More to space exploration=economic stimulus?

Seriously, would it worK?

The wife and I were discussing the defense budget and how much money it
injects into the economy via contracts and industry.

Would a 50 to 100 billion dollar space budget have a similar effect? did
it during the '60s?

--
Quarkxpress sucks.

Brandons of mass destruction wrote in message ...
The wife and I were discussing the defense budget and how much money it
injects into the economy via contracts and industry.

It doesn't inject money: it just transfers money from one group to
another, either directly through taxation or indirectly through
borrowing.

Would a 50 to 100 billion dollar space budget have a similar effect? did
it during the '60s?

A number of people have argued that that was the primary reason why
the Apollo program continued to run up to the moon landings: it was
funneling money into too many states for anyone to raise the political
will to cancel it.

Mark

(Mark) wrote:
Would a 50 to 100 billion dollar space budget have a similar effect? did
it during the '60s?

A number of people have argued that that was the primary reason why
the Apollo program continued to run up to the moon landings: it was
funneling money into too many states for anyone to raise the political
will to cancel it.

That's a bogus argument, peak funding for Apollo was in 1967... Two
years before the landing.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" That's a bogus argument

No kidding. The whole point of Apollo was the landings....it was not
"allowed to run up" to the landings. Good grief.

The economic lobbying is still a valid point.

Cheney tried to kill the V22 Osprey tilt-rotor as hard as he could as
DefSec under Bush 41. He was overruled in Congress since the Defense
Appropriations Committee had people on it from Texas. Long story.

The Osprey really sucks bad and it is still going because the folks in
Texas want that there money. The cost of the project over 20 years is
going to be at least the equivalent of 3 years of NASA's budget and all
they will have to show for it is 100 crappy airplanes. I will be voting
against the fool Sen. Kaye Bailey Hutchison as soon as I can but will be
outnumbered by her lunch bucket mob.

The economic impact of an Apollo-sized space effort now would largely be
dissipated by administrative overhead in the comparatively bloated
agency, by the paper shufflers and desk jockeys who issue contracts to do
studies.

"Revision" wrote:
The economic lobbying is still a valid point.

No, it's not.

Cheney tried to kill the V22 Osprey tilt-rotor as hard as he could as
DefSec under Bush 41. He was overruled in Congress since the Defense
Appropriations Committee had people on it from Texas. Long story.

The Osprey really sucks bad and it is still going because the folks in
Texas want that there money.

That's what the conspiracy theorists want to think. However their
world view ignores the fact that the Services want the Osprey *bad*.
The USCG and US Army in particular need it's capabilities as the craft
they will replace are over a decade beyond a reasonable sell-off date.
The USN and USMC aren't far behind that. (On top of which, is the
Osprey is far more versatile than the helicopters it replaces.)

The simple fact is, if we drop the Osprey, there's nothing on the
boards to replace it, and the craft *it* is due to replace are growing
older by the day.

The economic impact of an Apollo-sized space effort now would largely be
dissipated by administrative overhead in the comparatively bloated
agency, by the paper shufflers and desk jockeys who issue contracts to do
studies.

$100 million spent is $100 million spent, regardless of whether it
goes to paper studies or bending hardware. The only essential
difference is the locations where the money is spent.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
That's a bogus argument, peak funding for Apollo was in 1967... Two
years before the landing.

And? It was still funneling billions into Texas, Florida and
elsewhere... that's a lot of votes to worry about if you cancel the
program.

Mark

"Derek Lyons"
the Services want the Osprey *bad*.

True enough.

if we drop the Osprey, there's nothing on the
boards to replace it

Oh please. Sikorsky and Westland both have machines that out-payload and
outdistance the Osprey.

Sikorsky is 20% and Westland is 25% of Osprey price. Much easier and
cheaper to maintain, also.

One of the main reasons Cheney opposed the Osprey is that he could see
that additional copters would need to be developed/ordered to fill the
gaps.

The Pentagon will order enough of the Ospreys to get the Texas pols off
their backs and then park them in a few years.

The wife and I were discussing the defense budget
and how much money it injects into the economy
via contracts and industry.

Would a 50 to 100 billion dollar space budget have a similar
effect? did it during the '60s?

Well I mean you gotta be kidding. There are lots of people who say it
helps the economy, lots that say it is a waste.

My opinion is that it is not a bad thing even if it is a sort of welfare
system for PhDs. I think it is a good thing if hyper-educated geniuses
have a chance to use their skills. I don't think that is a bad thing at
all. Plus the fact that NASA spends one percent of the budget. Not that
a small expense must be worthwhile, but there it is.

G Orwell used to write about a society that spent billions on naval ships
that were towed over the horizon and sunk. Whether gov't spending has
magic qualities to stimulate the economy is a political question.

While I like NASA, I think that the gov't uses a lot of smoke and mirrors
to conceal the fact that in the modern age the fed gov is basically an
organization that writes checks.

"Revision" wrote:

"Derek Lyons"
the Services want the Osprey *bad*.

True enough.

if we drop the Osprey, there's nothing on the boards to replace it

Oh please. Sikorsky and Westland both have machines that out-payload and
outdistance the Osprey.

Sikorsky is 20% and Westland is 25% of Osprey price. Much easier and
cheaper to maintain, also.

Sure in civilian garb. The picture changes greatly once they get
fitted out to military specs. And none of them have a higher total
'pipeline' capacity than Osprey.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.