Trump may end funding for ISS

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Another factor are the many spinoffs of technology from the investment into a high tech endeavor.

A lot of our present technology was based on developments made for the space program (and also defense programs).

What additional spinoffs may be created while trying to solve the issues for a manned moon base or Mars mission?
 
resources are limited. I fail to see how that’s a false dichotomy.

There can be benefit in taking on a large, difficult task. But by that argument I could defend the idea of building a base on the ocean floor over space travel. You still have not presented a compelling reason for manned space flight.

There are two issues:

1 - Your estimation of scarcity assumes that resources are limited in a way which would prevent expansion of human-crewed spaceflight to some unspecified degree. That is to say, you need to quantify both the thing being consumed and the thing being produced before you can support such an assertion.

2 - The false dichotomy is the assumption that resources NOT used for on space exploration won't go to some other, more harmful activity. Or that it won't be money into the pockets of people who simply want to accumulate wealth. Or that it will, in fact, continue to exist as a resource if it is not used for this purpose. Some fraction of the resources used for space exploration are human capital; engineers and scientists and craftspeople. That training is portable and fungible between industries and -- I would argue -- counts as wealth. Working on a human-crewed space program will also pay salaries and wages, which will pay for groceries and rents and mortgages and all the other stuff that we typically think of as the economy.

And yes -- let us build a Sea Dome in addition to building a Moon Base and a city on Mars and a research outpost on Titan....
 
Last edited:
NASA is the government. The government prints the money. Money is not the issue. If the government wanted to go to the Moon and Mars they could. There is no priority to go for the government.
 
My argument is that there are better places to spend the limited resources we have, and they are indeed limited, on specific other things. More robots in space. Sea research. Specific good things. Undercutting that argument by saying hatnit would go to harmful thjngs if we don’t spend it on manned space flight is a bit of a stretch, and a nice tactic. But I’m not buying it.

We have limited resources.
Working on the edge of our abilities is good, and furthers the human race.
We should choose what we work on carefully, to get the most out of our resources.
Manned space flight provides less return in investment than other areas will. We should invest in those.
 
NASA is the government. The government prints the money. Money is not the issue. If the government wanted to go to the Moon and Mars they could. There is no priority to go for the government.

I.... ummm..... you know what? Nope. Not gonna bother.
 
NASA is the government. The government prints the money. Money is not the issue. If the government wanted to go to the Moon and Mars they could. There is no priority to go for the government.

NASA is an agency of the federal government. It is not the government. Remember the recent shutdowns over failure to reach a budget agreement? Every cent has to be accounted for, and every expense has to be justified.

If someone from NASA goes to the president or a representative in Congress and says, "We want 65 billion dollars to go to Mars," then what is going to be the first word out of the president's or Congressman's mouth? "Why?"

If the why doesn't justify the expense in the eyes of the lawmakers, then the money is not appropriated, unless you think NASA has the authority to print its own money, because it's the government. I'm sure you're not saying that.

The DoD wants more money, the Dept. of Education wants more money, the Dept. of the Interior wants more money; Planned Parenthood wants more money. Who gets it? it all comes down to the why.
 
The DoD wants more money, the Dept. of Education wants more money, the Dept. of the Interior wants more money; Planned Parenthood wants more money. Who gets it? it all comes down to the why.

Exactly and include entitlements in the mix like social security, medicare, etc. If the nations of the world were not embroiled in threatening war or terrorism, LEO, moon bases, and mars bases and transfer vehicles could all be done, but on $20 billion per year options are limited.
 
My argument is that there are better places to spend the limited resources we have, and they are indeed limited, on specific other things. More robots in space. Sea research. Specific good things. Undercutting that argument by saying hatnit would go to harmful thjngs if we don’t spend it on manned space flight is a bit of a stretch, and a nice tactic. But I’m not buying it.

We have limited resources.
Working on the edge of our abilities is good, and furthers the human race.
We should choose what we work on carefully, to get the most out of our resources.
Manned space flight provides less return in investment than other areas will. We should invest in those.

You are never going to be persuaded. This is the internet. We are not actually arguing. We are just typing words. Just like you, I am getting a little dopamine hit every time somebody responds to one of my posts. Its is one of the least productive activities possible. In fact, I am supposed to be doing my actual-for-pay job right now, so it is measurably counterproductive.

But, what the hell -- neurotransmitters are neurotransmitters:

" less return [on] investment..." You need to specify, qualify quantify, and support this assertion. What counts as a beneficial return? How do you evaluate and compare benefits?

And, really, what resources are you talking about and how many/much of them will be diverted from what and to what effect if we send human beings to Mars?
 
Last edited:
I can indeed be persuaded. You just haven’t done it yet.

