Should the US permanently shut the manned Space program?

I repeat, some of the modern capabilities that make businesses run were CREATED BY the space program. And I repeat, there are LOTS of other things we could eliminate sooner--like federal subsidies to the National Endowment for the Arts, which does precisely ZERO to restore America's industrial base.
 
Certainly with a lot more time and concentration I could do a better job addressing what has been said thus far. I'll make a few brief remarks and hope they are better than nothing.

First off, China was an advanced nation capable of inventing paper, the printing press, rockets and the civil service examination system. Then all of a sudden an administration came in that felt new ideas and new places would threaten the Chinese way of life. The end result of this grounding of the exploration and trading fleets was a poverty and enforced ignorance so great that Mao Zedong complained that "We can't even send a potato into space!" It was up to Europeans to lead the world into the modern era...it could have been the Chinese but they muffed it.

Any time a nation, a church congregation, an organization of any kind wants to pull back in, hunker in its bunker and concentrate on preserving what it had with NO emphasis on expansion, exploration and outreach, it begins to die. Other nations of the world, including ominously Iran, certainly are not slowing their relentless advance toward diversity in space.

Did any of you ever stop to think how many rockets big enough to carry nuclear warheads across the Atlantic were tested in the guise of preparing for manned space flight? Apollo 12 deliberately landed on the moon within A SHORT WALK of Surveyor 3 to prove to the Russians that our nuclear missiles could land within A SHORT WALK of any target we chose.

I finish my little essay with an important point. You say if God had meant us to be in space we would be there. Got news for you kiddo...we ARE in space. Our planet is whizzing around the sun which in turn whizzes around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. Furthermore, what would have happened if the money spent on sending Christopher Columbus to the new world had been spent instead on feeding the poor and filling potholes? I tell you EXACTLY what. Aztecs would still be cutting out hearts to appease the gods and not one single solitary human being in half of the world's inhabitable zones would have ever--or could have ever--heard of Jesus Christ. At all, period. So if God meant us to cross the Atlantic, why didn't he build a bridge? He built Christopher Columbus. Same reason he didn't airlift the Hebrews out of Egypt...he sent Moses.

Admittedly we can never call Werner Von Braun a Moses. Thing is, however, all the great discoveries that led to wonderful healing and teaching and improvements in lifestyle generally were afterthoughts, things whose true value only really became apparent AFTER they were tried. When we stop groping around in the dark, we stop stumbling over new and sometimes exciting things. I for one don't want to see the world regress to the dark ages, where only religious and governmental goals were thought to be important and all forms of advancing mankind's wisdom were neglected.
 
I still think it's kinda silly to waste money on something so unimportant as space. If it wasnt for the fact our government was going under I'd say 'if you have a few extra dollars to spend for space go right ahead'. I'm not against space travel...like Jax said I too love space and I am a Star Trek, Star Wars fan.. I'm just against wasting money the country DOESNT have.
 
Why not start with the National Endowment for the Arts? Through NASA we might learn how to deflect an asteroid aimed at earth. What are we going to learn how to do looking at portraits of the Blessed Virgin Mary smeared with human excrement and a 20 mile series of orange cloth "gateways" representing the march of progress? Paid for with your tax dollars, mind you, whether you approve of them or not.
 
Well, that would be a general utility argument for public funding - i.e. there's an indirect, long-term general benefit to manned space exploration, so public funding is justified. Much the same argument is used for things like roads and canals - even though I personally may never travel I-10 between Houston and New Orleans, other will, and that ability benefits us as a whole.

The difficulty there is that the benefit is so indirect that some would argue it's effectively useless. (Note: I'm not saying so, but some would.) It's also subject to the affordability argument: in times of contracted resources, indirect general benefits like this are and should be the first thing scaled back.

You'll get no argument from me on the NEA. If we're slashing the manned space program, there's no way a dollar of public funding should be going to the National Endowment for the Arts.
 
So far as Lewis's essay goes, he was correct--learning can't automatically stop due to a crisis. However, I would contend that the character of a university and that of the space program are different enough that his argument doesn't apply as well here. There is a difference between someone spending his own money to stay in college during a war, and spending billions of non-existent government dollars on an arguably unconstitutional program.

I would rather see the National Endowment for the Arts be dismantled first, but the United States is so deeply in debt that drastic action needs to be taken. An intact space program won't be much of a help if the rest of the government begins to fall apart under the strain of the national debt.

