5 ms·

>"These things happen in private sector organizations too; the assumption that the private sector somehow will do it better needs to be supported." Sure, here'

by zo1 12y ago

>"These things happen in private sector organizations too; the assumption that the private sector somehow will do it better needs to be supported." Sure, here's one study that supports that assumption: http://hkis.org.hk/ufiles/200512-bclam.pdf http://hkis.org.hk/ufiles/200512-bclam.pdf Took a bit of searching, seeing as I don't have access to any Journals. However, I did find more references, and no doubt you'll find quite a bit of other studies in the citations of this one. >"Their achievements are staggering;" So has their budget. I just did a quick calculation from their wikipedia funding page. Since its inception, NASA has received 1069.323 billion dollars in 2014-inflation-adjusted dollars. That's a trillion dollars that could have been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. Sure, there have been all sorts of side-effects from all that NASA R&D, but let's not try to compare apples to oranges here. Because you can't really compare public and private institutions' achievements. One has to earn the profits it spends on fancy R&D, and the other simply has to ask for it in the government budget.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> That's a trillion dollars that could have been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. Alternate view: we could be a little less warmongery for a decade or so and easily fund the entirety of NASA's history 4-6 times over. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-...
- siquick 12y ago
  We could solve all that stuff easily right now without cutting NASA's budget.
- zo1 12y ago
  A further alternate view. We could stop the warmongering entirely, and the NASA funding... Using all those combined trillions of dollars on making the world a better place. On a side note, I completely agree with you. To us there are completely varying degrees on what we consider useful spending. And on the war-funding we are in agreement; that money should be used first before NASA's funding.
hackuser 12y ago
> I just did a quick calculation from their wikipedia funding page. Since its inception, NASA has received 1069.323 billion dollars in 2014-inflation-adjusted dollars. Interesting, thank you, and much less than I would have guessed. Given their achievements, I think that's economical. > That's a trillion dollars that could have been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. Sure, there have been all sorts of side-effects from all that NASA R&D ... The economists call that "opportunity cost" and I agree. I'm always a little uncomfortable with funding NASA missions to Mars, etc., though I think the benefits are worthwhile. Also, NASA has produced much science, including climate change research, which I think is clearly a good investment (based on my limited knowledge of the marginal value of NASA's research). > ... but let's not try to compare apples to oranges here. Because you can't really compare public and private institutions' achievements. One has to earn the profits it spends on fancy R&D, and the other simply has to ask for it in the government budget. Not really; it's not a matter of asking. Federal funds are limited and agencies fight wars, publicly and privately, over access to them. As in private enterprise, sometimes funding is decided on merit and sometimes politically. Ironically, much of private enterprise is funded the same way -- from the federal budget.
venomsnake 12y ago
If the only thing NASA had done were the two voyagers - for a trillion dollars it would still have been on the cheap. The trove of scientific data they have gathered over the years is insane. And for the 60 years it exists, a trillion dollars is not much. > One has to earn the profits it spends on fancy R&D Or borrow the money, or use wall street magic, or whatever. Also one of the recurrent critics of the current system is that corporations are slaves to the quarterly reports. The problem with NASA in recent years is not that they spend a lot of money, but that they don't dream big enough.
blisterpeanuts 12y ago
> That's a trillion dollars that has been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. There, fixed that for you! The old canard that space exploration has been a total waste of money just keeps popping up. Yet, our economy and the world itself have been dramatically transformed by the innovations and improvements coming out of the space program: solar energy, CAT scanners and MRI for medical applications, ceramic shielding, computer miniaturization, software methods, weather prediction, new kinds of materials, better propulsion systems for planes, food preservation, insulation, on and on. There are many more. And then there are all the people who were inspired by the space program to go into science and technology fields. I'd say $1 trillion, if accurate (the entire Apollo program cost about $200 billion in 2005 dollars) would be a bargain. Compare this with, say, the Dept. of Education created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. It's cost about $1.5 trillion over 35 years, and for what? Literacy and math skills have declined almost every year since then. Let's shrink federal spending in the entitlement and defense sectors, and put more money into space exploration and basic science, and I'll bet you we'll all end up living richer and better lives (and longer lives, too).
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  "Compare this with, say, the Dept. of Education created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. It's cost about $1.5 trillion over 35 years, and for what? Literacy and math skills have declined almost every year since then." Could you provide references for the cost (including any programs it replaced) and the downward progression in literacy and maths in the USA since 1979? It strikes me that more people are regularly communicating in writing than ever before and mathematics is sort of cool for the first time in several decades.
  - blisterpeanuts 12y ago
    The Dept of Education's annual budget is about $70 billion and has been in that range for several years. I did a thumbnail estimate based on that. In fact the accumulated cost might be considerably higher. The decline in literacy and math scores is well documented.
guelo 12y ago
NASA costs about as much as the Carried Interest tax loophole for hedge fund managers.
- dwd 12y ago
  It's also a lot smaller than the 4.5 trillion sunk in quantitative easing.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    Quantitative easing doesn't actually cost money. The fed buys securities with it and probably breaks even or makes a profit.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  And proponents of both justify them as ways of making capital available to worth while endeavors. In my mind that rings true for one slightly more than the other.
chrissyb 12y ago
Considering the population of Earth has more than doubled from around 3 billion in 1960 to 7 billion in 2014 i hardly think we can blame NASA for spending a trillion dollars. On the scale of world hunger over a 50 year period, one trillion is a blip. On the other hand spending a trillion on space research over 50 years seems well worth it if within the next 50 we can colonize other planets, moons or terrariums and ensure that the Human race has a backup should something catastrophic happen.

