Can Manned Spaceflight Save the Economy?

Barry asks: "Driving home last night I was listening to a particularly goofy AM talk station. Just before the syndicated UFO talk show 'Strange Days... Indeed' came on, the discussion turned to the Mars Rovers and George Bush's newfound love of space exploration. The interesting thought was that a large number of American political leaders were about to join Bush in endorsing a new manned space program because it would generate 'millions of jobs'. Given that manufacturing jobs are being shipped offshore, and high tech jobs are following, this almost made sense. A primarily unemployed population could mean big trouble. So I am wondering how many people were employed during the height of NASA's glory days, and what kind of economic impact would we expect if a similar program - a Mars mission for example - were launched today?"

Comments

ummm flawed logic?

[BFedRec]

Is it just me or is that the most crazy financial logic heard in a long time. You're going to have a government agency employing people so they have jobs? Their money coming from tax dollars... which would be coming from the population at large. You're not going to save an economy by employing MORE people from the tax dollars. It just won't work. Basically you're just recycling money, quickly the funding would dry up. Build up the deficit even quicker than it is now.

CharlesP

CharlesP

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[twistedcubic]

Actually, your definition of "saving the economy" is probably very different from GW's and the economists who love him. Nevertheless, since space exploration is where the money is going to be, might as well transition into that career change :)

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[Your_Mom]

Oooh! Oooh! I get to use my macroeconomics course! My professor would be so proud.

There is always a finite amount of money in the system, not everyone has it at one time. NASA give out a $1e9 contract. Company A wins it. Company A subcontracts certain aspects of the contract to companies B and C. Now, companies B + C buy frobs and gizmos from company D, E, and F. Now, what happens here? Companies A-F all prosper as they have people needing their goods and services, and the employees of said companies prosper, as they have jobs. Life is good. *waves little flag*

If you ever have a chance, take a course in macroeconomics, take it, really interesting stuff.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[El]

It's called "the multiplyer effect". As near as I can tell, it implies that in a truely frictionless economy, where money is loaned or spent instantaneously as soon as it is available, there is an INFINITE money supply! Something about the multiplyer effect always smelled like bullshit to me...

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[Fat Cow]

The money that NASA gives out didn't come from the air, it came out of the pockets of the citizens. If NASA hadn't taken the money, they would have spent/invested it in something else. If you're measuring economic benefits, you have to compare the Mars mission to the alternatives.

I don't think it will be beneficial economically - at root, economic growth comes from using and accessing raw materials in a more efficient way. You actually have to come up with better ways of doing things and making things.

Of course, there may be other benefits of people going to Mars, but they aren't economic.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[mabhatter654]

I don't think it will be beneficial economically - at root, economic growth comes from using and accessing raw materials in a more efficient way. You actually have to come up with better ways of doing things and making things.

Actually NASA in the 60's and 70's at the height of their spending was great for the economy...Lots of cool stuff was developed that has found it's way into YOUR house. Everything from ink pens, to velcro, to advanced methods of metallurgy [which you don't see, but companies that make your stuff do] Another real push for a space program would do wonders for US technology...as long as it was prevented from being outsourced!

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

The one reliable thing I learnt from my economics course: to economists the real world is a special case.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[fingusernames]

Has nobody here read about the proposals? This is Slashdot, but I would expect at least a few people to inject some accurate information.

Bush hasn't proposed raising the NASA budget by 100% or something. He has proposed raising it by about 5%, and REDIRECTING funds internally toward the GOAL of returning to the moon, and later going to Mars. He has proposed replacing the shuttle with an Apollo-like capsule system and an upper stage payload system, like Saturn provided, freeing up the 3.5 BILLION spent per year on the shuttles. That money would be used toward development of NEW technology, rather than maintaining and refitting the 1970 era shuttles.

So, we are talking about 5% growth in the NASA budget, which already is pretty small in the overal federal budget, and moving existing funds around to more productive uses, uses which would promote research and development of new technology.

Sounds QUITE reasonable to me, and it actually gives NASA a MISSION again, as opposed to being some low orbit trucking company.

Larry

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[yog]

What about microcomputers? I read somewhere that some of the technology for modern microprocessors was developed for the space program (and for missiles). Solar power was also implemented (but not invented) for the space program. Your reference to metallurgy is valid and also ceramics, propulsion systems, high density batteries, scratch-proof lenses, advances in hydroponics, radiation insulation, etc. The list goes on and on.

