3 ms·

OK, but I don't really think that conflicts with anything in my comment? For any level of NASA spending, I suggest 5-10% for popular-level sound/video/etc. (If

OK, but I don't really think that conflicts with anything in my comment? For any level of NASA spending, I suggest 5-10% for popular-level sound/video/etc. (If that would cause you to want 5-10% for NASA funding to keep total science spending constant, fine.) Whether 1% or 100% of the population supports NASA research, it's still true that 99% of supporters cannot understand the cutting-edge science, and will have negligible material benefit.

Retric 10y ago
If you accept pure science as worthy of some % of the budget on it's own then it comes down to an efficiency argument. Creating some false color photos from various sensors is very cheap, adding yet another camera when we go to Jupiter regularly becomes kind of pointless. PS: I for example think sending up astronauts is a pointless waste of resources better spent on other things which is a huge chunk of NASA's budget. I also support pure science even if I don't understand it. In wider context I think SS and the DoD should be significantly cut. Sure, I am a tiny minority but if I think 50% of the federal budget should go to pure science and I am happy to cut other programs that's part of the balancing act and well this ends up as ~1/30,000th the budget. Further, they did waste money sending a camera.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  I do accept that pure science is worthy a percentage of the budget, but NASA science is particularly inefficient. That is, at the current amount of money that NASA spends, we would get more science for less money if we did more science on Earth.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Some of this is diminishing returns and NASA takes a small chunk of science funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States#/media/File:U.S._research_funding.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_S... But, overall I agree and suspect NASA's budget has more to do with Science Fiction than utility.

Retric 10y ago

If you accept pure science as worthy of some % of the budget on it's own then it comes down to an efficiency argument. Creating some false color photos from various sensors is very cheap, adding yet another camera when we go to Jupiter regularly becomes kind of pointless. PS: I for example think sending up astronauts is a pointless waste of resources better spent on other things which is a huge chunk of NASA's budget. I also support pure science even if I don't understand it. In wider context I think SS and the DoD should be significantly cut. Sure, I am a tiny minority but if I think 50% of the federal budget should go to pure science and I am happy to cut other programs that's part of the balancing act and well this ends up as ~1/30,000th the budget. Further, they did waste money sending a camera.

jessriedel 10y ago
I do accept that pure science is worthy a percentage of the budget, but NASA science is particularly inefficient. That is, at the current amount of money that NASA spends, we would get more science for less money if we did more science on Earth.
- Retric 10y ago
  Some of this is diminishing returns and NASA takes a small chunk of science funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States#/media/File:U.S._research_funding.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_S... But, overall I agree and suspect NASA's budget has more to do with Science Fiction than utility.