Science Funding?

[Urbanguerrilla]

The Chase study of the impact of the Apollo program found that for every dollar spent on the apollo program, 14 dollars came back into the US economy, yet only 6% of GDP is spent on science programs: why such a tiny investment into something which has proven to be extremely profitable?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7Cge7RDHI&feature=related[/ame]

 

[psikeyhackr]

The Chase study of the impact of the Apollo program found that for every dollar spent on the apollo program, 14 dollars came back into the US economy, yet only 6% of GDP is spent on science programs: why such a tiny investment into something which has proven to be extremely profitable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7Cge7RDHI&feature=related

Part of the problem is economists are technological morons. How much of that gain came from electronics?

The space program and the electronics industry were in a synergistic state in 1960. Integrated Circuits had just been invented and were sitting on shelves unpurchased because they were too expensive. But NASA had to have a computer small enough, light enough and rugged enough to land a spacecraft on the Moon. So the space program plus military weapons systems were an economic and technological marriage made in outer space.

But there is no guarantee of such synergy from further space ventures. Some people BELIEVE and it may be possible. But what other applications are there for the heat resistant hexagons on the bottom of the space shuttle? I think it would make sense to put a robot base on the Moon to do prospecting and mining and storing water. I would pat $50 to operate a robot on the Moon for 30 minutes. Where is the copper and iron and aluminum on the Moon? How do we develop efficient smelting processes for work in a vacuum? Etc., etc.

psik

 

[Old Rocks]

All too many people have the need to see immediate results from scientific research. They have never studied the history of science, and seem to think that the progress is from sudden breakthroughs, and never see all the small steps and tedious research into the important details that make the breakthroughs possible.

And we Americans seem to have a culteral disdain for the intensive work and study that is required to become scientifically trained. And distrust those who make the effort as elitists, rather than the hard working people that make our standard of living possible. All you have to do to see this is compare the salaries of major league scientists, and major league ballplayers. Which benefits our nation the most?

 

[rdean]

The Chase study of the impact of the Apollo program found that for every dollar spent on the apollo program, 14 dollars came back into the US economy, yet only 6% of GDP is spent on science programs: why such a tiny investment into something which has proven to be extremely profitable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7Cge7RDHI&feature=related

Because only 6% of scientists are Republican. Of course they don't support investment in science. Even most of their leadership believes science is a "faith".

 

[uscitizen]

As a nation we have become too shortsighted to invest much in science. The investment must show a profit in a few quarters or it is a bad investment.

That is one big reason that govt has to invest in some things.

 

[rdean]

As a nation we have become too shortsighted to invest much in science. The investment must show a profit in a few quarters or it is a bad investment.

That is one big reason that govt has to invest in some things.

Don't confuse the right with the left. The right wing has never really supported education or science. They see it as a "waste". They believe their own rhetoric that most inventions come from "kids in their garage".

 

[uscitizen]

As a nation we have become too shortsighted to invest much in science. The investment must show a profit in a few quarters or it is a bad investment.

That is one big reason that govt has to invest in some things.

Don't confuse the right with the left. The right wing has never really supported education or science. They see it as a "waste". They believe their own rhetoric that most inventions come from "kids in their garage".

both sides are pretty much corporate controlled now. Not like it was 3 decades ago.
I am not saying the voters, but the ones that we elect.

 

[Sallow]

As a nation we have become too shortsighted to invest much in science. The investment must show a profit in a few quarters or it is a bad investment.

That is one big reason that govt has to invest in some things.

I've always held that our efforts should be made exploring space and not making war on people that live in mud huts.

 

[uscitizen]

As a nation we have become too shortsighted to invest much in science. The investment must show a profit in a few quarters or it is a bad investment.

That is one big reason that govt has to invest in some things.

I've always held that our efforts should be made exploring space and not making war on people that live in mud huts.

Ohh I agree, but we are still too much of a paranoid barbaric species for that to happen.
Plus there is a lot of proift to be made from paranoia and barbarism.

 

[Ragnar]

Because only 6% of scientists are Republican. Of course they don't support investment in science. Even most of their leadership believes science is a "faith".

