8 ms·
I think it's kind of surprising how low the number is. Almost certainly because space exploration is underfunded. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lo
by jcnnghm 15y ago
I think it's kind of surprising how low the number is. Almost certainly because space exploration is underfunded.
Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of talk about the NASA budget, and there are a couple of things I think many people don't know. The total 2010 US Space budget was $64.6B. The entire rest of the world combined spent only $22.5B. NASA's 2010 budget was $18.7B, 83% of the spending for the rest of the world. It's more than a little ironic when those outside the United States criticize cuts to US space spending. Europeans, in particular, may want to consider the paltry $4.6B ESA budget before they criticize the United States. Space spending does need to increase; the rest of the worlds needs to start contributing.
- davidhollander 15y ago>Almost certainly because space exploration is underfunded. Or because there is currently no benefit in conducting exploration using humans instead of robots.
- jcnnghm 15y agoBecause we can is almost always a poor reason to do something, but this may be an edge case.
- davidhollander 15y agoI understand the desire for action, but we need to invent another task besides exploration to engage in. I.e. resource exploitation. Purely observational exploration of outer space is a task for which we are extremely maladapted (vacuum, long distances, etc.) that robots will probably always be better at.
- jcnnghm 15y agoI definitely agree with what you're saying at the beginning, but I'm not so sure about the end. I think there is some value in putting humans in space. It certainly seems many scientific discoveries are made by a scientist observing or experiencing something, noticing that it is strange, then investigating. A perfect example of this is the development of microwaves, which came about because an engineer working on radar noticed that a candy bar started to melt when near the radar. Robots are certainly superior by almost every metric once you know what you're looking for, but I wouldn't be so sure that we actually know what we are looking for. Boots on the ground, so to speak, can offer insights that a robot simply cannot.
- davidhollander 15y agoExploring space with humans for the possibility of positive technological side effects does not seem a reliable, long term way to increase the number of people in space at any given time, if that is your primary goal. It seems like a way to temporarily boost the number by around 3. If the goal is to increase the number of humans in space for the sake of increasing the number of humans in space, one would probably need to do research into a colonial business model sustainable enough to get investors and governments on board.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoDon't confuse underfunded with badly managed. NASA has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on manned spaceflight in the last 5 decades, they went to the moon, they built two space stations, but ultimately they haven't done much to push the state of the art or to make spaceflight more accessible or affordable. In contrast, a little company like SpaceX comes along and develops two new launch vehicles AND a crew capsule for about $300 million total, dramatically lowering launch costs in the process. This is how we'll increase that number. Not by pumping more money into yet another aerospace jobs program in key congressional districts, but by encouraging the open market and innovation.
- jbooth 15y agoI'd cut them a break on "badly managed", blazing the trail is much more expensive than following -- and I really don't see how you can say "they haven't done much to push the state of the art". But it does seem that it's time to pass the torch to private companies for basic "get to orbit" flights. Would be nice to see NASA blazing the next trail, whatever that is.
- protomyth 15y agoGiven the accounting and decisions that lead to Challenger plus the political directives from DC, I think "badly managed" is pretty mild to describe how screwed up NASA is. I still believe if a certain President had said "Permanent Human Presence" instead of "land man on the moon" it would have made all the difference. We blew it all on a race instead of building infrastructure.
- daniel_solano 15y agoIs that the space exploration budget, or NASA's budget as a whole? Manned and unmanned space exploration is only part of NASA's mission. NASA also does a lot of Earth science.
- tobylane 15y agoIt is possible to criticize the change, comparing that rather than the total. Foreign aid, and many other things are judged this way.
- ignifero 15y agofirst, astronauts do not really explore space, they mostly operate light machinery. Frankly the mars rovers were the most active space explorers till now. Secondly, why does humanity need to invest in space right now? I just dont think there's an incentive, people believe life sciences are more important at this time.