4 ms·

The Presidential budget proposal is a death sentence for NASA

21 points by xqcgrek2 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dcow 1y ago
I used to be a NASA holdout but we’re at a point—we have been for a while now—where NASA is lagging the private sector on essentially every axis. We don’t need the government to kickstart space exploration anymore. Would the average person today think it a good use of public funds to put people on mars?
- burkaman 1y ago
  > Would the average person today think it a good use of public funds to put people on mars? Yes, support for public funding of NASA has only been increasing for the last 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/260309/years-moon-landing-support-space-program-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/260309/years-moon-landing-suppo.... > NASA is lagging the private sector on essentially every axis What private companies are ahead of NASA in designing and running space telescopes and other fundamental scientific research? You can see a list of active scientific missions here: https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/#all-missions https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/#all-missions. What private companies are currently operating rovers somewhere besides Earth? What private companies are monitoring for solar storms and providing advance warning to power grid operators on Earth?
- taylodl 1y ago
  It took the private sector 60 years to catch up to where NASA was, using the technology NASA developed. Everybody and his brother has a launch vehicle - that's no longer a differentiator. NASA is the entity building telescopes, rovers, explorers, and space weather satellites. The private sector isn't building any of that stuff. They're largely focused on joy rides to space and being NASA's pack mule.
- Reubachi 1y ago
  What has the private industry done for space exploration and research in the last 20 years? Hint: Perfecting Rocket boosters and LEO satellites for commercial use are not tenants of NASA and the reasoning should be obvious. Research is rarely sexy, and it being "space based" won't get it on TV with 8k cameras attached. We DO NOT want that. Private commercial entities trying to inflate stock and consumer opinion want that.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > We don’t need the government to kickstart space exploration anymore. Oh, the government still funds space exploration. That’s still where most of the money comes from. It’s just, the government (and by extension, we the people) no longer owns the results of that funding. It’s instead owned by a handful of billionaires that are attempting to own everything.
jmclnx 1y ago
Well at least we have China doing real science. Off to backwater status the US goes. Kids, if you can afford it, go to college in non-US countries.
palmotea 1y ago
I don't like the reasoning behind these changes, but I'm not morally outraged. Space exploration is really just a luxury product for nerds, and no one actually needs it (despite the numerous sci-fi fantasies that claim otherwise). There are a lot of really basic needs that are going unmet in society, so it would totally make sense to redirect money towards away from NASA, or at least to systems and projects that are "dual use" (e.g. not space telescopes and probes). I know that's not what Trump's doing here, but I'd rather some NASA space probe be cut than a similar cut to Medicaid.
- Reubachi 1y ago
  I disagree on the reasoning. I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies. You are looking at cost relative to per capita income assuming 100 percent perfect productivity, when it is more proper to look at metrics tracking ROI versus potential other investments. The government has never cared to track the above as a matter of organizational efficiency, because every 4 years we swap the organization. ("DOGE" certainly is attaining nothing.) Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans. In comparison, I would be perfectly OK with .005 percent of my income tax being dedicated to space research, as that is the clear future for low touch technology/networking/travelet. It is very easy to track ROI.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies. No. Everyone uses and needs roads and other kinds of transportation. No one actually needs space probe pictures or chemical analyses of Mars rocks, so that output should arguably be valued at 0 when you're evaluating "monetary input->realized output." NASA could be incredibly "efficient" at turning tax dollars into large volumes of esoteric research findings, but that money would still be better spend on less efficient organizations whose output is far more valuable (e.g. giving large numbers of real people access to medical care). This might make my point clearer: think of NASA as an organization that builds giant stone penises in the desert. NASA is very good at that job, efficiently builds a lot of them, and I suppose the penises provide some shade. But do we really need them (even if some people are huge fans and are really inspired by them), when that money could be used to feed people who have no food? > Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans. That's a problem, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question of what output to prioritize. Now don't get me wrong. NASA does do some valuable stuff, but that stuff doesn't have anything to do with Mars or taking pictures of deep space.

