Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Andy Cooke wrote:

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

Thanks. So maybe next time somebody complains about the cost of space travel
you can point out that:

1/ The Department of Agriculture gets a bigger budget than NASA. We spend more
on farm subsidies than we do on space exploration.

2/ Federal government healthcare spending is at least 27 times the NASA
budget.....that's the combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid......and that is
before the cost of prescription drug benefits enacted this year. Nor does that
number include the cost of medical reseach, veterans affairs and individual
state expenditures on health. Nor does it include the cost of the healthcare
part of the Health and Human services budget.Despite all this expenditure,
millions of Americans have no health insurance and thus limited acess to care.

Do we really want to pour more money into the healthcare black hole?

3/The "war against poverty" is fought by Housing and Urban Development (housing
projects)
, Medicaid (subsidised healthcare for the very poor), and Health and Human
Services (mostly welfare)......combined annual cost of $262.5
billion.......which is more than 17 times the NASA budget. Cutting space would
make no noticeable impact on poverty in America.

4/ The $50.3bn quoted for education is only federal spending...most education
is funded by state and local governments. Total US spending on primary and
secondary schools was $314 billion (NEA estimate for (97-98)........nearly 21
times the NASA budget. Cutting space isn't going to fix many leaky school
roofs, but it will eliminate pretty pictures of Mars and Saturn in the science
rooms.


The space program's problem is that its achievements are so spectacular that
people assume that it must cost a huge amount of money. The rest of the
government has the opposite issue...their achievements are so unspectacular
that people don't believe that a lot of money is being spent.

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...

Now what do you suppose would be the most important accomplishments
of the
United States from the point of view of a future history class?
Would it be our
missions to the Moon and Mars, or would it be daily welfare
transfers...
It seems to me that the
Democrats mostly want to make background noise rather than history.

How we handle poverty is "background noise"? Also, a real space
*development* program could help in solving that very problem in
certain types of instances.

Who's going to remember Jimmy Carter 1,000
years from now?

He will be remembered as the one who started Reaganomics with
transportation deregulation and cutting marginal rates from 70 to 50%.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in
message ...
quibbler wrote:

We'd have enough money for both if Dubya hadn't given away $2
trillion in
tax cuts to some of the wealthiest Americans.

Well, that's an outright lie. Tax cuts do not give away money,
anymore
than a thief taking your wallet and leaving you a nickle is giving
you a
nickle.

So what should we do? Print the money? Soak the poor who don't get
favorable tax treatment for multi-million dollar homes, capital gains
taxes and tax shelters such as race horses on steroids or benefit from
the outrageous interest rates of the '80's? We should implement a
wealth tax and take back what was stolen under the 12 years of Bush,
Sr. who was mentally incapacitated enough in the first quarterly
payment, let alone Ronbo and Dumbya.

Well, let's just see. A trillion dollar Mars mission that takes 25
years
to happen: that's $40 billion per year. That's about two weeks worth
of
social spending in this country. How much impact would that *really*
have?

No it isn't, regardless whether we are taking about giving back a
fraction of what was stolen from the poor and middle classes or given
to the rich.

To build a real presence on Mars probably would be quite expensive.
Enough to start thinking about towers hundreds of kilometers high and
carbon fiber or nanotube/nanoscroll/epoxy tethers.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...

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


Venezuelans of all income levels spend about 20% of their incomes on
cosmetics. Now you know why they are so poor.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

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.

How about price controls on the illegal and medical professions? How
about a windfall profits tax on the stock market? Don't forget the
Chief Embezzlement Officers and Chairmen of the Hoard either.

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
Cosmetics directly affect issues of interpersonal relationships
that are vastly more important to most people than space.

Paul


Imagine you are in a history class, and you ask the Professor about the
Great
Pyramids, but he continues to digress to the subject of Egyptian cosmetics
and
grooming habits without getting to what ancient Egypt is most known for,
i.e.
the Great Pyramids.

Depends. In reality, Cleopatra's makeup may end up being more important in
terms of world history.

After all, Anthony didn't marry the pyramids.


Now what do you suppose would be the most important accomplishments of the
United States from the point of view of a future history class? Would it
be our
missions to the Moon and Mars, or would it be daily welfare transfers, how
much
we spent on Coca Cola every given year. What programs are historically
important, and what are just background noise. It seems to me that the
Democrats mostly want to make background noise rather than history. They'd
rather be managers than leaders. Who's going to remember Jimmy Carter
1,000
years from now?

The same ones that remember Ford.



Tom

"wlhaught" wrote in message
gy.com...


Who's going to remember Jimmy Carter 1,000
years from now?

He will be remembered as the one who started Reaganomics with
transportation deregulation and cutting marginal rates from 70 to 50%.

He's hardly remembered for that now.

"volantus4" wrote in message
om...
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!"

Might help if we actually HAD working fusion reactors.

"To the stars!"

TKalbfus wrote:

Imagine you are in a history class, and you ask the Professor about the Great
Pyramids, but he continues to digress to the subject of Egyptian cosmetics and
grooming habits without getting to what ancient Egypt is most known for, i.e.
the Great Pyramids.

Now what do you suppose would be the most important accomplishments of the
United States from the point of view of a future history class?


What is bizarre here is the notion that historical narcissism should be
a sine qua non of national policy.

Why exactly should voters give a flying f*ck about what some historian will
think of them thousands of years in the future?

Paul

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Schrodinger333 wrote:

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.

Ayup. And after all, those drug companies NEVER re-invest their profits
back into research. (much of which ends up not paying off.)



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++