Big Science
For the first time in nearly 30 years, NASA has introduced a new space vehicle. The Ares I-X rocket had it's maiden launch (unmanned) on October 28th. Unlike the space shuttle (the only vehicle used in my lifetime), the Ares I-X is capable of lunar and conceivably martian landings. I'll admit that a part of me feels like a child at Christmas when I think about a new chapter of space exploration.But there are questions: Is it worth the exorbitant costs? What are the substantive benefits? Was NASA ever about anything more than beating the Russians?
In defense of space exploration, becoming an interplanetary race surely increases the probability for long term survival in the face of a planet-wide catastrophe (eg asteriod/comet collision). But I think that much of the debate is over "big science" in general; Should we invest billions of dollars to further our understanding of the universe and its governing laws?
Back in 1991, the US began construction of a particle accelerator in Texas that would've dwarfed that at CERN (87 km circumference compared to 27). Congress canceled the project 2 years later, after completing 22.5 km of the tunnel at a cost of $2 billion. Much of the problem was a gross underestimation of the costs (initial $4.s billion, final >$12 billion), but some attributed the decision to the ending of the Cold War.
Should scientific research be based on political expediency? I guess basically everything is. But I see scientific advancement as a primary catalyst to human advancement. New technologies are always preceded by new scientific understandings. And these technologies are rarely foreseen by the scientific researchers. Einstein felt it preposterous that E=mc2 could lead to the harnessing of nuclear energy.
One could argue that while all of our advancements have made life more comfortable for the human race as a whole, that we have more problems than ever (more destructive power, more mental disorders etc). Yet our comfort also opens the way for greater expression in art, literature, music etc. We basically have more time to ourselves to make what we will of it.
For my part, I'm happy to see my tax dollars rocketing into space.
Comments
"Should scientific research be based on political expediency?"
Government funded research and projects are always going to be based upon which NASA project is in which politician's district, or which politician is on which committee, to grease the right wheels to get his pet project done. In other words, actual merits is rarely the reason that one project gets done over another once the government gets involved.
And it's not entirely clear that we need government involved. There's nothing stopping private enterprise from doing scientific research. In fact, when there is a tangible, marketable benefit from research, and that benefits seems attainable, then a private entity is likely to undertake the research. We even are seeing private space exploration on a limited scale because it has become cheep enough and because there are some rich people who really want to go to space.
I think the way to think about this problem is to start with the premise that we have limited resources. Then we just have to ask, how do we use these limited resources? Is letting the government spend the money on space exploration really the best way to use our money?
I know this is your interest, and I agree that we certainly do less productive things with our money. I also suppose there is a possible collective action problem argument for funding some research. Still, I guess I'm wondering whether having the government direct our funds to certain research is really the best way to allocate our limited resources?
You bring up an interesting point of government control. Aside from funding for specific large projects (NASA, partical accelerators)that go through congress, the vast majority of government scientific funding is funnelled through the National Science Foundation. They are a primary source of funding for research at all levels (universities and even high schools). I'm sure that congress determines their budget, but after that I don't know how much involvment politians have in the process of deciding which grants to award. I would think that they have panels of scientists who are a major part of the decision process.
I'm obviously strongly biased on this one, but I guess I'll take inefficient, politicised funding of science over a large reduction in research.
Some scientific discoveries certainly produce positive externalities, which increase our understanding of how the world works, but does not lead directly to a marketable benefit. That knowledge may, however, lead to other discoveries which do have value, or just increase our quality of life, so the knowledge itself does have value, but, its value cannot be internalized to the discoverer. That means there is a solid economic argument for the government funding research.
http://agenda.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTcxN2I1OTM0NzU1ZDU2MjU2NWMxOGMyMTUzNjg1MzI=
But that doesn't mean all government funded research is justified. The benefit has to justify the subsidy. I don't want to say that space exploration doesn't really produce valuable knowledge, but other than Tang (which is a big plus), I'm not sure what knowledge has come from it.
Maybe you could make the case...the case for space. What knowledge has space exploration produced, and how has that knowledge made our lives better? I have some distant memory of someone in school telling me about all the great stuff that we learned from the space race, but I can't remember them now.
Also, does that knowledge justify the billions of dollars we spend on space exploration? My gut tells me no, but I can be persuaded.
