Ares I supporting 1,500 ATK employees

[j05h]

<i>... the ONLY industry left to this country that runs a positive balance of payments in international markets IS the American aerospace industry!</i><br /><br />That is a reason to support more private-private aerospace development. A boom in aerospace would do wonders for our economy. It is not an argument for Pork. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What could be wrong with American tax dollars going to American companies that hire American workers to do things for the American people that are paying the tax dollars in the first place???<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Because its the Bastiat's Broken Window fallacy, often taught in economics 101.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Myth #1: The Broken Window - One of the most persistent is that of the broken window one breaks and this is celebrated as a boon to the economy: the window manufacturer gets an order; the hardware store sells a window; a carpenter is hired to install it; money circulates; jobs are created; the GDP goes up. In truth, of course, the economy is no better off at all.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[nyarlathotep]

It's much worse than that, your ignoring the opportunity cost. The resources misallocated by the state into having our most highly educated engineers break and fix windows or refurbish SRBs are resources that would otherwise have been put into constructing things like say search engines, medical equipment, bridges or even better rockets. <br /><br />One has to wonder how much greater the US would have been had half a million of the best and brightest not been wasted for a decade with pointless busywork to bring back a couple pounds of moonrocks. Ditto for Vietnam, but I suppose that was more like ten million.

 

[windnwar]

Except in the process of figuring out how to bring back those few hundred pounds of moonrocks we were pushing new boundaries in areonautics, fabrication techniques and materials research among many other things in order to accomplish that task. Technology transfer from our space program has been quite immense over the years, and with as little money as we put into NASA to get that research versus the payback from that tech, i'd say we definately got our money worth out of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

One of the main reasons why our aerospace is as good as it is, happens to be the research that has been paid for by the taxpayers. It is my opinion tha this is not pork, as in the long run the value of that research is more than paid for by the ROI of the industry (which is then returned to the government in the form of corporate taxes).<br /><br />In actuality, I fully support both more funding for the government's efforts and the efforts of the private industry. <br /><br />As a matter of fact, one of the largest supports for the private industry is going to be the governments efforts! The $500 million for spacex's development of the Dragon capsule for the supply of the ISS is as much as just about all the efforts so far of all the private interests put together!<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

This fallacy fails almost completely when the work being done is in new technologies. Otherwise why is it that the prices of such items as computers keep going down, while the capabilities of such machines keep going up?<br /><br />If you replace the older type of broken window with a newer far better insulated window, the savings in fuel alone over years far more than makes up for the costs of the new window!<br /><br />Economics should be more common sense, and less theory!<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

An excellent post! Welcome to SDC! <br /><br />The minimum ROI for the space program that I have seen is some 6x the original investment, all the way up to some 14 x. As usual in such cases the truth lies some whare in the middle at about 10x.<br /><br />Even at a relatively low tax rate of 20% the government would still be getting back 2x its original investment. So it IS an investment and NOT an expense. So there IS NO pork in the space budget!!<br /><br />I don't understand why we even have people on these boards that can't seem to understand this. If you don't support ALL space efforts (government AND private) why are you here???

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This fallacy fails almost completely when the work being done is in new technologies. Otherwise why is it that the prices of such items as computers keep going down, while the capabilities of such machines keep going up? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />i am tired of arguing this over and over. No, NASA did not invent computers, Velcro nor Tang and the entire Constellation program is strictly set on using no new technologies.<br />The act of breaking and replacing windows has no direct impact on developing better technologies, its entirely tangential topic.

 

[windnwar]

And yet in the quest to make Orion lighter, i'd be willing to bet new things will be made, or new methods of doing things will be done. NASA wasn't the first to come up with many technologies, however because of the unique requirements they often have, NASA ends up finding better methods of using or making such items, leading to improvements we wouldn't see otherwise. NASA currently owns over 1,000 patents, most of which have been licensed back to industry in order to let them take them even further. As long as there is a space program, there will be new materials, computing and aerodynamic research that will come about much faster because there is little else that needs to push new boundaries as fast. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<font color="yellow"> The act of breaking and replacing windows has no direct impact on developing better technologies, its entirely stangential topic. </font><br /><br />Sorry about that, but you are the person that brought the subject up in the first place! If you bring up a tangential subject to prove your point, and then somebody else comments on it, then don't complain about it. I am indeed perfectly happy to drop it!<br /><br />As to the importance of NASA, why if you don't support the relatively minor funding of NASA do you even post on a place that has space as its primary object? It is entirely possible to both support the efforts of the government through NASA and still support the efforts of the pure for profit private companies also. In point of fact, if you don't think of the major aerospace companies as also being private, then your understanding of what a private company is not exactly too very good!<br /><br />It is relatively simple. If you can buy stock in a particular company (and you certainly can for the major aerospace companies) then those companies are private companies!<br /><br />I know of no governments, even at the local levels that sell stock! You can buy government bonds for usually specific government purposes, but that is not quite the same thing.<br /><br />That is the way a capitalist (or if you wish a socialist) society and governmental system works!<br /><br />It is not too difficult to understand!<br /><br />This makes it quite easy to both support the pure alt.space efforts and the governmental ones also! I really don't care who gets mankind into space, I just want to see it done!!<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

