This is a good topic.
endlessness said:
The letter linked by vodsel has at least some thorough and justified reasoning but still faulty IMO. One of the reasons mentioned to defend the program to mars is that it will lead into improved technologies and that it will make more people interested in science and so on. First of all, this is a supposition. Secondly, the money didnt have to be spent in a mission to mars for that and having some potential distant long term benefits, it could be spend on science education or on projects related to sustainability (or both, how about financing the best ideas arising in schools related to science/sustainability?) for the same purpose and quicker direct rewards.
What you say does ring with common sense, but makes me wonder about actual studies and reports about the cost-effectiveness of the space race. I have read none, and in any case, the question should not be whether space exploration and astronautics has been profitable so far, or might be profitable for the human race in the future. The relevant question is whether
now it is cost-effective or not.
I mean... during the cold war, the power struggle pretty much marked the agenda. Technological advances were there, but since they often might have been a simple side effect of a political maneuver inside of the space race, since the scientific factor was often collateral in the aspect of funding, I'm pretty sure there was over-spending. Even if only due to poor logistics and rushed deadlines, maybe in one side more than the other.
The NASA budget reached 4,41% of US federal budget in 1966, with project Apollo in full development. But the resulting boost in foreign prestige for the US seemed to justify the cost. In year 2000, it was a 0,75%, and it's been decreasing since then.
Does that mean we have less needs now for science progress? Does that mean that the need for (with your permission, clouds) Scientific progress, inspiration, solid evidence, world peace and appreciation of truth are devaluated? Obviously not. So the political game has changed, and after the moon, the next visible step for cosmos exploration involved a huge leap. And that prestige factor, or the weight of foreign politics and public opinion, have become too expensive to feed.
Of course that the Voyager missions, the Hubble telescope or the SETI program have been able to reach and involve common people. I mean, disregarding achievements like miniaturization or satellite technology. But the sociopolitical impact is much lower than it was. And the world has changed a lot in the last 30 years.
My point (and my current feeling about this) is that the inspirational and cohesive elements of space exploration are not strong enough now. Yes, they are there. But they are not enough to fuel the machinery able to trigger a global difference in the mentality of people through space exploration. So for those reasons, the Ernst Stuhlinger letter is probably outdated.
And about Scientific progress and solid evidence, we can basically agree that any crucial achievements to be made with space programs are in the long run, or in the middle run at the most. I think right now we are in a state of emergency that requires short term investment and reaction. So I mostly concur with endlessness when he says that money would probably be more useful placed in other budgets.
But I would never sign a petition to remove NASA funds in order to allocate them somewhere else, for a different reason. It would be profoundly IMMORAL to punish a productive, hopeful, exciting department while the US keep a billionary budget in war occupation, or invested in the black hole of financial bailouts, or <fill space here with anything else you can think of>.
I think it's a legit, deep controversy, but slightly off-time. I wish the world was reasonable enough to address it soundly. Now it feels a little like worrying because your family might be overspending a little in travelling, but overlooking the fact that dad is burning one third of his salary in booze.
