"The Space Shuttle is dead. Good riddance!"
“If a car maker tried to sell a car that cost 228 times what was promised, could fit only half the advertised passengers, and had to be refurbished after every drive, they might not do so well in the market, especially when a much cheaper alternative was available.”
- 17 views
[Aaron Blumer] It’s not waste if there’s a return that matches or exceeds the investment.
Arguably, it’s not even waste if there was a good chance of a return on the investment. It’s like planting a crop. If the weather doesn’t cooperate and you lose money, was it a “waste”? Most would say it was worth a try.
But I agree that technological results alone do not justify huge expenses. The process of weighing where money should go is complex. And if technological advance justified every cost… we should start a big war. So far, nothing in human history advances technology quite like trying to kill the other guys before they kill you.
Sad, but true.
You’re right, of course. Where do we think a lot of that $686 billion in expenses is going, anyway? My dad has retired from both the military and civilian government service, but because he retains his high security clearances he’s still a contractor working on developing weapons systems for the government (which is pretty much what he was doing before he retired). Since that national expense is currently about 100 times what we were spending on the space program, we’ll probably be seeing a larger number of technological advances come out of that. However, I agree that expenses that high are not completely justified by the gains, especially when much of what is learned when developing defense technology remains classified for a *very* long time.
And of course, the threat of nuclear war was in fact the major motivating factor behind the first space program, but I don’t think that lessens or negates the accomplishment or what we’ve gained nationally at all. I guess I don’t need to start down that road again…
Right now, we need to cut pretty much everything to bring expenses in line, but I know it’s things like the space program that will suffer, while income redistribution probably goes up…
Dave Barnhart
Chip, your analogy of BK is quite off, anyways. But don’t worry, you and the vast majority of people don’t fathom big numbers (myself included). Our minds cannot fathom a trillion dollars, nor a billion dollars, nor a million, and can barely fathom thousands. So, to put your analogy in perspective, you would be allowed to spend 6.90$ per year at BK for your family. Or, 57c/month. Or 1.8c/day. I could walk a mall for an hour and probably find more money than that.
This is why we can never balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending. Never! You can cut every single budget item in the discretionary spending category and we would still be short 634B (That is part of the problem, we put a B instead of writing it all the way out: 634,000,000,000). Or, if you made 60,000/year, you would be short 18,000. It is nice that people like to talk about cutting or balancing the budget, but unless you are willing to cut SS, Medicaid, and or Medicare, it is pointless. (Defense is complete different. To lower that, you have to stop waging war on everyone.)
In addition, I don’t have any hard stats, but I do know many of the companies that made it through the past couple years still pumped money into R&D. The idea that we could do without teflon sounds nice, but doesn’t quite work. Technologies don’t advance in a vacuum. It reminds me of a game called Civilization where you start off with very basic technologies like pottery. Once learned, you are able to research newer techs, and newer techs. Soon, you are researching space tech. I know it is a game, but the same is true for tech irl. A simple search on Teflon produces a plethora of uses, many of which are not personal. One that I did not know was with the Manhattan Project. And as a point of clarification, Manhattan Project 1942; Space program 1958. Teflon was not invented by NASA, but by DuPont in 1938. So before you say things like, “I could do without Teflon” make sure you are willing to give up every single thing that relied upon it, and every single tech that relied them. You might as well say, I could do without any tech, or further, I could do without my club just like my ‘ancestors’ did. (not trying to slam by calling you a caveman, but rather the premise that techs are invented in vacuums leads to pre-club living)
But I digress. Was the shuttle program worth it? I don’t think anyone can quantify its worth. However, for 1.2c/day I would continue it in some form.
This is why we can never balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending. Never! You can cut every single budget item in the discretionary spending category and we would still be short 634B (That is part of the problem, we put a B instead of writing it all the way out: 634,000,000,000). Or, if you made 60,000/year, you would be short 18,000. It is nice that people like to talk about cutting or balancing the budget, but unless you are willing to cut SS, Medicaid, and or Medicare, it is pointless. (Defense is complete different. To lower that, you have to stop waging war on everyone.)
In addition, I don’t have any hard stats, but I do know many of the companies that made it through the past couple years still pumped money into R&D. The idea that we could do without teflon sounds nice, but doesn’t quite work. Technologies don’t advance in a vacuum. It reminds me of a game called Civilization where you start off with very basic technologies like pottery. Once learned, you are able to research newer techs, and newer techs. Soon, you are researching space tech. I know it is a game, but the same is true for tech irl. A simple search on Teflon produces a plethora of uses, many of which are not personal. One that I did not know was with the Manhattan Project. And as a point of clarification, Manhattan Project 1942; Space program 1958. Teflon was not invented by NASA, but by DuPont in 1938. So before you say things like, “I could do without Teflon” make sure you are willing to give up every single thing that relied upon it, and every single tech that relied them. You might as well say, I could do without any tech, or further, I could do without my club just like my ‘ancestors’ did. (not trying to slam by calling you a caveman, but rather the premise that techs are invented in vacuums leads to pre-club living)
But I digress. Was the shuttle program worth it? I don’t think anyone can quantify its worth. However, for 1.2c/day I would continue it in some form.
