I’m on travel today, which is going to take all fracking day, so I will make this short.
I gave my Moon Hoax talk last night, and as usual I got questions about NASA’s return to the Moon. Probably the most important aspect of this question is "Why"? Why go back?
I have my own thoughts about this, and I’ve written about them here on this blog. Not surprisingly, NASA has a web page listing their own reasons, but their statements are rather lofty, and not terribly meaty. However, others have written about this topic too, like the Space Frontier Foundation and two authors at The Space Review: Mark Huang and Jeff Foust.
Read those, and then tell me: What do you think?
Just a little Friday free thinkin’.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Considering bush was the one who first got this going I have my own suspicions as to what the new moon missions might be like. Well… I’m a bit worried: http://www.depletedcranium.com/lunarfreedom.jpg
[img]http://www.depletedcranium.com/lunarfreedom.jpg[/img]
December 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Why go to the Moon???
You’re standing at the bottom of a staircase. a real Long staircase. How do you climb it?
You put your foot on the first step….
“The Earth is the cradle of Man — but a man cannot stay in his cradle forever
—Konstin Therkovsky (spelling??)
December 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I think the question is wrong. The question should be “What can be gained by going to the moon? What justifies the enormous cost?” and I’m sorry, but lofty goals don’t cut it, you need concrete answers.
Unfortunately, we have the white elephant, ISS, in orbit which barely makes the news and has done little good for man-kind other than provide a rather nice hotel for the 0.000001% of the Earth’s population who can afford to get there. Not a good advertisment for lofty goals.
Also, this is not a question of “Would the money be better spent on feeding the poor or building new hospitals?” or “Would you prefer it to be spent on more weapons?” – As Phil has pointed out, NASA is like the public funding of ballet – almost a quango – it doesn’t make or break the budget – its there on the edge.
So – What is the benefit?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I’d rather have nasa develop a cheap routine reliable way of getting to orbit (the thing that the shuttle was supposed to be when announced in 1972) then go back to the moon creating zero new capabilities and accomplishing relatively limited science on a huge budget. The path nasa is taking now assures that space will remain a fronter and only realm of a few select individuals.
I keep hearing “LEO! We’ve been going there for the past 30 years.” Yes, but we still suck at it. Can we please actually consider the fact that space would have a lot more potential if there was a better way of getting there before we rehash Apollo.
Yes I know “getting to space is hard. To make a way of getting there more easily you’d need to invent new things and push technology to its limits, develop better engines and invent new things…”
Yes, but this is the entire reason Nasa exists.
I think after the boondoggles of the Space Shuttle, the NASP, the Delta Clipper, the X-37 Future-X, the X-40, the VentureStar and all the other half-assed attempts nasa has made (and failed) to create a sustainable, economical, reliable, low infrastructure, routine means of getting to space they’ve thrown their hands up in the air and said “We can’t do it” and just decided to stick with semi-disposable capsuls and big dumb boosters, thus assuring that you and I and probably nobody you know will ever get into space and satellite launches will always be extremely expensive and most scientists will need to wait years to get even one modest experiment flown, if they are lucky to get that.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
One of the reasons I’ve heard: It’s supposed to be easier to launch space probes from the moon.
I think the first trips to the moon were productive because NASA had to invent new things or use technology in innovative ways to get there. I don’t think the return will be quite so helpful, but I think there’s still some things worth milking for the creatively minded, depending on how long we want to keep something operating there.
One thing I’m curious about: If zero/micro gravity decays bone over time, will merely low gravity do it almost as badly?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Dear Mr. Plait,
We saw you in Redding yesterday. We are a 4th/5th grade class in Montgomery Ck. near the SETI dishes up at Hat Creek. We think that going to the moon is a great idea. Isaiah says it would be interesting. Johnny says it would be bad because it’s dangerous. Cedric says aliens could blast you. Tara thinks it’s a good idea because you could see space and the stars better. PS we loved your presentation, “it was awesome!”
December 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Chas:
>“The Earth is the cradle of Man — but a man cannot stay in his cradle
>forever —Konstin Therkovsky (spelling??)
I always thought that this quote belongs to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (”КонÑтантин ЦиолковÑкий” in Russian).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky#Quotes
December 7th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
For the theme park! With hookers, and blackjack! Or to hunt whales…
How about a large telescope in one of the nearly permanently dark craters?
How about for testing equipment and habitats and rovers and spacesuits that could be used on Mars or Europa?
And why leave going to the moon strictly in the hands of NASA? Why not commercialize the endeavor? How about hotels and restaurants? Who wouldn’t want to spend a week in a low-g resort?
And don’t forget: For the Adventure!
December 7th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Because mining mass drivers also make really good ortillery platforms.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Here’s why. The sun is gradually producing more heat and, according to Phil, it will make the Earth too hot to be habitable in about 100 million years. One way to sidestep that doom is to colonize the next planet out: mars. The moon is a great testbed, allowing us to perfect space transit and colonization.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Because it’s there….
December 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
A negative comment on manned space flight from Bob Park, the man that Dr. Plait says doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
2. SCIENCE ADVICE: WHO IS ADVISING THE CANDIDATES ABOUT SPACE?
Recognizing that the only direction is up, WN has tried to stay clear of the nomination battle. It was a jolt, however, to read in the Washington Post today that the Democratic front runner supports key aspects of the Bush space plan, hereafter referred to as the Lunacy Program. It calls for a return to the Moon in the multibillion dollar Constellation spacecraft to prepare for a vastly more expensive human mission to Mars to do that which robots do better. Barack Obama would delay Constellation for five years to provide funds for education. We’re all in favor of education, but there are vital science programs in space that are getting squeezed out for this money sink. Let’s consider climate change:
December 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
>I keep hearing “LEO! We’ve been going there for the past 30 years.â€
>Yes, but we still suck at it. Can we please actually consider the fact that
>space would have a lot more potential if there was a better way of
>getting there before we rehash Apollo.
Unfortunately, there’s not much ways to efficiently get to LEO. It’s just basic physics – you need 8 km/s delta-v and there’s just no way you can do it cheaply with a chemical rocket.
I still hope for a clever hypersonic air-breathing jet which _can_ make it possible to get to LEO pretty cheaply, but I don’t think it’ll happen any time soon. Long ago in 2001, I’ve read that it should be possible with our current technology to deliver 100kg of cargo (i.e.: typical human) to LEO for about 1 million dollars.
IMHO, we need to bootstrap heavy industry on the Moon and make it self-sufficient. When we can use it as a base for further colonization of the Solar System.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
A good political argument as to why the US should go to the moon.
If you don’t then China will be up there laughing at you.
In all seriousness, if the US doesn’t then forget about deluding yourselves that the US is a world power, the US will be an also ran.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I recall Carl Sagan commented extensively on this topic in his book, “Pale Blue Dot”. One of his reasons was, over the very long term, the survival of our species, through space colonization, was more important, he felt, than exploration, education, and science aspects, and understanding our own planet (not that these things were unimportant).
Here’s a quote: “What the shuttle does is put five or six or seven astronauts in a tin can two hundred miles up and they launch a communications satellite or something that could have been done just as easily by an unmanned booster….That’s not exploration….that’s like driving a bus over the same highway two hundred miles.” And: “…I would like to see self-sustaining human communities on other worlds – so that we hedge our bets or diversify our portfolio. Clearly our chances are much better if we do that”
Well said.
