5 ms·

I've been trying to find this quotation from Neil Degrasse Tyson but haven't been successful. It's one of my favorite perspectives on NASA's budget (and specifi

I've been trying to find this quotation from Neil Degrasse Tyson but haven't been successful. It's one of my favorite perspectives on NASA's budget (and specifically the the importance of lavish, public, manned missions). Paraphrased: Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer, considering the return is a generation of American kids interested in math and science.

zeteo 15y ago
>Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer, considering the return is a generation of American kids interested in math and science. This attitude has brought NASA to the lack of relevance we see today. Astronauts spending hours on video chat with middle-schoolers and the use of precious payload to put ant colonies into orbit are not serious ways to advance a space program. When NASA was about exploring and colonizing the final frontier, kids would join in and dream along. When the space program became about forcing science and technology in an artificial way down the same kids' throats, they tuned out. So few youngsters with an interest in space / SF exist today.
- Jach 15y ago
  Yeah, I think the goal of sparking science interest (and other things) would be better suited with mandated reruns of Star Trek: TNG in classrooms. The thing with the ants is I only heard they were doing it, I never heard what they found out, and they never made it sound any fun. In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! he talks about his own ant experiments in an enlightening way, with a useful application of getting them away from his food without using poisons. We need more of that.
- pplante 15y ago
  I wonder if there is any sort of correlation between the dumbing down of science and people's interest in learning more about some complicated topic. Are we killing some of the allure for people who want to know more about a subject because maybe at some level they are driven to be an expert in something no one else they know is? </oddthought>
mchusma 15y ago
Investing $19B a year is also a no-brainer if its other peoples money. If its that important, for profit and non-profits will fill any gap (probably producing the same or better results for less money).
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  ...and 40 years later, like they are finally starting to now, while piggybacking off of 40 years of experience and science gained by NASA and all affiliated parties along the way.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Can't you use that logic to argue against any government spending?
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    Not "any", but "most". Government is still a good choice for military, police, and funding building roads. Letting government to spend money in most of other directions is a waste. Space exploration is just one of many such wasteful examples.
    - Game_Ender 15y ago
      > Space exploration is just one of many such wasteful examples. Only if you place low value on the scientific returns. Science research is one thing the private sector does poorly, and it's something NASA does a lot of. The other main area is human spaceflight which you could say is wasteful, but NASA did a lot of the high cost low return R&D for human spaceflight. Now private companies can go into the effort with timescales that can keep investors happy.
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        I do not value scientific research in directions that are not important to me. If I don't need spaceflight in the next 100 years, there is no point spending valuable resources on researching human spaceflight. 100 years from now such research would be significantly less expensive and more meaningful. I'd rather see valuable resources spend on what's important. For example on better rating system on HN. Government is not capable of doing things like that.

zeteo 15y ago

>Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer, considering the return is a generation of American kids interested in math and science. This attitude has brought NASA to the lack of relevance we see today. Astronauts spending hours on video chat with middle-schoolers and the use of precious payload to put ant colonies into orbit are not serious ways to advance a space program. When NASA was about exploring and colonizing the final frontier, kids would join in and dream along. When the space program became about forcing science and technology in an artificial way down the same kids' throats, they tuned out. So few youngsters with an interest in space / SF exist today.

Jach 15y ago
Yeah, I think the goal of sparking science interest (and other things) would be better suited with mandated reruns of Star Trek: TNG in classrooms. The thing with the ants is I only heard they were doing it, I never heard what they found out, and they never made it sound any fun. In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! he talks about his own ant experiments in an enlightening way, with a useful application of getting them away from his food without using poisons. We need more of that.
pplante 15y ago
I wonder if there is any sort of correlation between the dumbing down of science and people's interest in learning more about some complicated topic. Are we killing some of the allure for people who want to know more about a subject because maybe at some level they are driven to be an expert in something no one else they know is? </oddthought>

mchusma 15y ago

Investing $19B a year is also a no-brainer if its other peoples money. If its that important, for profit and non-profits will fill any gap (probably producing the same or better results for less money).

juiceandjuice 15y ago
...and 40 years later, like they are finally starting to now, while piggybacking off of 40 years of experience and science gained by NASA and all affiliated parties along the way.
pavel_lishin 15y ago
Can't you use that logic to argue against any government spending?
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  Not "any", but "most". Government is still a good choice for military, police, and funding building roads. Letting government to spend money in most of other directions is a waste. Space exploration is just one of many such wasteful examples.
  - Game_Ender 15y ago
    > Space exploration is just one of many such wasteful examples. Only if you place low value on the scientific returns. Science research is one thing the private sector does poorly, and it's something NASA does a lot of. The other main area is human spaceflight which you could say is wasteful, but NASA did a lot of the high cost low return R&D for human spaceflight. Now private companies can go into the effort with timescales that can keep investors happy.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      I do not value scientific research in directions that are not important to me. If I don't need spaceflight in the next 100 years, there is no point spending valuable resources on researching human spaceflight. 100 years from now such research would be significantly less expensive and more meaningful. I'd rather see valuable resources spend on what's important. For example on better rating system on HN. Government is not capable of doing things like that.