The value of manned space flight?

[The Firebird]

Relentless pursuit of profit is a corporate thing. That's why we have them. I'm okay with letting them do that job, within some limits.

But, that's not why we have governments. Their job is not to relentlessly pursue profits. So, we don't need them to look too deeply at opportunity costs. So, yes, a program that comes essentially free is fine. Leave it be, already.

Also, if we were to look at opportunity costs, a thing that does pay for itself, and is only about a third of a percent of the overall budget, is not going to be a great place to look for missed opportunities.

You're sounding like the employer who regularly hires a corporate jet, while cutting the budget for toilet paper in the office. If you wanna look for waste, it isn't found in 1-ply vs 2-ply.

You're trying to explain things that don't correspond to the position I hold. I'm not opposed to science funding. I don't think science funding has to justify itself economically. And I have some experience here: NASA money has paid my salary in the past.

What I'm responding to is a narrow technical point--money can be poorly spent even if it has a nominally positive ROI. That's just...true.

What it seems to me you're doing is saying "well, that true point is being used in service of a bad argument, so its ok for us to act like it isn't true". Which I don't care for. Not least because if the space program can't effectively respond to these criticisms, then it will be harder to fund.

Make the strong version of your argument. Don't "not look too deeply" at details because you agree with the broader argument. And we'll get more support for science, which I certainly care about.

 

[Dire Bare]

What things? Worse for whom? Compared to when? In many measurable ways (lifespan, infant mortality, comfort, nutrition, education, individual rights, especially for women, violence, medicine, communication, sanitation, etc.) "things" are vastly better for most people than they were 100, 200, 400 years ago.

Yup.

Specific things have gotten worse or better when it comes to lifespan, health, poverty, war, etc . . . but overall we are doing better than ever before!

With one exception, in my opinion, and it's a big one . . . I'm very worried about humanity breaking the environment to a point where it can no longer sustain our current societies, and perhaps even lead to our extinction.

There are smart folks working on amazing solutions to the various specific climate change factors . . . . and there is hope . . . and maybe space travel might help out in some of those areas . . . but I'm not convinced we're going to make it.

The development of space stations on the Moon, Mars, Earth's Lagrange points, on random asteroids . . . . it could be a distraction more than a help . . . . but I don't think the corporate and governmental money being spent on space programs is enough to worry about. But we could certainly use more money and attention on the problems right here on Earth.

 

[jian]

Just my thruppence. For the record, I don't know much about space flight or exploration, but I have worked in academic science (PhD, postdoc, epidemiology) and in local and national healthcare management and strategy (NHS, UK).

It seems pretty obvious that almost anywhere on Earth up to and including the Marianas Trench is easier to colonise than anywhere outside Earth, and we definitely can do that. Yes, climate change is affecting our ability to live here, but it mainly affects our ability to live in places we've always lived (or not always, but have settled quite a lot of people recently), like where most cities are. So it's likely that Tehran or Las Vegas or Perth will become uninhabitable due to water issues, the UK will not be able to grow food, and so on. But that does leave quite a lot of the rest of the world to live in, some of which will become more inhabitable due to climate change. Obviously, everyone moving to Nunavut (or wherever) is a massive and traumatic disruption (not to mention kilotons of ethical and legal issues), but it's much, much easier than everyone moving to Side Colony 9.

But space research, like all scientific research, is worth doing. ROI is a terrible calculation because it doesn't really work for science in the same way as it works for, for instance, properly funding and supporting the IRS/HMRC/etc (that generally shows a 10-20x ROI). You can't really work out what the overall ROI in money or benefits that funding science in general (and it really has to be science in general, all branches, you never know what's going to work out) but we all know that it's vast and worthwhile. We should do it for all the best reasons, and it will always be worthwhile, especially if the benefits are retained by the funders (the government and the people) rather than by corporations and billionaires (here's looking at those big welfare queens over at Tesla and SpaceX).

Similarly, yes, we should fund the many social programmes that have improved our lives over the last century and which really work. There is enough money, we're just not spending it or refusing to do so for ideological and poorly thought out reasons. Again, the ROI is very hard to calculate but it's always vast and positive.

There isn't a conflict between the above priorities - science should not have to compete with healthcare, or space with social care. Sure, yes, in the short term, but in the long term we should agree that all of them should be funded.

 

[Dire Bare]

Just my thruppence. For the record, I don't know much about space flight or exploration, but I have worked in academic science (PhD, postdoc, epidemiology) and in local and national healthcare management and strategy (NHS, UK).

