4 ms·
What portion of the national budget that is devoted to spaceflight would it take to shower the USFS in riches? I'd much rather see it going to the latter.
by kbos87 2y ago
What portion of the national budget that is devoted to spaceflight would it take to shower the USFS in riches? I'd much rather see it going to the latter.
- ceejayoz 2y agoUSFS received $9.23B in 2024. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12396/3 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12396/3 NASA's is about $25B. Bigger, but both are pretty small in the overall Federal budget.
- MaKey 2y agoSpaceflight is arguably one of the better uses of public funds, so I'm curious why you picked exactly this topic.
- nerdponx 2y agoBecause currently the manned spaceflight component of NASA is more like a jobs program than a useful contributor to science and space exploration.
- llamaimperative 2y agoHow exactly is it useful? Seems to be only rather fringe science experiments going on (neat, of course!) and vague pre-work for going multiplanetary, which IMO is not a super compelling idea upon inspection. Honest curiosity here, I don't know what a lot of the purpose is!
- shkkmo 2y agoOur pursuit of space travel has lead to an incredible number of innovations that are used accross almost every industry in this country. The use of orbital based technologies like GPS and satellite imaging have unlocked entirely new capabilities. It's hard to find an aspect of modern life that hasn't been transformed in some way by space. Dollar for dollar, the only better return on our federal spending is education.
- llamaimperative 2y agoI understand historically that it has produced incredibly valuable "exhaust", but is that really the strategy? Is that the purpose? Do we have a reason to believe we will always (and are today receiving) positive ROI, even aside from reaching any valuable "destination", so to speak?
- ddulaney 2y agoThere’s a lot of good that shows up all across the economy from satellites. For example, how important is weather prediction to you? Genuinely, I’m not sure how much it is to me, but the value isn’t nothing. GPS is another thing like that: it’s only a little bit useful to me, but it enables a lot of economic activity (like farm automation). And the fact that getting lost went from a regular thing that happens to rarely is probably at least somewhat valuable. Remote telecom is another thing. For sure, there are diminishing returns, but going from no access to some access for very remote places (think ships at sea, polar research stations, oil rigs, very rural communities) is probably valuable. How many ships haven’t sunk because they got a satellite weather update? You’re absolutely right, it’s not a strategy to invest randomly. And it’s quite possible that we’re over-investing in space. But there are direct returns in addition to the “exhaust”.
- llamaimperative 2y agoAh, satellites yes I agree. I wasn't thinking of this critique against putting things in space, but against manned missions to outer space. I'm all for sending up robots and sending those to other planets to figure out the situation.
- Vegenoid 2y agoI thought that most technically interested folks saw growing into the stars as a worthy endeavor. It is indeed the only way for humanity to survive in the (long) long term. I’m surprised to see that there are so many people here that don’t share that view.
- kbos87 2y agoThis is exactly my question. I wish I could better justify the value of spaceflight, but I’m wholly unconvinced. The arguments for investing in it always seem like vague references to the future with no specific value delivered today.
- tessierashpool9 2y agoto be fair, almost all technological progress started out as something vague with no obvious purpose. not the best example but a famous one is number theory which was admired by the likes of hardy specifically because of its supposed uselessness - they considered this a feature. now everything encryption is based on it. but yes, i think space flight is a billionaire's fever dream and the rest cares about it because it is kind of cool or whatever. i think it distracts us from here and now. it's stupid to argue we need mars to save the species when inhabiting mars would be much more difficult and unpleasant than make do with this planet here. also it's mostly just military arms race disguised by peaceful and civil motivation.
- llamaimperative 2y agoAlso a lot of wastes of money started as a waste of money... so it's hard to make heuristic judgments from your first observation (which of course I agree with).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- snapplebobapple 2y agomy money is on irrational hatred of a certain billionaire. Lets wait and see what they say.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- saagarjha 2y agoPerhaps rational hatred that leads to irrational hatred of the things he is associated with.
- kbos87 2y agoHere we have a perfect specimen of an assumption-laden, chronically online take. I’m not a fan of the man but it has nothing to do with my question.
- snapplebobapple 2y agoTechnically it was a forecast of your reason for the purposes of gambling since your position was irrational. You claim to have a different irrational reason for hating on space spending so out with it.
- vundercind 2y agoWishing the SLS had a budget of $0 is hardly irrational, and that alone is a large line-item. Ditto the associated contracts for moon lander modules.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoA lot of NASA spending seems eminently worthwhile, but the manned space program seems like a boondoggle
- dyauspitr 2y agoWhy on earth would you try and take money away from spaceflight rather than the host of other ridiculous things we fund. How about what percentage of oil subsidies?
- nerdponx 2y agoEthanol subsidies. Part of the demented legacy of the Bush era. And it's only getting sillier: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/biden-team-sets-out-ethanols-path-aviation-fuel-subsidies-2024-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/biden-team-sets-out-e...
- bacheaul 2y agoSpaceflight is not what you want to be picking as a point of comparison if you want to talk about funding government agencies. > The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official. That's more than NASA's budget. https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-...
- missedthecue 2y agoWhat we pay for what we get is insane though. Imagine what SpaceX (or other enterprising group of engineers) could do with a guaranteed $20B of annual funding.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoMilitary and healthcare are the astronomical expenses that dwarf both space and the usfs. Both are plagued with inefficiencies but the military is largely the most useless expense because we aren't at any huge risk that justifies this level of spending.
- macintux 2y agohttps://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/us-election-wartime-president/680326/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/us-elec... “Americans on November 5 will be electing a wartime president. This isn’t a prediction. It’s reality.”
- vundercind 2y agoAn opinion piece from the head of the Atlantic Council, whose job is basically to convince Americans they need to have lots of defense spending, is hardly something I’d take at face value. It’s more revealing of where that particular set of (heavily foreign-funded) lobbyists are trying to steer us, than anything else.
- red-iron-pine 2y agothe huge risk that justifies this level of spending is maintaining the global socio-economic system. and that may not have been in jeopardy a decade ago but there are groups actively, openly, and unambiguously aimed at destroying that, e.g. Russia and China's "no limits partnership". Which has show that it will invade and annihilate people. The middle east is also popping off, and you have the Yemenis shooting at cargo vessels off the coast.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoIt’s propaganda that China and Russia have no limits. Neither Russia nor China want to annihilate people.