The popularity of the space program

[El_Machinae]

In some ways, the space programs of our countries spends a lot of money. Relatively, though, it doesn't spend all that much. The per capita spending for both the US and Canada is about $50 per year. Now, I know a lot of us are fans of space programs and we're also quite skeptical about government overspending

Do you feel like the current spending levels are a waste (despite any waste in any specific program)? Where would you like to see the total spending levels go? Up? Down? Drastically up? Drastically down?

Meanwhile, what's your impression amongst the people you know? Do you feel they think the levels are too high or too low? What's your impression of their impressions?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Can we really judge the proper level of spending beyond gut feeling?

 

[Perfection]

Can we really judge the proper level of spending beyond gut feeling?

No, we can go by objectives. For example, I an not spending memorial day weekend on the moon. What a letdown.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You still need to be able to translate those objectives into funding amounts.

 

[Gelion]

I understand this is an "Americans only" poll?

 

[bhsup]

It's the one area of federal spending where I am a gloriously willful hypocrite. Yeah, it's not really in the Constitution for the Feds, but I don't give a damn. It's space, dammit. We dream, we reach, we fly, we acheive. It's the ultimate "what's over the next mountain" that's just bred into humanity.

As far as the budget? I really don't know numbers wise. Whatever it takes to (AND NOT GIMPING ALL THE WAY CUZ OF PENNY PINCHERS) go to Mars, colonize the moon (at least with permanent scientific research stations, etc), the edge of the solar system, etc. We need new methods of high speed space propulsion, tough arse ships that can take whatever space throws at them without blinking, etc etc etc.

Sorry, nothing really academic or rational in my post. It's purely gut and emotional.

 

[Perfection]

You still need to be able to translate those objectives into funding amounts.

Whatever it takes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

We should definitely be spending far more for all scientific R&D. Space exploration is certainly no exception.

But at this stage men going to Mars, or even back to the moon, is a pipe dream. We should certainly have a far better and more elaborate space station, however, which would be far better suited for various research projects. We should also be sending out far more unmanned probes.

 

[bhsup]

I don't want unmanned probes, I want humanity going out there.

Er, well, I don't mean I want no unmanned probes ever, but those should never replace mankind leading the way.

 

[Eukaryote]

I voted other. I read this book recently: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Mars-Settle-Planet/dp/0684835509

It argues that we can and should send human explorers Mars within our current space exploration budget.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can we really judge the proper level of spending beyond gut feeling?

I don't see how. It's tax money. We have objectives we'd like to see, and an idea of how much those objectives could cost, and whether they're worth it at different levels of spending. Were the glory days (for Americans) "better"? Would they be worth a higher tax burden?

I understand this is an "Americans only" poll?

Not at all! In fact, an idea of the relative spending of your own nation, plus an idea regarding future directions, is more than welcome.

 

[Gelion]

Not at all! In fact, an idea of the relative spending of your own nation, plus an idea regarding future directions, is more than welcome.

Its just the wording of questions that confused me... although it does apply to Russia.

I would like to see some of the more useless spending (such as on luxury stuff) into the space program. Moon base, rebirth of Buran project and eventually a Mars mission (with cooperation of other nations of course). Colonisation should be the focus of all future efforts.

 

[bhsup]

I am putting the NASA budgets (figured included for all years adjusted to 2007 numbers) to help folks kind of get a grasp on what the numbers were so they can ballpark where they think they should be now. It's kinda big, so spoilers. Got it from Wiki's page on the Budget of NASA.

Spoiler :

So basically, during the heydays of they US space program, NASA was getting 3-4% or more per year of the federal budget. So okay, that's what I'll throw out there as a fair chunk. So assuming we go with 4%... The 2013 budget is $3,813,000,000,000.00, 4% for NASA... That's a nice chunky $152,520,000,000.00 ($152.5 Billion), or almost 10x its current budget.

EDIT: Oh, and to honor our mother country, I think our next space vehicle should be the USS Winston Churchill, with his bust as the figurehead on the nose (after doing SOMETHING to ensure it can survive re-entry.)

 

[Gelion]

So in 2012 it costed each american 56.39 dollars to keep NASA.... Just imagine you didn't buy a computer game.

 

[warpus]

It's the one area of federal spending where I am a gloriously willful hypocrite. Yeah, it's not really in the Constitution for the Feds, but I don't give a damn.

But how could it be though, as the constitution was written before the idea of space travel even existed? Amendment?

 

[bhsup]

Really don't want to derail this into a constitutional thread, but basically yes.