I also disagree with Eveningstar that governments need to constantly focus on expansion or face a slow death. Yes, governments should focus on improvement, but improvement and expansion aren't automatically the same thing. Most countries haven't sent people to space, and many of them are fine, excluding those governments that are too corrupt to handle anything anyway. And among those that have sent people to space, the record is not exactly stellar. Look at the Soviet Union, who sent a man to space before anyone else and spent billions on its space program. Where is the Soviet Union now? It collapsed under its own weight and the weight of its attempts at "expansion" (Afghanistan, etc.). There comes a point at which a country can expand too much for its own good, as numerous empires have discovered.
 
The question of Constitutionality is ambiguous. It's correct that the Constitution does not command manned space flight, but neither does it forbid it - it's totally silent on the topic. In fact, the Constitution says very little about how taxes should be spent, and what kind of things the federal government should be involved in (and even less about what the states should be involved in.) That's left to the various Congresses and administrations that serve under the Constitution. So long as the tenets of the Constitution are not violated (and I don't see how manned space flight does that), I don't see a Constitutional problem.

I agree with the Magister's comments about expansion or death, but I would substitute the term "culture" or "society" for "government". Innovation and exploration on several fronts (e.g. art, philosophy, theology, exploration, etc.) are vital to a culture remaining vibrant, but that does not automatically mean the government has to be spearheading that innovation. But as he points out in his example from Chinese history, governments can stifle innovation if they're not careful.
 
The question of Constitutionality is ambiguous. It's correct that the Constitution does not command manned space flight, but neither does it forbid it - it's totally silent on the topic. In fact, the Constitution says very little about how taxes should be spent, and what kind of things the federal government should be involved in (and even less about what the states should be involved in.) That's left to the various Congresses and administrations that serve under the Constitution. So long as the tenets of the Constitution are not violated (and I don't see how manned space flight does that), I don't see a Constitutional problem.

I agree with the Magister's comments about expansion or death, but I would substitute the term "culture" or "society" for "government". Innovation and exploration on several fronts (e.g. art, philosophy, theology, exploration, etc.) are vital to a culture remaining vibrant, but that does not automatically mean the government has to be spearheading that innovation. But as he points out in his example from Chinese history, governments can stifle innovation if they're not careful.

The potential constitutional problem is that the government is not merely handing out tax money to be spent; it has created an entire program. Since the Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," if any American government were to involve itself in a space program, that government would have to be one of the state governments, unless a constitutional amendment were passed giving power to the federal government to create a space program. The space program isn't necessary to carry out any of the federal government's delegated powers, so the federal government has no real authority to run a program like NASA. The Constitution would not have been ratified if the state legislatures thought that the Tenth Amendment would be interpreted any differently. Of course, there are some people today who think that the opinions of the ratifiers are moot point now; but, if we want to interpret the Constitution the way those who adopted it intended, there is a potential problem.

Maybe this thread should be moved to the Socratic Forum; it's getting to be a more un-general discussion with every post.
 
I warned from paragraph one, word one that my remarks were rushed and not as considered as the topic deserved.

No, by "expansion" I do not mean "hegemony". The United States does not need to push indiginous folk off their islands to take over their lands in the name of "discovering" or "claiming" them. Nor do I mean we need to have an Air Force Base on the moon before the Russians. And of course I'm not in favour of turning Antarctica into habitat for a burgeoning population. Let's drop that right there and now.

And of course, as Prince pointed out, I do not mean that government must spearhead innovation and change, though certainly, as he also pointed out, government CAN stifle innovation.

With those points of order set straight for the record, let's look at the whole ugly situation from another angle. Whether you like it or not, other nations WILL judge the US by its ability to innovate in all areas, including space. I am sure there were moments in World War II when Churchill basically thought, "Oh dear Lord, we're all going to die!" but he was careful not to give that perception to the world. The United States must be careful what perceptions it gives the rest of the world, given that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, Iran has launched a satellite, China has a man in space programme and it only takes a box as big as a Dodge Minivan to track all your trains, planes and automobiles from orbit. You can go on Google Earth and actually see the lawn furniture I had in my backyard. Military applications are many, many, MANY times sharper. There are rumours they can make out license plate numbers on cars.