Obama budget proposal scraps NASA's back-to-the-moon program

The Obama administration is killing Constellation, NASA's ambitious back-to-the moon program. The decision represents a thunderous demolition of the Bush-era strategy at the space agency, which had already poured $9 billion into a new rocket, the Ares 1, and a new crew capsule, Orion.

 

[Ropey]

both sides are pretty much corporate controlled now. Not like it was 3 decades ago.

America is a now a Capitalist Democracy. It was created as a Democracy, but today the engine that runs America is Capitalism, not Democracy.

This is why the President of both parties bow to the Fed.

The corporations, medial industry, etc. were not nearly as powerful three decades ago, and could not effect changes as they can today.

 

[uscitizen]

both sides are pretty much corporate controlled now. Not like it was 3 decades ago.

America is a now a Capitalist Democracy. It was created as a Democracy, but today the engine that runs America is Capitalism, not Democracy.

This is why the President of both parties bow to the Fed.

The corporations, medial industry, etc. were not nearly as powerful three decades ago, and could not effect changes as they can today.

The fairness doctrine kinda sucked but worked to keep some balance in the media.
we will have some slathering over that statement, but it is true.

 

[Sallow]

Because only 6% of scientists are Republican. Of course they don't support investment in science. Even most of their leadership believes science is a "faith".

Obama budget proposal scraps NASA's back-to-the-moon program

The Obama administration is killing Constellation, NASA's ambitious back-to-the moon program. The decision represents a thunderous demolition of the Bush-era strategy at the space agency, which had already poured $9 billion into a new rocket, the Ares 1, and a new crew capsule, Orion.

Yep.

One of the things that pissed me off about President Obama.

 

[Ropey]

The fairness doctrine kinda sucked but worked to keep some balance in the media.

Better informed does not always translate to better voting.

 

[uscitizen]

The fairness doctrine kinda sucked but worked to keep some balance in the media.

Better informed does not always translate to better voting.

That too. But when the airwaves are sold to the highest bidder for political purposes.

We need to somehow force better accuracy in our media.

 

[Ropey]

The fairness doctrine kinda sucked but worked to keep some balance in the media.

Better informed does not always translate to better voting.

That too. But when the airwaves are sold to the highest bidder for political purposes.

We need to somehow force better accuracy in our media.

They are also sold to the highest bidder.

The exercise that is Western Capitalist Democracy has been stumbling since the dot.com --> savings & loan --> repacking defaulting debts at a lower interest rate and selling the revitalized and fully accredited (Fanny and Freddy) packages as credit default swaps and nothing has brought about any real change in the system. If those events did not change the systemic issues and simply bandaged them, then what will force a change in the media?

What force to America is stronger than the Economy? Look at the stock market. Then look at the middle class of America. One can not force the most powerful of anything.

Unless you speak of actual revolution, I see nothing that will enforce such a change. No group in power will seek to limit their own power.

 

[uscitizen]

The only thing that will work is for us to revolt against the system. Lower our standards of living to what we need instead of want. boycott/refuse to patronize inaccurate news media, or products that are pure extravagance.
We are the consumers and the majority of our economy depends on what we buy.
If we speak with our purchasing power we have a chance, but I do not think we have the determination and gumption to do what is needed.

 

[FA_Q2]

both sides are pretty much corporate controlled now. Not like it was 3 decades ago.

America is a now a Capitalist Democracy. It was created as a Democracy, but today the engine that runs America is Capitalism, not Democracy.

This is why the President of both parties bow to the Fed.

The corporations, medial industry, etc. were not nearly as powerful three decades ago, and could not effect changes as they can today.

The fairness doctrine kinda sucked but worked to keep some balance in the media.
we will have some slathering over that statement, but it is true.

All I have to say is LOL. You CANNOT promote free speech by limiting said freedom. That is a simple fact but not the point of this thread so...

