The Dark (seriously, very dark) future of human space flight

[Kryten]

Also note complete lack of welfare. Nice to see space travel is worth more than stopping the long-term unemployed from starving to death.

[Pipcard]

It would be good if NASA had 1% of the total budget instead of 0.5%, but 10% is too much

edit: They had over 4% during the middle of the Apollo program (mid-60s, prior to the actual landings). But when adjusted for inflation, NASA in 1966 had a budget (US$43.6 billion) about two-and-a-half times bigger than NASA in 2014 (US$17.6 billion).

Edited April 28, 2015 by Pipcard

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

I's say maybe 5%-8% is just right.

[AngelLestat]

There may well be some economic benefit to a Mars program (after all, the money we'd spend on it wouldn't be loaded into a spacecraft and shipped to Mars, we'd spend it here on Earth)

I just wanted to remark this.

As many here have already argued, we can do very high value science using robotic probes for a fraction of the cost of a manned mission.

Yes, but we also gave many reasons for manned mission which never was addressed by you guys, the only thing that you keep mention is cost.. ignoring all the others benefics which are a lot!!

But the main benefic is that you get extra budget for these kind of missions, a type of budget that you never will get for unmanned missions.

Take a look in apollo program, at one point was cancelled just for one reason.. lack of public interest.

It was not a money problem.. is about public interest.

There was not real goal for the upcomming missions, it was just kinda a copy from the first ones.

The same mistake that Nasa wants to make with the new moon missions, of course the first mission will have the world attention.. but it will be for 1 week tops.

People wants adventure.. reach a place where nobody was before, with a real goal and risky, they need new heroes, they need to experience the adventure as if their were there.. that is something that a robot can not give us.

46 years past since our last step... how many years more we need to wait???

Edited April 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[LABHOUSE]

Also note complete lack of welfare. Nice to see space travel is worth more than stopping the long-term unemployed from starving to death.

Let that be taken care of by private means.

[ZetaX]

You can want as much adventure as you want: the money for that won't come from nowhere. The extra budget for manned missions is indeed somewhat easier to sell to the masses, but what is the point of getting ten times as much money to do the same amount of actual science¿

[AngelLestat]

What USA budget should be:

10% - NASA

7.5% - military (gets higher in war time if war started by another country, goes to zero if we want to start a war)

35% - education

20% - infastructure

15% - other

everything left over - paying back debt

I agree. Maybe 7.5% nasa and extra to other.

[PakledHostage]

People wants adventure.. reach a place where nobody was before, with a real goal and risky, they need new heroes, they need to experience the adventure as if their were there.. that is something that a robot can not give us.

Where were you when Curiosity landed on Mars? What about Philae? Trust me, it wasn't just space-minded people who paid attention. Most of my wife's facebook friends were watching those events live, just as my non space-minded wife and I were doing. Most of those people would rather crush a beer can on their foreheads while watching a hockey game than pay attention to anything "sciencey", yet they were right there cheering on Philae and MSL.

[ZetaX]

Let that be taken care of by private means.

Really... because that worked so well in the past...

If you are so much against big government then you should _also_ be against money for NASA; let private companies do that. There it is at least a far-fetched possibility, as there is some money to get very long term.

[Kryten]

Let that be taken care of by private means.

Because that's worked so well when it's been tried, hasn't it?

[AngelLestat]

You can want as much adventure as you want: the money for that won't come from nowhere. The extra budget for manned missions is indeed somewhat easier to sell to the masses, but what is the point of getting ten times as much money to do the same amount of actual science¿

is not the same amout of science.. you need to add the science comming from the development and the social impact.

Also you do many times more than a single robot can do, and you go back with huge terabytes of data and superHD for the masses.

After all that is people´s money.. what they get with robot missions? just a few parameters on temperature and pressure? which not everyone has access..

From their point of view is like just paid to see some scientist obtain what they want.. but only for them..

You need to give them also something. The Coliseum age is not over.

Edited April 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[LABHOUSE]

I agree. Maybe 7.5% nasa and extra to other.

If NASA gets equal to military, than military should become less too.

[AngelLestat]

Where were you when Curiosity landed on Mars? What about Philae? Trust me, it wasn't just space-minded people who paid attention. Most of my wife's facebook friends were watching those events live, just as my non space-minded wife and I were doing. Most of those people would rather crush a beer can on their foreheads while watching a hockey game than pay attention to anything "sciencey", yet they were right there cheering on Philae and MSL.

I was waching with my brother. But nobody else that I know watched or care.

Maybe in your friends group you have many people interested in that, but take a look to real stadistics, probes popularity is almost non existing.

If NASA gets equal to military, than military should become less too.

With the time yes.. but only for maintenance they will spent that. It will be like drop money already spent.

This is sad by the way:

Military expenditures 2014.

