7 ms·

It is sad we spend so much money on military yet can't give NASA more money. I hate politics!

Vexs 11y ago
Honestly, we could probably support the same sized military with substantally less money, due to all the waste and mismanagement. Honestly though, it's not just the military- massive waste occurs at all levels of govt. All this focus on cutting spending; yet nobody ever seems to seriously look at waste as a better alternative to public spending. I guess because it's harder to investigate than to cut from a spreadsheet. Small story from reddit: This guy worked in a government office where his boss would order multi-thousand page reports to be rush delivered to the office, which cost anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the report; and then took a single paper out and trashed the rest- because she didn't know you could just print single pages.
- omegaham 11y ago
  Having served in the military, I don't think it's possible; the military wastes so much precisely because it's so big. Waste is inherent to large organizations. More administration, less flexible thinking, more room for fraud, waste, and abuse to go unnoticed. Want less waste? Make it smaller. This will, of course, decrease its capabilities (which might not be a bad thing). If you want it to have the same capabilities as it currently has, the waste is going to stay as an unpleasant side effect.
  - justin66 11y ago
    > Having served in the military, I don't think it's possible; the military wastes so much precisely because it's so big. Well, a big chunk of what we talk about when it comes to military spending is developing new weapons systems. The nature of the cost problems there is a little different.
  - knz 11y ago
    The OP makes the mistake of assuming that waste only occurs in Government agencies. As you mentioned - larger organisations tend to create more waste.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      While large organizations all have waste, from my personal experience government organizations have extra waste. The biggest issue is in buying things, where there is a system set up in place to try to prevent corruption, but where the system has been so heavily gamed that it is worse than no system at all. For example I've personally seen 4 times the price paid for an inferior piece of tech compared to what was on the consumer market (and this is 4 times the price of the in store individual price of the tech, it would be cheaper in bulk) because the consumer product had not gone through the channels of being approved for use (I actually spoke with the one who purchased it to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and they told me that they did think the cheaper product was better but it wasn't on the approved list). You see quite a few 'value added resellers' whose only value is jumping through the hoops of the approval process.
EA 11y ago
SLS is going to cost NASA, what, $4B per launch and it's going to launch every 2 years. Careful what you wish for. We (the US) have a space program because of the military. In fact, the military/intelligence space program is booming and space-based companies are going to be very healthy supporting military missions to LEO and beyond for the foreseeable future.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  SLS is estimated to be 500m per launch, about half what the shuttle cost and 1/6th what the Saturn V cost per launch. Real world costs aren't entirely here considering this thing isn't built, but 500m is the planned cost and should be doable. Worst case scenario it costs us what the shuttles cost, except we're no longer trapped in LEO.
wnevets 11y ago
Republicans hate NASA, and Democrats are too spineless to fight them on it. Welcome to US politics.
- cjensen 11y ago
  That's flatly incorrect. Both parties are pretty much equally disinterested in NASA. The current Democratic administration, for example, is no friend to NASA. Worse is the politically-driven directives given to NASA. Human space flight, for example, generates very little science per dollar spent. It's basically PR.
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    Human space flight also has a social engineering aspect to it, where it likely gets better returns in inspiring the next generation to be interested in science.
  - wnevets 11y ago
    Why are you bringing up the current administration? It's congress that controls the purse strings. Only 5 minutes of google searching would show you that republicans fight to lower the NASA budget and democrats fight to increase it.
    - cjensen 11y ago
      Nope. Congress gave NASA more for their 2015 budget than the Administration requested [1]. In other words, the Republican-controlled Congress is more supportive of NASA than the Obama administration. Assuming it's partisan is ill-advised: the extra congressional support came from both parties. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/12/politics_of_space_flight_funding_republicans_and_democrats_agree_on_orion.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/20...
- drak0n1c 11y ago
  Newt Gingrich was the most pro-NASA candidate in the last election.
Shivetya 11y ago
Military spending creates a large number of jobs, allows claims of being patriotic, and hence creates votes. Social programs are very large as well and there is enough spending there as well to generate jobs and create votes. Space, not so much. Refocus the young from the Kardashians to space and eventually we might sway politicians. For the most part I think commercial exploitation of space is more likely once the money factor works itself out. Then science can hitch rides and have more interest in it as commercial interest increase awareness
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  The military is our largest social welfare program. Our military space program kicks ass. Robotic shuttles, spy satellites and god knows what else. Maybe we can build a giant laser and write "America, Fuck Yeah!" on the moon to rustle Europe. Or giant Star of David to really annoy the Arabs.
  - dang 11y ago
    No jingoism on HN, please.
baldfat 11y ago
Don't "I hate politics." Get more involved. There are people who only see positives in tax cuts and hate "BIG GOVERNMENT" means we don't have money to spend on science that benefits humanity. Best thing people can do who don't like what is happening with their tax money is to vote and be vocal. If you negate yourself into I hate politics you reinforce the need to feed the proponents your disagree with.
- podgib 11y ago
  Thank you. If there's anything worse than apathy, it's people who get frustrated with outcomes from politics, but do nothing but express how much they dislike politicians. Decrying the whole process and staying away from it is the best way to ensure that power stays in the hands of those whose decisions you dislike so much.
  - fsg7sdfg789 11y ago
    Personally, I believe the political system is structured in such a way as to make changes impossible. This is a feature, not a bug. The inertia of the system protects us against mob rule. It also means that as much as change is inevitable, it is also completely outside the control of one person, party, or special interest group. Instead, I choose to optimize for my own happiness. Politics, especially because you're just shouting against the rain, makes me incredibly unhappy, so I avoid it. Others are free to spend their time as they wish, but I am simultaneously cynical about the system and as removed and detached from it as I can be in order to focus on my own happiness.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      We are not a Democracy in America we are a Democracy/Republic leaning a lot on the side of Republic. Don't avoid just voting and making sure people pay attention to you as opposed to the Rich White Elderly that get Medicade and Social Security could possibly be because they are the majority of the voters. When I help in campaigns I always focus on super voters. I knock on every door. They are white and wealthy. Working class I know one out of every 100 doors maybe?
13thLetter 11y ago
The United States spends far more on entitlements than we do on the military. Social Security 33% of the budget, Medicare 27%, the military is down at 16% -- far less than it was in the middle of the twentieth century. If you want money, you need to reform entitlements.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >entitlements Such a weird word. By its very core, it is about things you are entitled to. Like SS, which you are entitled to because you paid into it. But yet calling someone entitled, and the use of the word entitlements, is meant to describe someone thinking they are entitled to something they aren't. It is a word that in practice means the opposite of what it should mean in theory, especially when used in a political sense.
  - underdown 11y ago
    Under the social security umbrella there's also supplemental security income, that has nothing to do with what you or your spouse paid in. Medicare has medicaid, same story.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  While is is generally true, it does not include war spending. Afghanistan and Iraq were not paid out with just the regular military budget. The Iraq conflict alone cost $1.7T. Also, social spending will always be more for any well run nation, so that shouldn't be a surprise. We have a social security system that we pay into that everyone is part of. Its a huge program and calling something I'm paying a lot into right now an entitlement is disingenious. Total military spending worldwide is probably a better metric. USA is first at 580b, China at 128b, SA at 80n, and Russia at 70b. Personally, I have no problem with spending on this level. I believe the USA is the best nation to have this type of global policing power and maintaining it should be one of our top national goals. Especially in regards to helping and continuing to work with our NATO, Korean, and Japanese allies and to protect them from hostile foreign powers.

