3 ms·

Just a little reminder: These taxpayer dollars aren't gone, they flow back into the economy. It makes tens of thousands of jobs possible. People reacted the s

by LeonM 4y ago

Just a little reminder: These taxpayer dollars aren't gone, they flow back into the economy. It makes tens of thousands of jobs possible. People reacted the same over the price of the Perseverance (2.75bn) project, as if somehow all that money was now on the surface of Mars.

silviot 4y ago
The point is that there are multiple ways to spend that money in a way that makes "thousands of jobs possible". You could fund healthcare, and spend the money for doctors, nurses and infrastructure. Or you could spend it on education. Or research. It's good in my opinion to have the conversation. As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal. Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  If we start having that conversation, we should start with big-item parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
  - silviot 4y ago
    Couldn't agree more. I was not aware of how the NASA budget compares to US military spending, so I just looked it up. In Fiscal year 2022 the DoD had $1.94 Trillion allocated to it. Or $1,940 billions. NASA's budget in FY 2022 is $30.62 Billion. So reducing military spending by 1/64th will free up as many resources as closing NASA altogether.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Great you looked it up, and thanks for posting fresh numbers! In such conversation, it's also important to look at the return of investment, note the diminishing returns of large endeavors, and consider the exploration-exploitation dilemma[0]. The way I see it: 1. Americans would definitely want to cut down the military spending a bit, because of diminishing returns/waste and how it perverts the US politics (once you have all that combat hardware and trained warriors, you feel the itch to use them). But, despite popular opinion, I think it's important to remember that this military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world, so it's not all wasted. Unfortunate reality of human condition is that, until we invent some new, surprising technologies (including social technologies), militaries will be needed to maintain peace. 2. Healthcare and education in the US arguably has more than enough money. The problem isn't the funds, it's their allocation, and the corruption. 3. NASA is, for the most part, your most high-tech part of the "exploration" arm of the exploration/exploitation tradeoff (whereas education, healthcare, and anything you could describe related to maintaining a standard of life, is on the "exploitation" side). US is already (IMO) spending too much on the exploitation side relative to exploration, compared to optimum, so if you want to rebalance the budget, I'd focus on cutting some exploitation spending (but, for your own self-preservation, add some more money to infrastructure maintenance). -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit
      - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
        >military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world I get the whole monopoly of violence logic here but remember your clarifying, end point. "the entire Western world". Because go ask anyone from the middle east if they think the US military is buying calm and peace.
- OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
  agreed, but in this case this is of course a part of the package deal: the only way for nasa to get their sls is to be a glorified jobs program for congress. So the price must be seen in that light, too. A clean comparison on price may not be possible.
- quartesixte 4y ago
  Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research. Lots of the money went into the pockets of tens of thousands of tradesmen and tradeswomen -- welders, fabricators, machinists, NDT technicians, etc -- who further developed their skills, passed it onto newer generations of workers, and ensured manufacturing skills don't become lost to time. The same manufacturing skills that will be used to make the technology and infrastructure we need to continue to live dignified, modern lives. It went into the pockets of engineers -- who continue on a tradition of engineering established since the first space race. Some of them would have taught and mentored the ones who would go on to make rockets at all the New Space startups, including SpaceX. Others will take their skills to other fields. It went into the pockets of hundreds of small businesses who contract with the makers of the SLS. Could we have been wiser with the money? Can we be more effective? Sure. But it is not all for naught and quite frankly if we are to continue as a modern first world society, making sure the skills and tech that go into making a rocket stay alive is just as important as funding healthcare, education and research. And tonight, there will be some kids inspired by the footage of the most powerful rocket ever made by humans to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering. This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. $23 billion is a small price to pay. Social media sites have been sold for much more.
  - silviot 4y ago
    > This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance. To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: * share the available food fairly * work to get more food The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > Or you could spend it on education. Or research. Or military. Or political campaigns. Or grift. > It's good in my opinion to have the conversation. This conversation has been had to death. NASA gets table scraps anyway. Also this whole program is research, and of the quite practical kind. > As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal. It's not. It's just something that's being brought up to make the people saying to gut NASA "because education! healthcare!" go away, because it usually resonates with them. > Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is. Yes, that's the long-term point of the whole endeavor, and of possible line items on the Federal budget, space historically had quite a good ROI here.
systemvoltage 4y ago
You’re missing the key piece: we can still spend the money on NASA programs but demand 10x more productivity and cost reduction of their vehicles. Let’s see them turn on a dime and out compete any private venture. So all points still stand: money goes into the economy and jobs, but the workforce becomes more competent, cost aware and sharp.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  I don't think you can just cut funding to NASA and expect them to become more efficient. They'll just do less with the same efficiency they have. The issue here is that a lot of what NASA does is not driven by current market needs. They're doing speculative, curiosity-driven R&D, on the extreme end of the "exploration" arm of exploration/exploitation tradeoff. Even though evidence to date tells us NASA spending (and space exploration in general) has a huge RoI, and there's good reason to suspect it'll continue to be huge indefinitely, it's not easy to quantify in terms and on time horizons the market understands[0]. NASA having less money just means less R&D being done. Now, I agree the way they go about things could be improved in terms of efficiency. But, unlike with for-profit companies, budget is the wrong knob to turn. Something else must be changed. I have no idea what[1]. Also, one has to be careful comparing e.g. SpaceX and NASA in terms of costs, because for the former, rocketry is a service they sell. NASA isn't there to be in the business of affordable rocket launches, it's there to be in the business of expanding what's possible. -- [0] - In particular, the market has a really hard time dealing with the idea of work that enriches the society at large - which, from company/investor point of view, is just enriching random third parties. [1] - In a sense, using money for this in the market economy is a way to side-step figuring out what the problem is - the threat of running out of money makes the companies individually try and do something, and either it works or they die. Obviously, this approach can't work in non-profit R&D.
  - philipwhiuk 4y ago
    Boeing isn't building the SLS for free. The cost-plus contract for SLS benefits profit seeking companies even more than 'commercial space'.
exo762 4y ago
Broken window fallacy. Doing the same things cheaper is good. SLA is a disgrace.
origin_path 4y ago
They aren't really taxpayer dollars in this case, it's borrowed or printed money that hits people directly via inflation.