Then there's the intangible benefits of a national research and exploratory mission that is peaceful in nature. Many people in this kind of discussion forum mock George W. Bush's (as yet unannounced) space initiative and out of the other corner of their mouth they mock his aggressive foreign policy. Well which is it? You want the U.S. to avoid military adventures overseas and also not to explore the heavens? Put all that money to use funding housing for the poor? Isn't $5 trillion spent on the poor since 1960 enough already? Let's spend it on people who will actually give us something in return--rocket scientists, physicists, astronomers, engineers, programmers, science teachers, etc. Let's invest it in ways that will create the economic opportunities that the poor really need... and keep our patronizing sympathy to ourselves.

In fact, the space program is the best way the U.S. can marshal its resources and inspire a new generation of young scientists and technologists. It worked in 1960 and it can work again in the 21st century. It can invigorate the sciences and get kids of all colors and economic classes to think big, to reach for the stars. It can and will result in new technological breakthroughs in medicine, propulsion, materials sciences, and other areas that we can only imagine today.

The superpowers of the late 21st century will be those nations and alliances of nations that leave Earth orbit to explore and exploit the resources of the entire solar system. Offworld factories and mining facilities, economies of scale in lift technologies, and critical mass numbers of go-to people in space will eventually pay back in spades the necessary trillions of dollars of investment that have been made and have yet to be made.

Americans can go there; or, we can sit on our fat duffs and let others go there, but someone will go there. If we let others take the initiative, then sure we will go to space someday--as steerage passengers on Chinese orbiters--after saving our pennies from serving fast food to our Chinese and European bosses visiting on holiday.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[benj_e]

NASA has a page detailing some of the benefits.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[BFedRec]

Yeah... but the problem is that all of those people are doing well, and have jobs, and are making money... but that money comes from the government taking it from everybody else. You can't base an economy on the government taking money from one group to give to another, even if it IS via a job.

CharlesP

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[michael_cain]

Oooh! Oooh! I get to use my macroeconomics course! My professor would be so proud.

No, they wouldn't.

In any standard macro model, the size of the economy is the sum of all goods and services produced, not the size of the money supply. Production requires labor and capital, both of which may be enhanced by "technology" (which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to an economist that it does to an engineer). Money is a convenient medium of exchange, and a nice way to measure things, but has value only in the sense that it represents labor or capital. Unless NASA's contract makes use of labor and capital that would otherwise not have been used (that is, otherwise unemployed workers and idle machinery), more stuff made for NASA means less other stuff made. Your companies A-F may prosper, but there are companies G-L somewhere that are worse off.

Government spending can influence what things get produced -- take money that would have been spent on plasma TVs away from people by taxing them, spend it on Saturn V boosters instead (note that money is still just a medium of exchange here -- it's easier for the government to take $100 than it is to tell you, "Don't go to your regular job on Tuesday, show up in Houston to work on the Saturn V instead.") Deficit government spending can temporarily stimulate demand for goods -- borrow money that would otherwise have been saved/invested, and spend it on goods instead. If the government simply prints money and spends it, but the total output of goods is unchanged, you get inflation -- each dollar in the money supply represents a smaller quantity of goods. Of course, the real-life situation is enormously more complex than what we're discussing here.

Lunar penal colony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Bush has just figured out that the moon is an even better place to house those he doesn't like than Guantanamo -- after all, NONE of Terran laws apply there! Plus, there are endless hours of entertainment watching them try to figure out how to face Mecca when they pray!

Re:Lunar penal colony?

[jtev]

not realy, the earth is always on the same vector to the same spot on the moon, so it's very easy for them. if they can see the arabian pennesula, it makes it even easier.

A new solution!

[Randy Wang]

Well, sounds like they're getting ready for it, whether it'll fix the economy or not.

On the other hand, if it fails to do anything, they could just use the newly developed technology to shoot the unemployed into space!

rediculous

[pizza_milkshake]

I am not a chronic bush-hater, but this is fucking rediculous. The man's legacy will be stupid quotes and mediocre examples of the 3 easiest popularity boosting projects possible: a tax cut, a war and astronauts. For however many 100s of billion of $ all this will cost in the end, he could have done a whole lot more.