Dennis
December 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Actually, there’s a very good reason to make the Moon a priority. It might provide a solution to our energy needs if we cover even a tiny fraction of it with solar panels.
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-8/iss-2/p12.pdf
December 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Why aren’t we sending our species’ children: robots?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Biosphere 2, for those old enough to remember it, was a joke. Doing it properly, if we want to talk about biological exploration in space, is a sane first step.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Why go to the moon AGAIN? Well, there is really no good reason for that. All the interesting stuff is on Mars. Go to Mars directly; skip the moon.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
To explore the alien city discovered by the Apollo 20 Mission in 1976.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I think the only reason to go to the moon is to colonize it. Otherwise, it’s just a stunt.
If the purpose of this mission is to begin towards that end, then that’s one thing. But if the moonbase is Just Another Place For Astronoauts To Go Sometimes, it’s not worth it.
Let ‘em go and build a hotel and casino. Let Virgin Galactic work on taking civilians there. Let the rich fat cats with more money than God eat up the early adopter cost, and pave the way for everyone else. Ultimately, have a place where people can live and work and raise a flag that says TANSTAAFL!
December 7th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
> and raise a flag that says TANSTAAFL!
And by raising that flag inadvertently destroy the odd little libertarian utopia they had?
> Why aren’t we sending our species’ children: robots?
Why aren’t we uploading ourselves into robots and having the best of both worlds (heh heh heh)? Oh, wait, technology’s not quite there yet. Darn. Still, reasons I can think of are that there’s resources there to exploit, and big shoot-the-Moon (dang, I’m full of puns today) projects are good for inspiring people, because pushing envelopes is what gets attention. In terms of cost, it’s a lot cheaper than forcing freedom down the throats of Sandistan, so no one has a reasonable right to complain on that front.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I really don’t think we should bother going to the moon anytime soon. A spinning donut is much more practical. It allows the best of both worlds in terms of gravity with a full 1g (more?) on external levels down to null gravity on the center. It could serve as a focusing point for solar power sattelites. Put your donut in geosynch and have the SPS in full sun 24 hours a day and beam high energy at the donut station which can then push it down to a recieving station below it. Docking is easier in that there’s no gravity well to climb back out of after you’ve landed. The whole station is close enough to earth that inhabitants could jump in an Mercury type capsule lifeboat in the event of an emergency (assuming there are capsules enough for everyone, and there *would* be enough). Robots can swoop down for air (water?) collection into the high atmosphere before boosting back into orbit ala Fallen Angels.
To build the whole thing, don’t send up the ring piece by piece. Build a manufacturing plant and send out robots to bring back metalic asteroids for building materials. Mineral asteroids (plus enough organic material) for soil. Most of the cost in space is in getting there, essentially getting enough delta-v. By grabbing the material in space you remove that problem, and you get free energy to spin your donut by stealing energy from the incoming asteroids. Moreso if you use a linear accelerator to throw off slag towards the sun.
Build these big enough and they become ring cities built from the sky up (down? i dunno but i like the turn of phrase). I’d have no problem living in such a place, and if it’s self sustaining the city can pay in metals and power to have people brought up. Being near earth also helps in real time comunications.
Ring cities are much MUCH more practical than tiny moon bases. Closer to earth, cheaper to build, self sustainable, viable living/agriculture space (grow your own food and air at the same time). win win win. And the side technologies you’ll build at the same time? Robotics, manufacturing. Well worth the investment. Who needs the moon?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us will go to the stars.”
There are so many reasons why we should go to the moon, but the number one reason is survival and that can be easily subdivided.
This little planet of ours is the right size for getting the human race on its feet and ready to explore new places. We’ve been exploring new places for the entire existence of humans. Most life explores new places as it looks for new sources of food and water and better conditions for survival. It’s in our nature. But let’s face it, the moon is not a better place for survival. In fact, there *IS* no better place for survival than our tiny planet. It’s where we were designed to live. But go to the moon we must as our survival is more than an issue of having air to breathe or food to eat. It’s about giving our intelligence things to work on. It’s about seeing new things. Let’s face it, this planet has been explored nearly to death. All that’s left are esoteric things to explore. These things are important to be sure. But most people don’t look through telescopes or microscopes and think, “A new world to conquer, a new land to occupy!” Fresh new vistas are out of the reach of most people. We need to get out there physically and build something and declare it our home.
The number one imperative of all life is to to produce progeny. It doesn’t matter where on the evolutionary tree it exists, if it’s life it’s going to reproduce. There are many things which life needs to do, but it’s all geared to survive so it can reproduce. If a species can’t do this, it’s not going to survive. One essential part of that need is to have space to do it in. We’re crowded here, so crowded that we’re becoming counter-productive. We’re destroying the very things on this planet which allowed us to survive, thrive and flourish. Our activities are threatening to cause enormous environmental changes which threaten our survival. The only way to accommodate our need to reproduce is to give ourselves more space. The moon is just the first step in that direction. From the moon comes Mars and from there, who knows? (I suspect that we’ll figure out a way to terraform Venus, but that’s a long way off.)
Finally, going to the Moon is necessary because we can’t leave all our eggs in one basket. As all those science shows are quick to tell us, there will be a strike by an object which may terminate all life on Earth. We can’t just sit there and wait for that to happen. Right now our technology does not allow us to move objects of that magnitude in the space of time necessary to save our planet. Waiting around for that kind of technology is not practical in the least. We need to do something now to get ready for that and one of those things is to stick ourselves on other worlds in which we can survive such cataclysms. Ironically, the more places we inhabit, the greater the likelihood that somebody’s gonna get smacked by an asteroid. But it won’t take out the entire human race and that’s the whole point.
We’re human beings, designed from the ground up to spread out and make more human beings. We do that supremely well and we certainly shouldn’t ignore a biological imperative that’s over 3 billion years old. What are we waiting for?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Okay, I wrote my spiel and now I’d like to address some of the concerns that were posted here.
Ryan says we need a city in space. I see no reason not to do it and in fact, it’s a good idea. It would make it so much cheaper for that moon shuttle that we’ll need to get us to the cities that we build on the moon. We’re going to have to build cities there because we need to have room to reproduce.
B. Dewhurst asks why we shouldn’t send the children of men; i.e robots. We’ve been doing that! That’s what those satellites and rovers we’ve sent to the Moon, Mars and other planets have been doing. But they don’t have the intelligence to do the job right. Spirit and Opportunity aren’t going to build new instruments in which to look at things differently. The new Japanese and Chinese satellites in orbit around the moon aren’t going to build anything there. Right now the best we can do with robots is to gather information to help us get there.
Let’s get our hands dirty with Lunar soil! And then Martian!
December 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Chas says: “Konstin Therkovsky (spelling??)”
“Konstantin Tsiolkovsky” is a close approximation. The hard part is that the first letter of his last name is unpronounceable in English. I don’t know what it’s called in the Cyrillic alphabet, but it looks like a “u” with a long tail, and is pronounced like the double consonant “TZ”. Some older references spell it “Zilkovski” (since his father was Polish).
- Jack
December 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I work in a planetarium. This is my favorite response to the “Why should we _____?” question:
“I guess this is the part where I’m supposed to tell you that we are all explorers by nature, that the urge to expand our knowledge, and our boundaries, is a core part of what makes us human. But that isn’t the truth. We are NOT ‘explorers by nature’. Many of us ‘play it safe’. We keep our heads down, all our lives, and never do anything interesting at all. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with being like that. BUT… people like that rarely make history. A hundred or so years from now, everyone in this room will be dead. What will YOU have done, that will be remembered by anyone?