The Chase study of the impact of the Apollo program found that for every dollar spent on the apollo program, 14 dollars came back into the US economy, yet only 6% of GDP is spent on science programs: why such a tiny investment into something which has proven to be extremely profitable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7Cge7RDHI&feature=related

Part of the problem is economists are technological morons. How much of that gain came from electronics?

The space program and the electronics industry were in a synergistic state in 1960. Integrated Circuits had just been invented and were sitting on shelves unpurchased because they were too expensive. But NASA had to have a computer small enough, light enough and rugged enough to land a spacecraft on the Moon. So the space program plus military weapons systems were an economic and technological marriage made in outer space.

But there is no guarantee of such synergy from further space ventures. Some people BELIEVE and it may be possible. But what other applications are there for the heat resistant hexagons on the bottom of the space shuttle? I think it would make sense to put a robot base on the Moon to do prospecting and mining and storing water. I would pat $50 to operate a robot on the Moon for 30 minutes. Where is the copper and iron and aluminum on the Moon? How do we develop efficient smelting processes for work in a vacuum? Etc., etc.

psik

You miss the point then. I honestly could care less what the return is for the economy because the return for humanity in general is HUGE. The investment in technology is always a good thing and I would love to see the budget for NASA increased and the focus to return to pushing the boundaries of human exploration. The eventual breakthroughs that come from such endeavors cannot be predicted and often lead to amazing discoveries in fields you would not predict. We use a lot of things today that were pioneered by NASA. One of the FEW arias that the government should be spending money (science and research) seems to be the arias that the politicians are cutting.

Because only 6% of scientists are Republican. Of course they don't support investment in science. Even most of their leadership believes science is a "faith".

Obama budget proposal scraps NASA's back-to-the-moon program

The Obama administration is killing Constellation, NASA's ambitious back-to-the moon program. The decision represents a thunderous demolition of the Bush-era strategy at the space agency, which had already poured $9 billion into a new rocket, the Ares 1, and a new crew capsule, Orion.

It sickens me to see what Obama is doing to NASA. He is continually harping on investing in clean energy and technology while doing the exact opposite. Sad really. Of course, these things will go unnoticed by left wing lunatics like rdean who parrot the hatred of science on the right in a thread about NASA that was created under a republican presidency and is being destroyed under a democrat presidency. It is interesting to me as well as we are under a budget that will BREAK ALL DEFICITS RECORDS EVER and yet we are defunding the arias that we should actually be increasing.

 

[rdean]

Because only 6% of scientists are Republican. Of course they don't support investment in science. Even most of their leadership believes science is a "faith".

Obama budget proposal scraps NASA's back-to-the-moon program

The Obama administration is killing Constellation, NASA's ambitious back-to-the moon program. The decision represents a thunderous demolition of the Bush-era strategy at the space agency, which had already poured $9 billion into a new rocket, the Ares 1, and a new crew capsule, Orion.

Good. There is no reason to go "back to the moon". Bush-era strategy was throw money away on existing technology.

Quit repreating ignorant right wing bullshit. You have the Internet. READ SOMETHING!

What is wrong with you people?

Enter the Dragon
How the Dragon, a new privately funded spacecraft, should revolutionize American space exploration.

Now, under Obama's new and sensible space policy, the U.S. government is planning to focus on flying to Mars and so-called "near-Earth objects," purchasing routine transportation to the International Space Station from companies such as SpaceX (instead of from the Russian space program at $60 million or so per astronaut for every round trip). What the Dragon moment makes clear is that the ability to commercialize innovation, not just to create it, is what has made the U.S. economy so robust over the long run.

Elon Musk's new spacecraft, the Dragon, should revolutionize American space exploration. - By Esther Dyson - Slate Magazine

 

[California Girl]

both sides are pretty much corporate controlled now. Not like it was 3 decades ago.

America is a now a Capitalist Democracy. It was created as a Democracy, but today the engine that runs America is Capitalism, not Democracy.

This is why the President of both parties bow to the Fed.

The corporations, medial industry, etc. were not nearly as powerful three decades ago, and could not effect changes as they can today.

America was not created as a Democracy. Just sayin'.

Clue: "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands......."