Re:rediculous

[shadowbearer]

The Bush PR engine strikes again.

So far I've just seen rhetoric; not any solid plans, nor any way to prevent this getting eaten by the scum-sucking administrative hordes.

For some reason, it reminds me of Reagan and the ISS announcement.

Sigh.

SB

Re:rediculous

[ConceptJunkie]

At best he'll get a footnote.

I disagree. I think Kennedy got the credit he deserved for establishing his challenge to put a man on the Moon in the 1960's. I don't ever recall hearing Nixon being the Moonshot President because he happened to be in office when the event finally occurred.

There is no doubt that there could be a political motivation for doing this, but the potential for applied science and engineering is incredible... far more than anyone who doesn't follow the Space Program closely would ever realize.

However, to suggest that Bush is doing this to score points with the electorate is pretty naive. Hell, I would bet a majority of people believe that silly Fox TV show calling into question that the original Moon landings ever happened.

Remember, a large portion of the population still believes in things like horoscopes, the psychic hotline, and the daVinci code. We are not, as a whole, very good at critical thinking.

Wrong headline!

[toolz]

It should be

Can Manned Spaceflight Save George Bush?

Re:Wrong headline!

[shadowbearer]

If he'd get me off this planet, I'd even shine his shoes.

As long as I don't have to call him "Scotty"; I'd not insult Mr. Doohan so badly. :/

(nevermind the underbreath cursing :)

SB

Re:Wrong headline!

[kommakazi]

You got it wrong too buddy...
Save Manned Spaceflight. Can George Bush!

Re:Wrong headline!

[Wolfrider]

Canned Ham Achieves Spaceflight! George Bush eats Spam(tm)!

Re:A whole lot more?

[DAldredge]

UBL's head on a stick. You know, they main guy behind 9/11.

Or have we forgotten about him?

sure, why not?

[ajagci]

Large amounts of government spending can do wonders for the economy, if citizens are willing to make the sacrifices (i. e. pay the taxes). And manned space travel, useless as it is, is at least less destructive to foreign relations and industry than wars, Bush's other favorite economic activity.

However, tax cuts and massive spending don't work. And private industry is unlikely to go into space anytime soon--it's not profitable.

Re:sure, why not?

[sql*kitten]

Large amounts of government spending can do wonders for the economy, if citizens are willing to make the sacrifices (i. e. pay the taxes).

Only if you can make the assumption that an individual in his or her capacity as a government official is a near-perfect economic decision maker, yet that same individual in the capacity of a private citizen is nearly entirely incompetent to make economic decisions. Otherwise, there's no basis for not leaving the money in the hands of the taxpayers and letting them spend it how they please.

Governments are nearly always massively inefficient. After all, they have no incentive to improve. A company that is profligate with its resources will quickly go bankrupt, a government merely has to ratchet the taxes up a little higher. Now you say "if the citizens are willing" but that's very elastic: a citizen prepared to pay say 30% of income in taxes for the "greater good" might well feel very differently if the government decided it wanted 60% or 90%*. But the government is fully incentivized to increase taxes, not to spend the money better.

We see a similar problem in the UK at the moment. There is a lot of fuss over private (fee-paying) versus State (taxpayer-funded) schools - the quality of the former so outstrips the latter that the government is even artificially making university admissions harder for the privately-educated (rather than improving its own schools). But it turns out, if you do the accounting, that State schools actually cost the same or more per student than a private school! The money is just soaked up in government inefficiency. The same is true for the NHS, where the present government has managed to increase the number of medical staff by 15% and the number of managers by 45%.

The way to economic prosperity is to cut both taxes and governemnt spending, so those that earned the money directly control how its spent. This has worked in every economy that has tried it.

And private industry is unlikely to go into space anytime soon--it's not profitable.

I'm sure the same was said of expeditions to explore the world's oceans.

* This is not unheard of - in 1979 in the UK the top rate of income tax was 83%, with an extra 15% charge if the money was from investments rather than salary. That's a total of 98% tax! No wonder that economy collapsed in the "Winter of Discontent" and a new service-based economy emerged!

Re:sure, why not?