“A hundred years ago, some people said it would be impossible to go to the moon. Actually, lots of people thought this. I can’t think of any of their names right now. But a name that EVERYONE remembers: Neil Armstrong.”
December 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
… because I haven’t been there yet.
The only benefit I can see for returning would be experiments in setting up colonies, etc- but even that may not be useful.
Still- NASA is not my favorite contender to accomplish this.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Just from an economic standpoint, going to the moon in the ’60s was the greatest value-added project in human history. The innovations that came from having to keep 3 men alive and healthy in the most lethal environment known have revolutionized virtually every aspect of our lives.
Returning to the moon will be exceptionally difficult, especially if we go with the intention of extended stays (months, years, or colony). The hurdles that must be overcome to do THAT will almost certainly lead to inventions as yet undreamed of.
Add to that the opportunities of manufacturing products that have yet to be invented, the stepping-stone to the rest of the solar system, and the certainty of scientific discovery.
Of course returning to the moon will be difficult. It will also be expensive. But the cost, both in knowledge and in missed opportunities will be far greater if we don’t go.
As someone said about the Westward expansion of the US, “The cowards never started, and the weak died on the way” As a society, we need to be both bold and strong.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Honestly, I don’t think there’s any way you can practically justify a return trip absent some sort of compelling new angle. A retread of the Apollo mission will never get off the launch pad — it will just get its funding cut off as pointless. A manned base for “important lunar research” might do more to capture the public’s imagination, though bang for the buck wise, some rovers like the ones on Mars would probably get a lot more science done, cheaper.
It seems like a powerful prestige option for up-and-coming, cash-rich nations to show off so they can dink around a bit up there and then flash some moon rocks around the imperial palace, but look how little media attention the Japanese and Chinese lunar probes got.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I think the return to the moon is a great opportunity. I am a bit pissed about the politics of the decision. We have rejected the offers of other nations to shoulder some of the cost and risk. I think this is a bad idea, we have already shown with the ISS that it is possible and beneficial to us. We would have abandoned the whole project without the Russian help to move humans and supplies. Extended stays on the moon are a great testbed of technologies that we will need for the next step, we have no real need to do so for prestige, we should do it for humanity. By opening up the door for other nations as well as private enterprise, we invite competition and diversity in ideas. This philosophy is a backbone of America and science. Try every viable option, let the best stand on it’s merits. From my point of view this offers more prestige and an opportunity to spread these important values.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
>>Unfortunately, there’s not much ways to efficiently get to LEO. It’s >>just basic physics – you need 8 km/s delta-v and there’s just no way >>you can do it cheaply with a chemical rocket.
In 1972 Nasa committed to a program to bring the per pound cost down to 20-50 dollars. The methods which were investigated for this included SSTO, A one-stage air-breathing/rocket spaceplane hyhbrid. A two stage spaceplant, a SSTO + Flyback boosters and others.
Nasa’s own studies have shown the two-stage spaceplane concept is sound. It’s flexable because the second stage could be manned/unmanned one time use or reusable. Their own feisability studies back in the 1960’s using the XB-70 and windtunnel tests showed they could achieve mach 4+ with existing jet technology.
They investigated other concepts as well. All studies showed that there were potential uses for such technology.
The shuttle failed so amazingly badly because of budget cuts and DOD requirements which destroyed any chance of being what it could be.
NASA now is at a crossroads. They can persue these concepts and look toward a future where space flight is cheaper (not cheap, but cheaper), or they can rehash Apollo and create no new capability and no invocation at an extreme cost.
As an American taxpayer and an american citizen I have every right to be dissatisfied with NASA, because like all government agencies, they exist to serve the citizens. Hence I have written to my congressman and senators in disgust and asked that nasa be disbanded. I did this as soon as I found out what the CEV was planned to be. I have never been more disgusted or dissatisfied with a government agency, including the IRS and Department of Homeland Security.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
>>We saw you in Redding yesterday. We are a 4th/5th grade class in >>Montgomery Ck. near the SETI dishes up at Hat Creek. We think that >>going to the moon is a great idea. Isaiah says it would be interesting. J>>ohnny says it would be bad because it’s dangerous. Cedric says >>aliens could blast you. Tara thinks it’s a good idea because you could >>see space and the stars better. PS we loved your presentation, “it was >>awesome!â€
That is awesome…and that’s why we need to go back to the moon, so Isaiah, Johnny, Cedric, and Tara can learn what’s there. The Apollo missions didn’t exhaust the information the moon presents for us. We didn’t even scratch the surface, no pun intended, of what is learnable. Curiosity, by itself should be our primary reason. The technology advances associated with such a project are just the icing on the cake.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I think man-in-space funding is a huge waste right now for very little gains and that instead the money should be funneled into dozens of new robotic probe missions since they actually deliver tons of useful scientific data. As for NASA’s whining “but how will we get the public interested unless there’s actual people up there there they can identify with??????” I say fooey, the public is plenty awed by the numerous photographs released to them from our orbital telescopes and unmanned probes. Besides, I CAN’T identify with any of the astronauts, those are scary talented intelligent people with tons of training and experience and are nothing like me at all. :O
Man-in-space will be necessary someday, but it’s premature for now.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
To employ all those ex-shuttle employees; unmanned doesn’t need that many, so they need manned space, and manned space needs something to go to. Luna is closest, so it gets the mission.
A jobs program for 75+ k people in an important state, very important!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
First of all — frackin, huh, Phil? A Battlestar Galactica fan, perhaps?
The idea that manned space efforts are a waste are specious and uninformed in my opinion.
First of all, we’ve been in space for 46-odd years now. It’s hardly premature. It’s older than most Americans.
The spin-off technologies that have been developed for manned space flight and that have been successfully commercialized have almost certainly paid for the manned space effort in their own right by the taxation that has resulted from their sales.
Make no mistake about it, booster and payload reliability of *unmanned* flight has been made far more reliable because of *manned* flight. (And vice versa.)
Ask yourself, what is the most powerful computer on the Earth today? The answer is simple: the human mind. So why not send the best we have to the Moon and to Mars? Because it is dangerous?
Fortunately, this line of thinking was not prevalent when our diaspora started from where-ever it is that human beings originated.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
The Centipede”
“And by raising that flag inadvertently destroy the odd little libertarian utopia they had?
”
Well, we don’t know, do we? Because the book ends right after that.
I know you were joking, but after the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin reputedly said, in response to someone asking what kind of government they had created, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Eternal vigilance. We’ll need it if we go into space, and we’ll need it if we stay here.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I think we should go back to the moon so that a whole new generation of conspiracy theorist nutjobs can start whining about how the landing was faked.
Seriously: One of the objections to going back seems to be that the money can be better spent here on Earth. The response to that is that the money IS being spent on Earth. Going to the moon would create jobs, and not just for astronauts. Someone has to build the various components that make up the rockets.
I remember after Hurricane Katrina the shuttle program ran into problems because those big fuel tanks that sit on the underside of the ships are built and refurbished in Louisiana, then moved by train to Florida. One problem was that the tracks were washed out by the storm. But the point is that while the shuttles are launched from Florida, the various part are built elsewhere.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
— How about a large telescope in one of the nearly permanently dark craters?
Near the pole, right? Which limits it to half the sky. No, wait, less than half, because you built your telescope AT THE BOTTOM OF A FREAKING CRATER!
