Space Exploration

[Мастер]

It just occurred to me, some things going on in the political arena may be bad news for space exploration.

The US and Iraqi governments have been negotiating a deal to remove US troops to bases, and eventually withdraw them completely. This deal has been getting bounced around a bit, and may be modified, or scuttled completely. The new presidential administration in the US may do something similar with or without a deal with the Iraqis.

To sum up, it is looking more and more likely that US military involvement in Iraq will be scaled down, or eliminated completely, in the coming years.

This could be a serious problem for space exploration. Whenever anyone asks at any astronomy/space board whether space exploration is worth the cost, someone immediately responds, "Oh yeah, well look how much money the US government is spending on Iraq!" So if the US involvement in Iraq ends, so does the prime motivation for space exploration.

What to do?

[Arneb]

Maybe we could ask Bin Laden or Muqtada al Sadr for some help? Or maybe Dubya can organize some skirmish in North Korea against which space ecploration would be a perfect example of money well spent?

[Мастер]

Maybe we could ask Bin Laden or Muqtada al Sadr for some help?

Maybe. Do you think they are supporters?

Or maybe Dubya can organize some skirmish in North Korea against which space ecploration would be a perfect example of money well spent?

Well, that would certainly be a better argument than "there is at least one thing going on that is a bigger waste of money than the thing I want!"

[Arneb]

Maybe. Do you think they are supporters?

Not necessarily, but I think they could be convinced that there was something in it for both sides. We get the argument for space exploration, they get the war they are so craving.

[MM_Dandy]

Well, the situation in Afghanistan seems to be fluctuating. I'm not sure what Obama has in mind, but I think that the military would like to see forces rediverted there from Iraq.

Iran may also want to test the hawkishness (is that a word?) of the new President by doing something particularly stupid and bold. North Korea might, too.

Besides that, aren't there a lot of other budget items bigger than NASA that have or could have likewise unproven results? What's NASA's slice of the pie these days?

[Мастер]

Besides that, aren't there a lot of other budget items bigger than NASA that have or could have likewise unproven results?

Surely, but what relevance do other projects have on the appropriate level of space exploration?

It seems to me, each project ought to be judged on its own merits. Benefits are uncertain (often costs are uncertain as well), and must be estimated. How to convince someone that space exploration is a good idea? Make a convincing argument that the likely benefits exceed the costs? Or argue that the government is doing at least one thing that is even dumber?

I like the first argument better than the second.

This thread was inspired by the "Obama sucks" post that was followed by a "Bush sucks" post. One may feel either or both of these statements are true, but to me, "Bush sucks" seems about as relevant to "Obama sucks" as the Iraq war is to space exploration.

What's NASA's slice of the pie these days?

It's quite small in the grand scheme of things.

I make no argument about what it should be. I merely argue that one of the stock arguments advanced at space sites makes zero sense.

This happens all the time at space sites. Someone asks whether the benefits of exploration are worth the cost, and it is virtually guaranteed that someone will swiftly respond, "What about the Iraq war?" The mechanism by which the Iraq war affects the desirability of space exploration is a total mystery to me.

[Lance]

We should explore because it's what we do. We should go because it's there.

And IMHO, there are no better reasons than those.

[Мастер]

We should explore because it's what we do. We should go because it's there.

And IMHO, there are no better reasons than those.

I make no argument against it. I merely argue that "look at the Iraq war" isn't a good reason.

[Arneb]

And I was playing along. Mactep mentions this point frequently here, and I hink he's right in doing so.

That said, I am all for pouring huge amounts of tax money into space exploration no matter what the economic benefit.

By the way, Mactep, apart from the inane arguments you got at BAUT and apolohoax, did you ever read some serious analysis on the economic effects of state-run space programs, in other words, was your question ever answered?

[Мастер]

By the way, Mactep, apart from the inane arguments you got at BAUT and apolohoax, did you ever read some serious analysis on the economic effects of state-run space programs, in other words, was your question ever answered?

