other nations when launching anything into space for the simple fact that we do not want it mistaken for an ICBM. We would need to design a system, technological and beauracratic, that monitors pending launches and ensures other nations are informed. I can’t imagine what would happen the first time an unannounced launch occurs. I’m not saying there isn’t a solution, all I’m saying is that it’s something that would need to be addressed if we are to expect far more private launches.
Perhaps I’m off but it seems privatizing space travel poses different problems that create some very serious security concerns. I know there are many that get pissed off when NASA uses their subsidized status to win satellite launching contracts and that does rub my Libertarian sensibilities the wrong way. However, I haven’t read or heard a compelling argument for dismantling NASA although there are some good ones for changing the way it does business.
Arguing over the necessity to expand out of our cradle is too often futile in the extreme. I don’t have the time or the patience.
It’s a simple fact that Government finance and drive is often crucial to pioneering initial exploration. Nobody in the free-market is powerful enough to take over the drive to the stars. Not now, not for a long time. Too expensive. Too complex.
Like the environment, I see this as a field where our blundering government is necessary. Ultimately space travel and environmental preservation is about collective survival. It’s baby sitting. It’s nannyism. But it’s not against the individual. Taking the first steps will be hard and’ll take a couple bucks. But if the government isn’t there to -at very least- assure our collective survival, than it has no purpose.
Like I said, I doubt many will understand the urgency or our responsibility to spur human exploration, and I’m too lazy and self-righteous to post a full argument. Ah well.
Let me say first that I am not for expanding Nasa, nor am I for reducing it. There are too many people working for Nasa to abolish it. That would be detrimental to the economy.
One good thing I could see happening from the govt giving Nasa 800 million MORE dollars would be the new jobs that would be created. With new jobs comes more spending, buying, and building. Bigger spending brings more production. More production makes more jobs. And who knows what new kinds of technology we would get from the process of trying to get to Mars (not necessarly from being there).
Remember, decades ago people thought it was ridiculous to send a man to the moon, but we did. And it has become pretty “uninteresting” too, to use Diego’s words. I agree with him, that we’re not going to find anything significant up there. BUT we will create a better quality of life for us earthlings in the process.
Uhh… “Open space up to free enterprise”
I didn’t know the US government was preventing anyone from going to space. I think space is pretty open for free enterprise right now…I mean look at DirecTV and EchoStar. They’re out there…Rupurt Murdoch is out there. (I’m sure there’s lots of other shit out there, but I don’t know what it is…and if it isn’t beaming HDTV into my living room I truly don’t give a damn…more on that later)
I won’t say that space exploration isn’t a waste of money, but it has brought us some great government funded breakthroughs. ie…Tang!
Woo Hoo we’re going to Mars!
Actually this situation is similar to one that I currently face. My friend has a 40″ HDTV. The only way that I can prove that I have a larger penis without pulling it out (which is socially unexceptable) is to buy a 52″ HDTV.
It’s amazing how my life parallels the penis battles of our national leaders.
====================================
A random additon. I saw one of the posts mention the need for government spending for exploration. Well I have a good example. These 2 big continents called the Americas. If it weren’t for goverment initiated explorations (for greed at the time) then the world would still be flat! (ok, not really…but what the hell)
Uhh… “Open space up to free enterprise”
I didn’t know the US government was preventing anyone from going to space. I think space is pretty open for free enterprise right now…I mean look at DirecTV and EchoStar. They’re out there…Rupurt Murdoch is out there. (I’m sure there’s lots of other shit out there, but I don’t know what it is…and if it isn’t beaming HDTV into my living room I truly don’t give a damn…more on that later)
I won’t say that space exploration isn’t a waste of money, but it has brought us some great government funded breakthroughs. ie…Tang!
Woo Hoo we’re going to Mars!
Actually this situation is similar to one that I currently face. My friend has a 40″ HDTV. The only way that I can prove that I have a larger penis without pulling it out (which is socially unexceptable) is to buy a 52″ HDTV.
It’s amazing how my life parallels the penis battles of our national leaders.
====================================
A random additon. I saw one of the posts mention the need for government spending for exploration. Well I have a good example. These 2 big continents called the Americas. If it weren’t for goverment initiated explorations (for greed at the time) then the world would still be flat! (ok, not really…but what the hell)
TC1 — ol’ pal — how do you think all those satellites got up there?
You can’t get to space from U.S. soil without going through NASA first. In fact, NASA has event tried to prevent other countries from launching “space tourism” industries from within their own borders.
As for the olden days, it’s true that the state funded most exploration, but the state controlled most everything in those days. But in the few areas where private enterprise was allowed to thrive, such as the Netherlands, exporation and discovery did very well (see the Dutch East Indies Co.).
I don’t buy the line that we can thank the space industry for teflon, casserole dishes and microchips. That all might be true. But if we had allowed private companies to go exploring all these decades instead limiting the great beyond to the of one state-controlled bureaucracy, who’s to say we wouldn’t still have all those things, and lots more?
Radley, I disagree with you on the point that free enterprise would do better than the govt for two reasons:
#1 We all know that if you work for the govt you never get fired. A scientist working for Nasa, ie the govt, who has little to no threat (job security) of losing his/her job might take more chances/do more good/be more productive. This is not true in all agencies or job markets, but in this case I believe it is because of the type of far-out-there stuff that they experiment with. Try using some new invention in the post office and see what happens to you. You’d get sent to the mail sorter. Do something crazy and inventive at Nasa, and you’re considered a genius. It is my belief that people with job security tend to flourish more. If you are a scientist working for a start up space company with limited funds, your hands are going to be tied and you’ll be limited in what you can do/accomplish.
#2 No one is as interested in space exploration as the govt is, and those who are, are wackos without money (I realized that this is an over-generalized statement, sue me). The only agency that can continually push money to the program is the govt, and they’re the only agency who wants to. Without the govt involvement, there wouldn’t be a space program.
other contributions from Nasa:
REM’s cool song Man on the Moon
desktop/portable/laptop computers, but who needsem?
There are a few companies within the U.S. who are in the business of launching rockets into space. So yes, there is a bit of free enterprise in that arena. However, it is also true that NASA routinely outbids this private firms because they have a subsidized budget. A little hidden issue though is that when NASA outbids a private enterprise it’s usually because the U.S. government wishes to secretly send something into space by piggybacking on an already planned and already announced launch.
There are laws that require all launches to be approved by NASA. There are also laws that make it illegal within the U.S. to send manned space flights sponsored by anyone except NASA. So to answer TC1′s post and support Balko’s response, free enterprise in space is extremely limited. When an AT&T satellite goes wacky you don’t see an AT&T space repairman fly up between the hours of 8 am and 4pm. NASA has to go up there and fix it.
Mankind should return to the moon. Mankind should go to Mars.
Mankind should go to THE STARS.
Ahem… Back to earth; this is a no lose situation for Bush. He proposes this silly waste(MANNED exploration of space) and hides behind the Kennedy legend to protect himself from democratic criticism. If nobody goes for it–well anyway he tried. If he sneaks it past, it will definitely need strong bi-partisan support as many conservatives will oppose this boondoggle(emphasis on the “manned” aspect to justify boondoggle tag). Then kabamm! Nice high profile cover for the deficit to mollify those not inclined to accept that other high profile cover for the deficit, 9/11.
This is typical Bush,(or maybe Karl Rove) putting at least one egg in as many baskets as he can.
There are a few companies within the U.S. who are in the business of launching rockets into space.
http://www.hdtv-info.org