I don't think there are any stupid people in this thread. I'm not calling anyone here stupid, any more than I would call someone stupid for standing where lightning was about to strike. Obviously you would move if you thought you were about to be struck by lightning. But you CAN know in advance that space has become of vital strategic importance to human welfare, and it has been for a very long time, and it will become much more so in the future. Any country with ideals and the courage to preserve those ideals will want to be integrally involved in that future with all the technology our God-given talents can contrive.

Remember, you could feed a LOT of poor people with what we spend on police, fire, ambulance and forensics. And home, auto and life insurance really eat too much of your budget if you KNEW BEYOND A DOUBT you would never have a wreck, a fire, or die.
 
Last edited:
Inkspot, my illustration with the cigarettes was _entirely_ valid and relevant, because it shed light on the issue of priorities. The wasting of money on tobacco is one of _many_ expenditures which are immeasurably _less_ productive than space exploration, because of which it is putting things upside-down if we drop space exploration _before_ dropping a vast multitude of other things.
But we're talking about the government funding space exploration with your tax dollars, not about asking people to give their tobacco money to fund a space program. In fact the taxes people pay on their smokes could be used to fund the space program, but not the actual dollars they spend on their ciggies unless you are willing to follow my other examples and randomly say, "Give me that money you spend on ____, and I will use it to fund a space program."

How are you getting that if people give up smoking, they would be happy to fund the space program, or there would be enough tax dollars to fund the program?
ES said:
Remember, you could feed a LOT of poor people with what we spend on police, fire, ambulance and forensics. And home, auto and life insurance really eat too much of your budget if you KNEW BEYOND A DOUBT you would never have a wreck, a fire, or die.
Right.
CF said:
Space exploration has resulted in modern satellite networks that serve many purposes, and even experimentation with zero-gravity manufacturing whose equivalent cannot be done on the Earth's surface.
This is what I was asking someone to explain: what good is the space program? How does it benefit the USA? What else benefits does it yield.
True POTW...but I guess it's more of the money thing to me then that fact. Why waste the money for space right now when so many people and businesses are going under because of no money.

Well, that touches on deeper questions of political and economic philosophy. There will always be people and businesses "going under", even in the best of times. Does that mean all research and exploration should stop until nobody is "going under"? And whose responsibility is it to care for those "going under"? Automatically the government's? If so, which level of government? The Federal? State? Local? (I'm using the U.S. governmental model here, but it has close parallels in other countries.)
Yes, these are the pertinent questions.

PotW said:
If a society discarded all exploration and research (and art, and inventiveness) because the resources used for them were needed for the businesses and people "going under", then - well, you'd end up with something like the Soviet Union was.

This is why I say that I hope manned space exploration doesn't end, but rather that people think long and hard about how it is funded.
Exactly. Businesses can go ahead and fund exploration if it's important to the USA or offers benefits or makes a profit.

Does it? What are the benefits of it? And why ought the government to fund it?
 
I hate flying too :p LOL

True POTW...but I guess it's more of the money thing to me then that fact. Why waste the money for space right now when so many people and businesses are going under because of no money.

You can't cancel something as important as the space program though. Money can be obtained else where. We wouldn't need so much if we hadn't of baled out the banks and car companies . Let them fail it's part of capitalism, the risk of failure. And for businesses going under it's not the government's job to stick their noses in the economy. Let the economy take its course. The last major depression did the government throw money out like its doing now? No. What got us out of that depression was WWII it created war time jobs and money started to flow again.

Some may say well let the private sector take over the space program. Problem with that is none of the private sector companies are as advanced or capable of running it. You can clearly see this in the current space race for commercial space flight. Now if the private sector were sending up shuttles every couple of months, then yeah sure why not? But they're not. In the future maybe they will be, but until then the government is the most capable of completing the very very important task.
 
Last edited:
So may say well let the private sector take over the space program. Problem with that is none of the private sector companies are as advanced or capable of running it. You can clearly see this in the current space race for commercial space flight. Now if the private sector were sending up shuttles every couple of months, then yeah sure why not? But they're not. In the future maybe they will be, but until then the government is the most capable of completing the very very important task.

With the massive size of the government space program, private space programs have no incentive to be that advanced. If private ventures could settle much of the New World, private ventures can, in all likelihood, explore space.

I don't believe it is self-evident that we need a space program. C. S. Lewis, for instance, expressed reservations about going to space on multiple occasions. If space becomes a major factor in national defense, then some space prowess may become unquestionably necessary, but otherwise, people can legitimately think that the United States government would be better off spending its money (of which, coincidentally, the government has none) on other things.
 