Vexs 11y ago

Honestly, we could probably support the same sized military with substantally less money, due to all the waste and mismanagement. Honestly though, it's not just the military- massive waste occurs at all levels of govt. All this focus on cutting spending; yet nobody ever seems to seriously look at waste as a better alternative to public spending. I guess because it's harder to investigate than to cut from a spreadsheet. Small story from reddit: This guy worked in a government office where his boss would order multi-thousand page reports to be rush delivered to the office, which cost anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the report; and then took a single paper out and trashed the rest- because she didn't know you could just print single pages.

omegaham 11y ago
Having served in the military, I don't think it's possible; the military wastes so much precisely because it's so big. Waste is inherent to large organizations. More administration, less flexible thinking, more room for fraud, waste, and abuse to go unnoticed. Want less waste? Make it smaller. This will, of course, decrease its capabilities (which might not be a bad thing). If you want it to have the same capabilities as it currently has, the waste is going to stay as an unpleasant side effect.
- justin66 11y ago
  > Having served in the military, I don't think it's possible; the military wastes so much precisely because it's so big. Well, a big chunk of what we talk about when it comes to military spending is developing new weapons systems. The nature of the cost problems there is a little different.
- knz 11y ago
  The OP makes the mistake of assuming that waste only occurs in Government agencies. As you mentioned - larger organisations tend to create more waste.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    While large organizations all have waste, from my personal experience government organizations have extra waste. The biggest issue is in buying things, where there is a system set up in place to try to prevent corruption, but where the system has been so heavily gamed that it is worse than no system at all. For example I've personally seen 4 times the price paid for an inferior piece of tech compared to what was on the consumer market (and this is 4 times the price of the in store individual price of the tech, it would be cheaper in bulk) because the consumer product had not gone through the channels of being approved for use (I actually spoke with the one who purchased it to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and they told me that they did think the cheaper product was better but it wasn't on the approved list). You see quite a few 'value added resellers' whose only value is jumping through the hoops of the approval process.

