Government Involvement in Spaceflight

[Jimbo07]

Hey gang, this is a follow-up from a sci-tech thread. To what degree should government be involved in spaceflight? The poll options don't reflect the full complexities of these issues, so feel free to discuss distinctions like engineering research vs. other research.

Let the feud begin...

ETA: I've made the poll multi-option, so you could choose, say, to fully fund all other science, while providing grants only to human spaceflight... or vice versa.

 

[fagin]

Send the whole lot of them into orbit?

 

[Rob Lister]

your poll excludes so many middles that it looks like a donut.

 

[Jimbo07]

your poll excludes so many middles that it looks like a donut.

Damnation. Like what? I've put seven options. We can only break this down to 20... and hopefully I can edit polls.

Unless, of course, we just wanna turn this into a fight over poll construction...



ETA: I thought of really paring it back to Human Spaceflight: Yes/No, and just letting the feathers fly!

 

[Pope130]

Jimbo07,
I had to go with the Planet X option. You did not include "A combination of International Partnerships, Government operations, Government/Private sector partnerships and private initiatives." Which would have been my choice. Nor did you include "We shouldn't be throwing money away on space." Which would be more of the Flat Earther position.

Robert Klaus

 

[Jimbo07]

Jimbo07,
I had to go with the Planet X option. You did not include "A combination of International Partnerships, Government operations, Government/Private sector partnerships and private initiatives." Which would have been my choice. Nor did you include "We shouldn't be throwing money away on space." Which would be more of the Flat Earther position.

Robert Klaus

I live in Canada, so "Government" means the government of any country, through partnership or not. I'm okay with that distinction.

As for the hodge-podge of approaches, that is what's happening anyway. I guess I could have put a status quo option, and a do nothing option. Good suggestion.

Note:

*** Mods! *** or... I need an adult! I need an adult!

Can I edit the poll, or should I close up shop here and start a new one?

 

[Pope130]

Jimbo,
I think the 'hodge-podge' approach is the best. While there are certainly problems with current programs, I don't think forcing a single track solution will improve things.

I would like to see some changes. For example; go to long term budgeting for major programs to eliminate the huge fluctuations in annual budgeting from political squabbles. This will make programs much more efficient, and make finding International partners easier.
I think NASA should get out of the operations business. NASA is very good at developing new things, but not structured for day to day operations. Routine Shuttle operations would seem to fit much better in a military environment. Something all those OCD SAC veterans would be good at.

Robert

 

[Random]

I personally like the public funding/private enterprise model of federal prize bills. Come up with a clearly defined objective or objectives, then offer a sum of money for the first people to accomplish it. If no one does it, the government keeps its money. Lather, rinse, repeat as needed.

Of course, I also feel this model should be applied to a wide variety of other lines of research, but that’s just me.

 

[uruk]

The hodge-podge aproach seems best.
I'd hate to see any space project get axed.

 

[Jimbo07]

So, other than criticism of my post-building abilities, this hasn't been much of a throw-down...

 

[drkitten]

So, other than criticism of my post-building abilities, this hasn't been much of a throw-down...

Well, it's not really an answerable question, is it? "Spaceflight" is so broad a topic that we can't really discuss the merits of the topic as a whole. There are undoubtedly some specific projects that the government MUST take an active part in, whether in negotiating treaty and commercial rights in space (when we discover the unobtainium mine in the asterolid field, who has the right to exploit it?) or in establishing safety standards (what's the acceptable risk in puting an atomic pile in space?) There are undoubtedly some private efforts (applied research, for example) for which government funding is appropriate. There are also undoubtedly some efforts that the government shouldn't touch with a bargepole -- my proposal to fly to the Moon by strapping 225,000 hummingbirds to my body and breathing out of a Pepsi bottle, for example.

As far as I can tell, there are only two answers that any rational person could give. Either "it depends" (which is not a choice on your poll), or "stay the hell out of space," which is a rational but Luddite choice, and probably not the first choice of more than 1% of the Randi readership.

