[sciborg2]

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument for space exploration funding.

As far as I can tell, this seems like a man trying to demand public funding for his personal hobby.

Let's say I don't want my taxes to go toward space programs unless there is a considerable surplus.

What's the argument that justifies funding space exploration when that money might be better spent on some other program that creates jobs? What justifies spending that money on space exploration rather something more terrestrial that might yield more immediate benefits?

[sologdin]

they took his jrrb!

dey turk hirs jrrrb!

derkersjrrb!

jrrb!

[sciborg2]

Hey, my hobby is comics.

I'm sure I can come up with a youtube video about dreams and demand public funding to support one of the few American born art mediums.

eta: On a more serious note, why not put the money into urban farming research?

[Callan S.]

I'd suspect because urban farming is already perfectly well understood. They down wanna doow eeyt.

I actually have a fond spot for space exploration - I remember being stuck in a car with someone who didn't see the point of it/wanted the funds to go elsewher and being flabergasted.

I think it'd be sad to simply stop it - yet yes, so much else is - well, not ignored, because that would imply if they paid attention to it, it'd be something that matters to them. Space is more the warlords new frontier (paid for by governments to begin with atleast, of course)

[Meyna]

Firstly, it's not as if money given to NASA is sucked into a black hole never to be seen again. It is spent in various industries, and contractors from many fields are hired to do various tasks related to the NASA projects. Secondly, just like with spending money on any other endeavour, there are often unintended technological innovations that benefit the public at large that fall out of NASA projects. See here for some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Third, while Neil likes to wax poetic about the exploration of space (doing so is part of his job, after all. He is, first and foremost, the director of a planetarium.), there is something to be said about the value that comes from inspiring the masses, which space exploration does for many.

It all depends on what results one values. If pure job numbers are the ultimate goal, then the money can certainly be better spent elsewhere.

[Madness]

they took his jrrb!

dey turk hirs jrrrb!

derkersjrrb!

jrrb!

Lol - Detukrrrjrrrbbs! Seeing two South Park references here today makes me happy.

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument for space exploration funding.

As far as I can tell, this seems like a man trying to demand public funding for his personal hobby.

Let's say I don't want my taxes to go toward space programs unless there is a considerable surplus.

What's the argument that justifies funding space exploration when that money might be better spent on some other program that creates jobs? What justifies spending that money on space exploration rather something more terrestrial that might yield more immediate benefits?

Is this to be our discussion on idealizing research spending ?

For starters:

Secondly, just like with spending money on any other endeavour, there are often unintended technological innovations that benefit the public at large that fall out of NASA projects. See here for some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Contextually specific, I think this is the best argument to be made for keeping an institution like NASA around.

Also, sci, you don't think Tyson has, or at least implies, strong arguments in the video with 'war as motivating factor x' (and by extension, replacing that with a healthy and consistent motivation) or 'one penny on the tax dollar' (whereas military spending is probably half that dollar)?

eta: On a more serious note, why not put the money into urban farming research?

Fine - not at the expense of the penny on the dollar but at the expense of the two quarters of the dollar (as far as 'Merican context goes). Though, I think I agree with Callan but that permaculture-culture is riff with misinformation moreso than coordinated effort of denying knowledge by 'them.'

It is spent in various industries, If pure job numbers are the ultimate goal, then the money can certainly be better spent elsewhere.

That's not my ultimate goal with research. The only aspects of university institutions that specifically seem to create more jobs (at their institutions, contributing to total job numbers, rather than in number of graduates produced, which also contributes to total job numbers) is in administrators and professors when accommodating an influx of students to specific schools or when specific disciplines experience the high-ground of employable mystique (and thus, there are more jobs for practicing scientists to then research with and train students for future careers in research at university institutions).

If Tyson's argument about 'one penny on the tax dollar' is backed by evidence, then there are bigger pieces of the pie to be divided.

[Wilshire]

Sure, you can boil anything down to "personal hobby". What is the Affordable Care Act but Obama's personal hobby of helping people? Everything is someone's hobby, that doesn't make it unimportant. Think of any achievement in history and see if you can say that is wasn't someone's personal hobby. Rockefeller and his oil, Carnegie and his steel, Ford and his cars, to name a few.

they took his jrrb!

dey turk hirs jrrrb!

derkersjrrb!

jrrb!

Common misunderstanding about what happened to NASA. 


But really, to answer your question, because I believe his speeches have a lot of truth. See:

Secondly, just like with spending money on any other endeavour, there are often unintended technological innovations that benefit the public at large that fall out of NASA projects. See here for some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Do you really deny that space exploration and research has been a major contribute to the economic success of America after glancing at the above link?

Where would you put research money if not in NASA? Or do you think ALL research is a waste of money?
Because honestly if you think scientific research is useless this conversation is pointless lol.
If you think there are better ways to put research money to work, I'd be interested to hear it.

I think NASA is a good catch-all research fund because it requires so much collaboration. Space exploration is, to say it lamely, really hard, and solving hard problems requires a lot of people to come together. I also worry that by defunding NASA, which is not what Obama did btw, will cause an over all decrease in important research.
To me, research drives innovation which drives new products to market which drives the economy which drives the world. Yeah there is a massive wait time between research and manufactured products for sale, but without doing to research you'd never get anything new.

edit:

If Tyson's argument about 'one penny on the tax dollar' is backed by evidence, then there are bigger pieces of the pie to be divided.

This. Taking money from scientific research and putting it into military spending or wellfare or medicade or whatever, would essentially cause no effect. 100 million added to 1 trillion still gets you 1 trillion. 1,000,000 + 1,000,000,000,000 or 1*10^6 + 1*10^12 = 1*10^12.

