6 ms·

Spaceflight is arguably one of the better uses of public funds, so I'm curious why you picked exactly this topic.

• nerdponx 2y ago
  Because currently the manned spaceflight component of NASA is more like a jobs program than a useful contributor to science and space exploration.
• llamaimperative 2y ago
  How 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 ago
    Our 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        There’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 ago
          Ah, 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 ago
            I 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.
            • llamaimperative 2y ago
              Space is way, way, way bigger and way, way, way less hospitable than "technically interested" folks on here understand. And being multiplanetary isn't really a great hedge against the types of risks that are existential to a species that's capable of being multiplanetary.
              • 2y ago
    • maxerickson 2y ago
      You think we wouldn't have bothered with GPS and imaging if we weren't also firing humans up there? There may be some cross talk in this thread where some people are talking about space programs in general and other people are talking about sending people to space.
  • kbos87 2y ago
    This 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 ago
      to 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 ago
        Also 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 ago
  my money is on irrational hatred of a certain billionaire. Lets wait and see what they say.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • saagarjha 2y ago
    Perhaps rational hatred that leads to irrational hatred of the things he is associated with.
  • kbos87 2y ago
    Here 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 ago
      Technically 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 ago
        Wishing 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 ago
        A lot of NASA spending seems eminently worthwhile, but the manned space program seems like a boondoggle