EA 11y ago

SLS is going to cost NASA, what, $4B per launch and it's going to launch every 2 years. Careful what you wish for. We (the US) have a space program because of the military. In fact, the military/intelligence space program is booming and space-based companies are going to be very healthy supporting military missions to LEO and beyond for the foreseeable future.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
SLS is estimated to be 500m per launch, about half what the shuttle cost and 1/6th what the Saturn V cost per launch. Real world costs aren't entirely here considering this thing isn't built, but 500m is the planned cost and should be doable. Worst case scenario it costs us what the shuttles cost, except we're no longer trapped in LEO.

wnevets 11y ago

Republicans hate NASA, and Democrats are too spineless to fight them on it. Welcome to US politics.

cjensen 11y ago
That's flatly incorrect. Both parties are pretty much equally disinterested in NASA. The current Democratic administration, for example, is no friend to NASA. Worse is the politically-driven directives given to NASA. Human space flight, for example, generates very little science per dollar spent. It's basically PR.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  Human space flight also has a social engineering aspect to it, where it likely gets better returns in inspiring the next generation to be interested in science.
- wnevets 11y ago
  Why are you bringing up the current administration? It's congress that controls the purse strings. Only 5 minutes of google searching would show you that republicans fight to lower the NASA budget and democrats fight to increase it.
  - cjensen 11y ago
    Nope. Congress gave NASA more for their 2015 budget than the Administration requested [1]. In other words, the Republican-controlled Congress is more supportive of NASA than the Obama administration. Assuming it's partisan is ill-advised: the extra congressional support came from both parties. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/12/politics_of_space_flight_funding_republicans_and_democrats_agree_on_orion.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/20...
drak0n1c 11y ago
Newt Gingrich was the most pro-NASA candidate in the last election.

Shivetya 11y ago

Military spending creates a large number of jobs, allows claims of being patriotic, and hence creates votes. Social programs are very large as well and there is enough spending there as well to generate jobs and create votes. Space, not so much. Refocus the young from the Kardashians to space and eventually we might sway politicians. For the most part I think commercial exploitation of space is more likely once the money factor works itself out. Then science can hitch rides and have more interest in it as commercial interest increase awareness

meatysnapper 11y ago
The military is our largest social welfare program. Our military space program kicks ass. Robotic shuttles, spy satellites and god knows what else. Maybe we can build a giant laser and write "America, Fuck Yeah!" on the moon to rustle Europe. Or giant Star of David to really annoy the Arabs.
- dang 11y ago
  No jingoism on HN, please.

baldfat 11y ago

Don't "I hate politics." Get more involved. There are people who only see positives in tax cuts and hate "BIG GOVERNMENT" means we don't have money to spend on science that benefits humanity. Best thing people can do who don't like what is happening with their tax money is to vote and be vocal. If you negate yourself into I hate politics you reinforce the need to feed the proponents your disagree with.

podgib 11y ago
Thank you. If there's anything worse than apathy, it's people who get frustrated with outcomes from politics, but do nothing but express how much they dislike politicians. Decrying the whole process and staying away from it is the best way to ensure that power stays in the hands of those whose decisions you dislike so much.
- fsg7sdfg789 11y ago
  Personally, I believe the political system is structured in such a way as to make changes impossible. This is a feature, not a bug. The inertia of the system protects us against mob rule. It also means that as much as change is inevitable, it is also completely outside the control of one person, party, or special interest group. Instead, I choose to optimize for my own happiness. Politics, especially because you're just shouting against the rain, makes me incredibly unhappy, so I avoid it. Others are free to spend their time as they wish, but I am simultaneously cynical about the system and as removed and detached from it as I can be in order to focus on my own happiness.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    We are not a Democracy in America we are a Democracy/Republic leaning a lot on the side of Republic. Don't avoid just voting and making sure people pay attention to you as opposed to the Rich White Elderly that get Medicade and Social Security could possibly be because they are the majority of the voters. When I help in campaigns I always focus on super voters. I knock on every door. They are white and wealthy. Working class I know one out of every 100 doors maybe?

13thLetter 11y ago

The United States spends far more on entitlements than we do on the military. Social Security 33% of the budget, Medicare 27%, the military is down at 16% -- far less than it was in the middle of the twentieth century. If you want money, you need to reform entitlements.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>entitlements Such a weird word. By its very core, it is about things you are entitled to. Like SS, which you are entitled to because you paid into it. But yet calling someone entitled, and the use of the word entitlements, is meant to describe someone thinking they are entitled to something they aren't. It is a word that in practice means the opposite of what it should mean in theory, especially when used in a political sense.
- underdown 11y ago
  Under the social security umbrella there's also supplemental security income, that has nothing to do with what you or your spouse paid in. Medicare has medicaid, same story.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
While is is generally true, it does not include war spending. Afghanistan and Iraq were not paid out with just the regular military budget. The Iraq conflict alone cost $1.7T. Also, social spending will always be more for any well run nation, so that shouldn't be a surprise. We have a social security system that we pay into that everyone is part of. Its a huge program and calling something I'm paying a lot into right now an entitlement is disingenious. Total military spending worldwide is probably a better metric. USA is first at 580b, China at 128b, SA at 80n, and Russia at 70b. Personally, I have no problem with spending on this level. I believe the USA is the best nation to have this type of global policing power and maintaining it should be one of our top national goals. Especially in regards to helping and continuing to work with our NATO, Korean, and Japanese allies and to protect them from hostile foreign powers.