Is Bush Gutting NASA? Doubt It.
You've read it here before: NASA is the one agency that brings out my Libertarian side. If you eliminated NASA right now, private industry would pick up the slack of NASA's efforts. Advancements in aeronautics make more sense for private industry to foment: studying how can we fly faster, farther, and cheaper makes more sense when faster, farther, and cheaper means more profit. Advancements in life science are better suited for universities (who want research grants from corporations and government agencies other than NASA) and pharmaceutical companies (who are inherently evil, I agree, but still...). It doesn't matter how ants form their colonies in zero gravity. If it makes economic sense to go back to the moon or to Mars, private industry will find a way, but right now, it doesn't.
I say this again because new blog buddy and new addition to my blogroll, Susan of "An Age Like This," takes the president to task for gutting NASA. Quote:
Bush will use the cost and his endless war as excuses to shut NASA down. He may not do it so baldly as that, but the end result will be the same. After all, there's not enough pork in NASA, evidently, to enrich him and his friends.Since Susan's blog doesn't have the comments turned on:
The Space Shuttle is built by Boeing. Boeing is the Pentagon's second largest contractor. Boeing donated twice as much to the Bush campaign in 2000 than they gave to Gore (link). Not enough pork in NASA? NASA is nothing but pork. Bush would never gut NASA because the Air Force needs NASA's scientists to weaponize space. If anything, Bush would eliminate anything in NASA that doesn't support neocon plans to make stuff 'splode.
7 Comments:
Unfortunately there's no evidence that private industry would do anything in space other than stupid telegenic crap like the "Space Ship One" ballistic flight that copied stuff that had been done fifty years ago by the X-15. Private industry also hasn't picked up the ball on basic research, and can be trusted not to do so. Anything that doesn't lead to instant profit has gone by the wayside, and with it a lot of good paying engineering jobs. Believe me, if I thought there was a private way to space I would be all for it, but I see absolutely no evidence that such is the case.
A couple of other things; I'm not against going back to the Moon. In fact, I'm all for it. But a two-man two day sprint mission to wave the flag and pick up rocks and hit golf balls is just a copy of Apollo. What I would like to see is a lasting, international presence with extensive facilities for research.
Also, Boeing did not build the shuttle; North American Rockwell built it. Long after, Boeing bought out Rockwell's aero division. Boeing still do some of the upgrade work, but what profit they see out of the shuttle is a driblet compared to the profit from the 777.
In the long run, humanity has to get off the planet and eventually out of the system. NASA is clearly not the best way, but until someone has the guts to fund a better way, it's what we have to deal with. And an anti-science Flat Earther president is quietly organizing to shut it down.
I agree with Susan. Private enterprise simply cannot – will not – match the achievements of a governmental program like NASA. Not only is the cost prohibitive, but the potential for profit is pure fantasy. Further, the notion that advances in life sciences should be left to the aegis of higher education ignores reality. Without a significant commitment by government, scientists from all fields forgo their native inclinations to explore the universe in favor of lucrative jobs in industry. As such, the development of new technology is limited to only what is most immediately profitable – leaving the greater discoveries for generations more sympathetic to advancing the public good rather than private fortunes.
That a company like Boeing (or North American Rockwell) is responsible for providing both military equipment and NASA spacecraft is immaterial. While the weaponization of space is something that merits more debate, conflating the divisions of a single amoral company in an attempt to ascribe political guilt-by-association is disingenuous and misleading.
While it is true that sinister and/or martial agendas have been advanced in consort with government initiatives ostensibly undertaken for more altruistic purposes, the benefit of mankind cannot be entirely dismissed as the primary mover. Today, the most successful efforts at wildlife preservation, environmental protection, land and water resource management, and – yes – exploration are all either supported in toto or underwritten by federal dollars.
I think both sides have valid points here. Arlo is right in that NASA is seriously fucking up our chances of getting off world.
And I think Kelly and Susan are right to doubt commercial ventures in space. The only viable business model I can see in the near future is tourism. There just isn't enough incentives for companies and the staggering amount of R&D needed any company would need is enought to scare Wall Street away thereby dwindling hope of finding investments.
But the shuttle and NASA have served an important role as a platform for many Universities taking projects into space. Things like optics - grinding an optic at zero g is a big deal (as I understand it). So not all of the experiments that have gone into space are without application.