[sciborg2]

More to say later, but I'm disappointed Solo didn't quote Whitey on the Moon.

Maybe he really is a rich liberal masquerading as a principled communist for fun? 

eta: Humor aside, I do want to thank people for giving actual answers. There's a reason I posted this here rather than elsewhere - you can actually have a conversation here about "fringe" or supposedly "conservative" ideas.

[Madness]

eta: Humor aside, I do want to thank people for giving actual answers. There's a reason I posted this here rather than elsewhere - you can actually have a conversation here about "fringe" or supposedly "conservative" ideas.

Making me tear up a little . Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.

[sciborg2]

Making me tear up a little . Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.

Heh. I should explain "supposedly 'conservative'" - my questioning of space funding is from what I think is a more "lefty" perspective as I see those funds helping people who may not have the economic means to care about cosmological facts.

I realize most people see someone advocating such cuts and thinks of Tea Party shenanigans.

Why I mentioned urban farming as I actually have met one of the PhDs researching this and working to make it viable as a path to urban renewal in Philadelphia. It's a possibly promising approach, with jobs provided to those who are probably in more need of a career path than engineers at NASA who can find work elsewhere.

But it's all very devil's advocate-y. I don't have a strong stance, I just think we need to pick at assumptions at something about the space program smells wasteful to me.

[Madness]

Making me tear up a little . Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.

Heh. I should explain "supposedly 'conservative'" - my questioning of space funding is from what I think is a more "lefty" perspective as I see those funds helping people who may not have the economic means to care about cosmological facts.

How can "political orientation X" seriously argue that those funds to help those socioeconomically impoverished shouldn't come first from the two quarter on the dollar military budget?

[sciborg2]

Making me tear up a little . Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.

Heh. I should explain "supposedly 'conservative'" - my questioning of space funding is from what I think is a more "lefty" perspective as I see those funds helping people who may not have the economic means to care about cosmological facts.

How can "political orientation X" seriously argue that those funds to help those socioeconomically impoverished shouldn't come first from the two quarter on the dollar military budget?

How? Well keep in mind this is all off the top (no writtens!).... but strategy I suppose.

I think it'll be easier to get liberals to abandon their desire to fund space programs and shift it to something more worthwhile than it will be to convince conservatives to reduce military spending.

[Madness]

Party dichotomy fucking boggles me. We're such a bunch of monkeys - sometimes (and really that's an insult and a stereotype - sorry, chimpanzees, bonobos, macacas, some great apes and others...).

Ok, strategy. We could argue that inadvertent innovation (like point two of Meyna's NASA argument) resulting from planned innovation does more to cement a country as a world power (especially, with America's existing position) than 'strategy spending' by the military.

I'm willing to accept that if we cut back on military spending that "the terrorists would win" (by which, I mean, that there would be an increase in violence worldwide because the existence and presence of a world-policing force probably does deter some bad people from doing violent things to justify their beliefs).

BUT...

To take the strategy argument, compels me to suggest that all of that spending is not justified. And until there is coherent and legible documentation justifying all military tax spending than they should be operating at a strategically reduced capacity.

But as far as I understand Congress is often bought or deceived, whereas the Canadian Senate is just bought and paid for...

[Wilshire]

But it's all very devil's advocate-y. I don't have a strong stance, I just think we need to pick at assumptions at something about the space program smells wasteful to me.

Can you say why? Which part of their spending is wasteful? Not to be offensive, but so far there have been multiple posts for specific reason why space spending is important (or why some feel that it is), and you haven't really disagreed with them or offered your on thoughts as to why you feel differently, other than its "how you feel".

Take a look at this picture and and the page regarding NASA's actual spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA


Lets assume these wiki links are somewhat factual. This puts NASA's total budget at .48% of the national budget. It doesn't even show up on the pie graph.
Department of Defense - 19%
Social Security - 22%
Medicare & Medicaid - 23%

So I ask you again, which part of the .48% NASA budget is the waste?

There are a million different ways you can suggest what would be a "more ideal" way to spend tax dollars. Like I said before, if you take ALL of the NASA budget and put it to any other program, they wouldn't even notice. The US bank bailout was more than the entire 50 year running budget for NASA. That means all the trips to the moon, all the stalites, all the space walks, all the ISS stuff, all the Mars stuff, for 50 years, was eclipsed by the US buying bankrupt banks in 1 day.
And NASA is wasteful? Sorry but I never heard of anyone wanting to because a scientist, someone who wants to contribute to the betterment of society, because they saw a bunch of rich bankers get a free pass.


Next, military spending. Please see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

When I see that list I am embarrassed by how much money the US wastes on military power. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined, and most of them are our allies. We spend almost 6x more than China. The other countries we are engaged with arn't even on the list.
And then to say that NASA's budget is a waste? No one even knows where all that military spending goes to. We arn't even at war with anyone (ok thats arguable).

Sorry I get a bit passionate with this subject. I just find it irritating that people think NASA is a waste of money without knowing any facts at all (not suggesting that you don't, just mean in general). I've also yet to hear a good argument, from anyone, as to why its a waste. But I'm pretty biased so you know .

[Royce]

No one even knows where all that military spending goes to

Check out what they do at DARPA. It is fucking scary as hell. Those drone dogs must be the creepiest shit out there. Imagine thousands of those running a wild attack on a village full of poor brown people. DARPA is a evil playground for war hungry eggheads.

I do agree with you completely, to cut space exploration(which is a cool thing to do) and continue to build drone dogs, seems silly. I also think that to have some kind of control on meteors that threaten the planet, should be worth spending some money on.

Space exploration is a natural thing for humans to do. We always explore everything, and our planet is almost fully explored.