3 ms·

> is that people would freak out And rightfully so. What's the ROI? The hard limit for stuff which is not aimed at producing an improvement in quality of life

by GDC7 5y ago

> is that people would freak out And rightfully so. What's the ROI? The hard limit for stuff which is not aimed at producing an improvement in quality of life of taxpayers should be in the dozens of millions , not billions. Quality of life improvement can be delayed 40 or 50 years, but there should be at least a path. James Webb Space Telescope has no path, nor does Hubble, nor does the ISS, nor do the Mars missions (private or public), and neither did the Apollo missions as the program was shut down for bankruptcy essentially. Had the Soviet done the same we'd be laughing at their juvinile understanding of economics, ROI and ROE. On the other hand NASA mission to collide with an asteroid has a path to save us all , ITER has a path (no pun intended) , mRNA research has a freaking highway at this point, biotech also has a path, even China's bridges to nowhere to pump GDP have a path sometime in the future.

shlurpy 5y ago
Sounds like a good argument to severely cut millitary spending, not science spending. Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but proves time and time again to be invaluable.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but proves time and time again to be invaluable Seems like a good pitch to fund National Labs instead. National Labs != space. Unless you have a clear and defined QOL plan then space has proven to be a money sink for the longest time. The Apollo mission didn't have any clear plan, the Voyager-1-2 missions didn't have any clear plan, Mars missions won't have any clear plan, the ISS didn't have any clear plan, the space shuttle didn't have any clear plan. Matter of fact it's the opposite of what you claim, if you leave space in the hands of military maybe some QOL trickle down will happen (GPS, Sat communications, ICBMs keeping us safe). If you leave it in the hands of wide eyed individuals who want to discover exoplanets and clusters which we'll never reach then you'll just throw money down the sink.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    Earth is going to get very crowded in the next couple of centuries. The economic case for large-scale expansion into space isn't exactly clear at this point, but when things get tight I'd rather have state and corporate actors looking outwards for their next growth fix, and for that to be a possibility we need to be investing in space technology now even if there is no tangible short-term ROI. Unless we can change our essential nature, I don't see any sustainable path where human civilization stays confined to Earth forever. Those doomsday weapons "keeping us safe" will inevitably be used, especially when it becomes clear that we're utterly trapped.

by GDC7 5y ago

shlurpy 5y ago

Sounds like a good argument to severely cut millitary spending, not science spending. Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but proves time and time again to be invaluable.

GDC7 5y ago
> Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but proves time and time again to be invaluable Seems like a good pitch to fund National Labs instead. National Labs != space. Unless you have a clear and defined QOL plan then space has proven to be a money sink for the longest time. The Apollo mission didn't have any clear plan, the Voyager-1-2 missions didn't have any clear plan, Mars missions won't have any clear plan, the ISS didn't have any clear plan, the space shuttle didn't have any clear plan. Matter of fact it's the opposite of what you claim, if you leave space in the hands of military maybe some QOL trickle down will happen (GPS, Sat communications, ICBMs keeping us safe). If you leave it in the hands of wide eyed individuals who want to discover exoplanets and clusters which we'll never reach then you'll just throw money down the sink.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Earth is going to get very crowded in the next couple of centuries. The economic case for large-scale expansion into space isn't exactly clear at this point, but when things get tight I'd rather have state and corporate actors looking outwards for their next growth fix, and for that to be a possibility we need to be investing in space technology now even if there is no tangible short-term ROI. Unless we can change our essential nature, I don't see any sustainable path where human civilization stays confined to Earth forever. Those doomsday weapons "keeping us safe" will inevitably be used, especially when it becomes clear that we're utterly trapped.