…and this is a 
Let's see NASA change
Category: Technology
Posted on: November 11, 2008 10:20 AM, by PZ Myers
Darksyde has an interesting post up about the future of NASA. We've got a new president coming who has promised change — let's see if one of the changes he will make is to kick the space program out of its rut. I don't know if he can promise more money to every science program we've got, but he could at least put effective, principled administrators in place who will use their budgets more appropriately.
We do have a list of Obama's promises on science and technology. They do include more investment in the space program, as well as opening up stem cell research, more money for science education, and lots of green energy research. We now have to wait and see if and how he fulfills them.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 10:28 AM
Those damn astronomers. You can't trust 'em as far as you can throw 'em.
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Well, I can throw them pretty far. I've been practicing.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 11, 2008 10:39 AM
Plus a better-funded NASA could throw them way out into space.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 11, 2008 10:52 AM
The US economy is now at risk of losing between 7 and 13 million jobs by the end of 2009 (ie possibly more than 16% unemployement rate by the end of next year).
This is not a joke.
For a very detailed analysis, sector by sector, please read :
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=59666#post59666
This means Obama's #1, #2, and #3 priorities will have to be to stop the bleeding.
n ths context, a very large govt well structured subsidised program in Science and Technology, both in the public and private sectors, is an absolutely obvious choice. It needs to be started immedately after the new administraton takes office.
It is URGENT !
Posted by: cervantes | November 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Just believing in reality based on evidence and reason will be a good start.
Posted by: Walton | November 11, 2008 10:59 AM
In ths context, a very large govt well structured subsidised program in Science and Technology, both in the public and private sectors, is an absolutely obvious choice. It needs to be started immedately after the new administraton takes office.
Oh yes, of course. The perfect solution to economic woes is always to have more government bureaucracy. I mean, who needs a competitive business economy with competitive tax rates and a flexible market, when we can have a massive bloated public sector employing millions of civil servants? I mean, it's worked so well for socialist countries in the past. Never mind that Reagan and Thatcher managed to rescue their respective countries' failing economies by cutting taxes and promoting a business-friendly climate. That was clearly just a fluke. The best thing is to go back to the great policies of the 1970s.
In seriousness, science and technology are great things - but they should be done primarily by the private sector. Scientific research is not a job-creation programme, nor is it a form of social welfare. Research should only be funded by the taxpayer if it is shown that the specific research (1) has the potential to bring major economic or social benefits to the country, and (2) cannot or will not be done by the private sector acting individually. Anything else is a criminal waste of the taxpayer's money.
Posted by: Randy | November 11, 2008 11:05 AM
"Research should only be funded by the taxpayer if it is shown that the specific research (1) has the potential to bring major economic or social benefits to the country, and (2) cannot or will not be done by the private sector acting individually. Anything else is a criminal waste of the taxpayer's money."
Walton, I could not agree with this less. Basic research will never be done by the private sector and can never be shown to bring major economic or social benefits until after the fact, not before. Such economy-based research would spell the end of scientific progress, or at least severely hamstring it.
Posted by: mothwentbad | November 11, 2008 11:10 AM
I can has overhead projector?
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 11:12 AM
It will.
It won't.
Posted by: jck | November 11, 2008 11:18 AM
Obama has a lot of problems that need to be dealt with immediately, so I think we need to have patience. That said, if he believes in the benefit of basic research, he will bring people to implement that, not just with NASA, but also programs to power our economy by renewable resources. These two go hand in hand.
Posted by: Erwan | November 11, 2008 11:19 AM
Walton: you were not serious with your Thatcher comment, right? Britain is still suffering of her heroic changes to this day. And reading a couple of chapters of "The Shock Doctrine" would do you well before hailing Thatcher, Reagan and generally the "free-market" as the solution, and painting failures of socialist states (especially South American) as their own only.
Posted by: spyderkl | November 11, 2008 11:19 AM
It looks like he's committing to reviewing/overturning all, or almost all, of Bush's "executive orders", so stem cell research will hopefully be given some new life (sorry - couldn't help myself).
As for the rest of it, we'll have to wait and see - but I feel a lot better about researcher's chances under President Obama than I would have under President McCain.