by LeonM 4y ago

silviot 4y ago

The point is that there are multiple ways to spend that money in a way that makes "thousands of jobs possible". You could fund healthcare, and spend the money for doctors, nurses and infrastructure. Or you could spend it on education. Or research. It's good in my opinion to have the conversation. As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal. Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is.

DocTomoe 4y ago
If we start having that conversation, we should start with big-item parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
- silviot 4y ago
  Couldn't agree more. I was not aware of how the NASA budget compares to US military spending, so I just looked it up. In Fiscal year 2022 the DoD had $1.94 Trillion allocated to it. Or $1,940 billions. NASA's budget in FY 2022 is $30.62 Billion. So reducing military spending by 1/64th will free up as many resources as closing NASA altogether.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Great you looked it up, and thanks for posting fresh numbers! In such conversation, it's also important to look at the return of investment, note the diminishing returns of large endeavors, and consider the exploration-exploitation dilemma[0]. The way I see it: 1. Americans would definitely want to cut down the military spending a bit, because of diminishing returns/waste and how it perverts the US politics (once you have all that combat hardware and trained warriors, you feel the itch to use them). But, despite popular opinion, I think it's important to remember that this military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world, so it's not all wasted. Unfortunate reality of human condition is that, until we invent some new, surprising technologies (including social technologies), militaries will be needed to maintain peace. 2. Healthcare and education in the US arguably has more than enough money. The problem isn't the funds, it's their allocation, and the corruption. 3. NASA is, for the most part, your most high-tech part of the "exploration" arm of the exploration/exploitation tradeoff (whereas education, healthcare, and anything you could describe related to maintaining a standard of life, is on the "exploitation" side). US is already (IMO) spending too much on the exploitation side relative to exploration, compared to optimum, so if you want to rebalance the budget, I'd focus on cutting some exploitation spending (but, for your own self-preservation, add some more money to infrastructure maintenance). -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
      >military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world I get the whole monopoly of violence logic here but remember your clarifying, end point. "the entire Western world". Because go ask anyone from the middle east if they think the US military is buying calm and peace.
OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
agreed, but in this case this is of course a part of the package deal: the only way for nasa to get their sls is to be a glorified jobs program for congress. So the price must be seen in that light, too. A clean comparison on price may not be possible.
quartesixte 4y ago
Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research. Lots of the money went into the pockets of tens of thousands of tradesmen and tradeswomen -- welders, fabricators, machinists, NDT technicians, etc -- who further developed their skills, passed it onto newer generations of workers, and ensured manufacturing skills don't become lost to time. The same manufacturing skills that will be used to make the technology and infrastructure we need to continue to live dignified, modern lives. It went into the pockets of engineers -- who continue on a tradition of engineering established since the first space race. Some of them would have taught and mentored the ones who would go on to make rockets at all the New Space startups, including SpaceX. Others will take their skills to other fields. It went into the pockets of hundreds of small businesses who contract with the makers of the SLS. Could we have been wiser with the money? Can we be more effective? Sure. But it is not all for naught and quite frankly if we are to continue as a modern first world society, making sure the skills and tech that go into making a rocket stay alive is just as important as funding healthcare, education and research. And tonight, there will be some kids inspired by the footage of the most powerful rocket ever made by humans to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering. This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. $23 billion is a small price to pay. Social media sites have been sold for much more.
- silviot 4y ago
  > This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance. To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: * share the available food fairly * work to get more food The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> Or you could spend it on education. Or research. Or military. Or political campaigns. Or grift. > It's good in my opinion to have the conversation. This conversation has been had to death. NASA gets table scraps anyway. Also this whole program is research, and of the quite practical kind. > As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal. It's not. It's just something that's being brought up to make the people saying to gut NASA "because education! healthcare!" go away, because it usually resonates with them. > Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is. Yes, that's the long-term point of the whole endeavor, and of possible line items on the Federal budget, space historically had quite a good ROI here.

systemvoltage 4y ago

You’re missing the key piece: we can still spend the money on NASA programs but demand 10x more productivity and cost reduction of their vehicles. Let’s see them turn on a dime and out compete any private venture. So all points still stand: money goes into the economy and jobs, but the workforce becomes more competent, cost aware and sharp.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
I don't think you can just cut funding to NASA and expect them to become more efficient. They'll just do less with the same efficiency they have. The issue here is that a lot of what NASA does is not driven by current market needs. They're doing speculative, curiosity-driven R&D, on the extreme end of the "exploration" arm of exploration/exploitation tradeoff. Even though evidence to date tells us NASA spending (and space exploration in general) has a huge RoI, and there's good reason to suspect it'll continue to be huge indefinitely, it's not easy to quantify in terms and on time horizons the market understands[0]. NASA having less money just means less R&D being done. Now, I agree the way they go about things could be improved in terms of efficiency. But, unlike with for-profit companies, budget is the wrong knob to turn. Something else must be changed. I have no idea what[1]. Also, one has to be careful comparing e.g. SpaceX and NASA in terms of costs, because for the former, rocketry is a service they sell. NASA isn't there to be in the business of affordable rocket launches, it's there to be in the business of expanding what's possible. -- [0] - In particular, the market has a really hard time dealing with the idea of work that enriches the society at large - which, from company/investor point of view, is just enriching random third parties. [1] - In a sense, using money for this in the market economy is a way to side-step figuring out what the problem is - the threat of running out of money makes the companies individually try and do something, and either it works or they die. Obviously, this approach can't work in non-profit R&D.
- philipwhiuk 4y ago
  Boeing isn't building the SLS for free. The cost-plus contract for SLS benefits profit seeking companies even more than 'commercial space'.

exo762 4y ago

Broken window fallacy. Doing the same things cheaper is good. SLA is a disgrace.

origin_path 4y ago

They aren't really taxpayer dollars in this case, it's borrowed or printed money that hits people directly via inflation.