9 ms·

> The next person to take a picture of the Earth from moon may not be on a government funded mission. Note that the press release says: Most importantly, we w

> The next person to take a picture of the Earth from moon may not be on a government funded mission. Note that the press release says: Most importantly, we would like to thank NASA, without whom this would not be possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which provided most of the funding for Dragon 2 development, is a key enabler for this mission. Your tax dollars, if you are American, helped pay for this. Thank you and congratulations - if it works out; if not, was it worth the risk? EDIT: In response to many below, remember that the U.S. military isn't the only alternative use of the money. Taxpayers could keep it, or it could go to other programs such as education and health. (Personally, I'd happily pay more taxes for more space exploration, education, health, and military necessary for security.)

lettergram 10y ago
Rockets (or any research) > bombs any day of the week. Yes, my tax dollars going towards research (even indirectly) is better than the way most of my money is spent
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Historically rocket research has been funded to develop the capability to deliver bombs.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Which seems to imply that military spending is pretty beneficial for humanity as long as it's spent on researching new cool ways of killing each other, and not on actually using them.
    - lucaspiller 10y ago
      Military spending in WWII led to the invention or development of (to name a few) penicillin, radio navigation, synthetic oil and rubber, jet engines, nuclear power and computers. However some of these were pretty close to being invented even before the war, so it's hard to say how much the war progressed technology.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        > However some of these were pretty close to being invented even before the war Penicillin, for one, was discovered over a decade prior to WWII. A method of mass production was developed in 1940, but have no idea how much that had to do with the war.
    - justin66 10y ago
      > Which seems to imply that military spending is pretty beneficial for humanity as long as it's spent on researching new cool ways of killing each other, and not on actually using them. The sixties-era DARPA method: throw a bunch of defense money at a bunch of really smart people without getting too specific about how much of the research should proceed.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Exactly what I had in mind.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The military is something like 20% of the budget. That's not where most of your money is going.
  - bdamm 10y ago
    You're including social security and medicare/aid, which is not entirely money that can be easily diverted. Especially social security. Without those, defense is the lion's share of the budget, and with Trump's new proposal, even more so.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Sure... if you wall off most of the budget and then look at the rest, defense is the lion's share. But that makes no sense.
mikeash 10y ago
The tax dollars we spent on this would probably have funded about twelve seconds of the Iraq occupation instead, so I'd say sure, easily worth it.
- 1001101 10y ago
  Along those lines, just the air conditioning for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan circa 2011 eclipsed NASA's budget http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-cos...
  - Stanish 10y ago
    Luckily, it was all worth it. Iraq is a free democracy now, and spreading peace throughout the region.
    - irrational 10y ago
      At the very least it is cooler there now. That is what the A/Cs were for... right?
ChuckMcM 10y ago
As a taxpayer (who was just reminded this past weekend of how much that is :-) I'm really glad that NASA had enough budget to spend on the Commercial Crew program. Given that the NASA budget of $18.5B[1] is a rounding error on the overall budget $3,540B[2], seriously it's a half a percent. And commercial crew was only $1.2B [ibid] of that NASA budget. So less than .05%. Again rounding error. And with that money they are getting two different spacecraft that can fly missions. So I think it was a great way for NASA to contract out the development of a crew capsule they could use on their missions. That one of the companies that participated has done so in such a way that they can make a commercially feasible 'tourist' vehicle out of it? That blows my mind. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_... [2] https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
- Cerium 10y ago
  If instead of increasing military spending 54 billion, we gave it all to NASA, we could be quadrupling NASA's budget.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - spydum 10y ago
    The risk is that more money does not always mean more progress. Government organizations tend to grow all by themselves (would be interesting if you could legislate some productivity targets into budget expansion maybe?)
  - Tepix 10y ago
    NASA should pass it on to Elon. If we establish a permanent Mars colony, that would really increase security for all of mankind. Building more nuclear weapons is NOT increasing security.
- whyenot 10y ago
  Why is it so important to send people on these missions outside of some 21st century version of manifest destiny? NASA could do so much more with its limited funding if it just cut out all the humans.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> if not, was it worth the risk? yes
- splitrocket 10y ago
  The reason you have a computer that fits in your pocket, much less requires its own room with a reinforced floor is due to the NASA space program. On edit: meant for the parent comment, but its parent instead
  - Animats 10y ago
    The reason you have a computer that fits in your pocket, much less requires its own room with a reinforced floor is due to the NASA space program. No. That's a common misconception. ICs were a commercial development, and microprocessors came from the calculator industry. Pre-IC electronics miniaturization was pushed hard by the USAF; NASA just used it. The USAF had a flyable transistorized computer in 1954, before NASA existed. The Minuteman I missile (1962) carried a transistorized guidance computer.
    - pinewurst 10y ago
      Also Polaris, a little bit earlier (deployed 1960) had a very small transistorized guidance computer which was the design root of the Apollo Guidance Computer. Polaris was much more of a DDA (digital differential analyzer) than real computer though.
      - ascorbic 10y ago
        ICBM development is basically a space program with a different budget code though, right?
        pinewurst 10y ago
        And a delivery service too - "Your package delivered in 30 minutes or less or next one's free!" (There at least used to be a Minuteman silo with the door painted like a pizza box with that slogan)
BurningFrog 10y ago
Tax dollars, yes but not as any kind of subsidy.
lorenzhs 10y ago
Note that NASA encourages its contractors to use their stuff for private missions as well—building more of the things reduces unit price (by amortising development cost) and thus costs for NASA, so it could be that this results in lower overall cost to US taxpayers. In addition it helps collect more data on safety etc, which is in NASA's interest, too.

