Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Dear sci.space.policy community,

I wrote an article a couple of days ago for spacedaily.com - hopefully
it will be soon published - where I address the age-old question
whether space exploration is worth pursuing while there are other
needs on Earth.
The article follows

----------

Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Virgiliu Pop, Timisoara, January 13, 2004



The new space policy of the Bush administration, aimed at taking the
humankind back to the Moon and on to Mars, came under fire before even
being released. In their bid at the Democratic nomination for the
White House, several politicians criticized George W. Bush's grand
space plans, arguing that the money would find a better use here, on
Earth. "I also want to explore planet Earth and planet D.C.," Dennis
Kucinich said. Al Sharpton too suggested that Bush instead try to
discover the lower-income parts of Washington. "I mean, it won't cost
as much ... and it would be just as enlightening for him ". ?
Lieberman stated that the money would be needed "right here on Earth
to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our
education system, and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland
security ". And Howard Dean agreed that "space exploration is
terrific", but went on to ask - "Where is the tax increase to pay for
it? It is not worth bankrupting the country ."

Since the beginning of the space era, it has been argued that the
money spent on space exploration should rather be used on meeting the
needs of the underprivileged. "If our nation can spend … twenty
billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of
dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on
earth." - were stating respected figures like Martin Luther King Jr.
People like him were not necessarily opposing space exploration; they
were instead disputing the priorities - is space exploration worth
pursuing when money is so badly needed elsewhere? Unfortunately, the
benefits of the space exploration are not self-evident, no matter how
real they are. And people are genuine in their worry that money is
being wasted in space. Their concern with spending priorities needs to
be addressed.

The high profile of space exploration makes it appear more expensive
than it actually is. The uninformed, yet caring citizen, is under the
earnest impression that the money would make a genuine difference in
the fight against poverty. The real dimensions of the social needs
are, in reality, out of proportion with the money spent in space - be
it in the past, now or in the immediate future. Otherwise, there won't
be any social needs left after the Congress stopped funding the Apollo
missions to the Moon.
In the same time, many of the critics of the space programme on social
grounds are "limousine liberals". They point the finger at the US
government for wasting their tax money in space instead of helping the
poor, but they are not feeling guilty for their own consumerist life
style and for their own scale of priorities.

For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States
are projected to be $31 billion - the double, almost to the cent, of
the $15.47 billion NASA budget . An estimated $5 billion worth of
holiday season gifts were offered - not to the poor - but to the
roving family pets - six times more than NASA spent on its own roving
Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American
taxpayer $820 million both . Instead of providing a launch pad for the
immorally expensive shuttles, Florida can do better and clothe the
underprivileged - a genuine alligator pet collar cost only $400 a
piece .
Are space rockets expensive toys for the big boys? In any case, they
cost les than the $20.3 billion a year spent in the US on the human
popular toy industry . One doesn't need toys to play with when the
most popular game is playing deaf and blind to the needs of the poor -
provided one criticizes the waste in space.
Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a
year on gambling . It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal
choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this
money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands
at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens.
Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on
tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent
on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget
space spin-offs - here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are
spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and
alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space
exploration.

In the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, a moving event occurred at
NASA's moonport. Reverend Ralph Abernathy, president of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference and heir to Martin Luther King Jr.,
came to Cape Canaveral together with several hundred members of the
Poor People's Campaign, to protest the money being spent on space
exploration, while so many people remained poor. He was met by Thomas
Paine, the administrator of NASA, who was informed that in the face of
such suffering, space flight represented an inhuman priority and funds
should be spent instead to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend the
sick, and house the homeless.

Paine enlightened the good reverend that the advances in space
exploration were child's play compared to the tremendously difficult
human problems of the society, and told him that "if we could solve
the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the
moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button ."

Here are $976.3 billion dollars - almost a trillion - spent every year
in the US on pets, toys, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. It is 63 times
the amount spent on space exploration - with the difference that NASA
has not destroyed lives as the alcohol, tobacco and gambling did. It
is not the exploration spirit that Americans need to give up in order
to alleviate poverty. It is the consumerist spirit.

Instead of not pushing the button, why not kick the habit?

----

"Virgiliu Pop" wrote in message

Dear sci.space.policy community,

I wrote an article a couple of days ago for spacedaily.com - hopefully
it will be soon published - where I address the age-old question
whether space exploration is worth pursuing while there are other
needs on Earth.
The article follows

----------

Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Virgiliu Pop, Timisoara, January 13, 2004

Interesting. You make some insightful points. I like this:

"The high profile of space exploration makes it appear more expensive than
it actually is. The uninformed, yet caring citizen, is under the earnest
impression that the money would make a genuine difference in the fight
against poverty. The real dimensions of the social needs are, in reality,
out of proportion with the money spent in space - be it in the past, now or
in the immediate future. Otherwise, there won't be any social needs left
after the Congress stopped funding the Apollo missions to the Moon."

Jon

Yes, these suggestions that all of our healthcare, poverty and education
problems could be solved by cutting the space program are ridiculous and
deserve to be debunked.

Take a look at the cost of just one issue.....lack of prescription drug
coverage in Medicare. Estimated cost for the partial solution to this which
Congress passed last year is $400bn over 10 years, or about $40bn a year.Many
people suspect that the true cost of this program will be far higher. Compare
that to the ?$17bn? a year that NASA gets. Killing the whole space
program.....no Apollo, no Shuttle, no ISS, no Hubble, no Voyager, no Mars
rovers, no Cassini....would pay less than half of the cost the prescription
drug benefit.

A few years ago I added up the cost of the "war against poverty." Welfare
spending was about $90bn a year, Medicaid at the time was $180bn a year. NASA
only got $14bn that year. Many regarded welfare as a failure which had made the
poverty problem worse. Perhaps somebody should suggest cutting the waste out of
welfare to increase the budget for space?

