7 ms·
One Apollo astronaut when criticised by a commentator that the NASA moon budget would be better spent on other humanitarian causes such as feeding the poor in A
by paulvs 10y ago
One Apollo astronaut when criticised by a commentator that the NASA moon budget would be better spent on other humanitarian causes such as feeding the poor in Africa, his response was along the lines of:
The money spent annually on cosmetics in the USA dwarfs the amount spent on the NASA space program.
(Can't find reference on the net.)
In 2015, the global cosmetics market was $61B USD [1], that's a roughly the cost of one thousand trips to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) with a 5,500 Kg payload, or a grand total of 5.5 mega tons to GTO.
We have the resources to become a spacefaring race (at least to the neighbouring planets in the solar system), we simply need to prioritise what's really important.
[1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/259217/global-make-up-market-size/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/259217/global-make-up-mar...
- sandworm101 10y agoWhy cosmetics? Why not pick on smoking, drinking, or even religion? Anyone can pick some thing they don't do/like and claim those wasted resources could be better spent on their dreams. Frankly, I'm betting that a great many people would rather have makeup than a men on Mars. Every time someone buys a fashion mag instead of mailing cash to NASA they make that choice.
- manaskarekar 10y agoFunny that some Apollo astronauts weren't fans of privatization of Space Exploration (and in turn, presumably, SpaceX). Here's one of my favorite Elon Musk interviews (2012 CBS 60 minutes) that has a reference to the topic (at 11:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc
- kaendfinger 10y agoSpaceX fan btw. I think they have since rebounded, and Musk has met them :) Buzz Aldrin was invited to the CRS-8 launch I believe.
- tunap 10y agoAccording to Buzz's book, "Mission To Mars", he has done a complete 180 to support private enterprise(I was not aware of his opposition to private exploration). He even said it is essential, IIRC.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago> Funny that some Apollo astronauts weren't fans of privatization of Space Exploration (and in turn, presumably, SpaceX). Probably more under the logic of "there should be public funding for space exploration" than "there should not be private funding for space exploration."
- sampo 10y ago> (at 11:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc Direct link to 11:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc#t=11m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc#t=11m40s
- kuschku 10y agoThey’re more opposed to Boeing and Lockheed privatizing Space Exploration than to SpaceX SpaceX acts as if it was publicly funded, practically.
- joe8756438 10y agoRight, but cosmetics aren't paid for with tax payer money. Should probably spend less on the military if we want to expand NASA.
- nether 10y agoWhy is a comparison to the cosmetics industry meaningful? Any way, it boils down to the fact that Americans thinks NASA gets far more money than it actually does. In 2007 polling found that the on average Americans thought NASA received one fourth of the federal budget; the actual proportion was 0.58% http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/21/nasas-budget-as-far-as-americans-think/#.VyVykshHanM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/21/na.... This works out to a few bucks per year per person. It's amazing what NASA does with so little.
- nitrogen 10y agoBecause the word "cosmetic" is the quintessential indicator of something superficial.
- jkldotio 10y agoInterestingly the word cosmetic, ultimately, descends from the Greek word κόσμος (kosmos) from which the word cosmos comes directly.
- agumonkey 10y agoGood catch: kosmetikos "skilled in adornment or arrangement" kosmos "order" http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=cosmetic&allowed_in_frame=0 http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=cosmetic&allowed_in_fra...
- losteric 10y agoI wish there was a non-profit that just ran public education campaigns on these kinds of things... general ignorance is the biggest enemy of programs like NASA. Most people don't have a firm understanding of where the government spends its money, the various ways money is collected, and the value of these services.
- nathancahill 10y agoGeneral ignorance is the biggest enemy of any advance in policy, period. As far as non-profits for public education, NPR comes pretty close to that.
- qohen 10y agoThis letter [0] from a NASA administrator in reply to a nun may not be what you were referring to, but it is related (and worth reading): In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth. Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?" [0] http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
- vermontdevil 10y agoWow NASA had over 1% of the budget. Now it's much less - .48% if I recall. Great letter by the way.
- forgotpwtomain 10y agoHow about the cost of the F35 (~1.5 trillion projected) which is double the entire NASA budget from 1958-2011 (526 billion). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
- stuff4ben 10y agonow that just pisses me off. What has or will the F35 deliver to all of humanity vs what NASA has done in its lifetime? If we shifted that money to NASA and other Space eXporation private companies, who knows where we'd be now.
- NotUsingLinux 10y agoYou simply do not understand what cosmetics is about. As Many others in sub-replies to this one. One could say you do not understand human nature, DNA or anthropology. Cosmetics is not about something "unnecessary" it is about increasing your chances with reproduction. And now tell me what more important thing that reproduction could be encoded in our genes? Second to reproduction is feeling well. For whatever strange reasons our history shaped society, people today have to live in it and they, of course tend to try to maximizes their happiness. Some People feel better when they get attention (again DNA and anthropology). Of course YOU want to go to space. And by you I mean all in this thread who despise cosmetics in favour of space travel, simply. Because humans are not simple we have deep contradictions embedded in our DNA and society forged traditions. Yes I agree with you all very much we should go to space BUT to be able to do so we first need to find consensus on each individual happiness weighted against the demands for happiness from other people, of the whole world. Its as simple as that. And I don't have to tell you that concepts like nations do not necessarily help in achieving that. We are moving up the ladder(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale), towards a global society. In that we can not ignore a single persons mischief as we do today. I hope you see see that its not about "superficial" cosmetics, but about us as humans. And how to be happy, all around the world. We can and should do it but it will look very different to what the world looks today. And of course our anthropology is fighting us here hard again. We want the result of change but not change what is necessary to do that, that is to change ourselves (To acknowledge other people, be more peaceful and thoughtful about resources, etc..) So again what do you think about cosmetics?
- paulvs 10y agoSome would argue that going to space has much more to do with human survival than our current reproduction problem, which is actually an overpopulation problem rather than an underpopulation one.
- sangnoir 10y ago> which is actually an overpopulation problem rather than an underpopulation one. Serious question: what overpopulation problem is the human race currently facing? We have a distribution/underdevelopment problem, but not an overpopulation one as we have enough resources for not just 7 billion people, but multiples of that.
- IshKebab 10y agoKilotonnes surely?
- vhodges 10y agoHehe... surprised no one has pointed out your math error ;). 5500Kg*1000 is 5.5 Million Kilos, 5500 Tonnes not 5.5 mega tonnes.