Posted by: woody | November 11, 2008 11:22 AM
Humanity is a cosmic experiment testing whether 'life' can survive 'intelligence.' The jury's out, but the null hypothesis is not yet disproven.
I'm not all that fond of NASA, since it has become more and more a tool in the militarization of space.
Posted by: Sastra | November 11, 2008 11:24 AM
I really hope the whole "trip to Mars" crap Bush was pushing is dropped in favor of unmanned satellites and other technology -- which, I understand, is where the serious scientific discoveries take place. We don't need any expensive and useless Cowboys in Space. We're learning far more from other NASA programs, and they're hurting for funding.
I think Bob Park stated the situation well in his book Voodoo Science a few years back.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 11:24 AM
God damn it walton.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 11, 2008 11:25 AM
Those scientist types, with their heads in the stars
With their dreams of the moon or a mission to mars--
Don't they realize what government spending is for?
Not science, or progress... but going to war!
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 11:25 AM
Learning how to put people in space isn't useful?
Posted by: Funnyguts | November 11, 2008 11:26 AM
The worrying thing to me is that during the primaries (and right after I voted for him, too!) he presented a plan to push back the new space missions for five more years to help fund education. Clinton rightly jumped on this and pointed out that without the interest in space exploration that will be gained by getting back to the moon and on to Mars, there won't be any young astronomers getting excited for NASA no matter how much money you put in. Schools need much more funding, yes, but there are other things that don't need nearly as much funding. I can think of a few unnecessary wars...
Posted by: gerald spezio | November 11, 2008 11:27 AM
Here is a critical dose of factual info about the dark-dark side Washington lawyering as well as Obama's lawyering past.
It is highly probable that Obama will apply his lawyerly rhetoric to issues both scientific and political.
Micheele Obama is another Harvard lawyer, as is Obama.
Obama & Michelle met while whoring for Sidley Austin, the 9th largest corporate whorehouse in the world, but only 5th in LawyerNation.
Sidley Austin boasts more than 1800 trained lawyers with offices worldwide..
Some relevant poop on Sidley Austin from Wiki.
Sidley & Austin was among many law firms stung by the Savings & Loan Crisis and was forced to pay $7.5 million to settle legal malpractice claims stemming from its representation of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Such legal work was profiled in the book by Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America.
Lincoln S&L was commanded by super whore lawyer and renown smutfighter, Charles Keating.
Keating personally stole more than a cool billion plus from his unsuspecting but depositing flock - some of whom committed suicide after lawyer Charlie wiped them clean.
Bush's chief lawyer whore for PROTECTING the environment is James Connaughton - a PARTNER at Sidley Austin.
Connaughton has routinely demonstrated that DALAW trumps science every time.
Joe Biden, our new veep, is a the undisputed champion of corporate legal whoring in the Senate.
Joe Biden is licensed to represent, and has the Zionist/Israel Lobby as his number one client,
Joe appropriately sings; "I am a Zionist."
Hilarious and Bill are Yalie lawyers.
Tricky Dick Nixon got his license to steal from Dook Law, but still made it to the top albeit temporarliy.
Twenty one of the twenty three Watergate conspirators were trained lawyers.
Out of one hundred Senators - 62 are lawyers.
Neither Obama or Biden has a shred of scientific sensibility or training.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 11:29 AM
[burns]
egggggggggcelent
[/burns]
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 11:30 AM
Amen Rev.
I'll be willing to put some e-ducats on the proposition that in five years Walton will be a good run-of-the-mill Tory. As I have said, he minds me of the radicals from my college days. Most gave up radicalism and became mainstream conservatives within five years of graduation.
Posted by: Brad D | November 11, 2008 11:30 AM
Maybe we can get over this, "let's send people to mars," idea for a while. There are a lot of great things we can do with the space program, but people planting flags on other planets in our solar system isn't that exciting to me.
We should put more research satellites in orbit, looking both up into space and down on earth. How about planning Hubble's successor? How about closer monitoring of our atmosphere etc...
As far as the other planets go, keep going with the rover type robots. They have been greatly successful.