21 points by xqcgrek2 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dcow 1y ago

I used to be a NASA holdout but we’re at a point—we have been for a while now—where NASA is lagging the private sector on essentially every axis. We don’t need the government to kickstart space exploration anymore. Would the average person today think it a good use of public funds to put people on mars?

burkaman 1y ago
> Would the average person today think it a good use of public funds to put people on mars? Yes, support for public funding of NASA has only been increasing for the last 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/260309/years-moon-landing-support-space-program-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/260309/years-moon-landing-suppo.... > NASA is lagging the private sector on essentially every axis What private companies are ahead of NASA in designing and running space telescopes and other fundamental scientific research? You can see a list of active scientific missions here: https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/#all-missions https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/#all-missions. What private companies are currently operating rovers somewhere besides Earth? What private companies are monitoring for solar storms and providing advance warning to power grid operators on Earth?
taylodl 1y ago
It took the private sector 60 years to catch up to where NASA was, using the technology NASA developed. Everybody and his brother has a launch vehicle - that's no longer a differentiator. NASA is the entity building telescopes, rovers, explorers, and space weather satellites. The private sector isn't building any of that stuff. They're largely focused on joy rides to space and being NASA's pack mule.
Reubachi 1y ago
What has the private industry done for space exploration and research in the last 20 years? Hint: Perfecting Rocket boosters and LEO satellites for commercial use are not tenants of NASA and the reasoning should be obvious. Research is rarely sexy, and it being "space based" won't get it on TV with 8k cameras attached. We DO NOT want that. Private commercial entities trying to inflate stock and consumer opinion want that.
mcphage 1y ago
> We don’t need the government to kickstart space exploration anymore. Oh, the government still funds space exploration. That’s still where most of the money comes from. It’s just, the government (and by extension, we the people) no longer owns the results of that funding. It’s instead owned by a handful of billionaires that are attempting to own everything.

jmclnx 1y ago

Well at least we have China doing real science. Off to backwater status the US goes. Kids, if you can afford it, go to college in non-US countries.

palmotea 1y ago

I don't like the reasoning behind these changes, but I'm not morally outraged. Space exploration is really just a luxury product for nerds, and no one actually needs it (despite the numerous sci-fi fantasies that claim otherwise). There are a lot of really basic needs that are going unmet in society, so it would totally make sense to redirect money towards away from NASA, or at least to systems and projects that are "dual use" (e.g. not space telescopes and probes). I know that's not what Trump's doing here, but I'd rather some NASA space probe be cut than a similar cut to Medicaid.

Reubachi 1y ago
I disagree on the reasoning. I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies. You are looking at cost relative to per capita income assuming 100 percent perfect productivity, when it is more proper to look at metrics tracking ROI versus potential other investments. The government has never cared to track the above as a matter of organizational efficiency, because every 4 years we swap the organization. ("DOGE" certainly is attaining nothing.) Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans. In comparison, I would be perfectly OK with .005 percent of my income tax being dedicated to space research, as that is the clear future for low touch technology/networking/travelet. It is very easy to track ROI.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies. No. Everyone uses and needs roads and other kinds of transportation. No one actually needs space probe pictures or chemical analyses of Mars rocks, so that output should arguably be valued at 0 when you're evaluating "monetary input->realized output." NASA could be incredibly "efficient" at turning tax dollars into large volumes of esoteric research findings, but that money would still be better spend on less efficient organizations whose output is far more valuable (e.g. giving large numbers of real people access to medical care). This might make my point clearer: think of NASA as an organization that builds giant stone penises in the desert. NASA is very good at that job, efficiently builds a lot of them, and I suppose the penises provide some shade. But do we really need them (even if some people are huge fans and are really inspired by them), when that money could be used to feed people who have no food? > Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans. That's a problem, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question of what output to prioritize. Now don't get me wrong. NASA does do some valuable stuff, but that stuff doesn't have anything to do with Mars or taking pictures of deep space.