[sql*kitten]

GBP 3,000 is much smaller than the average income in the UK, which was GBP 23,607 in 2002, somewhat above the GBP 3,000 you quote.

Let's say 2 adults, 2 children that's GBP 12,000. The figure of approx GBP 23,000 you quote is before income tax, national insurance, council tax and all the other various taxes levied by various parts of the government. They can easily eat up half of your income.

Surely, that depends whether you are unemployed, sick, disabled, mentally ill or living in poor accommodation, doesn't it?

As I say, perhaps we would all be better off if everyone got their GBP 3000 without wasting money on all the bureaucracy in the middle. Remember that's not GBP 3000/household but per person, including children.

However, if a mentally ill person were to attack you in the street, you'd consider a welfare system quite desirable. If you were mugged or burgled, you might wonder if it would have been a good idea for the state to provide a safety net for that person before they turned to crime.

Are you trying to suggest that poverty automatically leads to crime? That seems rather a shaky assertion to me.

Do you think that there might be even the slightest chance that there is a direct economic link between the quality of life in a given country and the degree of welfare support provided to the citizens of that country?

Perhaps you would care to explain how paying people not to engage in productive economic activity results in the creation of a productive economy?

About the only way to do that would be to argue that welfare keeps the non-productive out of the way of the productive, but still, there are more cost effective ways to do that then paying them to sit around watching daytime TV and smoking cigarettes all day. I believe the Americans call it "workfare".

Re:sure, why not?

[m_evanchik]

Government inefficiency is a canard. Government is usually fairly efficient. Just like private enterprise, sometimes public enterprise does the job well, sometimes it does it poorly.

One reason that public enterprise sometimes seems more inefficient is because unlike private enterprise, it cannot choose to service only profitable customers. This is evident in the schol systems, where publicly-run or -subsidized schools must deal with the hardest educational cases, such as children with disabilities. Another problem is that, by requiring payments, private schools necessarily only enroll students whose parents take an active interest in their education. The additional financial commitment signals greater parental involvement, which is key to educational success.

The case for more "equitable" taxation across income levels falls apart in the current regime. The rich often pay less a percentage of their incomes than the poor or middle class, when you factor in all taxes, especially sales taxes. While punitive taxes of almost 100% are a bad idea, it is also of questionable value to lower taxes on some income to nothing, as is the case without the inheritance tax.

In the case of health care, in the United States, government run health programs, like medicare or medicaid, have significantly lower administrative costs than their private counterparts.

Finally, all of the first great expeditions of discovery were government-financed: Columbus, Magellan, Vespucci, Hudson, etc., etc.. All of these ventures were wholly dependent on the public teat.

The truth is that a well-run government usually does about as well as a well-run business.

Re:sure, why not?

[sql*kitten]

Another problem is that, by requiring payments, private schools necessarily only enroll students whose parents take an active interest in their education.

Actually, that's not generally true; typically students at private schools are enrolled there as boarders because their rich parents want to be rid of them until they're adults and hopefully have something interesting to say. Maybe that's different outside the UK.

The rich often pay less a percentage of their incomes than the poor or middle class, when you factor in all taxes, especially sales taxes.

"The rich" is a canard. The multi-millionaires are a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. You are "rich" as far as the tax system is concerned - i.e. a higher-rate taxpayer - with a salary of around GBP 30,000 (that's roughly USD 50,000). You can be one of "those who can afford to pay more" as far as the government is concerned, yet be unable to buy an apartment anywhere near London.

Re:sure, why not?

[CompVisGuy]

Let's say 2 adults, 2 children that's GBP 12,000.

You are assuming one earner per household. While this might have been true in the 1970s, it certainly isn't true today.

The figure of approx GBP 23,000 you quote is before income tax, national insurance, council tax and all the other various taxes levied by various parts of the government. They can easily eat up half of your income.

I agree, but the proportion of income paid in tax by a low income earner is smaller than that paid by a high income earner. While a high income earner may find half their income going on taxes, a low income earner won't.

Are you trying to suggest that poverty automatically leads to crime? That seems rather a shaky assertion to me.