Daniel,
You missed the analogy. The thinking being lampooned is that since the big problem is so big, we don’t need to worry about the accumulative little problems. As I said before, I never meant that the space project alone could balance the budget. I have said, cut everything to one degree or another. I have only stated, repeatedly, that the space program is one of those things that must go way down the priority list. It is not a necessity, and we are deep in debt. Should have been halted several years ago, along with many other programs, until there was money to consider restoring it again.
In addition, you make my point in your third paragraph. You switch from government R&D to private enterprise. I assume the private companies are making a profit and have money to spend on R&D, or their doors would be closed. The government doesn’t have the money right now. Everything non-essential must go, and many of the essentials must be squeezed.
You missed the analogy. The thinking being lampooned is that since the big problem is so big, we don’t need to worry about the accumulative little problems. As I said before, I never meant that the space project alone could balance the budget. I have said, cut everything to one degree or another. I have only stated, repeatedly, that the space program is one of those things that must go way down the priority list. It is not a necessity, and we are deep in debt. Should have been halted several years ago, along with many other programs, until there was money to consider restoring it again.
In addition, you make my point in your third paragraph. You switch from government R&D to private enterprise. I assume the private companies are making a profit and have money to spend on R&D, or their doors would be closed. The government doesn’t have the money right now. Everything non-essential must go, and many of the essentials must be squeezed.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
All do respects Chip, we cannot even come close to balancing the budget if we stop all discretionary spending. To name a few: Health and Human Services (84B), Education (64B), Housing and Urban Development (42B), Justice (27B), and agriculture (25B). Again, this is not that we are just cutting their budget, but that we are completely getting rid of these programs. Even if we include Defense we are short 55,000,000,000.
NASA may not be all that important, but again, let me put it in an analogy we can understand. You make 60k/year. You are over your budget by 36k/y 3k/m 98/d. You are saying we should start with budget items like going out to eat to Burger King (see last paragraph) should be cut.(183/y 15.25/m 50c/d) Sure, money is money, but c’mon, any individual would immediately look at their budget and realize they cannot start balancing their budget with this. They would realize, if they know math, they have to sell their merc and buy a Kia to save 200/month or take public transportation and save even more. Downsize their apartment by 200$/month. (although, for an individual to be this behind is probably near impossible to balance, unless they had some major extravagant things that cost closer to 750-2000/month)
With all that said, what has to happen is a drastic cut on Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and defense, say 350B for each. That puts us still 244B short. However, that number is much easier to reduce by cutting some discretionary spending, although I don’t think it is possible without crippling our government. But then again, if you completely got rid of NASA, you are still only dealing with 2.7% of that 244B deficit. That is better and easier to comprehend, but still extremely far from balanced.
My point about companies was that some companies, despite not having money, still put money in R&D. But, I cannot find the article yet, so I will leave that alone.
Was off on the math, it is more than once a year. Sorry to not do the math correctly.
NASA may not be all that important, but again, let me put it in an analogy we can understand. You make 60k/year. You are over your budget by 36k/y 3k/m 98/d. You are saying we should start with budget items like going out to eat to Burger King (see last paragraph) should be cut.(183/y 15.25/m 50c/d) Sure, money is money, but c’mon, any individual would immediately look at their budget and realize they cannot start balancing their budget with this. They would realize, if they know math, they have to sell their merc and buy a Kia to save 200/month or take public transportation and save even more. Downsize their apartment by 200$/month. (although, for an individual to be this behind is probably near impossible to balance, unless they had some major extravagant things that cost closer to 750-2000/month)
With all that said, what has to happen is a drastic cut on Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and defense, say 350B for each. That puts us still 244B short. However, that number is much easier to reduce by cutting some discretionary spending, although I don’t think it is possible without crippling our government. But then again, if you completely got rid of NASA, you are still only dealing with 2.7% of that 244B deficit. That is better and easier to comprehend, but still extremely far from balanced.
My point about companies was that some companies, despite not having money, still put money in R&D. But, I cannot find the article yet, so I will leave that alone.
Was off on the math, it is more than once a year. Sorry to not do the math correctly.
By the way, these videos should really be watched by all to help us understand numbers beyond a couple thousand. http://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies
Ok, this is me sighing (couldn’t find a smiley). Let me say it one more time.
I AGREE.
CUT EVERYTHING.
Not just NASA. Not just discretionary funds. Everything! I spoke directly about NASA because that’s what this thread was about - NASA. I don’t care how small the effect on the overall budget. NASA is NONESSENTIAL. Cut it. Then take that big red pen and move elsewhere in the budget. And keep cutting nonessential and shrinking essentials until we can get the budget under control. Then, when we have discretionary funds again, let’s start debating about the best use of those funds.
