I realize there are other important topics, especially with an election coming up, but this is always something that's fascinated me. Besides, millions of dollars are spent on it, and at least as far as I am concerned, it is more fun to talk about than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that for every nine times out of ten the word "boondoggle" is used in English, the acronym "NASA" is present within the same sentence. And let's face it, it's expensive as shit, pardon my linguistic boondoggle. Back in the 1960s, according to Arthur C. Clarke, the NASA budget was one million dollars---per DAY. I'm not sure what $365 million in the 1960s was in today's money, but that's likely a ton of cash for the Eisenhower or Kennedy administration.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

boondoggle
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: boon·dog·gle
Pronunciation: /ˈbo͞onˌdäɡəl/
North American informal
Definition of boondoggle in English:
noun
1Work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value: writing off the cold fusion phenomenon as a boondoggle best buried in literature
More example sentences
1.1A public project of questionable merit that typically involves political patronage and graft: they each drew $600,000 in the final months of the great boondoggle
More example sentences
verb
[no object]
Back to top
Waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.
Example sentences
Origin

1930s: of unknown origin.

Speaking of which, even Kennedy was going to kill the Apollo program, citing it as a massive waste of money that could be achieved far more easily through unmanned exploration. (source wikipedia).

So, is it worth it to fund NASA? Have some of their projects been actually fruitful? or is it a massive waste of taxpayers' money? And what about the exploration of Earth? We know more about the other planets in the solar system than we do, our own.

My view is that anything that can actually benefit mankind is in the very least potentially not a boondoggle.

But let's think of some of what NASA has done recently and not-so-recently.

1. New Horizons: take some pictures of Pluto as it whizzes by at more than thousands of miles per second, as such a spacecraft does not have the amount of fuel or maneuverability to slow down and achieve orbit.

2. Kepler: discovers exoplanets. This could actually be pretty significant and a matter of national (or international, rather) security, if you want to look at it from a coldly rational standpoint. If there are other habitable planets out there, they could not only contain life, but intelligent life; which could be a blessing or a concern for humanity (are they hostile? are they peaceful? how far ahead/behind us are they, technologically? etc....)

3. Hubble: Hubble has discovered one helluva lot since its mirror was fixed back in the 90s. We know a lot more about the universe than we ever did before Hubble was launched and we started snapping pictures with it. I think this one has been well worth its price.

4. Cassini-Huygens: told us a lot about Saturn, especially its moons. It's up to you whether you think that's useful to mankind and the American (and European) taxpayers.

5. ISS: at least the cost of this one has been spread around, especially some to our Russian friends (who are in part paying us back after all the capital we put into THEIR space program following the Soviet Union's collapse and bankruptcy). Besides, you can only spend so much time in space before you have to go back to Earth, and when you do, you tend to have...medical problems if you were up there too long. Making an orbital platform that SPINS would work for that but the cost would be quite...prohibitive....for something similar to the one in the book/movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Pity because that would solve the problem of being in space too long and possibly even pave the way for commercial space travel. Such as it is...

6. Apollo: well, besides that it may have contributed to the fall of the USSR in some ways (as far as a drain on the average Soviet's confidence in his government, and the international prestige they lost and we gained as a result) and we brought back some cool moon rocks, we failed to go "all the way" and put a colony or research station there.

7. Space Shuttle: very expensive when we could have saved money with partially-reuseable rockets. However, despite how much it cost every time it was so much as dragged onto the launch pad, it could repair satellites, even capture them and work on them as if in a laboratory floating around in orbit, and other nifty stuff like that. Overall the space shuttle program was a success as much as we seem to be missing it now it's over and done with. But did the cost justify it?

8. Voyager: before the two Voyagers we didn't know jack about the outer solar system. and now since they're still transmitting we know about the outer outer outer solar system, more than they ever expected to learn. But each contains a large digital disc with information about Earth...and its location. We must pray they do not fall into the hands of the Empire after leaving the solar system.

9. The mars missions: I think this is actually useful because it's set up the planet for possible landings there. But Mars landings will be more...prohibitive...than the moon...and more expensive...because of the atmosphere, albeit a thinner one than ours.

"The Earth is the cradle of mankind. But mankind cannot forever live in a cradle."

We certainly cannot. But we also must do it in such a way that it can be justified for the cost and effort involved.

Thoughts?

I think it's a pretty dismal way of looking at things. NASA has been responsible for probably the single greatest achievement in human history to date. Along the way it has inspired millions of kids to take up a career in science (how can you put a price on what this may have produced ?). It has also resulted in spinoff technologies that have revolutionised the lives of all of us. Satellite communications, modern insulation, solar power, smoke detectors, water purification systems... Hell, the space program has paid for itself many, many times over just from better weather forecasting alone.

Since 1980 the US government has spent $48 billion on corn ethanol subsidies. That's the gross figure btw, so think for a second about how much that would equate to in inflation adjusted dollars and weep. This is an actively destructive policy which pushes up the cost of a staple food for every consumer solely to enrich a tiny number of wealthy farmers in Iowa. If you're looking for examples of wasteful spending then why not look here first ? I could go through the budget line by line and find that pretty much everything that you spend is more wasteful than the space program, so why is it that NASA has to be held to such a higher standard when it's one of the main sources of national prestige ?

