dreaming about the nasa that could’ve been…
A recent survey by a major polling agency found that half of Americans are in favor of cutting back on space exploration programs in light of today’s economy. Not only that, but the people we would hope to be the next generation of scientists and engineers working on new space exploration projects, those in the 18 to 29 age group, are among the strongest supporters of slashing NASA’s budget. And on top of that, only 64% of those surveyed had a favorable view of the agency, down from 81% in 2008, but up from 2007′s rough patch of 58% approval though not by much. Still, public approval is one thing. It goes up and down. But the big question we should ask is whether people know that cutting NASA’s budget to help the nation’s economic woes is akin to dropping the satellite radio subscription on a new luxury car to cut the lease payment by $100 a month, i.e. an odd feat of wishful thinking. As it turns out according a 2007 piece by The Space Review, they really don’t.
It seems that people tend to estimate NASA’s funds at 24% of the federal budget. In 2009, this estimate would mean that the agency received $648 billion, though the sum would run closer to $500 billion if we exclude that year’s stimulus packages. That would place NASA on par with the funding for the U.S. military. And no, not that of the Army or the Navy or the Air Force, the entire military, as in the Department of Defense. Well, it can be fun to dream every once in a while. If space exploration was fueled with tens of trillions of dollars over the last half a century, there’s a very good chance that we would be outposts across the solar system by now. From lunar bases to research stations on Mars, to volcanic observatories on Io, to submarines on Europa and balloons surveying Titan’s lakes, there would be money to pay for it all with plenty left over for advanced propulsion and design projects. And just think of all the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be required to keep all the current and future exploration projects up and running. From computer scientists to welders, they’d all be vital to the day to day operation of NASA’s missions, a number of them would even be required to work in space.
Even that’s not the full extent of a hyper-funded space agency. Consider how many contractors would need to fill the orders for new rockets, space planes, satellites and interplanetary internet networks. And yes, attempts at interstellar travel wouldn’t be out of the question either. When the money flows by the billion, why not use it? After all, government funding is use it or loose it. If you won’t spend what’s allocated to you, there’s a very good chance that it won’t be budgeted in for next year. Oh and we haven’t even mentioned all the innovations which would make their way down to TVs and camcorders, to new energy sources, computers, medical technology and aviation. Our would would be very different and a hell of a lot closer to our science-fiction dreams than it is today. But unfortunately, that’s not how our money was being spent. NASA’s annual budget is less than 1% of the national outlay and many of the inventions I was just imagining were never built. The money for them was never allocated and the investments were never made. It’s really a shame if you think about it. But hey, at least we have ambitious aerospace startups with big dreams and lofty goals for space exploration…
[ illustration by Zane Bien ]
Not an American, but I know some US states have strong public referenda laws. I presume that doesn’t apply federally, but the devious bastard in me wonders what the result would be if someone could get “Proposition 999: To REDUCE spending on NASA and space research to a fixed 10% of the Federal Budget. (Support/Oppose)” into the midterms in November?
Yeah it’s such a shame when you think of how much technological innovation could be possible if money weren’t an issue. If resources weren’t wasted on destroying other countries and stealing their oil (hey, military). Like Jacques Fresco says, imagine what could be possible if we took ALL of our military personnel and trained them to be problem solvers and scientists. Train them to bridge the differences between nations rather than fight with them.
gfish, did you add the cost of invading Iraq and Afghanistan to DOD’s budget? You know, these costs never appeared in the “Budget?” The Republican Congress was tickled to fund the whole damned adventure as an add-on, outside the budget. Keeps it from looking so totally insane. I guess.
@Paul: Good concept, but most Americans are like most current CEO’s, “Screw R & D, we want to see a return on our investment this year.” Maybe that’s why CEO’s are the way they are.
@aaron: I’m sorry, but that’s absurd. The US military is the most accomplished war-fighting system ever constructed. It was conceived as the arm of government that would be used to win an all-out war of fire and maneuver, a war of national survival, and in that role it has proved magnificent. It has been used, much too often in recent history, as a police force, a counter insurgency force, and a counter terrorism force. Roles for which it is uniquely unqualified. Problem simply is that a force deployed as police, certainly a force designed to fight counter insurgencies, quickly looses any of the attributes needed to fight an all-out war of fire and maneuver. Imagine taking your local police force and saying to them, “OK, boys, you need to take that hill, the whole division’s success today depends on you!”
Conversely, imagine the police chief of Beaumont, Texas, who happens by whatever curious circumstance, to have command of a squad of Rangers telling them that, ” That house, over there contains some serious felons, and I want you boys to take the place.” He knows that he’d never hear the end of it; they’ed slice ‘em and dice ‘em and drag them out by their heels, and half of them would prove to be drug dealers or prostiutes who should have gotten a year in jail, not twenty grenade fragments and eight bullet holes apeice. It’s all about technique.
We let a cabal of imbiciles get us into these messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we thought we’d elected a leader who would get us out. Well, that’s too bad, but don’t blame your magnificent military.
RaggMopp, you missed my point. I know the military is good at fighting wars, but I’m saying that all that energy, man power, and resources would be better used not to destroy, but to build. I can’t believe that if we employed a massive amount of money (akin to what the military spends) to employ psychologists, sociologists, social workers, religious leaders… problem solvers, and used these people to try and figure out why these people hate us, and fix the root causes, rather then attacking them, which, at best, is pointless patchwork. The world is now a global community and there’s nothing we can do to change that. We have to learn to live together.