WOW! You are really very good at bringing up pertinent facts to support what is a very good position!<br /><br />You know, I have stated many times (and some still don't seem to understand) that it IS very possible to support both NASA and alt.space. To my knowledge nobody has set up rules to exclude one point of support from the other! The reason that I do get tired of those that continually take shots at NASA all the time is that I don't continually take shots at the alt.space groups myself. Other than a reasonable position where I do think a little realism is somewhat in order for some of the enthusiastic of some of the more adamant supporters of those efforts!<br /><br />Even then, I do try NOT to use the brand of sarcasm that some use here against NASA! It is THAT kind of sarcasm that I don't think belongs here!!<br /><br />For those that do that "If the shoe fits wear it!", otherwise please forget my previous comments!

 

[no_way]

i dont understand what are you on about. there must be a reading comprehension problem of some sort.<br /><br />I pointed out that you were using a flawed, oft-repeated economic myth to justify government spending, and also explained that technology development is not relevant in this context ( i.e. it happens due to other factors, whether you are breaking windows or not )<br /><br />What exactly are talking about in those last posts ? <br /><br />EDIT: oh, and a personal plea. could you please cut down on exclamation marks ? they make your posts look .. is hysterical the right word ?

 

[frodo1008]

As others have also so well put it (please read windnwar's excellent posts) there IS economic justification for NASA's budget. It just happens to be my opinion that the opinion that you hold to the contrary is incorrect.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, it would not even matter if your opinion was correct for the immediate future, in the long term such support by the American people will prove to be the best investment this country could ever make. At the time it was made by president Jefferson the Louisiana Purchase was also thought to be folly. However, as now know even just the economy of the state of California is the sixth largest in the world, I don't think anybody is going to think that way anymore. I would like to think that the parallel to the almost infinitely greater possibilities of a future space civilization in just this solar system alone should not be lost on anybody of reasonable intellectual ability.<br /><br />IF going into space by either the governmental efforts or the alt.space efforts (or even better both) is ever going to pan out for mankind, then what I have just said is the truth. If not, then what on Earth are we doing here on a site such as space.com?<br /><br />No exclamation points, Happy now?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[solarspot]

frodo, I have heard many times from many sources about the positive effect space operations have on America's economy. However I am not an advocate of space colonization because building spacecraft is good for the economy on Earth, but rather the actions we take in space itself have a tremendous effect on our future as a whole. My bet: the VSE will have a positive medium-term (5-20y) effect on America's economy, but will only be slightly better than Apollo (went 6 times then stopped) or Shuttle for humanities future in space. I am, most definitely for government and private spending on space-based endeavors, however finding a better way to do figure-eights around the moon does very little to further our future in space.<br /><br /><br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>there IS economic justification for NASA's budget.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, for quite some parts of it. Where did i claim otherwise ? However, justifying it simply on the grounds that tax dollars gets spent domestically, and people have jobs, is wrong. <br />You made that argument, i pointed out that this argument should never be used to justify anything, its a well known fallacy, unless you wanna mislead your listeners. Now, what exactly are you arguing against ? <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>what on Earth are we doing here on a site such as space.com? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I, for one, have quite keen interest in space. I want humanity to expand into space in significant numbers in my lifetime, and even more importantly, i want the enormous economic potential of space to put to use to make life better on earth.<br />To that end, i will be flying across the pond to meet some people at X-Prize cup this year and possibly have a job interview, should my skills be of value for people making my wishes happen.<br />We are on this board to discuss stuff happening with space and related to space and to learn something in the progress and possibly educate others occasionally. I, from time to time, am tasking myself with pointing out logical flaws and factually wrong data in these discussions as well.<br /><br />You ? <br /><br />And thanks for that punctuation thing, honestly it was a much better read.

