My conclusion is that public funding for NASA should be zero, unless we have good evidence that some kind of market failure will cause us to miss out on an opportunity to achieve widespread benefit, and the resources we use to get that benefit cannot presently be used to achieve any greater benefit. NASA should raise funds through voluntary contributions, from people who enjoy the benefit of NASA's work. If the funds are insufficient to support a space station, the happy result is that people may choose to direct their resources — their money — on outcomes that they prefer to space stations. Are you on board with that? Is private spaceflight so unrealistic? (I expect a lot of those companies are cozy with NASA, but still. If the justification for NASA is that people who pay for it benefit from it, let's cut out these annoying middlemen!) Thanks for your kind words. I enjoy the conversation, and would like to contribute more than I do.All that I can say to you is "yes".
I still don't know how to defeat the "but what about starving kids?" question. Can we just fucking feed them and clothe them and love them? Apparently not. And my lifestyle isn't immune from criticism, by any means. The only silver linings are some feelings of empathy and guilt that suggest I may still have a conscience. We've probably both seen/heard how unsatisfied people in our generation have been with the lack of funding, and in the manned spaceflight sector, particularly. There generally seems to be a waxing interest of space in America. This has not yet translated into more $'s to NASA, but it may in the very near future. So if we threw out federal tax allocations and made it a kickstarter-style money distribution system? I think NASA (or whatever was propped up in its place) would have more money than it does right now, to the detriment of many other scientific endeavors. And if people got to decide what the space program got to do with the money? Oh shit, now I'm in trouble. It would probably all go into manned spaceflight and exploration, which... is great, but I'm still of the thought that Mars is nothing but a death trap for humans at this point in our development. And that's our best candidate, other than the moon. God, we're frail little beings. So no, I guess I'm not on board. A scientifically-illiterate populace has no business solely dictating science policy and funding, despite the fact that we're not much better off with the current rash (HA, SUBTLE) of politicians. The nasty bureaucracy of NASA at least has us targeting the most feasible and practical goals, as decided by actual scientists in the field. There's some "self-service" arguments to be made here, I'll concede, with which you could tear me to shreds. Besides, you can donate money to NASA, and I don't know of anyone that does. I'll tell you straight up, Space-X is the shit. Musk will become a symbol of innovation in the history books. But Musk isn't doing science for anything other than building a product. I'm not demonizing that, because it's a beautiful process with obvious results, thriving in a capitalist economy. My beef is that no-one does science for the sake of science without federally allocated money. Is "pure" science necessary? I think we both agree that it is, but we're not in agreement on the balance and implementation of it in relation to the free market. Big projects with little public benefit don't do well. The JWST deserves criticism, but that's not necessarily NASA's fault exclusively. The entire space industry has a really shitty culture of low-balling cost estimates. Just like everyone else begging for federal grants! There are things about NASA we need to fix, but I think discarding it entirely would be throwing out the baby with the bath. P.S. Your investment math is interesting, but still makes assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with. Great food for thought though, thank you for it, I'll need to revisit it if I plan to address it.NASA should raise funds through voluntary contributions, from people who enjoy the benefit of NASA's work. If the funds are insufficient to support a space station, the happy result is that people may choose to direct their resources — their money — on outcomes that they prefer to space stations.
Is private spaceflight so unrealistic? (I expect a lot of those companies are cozy with NASA, but still. If the justification for NASA is that people who pay for it benefit from it, let's cut out these annoying middlemen!)
That was a cheap shot that probably defeats everybody. If we are honest, we should admit that in practice most of us have priorities other than feeding starving kids. Some feelings of guilt are probably appropriate. But if someone were to come and take most of your money and use it to feed starving kids, wouldn't you object, and fairly? Sure, and I've also heard people complain about slow data service on their cell phones, beach traffic on three-day weekends, and expensive beer at airports. I don't hear many people complaining about gunfire in their neighborhoods, inadequate supplies of canned goods, and unreliable hot water. I don't feel comfortable assuming that people with those complaints don't exist. I am very uncomfortable with the thought of forcing them to pay for research they may never even be aware of, even though my sister has never been bitten by a rat. So, do you say it is justified for others to dictate to the populace how their resources will be used to fund science (1) for their own benefit, or (2) for the benefit of others? In the first case it strikes me as paternalistic and presumptive to say that the illiterates will definitely benefit by having their resources managed by outsiders, and that they would definitely get inferior results by managing their own resources. In the second case it seems uncomfortably akin to simple theft. That's a fair criticism, but the biggest assumption I made was that your speculation of an eventual energy payoff from exotic research would come true. My assumption of the value of this payoff also, I think, favors your side. My joke about waiting to buy the energy from Elon Musk conceals an important point. Allowing people to risk their own resources seeking potentially valuable energy sources means a lot of them will fail (perhaps even coming to ruin) but also that many more possibilities may be explored. Society's "managers" don't have to pick the right one. Maybe Elon Musk will hit a dead end, but someone else will find the secret of cheap, clean energy.what about starving kids?
We've probably both seen/heard how unsatisfied people in our generation have been with the lack of funding, and in the manned spaceflight sector, particularly.
A scientifically-illiterate populace has no business solely dictating science policy and funding
Your investment math is interesting, but still makes assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with.