Comments on: Defund NASA

By: Jim Bennett

Jim Bennett — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:14:01 +0000

Two points: It has been against US policy for NASA to sell “satellite placement serves” on a regular basis to the private sector since 1986; and

The Longitude Prize still domonstrated many of the public-choice problems of taxpayer funding — the judging committee was packed with advocates of one particular solution (not the one which eventually won) who made it very difficult for Harrison to get his prize within his lifetime.

By: Mark O

Mark O — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:04:48 +0000

How about mostly defunding NASA and getting it in the business of using big prize contests to “X-Prize” our way into space, ala the way the Brits solved the Longitude problem. NASA expertise could setup prizes, arbitrate winners, do the cheerleading in the MSM and so on. Much cheaper for the taxpayers and better results.

By: Small Pink Mouse

Small Pink Mouse — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:55:33 +0000

Ken.
Since the Vikings came on their own dime that would suggest that private expeditions would be ineffectual. And in fairness to Columbus I should probably point out that the Spanish *were* doing things in his lifetime. He did colonize 1 of the isles he’d explored and the settlement in question is still around today. Just about every colony you might wish to name was funded by the government of the day either directly or indirectly.

Jonathon,
Civil engineering projects of a large scale are one of the things that government alone can do. This one is justified by the fact that:

1. It gives us a signigficant military edge over everyone else (I probably should elaborate on that one later when I’m more awake).

2. It provides us with access to useful mineral resources.

3. Through the development of SPS (Solar Power Satellite) systems it can provide us with the energy resources we need to keep our economy on a sound basis.
- S.P.M.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:52:05 +0000

Maybe we should put NASA in the deep freeze, and re-institute it after private launch infrastructure has cut the cost of launching missions, scientific and otherwise, to a small fraction of its present value.

The Vikings made it to North America, and never did anything with it. Columbus, supported by Queen Isabella, landed, looked around a little while, and went home. Later, various Europeans came on their own dime looking for gold, and stuck around; later, paying customers came looking for farmland and freedom, and stuck around, and made something unbelievable out of it.

By: Wade

Wade — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:38:48 +0000

It’s disappointing that Magnetic Sail Plasma Beam Propulsion discussed on this blog last month isn’t listed as one of Nasa’s planned/proposed projects. Is it too SciFi to be considered?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002406.html

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:10:43 +0000

There are lots of worthy causes. Why do some of them justify the forceful taking of taxpayers’ property?

By: Small Pink Mouse

Small Pink Mouse — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:47:28 +0000

Yes it is. R&D is something that always pays off in the longrun and quite frankly we are going to need something with a *big* payoff to offset the Social Security Meltdown(tm) that is scheduled to begin in a decade or so. Stephan is quite right when he points out that there is a lot of things we need to do that just won’t be done by people who think only by the business quarter.

But that’s one of the reasons I would consider defunding the manned exploration program to be a bad idea as well. Humans are more versatile than machines and can do a lot more than even our best SOTA at a much cheaper price. As G. Henry Stine was fond of pointing out, they’re easy to manufacture with the aid of unskilled labor as well.

- S.P.M.

By: incognito

incognito — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:42:34 +0000

One of his main points is that all this pure research is NASA’s specialty, but at what price? In a time of high deficits and debt, a moritorium on pure research maybe isn’t such a bad idea.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:36:02 +0000

I don't mind defunding the manned space program. But I strongly disagree with the idea of defunding unmanned research satellites. I'm afraid I don't see any plausible way such a thing could and would be privately funded. Who, exactly, would have been willing to spend the money needed to send the Cassini probe to Saturn? A couple of billion dollars of expense, with a travel time of several years, and no major market for the data collected? But the fact that it couldn't possibly be justified as a commercial investment doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Who would be willing to pay for this? If it works, it will be the first instrument capable of detecting earth-sized planets around other stars. I really want that to happen. But where's the market for that data? Make a business case for me for doing this entirely with private investment. You can't. Take a look at this page and the future and proposed pages. There are a lot of things there I want to see happen, but I don't for a minute believe that "private enterprise" will be willing to invest in them. There's a lot more to NASA than the space shuttle.