Space telescopes are THE way to go. Look at the return we got from just Hubble.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Shane:
I thought The Moon Was A Harsh Mistress was pretty clear on that Prof’s anarchist ‘utopia’ didn’t come to pass, and the tone of the end of the book was decidedly pessimistic. I don’t have a copy sitting nearby, but Mannie was quietly mourning the loss of the freedoms of the hands-off Authority while the republic was passing laws and restricting said freedom to act. The society under the Authority was self-monitoring on an individual and neighborhood level; the society under the republic was getting more and more top-down.
As a matter of literary criticism, the TANSTAAFL! flag is symbolic irony; to throw off the Authority (also a blatantly symbolic name), the Loonies colonists turned themselves into the very authority they despised–no free lunch.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Why not? It would be cool. But it won’t happen.
As to “boondoggles” like the Delta Clipper: the DCX was a great project that fell over due to human error. The potential was there, the vision was not. I laugh at the cost of LEO: the fuel is hydrogen and oxygen. You can’t get any cheaper than that but the costs are akin to fueling the things with baby harp seals or gold dust. The costs are huge because NASA makes them huge.
Rambling on, NASA is where its at and our space program is where it’s at because NASA has built the myth that only people with four PHDs can pull box b out of satellite A and replace it with box c. There was a day when all you had to be was physically fit and be a decent stick and rudder jocky. They did OK. That’s who landed on the moon to begin with. Now we got all the uber educated guys who, at some point in the past, might have been pilots and all these folks can mange to do is drive a clunky buss to LEO and deliver parts to an outpost nobody wants or needs. You think these guys can get us to the moon? I don’t.
It is too bad that in order for NASA to do ANYTHING it needs to either be so cheap as to be noise in the budget or they have to do it in less than two years or some Luddite congresstard will axe it.
Someone above referred to the USA becoming a has-been. We already are. All we revel in are past glories. Our leaders are blatantly self serving and as inspiring as a loaf of moldy bread. They’re allegedly the best we can come up with. The current crop of candidates are all lame. On the right: we’ll continue to piss away our national wealth on bombing brown people for oil because Jesus tells us too. On the left: we’ll turn isolationist and hack up our R&D budget to build a bigger government, for education of course, but we know how well that works.
We ain’t going anywhere, as a nation or in space. Time to sit back, buy some more poisoned consumer goods from China and watch them take our money and go to the moon and beyond with it. And if the American consumer can’t fund China’s lunar ambitions I’m sure the interest we pay on all the money the federal government owes them will.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:10 am
For the record: I think that visiting the moon in ‘69-’72 is the highest accomplishment of human civilisation so far. However, all the reasons I hear to go back are either romantic or economical in nature. From a scientific point of view you really do want to send robots.
I am not entirely convinced by the economic argument that it will pay for itself (yet). Can anyone tell me what products would not have been invented if it wasn’t for the Apollo missions, and how much money they made the government (who paid for the investment)? The argument that the money will be spent here on Earth is a bad one: the money spent on the Iraq war is also spent here on Earth. If you want to spend money you should do it wisely.
The romantic reasons (space colonization and all that) are not likely to convince the general public (and the Chinese are not nearly as scary as teh Sovjets in the early sixties), especially when they realise what it costs. The general public is very susceptible to the argument that space money can be used to build schools and hospitals, even though we know that is a false dichotomy.
At this point, I think NASA (and ESA, for that matter) should stick to space-based science, with a healthy mix of orbiting satellites, deep space probes, landers, and space telescopes.
Censeo ceterum ISS delenda est.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:47 am
I feel that going to the moon, hopefully to stay, will prepare us for other, more distant worlds.
Our return would be the first step in the human colonization of space, a nessesary goal if we are to survive as a species.
The moon can be the next new home of humanity. It isn’t easy, and it is a long, difficult task. But our going back to it will be the first steps.
So, why go to the moon? For the sake of our future, that’s why.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Lugosi:
“Going to the moon would create jobs, and not just for astronauts. Someone has to build the various components that make up the rockets.”
Oh, PLEASE! Government programs do NOT create jobs! Going to the moon would not create any more jobs than the Iraq War did. All your doing to make these “jobs” is taking money away from people who would have either spent it or invested it, resulting in more REAL jobs that provide services actually demanded by people.
Centipede:
“I thought The Moon Was A Harsh Mistress was pretty clear on that Prof’s anarchist ‘utopia’ didn’t come to pass, and the tone of the end of the book was decidedly pessimistic.”
Well, yeah, “Seems to be deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn’t forbidden.” One of the many lessons of the book. But that just goes back to eternal vigilance. But as Mannie said, there are asteroids out there, and he’s not even a hundred yet.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:04 am
@ Shane: What do you mean “Government programs do NOT create jobs! Going to the moon would not create any more jobs than the Iraq War did.” Do you know how many people in this country either work directly for the government (city, state, federal) or for companies that directly sub-contract and support government jobs? Do you know how many American employees (non-military and former military) there are right now working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East? So, either you were being sarcastic, or you are a bit uninformed.
@ Quiet Desperation: Valid point. But the advantage to building a radio or optical telescope on the moon (even if it were pointed to a fraction of the sky) is size. The bigger, the better, right? And who says it has to be only one? How about a whole array? And it wouldn’t have to be at the poles. The far side of the moon is completely dark for 28 days at a time. And if they are radio telescopes, they wouldn’t have to work in the dark, right?
As far as the money question goes, how much did going to the moon in 1969-1972 cost compared to the cost of the Vietnam war? If NASA’s current budget is 1% of the total US annual spending now, think of what we could do if NASA’s budget were 2%, or 5%?
December 8th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Mr Hood’s 4th grade class got it right:
“Tara thinks it’s a good idea because you could see space and the stars better.”
Radio telescope on the far side, optical telescopes too big to put in orbit that can see UV and IR, easy launch to the rest of the solar system, low gravity manufacturing with easier access to microgravity, a place to bring metallic asteroids to without too much worry that they would hit Earth.
I am unpersuaded, however, by the “survival of the species” argument. We can’t get to the stars. No other planet in this system is suitable, and I seriously doubt that Mars can really be terraformed. Yes we could live in hollowed out asteroids, underground on the Moon, or in completely artificial structures, but can the human species really survive indefinitely that way?
Also, to echo another poster’s question, what is the long term effect of 1/6 gravity on our health? Presumably it’s not as bad as freefall, but can we live that way for long?
December 8th, 2007 at 7:30 am
“Biosphere 2, for those old enough to remember it,”
Damn, am I really that old?
Ian said
“It is too bad that in order for NASA to do ANYTHING it needs to either be so cheap as to be noise in the budget or they have to do it in less than two years or some Luddite congresstard will axe it.”
But the whole NASA budget is just noise in the federal budget. Funny how a congressman can make half a million dollars sound like a waste if it’s funding science, but 80 billion dollars sounds like a bargain if we’re “protecting democracy.”
Right, and one group of people elect a leader (democracy, right?), but we don’t like him, so we pull the rug out from under them.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
And Shane,
My family did all right on the job that NASA created for my father.
A government project that pays people to dig holes and then fill them up creates jobs, but we can do better than that. NASA is certainly better than the siphoning of wealth to the top that industry has been doing for the last 30 years. Talented, creative people are being paid, and (if we can manage it) students might again be inspired, as I was, to become educated.
When people get paid fairly for their work, they spend their money. That’s what drives the economy. You can invest all you like, but if nobody can afford to buy the widgets you make, you’re out of luck.
