Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?

From: Michael Price (nini_pad_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:06:46 -0700

"Jeff Schroeder" <_jefreyschroder@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DipHc.9724$R36.8919@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'd like to address the idea that money spent on space exploration (or
many
> other govt. programs) is wasted or lost.
>
> First a disclaimer: I worked on the Cassini attitude control electronics
for
> six+ years and was holding my breath along with a lot of others during
orbit
> insertion.
>
> I've been at JPL for over twenty years, and AFAIK we have never stuffed a
> nosecone full of bricks of 20 $ bills and launched them into space!

  Better you did.

> The funds spent on programs like this circulates in the economy right here
on
> earth. For my part, it has gone for rent, food, car repairs, and the
myriad
> other expenses a life requires. The amount spent on materials and services
> has benefited many businesses, thereby providing jobs to others so they
can
> purchase additional goods and services.

  But that money could be spent on materials and services simply by letting
the
people who originally had it, spend it. By diverting money away from the
taxpayer
the government diverted spending priorities away from what the people want
to what
people are forced to pay for. By doing that they diverted resources
including
labour away from providing what people want to other aims. They did not
create
these resources by doing so, they just appropriated them. They created no
new
wealth, they just detoured wealth created by others.

> The actual value of the materials launched away from the Earth is a
trivial
> amount of the total.
>
> This can be said about nearly all of the things the government uses public
> funds for. I agree that many programs are unnecessary or even counter
> productive, that there is great waste and fraud, and that there are even
> deliberate inefficincies built into them. The basic aim is to keep a high
> enough percentage of the population employed (usefully or not) to enable
our
> society to function.

  But employing people uselessly doesn't ensure that more people will be
employed.
It simply means that people who would have been employed satisfying the
consumer
desire for x widgets at y dollars are employed producing something the
government
pays xy for. You are committing the broken window fallacy.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

> The continued circulation of wealth is as important to
> it, as that of your blood is to you. The only money that is truly going to
> waste, is that not being used. The bucks stuffed in your mattress for
> example, are only a potential benefit to you or others until it is used.
>
  Stuffing money under a mattress reduces the velocity of money and
therefore
reduces prices.

> However, the main point that many of us have been debating is this. Are
> there better things to spend an amount of money on than space exploration.
I
> agree that there are many worthwhile things that would provide more
> immediate benefit to people than our present example, Cassini. There are
> also a lot more very expensive things that provide less benefit, but are
> still funded. Examples: Bogus research grants to support a predetermined
> political viewpoint. Vastly expensive military systems that are never
used,
> or are just impractical. Highways to nowhere, and all other forms of that
> lovely, inclusive word, PORK! Now many would consider Cassini to be a
very
> juicy bit of pork to be trimmed. Here, I disagree. Cassini, and other
forms
> of scientific exploration DO provide a benefit in increased knowlege about
> the universe we live in.

And would you pay for this benefit yourself? I mean all knowledge is
valuable,
but that doesn't mean it's more valuable than the cost of acquisition. If
it was,
why didn't someone in private enterprise acquire it?

> Any direct benefit to people from that may not be
> apparent for some time. As Ben Franklin said when questioned about the
worth
> of his experiments with electricity, "of what use is a newborn babe?" It
> seemed silly to people of the time, but is crucial to our world today. We
> can't predict where science will lead us, or what information might turn
out
> to be useful.

  But if the results of Cassini and similar projects was information that
delivered more
value than the costs why isn't private enterprise funding it? Sure it's
hard to see which
piece of information would be useful, but according to you on average the
information
is worth the cost. Now private enterprise certainly funds things on that
basis (e.g. testing
30486 compounds before they found the right one for a morning after pill.

> Also, technologies developed for "useless" things like Cassini
> are already being applied in other ways. The mapping spectrometer has been
> further developed for medical imaging here on earth for example. The
> benefits are not just from the science data returned.

  So if it's so useful why didn't people who make mapping spectrometers pay
for the research to develop them?
>
> There are many things that should be complained about, trimmed, or
> cancelled, before going after things that are benefitting mankind through
> inspiration, knowlege returned, technologies developed, and pride in doing
> something difficult, or to the naysayers, impossible!
>
  You are not looking at the opportunity costs.

> Jeff Schroeder
>
> Very proud to be doing something worthwhile with my life. And lucky!!
>
>
>
> "Mean Mr Mustard" <macusr023@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ef808dff.0407081634.7776122@posting.google.com...
> > "Jon Kickerston" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<JDyFc.23901$bs4.5432@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > 1) What has (or will) this entire Cassini project cost when everything
> is
> > > completed?
> >
> > Billions the US doesn't have
> >
> > > 2) Now this is tough for me: its purpose?
> >
> > The same purpose as every other bull*** government program: a hand
> > out to special interest groups.
> >
> >
> > > The point of the aforementioned, at least in my mind, is the question
of
> why
> > > probably millions are being spent on this mission to find out the
> > > composition of clouds, their rotation, etc. and maybe something more
> about
> > > Titan, when such studies could have been better conducted here for a
> more
> > > useful purpose.
> >
> > The government should not be in the business of funding such studies
> > or any other research. It is a complete 180 from what the founding
> > fathers intended ... ie no taxation without representation. Sure we
> > get pretty pictures, but that's about it (oh, except that we also
> > increase the national debt).
> >
> > Unfortunatly, for the space-geek community the United States is broke
> > ... I mean piss poor, so they will have to find some other
> > "sugar-daddy" to pay for those pretty pictures. Maybe China, maybe
> > the EU? Probably neither since they realize space "exploration" is
> > basically flushing money down the toilet.
>
>