4 ms·

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 suppor

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.
- Reubachi 1y ago
  I understand your point, and in real life as a working commuter feel exactly the same. If the world where to end tomorrow, I would be upset that I cared so much about space research and less about for example infrastructure or access to water at that specific moment in time. However without using hyperbole, I can say as fact that "rock analyses and probe pictures" = GPS. Weather tracking/extrapolation. Satellite comm standards. Titanium alloying. Water Filtration. Vaccum efficient powerplants. subterranean imaging. 100 percent recyclables. Outer Space Treaty (1967.) FIber Optics. Solar Power. I could go on and on, but, it is 100 percent true to say that we would not have the life we have today where it not for NASA. We are extremely lucky that the power structures going back in history have had a scientific sexual organ measuring contest, because it for better or worse resulted in all those things at minimum.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > I can say as fact that "rock analyses and probe pictures" = GPS. No, sorry. NASA does some stuff that has valuable and practical Earth applications, but it's false to equate that stuff with ""rock analyses and probe pictures:" the former can be done without the latter. > I could go on and on, but, it is 100 percent true to say that we would not have the life we have today where it not for NASA. That may be true, but it's a long time since NASA space-exploration tech has had a large amount of impact on Earth-bound technology.

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.

Reubachi 1y ago
I understand your point, and in real life as a working commuter feel exactly the same. If the world where to end tomorrow, I would be upset that I cared so much about space research and less about for example infrastructure or access to water at that specific moment in time. However without using hyperbole, I can say as fact that "rock analyses and probe pictures" = GPS. Weather tracking/extrapolation. Satellite comm standards. Titanium alloying. Water Filtration. Vaccum efficient powerplants. subterranean imaging. 100 percent recyclables. Outer Space Treaty (1967.) FIber Optics. Solar Power. I could go on and on, but, it is 100 percent true to say that we would not have the life we have today where it not for NASA. We are extremely lucky that the power structures going back in history have had a scientific sexual organ measuring contest, because it for better or worse resulted in all those things at minimum.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > I can say as fact that "rock analyses and probe pictures" = GPS. No, sorry. NASA does some stuff that has valuable and practical Earth applications, but it's false to equate that stuff with ""rock analyses and probe pictures:" the former can be done without the latter. > I could go on and on, but, it is 100 percent true to say that we would not have the life we have today where it not for NASA. That may be true, but it's a long time since NASA space-exploration tech has had a large amount of impact on Earth-bound technology.