It’s certainly better than a bunch of presumed adults with their IQs on their shirts fighting over which end of a plastic grass field a rubber bladder filled with air and covered with cowhide, inexplicably called a “pigskin” belongs.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:55 am
There’s tons of reasons! Good concrete ones as well.
1.) Near zero gravity makes launches always plannable, as to the lack of weather, and nearly none of the “big, dumb boosters”.
2.) Helium-3 is a clean fuel that could power the Earth in its entirety and is found in abundance on the Moon.
3.) Why not build a space elevator first? That would greatly reduce costs per launch; if only you could find the capital to build it in the first place…
4.) A great staging point and the “gateway” to the solar system. The most dangerous parts of missions are entering and exiting the atmosphere. With minimal required escape velocity, we can set our sights on any of the terrestrial planets, asteroids, or circling comets.
5.) The advancement of technology also benefits from this. By having engineers study how to fix one problem, they almost always inadvertantly solve another and that discovery could be applied the mankind in a more conventional way.
6.) Carl Sagan once said that a species becomes space faring, or it becomes extinct. Or was it Hawking? I can’t remember, but reason five is that with development, it guarantees survival of the human race.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:55 am
@drbuzz0
>In 1972 Nasa committed to a program to bring the per pound cost
>down to 20-50 dollars. The methods which were investigated for this
>included SSTO, A one-stage air-breathing/rocket spaceplane hyhbrid.
>A two stage spaceplant, a SSTO + Flyback boosters and others.
There’s a lot of theoretical research on cheap LEO access. Unfortunately, ALL of the projects require some kind of a new should-be-possible-to-do technology. For example, air-breathing/rocket spaceplane requires a new kind of hypersonic jet engines (because current hypersonic jet engines have a practical limit of 10M and we need about 25M to reach the space). And there’s no guarantee that this engine will be reliable enough.
My personal favorite is a system consisting of a single stage rocket which will fly to suborbital height where it meet a space tug which will accelerate it to LEO. Space tug will use fuel mined from the Moon (it’s so much easier to lift fuel from the Moon). This SSTO then will use powered descent to return to the Earth.
>The shuttle failed so amazingly badly because of budget cuts and
>DOD requirements which destroyed any chance of being what it could
>be.
Shuttle can never be cheap enough. Mostly because it’s so fragile and unreliable – a lot of systems MUST be checked before each flight.
And even if you cut costs on Shuttle maintenance to 10% of current ones – it will STILL be prohibitively expensive.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Why are we going to the moon? Pork.
As to why we should, well, I sort of don’t think NASA should.
From my standpoint, it seems that within ten years or so of Virgin Galactic et al actually starting their commerical service, that technology will have matured and suborbital flight will not that much excitement associated with it. So the next thing space tourism will have to move onto is full orbital flight. A reusable orbital vehicle is necessarily not going to have that much room on board, so private space station(s) will be required simply to differentiate that market segment properly. Within another ten years, that market will mature, and the moon will be the next big tourist spot, just because it will be the next closest.
That will lead to a private station at Earth-Moon L1, and then lunar surface bases. That will create pressure for local supplies, and even NEA derived supplies. The NEA stuff will be established by an initial private expedition that sets up a robotic mining system on a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid with internal ice. There’ll be an automated drill rig (it can be automated b/c the shaft will be made by the astronauts during their first stay) with a heated probe: the probe will melt the ice & the vapor will get sucked up the shaft to a capture/condenser unit where it’s stored in tanks. The tanks are loaded onto a pallet which is held until an automated solar-sail freighter docks with the mining outpost. The actual docking point is a skyhook; the pallet(s) are carried up the skyhook to the dock and are stuck on the freighter which leaves when it’s loaded up. Because freighters will arrive infrequently, multiple NEAs are done up like this to increase the frequency of arriving supplies.
I lost track of myself there; basically I think private enterprise can do a lot of this stuff, but NASA should do a lot of the fundamental technology and science beforehand, and should not be principally foucsed on manned spaceflight, b/c it is too governed by pork. (Prizes are a good thing.)
December 8th, 2007 at 9:23 am
For shame, all of you. How could you overlook the most important reason?
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
It seems a lot of my fellow BA readers are often down on NASA for their failures; but overlook what NASA does accomplish in spite of the current administration. If they can do this much in such a hostile political environment, imagine what they could do in a benign one?
December 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am
The argument here is lively. That itself is a good thing. Everyone has a very robust opinion on this topic, and I enjoy even the ones I do not agree with. I see no reason that this should be a public VS. private fight. Why not use both as much as possible. If we can get structures built on the moon, make them capable of handling many people. Private interests would be much more likely to invest, if there was a destination. If underground works well for living space, why not use robotics to bore them out? It may be hard to merge private and public, robotic and manned, but it need not be impossible. Let those who have an advantage in their particular task have at it. I have seen proposals to use robotics for building above ground structures. I say let them have a crack at it. We have no need to limit anything to one vision, or one business plan. The high risk experiments, like can we stay at low gravity for extended periods. Let the questions be hammered out by Nasa and other similarly funded agencies. Once viability is shown, or the limits are known, let business go at it. Buisness is always happy to jump on something that can be done, less so if the risks are unknown altogether.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
File me in the “not at this time” category.
I’m sorry, but in terms of research per dollar (or science per dollar if you will) unmanned/robotic missions are the way to go. Look at the Hubble telescope. Or the Mars rovers. Or any of the wonderful probes we’ve sent out over the decades.
For the cost of a single shuttle flight, which only lasts a couple of weeks, we can send up 3 or 4 unmanned missions which can operate for years. For the cost of a single shuttle mission we can land a probe on a comet, send another probe to another planet, and launch a nice space telescope!
And now you want to send people to the moon?
Whatever science you want to do on the moon can be done much more cost effectively with machines. Just the fact that you have to bring an astronaut back but can leave a robot behind (usually) would save a project plenty of resources.
Having grown up on SciFi I would love to see “Moonbase Alpha” constructed, but I admit that building a moonbase is nothing but a romantic fantasy. It tugs at the heart strings, but is really not practical.
I don’t believe the “save the species” argument to be too terribly pressing at this time. Our biggest concerns in terms of species survival are global warming and overpopulation, both of which will have dramatic impact in this century. Unless we spot a “doomsday asteroid” or some such heading right for us, there is no pressing need to focus our “species saving” activities anywhere else but on the planet.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Skepterist:
“Do you know how many people in this country either work directly for the government (city, state, federal) or for companies that directly sub-contract and support government jobs?”
And do you know how many jobs there would be in the private sector if the government weren’t taxing people to “create” these “jobs”? And these would be jobs for goods and services that people actually demand in the economy, so there’s a multiplier effect.
Justify government spending all you want, but DON’T use the bogosity of “it creates jobs!” to do it. It’s complete economic ignorance. Don’t you DARE call me uninformed when you don’t even have the basic knowledge of economics to understand that.
BaldApe:
“NASA is certainly better than the siphoning of wealth to the top that industry has been doing for the last 30 years.”
Well, that’s corporatism. That destroys jobs, too.
This seems to be a common problem: space geeks don’t understand economics. The very next modules to be lifted up to the ISS should be a hotel and casino.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
dear fellow bablogees,
I apologize for not reading all of the previous posts, I am pressed for time, but, If you ever, and I mean EVAH! want a good reason to return to aggressive manned exploration of near space….
I refer you to a book from the mid-seventies by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle called ” A step farther out “.
