NASA Saved Your Boobs, So You Kinda Owe Them
June 1st, 20106 comments Posted in Politics, Science
Dan says…
Yesterday the space shuttle Atlantis returned from it’s final mission before being retired. The remaining two shuttles in NASA’s fleet, Endeavor and Discovery, will be flying their final missions later this year.
After that? In six months? The United States will not have a single vehicle capable of taking humans into space. If US astronauts want to go into space after that, they’ll have to either drink the cyanide-flavored Kool-Aid and wait for Hale-Bopp to come around again, or hitch a ride on a Russian rocket.
Why? President Obama is scrapping Constellation, NASA’s program to succeed the shuttle program for manned space flight. High costs and changing priorities were his primary reasons.
But in the same breath he also said he’s committing $1.2 billion MORE dollars to the space program annually, over the current budget, and that he hopes that funding will help to create more jobs.
Well, sorta.
Some of that money is earmarked to help get the private sector up to speed on building spaceships. Uh, right. For less than a billion a year (not all of the money is destined for the private sector), President Obama expects the private sector to be able to design, build, test and deliver spacecraft that will be cheaper and safer than what NASA, a huge collection of the smartest people on the planet, with a much larger budget, can do.
Kind of like farming out the military budget to the local militias.
President Obama thinks we shouldn’t bother going to the moon again, and I kind of agree. We’ve been there. Six times. We’re the only country to ever have done it. However, the Constellation program was about building craft and developing technologies capable of sending humans to Mars. The moon was sort of supposed to be practice. Work the kinks out before the family truckster gets all gassed up for the really big trip. By scrapping the moon and Constellation, he’s effectively pushing a manned mission to Mars out well beyond the 2030’s, as he speculates, beyond the time that he’d “expect to be around to see it happen.”
Mars is doable, peeps. Robert Zubrin, one of space exploration’s bigger brainiacs, wrote a book in 1997 titled The Case for Mars (which I’ve read, twice), that lays out several ingenious, low-cost, efficient ways to get people to and from Mars with some regularity. $20-30 billion, from blueprints to sandy Mars footprints.
Obama’s right, though. Times are different. After all the financial giveaways and lingering shitbowl economy, money’s tight. And NASA’s expensive. NASA’s budget this year is $19 billion, and on average, $10 billion of that would go to the Constellation program for the next ten years. With Constellation scrapped, it’d free up most (not all) of that money to go toward other priorities Obama outlined, including upgrades to the Kennedy Space Center, the successor to the Hubble telescope, and unmanned missions deeper into space. All worthy objectives. But it ain’t Mars.
And b-b-b-billions spent on space is a lot of money, without question. Until you compare it to t-t-t-trillions. The national budget for 2010 is about $3.6 trillion. Of that, $1,700 billion is spent on social programs. Is another few billion siphoned from NASA really going to help the American condition?
Anyway, what does NASA do to help us in our daily lives? I mean, what does having men and women in space do for us, other than provide a library worth of video of guys in blue jumpsuits gobbling up floating m&m’s?
Well? You like boobs, right? Men like ‘em. Women like to keep ‘em, not losing them or their lives to breast cancer. Well? NASA SAVES boobs. Mammograms? Biopsies that don’t require massive breast resection just to get a tissue sample? That came from the imaging technologies developed for Earth-orbit telescopes.
And there’s In-home water purification. And rain water purification for developing countries.
Satellite radio and GPS systems.
Cordless tools.
Medical devices.
Fire-resistant materials.
Smoke detectors.
The list is really, really long.
And the technologies developed to get man to Mars will only add to that list. Better insulation technologies. Better heating technologies. Think of all the tech required to turn a vast desert into a somewhat hospitable place for humans to set up shop. That kind of tech can absolutely be translated to helping us Earthbound brethren in solving infrastructure challenges in underdeveloped countries, not to mention our own homes.
Obama claims the $6 billion (over 5 years) he’s adding to NASA’s budget is going to result in more jobs. And he’s right, in a robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of way. The 7,000 people estimated to be jobless as a result of the retirement of the space shuttle fleet and the cancellation of Constellation will be looking for jobs, and some of them may even find new jobs at NASA or in the private sector with that additional funding.
But probably not all of them. So no, it’s not going to result in NEW new jobs, just the re-employment of some of the people who used to have jobs.
Manned spaceflight is important. It forces our best and brightest to find solutions for problems we didn’t know needed addressing, and so far in NASA’s 50 year history, that’s resulted in tangible improvements to the daily lives of Americans and people less fortunate the world over. All of that makes manned spaceflight worth the investment.
The added pride, the celebration of the achievement of humanity, and the re-establishment of the United States as the pre-eminent leader in all things outerworldly (because China, Russia, India and Japan are all working toward manned moon missions in the next ten years)? That’s gravy. Everyone loves gravy.
