I guess the question to ask is how are space programs run in the rest of the world? I would assume closely aligned with the military. Maybe not? Russia and China most certainly are...? Its seems strange to have NASA and the military working towards the same goals and not share the ideas and costs. Why develop two space vehicles when one will do? Lastly, NASA certainly seems stuck in a rut. Their solutions appear over-thought, over-priced and obsolete. Look what Burt Rutan did with a tiny company and far less money. How about they hire him to run NASA? RT

Several entwined issues there.

Why look to other countries for models for the USA? Each country has it's own unique situation. It's like looking for models for creating a welfare state. Why go there?

Your point about NASA being stuck in a rut is exactly right. They are in an agency that should thrive on innovation and intellectual risk, but they are unable to take risks because Congress likes all bases covered in advance. A typically bureaucratic approach. Taxpayers don't like to see their money wasted on fruitless projects -- understandable. But how do you take risks and innovate if you have to prove that the venture isn't risky before investing in it?

Governments are incapable of innovation. They are inherently conservative -- the opposite of innovative.

IMO, space science & engineering is sufficiently well understood that it should be abandoned by the government except as a regulatory agency -- the proper role of government. Leave innovation and development to risk-takers.

Who cares, their is no money to be made in space at this time.

Those who don't think that all there is to life making money.

- Peter.

Hatt: commsats, gps, Earth observation

Profit drives inovation.

Thats whats holding space exploration back. We lack the technoligy to make it profitable, and we won't develope it until it is. Its a catch 22.

I'm not talking about satellites. I'm talking about going to Mars or the moon and bringing back many tillions worth of raw resources, enough to power the expansion of a country such as China.

The Wright brothers were not out to invent the airplane when they did, they were trying to figure out if powered flight was possible.

They were continually trying to figure things out and when they discovered that most of what was known about wing design was wrong they wanted to see if they could find out what was right.

To do that they invented the wind tunnel. Then they came up with the correct figures and built wings, then they worked out the design for air propellers and then they flew!

It was all just a hobby until it became a challange. I think space flight should be the same way. Our grasp must be beyond our reach.

The Wright's got rich because of uses others found for their aircraft; they did not invent powered flight to get rich.

By the way: The reason they built their own engine? Because they had run our of money to buy one. Hey! These hobbies can get pricy!

Pooka

After having worked on satellite & launch vehicle projects for the Air Force, Navy and NASA, I can categorically state that NASA is the worst of the bunch. I've never had to deal with a more bureaucratically bloated organization than they.

I won't bore you with details, but I have plenty of stories like one that involved 8 overseers assigned to watch over 3 engineers actually doing the work.:rolleyes:

1. That's no fair. You said there was no profit in space then I gave you instances of profiting in space, then you change the definition.

2. Another profit source that the Russians (ironic to so the least) have exploited is tourism. Wanna go for the ride of you life? Sign-up for cosmonaut training and a ride to the space station and back.

3. Now's the time for innovation. All the technology is there. Figure-out a profit source from the technology and you too can be a plutocrat.

B

I only mentioned other countries to point out that the space programs being associated with the military or not MAY or MAY NOT affect perception of the general population. At this point I am unsure that there is enough reason beyond pure science to keep going up there. So I am not sure that private sector investors are going to be willing to spend money on it. Kinda like Gov't funding of university research, etc. It sure doesn't take NASA budgets to keep putting satellites up. It does to keep a space station going and the pure science that this allows.

I'm a huge fan of Rutan however I don't see how even he could get funding up to support a purely scientific cause with no direct payoff. Its tough for sure. There are surely some great discoveries waiting if we keep pushing for them however it is hard to justify that with no specific guarantee of any success. A better idea may be joint private sector/NASA project where NASA specs the vehicles, etc. and pays the private sector to build them then uses the technology.

Maybe I am incorrect in my thinking but doesn't NASA actually build, assemble, etc. their own stuff, with pieces provided by outside vendors at the component level? Wouldn't it make far more sense to purchase whole vehicles, similar to the way the military purchases vehicles?

RT

What is the point of spending tax dollars on pure science (however that is defined)? For me, the gov is for regulating trade and for defense. Scientific research is not part of the governmental structure. If it is, then why not fund arts & humanities? How about astrology and scientology?

Essentially, I think science is a tool of the private sector. If we look over the course of science over the past 400 - 500 years, the greatest advances had immediate, useful purpose. It's only been in the past 100 years or so that "pure science" became a goal in itself.

As a challenging proposition: I am no longer convinced that science, outside of application, is especially valuable to me. I'm more than willing to entertain an argument just to see where it goes.

B

No Katherine the great said "OOOH Wilbur"

Your knowledge on this topic is likely far greater than mine however consider this: "Pure science" if we need to define it lets call it science that explores theories that don't have any immediate practical use. While I would agree that the past 400-500 years have produced startling advances it seems that the early stuff in many ways was "low hanging fruit". Not that the discoveries were not groundbreaking or difficult to come by but simply the benefits were so clearly seen before the work even began. It would appear now that science is ever more esoteric and removed from daily life, not to mention the newest theories are fantastically expensive to test. It would seem that Gov't funded research is a good thing if only on a limited basis.

An example would be "supercolliders" I don't even pretend to know what they do but AFAIK building them and messing about with particles at that level is pure science. Who knows what they might find out, hell some folks were actually terrified of what might happen....

And the Gov't does fund the Arts&Humanities, its called the NEA....

RT

If we could fly the space shuttle to the surface of Mars and back (we can't), and if bricks of pure gold were stacked up next to the perfect landing and departure point, and did we bring such a cargo back we'd have 50,000 lbs of gold -- at $850 an ounce, $680,000,000. Do you think we could mount such a trip for that price? Asteroids would be easier as there's not nearly as much gravity to overcome on departure but, let's face it, pure ores that we might want are not going to be out there. It would cost 838 ska-zillion dollars to process ore on an asteroid or other planet. And we'd still have to land a huge payload safely on earth to make it pay.

This is pure fantasy. The sooner we let go of it, the better.

You make some good points concerning "pure" science and I also agree with your general definition.

It seems to me that we have the luxury of engaging in pure science only because we have a society with excess wealth. If our culture's wealth was limited by sustenance then science, if practiced at all, would focus on the immediate needs of the culture. This is not unlike treatment of the handicapped. If we were more hand-to-mouth then we would probably be more tolerant of say, infanticide against the infirm.

So to that degree, the practices of pure science are a luxury.

My comment concerning NEA and NEH were facetious. However, the point about those particular programs is not unlike the point concerning pure science -- these are luxuries that are affordable only because we have excess wealth. My argument would be for greater parsimony even in times of plenty. This is a corollary to the argument, "Because we can, doesn't mean we should."

So, to the main argument. Why should the government fund anything that is not of tangible and direct benefit to the taxpayer?