Posted 1/11/2008 05:00:00 PM by Douglas

Is the space program worth it? I'm not sure this is an appropriate forum, but I must agree with Mr. Cowing's comments.

Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on. Are these things more important than human spaceflight because we spend more money on them? Is space exploration less important?

Money alone is not a way to gauge the worthiness of the cost of exploring space.

Persactly. Is there a magic cut-off number that we're not prepared to spend to further space exploration? In the 60s, Apollo cost something like 5% of the GNP, yet today, NASA's entire budget is less than the DEA spends on the War On Drugs (how's that going , by the way?)

NASA is fond of promoting all of the spinoffs that are generated from its exploits, such as microelectronics. But are we exploring space to explore space, or are we doing all of this to make better consumer electronics? I once heard the late Carl Sagan respond to this question by saying, “you don’t need to go to Mars to cure cancer.” If you learn how to do that as a side benefit, well, that’s great, but there are probably more cost effective ways to get all of these spinoffs without leaving Earth.

I couldn't agree more. Teflon, Velcro, and every other invention people claim helps our lives because it was developed for the space program (those two weren't by the way) could have been developed much more efficiently without NASA. If your goal is to go to the moon, interesting technology is bound to fall out along the way, but it's hardly the justification. The destination is the justification!

Still, for those who would moan that this money could be “better spent back on Earth,” I would simply say that all of this money is spent on Earth — it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does. You have to spend all of NASA’s money “on Earth.” There is no way to spend it in space — at least, not yet.

But therein lies the rub. Every politician wants the money spent on their votes for reelection, not just Texas and Florida.

NASA is not without its problems, but I still like to put it this way when people start arguing about where 0.07% of their tax dollar is going: Would you rather see you name on a plaque on the Martian surface, or a Methadone clinic in Philly?

Also, I haven't read Lileks since I got tired of hearing how his four year old supports the Bush Doctrine, but he's spot on with this nugget today about the new lot of presidential hopefuls:

So let’s elect a president and fix some stuff and screw up the things we can’t help but screw up and go to Mars. We can argue about what the flag meant and what it will mean tomorrow, but can’t you see a day where everyone’s leaning forward on the sofa, in the bars, in Times Square, watching the pole drive down into red soil? Wouldn’t there be a grand nationwide huzzah, and wouldn’t that be great? Wouldn’t that be cool?

Well wouldn't it? We don't need to develop jet packs or fat-free brownies along the way to justify it, either.