4 ms·

Why the blind faith in NASA? They're capable of screwing up royally. And they're capable of great success. Pure money is not the only part of the solution.

heimatau 11y ago
Blind? It's not blind [1,2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies 2. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_technologies http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_tec...
- todd8 11y ago
  I think NASA is great, all that space stuff. I remember when I was in college I got a personal tour at the Johnson Space Center, and I got to put on a glove that had been worn on the surface of the moon (it was in a closet with all the used space suits). However, despite my interest in science and space, I feel like its a lot to ask of average (tax paying) people to pay roughly 800 Billion dollars for a tiny handful of useful spin offs. The satellites have great military and commercial usefulness, but a lot of money has been spent that would have been better to leave with the people that made it.
  - heimatau 11y ago
    Hmm. Solid point about cost/benefits. I'm sure more could be done to improve the benefits of NASA inventions. As for that solution, I wouldn't know where to start. I just think when it comes to modeling, who would know better than NASA (or other space programs)? They have data from various planets and moons, that might help improve our models here on earth.
  - georgemcbay 11y ago
    When the event occurs that wipes out the ability of humans to live on Earth, no amount of money spent on space exploration will seem like it will have been too much. Such an event is coming sooner or later, from one source or another; probably not in our lifetimes but we're so far off from good solutions that "we have plenty of time" is not a good excuse to not be investing in space. As an "average (tax paying)" person there is a list a mile long of shit we spend tax dollars on that I'd rather cut over space exploration, with the military (over $500 billion a year) being an obvious start.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      I am not sure that this evacuate Earth angle is going to work as a funding motive, even if there was a catastrophic asteroid it is far more realistic to build domes here than on Mars.
  - weaksauce 11y ago
    An average of 16 billion a year for 50 years is different than the sum total of 800 billion which is meant to shock people. How much has war cost our country and left us with little benefit. we spend almost the entire historical budget for NASA in one year at war. Maybe NASA is not as useful anymore? I don't know. Maybe the money would be better spent making our country less dependent on oil? Well, actually, one of the spinoff technologies was the solar cell so it seems to be helping to that aim. Who knows what the next thing NASA does that improves humanity as a whole will be?
  - gaadd33 11y ago
    Why is 800 billion over the course of 57 years a big ask but 2 trillion over 10 years to invade Iraq isn't? Wouldn't that money be better left with the people that made it? I don't even think there have been a tiny handful of useful spin offs from the Iraq war.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Was the parent comment arguing in favor of $2 trillion for invading Iraq? I don't think so, they didn't mention anything about Iraq or being in favor of that sort of military spending, so what's the point of that sort of straw man? Why not focus on what was actually said?
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Oh, I'm well aware, having worked on a NASA program for the prime contractor for 2 years (and being a life-long space nerd). I love the idea of NASA, but the reality that I encountered was quite jarringly different. The culture was toxic to any new thought, or any outside opinion. I fled (at great personal expense and stress) before the toxicity of the environment broke up my marriage and eroded my soul. My wife is a veteran of NASA HQ and ultimately left for similar reasons -- the agency just wasn't interested in actually doing anything that wouldn't further its own political interests. Disclaimer, of course, is that my experiences only apply to the specific NASA site I was at (that's why my profile says "reformed sounding rocket engineer"). I think I've posted extensively about that job before. My point was simply this: NASA is now a large hierarchical organization whose primary goal (as must be the goal of every hierarchy) is to perpetuate itself. The parent made it sound like all that's needed to solve some of these complex problems is to open the fiscal floodgates to NASA. It's going to take more than money. It's going to take a culture change.

heimatau 11y ago

Blind? It's not blind [1,2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies 2. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_technologies http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Spin-off_tec...

todd8 11y ago
I think NASA is great, all that space stuff. I remember when I was in college I got a personal tour at the Johnson Space Center, and I got to put on a glove that had been worn on the surface of the moon (it was in a closet with all the used space suits). However, despite my interest in science and space, I feel like its a lot to ask of average (tax paying) people to pay roughly 800 Billion dollars for a tiny handful of useful spin offs. The satellites have great military and commercial usefulness, but a lot of money has been spent that would have been better to leave with the people that made it.
- heimatau 11y ago
  Hmm. Solid point about cost/benefits. I'm sure more could be done to improve the benefits of NASA inventions. As for that solution, I wouldn't know where to start. I just think when it comes to modeling, who would know better than NASA (or other space programs)? They have data from various planets and moons, that might help improve our models here on earth.
- georgemcbay 11y ago
  When the event occurs that wipes out the ability of humans to live on Earth, no amount of money spent on space exploration will seem like it will have been too much. Such an event is coming sooner or later, from one source or another; probably not in our lifetimes but we're so far off from good solutions that "we have plenty of time" is not a good excuse to not be investing in space. As an "average (tax paying)" person there is a list a mile long of shit we spend tax dollars on that I'd rather cut over space exploration, with the military (over $500 billion a year) being an obvious start.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    I am not sure that this evacuate Earth angle is going to work as a funding motive, even if there was a catastrophic asteroid it is far more realistic to build domes here than on Mars.
- weaksauce 11y ago
  An average of 16 billion a year for 50 years is different than the sum total of 800 billion which is meant to shock people. How much has war cost our country and left us with little benefit. we spend almost the entire historical budget for NASA in one year at war. Maybe NASA is not as useful anymore? I don't know. Maybe the money would be better spent making our country less dependent on oil? Well, actually, one of the spinoff technologies was the solar cell so it seems to be helping to that aim. Who knows what the next thing NASA does that improves humanity as a whole will be?
- gaadd33 11y ago
  Why is 800 billion over the course of 57 years a big ask but 2 trillion over 10 years to invade Iraq isn't? Wouldn't that money be better left with the people that made it? I don't even think there have been a tiny handful of useful spin offs from the Iraq war.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Was the parent comment arguing in favor of $2 trillion for invading Iraq? I don't think so, they didn't mention anything about Iraq or being in favor of that sort of military spending, so what's the point of that sort of straw man? Why not focus on what was actually said?
engi_nerd 11y ago
Oh, I'm well aware, having worked on a NASA program for the prime contractor for 2 years (and being a life-long space nerd). I love the idea of NASA, but the reality that I encountered was quite jarringly different. The culture was toxic to any new thought, or any outside opinion. I fled (at great personal expense and stress) before the toxicity of the environment broke up my marriage and eroded my soul. My wife is a veteran of NASA HQ and ultimately left for similar reasons -- the agency just wasn't interested in actually doing anything that wouldn't further its own political interests. Disclaimer, of course, is that my experiences only apply to the specific NASA site I was at (that's why my profile says "reformed sounding rocket engineer"). I think I've posted extensively about that job before. My point was simply this: NASA is now a large hierarchical organization whose primary goal (as must be the goal of every hierarchy) is to perpetuate itself. The parent made it sound like all that's needed to solve some of these complex problems is to open the fiscal floodgates to NASA. It's going to take more than money. It's going to take a culture change.