Slashdot Mirror
Debunking the Trillion-Dollar Space Myth
jfoust writes "When the President and NASA announced the agency's new space initiative, including sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars, many news reports claimed that the plan could cost as much as $1 trillion. According to this Space Review article, that trillion-dollar price tag is a myth: it was based on erroneous data and analysis, in large part by a single Associated Press reporter, and propagated by many other reporters too busy -- or too lazy -- to check on the facts. Could this kill the plan before it has a chance to start?"
It could easily cost at least one trillion dollars over the next 20+ years to get humans to Mars. Look at how much the U.S. thought it would cost originally to get to the Moon, $10-20 billion. And you know they spent way more than that actually doing it. $20+ billion to get the Moon 30+ years ago can easily translate to $1+ trillion to get to Mars in the next 20 years.
You also must consider all of the technologies that were gained and/or improved during the race to the Moon. Computers, communications and fuel cells is just the very short list. What do you think one trillion dollars can get us this time around? Perhaps IPv6 deployment.
It seems like more and more that people are just printing/reporting what ever "facts" they come across to forward their own agenda.
A good example is that story that ran last week where they almost banned styrofoam cups because they read on some kid's website about the dangers of "di-hydrogen monoxide" (Water) or whatever the scientific name is.
Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
Well, the president's plan only calls for an additional $500m/year of NASA funding (2/3 the cost of the current unmanned probes), so who's kidding who?
The cost of colonizing our solar system (which for self-contained colonies probably will far exceed one trillion) can be better spent on asteroid surveillance and making the world a better place so we don't need nuclear weapons.
Look at the reality though - ISS, Shuttle etc. Name one of these programs that has not overrun its budget by a substantial margin.
I'd place the likelyhood of a nuclear war rendering Earth uninhabitable higher if we did have perminate self-supporting settlements elsewhere, than if we stay on earth. So long as we are confined to earth, politicians cannot make planet destroying scale wars on others without affecting themselves. Once we have other planets you can attack someone else and not kill yourself. (though retaliation is still a factor)
Even still it is worth while to get people to other planets. I just don't know if we should look outside of the Solar System now, or wait a few (hundred/thousand?) years for faster travel so that would pass those earlier ships in flight...
A Mars program is not going to protect you from environmental concerns or war, which will probably impact you in the next fifty years. There is nowhere remotely inhabitable anywhere near us we could have any hope of colonizing in a sustainable way in the time frame.
Could this kill the plan before it has a chance to start? No, what will kill the plan is when NASA's responsibility is massively increased, but their funding only increases a few percent....
(The cynic in me noted the timing of W's announcement... "War? Death? um... Hey, Lookit the Moon! Lookit Mars! Perty, eh y'all?")
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Original quote was "A billion here a billion there, after a while you're talking real money!" and was atributed to Evert Dirksen of Illinois. Actually, if you amertise the cost of the 60s NASA programs as development e costs of doing business in the creation of: computers, chips, Intenret, out modern culture/ technology/ and all our jobs/ etc. It comes out cheap. And besides: we got Velcro, Teflon and Tang thrown in for free!
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Amortized over a decade or more of work, $1 trillion doesn't seem so bad. Especially considering $100bn/year is a fraction of what we spend on our military.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
So suppose it's "only" $100 billion. Why, exactly, is it justified? We can do the science far more cheaply with robots, and if a robot burns up on entry, no one has to attend any funerals. The typical arguments I see on slashdot boil down to:
Yeah, and so are lots of things. Doesn't mean we should spend government money on it.
True, in billions of years the sun will swallow up the inner planets. More realistically, if we keep trashing the environment life will eventually be very uncomfortable for us. But space technology right now can send up a handful of astronauts at a time. We're not about to migrate overcrowded populations to the moon. (Human migrations in the past have all been much cheaper, even in relative terms.) The solutions to our problems on Earth should involve fixing our behavior on Earth, not giving up on it and fancifully migrating elsewhere.