I would not put it in those words. I would say that where there is poverty, there is a prevalence of a certain type of crime. I'm not saying that poverty explains "white-collar crime" like insider trading! But you are much more likely to be mugged in an area where there is poverty. Someone who is poor is much more likely to end up in prison. There are many explanations for this phenomenon (e.g. the best teachers don't want to live in poor neighbourhoods, so poor neighbourhoods get poor schools, so the children of the neighbourhood do not qualify for well-paid jobs), but I don't want to rehash them all here. I would make the general assertion that poverty is a significant cause of crime. I don't think this is a shaky assertion at all.

Perhaps you would care to explain how paying people not to engage in productive economic activity results in the creation of a productive economy?

That's not what's happening and it's a simplistic and biased way of looking at things. Getting back to your original assertion that the direct return on investment in the welfare system is negative, I admit this is true. However, the less you invest in a welfare system, the more negative the return on investment. That is to say, if there is no support for those who fall on hard times, like the sick, the mentally ill, the disabled and those in poor housing, there is an associated cost. This cost manifests itself as crime, political instability and disease. These factors have measurable negative effects on the economy. These are the reasons we have a welfare system. This is how the welfare system supports a productive economy. Give me examples of prosperous countries that have no welfare system and yet have low crime and disease rates and a stable political environment.

About the only way to do that would be to argue that welfare keeps the non-productive out of the way of the productive, but still, there are more cost effective ways to do that then paying them to sit around watching daytime TV and smoking cigarettes all day. I believe the Americans call it "workfare".

Your argument assumes that there is some sort of underclass of unproductive people whose sole purpose in life is to retard the progress of the productive. I disagree that all of those who claim unemployment benefit don't want to work. Look at the British mining and steel industries; consider the corporate practice of downsizing. I admit that during the 1980s, being on the dole was seen by many to be a career option, if all they wanted from life was to make do. The current emphasis on getting the unemployed into jobs makes this career option much less achievable. There is also a class of people who claim unemployment benefit while taking 'cash in hand' work. This is being stamped out, and technology is helping here. But I doubt that making do is the dream of anyone -- it is the last resort of those failed by the education and other systems who see no other way to survive.

On the surface, Workfare sounds like an attractive idea. Put the unemployed to work on menial tasks that nobody else wants to do and pay them a living wage.

Only if it feeds back

[Jerf]

This could be a gigantic boon for the economy, in theory. Anybody who's interested in space has read about the resources and the possibilities in space, and if we could tap that such that space exploration could become self-sustaining, there's no practical upper limit to the wealth this could generate.

If the US intends to maintain its lead, rather then "sink" into a parity position with many countries (by staying relatively stagnant while other countries catch up), this is probably the biggest win that is feasible. (Note that everybody really ought to be rooting for this, even non-Americans, because if the US is rising, so is everybody else in absolute terms; without somebody leading the way I'm fearful we could all end up stagnating together. Yes, some other country could take over but the US could take over more quickly; for a real-life tech example of this, note how quickly IBM because the largest Linux company.) It's worth a try.

In this sense, its utility as an economy saver will be directly related to how deliberately it is run with this idea in mind, to be bold, to deliberately ask private companies to produce technologies and benefit from them, etc.

To the extent that this is run like NASA, it may not be a waste but it will not be an "economy saving" gain.

So, it depends on how its run. As is too often the case, if it is run too "selfishly" (too much focus on the short-term gain), it will be useless. But if it is run well, it could be an amazing boon for the entire human race.

I know which one I'd bet on if I had too... but I can still hope...

Re:Only if it feeds back

[R.Caley]

This could be a gigantic boon for the economy, in theory. Anybody who's interested in space has read about the resources and the possibilities in space[...]

That we have read about them does not mean they exist.

If you know of any, why have you not shown the evidence to the men in suits and got yourself a few billion in venture capital to go get them? These people were willing to fund .coms for KaTe's sake.

There may be payback from space exploration in a few generations, even Vinland turned out to be useful for something:-). However, the reason for going out there is because we can and because not doing so would be against basic human nature. Curiosity only killed the cat because the human who was curious had a nice sharp knife and an interest in how cats work.

If the US government wants to spend money on a keynsian economy support package they'd do better to pick things which need doing. Fixing the electricity distribution system would seem to be a prime candidate.

It's a bad idea

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Keynes studied this kind of 'make work' and generally reckoned it's a distinctly bad idea. Most economists agree.