That's just my $0.02
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 11:32 AM
spezio
you forgot their connections to the Illuminati
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 11:32 AM
Never mind that Reagan and Thatcher managed to rescue their respective countries' failing economies by cutting taxes and promoting a business-friendly climate. - Walton
Up to a point, Lord Copper. We're seeing the outcome of Reagan/Thatcher policies now. Even before the credit crunch, they had led to huge rises in unemployment (disguised in the UK by putting people on incapacity benefit, in the US by putting them in prison), vast trade deficits, and a dangerous dependence on financial services. And of course enormous rises in inequality, but I know that's a plus as far as you're concerned.
Posted by: brk | November 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Walton
"Research should only be funded by the taxpayer if it is shown that the specific research (1) has the potential to bring major economic or social benefits to the country, and (2) cannot or will not be done by the private sector acting individually. Anything else is a criminal waste of the taxpayer's money."
I don't know how it is that you're so off base, but I also cannot disagree with you more. A huge amount of basic research is funded (I would say the vast majority) only because of government grants and support through institutions like the NSF which are, in the end, funded by John Q. Taxpayer. I would also wager that many researchers would be extremely hard-pressed to prove that their research will have a direct and positive impact on society. Basic research is payed for and subsidized by tax-payers precisely because private companies don't want to fund something that isn't certain to turn a profit. To cut off public funding would relegate science to product development and limited (more like timid) steps forward instead of really pushing the boundaries of knowledge that have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe/world at whole.
In your system CERN, Tevatron, and virtually all astronomy would be completely scrapped as they could never possibly turn a profit and all of them are made possible through governmental support.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | November 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Why is it taken as a given that in order to be a science enthusiast, you have to be strongly in favour of increased spending on space exploration?
I think there are much better ways to spend money on science, and I don't see how NASA is nearly as important as it's cracked up to be.
Posted by: Brad D | November 11, 2008 11:37 AM
Now the teacher is going to think I copied Sastra's paper... really I didn't! I just type too slow.
I will have to look into the book voodoo science.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 11:38 AM
tsg@17,
How is learning to put people into space useful - to an extent commensurate with the immense costs, compared to that of using machines?
Posted by: Jello | November 11, 2008 11:39 AM
I would love to see NASA reinvigorated as a scientific institute. I visited Johnson space center in Houston and felt like I was in an oversized McDonalds, complete with playground and screaming toddlers. Kennedy space center was better but still more about trapping tourist then expanding minds.
Posted by: brk | November 11, 2008 11:39 AM
edit:
...instead of really pushing the boundaries of knowledge
with work/experiments
that have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe/world at whole.
Posted by: Mozglubov | November 11, 2008 11:40 AM
I remember NASA funding was pretty much the only thing I agreed with Bush about when he ran for reelection (and it most certainly was not enough to get my support)... and then he flatly failed to follow through with his promises.
Posted by: tcb | November 11, 2008 11:41 AM
Walton, that's the most sensible thing you've ever said. Too bad you meant to be sarcastic.
The 60s and 70s were among the most technologically prolific decades in all of US history. We could go to the moon then; now we rely on Russia for heavy-lift rockets. More to your point, the NASA of those days provided many thousands of jobs for its subcontractors, many of which were private companies.
I rather get the impression that you would have opposed rural electrification if you'd had the chance.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 11, 2008 11:41 AM
wait... i thought manned space travel was the point. isn't the objective to find a way off this rock before we destroy it?
Posted by: Bostonian | November 11, 2008 11:42 AM
I like NASA and all, but isn't it really an agency we should focus on in happier times? I'm not suggesting we cut science spending - quite the opposite, I think increasing science spending is in order, but that we'd be better off spending our federal dollars on biotechnology and energy. I'd rather see money go to people studying cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and alternative energy sources than getting a person to Mars.
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 11:43 AM
Are we just supposed to never leave this planet?
Machines don't teach us how to send people into space. Machines can be designed for the environment, people can't. And machines don't have to come back.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 11:49 AM
tsg,
Your answer to "How is learning to put people into space useful?", seems to be "So we can learn to put people into space!"
"Machines can be designed for the environment, people can't. And machines don't have to come back."
Exactly.
Posted by: gerald spezio | November 11, 2008 11:53 AM
Change from yuppie Lawyerman Obama?