Give me a break. If we want to sponsor scientific or technological research, we can do that much more efficiently by giving grants directly. Space research really hasn't produced much anyway, per dollar, compared to defence spending. It was the military, and not the space program, that drove the development of the microchip. The space program has given us... Tang. The "science experiments" done on the Shuttle nowadays are mostly nonsense anyway; the real ones could be done far more cheaply by robots anyway.
I support unmanned space exploration designed to further the pursuit of science. But manned space flight is incredibly expensive in comparison, doesn't really do much for us, and sucks resources away from real science.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
This is a complex issue. On the one hand, the space program has many more benefits than initially aparent. Innumerable medical, technological, and biological discoveries have stemmed from NASA and the space program. These have disseminated into the public and have improved our overall quality of life. Presumably, similar discoveries would take place with such a large mission.
On the other hand, you are very right about the neglect of the poor and impoverished in our country. But I think this problem is one small part of an overarching social degradation. Organizations like the Red Cross are finding it harder to fund their programs. People don't give as much of their income to the poor anymore. And we have also become callous to the needs of those near us, in our own neighborhoods. Most people will not help someone that goes crawling past their door. This is partly due to the increased risk of crime (another growing social problem). But to feed and clothe all the people in the U.S. and the world will take action by individuals like us, and have a much larger impact that a government program that throws money... although that might help.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
We didn't need small computers until we went to the Moon the first time. Many watches today have more computing power than the entire LEM but the computer that went to the Moon was the start of the real push to get things miniaturized and lightweight. Going to the Moon again just to go there and make sure the flags are still standing up would be a waste IMO but going there to stay and/or going to Mars would end up inventing new ideas and refining existing ideas to the point where we'd get a good return on them. The Shuttle and ISS don't return much because they aren't doing anything new, but a long-term space habitation like a (semi-)permanent Moon base or a 2-3 year Mars mission would likely yield dividends we could use to make life better on earth.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
This issue struck me in a NPR piece interviewing kids at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum shortly after Bush's speech. A majority of the kids thought of manned space travel as an escape from a disposable used up world. How sad really. Of all the motivations for going to the Moon or Mars, escaping a ruined Earth is about the least pratical.
I hope someone is able to put space exploration into an inspiring context that motivates people to achieve at a high level doing great things for great reasons, rather through a cynical appeal to our worst fears and selfish agendas.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I think a permanent solution to the energy crisis that leaves the US with no need for a Middle East political presence that costs a few hundred billion and creates millions of jobs can be sold to the American people.
I do not think that the American people either can or should be sold on a program which will mainly bring back some cool video of people wandering around collecting Mars rocks and the rocks themselves.
If we build a space industrial infrastructure, we will know how to get to Mars cheaply, comfortably, and safely.
We need space as a place to put industry. If we get industry up there, doing science up there will be cheap... it's a lot cheaper to send science grad students up if there's lab and housing space up there for them.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The cost of colonizing our solar system (which for self-contained colonies probably will far exceed one trillion) can be better spent on asteroid surveillance and making the world a better place so we don't need nuclear weapons.
Um, what's the point of asteroid surveillance if you don't have nukes to take them out with anymore? You want to send a mission to divert the asteroid? Wouldn't it be easier, and cheaper just to have somebody up there already to do that?
Instead of observing asteroids, let's mine em. That way, if we get a rogue one headed for earth, we'll have plenty of mining equipment up there that can land on the bugger while it's still a ways away, and strip it of enough mass to divert it or make it a non-threat.
Can't do any of that if we're still huddled on the ground. Besides, don't think of the 1 trillion as a non-returnable cost, but as insurance (putting humanity in more than one place) with a future annunity (resource extraction, a new frontier for the adventurous, cheaper space access, and a lot more business for manufacturing both here on the ground, and in space.)
Or for one more example, during the Desert Storm flavor of Iraq wars someone thought they would save money getting fax machines from an office supply company rather than the expensive Mil-Spec ones. They had a half life of some fraction of a day (heat, sand, grit, noise adn vibration of F18 takeoffs).
