Spacing out
Is it natural that when
trimming a budget, space programmes lose out? Or is this author right that inspiration
counts for something? It attracts
budding scientists and makes the public enthusiastic, but is it worth the money? (Be sure to read both pages.)
I need to admit that I really like this article. It deals with issues which I’m familiar with. I’m quite interested in the astronomy and space research. I consider it as an important part of human’s development. Lots of new technologies and devices were invented in space industry. I absolutely agree with Neil’s statement that reaching for stars back our boundaries and stake out new frontiers. Humans are making huge progress because of discovering new parts of the space. It makes us think and find new connections between known facts.
ReplyDeleteI do not deny the fact that such research is quite expensive. However, as Neil mentioned, it’s just a little part of taxes collected. In my opinion, we should support organizations like NASA by variety of ways. Of course, one of the most important is its budget and so some subsidies and government spending should be provided. However, I do not consider myself as an expert in the USA financial systems and that’s why my opinions are not supported by any factual evidence.
I would like to say few words to the statement made in the article that by increasing NASA’s budget, entire generations will be attracted. I think if some part of NASA’s budget were/is used to attract for example students by variety of workshops, lectures or competitions, this would really encourage young people to engage in the astrophysics. According to me, in Slovakia, there isn’t sufficient emphasis from schools and government on expansion of astrophysical awareness. I mean, there are few students who would like to do something with astrophysics, but there are almost no opportunities for realizing themselves. Since astrophysical devices are expensive, schools are not able to provide them to students and so the astrophysics isn’t usually taught at schools. Moreover, the astrophysics is one of the hardest departments of physics and that’s why even teachers may not be very pleased with teaching it. I think that with support of government the development of the astrophysics at schools can be achieved. If NASA, with support of government, were to organize some events focused on astrophysics, more students will think about astrophysics as their future career.
As is mentioned in the article, many new devices were not invented in the particular industrial department to which they are now assigned, but they were invented in some different department. Lots of new conveniences were firstly made in space industry and after that were applied to daily life. That’s why I consider space industry as not only playing an important role up in the space, but here, on the Earth as well.
I think the astronomy is really interesting and demanding departure of science. It offers huge understanding and requires huge knowledge. I haven’t written this comment in the same way as article was – trying to “wake up Americans,” since it was dealing with American space industry, but I made it more general, since the space is ours all culture.
The author of the article made an impressive calculation of the proportional cost of supporting NASA space research for an average USA citizen. I think that to most people it would appeal how little it really costs them. Nevertheless, I don’t think this is the best way of justifying government’s subsidy to space research. May it be an effective psychological trick to convince people, it certainly isn’t very objective due to lack of comparison with other governmental spending. Therefore I think this way of justification is also a little ethical.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I didn’t find convincing even the real justifications the author proposed. I see small chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth in the future we can imagine. I don’t mean to say that it is totally unperspective to subsidise NASA research, but I don’t think it is worth quarrelling about the height of the governmental support if it’s a matter of quite distant future and not really clear expectations from it. One thing that I believe more than any economic predictions i accuracy of the astronomic calculations concerning the probability of an asteroid hitting us. That is, as far as I know, still very low. Thus I see the argument of an asteroid threat equally lame as the giving up of personal goals due to fictive threat of war or an excuse for passivity at providing help to an injured person based on one’s inability or lack of knowledge about giving first aid. However, the author tried to explain, though it took me another reading to get it, the importance of NASA research covering different fields. I too believe that space research centres hold up the world’s biggest capacities which maz contribute to the most revolutionary discoveries qnd inventions of our millennium.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the opinion of many: “Why are we spending billions of dollars up there in space when we have pressing problems down here on Earth?” And I fully understand Neil deGrasse Tyson’s irritation over it since it doesn’t hold a single valid argument. I think that even long term goals are worth supporting. And even if we might not agree on concrete goals of space research, there surely are many places worth researching and there are things to be discovered that could push our knowledge of the world in many areas of study a long way forward. Last of all, and I am not sure whether to say this, but I feel that maybe the finances are used more effectively in the outer space than down on Earth. I don’t want to really undermine for example education or healthcare support, but the author himself proclaimed that USA’s infrastructure is in critical condition.
I completely disagree with any arguments against the funding of space exploration. People would not have a problem with it if they had their priorities set correctly. If (as Rasto says) a government is capable of spending 27% of tax dollars on military and less than a single percent on space exploration, it is just sad, but if people complain about that one percent that has the potential of great discoveries and do not care about 27% spent on something that has the potential of destroying the human race, that is incredibly ridiculous. People just do not know what do do with themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of the article that talks about problems down hear on Earth is valid. The assumption that it should have any impact on space exploration is false. What kinds of problems are we talking about? Diseases without cures? Only smoking itself causes spending of 167 billion dollars in healthcare to cure the conditions caused by smoking every year. People cause (and pay for) many of their own problems here on Earth and then fix them (and pay for their fixing). Unless people eliminate all the problems they pay for themselves (such as smoking), they have no right to use this argument against the funding of a space program. Furthermore, why do you think the USA spends so much money on military funding? I am sure it is not with the goal of “solving” any problems that we have down here on Earth.
Now as to what Kristina said, I think that the probability of a war is way higher that the threat of an asteroid hitting the Earth. But this is because of the investments people make into the military. We hold control over the probability of a war, but spending 27% of the tax dollars on military funding shows how stupidly we use this control. Furthermore, for the sake of this comment, let's say both these threats are (as you say) of equal probability. Which one is a greater threat? I think the asteroid is way more threatening than a war. At war you have the possibility of negotiation. With an asteroid it can prove rather difficult.
People cannot stop reaching for the stars. People need to expand their horizon of possibilities constantly for the sake of their growth. “Reaching for the stars” is what lead this civilization here, to the point where I am typing this commentary on a computer instead of a clay tablet. People cannot solve their problems here on Earth without “reaching for the stars”.