3 ms·
Another way to put it is that it’s a jobs program. Edit: what’s with the downvotes? I would like to understand what the disagreement is here. Any gov program c
by systemvoltage 5y ago
Another way to put it is that it’s a jobs program.
Edit: what’s with the downvotes? I would like to understand what the disagreement is here. Any gov program can be split up into two parts. One, the actual cost as dictated by the market economy, and second, the additional costs for delays, bureaucracy, etc which usually tends to be multiples of the actual costs. This money goes into paying salaries without actually making any progress. Hence the jobs program. What’s there to disagree here? Is this argument somehow belonging to a particular political spectrum? Downvotes are fine but I’d like to gain some understanding of where my thoughts are not aligned with you. Please explain your position.
- Lammy 5y agoI would say "PR program" more than jobs program. NASA is the public face of the DoD/NRO spy satellite tech. Most of them are just looking back toward Earth at you and I instead of looking out into space. Compare to these programs which had over 4x the budget of JWST in 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Hole e: For example, KH-11 shares parts with the Hubble Space Telescope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen 'KH-11s are believed to resemble the Hubble Space Telescope in size and shape, as the satellites were shipped in similar containers. Their length is believed to be 19.5 meters, with a diameter of up to 3 meters.[5][23] A NASA history of the Hubble,[24] in discussing the reasons for switching from a 3-meter main mirror to a 2.4-meter design, states: "In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for military spy satellites.' Notice how that says KH-11s, plural.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoBy that logic, so is the military, public schools and highway maintenance.
- systemvoltage 5y agoAny over budget and poorly run government program I see it as a jobs program. F-35, CalTrain, NASA SLS, etc. This is in stark contrast with partnerships with private industries. For eg DARPA + Moderna or NASA + SpaceX.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoI fail to see the difference. Private contracts often go over budget. The F-35 itself is full of privately contracted parts. Many public/private partnerships contracts are even no bid, meaning they are essentially uncompetitive. Whether the government hires people directly to do a job or whether they contract it out is equally distortionary. By allocating tax dollars to a public rocket lab or to a private rocket company you are increasing the demand for rocket engineers and thus creating a "rocket engineer" jobs program.
- wolverine876 5y agoAll those projects were built by private industry, including the latter two.
- systemvoltage 5y agoThat’s true. I concede my point.
- bumby 5y agoWhile I am as critical of government overspending as anyone, this comparison misses some important nuances. Let's take the SpaceX example. SpaceX is great in terms of pushing innovation. But there would be no SpaceX without NASA or other government entities. They need those tax dollars (especially early on) to survive. And when they lose a government payload, the government takes something to the tune of 80% of the loss because they are self-insured. This has the effect of SpaceX farming out their risk to the government. But this is one of the areas where the government excels. Namely, taking large risks in nascent fields where the risk is too big for private companies to balance against the benefit by themselves. But the complexities and unknowns that create that risk is also the very same thing that creates the budget and schedule risk as well.