Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattdeboard | Hacker News Reader

Don't clap too long, NASA has long been on the funding chopping block, and there are far too many who would like to see it eliminated completely. They don't care that they are putting vehicles on Mars. They're too myopic to even think about what the future might look like.

2.5 billion dollars to put Curiosity on Mars. That's is a little more than double of what NBC paid to air the Olympics[1]. Imagine what they could do if we doubled their budget from half a percent of the federal budget[2] to 1%.

1. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics-fans-ways-circumvent-n...

2. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/622643main_FY%2013%20Budget%20Presen...

View on HN

So the UK could have had 6 Curiosity rovers for the price of the Olympics....

NB I do think the Olympics has been a good thing - but I do wonder about the value for money....

That the price was 10 billion does not mean the cost was that. They might even make a profit since they sell the sponsorships, broadcasting rights and tickets not to mention the stimulus of the local economy.

Sinking 2 billion into something that yields no direct monetary profit, that's a bold move for any country. They did not even sell broadcasting rights!

>Sinking 2 billion into something that yields no direct monetary profit, that's a bold move for any country.

You need to look at what is spun off from the projects. If you look at that I'm sure the 2 billion will seem like a pitance.

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff/database

Somehow I suspect the long-term economic benefits of investing in the technology capable of sending the Curiosity rover to Mars are greater than those from building some sports buildings that are pretty much exactly the same as some built 4 years ago in another city and will be repeated again in another 4 years in some other city.

> Sinking 2 billion into something that yields no direct monetary profit, that's a bold move for any country.

Correct that there is no direct return on investment. However, some experts have claimed for every dollar spent on the Apollo program, we got $10 back in public benefit. It's really difficult to measure this stuff accurately, but the point to take away is that there is quite a lot to gained in technology, PR, and cash by doing inspiring & challenging science.

That’s why solving hard technical problems can be a good business move—it’s not necessarily the solutions themselves, but the by-products of creating those solutions that have lasting value.

Space exploration is not a war between "funding" and "they." Consider what you can do in your home or with your friends to advance space exploration instead of cheering on abstract forces with vague connections to real knowledge, drive and accomplishment.

You're sadly mistaken if you think space exploration isn't dependent on funding, and that that funding is in constant danger of being slashed.

As far as "what you can do in your home ... to advance space exploration" pretty sure contacting my congresspeople and telling them that funding for NASA is important to me is the best thing I can do.

I believe it is dependent on funding and you are doing space exploration harm by abstracting it down to percentages of budgets vaguely spent, as if it's a progress bar in a Zynga game that only needs to be filled.

There are many things you can do to help with space exploration. Get others excited about physics/astronomy/engineering, conduct your own rocket research and involve your family/neighbors, run/participate in distributed projects to quantify and discover items in space. Right now you are not able to see the connection between how you spend your time and what happens at NASA; this is a path to understanding how the collective individual actions of real people make these things happen, happen more often and in a better way.

Certainly also write to your representatives, but please make it personal and not abstract and give it as much weight of experience and knowledge as possible.

> I believe it is dependent on funding and you are doing space exploration harm by abstracting it down to percentages of budgets vaguely spent, as if it's a progress bar in a Zynga game that only needs to be filled.

Are you trying to sound like a smug prick?

> There are many things you can do to help with space exploration. Get others excited about physics/astronomy/engineering, conduct your own rocket research ..

Uh, ok. I am not interested in rocket research as an avenue for my own self-education, and I don't have time in my life to "run/participate in distributed projects to quantify and discover items in space." I mean, really dude? Your point seems to be, "If you are not personally building a spaceship, trying to get into outer space, you're hurting NASA!" Get a grip. In the real world, people make time for the things they care about in the spaces between all the things they must do. For those things that don't fit or are difficult to access, we do what we can. "Do everything or do nothing," which you seem to be implying, is not a viable form of advocacy.

> you are not able to see the connection between how you spend your time and what happens at NASA

I didn't know you and I were so personally acquainted. Oh, wait, you're just projecting.

Wow, that's quite a rude response for Hacker News. I'm sorry to see it here.

Edit: to respond to the middle part, I think that if you are more concerned about the space program than the other things that compete with it for money, then you would want to spend your time similarly, especially because many people are not as interested in space as you (and I) think they should be.

I do not think being busy is a good excuse; when I said you couldn't see the possibilities of positive action I meant to warm you to the possibility of increasing future support for funding by incubating enthusiasm for space exploration in others. You could certainly do this. I was also serious to suggest that you might actually contribute in some way to our exploration of space, which would mean more exploration for the same money. Whether funding increases, stays even or decreases that is a good thing.

I do stand by the Zynga analogy in that your perception of funding appeared to be too deterministic, not that you are somehow a Farmville addict or even play one Zynga game. I maintain it's bad for NASA if its advocates view the relationship between funding and space exploration too abstractly.

You are tone deaf if you don't realize how rude and condescending your own posts are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com