Here we are 30Yrs later and much of the technology they discuss has not only not been developed but was viable even then.
I would also reference a paper I believe to have been co-authored by Niven called ” How to get into space (and get rich doing so)”
P.S. Hi jack haggerty, sorry for dropping the thread about wave energy but I got distracted.
Shaun
December 8th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Quiet_Desperationon 07 Dec 2007 at 10:25 pm wrote :
“— How about a large telescope in one of the nearly permanently dark craters?
Near the pole, right? Which limits it to half the sky. No, wait, less than half, because you built your telescope AT THE BOTTOM OF A FREAKING CRATER! ”
SCR (me) : Actually given the size of the craters that’s NOT a problem. You can be in the middle of one of the big ones and both walls are below the horizons …
QueitDesperatartion also wrote :
“Space telescopes are THE way to go. Look at the return we got from just Hubble.”
Well having a Lunar telescope at a lunar colony with real live astronomers there to look after it has its advantages too.
I say we do *both* – another HST and a Lunar telescope!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
3 more reasons :
1) So we can fly – human powered flight is actually possible on the Moon!
2) To get the first woman (then first poet, first African-American, girts Australian and so forth ..) on the Moon
3) To get a whole new understanding of ourselves and our place in the cosmos -aperspective of what wecan do ecologically ie. “Biosphere II” II & more ..
I’d suggest reading some Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Ben Bova for morwe reasons …
December 8th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Wow. Ricks reasons are like… the worst reasons ever. For one thing, yeah it’s easy to launch from the moon, it’s the getting there that is hard.
The helium-3 thing is 100% pure idiotic and I’ve written extensively about it here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=180
The reason we have not built a space elevator and may never build one is that the technical challenges are so massive they are at least decades away. We can barely make nanotubes and we sure cannot make thousands of miles of them. Plus it may not even be possible due to the drift of geostationary bodies due to lunar gravity.
It’s a horrible staging area to go to the rest of the solar system. Sure it might be easier to go to a lunar base and then to mars, but it;s easier to go to mars than to first build a massive lunar base with all the necessary infrastructure and then go to mars.
This “eggs in one basket” thing about how humans should leave earth to insure safety is nearly as bogus. Would you rather stake your life on earth surviving or on the puney life-support systems we have now and will have for decades?
Oh and give me a break about the whole “mining the moon to build spacecraft” thing. You really think you can more easily build a whole mining operation, a smelting plant, a fabrication plant, transportation systems, factories, assembly facilities, launch pads, fuel storage tanks, fuel production plants, power plants to power it all, housing, storage, waste management and all the other crap for a mining and rocket building/launching complex on the moon?
Christ. That’s ridiculous. You’re better off building them hear then sending all the smelting/welding/etching/fabing/milling/rolling/refining/lathing/molding/extruding/drilling/blasting/carting/lifting/scrapping/painting/bonding/storing/cutting equipment to the moon. OR WORSE: Building it there.
Lets get real. This crap is pretty far off.
And you know what it is all dependant on? Uh uh… a better way of getting into space? Yeah, that’s right. And additionally, if you can do that you get benefits way before we build a whole damn civilization on the moon just to extract the titanium.
And seriously, SteveR… do you think Women and Afircan Americans are so damn self-doubting that they cannot accept their equality until we spend a half trillion dollars to send them to the moon just so they can say they went there and accomplished nothing?
What’s next? A half trillion to send every damn occupation and nationality to the moon just to make it more diverse and fair? Jesus, don’t get me wrong.. diversity is great… but do we need to spend so much goddamned money to send a poet to the moon?
Then what? Send them to the deepest depths of the ocean? and to the poles? And all that… just “cuz they need diversity”
BaldApe:
“NASA is certainly better than the siphoning of wealth to the top that industry has been doing for the last 30 years.â€
Ah see here’s your problem. First, corporations and industry pay taxes on money. Nasa takes tax payer money and spends it. And industry provides jobs. And even if you think the wealthy get too much, what do they do with their money? They either invest it, which is good for everyone, or they spend it on goods ad services. Plus they pay taxes, so the cash circulates.
But Nasa has actually found the ultimate way of destroying capital. They literally launch it out of the earth’s gravitational field, thus assuring it’s gone forever.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Shaun says: “Hi jack haggerty, sorry for dropping the thread about wave energy but I got distracted.”
No problem. Happens to me constantly.
BTW, as long as we’re discussing books on the subject, don’t forget Harry Stine’s “Halfway to Anywhere” referring to LEO from an energy standpoint. The energy to get from the Earth’s surface to LEO is more than half of that needed to leave the solar system, so once you’re there, you are literally “halfway” or more. It’s just that the second half takes a lot longer
- Jack
December 8th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Jack hagerty,
You are one cool dude.
Seriously, you should read these books.
Because I beleive that the term “half way to anywhere”" might actually belong to Heinlein.
But, Niven is still the best ever.
Shaun
December 8th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Dear drbruzz0.
You seem to fail to grasp the fact, that unless we are “out there”
Risking money and lives.
No-one will care if we ever tried.
This planet has a limited lifespan, it is our job to propogate our race.
And the main thrust of books like “a step farther out” is to make us go “holy crap” look, just look what we could do if we only tried.
I weep for every Astronaut, but as Enzo ferrari said “one man lost in pusuit of automotive development is a small price to pay”
I would add that it is a large price to pay but, every man and woman who has ever set foot on a spacecraft or test vehicle knew excactly what they were doing.
They did it for all us.
And, yes, we do need to be “out there”
Shaun
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Beg forgiviness for spelling and grammar on previous comment
Shaun
December 8th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Hey, drbuzz0, you said,
“Oh and give me a break about the whole “mining the moon to build spacecraft†thing. You really think you can more easily build a whole mining operation, a smelting plant, a fabrication plant, transportation systems, factories, assembly facilities, launch pads, fuel storage tanks, fuel production plants, power plants to power it all, housing, storage, waste management and all the other crap for a mining and rocket building/launching complex on the moon?”
I say, YES! Absolutely! in 50 or 100 or 200 years, WITHOUT A DOUBT! All it takes is the same ingenuity, the same determination, and the same human… guts… that have moved the human race to its current place on Earth. Do you think 600 years ago people thought it was crazy to try to sail a ship around the world? Do you think that 100 years ago people thought it was crazy to fly an aircraft around the world? Absolutely. I think that while the majority of the population are content to live strictly in the world in which they are born and raised, there are a fair number of determined individuals (and groups, hopefully) that are willing to take the risks to become something unimaginably significant.
@ Shane,
I think we had a simple misunderstanding.
A) I never did or intended to defend more government spending in any way or fashion. While I do personally think that NASA could seriously benefit from a substantial increase in funding (like many other programs, such as Education or Fire/Police/Emergency departments) I think that any such increase should come by the reduction of unsubstantiated, unconstitutional, and otherwise frivolous spending, by our government, at all levels.
B) The private sector is not prohibited from working in or providing any of these needed services. If the private sector COULD make money doing it, I believe they certainly WOULD be doing it.
C) I respectfully disagree about your claim that the government does not “create” jobs. Many of the departments in my state are Constitutionally bound to provide services (such as Police, Fire, EMS, and Education) and 100% of those jobs are indeed created by government. At the Federal level, there are 1,000’s of jobs that are required, such as the National Guard, or the US Military, that could in no way be handled solely by commercial enterprises. How many school teachers have you ever met? How many police officers have you ever seen?