Here one take against:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yjg4MDc1NDViZTdhYTMxMzQ5NzU2Y2VkZmE5ZmI5NDU=
and here is an article on privatization of the space race:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806u/space-progam
It is a bit of a unique situation where most of the benefits are sort of byproducts of the actual research goal. Things like Tang and the camcorder weren't exactly what NASA set out to contribute to humanity.
I find it interesting that NASA itself was a byproduct of World War II. Not only in the political sense, but in the rocket technology itself.
Seriously, I think those sorts of tangible benefits to humanity are secondary reasons for pursuing space research. I take the philosphical stance that exploration and the pursuit of knowledge of the universe are worthwhile efforts for their own sake, for the inspiration, and the sense of wonder, even if all we ever get from them is awesome photos of other planets in science magazines. That's why kids want to be astronauts (or jungle/ocean explorers) - not to learn how to make a marketable product.
If you don't find space research inherently valuable, then I do think it's hard to justify the exhorbitant cost by the public. But there is a definite difference between funding space exploration with public and private funds. When we pay for it with federal money, the accomplishments and discoveries belong in part to all citizens. It gives us national pride and a feeling of fellowship. Private research is owned by the company or individual who paid for it. We don't even have access to their research findings unless they choose to share it. I wouldn't have any feeling of connection to it.
That being said, if I was dictator of our country's money, I'm not sure I would fund space exploration right now. It seems like there's too much else that needs money, like infrastructure and education, plus worldwide environmental issues. I guess I have more of a "you can't go out and play until you clean up your room" attitude about it.
-Theresa
1. Satellites - the Russians beat us on this one (as well as many achievements early on), but taking the space race as a whole, the development of satellites was greatly accelerated by the race to the moon.
- The first US satellite was actually equipped to measure cosmic rays (unlike Sputnik which just beeped), and lead to the discovery of the Van Allen belts, furthering our understanding of the Earth's magnetic field, auroras, etc
- Hubble Space telescope - our understanding of the size, age, and composition of the universe changed dramatically
- Confirmation of Big Bang – COBE satellite (launched by NASA) mapped energy left from Big Bang (see my first post - http://guisblend.blogspot.com/2008/12/in-beginning.html)
- Terrestrial activity – the most accurate satellites for tracking hurricanes, ice-bergs, etc. are NASA satellites
2. Spinoff technologies (http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html) – there are some generous attributions here, but I guess the general idea is that we can’t be sure just how much (or how little) NASA has influenced other industries
3. Solar System info
- Moon – composition, age, ideas about where it came from (best guess is that it was ejected from the Earth during a major collision in the early solar system)
- Planets – composition, rotations, rings, temperatures, magnetic fields, etc.
- Sun – solar flares, prominences, sun spots, solar wind..effects on wireless transmissions
- Asteroid/comet detection – we’ve all seen Armageddon right?
4. Inspiration – while the type of national unity seen in the 60’s and 70’s from NASA’s adventures is probably a thing of the past, the effects of space exploration on students’ desires to study math and science are still significant (much more than the “vague uplift” to which Derbyshire refers on the NRO blog)
I think that privatization will lead to some interesting outcomes (space hotel), but I see them mostly as repeating what’s been done. Private funding couldn’t have come close to matching NASA’s accomplishments.
As for waiting for the economy/global warming to be in check, I don’t see most NASA projects as on again/off again type projects. We’d just waste more money getting things up and going again if we shut them down during recessions.
Like satellites are great, but they probably were coming eventually (as I think you acknowledge). and the NASA satellite may be the best for tracking weather, but that could simply be because the government did it first, making it unnecessary for private enterprise to do it. Other things on that list, like like computer scheduling systems(?), pool purifiation etc., either would have been invented, or some other substitute would have been found.
you also have to think about the parable of the broken window. Billion of government dollars can create some good experiments and some interesting knowledge. But billions of dollars in the economy, spent more efficiently by cut-throat competition could have also provided a lot of capital to a lot of companies to produce a lot of innovations. So it's hard to see what the opportunity cost was for creating NASA or the space program.
NASA was inspirational, but a lot of that could have to do with the "race" nature of it, and the competition with our arch-enemies in the U.S.S.R.
The hardest part for me is the abstract knowledge. knowledge certainly has some value, and few people are going to pursue it without some sort of subsidy, but how do you go about valuing it?