That aside, socialistic space programs like NASA (sorry, but that's pretty much what a government funded program like NASA amounts to) are unable to grow, and being a monopoly, NASA has very little incentive to become more cost-effective. The historical record shows that the inflation adjusted NASA budget is roughly fixed (within a factor of 2). That's a political reality-no huge growth is likely; business atleast has the chance to grow; and often has a much bigger incentive to reduce costs, which allows growth also; via lower prices.

This analysis suggest that the US government should ramp down NASA, and encourage private industry to take up the slack. It's the only thing that makes any sense in the long run; it's the only way to get to Space in any big way.

Yes, it's the broken window falacy.

[GlenRaphael]

Or as Dave Barry puts it:

"See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs."

It's nuts to assume that throwing money at some new boondoggle will help the economy. Yeah, throwing money into space might employ people. Or alternately, you could employ a lot of people in the hole-digging industry if the government simply funded a giant industry to dig holes and fill them up again. Why not do that? See the parent poster's link.

I don't think this can possibly work.

[FFFish]

Space exploration is not a revenue-generator, and there is little hope for revenue generation in the foreseeable future.

This means it must be entirely bankrolled by the government.

Which, in turn, means it must be entirely bankrolled by the public taxpayer.

Government efficiency being what it is, I hardly imagine my dollar of tax is going to pay a dollar worth of economic improvement. Most of that dollar -- like 99 cents of it -- will go to administration overhead, corporate looting, and general waste.

Which means, basically, that I'll lose a dollar, some rich corporate bastard at McDonnel Douglas will gain 99 cents, and Joe Frontline Worker might make a penny.

Thanks, George, but I'd prefer to give my dollar to Joe directly.

There are jobs, and there are jobs...

[gregwbrooks]

The question isn't whether another Apollo Project-esque endeavor will create jobs -- of course it will.

The question is: Are those the jobs the best way to go about goosing the economy, and is this the way we want to develop them?

Unless President Bush plans to privatize the whole effort, we're talking about jobs paid for with federal contracting funds, and those are some of the most inefficient jobs you can release into the economy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with jobs generated by federal spending -- after all, the government needs to buy stuff just like any company. However (and this is the important part) jobs that grow out of federal spending programs aren't the most efficient way to translate capital into work.. First, the money has to come from somewhere (i.e., taxes). Then, it goes through an inefficient bureaucracy that needs some off the top to perpetuate and grow itself. Then, it goes back into the economy in the form of federal spending, but the spending is often uncompetitive because of pork set-asides or

Bottom line: If you put a few billion dollars into federal spending in the private sector and compared the economic impact with simply leaving the capital in individual and business hands to figure out what their highest and best uses were, you'd see more efficient use of the capital (read: more net benefit) from the latter.

Oh, and although everyone likes the high-tech aspects of the space program, the fact is that there would be many, many old-economy manufacturing jobs created or sustained for every engineer or scientist.

Burn the straw men

[MrRobahtsu]

Well duh, of course government spending on anything to create government jobs isn't going to improve the economy. Only democrats believe that.

But since similar space programs have been done before, perhaps one should (gasp!) look at past performance and ROI before setting up straw men to knock down.

Ever wonder why the US leads the world in many areas of computers, electronics, manufacturing, matereials, etc.? The space program isn't the only reason, but it's a big one.

Ever wonder what the real ROI is, or how many technologies and materials in your own home are spin-offs from space-related research?

http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/stories/ 1997b/110197e.htm
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

But I guess the Bush-hating pastime is much more fun and emotionally satisfying than actually dealing with the facts. I just wouldn't expect it from a group of nerds. Oh wait. This is slashdot. Nevermind.

Spend money we don't have to go where there is...

[Futurepower(R)]

"Something about the multiplayer effect always smelled like bullshit to me..."

Any lie to get re-elected.

Borrowing money from our children may be a good strategy in times of extreme emergency. Borrowing money to explore dirt and rocks in space is not an extreme emergency.

Insanity

[dffuller]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote I recently read:

"For a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle."

There is absolutely no way that government jobs are going to improve our economic situation; even the wackiest Keynsian economist can tell you that.

Re:NASA stopped creating most of its amazing spino

[GlenRaphael]

VIRTUAL REALITY - NASA-developed research allows a user, with assistance from advanced technology devices, to figuratively project oneself into a computer-generated environment, matching the user's head motion, and, when coupled with a stereo viewing device and appropriate software, creates a telepresence experience.