I wasn't trying to say NASA was entirely a boondoggle. I was really just trying to take a look at some of their projects and analyze which ones had a greater benefit to us, and see if there is any general feeling here toward that belief. Wasn't condemning the whole organization. Either you didn't read carefully enough, or I didn't say it right. (or both)

My view is that anything that can actually benefit mankind is in the very least potentially not a boondoggle.

See what I mean?

My father objects to NASA's existence [almost] entirely, but I disagree with him in this. But I think some of their projects have had less value than others. In fact, read carefully what I said above as I listed one by one some of their recent most important projects. I approve of a great many of them, just not all. Perhaps I didn't come off as that even-handed, but I was trying to be.

I am actually quite excited about the recent decisions to involve private companies into space exploration as that will not only drop the price for taxpayers but also nullify some of the naysayers (as you seemed to think I was one of those) who can say nothing nice about NASA.

And as far as the government waste you brought up I totally agree. That's a bigger waste. But you have to remember that things fired into space can't be hidden quite as well as shady backroom deals in Congress that lead to massive private subsidies. Yet, I myself was rather excited when Bush announced the Constellation mission(s) (our return to the moon by 2025 or so). And, I was disappointed if not altogether surprised when it was cancelled.

http://list25.com/25-coolest-nasa-disco ... your-life/

https://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Scien ... ogram.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin ... chnologies

Many of man's technological breakthroughs came as a result of attempts to create military advantages. The really nice thing about space exploration is that it has served the same purpose without the war.

Most major breakthroughs technologically and economically have occurred because of state involvement. (computers, internet, etc. etc.) The really ground breaking stuff is too risky for private enterprise to get involved with in all but later stages because the pay off is too long.... and too uncertain. NASA funding for the space program seeded much of the early stage development for so many new technologies that it has been an amazing crucible for progress.
Plus there's the inestimable benefit of learning what we wouldn't have learned without space exploration. We just do not know what that knowledge will lead to...

If you want a boondoggle. Look at military contracting (particularly during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) . The money poured into the Military industrial complex for unnecessary weapons like aircraft carriers and immediately obsolete fighter jets .... dwarfs anything else.

Another boondoggle? The tax money foregone because of tax write offs for donations to PACs and political campaigns. Essentially tax payers are subsidizing the lobbying efforts of the super rich and multinationals.
End tax write offs for political donations and what would happen to money in politics.

Ricky, did you see what I just posted? I was hoping we could have a nice discussion on the better/less better projects NASA has had in the past. That was my intent. Obviously I said it wrong. But to give me the benefit of the doubt I think you two may have read it a little too quickly.

Should I clarify my position further? It's starting to reek of "whataboutery"....sorry if that comes off as a bit harsh but, again, calling the whole thing a boondoggle wasn't my intent. Sorry.

What do you guys personally think of individual projects that have been more successful, or less, for NASA? Maybe you can dig up more than the ones I did. (Moon, Hubble, ISS, Voyager I & II, etc....)

OK I'll start...(or re-start so long as i have made my position clear).

If I were to number the NASA projects I mentioned above as one through ten, I'd actually have to label most of them as 10 and well-spent. The Apollo program was a political as well as scientific success and of course a space race allows all sorts of sweet little technological advancements to filter into general society. Calculators, microwave ovens, etc. I am NOT writing off Apollo because it was cut off before it went "all the way". I only mention Kennedy originally wanting to cut it off as a matter of fact, not a value judgment.

I believe the Kepler mission is important. The first exosolar (or extrasolar) planets were discovered in the late 1990s I believe and if there are potentially even one or two out of the several thousand astronomers have so far discovered that contain intelligent life or the potential to develop it, we need to know. And quickly. Originally, they could only find the Jupiter-class planets (big gas giants) without knowledge of whether they were in the actual Goldilocks zone. Only that they were there. (Nowadays, they do have the process where they can find the Earth-sized ones in the Zone that are possibly life-supporting; so that's more than just a nifty thing.)

And despite what people say about "oh, we know so much more about space than Earth..." well I wonder how exactly that belief is QUANTIFIED. Likely it cannot be, and certainly isn't. I only made that statement to sound even-handed about it and look at both sides of the issue. Not to call the WHOLE THING a boondoggle. Understand?

Yes of course most of NASA has been beneficial. But occasionally there are things wasted. Probably nowhere near as much as Congress wastes one must admit (the example sentences under "boondoggle" included several mentions of Congress rather than space exploration) but there are some projects that are less beneficial than others. I cannot remember them off the top of my head but I was Treasurer of the astronomy club in college a while before I had to stop attending and we discussed a lot of their projects. Not all of them seemed to have tangible benefits to humankind, primary or secondary.

But many or even most do I have to admit. I just didn't explain myself right, K?