Whats a benefit? Highly debatable, I’ll admit. I would say something that benefits mankind, and makes life better. Also anything that furthers our understanding of the universe. Quantify? Ok, let’s compare what data we’ve gotten from robotic landers on mars vs human flight to the moon. Not a great comparison I know, but fact is we get way more data for way less resources from robots.

What resources? Time, talent, and materials.
 
Last edited:
I.... ummm..... you know what? Nope. Not gonna bother.

you know what I mean guy. If the government wanted to they could. Nasa is not a military organization its an exploration organization, whats the point if we dont send manned missions beyond Earth orbit.
 
you know what I mean guy. If the government wanted to they could. Nasa is not a military organization its an exploration organization, whats the point if we dont send manned missions beyond Earth orbit.

Whays the point of wasting resources going after nothing, just to “see what’s there”? We can see it already.
 
Whays the point of wasting resources going after nothing, just to “see what’s there”? We can see it already.

the bragging rights, to say 'we' went there, we stood on it first, we left a flag, a plaque, foot prints to prove it..

if we, the people, want it to happen, it will happen.. we just seem to have other priorities right now (or so we're lead to believe).

(and I'll leave it at that.. various.. nay, ALL politicians are doing a fine job of sqwabbling about where our attention "needs" to be focused...)
 
I should mention, I’m a dreamer, yes. I’d love to go into space. I’d live on a moon base, and if a trip to mars was going I’d be on it. The idea of the type of ships in Passengers or Ascention is exciting to think about, and I’d consider it.

But, realistically there needs to be a reason better than “just because”. Was hoping someone had one.
 
NASA is an agency of the federal government. It is not the government. Remember the recent shutdowns over failure to reach a budget agreement? Every cent has to be accounted for, and every expense has to be justified.

If someone from NASA goes to the president or a representative in Congress and says, "We want 65 billion dollars to go to Mars," then what is going to be the first word out of the president's or Congressman's mouth? "Why?"

If the why doesn't justify the expense in the eyes of the lawmakers, then the money is not appropriated, unless you think NASA has the authority to print its own money, because it's the government. I'm sure you're not saying that.

The DoD wants more money, the Dept. of Education wants more money, the Dept. of the Interior wants more money; Planned Parenthood wants more money. Who gets it? it all comes down to the why.

Every cent is accounted for? You have to be either kidding or foolish. Have you ever heard about the audits of DOD? The billions and billions of unaccounted for dollars.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
If there's a reason to go anywhere, private companies will make it happen cheaper, more efficiently, and faster, than any government agency could.

The only reason for getting to the moon in the late 60's was political. We needed to show the world that our Republic was better than Communism. It made sense for our government to pour the amount of money into the space race in order to win. It doesn't make any sense to spend that kind of money to go back.

However, there ARE good reasons to go back if we can do it cheaper than the government would do it. And companies similar to SpaceX will get us there when it becomes profitable to do so.
 
If there's a reason to go anywhere, private companies will make it happen cheaper, more efficiently, and faster, than any government agency could.

The only reason for getting to the moon in the late 60's was political. We needed to show the world that our Republic was better than Communism. It made sense for our government to pour the amount of money into the space race in order to win. It doesn't make any sense to spend that kind of money to go back.

However, there ARE good reasons to go back if we can do it cheaper than the government would do it. And companies similar to SpaceX will get us there when it becomes profitable to do so.

The idea that private companies are individually more efficient than government agencies is pretty dubious. Arguing this point will be less rewarding that trying to argue the definition of "benefit" -- unless you are arguing with someone comfortable with terms like "stochastic frontier modeling" and "data envelopment analysis".

I could offer that I have worked as some kind of manager or technical lead for some very profitable companies -- and that in those roles I observed very little that could be mistaken for rational decision making or well-executed plans to improve efficiency at any level of operations. But anecdotal evidence, especially in the negative (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), is of little value.

So I will just ask if you count all of the failed ventures -- the companies that didn't get the contract to launch the satellite or build the moon base -- when estimating the cost-effectiveness of privatizing space exploration? Those companies will have consumed materiel, and spent money on wages and salaries and benefits. Those companies will have employed workers who were pushed to do more with less. That productivity, those expenses, will go to exactly the same place that alleged government waste goes.

And there is the fact that the profit motive inclines us to ever quicker returns, emphasizing the short-term gain, low hanging fruit, over long term planning. Corporations do not plan for generations. The folks on the BOD will not be expected to think of any posterity but their own. In fact, corporations in the US might decide that SEC regulations prohibit any actions which reduce share-holder value in the short-term in service of a long-term project, no matter the prosocial returns on long-term planning.

As for why we went to the moon -- the Cold War certainly had something to do with it. The promise made by JFK to do it within a decade, and the fact that he was not available to backtrack or apologize if we didn't rise to that challenge, certainly provided political will to do it quickly. But -- in my opinion -- the rationale President Kennedy gave for going at all is valid, and holds equally well as an argument for going to Mars, or to Titan, or doing anything on the high frontier (to coin a phrase).
 