lettergram 10y ago

Rockets (or any research) > bombs any day of the week. Yes, my tax dollars going towards research (even indirectly) is better than the way most of my money is spent

maxerickson 10y ago
Historically rocket research has been funded to develop the capability to deliver bombs.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Which seems to imply that military spending is pretty beneficial for humanity as long as it's spent on researching new cool ways of killing each other, and not on actually using them.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    Military spending in WWII led to the invention or development of (to name a few) penicillin, radio navigation, synthetic oil and rubber, jet engines, nuclear power and computers. However some of these were pretty close to being invented even before the war, so it's hard to say how much the war progressed technology.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > However some of these were pretty close to being invented even before the war Penicillin, for one, was discovered over a decade prior to WWII. A method of mass production was developed in 1940, but have no idea how much that had to do with the war.
  - justin66 10y ago
    > Which seems to imply that military spending is pretty beneficial for humanity as long as it's spent on researching new cool ways of killing each other, and not on actually using them. The sixties-era DARPA method: throw a bunch of defense money at a bunch of really smart people without getting too specific about how much of the research should proceed.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Exactly what I had in mind.
gozur88 10y ago
The military is something like 20% of the budget. That's not where most of your money is going.
- bdamm 10y ago
  You're including social security and medicare/aid, which is not entirely money that can be easily diverted. Especially social security. Without those, defense is the lion's share of the budget, and with Trump's new proposal, even more so.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Sure... if you wall off most of the budget and then look at the rest, defense is the lion's share. But that makes no sense.

mikeash 10y ago

The tax dollars we spent on this would probably have funded about twelve seconds of the Iraq occupation instead, so I'd say sure, easily worth it.

1001101 10y ago
Along those lines, just the air conditioning for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan circa 2011 eclipsed NASA's budget http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-cos...
- Stanish 10y ago
  Luckily, it was all worth it. Iraq is a free democracy now, and spreading peace throughout the region.
  - irrational 10y ago
    At the very least it is cooler there now. That is what the A/Cs were for... right?

ChuckMcM 10y ago

As a taxpayer (who was just reminded this past weekend of how much that is :-) I'm really glad that NASA had enough budget to spend on the Commercial Crew program. Given that the NASA budget of $18.5B[1] is a rounding error on the overall budget $3,540B[2], seriously it's a half a percent. And commercial crew was only $1.2B [ibid] of that NASA budget. So less than .05%. Again rounding error. And with that money they are getting two different spacecraft that can fly missions. So I think it was a great way for NASA to contract out the development of a crew capsule they could use on their missions. That one of the companies that participated has done so in such a way that they can make a commercially feasible 'tourist' vehicle out of it? That blows my mind. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_... [2] https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

Cerium 10y ago
If instead of increasing military spending 54 billion, we gave it all to NASA, we could be quadrupling NASA's budget.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- spydum 10y ago
  The risk is that more money does not always mean more progress. Government organizations tend to grow all by themselves (would be interesting if you could legislate some productivity targets into budget expansion maybe?)
- Tepix 10y ago
  NASA should pass it on to Elon. If we establish a permanent Mars colony, that would really increase security for all of mankind. Building more nuclear weapons is NOT increasing security.
whyenot 10y ago
Why is it so important to send people on these missions outside of some 21st century version of manifest destiny? NASA could do so much more with its limited funding if it just cut out all the humans.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

> if not, was it worth the risk? yes

splitrocket 10y ago
The reason you have a computer that fits in your pocket, much less requires its own room with a reinforced floor is due to the NASA space program. On edit: meant for the parent comment, but its parent instead
- Animats 10y ago
  The reason you have a computer that fits in your pocket, much less requires its own room with a reinforced floor is due to the NASA space program. No. That's a common misconception. ICs were a commercial development, and microprocessors came from the calculator industry. Pre-IC electronics miniaturization was pushed hard by the USAF; NASA just used it. The USAF had a flyable transistorized computer in 1954, before NASA existed. The Minuteman I missile (1962) carried a transistorized guidance computer.
  - pinewurst 10y ago
    Also Polaris, a little bit earlier (deployed 1960) had a very small transistorized guidance computer which was the design root of the Apollo Guidance Computer. Polaris was much more of a DDA (digital differential analyzer) than real computer though.
    - ascorbic 10y ago
      ICBM development is basically a space program with a different budget code though, right?
      - pinewurst 10y ago
        And a delivery service too - "Your package delivered in 30 minutes or less or next one's free!" (There at least used to be a Minuteman silo with the door painted like a pizza box with that slogan)

BurningFrog 10y ago

Tax dollars, yes but not as any kind of subsidy.

lorenzhs 10y ago

Note that NASA encourages its contractors to use their stuff for private missions as well—building more of the things reduces unit price (by amortising development cost) and thus costs for NASA, so it could be that this results in lower overall cost to US taxpayers. In addition it helps collect more data on safety etc, which is in NASA's interest, too.