NASA is a beaurocracy, so of course it involves a lot of waste. That comes with the territory. The NASA budget is raided for pork just like any other and projects are inevitably subject to the whims of politicians. The shuttle program was a massive waste of money. This was largely the fault of the politicians, who wanted to give the erroneous impression that having a spacecraft which could be landed safely and re-used rather than simply discarded was somehow more efficient and therefore less of a 'boondoggle'. It was nonsense of course. If so much of the NASA budget hadn't have been sunk into the shuttle we'd probably have a permanent moon base by now, and could well be in advanced preparations for a Mars mission. In fact, Van Braun had plans for a Mars mission which could have been achieved by the mid 80s, but this was shelved, like so much else, at the behest of politicians.

Still though, the fact remains that the space program has paid for itself many times over. How many other government programs can say the same ? It annoys me that space exploration forever has to justify its budget from the "why don't we solve all of our problems on earth" brigade when far more wasteful spending occurs in literally every other aspect of the state.

hacker

What do you guys personally think of individual projects that have been more successful, or less, for NASA?

What are your metrics for more or less successful?
In terms of spin off technology I doubt you can figure out if any were discrete bounty from a particular mission or project.
In terms of advancements in knowledge? I doubt that any missions failed to contribute in some way to our understanding of the cosmos. Is there some particular cost benefit analysis you are aware of that could be applied?
I think it comes down to how NASA takes their assigned budget and applies it .... and as a group of experts they are probably going to apply the funds in a way that returns to them as an organization what they collectively perceive is the best return. Gone are the days when a President could set a goal like "Man on the Moon" and set NASA to task.
We need to decide as a society what we can afford to contribute to space exploration and leave it up to the community of informed experts to make the wisest investment based on their own priorities as they advance the various projects.If the spin off technologies provide the kind of seed investment required to advance our general society its a great investment.
I do think there should be a discussion among that group about the requirement for manned space exploration. I understand that we learn much from actually having people in capsules and space stations... But perhaps that is one area where more could be accomplished with less money if we didn't need to send men? But I don't feel anyone without an elite knowledge base is qualified to participate in the debate about that specific project.
Its kind of like asking ordinary people to get involved in a discussion of the best surgical option for a particular patient.

the "why don't we solve all of our problems on earth" brigade

I have to admit that the people who say that likely do not realize that, if we went by that timetable (not venture into space until we solve all problems on the ground) we would not have had a man in orbit yet!

This is actually what I was hoping to discuss.

Some of the projects have been a waste, some have been highly successful. I am not entirely informed on the space shuttle program but I had heard it was a terrible waste and that other, cheaper, options were available.

Everything just has to turn a profit....I completely agree with Sass on the points he made. I would like to see us setting bold but reachable goals in space exploration. In order to accomplish those goals we will need to have technological improvements that would be a great side benefit. Instead of programs that politicians talk about that do nothing, I would like for them to set bold goals in science, medicine, education, high-special rail, etc and mobilize the country to reach those goals. No one is going to remember the money we made as a society but advances in space will be remembered. But heaven forbid that we try to accomplish anything as a society because that would be government intervention...the incredibly rapid technological improvements during wartime belies that argument.

JimHackerMP wrote:This is actually what I was hoping to discuss.

Some of the projects have been a waste, some have been highly successful. I am not entirely informed on the space shuttle program but I had heard it was a terrible waste and that other, cheaper, options were available.

In general, human exploration is very expensive, but machine exploration is relatively inexpensive. We learn a lot with 10% of the cost using telescopes, non-manned rockets, etc. But once you try to launch humans into space, your costs become astronomical

Although it is great that we landed on the moon, for lower cost we have learned a tremendous amount by, for example, launching the Hubble telescope.

Fortunately, RJ was not not the head bean counter at NASA in the 60s who got rid of the Apollo program because the cost could not be justified...http://www.computerworld.com/article/25 ... story.html

freeman3 wrote:Fortunately, RJ was not not the head bean counter at NASA in the 60s who got rid of the Apollo program because the cost could not be justified...http://www.computerworld.com/article/25 ... story.html

The moon landing is grand, but much of the human exploration since then has been very costly without requisite benefit. The notion that computer miniaturization would not have happened without human space exploration is quaint. Integrated circuits were developed in 1958, and the next generation was developed in 1959. Moore developed his "law" in 1965.

NASA's annual budget is about $18 billion. In today's dollars, the Apollo program cost $120 billion. Getting a person to Mars may cost more than $30 billion. The Hubble telescope has cost us $10 billion. Apollo taught us that the moon is rocky and dry. Hubble is teaching us that the universe is teaming with earth like planets and will enable us to figure out if any contain intelligent life.

I'm a science and space enthusiast. However, from a budget perspective, we learn a lot more with a lot less cost by using machines and not sending people.

I'll reiterate one of the points I made earlier. How many young people watched the Apollo landings and became inspired to pursue careers in science ? It's an impossible question to answer, but I think we all know that manned spaceflight had a massive inspirational effect. How can you put a price on what this might have meant for human progress ? There's something to be said for pursuing grand, inspirational projects I think, even if they don't always pass muster with the bean counters. Certainly I think we should be sending men to Mars. $30 billion is a trivial sum when you compare it with some of the other things that governments waste our money on.