Oh, sure, NASA is the home of all VR technology.

Come on! Can't you people even TRY to be credible? Do you wanna tell me that the developers of Battle Zone were secretly working for the space program? Or that John Warnock (yeah, the same one who later founded Adobe) was really preparing for a moon shot when he invented the key overlapping object algorithms?

There's some truth in the original assertion. NASA/Ames was one of the earliest sponsors of "goggles and gloves" interface work and related technologies. They had several uses in mind. One idea they were thinking about was virtual control panels. Take the shuttle or the space station: interior space is at a premium and there's a huge need for buttons and joysticks and LEDs and displays to show status and interact with all the gadgets and control surfaces. The user interface parts of a space station or space ship tend to be expensive, delicate, heavy, inflexible, take up a lot of space, and kind of get in the way when not actively in use. The dream of VR with regard to this problem is that with you could take any blank wall of a space station and turn it into exactly the right UI for the task at hand. The astronaut puts on the goggles and gloves when he needs to, say, manipulate the robot arm; he sees all the relevant controls and can interact with them. But it's just a wall, so when you turn the interface off, it's impossible to accidentally interact with it, the indicator lights don't burn out or short out, and you can't accidentally trip over the joystick or crash into the monitor because it isn't there.

Another big idea was using telepresence to control things like a robot arm or a mars rover in hostile environments.

NASA had real prospective uses for this sort of technology and a big budget, so they were a real player in the early days of VR. Which isn't to say that everything VResque wouldn't have happened anyway without them, but it's something. It's not nothing.

Here's a relevant link.

Not fast enough to help Bush re-election

[JGski]

There are two "sustainable" sources of GDP growth: population growth and technology innovation. By that I mean, sources that have any chance of ongoing exponential growth, aka the definition of a "healthy economy".

Government spending can contribute to growth but it's a degenerative feedback loop - government "expenses" like taxes tend to eat up a portion of the economic kick each time money flows back through the goverment since most income is taxed. Thus government spending creates a blip which dissipates - if other growth sources aren't on the edge of recovery, the economy won't catch "fire" and start growing.

A space mission would eventually create technological innovation to fuel growth but it takes time to develop new technologies in the first place, more time for a critical mass of technology portfolios that are cross-purposeable outside of government/military to accumulate, and even more time for those technologies to finally take root. The rule of thumb is 15-25 years from the first scientific discovery/creation to the point when noticeable economic benefit results. Consider the Internet. Consider transistors. Consider integrated circuits. Of course you may not pick the correct newly discovered technology to bet on today.

It's not entirely clear how cost effective a Space Program would be. Sure there have been "homeruns" like semiconductors, computers and integrated circuits which never would of existed with the Cold War and the Space Race, but what's in the pipeline that would apply to a space mission, and then be applicable to a broader. The next "Velcro" won't power a major economic burst. Another internet or transistor might. Unfortunately computers and semiconductors themselves are mostly in evolution mode, rather than revolution mode. The "next big things" like nanotechnology and biotechnology are either just entering their 20-year obligatory incubation period or have industrio-technological structural impediments that will prevent revolutionary advances, and neither would seem to have a major role in a space program anyway.

My net-net is: don't assume a new space program will fix anything economically. If Bush thinks it will, he's, again, deluded. The time-constants are all wrong. If you use economics as a justification for a space program you are perpetrating an improbability. There are other good reasons to have a program. Jobs mean stability even if you don't have net growth. A space program, done right, can inspire a nation which is not a trivial thing. If you allow a economic window of 10-30 years, by then a space program will almost certain contribute to technology - the Net Present Value is still debateable. We certainly don't think that far ahead often enough though.

I don't like Dubya, but...

[Gadzinka]

Hey, I don't like Dubya as much as the next guy, but big projects finansed from public budget fuel all the economy. Just look at what Iraq war did to American economy.

It's all the same, no matter if government spends it on bombs or space rockets. When they spend money big time, the main agency gets money and spends it. Its contractors get money and spend it.

And finally: their empoyees get money and spend it. On food, homes, cars, hi-tech gizmos (in any order). But suddenly all the people that produce those goods have money to spend it, and...