Lawyering is the most powerful & lucrative MONOPOLY in Supernation.
Lawyering extracts more money from the national economy than the entire medical establishment.
In Supernation everything is for sale.
Ohbama, his lawerlady, and his vicey president Biden learned their career whoring well.
Go Ivy league, go Harvards, and help the poor and downtrodden.
Don't forget to whup up good on those filthy starving Palestinians in the Zionist Concentration Camp in Gaza.
Israel has the money, and lawyers go for the money.
Fashion conscious lawerlady Michelle prefers Oscar de la Renta.
Both Michelle and hubby say that science is just another opinion - which is reasonable if you are trained in DALAW.
Law school is the way to move up.
What a credential!
Posted by: blf | November 11, 2008 11:53 AM
Spezio, your pseudo-factual anti-legal rants got tired a few years ago. Try finding a new bit of nonsense. I suggest the lizard people. You can invent all the rubbish you want and also not come across as some failed paralegal student.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 11, 2008 11:55 AM
@37
...huh?
Posted by: CRM-114 | November 11, 2008 11:56 AM
The best think Obama could do would be to call an end to manned spaceflight.
The Big Lie of the Shuttle program was that remote controllers on the ground could not operate equipment 90 miles up, which is why NASA forced Canada to disable remote control of its equipment arm. At the same time, controllers on the ground have been flying all the Shuttle flights after the first one, where they learned a pilot can't fly the thing reliably.
Today we have controllers on the ground flying aircraft in real time on combat missions half the world away.
There is nothing a human can do in space that a machine cannot do as well, and the cost of putting humans up there, keeping them safe, and bringing them back dominated the cost of spaceflight.
We have robots on Mars. Cassini is exploring Saturn, Messenger is going studying Mercury, Ulysses gave us our first polar views of the Sun, and the Voyagers are returning science data out at the heliopause.
There is no need to risk human lives to explore space. Every Shuttle launch costs about $500 million, and the crew isn't needed.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | November 11, 2008 11:57 AM
Here's an interesting quote from Richard Dawkins:
"Justifying space exploration because we get non-stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinist's right arm."
If you're trying to develop useful technology, it's clearly not optimal to send probes into space and hope for the best. Especially in these days of global warming and energy crisis.
Posted by: Desert Son | November 11, 2008 12:00 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM at #23 posted:
Fnord!
IYKWIMAITYD.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 12:01 PM
Partly yes. You didn't answer my question: are we just supposed to never leave this planet?
Yes, they are useless for teaching us how to send people into space.
Posted by: The Clown | November 11, 2008 12:01 PM
Why is PZ even asking the question as to whether Obama will fulfill his election promises re. science? Call me a skeptic, but only a very naîve person takes seriously what any politician says to get elected, and Obama is a politician par excellence. Obama is brilliant at telling people what they want to hear so that they will vote for him, but I see nothing in his track record to indicate he's a fan of science. He's all about social change. I'm afraid that science is going to take a very back seat to social issues during his term. He'll be pouring the bucks into social issues like funding mortgages for people whose eyes were way bigger than their pocket book or work ethic, launching a federal medicare system, etc. Obama couldn't care squat for science, but he'll poor billions into social needs.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 12:03 PM
Oh I know, and Exactly.
Posted by: blf | November 11, 2008 12:07 PM
Timothy, spezio's been posting that basic rant on SciBlogs for ages. The names, insults, and pseudo-facts change, but it always seems to boil down to "Lawyers are the cause of all the world's evils". And is often only marginally on-topic. Whether she\he's deranged, had a bad run-in with the legal system, or is simply a failed legal student, has been speculated on without resolution. Whether or not ignoring the twit will make it go away is unknown (albeit I haven't seen him infesting Orac's blog for a while, implying there is some way to make him go away).
It would be rather amusing to see someone like Peter Irons take him on...!