 

[Jimbo07]

As far as I can tell, there are only two answers that any rational person could give. Either "it depends" (which is not a choice on your poll), or "stay the hell out of space," which is a rational but Luddite choice, and probably not the first choice of more than 1% of the Randi readership.

Right, so summing up the valuable options I've missed so far:

i) The status quo mixture of projects
ii) Stay on Earth altogether
iii) It depends...

Any more?

ETA: Actually, hold the damned phone. My thread title is "Government Involvement in Spaceflight." Stay the hell out of space has nothing to do with government involvement. That's okay. This isn't a poll about whether or not humans should travel in space, but I really should have (and I think meant to) include a "Government should not be involved in any manner" option. Curses! Partly, it has to do with the fact that you proof read the poll after selecting how many options. I tried to lay out my options on paper first. Clearly I've missed some things...

 

[drkitten]

ETA: Actually, hold the damned phone. My thread title is "Government Involvement in Spaceflight." Stay the hell out of space has nothing to do with government involvement.

I disagree. If something is in general stupid and shouldn't be done, then the government in particular should not be involved in it. The government, for example, should not be involved in selling cigarettes to children except possibly to prevent it. "Stay the hell out of space" is a legitimate government policy -- and in fact, it leads directly to another question. If you believe that that we should "stay the hell out of space," does this include the government actively prohibiting and preventing space exploration by private parties, the way it prevents mining in the Everglades?

 

[Complexity]

Where is the 'No not fund spaceflight at all' option?

I had to vote 'Planet X'.

I have nothing against spaceflight, but a government has no right to take money and use it for this purpose.

 

[Jimbo07]

If you believe that that we should "stay the hell out of space," does this include the government actively prohibiting and preventing space exploration by private parties, the way it prevents mining in the Everglades?

Actually, I would have broken that down as follows:

iv) "Government should not be involved in any manner"
v) "Government should legislate against!"

Governments get involved with stupid projects all the time. The Canadian government used to heavily subsidize tobacco farmers before essentially turning on them.

The purpose of the poll was to generate discussion, so in your case, a person could have picked v) "legislate against" then gone on to explain that it was because of their distaste for spaceflight in general...

ETA: Complexity, thankfully I at least have a planet X option...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't know, have we gained any scientific knowledge from sending people into space? Or is it more of a pride matter?

I say cut silly manned exploration.

 

[Damien Evans]

I don't know, have we gained any scientific knowledge from sending people into space? Or is it more of a pride matter?

I say cut silly manned exploration.

Yes, we have gained scientific knowledge from sending people into space. Phantomwolf or The BA will be able to tell you more about this than I can, but anyway, here I go...

We have learned a lot about human physiology from spaceflight (muscle wasting,changing of the way the body absorbs and uses chemicals etc.), we have performed scientific experiments with humans in space that would not, at the time have been possible without humans (more info here)

However, we have learned much more from non manned satellites so far, and in general non manned satellites are much better value for money in terms of scientific achievement than manned flights are.

I hope that made sense.

 

[rats]

I believe the only sound argument for government-funded manned spaceflight is to encourage and inspire more people into science and engineering. That's the only economic, scientific, and political argument with any robustness.

Unfortunately there aren't sufficient devoted funds in the US and Europe to continue all space science-type research to the current excellent level AND develop a proper manned spaceflight programme. Something has to be axed. What would you choose? Probe to Pluto? Climate research? LHC?

The science can be achieved by probes and robots (albeit at a possibly slower rate), while the possible technological benefits of manned spaceflight are possibilities, not definites. We definitely will (and do) get many benefits from concentrating on the more affordable probes and robots.

The arguments flavoured with exploration, great human achievements, we won't know until we do it, etc. can and most likely will be achieved by the private sector eventually.

It's a difficult decision, and I'm glad I don't have to make it!

 

[uruk]

I believe the only sound argument for government-funded manned spaceflight is to encourage and inspire more people into science and engineering. That's the only economic, scientific, and political argument with any robustness.

