Lunar calendar
NASA plans to follow up our return to the moon in 2020 with a permanent base at one of the lunar poles to be established in 2024.
About time!
One of the major disappointments of my life is that I will not be alive to see our landing on Mars. There's no excuse for that fact- economic, scientific, or political. The Apollo program more than paid for itself; it's too bad that short-sighted Luddites held us back for so long from a pursuit that would have aided, rather than competed with, our efforts to improve our quality of life here on Earth.
HT: Drudge
Comments
What do you mean by that? Didn't taxes pay for it? Did people get their money back?
I don't understand.
I mean, Jeff, that the money spent on the Apollo program generated jobs which generated income which generated several times over the amount of taxes (and income for taxpayers) that went into it.
Basic economics, Jeff.
But what does this really mean? The Apollo moon program certainly didn’t create labor and other resources out of thin air. On the contrary, the scientists, unskilled workers, steel, fuel, computers, etc. that went into NASA in the 1960s were all diverted from other industries and potential uses. The government spent billions of dollars putting Neil Armstrong on the moon, and consequently the American taxpayers had billions fewer dollars to spend on other goods and services.
...
Whenever the government creates some public work, everyone can see the obvious benefits. For example, everyone can appreciate the fact that we put a US flag on the moon, and listened as Neil Armstrong apparently flubbed his memorized line. Or to use a more mundane example, everyone can see a beautiful new sports stadium financed (in part) by tax dollars.
What people can’t see are the thousands of other goods and services that now won’t be enjoyed, because the scarce resources necessary for their production were devoted to the government project...
Economics is not a zero-sum game, Jeff. Wealth can be created. To give someone (or something) a bigger slice of the pie doesn't necessarily mean that anybody else gets a smaller slice, because the whole dynamic of a capitalist economy (or any thriving economy, actually) is that the pie gets bigger (or "higher," as the President famously mispoke in 2000).
In this case, the "scant resources" to which you refer were the investment which, far from denying people the use of the goods and services to which you refer, created and enabled them to enjoy literally hundreds of thousands of times the goods and services that investment might have bought.
Again, Jeff, it's simply basic economics. Any entrepreneur uses the same process as the means by which his wealth is created, and the fact that the government sponsored the problem does not affect the dynamic one bit. Private contractors built the systems and developed the technology and the science. In the process they exponentially multiplied the goods and services that might be enjoyed, as well as the number of people who enjoyed them. Literally myriads of jobs were created,not only in the aerospace industry, but in all the other industries which benefited, directly or indirectly, from that investment and the technology which was developed. Wealth was generated, and a goodly portion of our modern economy rests upon technology
developed as a direct result of the moon program.
You are using a computer right now, Jeff. Consider that you wouldn't be- without the moon program. And the people who make and service computers would not have that occupation to perform. There is literally no industry anywhere in our economy which would not be much smaller, much less productive, and much less profitable without that one single spinoff of the moon program.
Now consider the goods and services the American people enjoy now because of that one particular application out of literally hundreds of thousands The fact that the government sponsors a program is neither here nor there; the same rules of economics apply. The investment
resulted in the taxpayer having access to several hundred thousand times as many goods and services as they were initially
All of this is Economics 101, Jeff. It's clear that you don't understand it. You are not a conservative; you are a Luddite. The word is hyperlinked in the article; look it up.
More than that, it's only an expansion of the observation I made in my original reply that, contrary to what you claim is the inevitable consequence of government spending, the moon problem was a howling economic success not for the government so much as for the private sector, the economy, and the American taxpayer.
Parenthetically, it's been recently demonstrated that Armstrong didn't blow his line; the word "a" wasn't transmitted properly. And the scientific knowledge which resulted from the moon program in itself would have been worth the investment- if, that is, one values knowledge, which your argument suggests that you don't.
I wonder whether it values tritium- a substance found in massive quanities on the moon, relatively rare on Earth, and
whose potential for revolutionizing energy production is enormous.
You really need to stop letting your ideology do your thinking for you. It gets you in trouble again and again and again.
Yes there were advances in technological know-how, but you are vastly overstating those advances. You also have to assume that the advances in the government program would be more than the private sector, and we will never know that, will we.