And again, even if the function is not handled exclusively or directly by a government agency, the work is sub-contracted to hundreds, if not thousands, of supporting companies, like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Dell, HP, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, AMD, etc. etc. ETC. Do you think that the computer companies that built the parts in your computer you are using right now do not support the US military, or any government agency whatsoever? Believe it or not, the state and federal governments of this country are directly and significantly involved in the economic and technological growth of this country. For better or for worse…
B-)
December 8th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
And Jack,
That seriously depends on the ISP of the engine.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Sorry Jack,
Upon further ruminations Yes you are right.
Based on ISP then LEO is indeed “half way to anywhere”
Shaun
Sorry I’ve been drinking ( HIC )!!!
December 9th, 2007 at 4:12 am
To StevoR:
The polar moon telescope in the dark: “You can be in the middle of one of the big [craters] and both walls are below the horizons”
… at which point it is no longer permenently dark.
“Human powered flight is actually possible on the Moon.”
How, if there is no atmosphere?
Apart from doing “big science”, space exploration should be left to the private sector. It is quite possible that scientists will come up with materials that allow building spacecraft which are moderately cheap to operate, and hence make space tourism economically viable. Virgin is already dipping its toe in the water, and if technology permits it this will surely take off.
As for colonizing other Earth-like planets (the only viable long-term option), due to the distances involved (and cetain laws of physics) this will be a one-way ticket for the explorers. There will be no trade routes simply because the trade takes too long. The only reason to migrate to another world would be if Earth was facing a catastrophe. Assuming we’ll survive global warming this won’t happen until a few billion years, when the sun will die. Hardly the time scale to worry about, give that our species will by then likely have evolved into several subspecies.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:38 am
The US will go to the moon again because there’s a great deal of private profit to be had from the public costs, and with a good few less dead folk than Iraq. Hopefully someone can think of a worthy McGuffin to chase while they’ve got a few folk up there.
December 9th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Skepterist:
“The private sector is not prohibited from working in or providing any of these needed services. If the private sector COULD make money doing it, I believe they certainly WOULD be doing it.”
They ARE. See Virgin Galactic. See the SeaLaunch Platform. The private sector is doing a LOT of work on things like this. But they’ve had to work around government restrictions on things like launches, which is why SpaceShipOne had to be launched from the top of a jet (White Knight) and why the SeaLaunch Platform needs to go into international waters.
Until now, the government has had a virtual monopoly on space.
As for your point “C,” you still refuse to see the economic point, so all I can tell you at this point is go take an economics class. The government CANNOT create jobs, CANNOT increase productivity, CANNOT stimulate the economy, or anything of the sort. In fact, that’s one of the 12 basic principles of economics.
It also shows your ignorance that you mention computers, as they’re probably the least regulated industry of all of them.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Shane,
Yes, exactly. Virgin Galactic, SeaLaunch Platform, the New Mexico Spaceport (which, although is a state funded endeavor, still uses private companies to run and facilitate the site), etc. are good examples of the private sector moving into space. I am all for that.
I did take an economics class (many years ago) but that was before working in industry for more than 12 years. My point was that government is one of the biggest consumers of product, AND the biggest employer in the US.
According to Federal Jobs Net, “The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation’s civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.”
Let’s take an example of School Teachers. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2006, 25-2031 Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Vocational Education:
Industry: Elementary and Secondary Schools/ Employment: 1,019,930
State: California/ Employment: 116,090
So, please excuse my ignorance and enlighten me as to how the “government CANNOT create jobs,” as you say. The million or so Elementary School teachers would disagree with you. Maybe we’re using different definitions of “create jobs.”
December 9th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Look, there’s a BIG difference between getting someone and paying them money, and creating a job. To create a job, you actually have to produce a product demanded in the economy, which creates wealth. Virgin Galactic and the others do this. The government does NOT, for several reasons, such as:
1) They’re not spending their own money. It’s money taken by force, and so there’s no incentive to economize, to make sure you’re getting value for your buck.
2) There’s no supply and demand. There’s no competition for government, and so few of the forces that drive prices to equilibrium are present. As a result, there’s no equilibrium wage the job can pay (the government can, in large part, pay whatever they feel like), and there’s no expected output of value from the job.
3) There’s no accountability. Bureaucrats screw up all the time, and are rarely fired. Congress obviously isn’t under any incentive to spent frugally and make sure value is returned, and thus have little desire to avoid waste.
4) There’s not even a customer base to speak of. Customers have a voice in what companies do since companies depend on customers for their continued profits. Government doesn’t. And don’t go telling me the vote is our voice–we get one vote each for one Congressman and two Senators, but that’s an across-the-board vote for all of government. We don’t have anywhere near the granularity toward our government than we do with companies in the real world. Also, we’re so very rarely given a real choice in our candidates, other than Stupid Drunken Sailor Democrat and Stupid Drunken Sailor Republican.
There are others, but what it all boils down to is that your contention that the space program–or ANY government program–creates jobs is specious at best. The above reasons and more mean that the money, taken from individuals by force, is spent without any regards for efficiency. The individuals spending or investing their money in the private sector are going to do it efficiently, hoping to get a return, buying the things of value that they want and investing where they think it’ll get them the best return. Without the government taking their money to “create” those “jobs,” there would be as a result an even greater number of real jobs created by that money.
It is ridiculous, it is stupid, it is pathetically bogus to say that the government is creating jobs, and to continue to insist on it despite my numerous corrections, without you even apparently TRYING to consider the loss of real jobs that it comprises, IMO puts you in league with the creationists and the moon hoax idiots.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:04 am
BaldApe:
“The entire cost of anything is labor.”
NOT so. The three components of the production function are capital, labor, and natural resources. Drbuzz0 was wrong when he said that NASA is losing capital into space; what he should have said was they’re losing natural resources into space, which is every bit as much a part of the production function as capital and labor.
Also, I think you’re misunderstanding the underlying concept of economics. It’s not that individual people can work with perfect information, it’s that people as a whole work with greater information and wisdom than any individual could, as confirmed over and over again by the jelly-bean experiment.
I have NEVER heard an economist say there are zero transportation costs, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Of course, I don’t listen to political economists who harp on about the Trickle Down Theory like it’s the savior of all mankind…
December 9th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Shane Killian, you need to calm down a bit. Telling people they are idiots is not likely to bring them around to your point of view. Especially since that view is based on unproven assumptions, such as no incentive to economize: Governments try to do this all the time, it is just not very easy.
If you haven’t noticed, politicians tend to get booted out if they screw up the economy and are rewarded if they handle the economy well. That is the ultimate incentive.
You also said: “To create a job, you actually have to produce a product demanded in the economy.”
You mean like education, police services, fire fighters, public transport, the military, hospitals, etc.?
December 9th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
PZ, you need to look at yourself, and look at the other people I’ve been arguing with.
Reread your last sentence. I made FOUR SEPARATE POSTS debunking exactly what you said in that sentence. It is that exact thing I was talking about!
Oh, and the only people I called “idiots” were the moon hoax people, who aren’t here at the moment.
Is it REALLY to much to ask for people to READ a post before they go mouthing off about it?
December 9th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Shane: When you write
this is tantamount to calling the person you addressed an idiot. But let’s let that pass, and get on with more interesting matters.