[Kryten]

You can't drop that much without breaking treaty commitments to NATO and Japan. You made your bed, you need to lie in it.

[PakledHostage]

I was waching with my brother. But nobody else that I know watched or care.

Maybe in your friends group you have many people interested in that, but take a look to real stadistics, probes popularity is almost non existing.

Well I guess, once again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think you're comparing apples and oranges. There was huge interest in the first Apollo landings but even by the time of Apollo 13 very few people cared. At least not until after the infamous "problem". And certainly far fewer people cared about the space shuttle program and the ISS than cared about Apollo. Science isn't supposed to be a popularity contest or a gladiatorial sideshow. The MSL and Philae landings showed that many non space-minded people can get excited about robotic missions and maybe even be inspired by them. Maybe not as much as boots on the ground on Mars might, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd rather that the limited budgets that are available be focused on the highest scientific ROI rather than "inspiring the masses" (whatever that means).

[Reddragon]

This is sad by the way:

Military expenditures 2014.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/a67df2ec0ec59fe9f762a1389d2c5a47.png

Saudi Arabia has a bigger defense budget than Russia? That's rather surprising. But I have to agree. The US defense budget just got boosted this year by 38 billion dollars for 2016 as an "emergency war funding". More than 2 times the annual budget of NASA.

[Kryten]

Saudi Arabia has a bigger defense budget than Russia? That's rather surprising.

They're currently going into headless-chicken mode over Iran, and are doing large procurements of expensive western equipment and Chinese ballistic missiles. Russian procurement is pretty limited and is mostly from less-expensive domestic providers.

[tater]

That is not sad at all, someone has to spend what the U.S. spends on defense. The ESA should be better since someone else ponies up the expense of worldwide policing so they don't have to. Mexico might be able to help at some point, as they share our 2 ocean geopolitical position (so does Canada). We get some space stuff into the bargain, too.

[FishInferno]

So you think space exploration is worth about as much as all other research combined¿...

Like, say, cancer treatment, vaccinations, genome research, material science, ecology, climate, ...

yes, because space exploration may very well force us to solve some of these problems

[tater]

Also note complete lack of welfare. Nice to see space travel is worth more than stopping the long-term unemployed from starving to death.

About 2/3 of US spending is "welfare," in fact. Those numbers are discretionary spending, which is about 1/3 of federal spending. The other 2/3 is "programmatic" spending and is automatic. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Note that the States also spend money. A lot of money. The majority of most State spending is Medicaid and education. Local government spending is also huge. The budget for the NY City school system is 23 Billion alone. So US defense is actually a much smaller percentage of total government spending than people think.

Edited April 28, 2015 by tater

[ZetaX]

yes, because space exploration may very well force us to solve some of these problems

And it does that by encountering aliens¿ It is very likely that traveling to mars won't solve a single one of these issues except maybe material science.

Seriously, that's now way to justify spending on NASA.

[magnemoe]

Saudi Arabia has a bigger defense budget than Russia? That's rather surprising. But I have to agree. The US defense budget just got boosted this year by 38 billion dollars for 2016 as an "emergency war funding". More than 2 times the annual budget of NASA.

Yes that one surprised me too, on the other hand KAS is in an rough neighborhood.

For the US the emergency war funding is going away, that is unless more stuff happens.

- - - Updated - - -

About 2/3 of US spending is "welfare," in fact. Those numbers are discretionary spending, which is about 1/3 of federal spending. The other 2/3 is "programmatic" spending and is automatic. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Note that the States also spend money. A lot of money. The majority of most State spending is Medicaid and education. Local government spending is also huge. The budget for the NY City school system is 23 Billion alone. So US defense is actually a much smaller percentage of total government spending than people think.

This is true in most first world countries, most is by various agreements.

[tater]

Most non-direct welfare spending is another kind of welfare… NASA is a jobs program, basically. It's like military bases, the Pentagon wants to dump most of them, and so do congress critters… as long as the bases are in another district, then the base is critical to national security.

A new space race with China would be cool, because it would be a rationale for cool, manned stunts (like the Moon). Otherwise, we'd be better off with robots---and probes are vastly more capable now than they were in the 60s and 70s due to modern computing and electronics. You could possibly argue in the 1960s that men were the best way to collect rocks (particularly a geologist), but that's simply not the case any more.

I'm for humans in space… just because it is cool. Just because I think it is inspiring. I don't delude myself that it's "for science," however.

[musicpenguin]

I personally believe that, Within my lifetime, We will put a Man on Mars.

[tater]

This is true in most first world countries, most is by various agreements.

True. My point is that people usually mischaracterize US spending as being "50% military" when in fact only ~20% of US federal spending is military, and that drops a bunch of you include even just State spending. The US is better compared to the entire EU. Also, people fail to realize that the majority of US spending is social programs by a long shot.