Sure, the government created jobs in the process. But the money to pay their salaries came from somewhere. From an economic perspective, this is (at best) shuffling the deck. I don't see how you can make a net gain to the economy out of the equation. Here is a good article on that subject.
As for mining tritium, if it is economically sound--that is if someone can make a profit on it--then in a free market, someone will.
Nobody claims that NASA invented diddly squat. That includes the Saturn 5 rocket, btw- which was developed by private contractors, just like the other systems. The point is that the moon program created a market which would not have existed otherwise, resulting in private industry coming up with inventions it never would have had cause to come up with otherwise- inventions which turned out to have applications far beyond the moon program, to the point where it would not be overstating the case even slightly to say that our current economy is built upon them.
Why would private enterprise not have developed them anyway? Because it would not have been cost effective without the space program. The same holds true, btw, for the private exploration of space. While the extremely primitive SpaceShipOne did illustrate that at some point private enterprise will doubtless be able to do all sorts of things, it lacks both the resources and the immediate economic incentive to come up with the technology. Without the resources which only the government has, private enterprise would not find it economically feasible to develop that technology.
Mining tritium on the moon is a case in point. However lucrative it would be, private enterprise simply doesn't have the resources to get there, mine it, and bring it back. Doubtless it will some day- but only after NASA blazes the same trail for privately funded lunar expeditions it blazed for those first few primative, halting privately funded sub-orbital missions in SpaceShipOne.
With the government blazing the technological path- again, enlisting the resources of private industry and making its development of the required
technology both economically feasible and even imaginable in the short term-
that tritium might well be mined with enormous profit by private industry in fifty years or so.
Leave the task to private industry alone, and it would probably happen in two or three centuries, if ever.
As for that article on wealth creation, again,you're essentially arguing that what happened in the case of the moon program is impossible. Such an argument is not, by its nature, very convincing.
Again, the resources enjoyed by the American consumer as a result of the government expenditures on the moon program are many, many times the resources expended on it in the first place.
There's just no way around it, Jeff: the moon program was a glorious success from an economic standpoint- a success private industry could never even have considered attempting on its own.
One final thought: that slogan on the statue of Faber in "Animal House" is really true. Knowledge is good. Economics aside, the scientific knowledge we gained from the moon program is worth every penny, simply for its own sake.
Like what?
Mining tritium on the moon is a case in point. However lucrative it would be, private enterprise simply doesn't have the resources to get there, mine it, and bring it back.
It could. If all the people who want the tritium come up with some up-front money. (Investors). It would be expensive, but it would be expensive no matter what. And the private investors themselves are in the best position to estimate what kind of profit could be made. If there is no profit to be made, then nobody wants the tritium badly enough. We can get along better without it.
Knowledge is good. Economics aside, the scientific knowledge we gained from the moon program is worth every penny, simply for its own sake.
I was waiting for you to say "we wouldn't know there was tritium on the moon if it weren't for NASA." That would have been a good point. Who knows if a private investor would have ever gone there just to see.
However, I was responding specifically to your throw-away comment that "The Apollo program more than paid for itself".
If you meant that the Apollo program more than paid for itself... in book knowledge, just say so. But I don't think that is what you originally meant.
Solar powered calculators
Aluminized bags for snack food Weather satellites
Halogen lights for cars Sports domes
Microwave ovens Pocket calculators Phone calls by satellite
"Mylar" balloons "Blue Blocker" sunglasses
Digital watches and thermometers "DirecTV", "Dish Network", etc
"Kevlar" for bullet proof vests "Mini Mag" flashlights
Fiber optics for phone calls
"Vortec" engines in GM cars "Ovation" guitars and helicopter blades
Pacemaker batteries that last 20 years Compact Disks
M R I medical scanners
Electronic ignition in automobiles Laser scanners in stores
"Bulb Miser" devices for long life light bulbs
Weather Maps on television
Juice boxes
"The Patch" medical drug delivery system
Breathing systems for mountain climbing and medical applications "Flexon" eyeglasses and dental braces
Life-saving scuba divers and firefighting equipment Cellular phones and beepers
Cable Television Anti corrosive paint for bridges, boats,
Scratch resistant coatings on glasses
Modern football helmets
GPS Navigation Systems
"Cool suits" warn by racecar drivers, nuclear technicians, shipyard workers, people with MS, and kids with hypohidrotic ectodermal displasia
Kidney dialysis
Modern physical therapy and sports exercise equipment
Cordless power tools.