I think if there is to be significant developments in space trave and research we are going to need both NASA and the private sector. Here is my scenario...
NASA needs to establish a moon base. Part of the establisment will be finding a way to make a self-sustaining settlement. Once that is in place, private industry will find a foothold in space. The collony will need food, labor, engineers, and eventually trades people with goods and services. As the colony grows private industry is bound to take up the slack and government contracts that NASA is unable to fullfill.
I think once the private sector is in space, it will be able to find business opotunities. Mining for example. Since the moon is dead, any mining project will have no environmental impact. And though I doubt there are any fossil fuel reserves on the moon, there are bound to be a butt load ore and precious metals. The US exhausted much of our nickle and coak deposits during WWII, and this could (eventually) be a cheap source of raw materials.
But it's going to have to be a partnering. NASA should stick to pure science but find ways of getting private industry in space.
My statement about the complete elimination of NASA is egregious. Exploration and scientific research are important, and I should not overlook the importance of federal dollars funding that which is not (yet) profitable. You are right, and I'm wrong on that point.
However, the general crux of my argument and my arguments against NASA in the past still stand.
It would be too cost prohibitive to mine the moon; how would we get the materials back? Unless there are great strides soon in the construction of a space elevator, which is simply theoretical at this point, there's no feasable way that mining the moon would be cheap, and it still wouldn't be cheap.
"Since the moon is dead, any mining project will have no environmental impact." Well, except for the change in mass, which would affect our tides.
Screw ALL of that. Spend the money on researching sustainable, biodegradable materials. Educate the public on the importance of purchasing products made with those materials. Help corporations sell those materials cheaply. Eventually, the market will demand them. Spend the money on saving our own planet before wasting it on ruining another rock floating in space.
If we can't mine the moon, why do we need a moon base? Research? What could we research from the moon that would require the presence of humans? Unmanned probes are the answer.
Nor does anyone provide a compelling reason we have to leave the planet. Again, let's try and fix our own first. If the issue is overpopulation, then who decides which humans leave and which stay? Perhaps one of our leaders will form a master race of the intelligent, the rich, and the intelligent rich on Mars and turn Earth into something resembling Escape from New York.
Exploration can and should be performed with unmanned missions. The Space Shuttle and the ISS are wastes of money. NASA provides multi-billion-dollar government contracts to private industries, and many of those contracts I would categorize as pork.
Yes, government projects do spurn private industry in positive ways, like satellites or the Internet or Space Food Sticks. However, the sort of "research" NASA is doing is simply one of the internal wounds in the govermnet that is hemmoraging cash. Give NASA the money they need to learn about the universe and protect us from being destroyed by an asteroid, and spend the rest to help the poor and the sick, to clean and save our planet, and invent safe, clean, renewable energy and raw materials.
There are a number of compelling reasons to get off the planet, and one of the better known is the End Cretaceous Event. If as a species we want to survive in the long term, having all of our eggs in one basket is just insane.
Why get off world? Why not! I know that is a glib answer but for me, staying on little old earth is akin to staying in your little podunk town and never thinking about gonig to the city or another country. There is a huge univrse out there waiting for us.
Idea on how to get materials back from the moon cheaply:
Throw them.
The earth is a huge gravity well and the moon is uphill. Create large porcilin lined containers that are launched into a low orbit. Built into the containers are small retro gas boosters that kick the container into a decayed orbit landing it in the ocean where it is picked up by ship.
Besides, think of all the alien species we have to bring Christianity to.
Exactly. And one of the best reasons for a robust govenment space program is that it, unlike a private enterprise, is representative of and responsible to the entire citizenry. This gives it the political character that allows it to more effectively collaborate with all kinds of scientific organizations from around world. Collaboration rather than competition is going to be especially critical in the development of an immortality project I've long endorsed: selectively harvesting eggs from the most advanced women in the world to be launched into deep space. Mounted on all sides of this cyrogenic uterine spaceship will be powerful speakers blasting the message "Help! Help!" in every langauge spoken on earth as well as those designed to emulate tongues spoken by alien beings. Instead of idly wringing our hands over the End Cretaceous Event, this is a "cover your bets" project we could be doing even while working out a more realistic plan for escaping Earth. And we could be doing it right now!
[As a detail, I think the recording should sort of hiss and crackle and pop like an old-timey 78 record in order to enhance the emotional nature of the appeal.]
Post a Comment
<< Home