the space shuttle

[LoAmi 0]

While your argument has merit, but I'm more apt to take the fiscal conservative route and agree with Harry. Quite a lot of tax payer money is invested into a program that yields very little results. A billion dollars can go a lot further here on Earth for that same medical and scientific research than it can up in space. The best alternative/compromise, in my mind, is to allow the private sector handle research and development and if they see any reasonable purpose in researching the things of space, let them.

The shuttle itself, I think, has largely been a disappointment when it comes to scientific and medical experimentation. While a few experiments have been done up there, performing experiments on the shuttle never really became possible as a regular occurrence. Flying things into space is too uncertain and costly. Perhaps the most successful thing the shuttle ever contributed to science was repairing the Hubble Space Telescope. In contrast, the unmanned space program has been a huge scientific success. The economics of it, like the economics of most basic physics research is not conducive to private sector involvement. There are no short term rewards in it, and the long term rewards are going to be more public knowledge, rather than a commercially viable product.

 

That doesn't mean that there is no purpose to the manned space program. Thanks to the experience of NASA developing the possibility of space travel, we now have the chance of a commercially developed space program to take hold. Perhaps space tourism and fast low-orbit space planes are what will fuel manned space flight in the future, but, I find it highly unlikely that the private sector would take the risks for the benefits of pure science.

[FredM 0]

Quite a lot of tax payer money is invested into a program that yields very little results.

Hey there,

 

I again have to disagree. I think an analysis I read from some government report found that for every one dollar spent by NASA, there is a direct/indirect return of about two dollars to either the public or private sector. And before someone asks, no...it isn't an "immediate" return. Sometimes it takes years for the return to materalize but such is the way of science.

 

There are some tasks you simply cannot expect unmanned probes to handle, such as the Hubble Space Telescope. Had the shuttle program not existed, that device would never have been launched...much less repaired. Furthermore, again, I put into serious question the motives of the public sector. There isn't a financial gain in performing most of the research that's conducted...at least not yet. Even if the shuttle program ended tomorrow, I think we would still be getting benefits from it for decades. Experiments conducted in the early 1990s are just now finding practical application.

Edited August 19, 2005 by FredM

[Yaxela 0]

I feel compelled to agree with Fred, in as far as human spaceflight is concerned at least. The heyday of space exploration brought with it tremendous advances in, at the very least, materials science and rather less tangibly gave a generation an aspirational idea. The X-15 and SpaceShip One wouldn't exist without the Space Shuttle, but then arguably neither would the stealth projects or most of the recent developments in command and control systems; the manned space program is innately a good thing, and while the applications may not always be immediately obvious, with a little persistence we can benefit massively from it.

 

Harry makes a good point in saying that we should clean up our own house and spend on domestic applications before space exploration. But then, if we didn't spend money on space exploration, would we really spend it on anything useful?

 

The US Federal Government subsidises the tobacco industry while paying for anti-smoking campaigns. The European Union pays for the exorbitantly wasteful common agricultural policy. In the light of these things, the Space Shuttle is quite a reasonable expense. The terminal cost of the space shuttle program is estimated at US$174 billion. Compare this to the Eurofighter; Austria recently bought 18 Eurofighters (and who is Austria going to be at war with in the near future? The South Tyrolean Rebels?) at the equivalent of US$2.3 TRILLION. Ouch.

[Dumbass 0]

Hey there,

 

I again have to disagree. I think an analysis I read from some government report found that for every one dollar spent by NASA, there is a direct/indirect return of about two dollars to either the public or private sector. And before someone asks, no...it isn't an "immediate" return. Sometimes it takes years for the return to materalize but such is the way of science.

 

There are some tasks you simply cannot expect unmanned probes to handle, such as the Hubble Space Telescope. Had the shuttle program not existed, that device would never have been launched...much less repaired. Furthermore, again, I put into serious question the motives of the public sector. There isn't a financial gain in performing most of the research that's conducted...at least not yet. Even if the shuttle program ended tomorrow, I think we would still be getting benefits from it for decades. Experiments conducted in the early 1990s are just now finding practical application.

A 1:2 payout ratio over the life of an investment is what we economists, financers, and accountants call "crappy" given other investment alternatives.

Edited August 19, 2005 by Dumbass

[Yaxela 0]

A 1:2 payout ratio over the life of an investment is what we economists, financers, and accountants call "crappy" given other investment alternatives.

It's better than Premium Bonds.

[eagle 0]

ostrich with head in sand=0 return.......think about it...