Modern home insulation materials
Modern water purification systems
Freeze dried foods
The "cook/chill" system used by most modern hospital and other institutional food services
Modern equipment for detecting hazardous gasses and gas leaks
Digital cameras
Electron microscopes
Ear thermometers
Modern smoke detectors
Laser scanning for supermarket items
Thermal underwear, gloves and boots
Invisible dental braces
Pattern recognition software for computers
Modern hearing aids
Grooved highways
ADD therapy technology
Virtual reality technology
Most modern aircraft controls
Microcomputers
Enriched baby food
Modern athletic shoes
Solar energy
Fire resistant material for clothing
Modern earthquake detection systems
Modern sewage treatment techniques
Energy saving air conditioning
Air purification technology
Digital imaging breast biopsy system
Laser angioplasty
Medical gas analysis
Voice-controlled wheelchair
Arteriosclerosis detection technology
Ultrasound scanners
Automatic insulin pumps
Portable x-rays
Cataract surgery tools
Microsurgery instruments
The most advanced engine lubricants
Interactive computer training
Personal alarm systems
Self-righting life raft
Studless winter tires
Quiet, low-pollution aircraft engines
Advanced lubricants
Safer bridges
The electric car
Major elements in the design of all modern automobiles
...to name just a few.
At no time was my primary meaning anything but economic when I said that the Apollo program more than paid for itself, and your statement that a privately-financed moon mission without substantial governmental involvement in creating usable technology for pulling it off (much less the technology involved in living for extended periods on the moon, much less carrying on large-scale mining there)is even remotely imaginable is simply laughable.
I tend to agree, but the fact that it is laughable should be a clue that mining the moon would not be profitable.
From wikipedia:
This resulted in the production of the first practical solar cells with a sunlight energy conversion efficiency of around 6 percent. This milestone created interest in producing and launching a geostationary communications satellite by providing a viable power supply. Russia launched the first artificial satellite in 1957, and the United States' first artificial satellite was launched in 1958. Russian Sputnik 3 ("Satellite-3"), launched on 15 May 1957, was the first satellite to use solar arrays. This was a crucial development which diverted funding from several governments into research for improved solar cells.
The invention of the first practical solar cell created interest in using the solar cells for space.
Yes, governments did then begin to invest to improve them for space applications.
The question remains, would those first solar cells be improved enough for use in pocket calculators without NASA? Would the development of solar calculators be delayed? By how long? 10 years?
Even in the (unlikely?) case where the Solar Calculator was never invented without NASA, this only means that entrepreneurs estimated that people didn't want Solar Calculators enough to pay enough for them to cover the cost of their development. This is a perfectly acceptable outcome. Recourses are not distributed where they are not wanted.
You miss the point that the most profitable venture in the world will not be pursued if those who stand to make the profit- no matter how huge- don't have the resources to make the necessary initial investment. Which is why in pioneering matters of this kind it must always be the government that leads the way.
People don't invent things they don't think of, and people don't think of things until they have a frame of reference. That's why pure research- simple inquiry for the sake of finding things out, without any particular goal in mind- is always the most fruitful area in which even inventions which will be economically viable later
first arise.
And it's spelled "resources."
Jeff, I'm sorry, but you simply can't make your theory fit reality. Private enterprise is limited in its resources, and limited to those projects for which a profit is obvious and immediate. But those are almost never the projects which turn out to be the most profitable, either scientifically or
financially.
Nobody is as good at developing technology as the government. You have your list. Few if any of those things would have been developed without the moon program, because there would have been no immediate and obvious profit. All of them came as spinoffs of the project to put a man on the moon.
It's the way these things happen.
Give it up, Jeff. Read that list again. You lose.
Wow. Many times over you say. I say the government doesn't need to tax the money out of me, I'll buy stock in the venture. I bet other people will, too.
the first practical application of solar calculators was in satellites
Are we talking about the same thing? What is a satellite going to do with a solar calculator? It can't push the buttons.
The only way you raise enough money for this particular venture is through taxes. There aren't enough investors with enough money. Nowhere near.
And while a satellite can't push the buttons of a solar calculator, the technology which powers that calculator found its first practical application in satellites.