You assert a lot about economics, but that is not the same as a rational argument. So rather than referring me to your previous posts (which, incidentally, I have read; I’m just not convinced by your assertions), could you answer the following questions:
1. Do you agree that schools, hospitals, police, etc., are products (i.e. services) demanded in our economy?
2. Does the government provide these products/services?
3. If you answered “yes” to both 1 and 2, does this not fulfill your conditions to have at least the ability to create jobs (I’ll quote you again: “To create a job, you actually have to produce a product demanded in the economy.”)
If your answer is “no” to any of these questions, please elaborate and explain to me what I am misunderstanding here.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Shane, I believe you called me an idiot right here, when you said, “It is ridiculous, it is stupid, it is pathetically bogus to say that the government is creating jobs, and to continue to insist on it despite my numerous corrections, without you even apparently TRYING to consider the loss of real jobs that it comprises, IMO puts you in league with the creationists and the moon hoax idiots..” (Emphasis mine.)
The words “you” and “idiots” are your exact words. Now, if you did not mean that paragraph to be offensive, then I think you need to restate it.
But you bring up another question I would like to ask of you: What “real jobs” are being lost? And by whom? In what way does the government (including NASA) compromise jobs?
I probably should just give up, since you don’t seem to want to consider any person’s opinion that differs from your own, but I’ll try one more time…
In your previous post you said, “1) They’re not spending their own money.” That is a very skewed view, and it is wrong. Its not “they” its “we,” and we are spending our own money. We as taxpayers are providing the means necessary to protect and serve the public for the greater good. I cannot personally afford to hire a police officer to roam the streets in my neighborhood, and my neighbors cannot afford to pay all the school teachers’ salaries to educate their children. And no one of us can afford to build a highway from California to Florida. Therefore, the taxes are paid willingly, not stolen, for the betterment of the community and the nation. If you are unhappy about paying your taxes, then perhaps you would be happier living in another state, or another country.
“2) There’s no supply and demand. There’s no competition for government,” Baloney. Have you ever been a school teacher? Have you ever been to an understaffed emergency room? Have you ever needed to call the fire department? If there is no supply or demand for any of those simple examples, then I don’t know what supply and demand is.
“3) There’s no accountability.” That is a gross generalization. There is plenty of accountability, it just takes involvement of the people whom the politicians serve. If we the people would actually pay attention to what our government is doing, at the local, state and federal levels, there would be better control of spending. If less than 20% of registered voters actually take the time to vote (and that’s only in really big elections) then no wonder some people think there’s no accountability. Indeed, who’s fault is it that some people don’t know what the hell is going on?
“4) There’s not even a customer base to speak of.” I’m not sure what you mean by this. Aren’t the taxpayers the customers here? Doesn’t the government provide services to the public? Aren’t we the public?
Have you ever served on a city council position? Have you ever been a police officer or a school teacher, or a garbage collector? Those are REAL JOBS, performed by REAL PEOPLE. They get paychecks, just like everyone else. I think perhaps you need to put down your Economics book and pick up a Government text.
Instead of questioning your comments, I’m just going to say you are wrong. The federal government creates millions of jobs, for millions of people. Those people may be direct employees of the government, or work for contract manufacturers, or are simply privately owned companies that provide the supporting goods and/or services. But they are indeed actual jobs.
Since I can’t afford to go to the moon by myself, I am more than happy to support both my government AND the private companies who can afford to make it happen.
And I can say that without calling you names.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:42 am
There are a lot of obvious reasons to go back to the moon, most of which have been mentioned here.
The real reason to go back? Revisit the Apollo landing sites and prove to all those mental midgets out there that we really did go there 38 years ago…
December 10th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Vorcyon, that proof aready exists.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Reposting lost comments:
PK:
“If your answer is “no” to any of these questions, please elaborate and explain to me what I am misunderstanding here.”
What you keep missing is what I keep pointing out. Let me take an example.
Let’s say we got rid of government schools. Does that mean that all of the teachers and administrators would be out of a job? No! Because there are still the kids out there who need to be educated. But since private schools spend their money MUCH more efficiently than do government schools, with generally superior quality, it is very likely the case that there will be MORE jobs. There would likely be smaller class sizes, meaning a greater teacher-to-student ratio, meaning more jobs.
So that would mean that, instead of creating jobs, by running government schools they actually DESTROYED jobs.
It’s really the Broken Window Fallacy all over again. You’d be one of the ones insisting that a new job was created for a glazier, ignoring the tailor’s lost business.
I mean, really, this is BASIC economics here.
Skepterist:
“Its not “they” its “we,” and we are spending our own money. We as taxpayers are providing the means necessary to protect and serve the public for the greater good.”
Long-discredited Socialist nonsense. The decision to spend the money is taken out of the hands of the people who actually worked to make the money. The Congresscritters, the bureaucrats, etc. are the ones making the spending decisions, and those INDIVIDUALS are therefore people who are spending other people’s money. Collectives don’t make decisions. Only individuals do.
“If there is no supply or demand for any of those simple examples, then I don’t know what supply and demand is.”
You don’t know what supply and demand is. The entire basis of supply and demand is based on suppliers having a choice as to how much to supply at each price level, and consumers having a choice as to how much to spend at each price level. That’s how equilibrium is achieved. That is NOT present with government monopolies. Your tax money is taken by force, and you don’t have the choice to go with a competitor.
“That is a gross generalization. There is plenty of accountability, it just takes involvement of the people whom the politicians serve.”
Like I said, at best we can vote a general up-and-down vote on everything. And even then, we’re often not given any better choice.
Example: 70% of Americans want to end the Iraq war, and voted to put the Democrats back in power in Congress to do it. Since then, the Democrats have been every bit as supportive of the war and the powers that Bush wants as the Republicans.
“Aren’t the taxpayers the customers here?”
No, because their money is taken by force.
“The federal government creates millions of jobs, for millions of people.”
Yeah, so did the kid who broke the shop window.
The SkepticWiki entry on the Broken Window Fallacy:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Broken_Window_Fallacy
PK:
“However, you say that private companies can do things much more efficient than the government. The “much” part is definitely not true. I know people who work for Philips and Unilever, and those organisations are every bit as inefficient as, say, a university or a hospital.”
I don’t know the particular one you’re talking about, but understand there’s a difference between a private company and a corporation. Corporations are inventions of government. They’re companies that have a special status bestowed on them by government, and they often receive subsidies or tax “incentives” and this reduces the free market incentives to be efficient.
The prime examples are your local power, phone, and cable providers. Since they’re granted monopoly status outright, they do a lot of things very badly.
The airlines might be another example. Their service sucks, and their prices are cheap. I contend that this is in large part due to the government bailing them out every 10 years or so. Without that, their prices might have to rise, but then they’d also have an incentive to improve their service. Look at the smaller airlines, and how well they’re run since they have to compete with the big guys.
Also, efficiency is a relative thing. There’s no such thing as 100% efficiency.
And thanks for the heads-up about the upgrade.
Skepterist:
You’ve got a lot of gall to call me offensive and then use phrases like “It must be nice to live in your world.” And for your information, I DON’T do nothing. I’m very much an activist who has run for local office twice, supported candidates and lobbying organizations, done a fair bit of lobbying myself, I write columns for a local newspaper, I produce Bogosity, I do lots of stuff for no charge, above running my own business and being a single father to two kids, including one with autism.
And that’s the only part of your post worth even a response. You demand an exact count of things you know there is no exact count for and changes all the time, and you refuse to consider rational, logical arguments.
And then you get all sanctimonious and saying that I don’t do anything, when if you’d bothered to even so much as Google me (I post under my real name, unlike you), you’d see that is far from the case.