The best way to fund science is to cut taxes on capital and to cut tax rates on the wealthy.
Do the wealthy fund long term scientific research projects?
Bill Gates sure does with his Global Health Program.
Why we need a space program
31–35 of 35 posts
Re: Why we need a space program
#32I've been trying to find this quotation from Neil Degrasse Tyson but haven't been successful. It's one of my favorite perspectives on NASA's budget (and specifically the the importance of lavish, public, manned missions). Paraphrased: Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer, considering the return is a generation of American kids interested in math and science.
>Investing only $19 billion dollars a year is a no-brainer, considering the return is a generation of American kids interested in math and science. This attitude has brought NASA to the lack of relevance we see today. Astronauts spending hours on video chat with middle-schoolers and the use of precious payload to put ant colonies into orbit are not serious ways to advance a space program. When NASA was about explorin…
I wonder if there is any sort of correlation between the dumbing down of science and people's interest in learning more about some complicated topic. Are we killing some of the allure for people who want to know more about a subject because maybe at some level they are driven to be an expert in something no one else they know is?
Re: Why we need a space program
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Space exploration is just one of many such wasteful examples. Only if you place low value on the scientific returns. Science research is one thing the private sector does poorly, and it's something NASA does a lot of. The other main area is human spaceflight which you could say is wasteful, but NASA did a lot of the high cost low return R&D for human spaceflight. Now private companies can go into the effort with ti…
Science research is one thing the private sector does poorly, and it's something NASA does a lot of. Yes, but... NASA does very little space science compared to non-scientific human space travel. Their budget for launching humans into space (Apollo, STS, ISS, Constellation) -- for shits and giggles, basically -- is orders of magnitude greater than their budget for actual science. Icy Moons, James Webb, LISA -- real s…
I appreciate that you know some details about some space missions, but unfortunately your understanding of advances in science instruments, measurements, and research at NASA is utterly wrong. Just completely wrong.
In fact, for the most part, science missions at NASA are now, and have been, guided by reports of the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science. They produce "Decadal Surveys" which basically are ranked lists of mission proposals.
There's one for Earth Science, in particular, that has been very closely tracked by NASA mission proposals (see http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-surveys/). Every potential mission team scrutinizes this list and tries to position their work to be responsive to these science goals. For the list of mission concepts, see http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11820&page=8...
The menu of missions is rather amazing in its scope, novelty, and potential to advance the understanding of Earth systems like pollution, aerosols, solid earth hazards, land use, vegetation, weather, etc.
Re: Why we need a space program
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science research is one thing the private sector does poorly, and it's something NASA does a lot of. Yes, but... NASA does very little space science compared to non-scientific human space travel. Their budget for launching humans into space (Apollo, STS, ISS, Constellation) -- for shits and giggles, basically -- is orders of magnitude greater than their budget for actual science. Icy Moons, James Webb, LISA -- real s…
I appreciate that you know some details about some space missions, but unfortunately your understanding of advances in science instruments, measurements, and research at NASA is utterly wrong. Just completely wrong. In fact, for the most part, science missions at NASA are now, and have been, guided by reports of the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science. They produce "Decadal Surveys" w…
I'm sure I'm ignorant about NASA research, but I don't understand your criticism. NASA projects are very much directed by politicians: i.e. the James Webb cancellation was caused by Congress, not NAS policy.
"US lawmakers vote to kill Hubble successor"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gLvaDP1Tm...
I don't argue that NASA doesn't do useful science, but that their useful science is crowded out by big-budget, 12-figure manned space missions, and that its political nature (it is a government agency) is the reason for this.
Re: Why we need a space program
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate that you know some details about some space missions, but unfortunately your understanding of advances in science instruments, measurements, and research at NASA is utterly wrong. Just completely wrong. In fact, for the most part, science missions at NASA are now, and have been, guided by reports of the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science. They produce "Decadal Surveys" w…
I'm sure I'm ignorant about NASA research, but I don't understand your criticism. NASA projects are very much directed by politicians: i.e. the James Webb cancellation was caused by Congress, not NAS policy. "US lawmakers vote to kill Hubble successor" http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gLvaDP1Tm... I don't argue that NASA doesn't do useful science, but that their useful science is crowded out by big-…
I respect your inquiring tone.
What I'm trying to say is that you're focusing on a couple of high-profile examples, and the politics don't have the all-encompassing effect that you think they do.
(I love politics, and I'm very interested in the interplay between missions and politics, but your estimate of the interaction is way, way overblown.)
There are some "poster children" for the influence of politics in NASA. JWST is one, Hubble was another, so is/was the manned program (Constellation and its predecessors), and also some elements of the Mars program.
It's appropriate that politics influence some of this. It's citizens who fund this work, and their representatives, for better and worse, vote on funding. The portions of NASA that are most visible externally (same as the list in the previous paragraph) are the most subject to politics.
[[ Note on JWST: it was not cancelled, as you seem to think. The House voted against it. But all its support is in the Senate (Sen. Barbara M.'s district includes GSFC and STScI, which run JWST) and there's no way it will be cancelled. NASA watchers know this. But JWST is being sent a message, because it is way over-budget. And that is the politician's business. ]]
The political process described above is very distasteful to nerds.
But that's not all there is, and my references to the Earth program above were intended to illustrate that. That roadmap I linked to has about 12-20 missions planned out to 2020 that will have a huge impact, and there's very little political influence there. It's nerd's wet dream, a bunch of scientists at the National Academies contemplating what measurements will best advance the efficacy of various earth system models.
Modeling accuracy does not interest the citizenry, except when they want to know a hurricane's path or the amount of seismic deformation of an earthquake or what the water levels in reservoirs will be next year or what forests are healthy or ...
So the question comes down to proportion. I don't know the most recent figures, but various "science" stuff is certainly more than 1/3, probably almost 1/2, of the NASA budget. One can argue about the boundary cases.