I AGREE.
CUT EVERYTHING.
Not just NASA. Not just discretionary funds. Everything! I spoke directly about NASA because that’s what this thread was about - NASA. I don’t care how small the effect on the overall budget. NASA is NONESSENTIAL. Cut it. Then take that big red pen and move elsewhere in the budget. And keep cutting nonessential and shrinking essentials until we can get the budget under control. Then, when we have discretionary funds again, let’s start debating about the best use of those funds.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
To prevent us talking past each other, why don’t you list a few of the items you find essential in comparison to the space program. I’m curious to know what great items should get our money that we would save by cutting all of NASA, rather than just the shuttle program. Or even which discretionary items would take precedence over the space program. Would any of them include scientific research and exploration?
To prevent us talking past each other, why don’t you list a few of the items you find essential in comparison to the space program. I’m curious to know what great items should get our money that we would save by cutting all of NASA, rather than just the shuttle program. Or even which discretionary items would take precedence over the space program. Would any of them include scientific research and exploration?
Dave Barnhart
Ok Dave, I’ll spitball for a minute.
I don’t think the fed should be involved in education. Localize and privatize. That’s almost 1 trillion in 2011
I think welfare should be substantially limited and eventually phased out - localize and privatize. That’s .5 trillion this year.
Military spending is currently 59% of discretionary spending. Surely that can be cut back, though I think it is one of the top priorities of gov. Withdrawing from the wars is a huge portion of that expense. I would have been more in favor of toppling the regimes and leaving than performing a decade of dubious nation building.
Pensions represent almost 1 trillion this year. Reduce the size and scope of government. Deregulate. Return the work force to the private sector. This one is only affected over time.
I am all for complete overhaul. I have no problem research and exploration. I focused on NASA because it was the subject of this article.
Basic premise = we must live within out means
Basic premise = we cannot support current spending
Basic premise = all non essentials must be cut until we can find “extra” money again
Basic Premise = if that still doesn’t get us back within budget, essentials will have to be trimmed (see 1st premise)
I don’t think the fed should be involved in education. Localize and privatize. That’s almost 1 trillion in 2011
I think welfare should be substantially limited and eventually phased out - localize and privatize. That’s .5 trillion this year.
Military spending is currently 59% of discretionary spending. Surely that can be cut back, though I think it is one of the top priorities of gov. Withdrawing from the wars is a huge portion of that expense. I would have been more in favor of toppling the regimes and leaving than performing a decade of dubious nation building.
Pensions represent almost 1 trillion this year. Reduce the size and scope of government. Deregulate. Return the work force to the private sector. This one is only affected over time.
I am all for complete overhaul. I have no problem research and exploration. I focused on NASA because it was the subject of this article.
Basic premise = we must live within out means
Basic premise = we cannot support current spending
Basic premise = all non essentials must be cut until we can find “extra” money again
Basic Premise = if that still doesn’t get us back within budget, essentials will have to be trimmed (see 1st premise)
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]
Military spending is currently 59% of discretionary spending. Surely that can be cut back, though I think it is one of the top priorities of gov.
I actually don’t substantially disagree with your trims, but you don’t list much of what you consider essential, other than military (which I also agree with, within reason — clearly we cannot keep supporting current levels).
I am all for complete overhaul. I have no problem research and exploration. I focused on NASA because it was the subject of this article.
I get that you don’t consider NASA essential. What I don’t know is what (other than defense) you consider an essential expense. Obviously, I still think what we get from it is worth more than it costs, and you don’t, which is why I would make cuts elsewhere to keep NASA.
I also understand you “have no problem” with research and exploration, but I can’t tell if you consider it an essential or not. I’m guessing that you don’t.
Basic premise = we must live within out means
Basic premise = we cannot support current spending
Basic premise = all non essentials must be cut until we can find “extra” money again
Basic Premise = if that still doesn’t get us back within budget, essentials will have to be trimmed (see 1st premise)
I don’t generally disagree with your basic premises, though we might quibble over the “essentialness” of some things, which is why I wanted to know what you consider essential.
Dave Barnhart
I think, based on Romans 13, that the primary essential is defense. Given our current age, infrastructure would also fit within the parameters of promoting and protecting an environment where good can thrive and evil is punished. Research and exploration would also fall here, though I think another step removed from infrastructure, so less important. However, I still think that the vast majority of this ought to find its source in the private, for-profit sector rather than government.
I know this is still very general. I’ll try to throw out some more specific details later. If you have any particulars to throw out for conversation, I’d be happy to bat them around with you as well.
I know this is still very general. I’ll try to throw out some more specific details later. If you have any particulars to throw out for conversation, I’d be happy to bat them around with you as well.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I should add lest someone misunderstand, defense and domestic peace in the first sentence.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 #fb
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 #fb
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Ok Dave, maybe I need to rethink funding of NASA.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - read http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gapin… here.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - read http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gapin… here.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Discussion