This is called macroeconomy, as someone down the page said it. It's better when it's fueled by space program than by another war.

Just my .02pln

Robert

Re:I don't like Dubya, but...

[kraut]

Why why why does everyone assume that a falling dollar is BAD for the US?

It's great news for the US economy, just like the rising euro is a big pain for that economy. It means your imports are more expensive, and need to be substituted with internal production, and you're exports are cheaper, which means they'll sell better.

Oh, and all those bloody foreigners that hold US Treasuries have just lost 20% of their value ;)

Seriously, though, falling dollar within reason is good for the US; deficit spending & increasing debt isn't.

Of course, IANAEconomist

Re:I don't like Dubya, but...

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's all the same, no matter if government spends it on bombs or space rockets.

There is a difference. In the latter, not quite so many people die.

Re: finite amount of money?

[Zugok]

uh, that's what happened in Germany before the rise of the Nazi's. Inflation was sky high, money had no value and was worth les sthan wallpaper.

OP: Your answer

[Glonoinha]

Manned space flight (ie, the government spending MAD DOLLARS) is not going to save the economy if the government doesn't do something about outsourcing the jobs. Not just the fancy new space jobs, ALL JOBS.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030316 S0 003
In New Mexico, the unemployment insurance department recently paid (some offshore (India) outsourcing company) $6 million for an online unemployment-claims system. How ironic is that, spending taxpayer money on a system to handle the growing number of unemployed people, but sending all that money overseas and not using it to employ Americans. That's just ignorant.

There is one way to "save the economy" : bring back the jobs. Simple as that. Make off-shoring and outsourcing economically unviable (tax the living hell out of it, for example) or simply make it illegal - or quite simply America is going to be totally and utterly fscked.

Short Bus

[Ratbert42]

It's exactly this retarded logic that works so well with most Americans. I actually sat in a United Way campaign meeting last month and listened to how wonderful it is that if I just donate a dollar, often an agency can get matching federal funds, sometimes up to 13:1 matching. I was the only one going "wait a second. Those $13 matching dollars are mine!"

I wish I could run my business by taking 40% of people's incomes, wasting 75% of that, and "giving" the rest back to them in crap they don't really need.

It's not really about creating jobs

[Linux_ho]

It's about developing new technologies. Don't ask how many people NASA and their contractors (and subcontractors, etc. etc) employed. Ask how our society has benefitted from advances in science that come as a direct result of funding NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. How many jobs today aren't affected by advances in materials science or other technologies that can be traced back to NASA?

Just one problem with the theory, though

[mc6809e]

What jobs are lost because taxpayers have less to spend in the private economy?

What government spending can do is redirect jobs from one part of the economy to another part. Of course, it's hard to know what jobs exactly are lost in other parts of the economy because of this.

What ends up being really important is this: are those jobs being used to produce things that people want? If the money stays in the taxpayers pocket, they are very likely to make their wishes known in the market place and they are very likely to get what they want.

If it is taxed away for a space program, it's less obvious that they'll be getting what they want. I have to admit, though, I love looking at hubble pictures all day. I think the government has given me my monies worth, at least.

The other important thing to ask is whether or not the jobs being moved from one sector of the economy to another are going to improve efficiency. If people are creating as part of their job technology that makes the production of goods and services more efficient, then it might be a win overall because people get more for their money. A lot of military spending has this effect. How much technology was developed that later made production more efficent? Certainly the investment in computer technology has paid off in all sorts of ways.

There are also situations where spending tax money acts a simple transfer of goods and services and this can actually be a real burden on the economy if the recipients don't help improve production or don't recipricate.

Imagine a hamburger-flipper that is taxed at a 15% rate (payroll taxes for example). Now if that money is simply given to another group of people (retirees for example), when this group shows up at the hamburger joint with that tax money, they are in effect collecting free hamburgers and the taxpayer is unknowling giving them away because all the money he sees looks the same.

Now after getting back this money, it will of course be taxed again and some of it will go right back to that group to collect more hamburgers and the cycle will repeat, with 15% of the hamburgers being made for free for some group.

So the question becomes, how much are people willing to put up with this burden before it starts impacting their own production? No hamburger stand ever stayed in business by giving all it's hamburgers away for free.