…but Jane thinks…
If NASA engineering had gone into the construction of the now famous “blowoff preventer,” instead of Halliburton’s for-profit manufactured and seriously faulty work, the Gulf of Mexico might not currently be soaked in oil. The list of innovations and creative applications of technology afforded all of us because of NASA’s work is staggering. There is no question in my mind that as far as government agencies go, NASA has its act together more than most. Nevertheless, pursuing space exploration further at this time would be an irresponsible use of resources.
One of the critics of Obama’s “anemic” new space exploration budget, James Logsdon (professor emeritus at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute and author of “The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest) said this in a round table discussion on the topic: ” The principal benefits from human spaceflight are intangible, but nevertheless substantial. The moon missions of the ’60s instilled in Americans a sense of “international prestige and national pride’…”
You know what else instills a sense of international prestige and national pride? Not having an economy on par with a third world banana republic on the eve of a drug cartel supported coup. Know what else? Not mucking up the planet to such a degree that we have to claim responsibility for the extinction of species, holes in the ozone layer, air and water pollution, and the squandering of precious natural resources.
There’s no reason why the innovations that have resulted from space exploration programs needs to come to a grinding halt. Our scientific capabilities allow for simulations of space travel that can yield tremendous benefits. The potential job losses due to the cutbacks in funding are as yet unknown; so many private companies are already massive contributers of parts, services, labor, and support to the space program, that it would be specious to imply, as some have (not Dan) that the entire population of space program associated employees of NASA will soon be out on the streets, pink slips in hand.
And, as Esther Dyson pointed out, “The U.S. Defense Department may have created the Internet, but had it kept control of the technology, it’s unlikely the Web would have become the vibrant public resource it is today. That credit goes to the investment and activity of private citizens and private companies, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”
Exploration of space is cool. No doubt about it. Far more little kids go to bed at night dreaming of riding in a rocket to Mars than drift off contemplating their glorious futures as inventors of non-polluting, clean energy sources. But right now, we have bigger fish to fry (New! Pre-oiled for your convenience!). Beyond merely being cool, space exploration should be a goal for many of the reasons Dan cited. But until we’ve managed to secure our borders from people who wish to do us harm, protect and preserve our planet and its most fragile and defenseless inhabitants, clean up the already more than 6,000 satellites already launched and junking up the stratosphere as well as the debris from prior launches, explosions, and spacecraft breakdowns, steady and grow our economy, and provide for the educational, nutritional, and healthcare needs of all of our own citizens, it’s a luxury we can’t afford. And as for inhabiting Mars? Let’s prove that we can manage the planet we’ve already got before we go and screw up another one.
Stuff Other People Said:
Now You Talk
But be forewarned: if you get nasty, we reserve the right to delete your comment. Unless what you said was really stupid. Then we may just leave it up so people can take target practice. Pa-ching!
Jane, if you had your way, would North America be as yet undiscovered? I’m sure Spain in the 1400’s had lots of things going on simultaneously, including infrastructure issues, securing borders against attack, disease prevention and management…all kinds of things. But Spain still invested in exploration. Just a little bit of cash on the side to Christopher Columbus. And even in the United States, with Lewis and Clark. The federal government put a little money and resources aside for them to explore the West. And that’s what manned exploration, and even NASA as a whole is – cash on the side for important knowledge acquisition. We need to be able to do this EVEN THOUGH we have all these other things going on, like protecting the environment, improving education for our children, protecting our homeland, etc. Freaking out at the current oil spill and cutting programs to address it is knee-jerk, and you know it. Not to mention, in our telephone staff meeting, we both discussed how this is BP’s problem, and one they’ll have to pay to clean up. Taxpayer bill: zero dollars.
As for Esther Dyson – does she know a Saturn V rocket costs several hundred million to build, presuming all the technology, tools and knowledge base already exist to build it? Pretty ridiculous to compare the internet to manned space missions when the barriers to entry are so disproportionate.
I think part of the problem in defining how future manned expeditions will help mankind comes from not being able to define in advance the problems that will be addressed. Cordless tools, for example. When Kennedy laid out his objective of a moon landing, he wasn’t able to also tout the benefit “..and people of America! We’ll be able to drive a screw anywhere!” So yes, SOME of the benefits are intangible. Others are very tangible (like the things I mentioned originally), but hard to define in advance. But potable water for developing countries without a clean water supply is big. Huge.
Jane, the photo you posted is an exaggeration of enormous proportion, and you know that, too. Many satellites are smaller than an in-window AC unit with wings attached. Others are as big as a small school bus. Let’s do some quick calculations, ok?
The dimensions of a small school bus are roughly 30′ long by 8′ wide, or 240 square feet. If every single one of the satellites were that size (and hello, they aren’t), that would be roughly 1.5 million square feet of two-dimensional, stratosphere-clogging space. (Earth has a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles, for reference.)