It seems pretty obvious that almost anywhere on Earth up to and including the Marianas Trench is easier to colonise than anywhere outside Earth, and we definitely can do that. Yes, climate change is affecting our ability to live here, but it mainly affects our ability to live in places we've always lived (or not always, but have settled quite a lot of people recently), like where most cities are. So it's likely that Tehran or Las Vegas or Perth will become uninhabitable due to water issues, the UK will not be able to grow food, and so on. But that does leave quite a lot of the rest of the world to live in, some of which will become more inhabitable due to climate change. Obviously, everyone moving to Nunavut (or wherever) is a massive and traumatic disruption (not to mention kilotons of ethical and legal issues), but it's much, much easier than everyone moving to Side Colony 9.

But space research, like all scientific research, is worth doing. ROI is a terrible calculation because it doesn't really work for science in the same way as it works for, for instance, properly funding and supporting the IRS/HMRC/etc (that generally shows a 10-20x ROI). You can't really work out what the overall ROI in money or benefits that funding science in general (and it really has to be science in general, all branches, you never know what's going to work out) but we all know that it's vast and worthwhile. We should do it for all the best reasons, and it will always be worthwhile, especially if the benefits are retained by the funders (the government and the people) rather than by corporations and billionaires (here's looking at those big welfare queens over at Tesla and SpaceX).

Similarly, yes, we should fund the many social programmes that have improved our lives over the last century and which really work. There is enough money, we're just not spending it or refusing to do so for ideological and poorly thought out reasons. Again, the ROI is very hard to calculate but it's always vast and positive.

There isn't a conflict between the above priorities - science should not have to compete with healthcare, or space with social care. Sure, yes, in the short term, but in the long term we should agree that all of them should be funded.

As human-caused climate change continues, some places will get worse and some will get better for us . . . but overall, the planet's environment will lose it's ability to support the population we have now, resulting in a lot of disruption and migration, yes, but also famine, lack of fresh water, and increased deaths to severe heat and weather events. You make it sound like an inconvenience! But yeah, still gonna be easier than colonizing Mars.

I agree with can have both social funding and science funding, if resources are too limited for that, let's cut the military budget! Down to zero, for my preference.

 

[trappedslider]

"Houston, we have a problem. Excel keeps thinking this cell is a date."

Thousands Of Miles From Earth And On Their Way To The Moon, Artemis II Is Having Microsoft Outlook Problems

https://www.iflscience.com/thousands-of-miles-from-earth-and-on-their-way-to-the-moon-artemis-ii-is-having-microsoft-outlook-problems-83054

"A Windows laptop is used for the same reasons a majority of people that use computers use Windows," Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller at NASA, explained on Quora, per Forbes.

"It is a system that people are already familiar with (I'd hazard a guess that other than the ISS GUI on the PCS, 80% of astronauts have never used UNIX/Linux). Why make them learn a new operating system?"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"It is a system that people are already familiar with (I'd hazard a guess that other than the ISS GUI on the PCS, 80% of astronauts have never used UNIX/Linux). Why make them learn a new operating system?"

Astronauts have to learn a lot of stuff. A new OS and UI would be some of the easiest things they'd have to learn.

 

[trappedslider]

Astronauts have to learn a lot of stuff. A new OS and UI would be some of the easiest things they'd have to learn.

You wanna go teach astronauts how to use Linux?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You wanna go teach astronauts how to use Linux?

Where do I sign up?

 

[jian]

As human-caused climate change continues, some places will get worse and some will get better for us . . . but overall, the planet's environment will lose it's ability to support the population we have now, resulting in a lot of disruption and migration, yes, but also famine, lack of fresh water, and increased deaths to severe heat and weather events. You make it sound like an inconvenience! But yeah, still gonna be easier than colonizing Mars.

I agree with can have both social funding and science funding, if resources are too limited for that, let's cut the military budget! Down to zero, for my preference.

I don't think we will necessarily net lose the ability to support human life, though that depends on things like availability and utility of fertiliser (not related to climate change, necessarily, but obviously affected by other things). But any way you slice it, yes, it will be a gigantic disruption and I don't in any way mean to downplay it, it could easily lead to widespread war and famine and pestilence and all the bad things, unless we get our faeces together as a species and try to work things out. For what it's worth, I think that Project Hail Mary (the book as well as the film, from which this thread was originally spun off) is vastly optimistic about how well we'll cooperate in an existential crisis, but I hope it's possible.

But yeah, all that pre-Star-Trek awfulness is much more likely and much easier than colonising space.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't think we will necessarily net lose the ability to support human life, though that depends on things like availability and utility of fertiliser (not related to climate change, necessarily, but obviously affected by other things).

Yeah, there is just no chance that climate change will prevent the earth from supporting human life. There are enough bad consequences of climate change, there is no need to exaggerate. (Exaggerating the risks can be bad because it harms credibility).

All of the risk, with respect to human extinction, lies in indirect, social consequences.