With the massive size of the government space program, private space programs have no incentive to be that advanced. If private ventures could settle much of the New World, private ventures can, in all likelihood, explore space.

You're wrong there. There is very big incentive. There is the X-Prize competition for commercial space flight. That's only a small incentive compared to the money that would be gained from offering commercial flights into space.

I also believe it was the English government that financed the trip to explore America.
 
Commercial space flight isn't the same thing as heading up a space program, and it won't have the same effect as long as the federal government is involved. One prize, even a large one, isn't the same incentive as having a free market where space travel is concerned. Perhaps "no incentive" was bad wording; I change that to "less incentive," which is definitely true.

The English government did finance some trips to explore America, but others were financed by private companies. Both Massachusetts and Virginia were started by private companies and retained certain privileges for a while as a result. The king gave the companies a permission to settle a certain area, but they took the personal and financial risks on their own.
 
I have no problem with the private sector controlling space, like I stated before. The problem is they are no where close to being able to carry out the missions the NASA can. SpaceX is launching one of there first ships, if not their first ship, in a couple of months. They just aren't advanced enough to stop the governments space program.
 
I'm not contending that private space programs are as advanced as the government space program; I was saying that the private programs are being hindered by the existence of a government space program. With a government program in place, they have less incentive to explore space on their own. And, again, exploring space has a negative side, because humans have a sinful nature. Unless knowledge of space is necessary for national defense, the space program is not vital to the United States.
 
Not to be rude, but when I opened a slightly politically based thread, I was told it was against the rules and it was locked. Why is this still here? I thought any sort of political discussion was not permitted here.
I'm sorry if that was rude or offensive, but I have to listen to classmates, teachers, even my own biological father rat at me about Obama and other political stuff. I kind of thought as TDL as an escape from the irritation of political discussion, so I thought I'd bring up the rule I was told of.

Also, I am an Obama supporter and will not be swayed--do not attempt doing so. And I know nothing about this space program thingy, so don't tell me how misinformed I am or whatever.

Again, I am very sorry if any of this is offensive, disrespectful or rude.
 
Oh but it is necessary! Think of the defense systems and technology that we've gained from our space ventures. The ISS provides a unique environment for testing which has contributed to not only technology, but medicine and many other things. Also GPS and missile defense would only be a dream if not for our governments space program. It is a very important part in the research and development in new technologies such as these.
 
Space is neither a Republican nor a Democratic agenda, it's a big black thing with lots of stuff floating in it. Whether the Republicans or Democrats would set better space policy is a political discussion that's off limits. Hope that helps.

The name of this thread is hereby changed. I'm going to use the word "Obama" to describe "Change", namely the change of the name of this thread. That's the last time I want to see the "O" word mentioned here by either Republicans or Democrats, Whigs or Tories, Labour or Conservative, Christian Democrat or Green. Got it? Thanks, I thought so. No more thread titles will mention the name of any political candidate or political electee. Ever.

This forum is not a place to discuss the fitness or lack thereof of any political candidate for any political office anywhere. If you think Yung Park Kim would make a dandy dog catcher in Seoul, South Korea, vote for him, but don't campaign for him here. Not in the thread title, not in the thread. At all.

I think part of what makes the whole space exploration thread so contentious is that people associate it with Apollo landing on the moon or the Pathfinder rolling around on Mars. People forget that space exploration is also the warning you get on TV that a tornado has been sighted in your area or the news that a nuclear test in Pyongyang fizzled out at 7 megatons. It's what happens when you see a live satellite image of the destruction in Haiti or a soldier in Iraq calls his wife in South Pittsburgh to ask how their daughter is doing in school. Space is not just the race to plant a flag on Mars. It's really not.

Because it is a complex question, it's quite likely you like space exploration but differ philosophically. Even in the Republican administration (I know, that's skirting it) there were TWO different agendas...should we go to the moon first and then to Mars or put everything toward MARS NOW and not "waste" money practicing on a lunar base. I'm sure within the Democratic administration there is also more than one viewpoint. It's not a simple red versus blue arguement. Nobody here is stupid or evil because they have a personal opinion on the subject. We should thoughtfully discuss our differences of opinion about space without making reference to a certain person in the Oval Office, much like the Republicans argued over "Moon first" without making reference to a certain different person in the Oval Office. Since neither Obama nor Bush are never going to travel in space, their names do not need to come up, right?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top