I know these numbers are out of date. Perhaps somebody else has some better
ones?

"Schrodinger333" wrote in message ...

Yes, these suggestions that all of our healthcare, poverty and education
problems could be solved by cutting the space program are ridiculous and
deserve to be debunked.

Just taking a look at history should illustrate that. Thirty years
ago both America and Russia gave up plans to return to the Moon and
to focus on Earth instead. Have they eliminated poverty since then or
even diminished it?!

It's like trying to end all family disputes at home by not going out
to work any more. They're two overlapping but mostly unrelated prob-
lems, and neglecting the one doesn't mean you'll solve the other--ra-
ther on the contrary, I guess.


Take a look at the cost of just one issue.....lack of prescription drug
coverage in Medicare. Estimated cost for the partial solution to this which
Congress passed last year is $400bn over 10 years, or about $40bn a year.Many
people suspect that the true cost of this program will be far higher. Compare
that to the ?$17bn? a year that NASA gets.

Actually it's $86 billion. They $16 billion are the portion to be re-
allocated to the new goal in the near future--plus a raise of $1 bil-
lion to keep in step with inflation.


--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiii :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

Schrodinger333 wrote:
Yes, these suggestions that all of our healthcare, poverty and education
problems could be solved by cutting the space program are ridiculous and
deserve to be debunked.

Take a look at the cost of just one issue.....lack of prescription drug
coverage in Medicare. Estimated cost for the partial solution to this which
Congress passed last year is $400bn over 10 years, or about $40bn a year.Many
people suspect that the true cost of this program will be far higher. Compare
that to the ?$17bn? a year that NASA gets. Killing the whole space
program.....no Apollo, no Shuttle, no ISS, no Hubble, no Voyager, no Mars
rovers, no Cassini....would pay less than half of the cost the prescription
drug benefit.

A few years ago I added up the cost of the "war against poverty." Welfare
spending was about $90bn a year, Medicaid at the time was $180bn a year. NASA
only got $14bn that year. Many regarded welfare as a failure which had made the
poverty problem worse. Perhaps somebody should suggest cutting the waste out of
welfare to increase the budget for space?

I know these numbers are out of date. Perhaps somebody else has some better
ones?

Su

From the current budget:

2003 - Social Security $474 billion
Medicare $241 billion
Medicaid and SCHIP $167 billion

Selected Agencies
Agriculture $19.1 billion
Defense $364.6 billion
Education $50.3 billion
Health and Human Services $64.6 billion
Homeland Security $25.4 billion
Housing and Urban Development $30.9 billion
State and International Assistance $24.5 billion
Veterans Affairs $25.4 billion
Environmental Protection Agency $7.6 billion
NASA $15.0 billion

Total US Government Spending $2,131 billion


--
Andy Cooke

(Virgiliu Pop) wrote in message . com...
Dear sci.space.policy community,

I wrote an article a couple of days ago for spacedaily.com - hopefully
it will be soon published - where I address the age-old question
whether space exploration is worth pursuing while there are other
needs on Earth.
The article follows

----------

Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?



----

It was A.C. Clarke who pointed out that worldwide annual expenditures
for cosmetics total nearly 20 billion dollars?

Al Jackson wrote:

It was A.C. Clarke who pointed out that worldwide annual expenditures
for cosmetics total nearly 20 billion dollars?

Cosmetics directly affect issues of interpersonal relationships
that are vastly more important to most people than space.

Paul

I understand that the moon has a great deal of an element called
"Helium 3" which is essential to atomic fusion. If this is the case,
from what I've heard, one space shuttle load of "helium 3" would
provide enough "helium 3" fuel for atomic fusion reactors to generate
all of the electricity that the USA would need for one year. If the
aforementioned is true, establishing a permanent space station of the
moon would not only be cost effective but extremely profitable. "AD
ASTRA!"
"To the stars!"

Schrodinger333 wrote:
Yes, these suggestions that all of our healthcare, poverty and education
problems could be solved by cutting the space program are ridiculous and
deserve to be debunked.

Take a look at the cost of just one issue.....lack of prescription drug
coverage in Medicare. Estimated cost for the partial solution to this which
Congress passed last year is $400bn over 10 years, or about $40bn a year.Many
people suspect that the true cost of this program will be far higher. Compare
that to the ?$17bn? a year that NASA gets. Killing the whole space
program.....no Apollo, no Shuttle, no ISS, no Hubble, no Voyager, no Mars
rovers, no Cassini....would pay less than half of the cost the prescription
drug benefit.


But this is so only because the pharmaceuticals are allowed to get away with
murder in the US and charge ridiculous rates - if a law was passed to
mandate that the drugs were (re-)imported from Canada and no more than
10% of margin added, the cost would suddenly plummet. The number is essentialy
arbitrary and can be considerably lower, all that is required is some backbone
and non-listening to lobbyists.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On 18 Jan 2004 17:12:49 -0800, (volantus4) wrote:

I understand that the moon has a great deal of an element called
"Helium 3" which is essential to atomic fusion.

Not essential, just can be very useful.

If this is the case,
from what I've heard, one space shuttle load of "helium 3"

There is just the little problem of extracting it from the Lunar
surface, where you would have to process thousands of tons of this
regolith in order to get that much He3.

would
provide enough "helium 3" fuel for atomic fusion reactors to generate
all of the electricity that the USA would need for one year.

Nice idea, but until those fusion reactors actually exist, then you
would just have an extremely costly Shuttle full of junk.

Many countries would be interested in buying your He3 through.

If the
aforementioned is true, establishing a permanent space station of the
moon would not only be cost effective but extremely profitable.

I can see a couple of flaws in your plan.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk