Good Read: "The Martian" by Andy Weir

Main > Everything Else

<< < (6/15) > >>

pbj:
I've heard a lot of weird conspiracy theories over the years regarding NASA, but the only one I've given any degree of consideration concerns an internal power struggle between the folks at JPL and the others at Johnson Space Center. Essentially, if we discover hospital conditions or any evidence whatsoever of any type of life, people are going to want manned expeditions. So JPL gets shuttered and the funding pours into Houston instead. That's why you see strange behavior like photos of Mars artificially tinted red, the same "increases the likelihood" announcements over and over, and why we don't have unfiltered access to the images coming back.

I'm all for funding of scientific research, but I'm not so sure NASA is the proper channel to handle it.

Locke141:

--- Quote from: pbj on September 30, 2015, 09:38:32 am ---I've heard a lot of weird conspiracy theories over the years regarding NASA, but the only one I've given any degree of consideration concerns an internal power struggle between the folks at JPL and the others at Johnson Space Center. Essentially, if we discover hospital conditions or any evidence whatsoever of any type of life, people are going to want manned expeditions. So JPL gets shuttered and the funding pours into Houston instead. That's why you see strange behavior like photos of Mars artificially tinted red, the same "increases the likelihood" announcements over and over, and why we don't have unfiltered access to the images coming back.

I'm all for funding of scientific research, but I'm not so sure NASA is the proper channel to handle it.

--- End quote ---

I was under the impressions that all the NASA images when in to the public domain.

Howard_Casto:
The released ones are made freely available, but they are copyrighted NASA and typically aren't in the public domain. That being said it's the government that holds up the flow of pictures. Technically speaking NASA is a military agency, so all photos have to be cleared and de-classified first and many are lost in the shuffle.

That being said, if you want to explore space properly, for better or for worse, it has to be funded by the government. The problem with private space exploration is the fact that these companies, weather they admit it or not, eventually want a return on their investment. So you'll get accidents due to cost cutting and coal mines (or whatever is abundant to mine) on mars. Something that seems lost on the modern public is the fact that government is in place so that we can have social services and public works projects that don't need to turn a profit... like the US mail, social security, libraries, or space exploration. It's a shame really.... everyone is only concerned about money.

dkersten:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on September 30, 2015, 01:59:47 pm ---That being said, if you want to explore space properly, for better or for worse, it has to be funded by the government. The problem with private space exploration is the fact that these companies, weather they admit it or not, eventually want a return on their investment. So you'll get accidents due to cost cutting and coal mines (or whatever is abundant to mine) on mars. Something that seems lost on the modern public is the fact that government is in place so that we can have social services and public works projects that don't need to turn a profit... like the US mail, social security, libraries, or space exploration. It's a shame really.... everyone is only concerned about money.

--- End quote ---
I agree that proper space exploration should be funded by the government, although even that has it's issues (ie military oversight so often the pure science is overshadowed or even dismissed).

However, when it comes to government and tax dollars, the purpose is not to provide social services, it is to provide an infrastructure to support an economy and allow the people to sustain themselves so the economy can grow. You build a highway so you can transport food and energy and consumer goods effectively and efficiently, not so Joe Schmoe can more easily visit his grandma once a year. You build sewage treatment so you can have a healthy yet dense population and focus people in one location, creating an environment where much of the economy supports itself, and is fed by the highway and rail system (food from farms shipped in). The same goes with subsidizing the costs of power, utilities, and even tax breaks for businesses. Sure, it is muddier these days than it was 1 or 2 centuries ago, but the core function of the government hasn't changed. What changed is the perception of what the core function should be (and hence what our tax dollars should pay for).

The space program was initially funded partly as part of the Cold War effort, and partly to keep patriotism and morale up (both critical to a stable economy). Much of the program was actually run by private organizations with military ties (JPL for example, who doesn't just make rocket motors for space travel) but funded heavily by the government. This not only created a LOT of high paying jobs, it also allowed a LOT of new technology to come about. The government still funds a lot of research, and much of it still brings about new advances in science that eventually end up in our homes. I completely agree that the space race stimulated this sort of thing dramatically, and any massive infusion of money into research like that will result in new technology. But in the end it all comes back to the economy. You fund programs that eventually lead to products people will buy, jobs are created and wealth is generated, resulting in a stronger economy. A strong economy means a stronger military, happier citizens (less likely to revolt), more respect from other nations (at least militarily, which history has shown is what really matters most), etc. Feed the research and in the end you get a stronger nation in return.

On the other hand, "social services" only weaken the country as a whole. You create a class of lazy people who can't provide for themselves let alone contribute to the economy. You create a class of people who are looking to vote based on how much of a raise in income they get rather than how much it strengthens the country as a whole. Sure, social services are a necessity unless you want to see the old, unhealthy, and impoverished people begging on the streets in an attempt to live another day, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen the country or stimulate a self sustaining culture.

I would love to see a LOT of the money used to fund drug habits and welfare baby makers spent instead on space research. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen as long as voter have a choice between bigger welfare checks and a stronger future for our kids.

(P.S., I am all for having welfare programs, and when I was young and broke and needed help I used them. But I used them to help get back on my feet, and if the programs were only used for that, we would have the money for things like space exploration.)

pbj:
Here you go, sport. Go take a look at this and let us know if defunding food stamp programs and spending it on rocket ships will really solve all our problems:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Anyway, going on a tour of Johnson Space Center these days is a real eye opener. Looks like it hasn't been touched in 30 years. Stuff I used to climb on as a kid is now roped off with security watching you carefully. We were in for ~$100 just for two of us to wander around.

The NASA employees I interact with (well, they're all contractors I suppose) have certainly failed to impress. I'm not real sure what the hell any of them actually do.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version