I should mention, I’m a dreamer, yes. I’d love to go into space. I’d live on a moon base, and if a trip to mars was going I’d be on it. The idea of the type of ships in Passengers or Ascention is exciting to think about, and I’d consider it.

But, realistically there needs to be a reason better than “just because”. Was hoping someone had one.


You were born in Mexico? Your parents brought you here when you were a child? You said you were a "dreamer"
 
The idea that private companies are individually more efficient than government...
I didn't mean to imply that ANY private company is always more efficient than government, only that a company who succeeds at getting the job done will have done so spending much less money, and much more efficiently, than government agencies would have. Look at SpaceX already being able to launch a satellite or resupply the space station far cheaper than what NASA would be able to. Government is notorious for wasting money and for tolerating waste within.

A company that is unsuccessful at reaching their goal of launching cheap satellites or landing on the moon will have failed for many possible reasons. Waste could be one.

Government funding of space exploration isn't the only option, and it's clear that it's not the best option.
 
I didn't mean to imply that ANY private company is always more efficient than government, only that a company who succeeds at getting the job done will have done so spending much less money, and much more efficiently, than government agencies would have. Look at SpaceX already being able to launch a satellite or resupply the space station far cheaper than what NASA would be able to. Government is notorious for wasting money and for tolerating waste within.

A company that is unsuccessful at reaching their goal of launching cheap satellites or landing on the moon will have failed for many possible reasons. Waste could be one.

Government funding of space exploration isn't the only option, and it's clear that it's not the best option.

Your comparison of the performance of one successful company, which has been driven to greater efficiency by the profit motive and the competition of other companies, to a government agency is invalid. Take all of those companies together. The companies that did not succeed -- for whatever reason -- effectively wasted their efforts, and the capital of their investors.

Upthread there is a juxtaposition of an out-of-context Neil deGrasse Tyson quote with the world's most expensive car commercial. Later in the interview from which that quote was mined, Dr. Tyson expanded "... government is better suited to these kinds of investments,” Tyson told me. “They have a longer time horizon. They’re not shackled to quarterly reports like you see in a private enterprise.”

Corporations will not do what governments will do. And the idea that corporations (in the plural) will be more efficient than a government agency at doing anything is questionable.
 
I didn't mean to imply that ANY private company is always more efficient than government, only that a company who succeeds at getting the job done will have done so spending much less money, and much more efficiently, than government agencies would have. Look at SpaceX already being able to launch a satellite or resupply the space station far cheaper than what NASA would be able to. Government is notorious for wasting money and for tolerating waste within.

A company that is unsuccessful at reaching their goal of launching cheap satellites or landing on the moon will have failed for many possible reasons. Waste could be one.

Government funding of space exploration isn't the only option, and it's clear that it's not the best option.

i dunno. If you look at socialized health care vs the Private health care and pharmaceutical costs your arguement starts to fall apart a bit
 
I think the private sector funding all this is a means to see what they can get out of it. Like what our ancestors did, discovering new lands, to see what's in / on them, and what they can exploit.. They initially explored "this new land", colonized it, then slowly shipped all the good stuff back to [pick a country / kingdom in Europe]..

I'm sure,if the moon yielded high concentrations of gold or unobtanium, we'd have mining colonies there by now..

I see Elon being the guy to pioneer the transport systems to get us there, and get 'it' back here..
 
I think the point about the motivation to win The Space Race shouldn't be understated. There were alot of ideas and plans for space floating around the USA in the late 1950's but nobody was in a real big hurry. Then Sputnik happened. Then Gagarin happened. Anybody remember the first spacecraft to reach the moon ? Luna-2, 1959. The Soviet Union had the high ground by a wide margin. Those events convinced enough folks in the US to commit the resources needed to get it back from them. Of course we got a lot of science and tech along the way; gettin' people off this rock and gettin' them back alive required it. Will the next giant leap occur without the motive of competition among nations ? Maybe, but that would be a first.
 
I think the point about the motivation to win The Space Race shouldn't be understated. There were alot of ideas and plans for space floating around the USA in the late 1950's but nobody was in a real big hurry. Then Sputnik happened. Then Gagarin happened. Anybody remember the first spacecraft to reach the moon ? Luna-2, 1959. The Soviet Union had the high ground by a wide margin. Those events convinced enough folks in the US to commit the resources needed to get it back from them. Of course we got a lot of science and tech along the way; gettin' people off this rock and gettin' them back alive required it. Will the next giant leap occur without the motive of competition among nations ? Maybe, but that would be a first.

I think it was more about slapping the meat on the table as far as developing a way to deliver nukes, than a pure PR fight. Without that need to toss nukes around, the drive to develop rockets is who can put satellites into space cheap.
 
Back
Top