Maven en route to Mars
Quote: IbeatyouracesI can think of many millions of reasons for better use of the tax dollars wasted on this.
I can think of millions of worse things we already do =/
Quote: IbeatyouracesI can think of many millions of reasons for better use of the tax dollars wasted on this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not a space fan, apparently.
Cost of Maven (lifetime, including launch rocket); $671M. (source: ABC news)
Cost of "Bridge to Nowhere", Alaska (lifetime, both spans): $1.5B. (source: Alaska Dispatch)
ROI from NASA space exploration, in jobs, applied discoveries and inventions, new products, medical gains, licensing and leasing of boosting and space trials (lifetime): $7 per dollar spent. (source: NASA, OBM; consistent return over last 30 years of reports)
ROI on "Bridge to Nowhere"; so far, nothing.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI can think of many millions of reasons for better use of the tax dollars wasted on this.
The space program gives great ROI and is an example of a great nation pushing itself forward in the name of science. I would gladly give up the NEA/NEH for it.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe space program gives great ROI and is an example of a great nation pushing itself forward in the name of science. I would gladly give up the NEA/NEH for it.
Thanks, AZ! I agree, at least as currently configured. Both also support programs for long-term health, education, and development, but are boondoggled agencies.
Quote: beachbumbabsThanks, AZ! I agree, at least as currently configured. Both also support programs for long-term health, education, and development, but are boondoggled agencies.
My thing is there are plenty of other ways to do NEA/NEH, but space exploration really has to be done at a government level.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy thing is there are plenty of other ways to do NEA/NEH, but space exploration really has to be done at a government level.
Why?
Quote: bigfoot66Why?
Probably from the pure exploration part versus cost. Sending a deep probe around Uranus is of interest scientifically, but it may be difficult to justify some return on the investment. Unless you find some creative way to pay back, maybe sell tickets for viewing. (I made myself laugh)
Quote: rxwineProbably from the pure exploration part versus cost. Sending a deep probe around Uranus is of interest scientifically, but it may be difficult to justify some return on the investment. Unless you find some creative way to pay back, maybe sell tickets for viewing. (I made myself laugh)
If it is not sustainable on the free market (your claim, not mine) then it is probably wasteful and ought not be done: People are willing to pay for things they value. If they are unwilling to pay for space exploration they do not value it and it ought NOT be done at any level as those resources can best be used elsewhere.
Quote: bigfoot66If it is not sustainable on the free market (your claim, not mine) then it is probably wasteful and ought not be done: People are willing to pay for things they value. If they are unwilling to pay for space exploration they do not value it and it ought NOT be done at any level as those resources can best be used elsewhere.
Well that's another way to look at it. It's one thing for a small group of people to travel over the next hill on their own dime to find out what's there. Space exploration is a bit more of a project to put money and time into. The alien insect overlords who don't have the same lackadaisical approach to exploration may surprise us first and harvest our organs for their larvae when they come around the next planet.
Come to think of it, I imagine Genghis Khan surprised more than a few people who weren't curious enough about what was going on outside their territory. (Not that I really think anything is coming, but anyway)
China might decide to build missile bases on the moon. Never know.
Quote: beachbumbabsCost of "Bridge to Nowhere", Alaska (lifetime, both spans): $1.5B.
I find that a bit hard to believe.
Quote: rxwineProbably from the pure exploration part versus cost. Sending a deep probe around Uranus is of interest scientifically, but it may be difficult to justify some return on the investment. Unless you find some creative way to pay back, maybe sell tickets for viewing. (I made myself laugh)
Basically yes that was my thought. Even if you assume you can give a private company could get all the needed flyover rights the benefits are indirect. Imagine a private firm could have done the moon shot. How would one firm manage to hold all of the tech that came out of it. If they did get all the patents, which would be impossible, to exploit them all would be impossible.
Then there is the time to get the return. To even get to Mars is 2+ years. Far-out planets can be a lifetime to see results much less return.
Quote: AZDuffmanThen there is the time to get the return. To even get to Mars is 2+ years. Far-out planets can be a lifetime to see results much less return.
Black walnut lumber is beautiful, but Black Walnut trees take 30 years to mature. This is a very similar problem to yours but the answer is pretty easy. 10 year old black walnut trees are worth more than 1 year old trees and can be sold for more. Likewise, an entreprenuer could get a space mission going and sell it off to another company shortly after successful takeoff. The new company could take over the risks and rewards of the project and endure the long timeline, the original company could take a more guaranteed payday. These problems have already been solved.
Quote: bigfoot66Black walnut lumber is beautiful, but Black Walnut trees take 30 years to mature. This is a very similar problem to yours but the answer is pretty easy. 10 year old black walnut trees are worth more than 1 year old trees and can be sold for more. Likewise, an entreprenuer could get a space mission going and sell it off to another company shortly after successful takeoff. The new company could take over the risks and rewards of the project and endure the long timeline, the original company could take a more guaranteed payday. These problems have already been solved.
This only solves part of the problem. Say it is a trip to Mars. Unlike the Walnut Trees, there is no sure time when the payoff will come, nor is there any idea what it will be. Next, the nature of the "spin-off" tech is where the real benefit comes from. Cordless power tools and MRIs are two of thousands of things we got by going to the moon. No one enterprise will be able to make and exploit all of that.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis only solves part of the problem. Say it is a trip to Mars. Unlike the Walnut Trees, there is no sure time when the payoff will come, nor is there any idea what it will be. Next, the nature of the "spin-off" tech is where the real benefit comes from. Cordless power tools and MRIs are two of thousands of things we got by going to the moon. No one enterprise will be able to make and exploit all of that.
Companies deal with unsure things all the time. That is the nature of investment. The technology is wonderful but it's not like these things would not have been invented otherwise. Surely you don't believe that, were it not for NASA, we would have iPhones today but the free market just can't quite handle the brainpower required to come up with cordless drills?
Furthermore, there are a lot of hidden costs to NASA that I cannot easily identify. The army of really smart people working at NASA would have been engaged in other persuits were it not for the space program. Unfortunately we can only speculate on what may have been if their brainpower had been directed elsewhere. Unfortunately I have to deal with problem regularly when defending human liberty. A better example is the FDA. How many people die each year waiting for the FDA to approve a drug that would have saved their lives? We will never know.
These People Want to Go to Mars (and Never Come Back)
Here are the qualifications:
What are the qualifications to apply?
It cracks me up when I see some of these younger guys say that they'd go on a one-way trip to Mars. In all likelihood, they'd probably be the first ones to crack under pressure.
Quote: bigfoot66Companies deal with unsure things all the time. That is the nature of investment. The technology is wonderful but it's not like these things would not have been invented otherwise. Surely you don't believe that, were it not for NASA, we would have iPhones today but the free market just can't quite handle the brainpower required to come up with cordless drills?
It is a conflict of Basic Research vs Applied Research. Very few private companies do Basic Research. One of the most famous was the legendary AT&T Bell Labs. Scientists there often wondered why they got paid. This place invented the transistor. They were able to do it because of a deal with the devil made with the US Government that stated they got lots of exemptions on anti-trust as long as they gave the tech to all comers, one of which was then-newly founded Sony. There are few deep-pockets going to do this today.
It is the same with military tech. The US Military caused invention of the first computer to the internet, frozen OJ to finding real uses for Nylon(R). These things might or might not have come about on their own, but chances are many would not have and many would not have been invented in the USA.
Quote:The LHC was built in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.[4] It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference, as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland.