by zo1 12y ago

ceejayoz 12y ago

> That's a trillion dollars that could have been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. Alternate view: we could be a little less warmongery for a decade or so and easily fund the entirety of NASA's history 4-6 times over. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-...

siquick 12y ago
We could solve all that stuff easily right now without cutting NASA's budget.
zo1 12y ago
A further alternate view. We could stop the warmongering entirely, and the NASA funding... Using all those combined trillions of dollars on making the world a better place. On a side note, I completely agree with you. To us there are completely varying degrees on what we consider useful spending. And on the war-funding we are in agreement; that money should be used first before NASA's funding.

hackuser 12y ago

> I just did a quick calculation from their wikipedia funding page. Since its inception, NASA has received 1069.323 billion dollars in 2014-inflation-adjusted dollars. Interesting, thank you, and much less than I would have guessed. Given their achievements, I think that's economical. > That's a trillion dollars that could have been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. Sure, there have been all sorts of side-effects from all that NASA R&D ... The economists call that "opportunity cost" and I agree. I'm always a little uncomfortable with funding NASA missions to Mars, etc., though I think the benefits are worthwhile. Also, NASA has produced much science, including climate change research, which I think is clearly a good investment (based on my limited knowledge of the marginal value of NASA's research). > ... but let's not try to compare apples to oranges here. Because you can't really compare public and private institutions' achievements. One has to earn the profits it spends on fancy R&D, and the other simply has to ask for it in the government budget. Not really; it's not a matter of asking. Federal funds are limited and agencies fight wars, publicly and privately, over access to them. As in private enterprise, sometimes funding is decided on merit and sometimes politically. Ironically, much of private enterprise is funded the same way -- from the federal budget.

venomsnake 12y ago

If the only thing NASA had done were the two voyagers - for a trillion dollars it would still have been on the cheap. The trove of scientific data they have gathered over the years is insane. And for the 60 years it exists, a trillion dollars is not much. > One has to earn the profits it spends on fancy R&D Or borrow the money, or use wall street magic, or whatever. Also one of the recurrent critics of the current system is that corporations are slaves to the quarterly reports. The problem with NASA in recent years is not that they spend a lot of money, but that they don't dream big enough.

blisterpeanuts 12y ago

> That's a trillion dollars that has been spent solving world hunger, poverty, disease, even income equality. There, fixed that for you! The old canard that space exploration has been a total waste of money just keeps popping up. Yet, our economy and the world itself have been dramatically transformed by the innovations and improvements coming out of the space program: solar energy, CAT scanners and MRI for medical applications, ceramic shielding, computer miniaturization, software methods, weather prediction, new kinds of materials, better propulsion systems for planes, food preservation, insulation, on and on. There are many more. And then there are all the people who were inspired by the space program to go into science and technology fields. I'd say $1 trillion, if accurate (the entire Apollo program cost about $200 billion in 2005 dollars) would be a bargain. Compare this with, say, the Dept. of Education created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. It's cost about $1.5 trillion over 35 years, and for what? Literacy and math skills have declined almost every year since then. Let's shrink federal spending in the entitlement and defense sectors, and put more money into space exploration and basic science, and I'll bet you we'll all end up living richer and better lives (and longer lives, too).

lotsofmangos 12y ago
"Compare this with, say, the Dept. of Education created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. It's cost about $1.5 trillion over 35 years, and for what? Literacy and math skills have declined almost every year since then." Could you provide references for the cost (including any programs it replaced) and the downward progression in literacy and maths in the USA since 1979? It strikes me that more people are regularly communicating in writing than ever before and mathematics is sort of cool for the first time in several decades.
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  The Dept of Education's annual budget is about $70 billion and has been in that range for several years. I did a thumbnail estimate based on that. In fact the accumulated cost might be considerably higher. The decline in literacy and math scores is well documented.

guelo 12y ago

NASA costs about as much as the Carried Interest tax loophole for hedge fund managers.

dwd 12y ago
It's also a lot smaller than the 4.5 trillion sunk in quantitative easing.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Quantitative easing doesn't actually cost money. The fed buys securities with it and probably breaks even or makes a profit.
seanflyon 12y ago
And proponents of both justify them as ways of making capital available to worth while endeavors. In my mind that rings true for one slightly more than the other.

chrissyb 12y ago

Considering the population of Earth has more than doubled from around 3 billion in 1960 to 7 billion in 2014 i hardly think we can blame NASA for spending a trillion dollars. On the scale of world hunger over a 50 year period, one trillion is a blip. On the other hand spending a trillion on space research over 50 years seems well worth it if within the next 50 we can colonize other planets, moons or terrariums and ensure that the Human race has a backup should something catastrophic happen.