There is waste fueled by corruption, systemic waste from bloated management structures (a little knowledge of transaction cost economics goes a long way) and in some instances doing unusual things is expensive. Going to the moon is one of those. MRH
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
according to the navy, a bare-bones aircraft carrier costs $4.5 Billion
And holds 4,000 crew members, weighs ~17,500 tons, contains 5 acres of deck space, and has engines capable of 30+ knots around the world, non-stop. Scale it back to a craft weighing somewhere between 100-300 metric tons, burning hydrogen for a 4-8 month trip, and the $10 billion figure should look a bit more reasonable.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I dunno... I think that if a permanent manned base on the moon and a fairly comprehensive exploratory trip to Mars could be made for $500B, that might not be too bad a deal. The mineral rights for the moon alone could be worth quite a lot. Titanium and aluminum are found in vast quantities in some areas in the form of ores that, while not the preferred source on earth, are still quite usable. An abundance of electrical energy without any worries about what tailings might harm or kill may make for a very attractive investment.
The biggest question is how you get them safely back to earth, or how the manufacturing facilities are set up on the moon.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
No, see, by "make the world a better place" we mean "kill all humans". It's all in the Robert McNamara Foreign Policy Dictionary.
so, $1 Trillion over ~30 years means they're guessing it will take the world somewhere more than 300,000 people working on this project a year for 30 years. That's a lot of required manpower.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Well, what did you expect? The environmentalist movement, and their willing thralls in the media, have been propagandizing for decades that the Earth is little more than a black cinder living on borrowed time. Of course we have problems, no one is going to deny that, but if you pound into people's heads that the Earth is used up, don't be surprised if they believe it.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
You should revisit 'Lord of the Flies'.
July 20, 1969.
That day, two men touched down on the Moon, pointed their camera back towards the Earth, and a billion people all over the world sat awestruck at how very small and fragile we all are.
Damn it, this has never been about return on investment, or about finding spinoff technologies to make us rich. It's about curiosity, about a deep, compelling drive to explore the unknown, to drive it back, and to stand in wonder at what we find there.
If you want to turn the greatest of all human adventures into a simple TCO analysis, by all means go ahead. If you want to bitch about the government using your money to do it, go ahead. I'm sure I could find a few programs that you support that I would want to see eliminated.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Insightful? Come on.
Obviously the writer of this comment did not bother to read the actual article, only the Slashdot readers' meta-comments.
The article states that the original, mistaken, media estimate of $1T was based on just such an assumption, only taking the 1989 proposal, not the Apollo program, as baseline. The large estimate came from a misunderstanding of what was included in the 1989 plan/budget. In fact, because several of the prospecting missions and technological developments that the 1989 plan relied upon have already been completed, the new price tag is significantly less.
The journalists who had to be the first to get their story out are at fault for simply repeating what one reporter wrote without checking the facts, and waiting until the actual proposal came out, rather than making up numbers unrelated to the actual initiative.
You're proving the article's point by simply parroting what you've heard in the past, without critically examining the uninformed claims that flew around at the time the initiative was proposed.
Come back when you understand that to have a valuable opinion on an issue, you need to be well-informed. In this case it should have been easy, since all it would have taken to make an informed comment on the linked article would have been to read it.
If this initiative were actually funded, it would be a tremendous boon to the US economy -- we've been suffering from at best blind-sighted and at worst disingenuous supply-side economics policies (ie major tax cuts) at a time when what we really needed was large-scale government spending to provide real economic stimulus.
A space program would also be specially targeted towards the underemployed.
However, this administration has a history of mendacity (this is undeniable) and of putting forth poorly-thought-out "bold, visionary" plans that wind up making things worse by being unfunded (eg No Child Left Behind). That's strikes one and two.
But it could still be a home run, without the real kicker, strke three -- the plan proposes to make the cuts in other research now, but actually getting somewhere with the other research much much later. That's the part about this that I don't trust -- no one will be around to see this plan through to completion, so it will probably get scrapped when the government is completely starved. The sacrifices are immediate but the rewards distant and uncertain? --> bogus.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.