For the most part in the present time I will agree with you. The hard benefits in manned spaceflight are long term as the technology and techniques develop and mature. But right now Manned spaceflight is technically still in its infancy. Well maybe in it's terrible two's

Unfortunately there aren't sufficient devoted funds in the US and Europe to continue all space science-type research to the current excellent level AND develop a proper manned spaceflight programme. Something has to be axed. What would you choose? Probe to Pluto? Climate research? LHC?

If I had my druthers I wouldn't cancell any of it.
But Manned flight has been cancelled before. And I believe we have suffered a loss because of it.
Apollo's long range plans were to end in a long term lunar presence with a research base.
It never had the chance to even try. (They even built a roving platform that was based on the Lunar Module cabin. It is presently being refurbished to be dispalyed at the Smithsonian)
If it had been allowed to continue we could have had an established presence there already.

NASA knows that it is public opinion that drives the purse strings. And all those things you mentioned in your first statement NASA hopes will convince the people to loosen those purse strings.
Sadly, NASA seems to be dropping the ball in that area.
Although it is doing great given the circumstance in robotic exploration.
But then that was never cancelled.

The science can be achieved by probes and robots (albeit at a possibly slower rate), while the possible technological benefits of manned spaceflight are possibilities, not definites. We definitely will (and do) get many benefits from concentrating on the more affordable probes and robots.

Back in Apollo's era those benefits were definite. People who lack or lost the ability to control thier body temperature have Apollo to thank for thier freedom. The development of micro-computers that lead to the desktop or laptop your using to read this owes it start to Apollo also.
If manned spaceflight hadn't been canceled back then those benefits would be closer to being definite now.

The arguments flavoured with exploration, great human achievements, we won't know until we do it, etc. can and most likely will be achieved by the private sector eventually.

I agree. Especially so if NASA is forced to kill manned spaceflight. Right now NASA is our only ride untill the private sector gets up to speed.

Other countries are just now getting involved. China is pushing forward with manned launches of thier own. So far they have put three people up there on thier own, and India wants to get in the game.

It's all good in my eyes. But as an American I would hate to see my country give up on it as other other countries push forward.

It's a difficult decision, and I'm glad I don't have to make it!

Well I glad that you see that there is some value in manned space flight. Not many can see it.

 

[Jimbo07]

Okay, we all know my bias, I just want to point a couple things out...

The only thing we learn from putting men in space is what happens to men in space. Where's the excitement in that?

This isn't a reasonable argument against spaceflight. I could just as easily say that it's very exciting. Our personal excitement won't sway the other.

For the cost of a manned mission to Mars, think of how many moons of Jupiter you could explore.

I'd guess that the media frenzy would be much more pronounced for a single landing on Mars by people, than a half-dozen robots to the Jupiter system. Many people relate... to people! They care about the human story.

Indeed. But the really amazing, awe-inspiring stuff we've been getting lately (including the stuff you refer to here) is from robots and unmanned probes, not from manned missions.

Again, you're using the words "amazing," and, "awe-inspiring." These are no more reasonable for your position than they are for mine.

We don't need people to get the whole "my god, it's full of stars" effect.

Many people need that human dimension to relate meaningfully to anything. They need someone to say "my god, it's full of stars," rather than just having a picture. That's why astronauts get speaking gigs, outside their agencies. People at dinners want to hear first-hand stories.

When's the last time you looked at a photo of people bouncing around the ISS or shuttle and thought, "Wow!"?

Every time.

I can't remember. But it hasn't been that long since I saw some Hubble or Cassini picture that I couldn't take my eyes off.

Oh look, another colourized picture of some tiny (in terms of arcseconds) patch of the sky...

Actually, I can't be that disingenuous. I tend to find Hubble photos cool.

...

Anyway, I don't know if you noticed or not, but you made several appeals to emotion here. I don't share those emotions. C'est la vie...