A single square mile has 28,000,000 square feet in it. In other words, place all the satellites next to each other on the ground and they only cover 5% of a single square mile. The King of Prussia Mall parking lot could nearly hold all the satellites in space right now. (click here to see for yourself). “Clogging of the stratosphere?” C’mon, Jane. Totally bogus claim. How bogus? Even environmentalists have been winning over some with their idea of shooting a metallic-like dust into the atmosphere to reflect up to 10% of the sun’s rays to help reduce global warming. I’m not going to go so far as to say that the satellites are actually reducing reducing global warming, but they also aren’t blocking anyone’s view of the Pleiades, either.
And all of that aside? The issue of space junk, which was just debunked, is not even on topic.
Jane, you said “Our scientific capabilities allow for simulations of space travel that can yield tremendous benefits.” Name four. And they all better be tremendous. And? Simulations are dependent on our ability to map out space, right? Which depends on what? The ability to build, put into orbit, and maintain (via MANNED SPACE FLIGHT), better space telescopes.
And the hole in the ozone layer has reduced in size by 30%, Jane. Nothing to do but keep on keeping on and it’ll be back to full strength in our lifetimes.
The job loss fallout is not an unknown. It’s real, with estimates STARTING AT 7,000 and going upward from there.
If the world leaders we read about in history books had Jane’s sense of adventure and thirst for knowledge, we’d still be drawing pictures on the insides of caves using charcoal. We can’t bury our heads in the sand on this for decades! The United States is an enormously complex financial, environmental, industrial and psychological ecosystem. The nation’s budget is in the trillions. NASA’s budget is a teeny, tiny fraction of that, and smaller still is the budget for manned space flight. In this complex country where thousands and thousands of balls are juggled simultaneously, we can and should afford a tiny fraction of our budget to propel humanity further into the universe.
Well here’s my thought: I think you don’t reduce funding, take away programs….I think you leave it alone because the reverse is always harder. Increase funding? Add programs?–those battles are tough to win.
JenJen´s last blog ..Can You Help Me With Any of These? (Probably Not…)
I’m okay with paring down NASA for a little while. Let’s take care of a few things before we go inventing new crap that is going to prolong lives (we are already over populated and I can’t stand half the people I interact with. The last thing I want is less cancer and more breaths for them) and making our lives “easier”.
And I’m guessing that if people take issue to the US sending dollars and resources to Haiti? They are probably going to take issues to the US sending dollars and resources to effing Mars.
Also? Let’s not tempt fate on the whole balance of fair treatment of immigrants and aliens. Because to Mars? We are immigrants and aliens.
Lora´s last blog ..Wednesday Spaghetti
It’s sad to not think about watching another space launch. I remember being in grade school watching that stuff. HUGE deal.
But – I definitely agree that most Americans would think sending astronauts to Mars would be a poor use of funds, no matter what technological advancements might come of it.
“Spinoff” is the arcane concept that NASA can develop useful technology, but only as an accidental byproduct of the space program. The reality is the compete reverse. Those NASA projects that provided useful new technology, and they do exist, were almost entirely projects that were funded to develop the specific technology, not developments that were actually needed just so we could send peopleto the moon or the ISS.
Satellite radio and GPS systems – GPS was developed by the military and does not involve human spaceflight. ATS-6, the first experimental direct broadcast satelite was funded by NASA, a laudable accomplishment. But let’s be clear; this was a specific project to test a direct broadcast satelite. It was not spinoff and was unrelated to human spaceflight. Also NASA stopped funding the project even though hundreds of villages in India were using it for educational TV reception.
Cordless tools – NASA itself readily admits that this is a myth: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tools.html
Medical devices. – One medical device of major significance, the Da Vinci robot, actually was developed partly with a NASA SBIR grant. Ironically the Da Vinci has never been flown in space and probably will never be used there since it cannot be used if there is a communication lag between the operator and the robot.
Fire-resistant materials.- a very broad field that has existed for centuries; to my knowledge NASA has not developed anything that is now in general use.
Smoke detectors. Another myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_detector
The list [of myths] is really, really long.
>>that the entire population of space program associated >>employees of NASA will soon be out on the streets,
No civil servants will lose their jobs. But no civil servants (except the astronauts) put their hands on the Shuttle. All the contractors who actually maintain it, the very people who have the knowledge that could allow a new generation of reusable spacecraft to be both safe and affordable, will virtually all lose their jobs. These are the only workers in the world with the decades of experience to tell us how to do the job better with the next generation shuttle, to finally make it possible for people beyond a handful of professional astronauts and billionaire tourists to actually fly in space.
There’s nothing wrong with concentrating on OTHER things while we figure out what the heck we are doing here. Hell, we can’t even figure out how to stop oil from dumping into the Gulf for crying out loud. WTF are we doing on the moon? We can get back there and get all Star Trekky again later. Right now there’s no fucking money for it.
The Domestic Goddess´s last blog ..Where I Channel Esther Williams