I've looked for any serious analysis, and have yet to find it. The potential purported benefits are:
---------------------------------------------------
a) Job creation - if you ask me, this is just totally false, if the money were spent covering the city of Chicago with artistically decorated plastic cows (this actually happened!), that would also create jobs. And the taxation needed to support either of these activities would be job-destructive, but is generally quite conveniently left out of the argument

b) Direct applications - weather satellites, spy satellites, communications satellites, etc.

c) Technology transfer - undoubtedly this happens, although the benefits are often ridiculously overstated. The way some would have it, we'd all be living in caves right now if it weren't for technology driven by the space program.

d) Mass cultural consumption - it's something people want to do, and are willing to spend money on, even if the result is not tangible stuff sitting in their living rooms.
---------------------------------------------------
If you ask me, a) is just bogus, for the reasons above. b) is real, but would tend to lead to much more focused space activities, targeted directly towards things that have immediate applications.

c) is also real, but is it really credible that money spent on space exploration produces more benefits in terms of technology, like electronics, materials improvement, etc.) than money spent directly on research in the respective areas? I mean, if we launched a program to establish cattle ranches on the ocean floor, I'm sure we'd have to develop a lot of new technologies to do that, and some of those new technologies might have civilian applications. But is it really a cost-effective way of developing new technologies? I recall seeing someone interviewed at the end of some History or other cable-tv channel program, claiming that the technology transfer benefits of space exploration, relative to their cost, are quite modest. However, I did not get this individual's name, and have been unable to find any study to that effect. It is practically an article of faith at places like BAUT that every $1 in space exploration produces $7 in benefits, although nobody seems able to produce any supporting evidence of this, or even understands why anyone would want to see evidence. Apparently, if you like the conclusion, third-hand rumors are all the evidence you need.

Which leaves d), essentially the reason Llance cites, and you also seem to be advocating this one. And it is a perfectly valid reason - if I buy a Blu-ray DVD player, I don't need to prove that it creates jobs or produces technological benefits to justify the purchase, I enjoy watching films on it, and that's good enough. And yet a lot of people don't really seem comfortable arguing d), they need to argue a), b), and c). And many of these arguments seem to follow the pattern:

I support X.
The conclusion of argument Y is that X is a good idea.
Therefore, argument Y is a sound argument.

(Not relevant for this discussion, but another of my favorite faulty syllogisms comes from politics, and I see it in person and on the internet all the time:

Person X is narrow-minded, bigoted, and an idiot.
I disagree with person X.
Therefore, I am not narrow-minded, bigoted, and an idiot.

But I digress.)

Well, that's the long answer. I guess the short answer to your question would be, "no" :P

[Enzo]

How can you possibly discuss the benefits of the space science programs without the inclusion of Tang?

[Мастер]

How can you possibly discuss the benefits of the space science programs without the inclusion of Tang?

Ah, good point, the space program has negative consequences as well...

[Arneb]

Tang?

Great article, Mactep, as always. I have some sympathy for the "what about Irak argument", and that is from the fact that ardent space program critics always seem to pretend that the space program is eating away my tax money, and that we should rather spend it on creating "a better world down here" than for squandering it on "this 100 billion $ heap of trash in LEO". I find that argument pretty silly, and I think it is not beneath a good arguer to cooly point out that a lot more money is spent on a lot of much less worthy programs, so why would it benefit us especially to scrap this program in particular.

But of course, one connot rest anargument for a space program on these flimsy legs.

[Мастер]

Tang?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29

And from the web page, existed prior to its use by NASA.

[KLA2]

{Middle ages}
"And what use be these alchemists, and the money spent on them? Not one has found the way to make gold from base materials, and for my money, they never will."

Absolutely correct.

What value can we put on the economic and social benefits stemming from alchemy? How long did that take, and when will those benefits end?

You are technically correct, Mactep. Scientists tend to get defensive and testy when you gore their ox. They are sure the long term value is there, but is not so easy to quantify in the short term.

And they rightly fear, if it cannot be so justified, the funding will be spent elsewhere.

Perhaps another cathedral, or war to end all wars.

[Мастер]

Scientists tend to get defensive and testy when you gore their ox.

I don't even try to do that, they just assume I am. I only point out that some of their arguments are complete nonsense.

X is good.
Argument Y concludes X is good.
Therefore Argument Y is sound.

Along with its corollary:

Person Z points out that Argument Y is unsound.
Therefore Person Z thinks X is bad.

Both unsound arguments.

[KLA2]

And, forgive me, I did fail to acknowledge that you are a scientist. (Mathematics, statistics.) (Economics, perhaps more of an art. :P )

[Мастер]

BTW, since alchemy has come up, I do feel obliged to point out that the secret of alchemy was discovered by Lord Percy Percy.

[Enzo]

Not the arch duke of Smarmia?


Mmmmmmm Tang.



I recall many many years ago as a guest of the county, we were served a little 3-4 ounce cup of the stuff every morning with our coffee and oatmeal. No one in the place caught scurvy while I was there.