 

[LamaGT]

A lot of people here use the rationale "we've got problems here on Earth, we should fix those before looking outward" which is of course bullsht since those problems are never going to get fixed, especially not with the tiny budget every space agency has, but I don't think bloating their budget is a good solution. Private space companies (especially SpaceX) have done wonders in increasing "money efficiency", which should make space travel a more mundane thing but when faced with an endless pile of money there's little incentive to be efficient, which means that good results will probably be achieved, but not kept up. Still, doubling NASA's budget while simultaneously promoting private companies would be great.

 

[peter grimes]

I am putting the NASA budgets (figured included for all years adjusted to 2007 numbers) to help folks kind of get a grasp on what the numbers were so they can ballpark where they think they should be now. It's kinda big, so spoilers. Got it from Wiki's page on the Budget of NASA.

Spoiler :

So basically, during the heydays of they US space program, NASA was getting 3-4% or more per year of the federal budget. So okay, that's what I'll throw out there as a fair chunk. So assuming we go with 4%... The 2013 budget is $3,813,000,000,000.00, 4% for NASA... That's a nice chunky $152,520,000,000.00 ($152.5 Billion), or almost 10x its current budget.

EDIT: Oh, and to honor our mother country, I think our next space vehicle should be the USS Winston Churchill, with his bust as the figurehead on the nose (after doing SOMETHING to ensure it can survive re-entry.)

Nice chart!

To add to the perspective, the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction cost taxpayers $50B on families with incomes over $100k - including vacation homes, beach estates, and golf course condos.

That some screwed up priorities, if you ask me.

I don't know the right number for NASA, but I want to see it much higher. 300%, 500%, and I want to see the 1% pay for it.

 

[Perfection]

I don't want unmanned probes, I want humanity going out there.

Er, well, I don't mean I want no unmanned probes ever, but those should never replace mankind leading the way.

I can get quite excited about the prospect of manned space flight to other worlds, but the current unmanned projects have been far more exciting to me then ISS activities. Projects like Cassini–Huygens, MESSENGER, and Dawn have given us a chance to explore strange new worlds replete with surprises that are stranger then fiction.

I'm all for manned exploration but we should aggressively expand unmanned exploration too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I could be misreading the tea leaves, but it seems that with all of the science fiction movies coming out that there may be a resurgence in interest in outer space. I have to say that although NASA has arguably the sexiest product in the solar system, they do a terrible job of marketing it. While they do occasionally have a hit (such as Mohawk Guy and 7 minutes of terror), they do a terrible job of showing the public the truly awesome things they are working on such as capturing an asteroid, sending Astronauts out to it and building the biggest rocket of all time. People by and large just don't know what NASA does and it's a disservice to the agency as well as to the taxpayers to be honest.

One problem that plagues NASA that is intimately related to the low budget is the fact that the low budge, coupled with lofty goals, means that NASA projects frequently run over budget and past-schedule. There are a bunch of reasons why projects overrun their budget (such as cost-plus contracts) but a huge issue has been the low budget itself. For example, in 2006 (IIRC), President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration. This initiative was supposed to build new rockets to replace the Space Shuttle and put Astronauts on the moon by 2020. Then the Chinese announced they would get to the moon by 2019, so Bush announced we'd get there by 2017.

Sounds awesomesauce, right? Well, Bush never funded the program at the levels it required from the beginning. So you've got to pay engineers every year even though the things they are supposed to build can't be built for lack of funds, so you've got that extra cost. Then, as some hardware is built, the rest of it isn't ready due to lack of funds, so you have to store the completed or semi-completed hardware at great cost that wasn't budgeted for. And so on - it's a vicious cycle. Obama did one great thing about this: he cancelled the program and then replaced it with a less ambitious one that was (most importantly) adequately funded. However, if the program that Bush had put in place had just been funded to begin with, we'd be well on our way to the moon already.

The other thing Obama has been doing is using public taxpayer money to fund private companies. This may seem anathema to free market capitalism, until you realize the entry cost for new companies in the space industry is tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Right now, NASA is helping companies overcome that barrier to entry so that they can then offer goods and services at a lower cost than NASA could provide. This will also free up NASA from mundane tasks such as space station resupply so that it can focus on bigger goals such as deep space exploration, capturing asteroids, landing on Mars and so on.

It is no secret that I think NASA's budget should be enlarged. The payoff is enormous; in many ways we are still getting the dividends of the heyday of NASA in 60's through a host of technologies it gave us and services such as satellite communication. There is so much that space has to offer us, even in the short term. And in the long run, it's the only way to ensure our species doesn't go the way of the dinosaurs.