A Reason to Keep Manned Spaceflight Going: The Economy

[BReif]

Over the past few weeks, since the flight of Discovery on STS-114, and the continued problems of foam shedding, I have heard voices coming from certain camps that the Shuttle Program should, from this point, cease to exist, and others, more radical, that manned spaceflight should cease to exist. Often times the reasons cited for this are risk versus benefit, cost to the American taxpayer, and other reasons. <br /><br />I would like to suggest to you that one very good reason to continue our manned spaceflight programs is not "because it is there" (though that may be a good reason), but to continue to aid the economy of the United States. Whether the space shuttle system continues to fly until 2010 or not (I am not interested in entering that debate), manned spaceflight programs have created a fairly large number of jobs, both within the space agency itself, and also among private corporations that are in the Aerospace industry, as well as other firms that support the industry. Just about every type of job that one can think of has a place within the overall space program, from an aerospace engineer or electrical engineer, to an accountant, to a food service provider, to a janitor, and everything in between. Not all of these jobs are government jobs, but many, if not the majority, are jobs that exist within the private sector that supports the efforts of manned spaceflight, and other spaceflight programs. These jobs enable thousands of people to have income, which in turn is spent in the free market place, fueling the economy. If those jobs were lost, that would signal a loss of income, a loss of purchasing power among individuals in that industry, thereby reducing economic growth (perhaps not by much, but some). <br /><br />Remember what the halmark of President Clinton's first campaign was: "Its the economy stupid." Well, the same is true in the case of the aerospace industry, and the space program, perhaps more so than anyone may realize. <br /><br />What I fi

 

[kdavis007]

Good enough for me...

 

[paleo]

One can walk and chew gum at the same time.<br /><br /> There is no reason why a manned spaceflight can't be good for the economy AND be productive and efficient.<br /><br /> The biggest benefit of the space program, however, is not the economy. The principal benefit is fostering a dynamic scientific infrastructure. That infrastructure, in turn, has benefits throughout society and the world. This isn't quite the same as tracing the direct reationship between manned space technology and quality of life (sometimes they are exaggerated) but more just the general importance given to science in a society. It all comes down to making more 10-year-olds interested in the sciences whether it be space or any other science. As a 10-year-old I was glued to following the exploits of cosmonauts and astronauts of the mid 1960s. I had some posters of Soviet rockets on my wall. No, I never went into the space sciences but did go into the sciences. I'm sure that all over the world in the mid 60's future scientists were playing with their model rocket kits and collecting space stamps.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">manned spaceflight programs have created a fairly large number of jobs, both within the space agency itself</font>/i><br /><br />Strictly speaking, those aren't real jobs that contribute to the economy. You are taking ~$5-10 billion from the tax payers and simply redistributing it (with a substantial penalty caused by the friction of the government process). If you didn't take that money from the tax payer, they would have spent it themselves, thus generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It all comes down to making more 10-year-olds interested in the sciences whether it be space or any other science.</font>/i><br /><br />While I don't have any solid numbers to back this up, I do think this is the most important contribution of the space program.<br /><br />I remember someone saying that it takes 10 years to create an engineer or a scientist -- 4 years of college courses in an appropriate major, 4 years of the right classes in high school to get into a science or engineering major in college, and 2 years in Jr. High to get prepared for those right classes in high school.<br /><br />Statistically speaking, if the person is not interested in science by Jr. High, they won't become an engineer or scientist 10 years later.<br /><br />If the government thinks that science and engineering are important to our economy and national security (see Hart-Rudman Commission report, Feb 2001), then the government should play some role in encouraging a flourishing scientific and engineering base in this country. I can think of no better recruiting tool to excite Jr. High students to begin the journey to becoming a scientist or engineer than a flourishing space program.<br /><br />From the Hart-Rudman report:<br />http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The scale and nature of the ongoing revolution in science and technology, and what this implies for the quality of human capital in the 21st century, pose critical national challenges for the United States. Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter century.<br />...<br />The harsh fact is that the U.S. need for the highest quality human capital in science, mat</p></blockquote></i>