 

[frodo1008]

If it was only to just go back to the moon (even for much needed further exploration) I would probably agree with you.<br /><br />However, one of the direct benefits of the Apollo program was the analysis done on both the lunar rocks brought back and the lunar regolith also brought back. This analysis shows that the lunar soil contains almost all of the metals currently used in space craft construction. Such as iron, titanium, aluminum, magnesium, etc, etc.<br /><br />Further these materials are already locked up in a vast quantity of oxygen in the form of oxides. <br /><br />These materials can either be processed directly on the moon or shipped from the moon to be processed in space itself. Because of the moon's very light gravity, and its lack of an atmosphere, it will be possible to use electrical powered mass launchers to literally throw these materials (either after being processed or before) off of the moon. Thus saving on both rockets themselves and rocket fuel.<br /><br />There is also the very real possibility of finding lunar ice from comet hits in the deeper (and always shaded) craters around the lunar poles, This creates even more opportunities to use lunar materials.<br /><br />As a matter of fact one of the first places to be visited is going to be such a place. This is where NASA hopes to establish an actual base for such activities.<br /><br />This is extremely important to the future of a space faring civilization as it will bring the price of building space structures down by magnitudes over bringing these materials up from the gravity well of the Earth.<br /><br />And all of this without even the possibilities of He3 for possible future fusion power for the Earth.<br /><br />To say nothing of using craters for very large radio telescopes on the hidden side of the moon!<br /><br />Enough reasons to go back? Or would you like more? <br /><br />

 

[solarspot]

I never said we shouldn't return to the Moon. I firmly believe the Moon and/or asteroids should be our center of attention for the next two to three decades. However I do not particularly agree with the Ares I/V , Orion combination, or indeed the general implementation of America's return to the Moon. Apollo was a good start, and vastly improved our knowledge of the Lunar surface. The Shuttle helped in a vast amount of scientific research, not to mention inspiring (more or less) a generation about spaceflight. The only problem is, if we keep spending so many billions on programs that achieve such small increments towards settlement of space, it may take several centuries before we have much more than commsats and spysats in there. I personally hope we can speed our future in space beyond this. Call me an optimist, but there must be a way to take less than half a millennia to become a truly spacefairing civilization.<br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Me? I happen to be just one of the 400,000 people that placed men on the moon in the first place with the Apollo project. I also had a part in the manufacture of such rocket engines as the RS27 for the Delta II, the Atlas II system, the SSME, RSS68, and even the linear engines for the X33. I would like to think that I have already done my part in the space efforts of the US.<br /><br />And YES, as there is already far more actual pork and out and out waste in the federal budget than NASA's ENTIRE budget. I have no difficulty at all in paying taxes for NASA's efforts. Even if it means employing large amounts of American middle class workers!<br /><br />Would spending money on NASA be worse than spending far, far more on wars on other peoples soil that only makes such people only hate us the more?<br /><br />We already dumped the greatest space program the world has ever seen for dropping bombs on rice paddies in South East Asia. Do we now have to do it for the deserts of the Middle East also?<br /><br />To me at least, complaints about spending what little the federal government spends on NASA are just not appropriate for this site. Just try to make a meaningful excel chart of the expenses of the various efforts of the federal government. Either your scales have to be so large to give NASA a chance of even showing up that the chart becomes absolutely unmanageable. Or the NASA bar just disappears in the general noise of the bottom line.<br /><br />When we did such truly great things in space in the 1960's the NASA budget was an average of only 2% of the federal budget (with a high of some 4%, in 1965). And this still does not seem to be very much to me at least.<br /><br />NOW, in the face of the inflation of the last 40 years, NASA has a percentage of some 0.55% of the federal budget.<br />I am truly amazed that they have been able to even keep the shuttle and ISS going (while still doing all the other things that they do) at all. As difficult as it has been they have

 

[frodo1008]

I am sorry, I did not mean to sound harsh. At this time there is no other way than NASA's current plans to go back to the moon in any reasonable time at all. That is just the way it is.<br /><br />NASA itself does indeed have plans to build an actual moon base where astronauts can stay for periods of up to 6 months or more. It is in such a base that we will learn to actually use the resources of the moon itself. When this is combined with the pure private efforts of the alt. space people, then we should be well on our way to such a civilization within 50 years at the most (in the mean time we will learn far more about Mars, and even send human expeditions to that planet).<br /><br />So, I don't think it is going to take some 1,000 years to built a space faring civilization. Heck, I don't think it is going to even take 100 years to make a very good start at least.<br /><br />However, to do this right and without any more risk than is reasonable, it IS going to take some decades at least.<br /><br /><br />