Posted by: Desert Son | November 11, 2008 12:08 PM
The Clown at #44 posted:
I object to the implication that science and social needs are opposed, or unrelated, or somehow necessarily exclusive. Neither is a component in a zero-sum game.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Jello | November 11, 2008 12:10 PM
This is related to my earlier post about Johnson, but one of NASA's biggest problems is how it markets itself to the public. In my opinion they are far to reliant on appealing to the boomer generation's nostalgia about the Apollo program. As impressive as that feat was, it is not seen as relevant by the younger generations and they need to stop clinging to the rapidly weaning notoriety of the work of generations past. They need to place current research and exploration projects front and center in the public view and push the old exhibits off to the side. NASA's legacy should not be forgotten but for the world's premier space agency to still be dependent upon a program that ended thirty years ago as its primary public attraction tells me that their PR department is in severe need of modernization.
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 12:11 PM
Context is everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLctxRf7duU
The beneficial side effects of manned space flight is not the primary reason for doing it.
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 12:12 PM
Re my #49:
The pertinent part of the Dawkins video is about 3:50 in.
Posted by: SteveM | November 11, 2008 12:13 PM
The physics of a manned trip to Mars demands that it would be much more than an Apollo-like "plant the flag and run" type mission. The team would have to be there for at least a year. If you like what the rovers have been doing, imagine "real" vehicles that could travel at reasonable speed to cover much more area under human control making realtime decisions about what is interesting and to be explored more deeply. A Mars program would have to be structured more like a colonization program and not just a "trip to Mars".
And while robots and satellites are much more cost effective at collecting science, I doubt they are as capable at generating PR and raising revenue. Robots and satellites do a lot very cheaply, but if your goal is not just to collect science but also to stimulate the economy by building a high tech industry and inspire education, a manned program is the way to go.
Posted by: Jim Thomrson | November 11, 2008 12:14 PM
Back in the '60's when we were going to the moon, I happened to see figures both for the NASA budget and for the cost of cleaning up litter on the nation's highways. At the height of the space program we were spending more on cleaning up litter than on going to the moon.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 12:15 PM
Don't forget the Jews.
Posted by: The Clown | November 11, 2008 12:18 PM
Desert Son (47) social needs and science are not opposed, but given how the federal government is strapped for funds, and given that Obama is off the scale when it comes to his passion for social issues, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the funding is going to go. The go ahead for stem cell research is a freebie, but coughing up the money to fund those expensive science promises .... ha! I have about as much respect for politicians as I do for scam artists.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 11, 2008 12:22 PM
Ignore the Clown. Obama is already preparing to allow federally funded stem cell research. He wants to invest in alternative fuel research and technology.
Whatever he does in respect to science will be better than Bush.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 11, 2008 12:24 PM
I'm all for industrializing the Moon, freeing Earth to become a biological green zone, but the glibertarians don't want to launch all their tax dollars into space.
China is in a position to colonize the Moon using Apollo/Soyuz era technology, the construction contracts for the base will have been handled by the Japanese employing Honda and Asimo robots. Americans will be watching the action with our Walmart toy telescopes.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 12:27 PM
You didn't answer my question: are we just supposed to never leave this planet? - tsg
I didn't answer it because I took it to be a rhetorical question. Apologies.
Here's my answer:
1) "Supposed" by whom? You seem to imply that there is some preordained purpose to human existence.
2) Who is "we"? If our civilisation survives, it will undoubtedly construct intelligent, self-aware machines. These machines spreading beyond Earth is just as much "we" leaving Earth as biological humans doing so.
3) "Never" is a long time. The question is, how can we maximise the scientific, economic and environmental benefits of space technology at a give cost? As far as I can see, the answer for the forseeable future is: by sending machines, not people.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 12:27 PM
Off what scale?
Posted by: blf | November 11, 2008 12:31 PM
Off what scale?
The one used to compare witches and ducks?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 12:33 PM
if your goal is not just to collect science but also to stimulate the economy by building a high tech industry and inspire education, a manned program is the way to go. - SteveM
How about a programme to halt anthropogenic climate change and solve other environmental/resource crises? Plenty of high tech, and what better inspiration than "Become a scientist - save the world"?
Posted by: tsg | November 11, 2008 12:36 PM
By you, that's why I asked you the question.
Humans living on planet earth.
If not now, then when?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 11, 2008 12:40 PM
Basic research will never be done by the private sector and can never be shown to bring major economic or social benefits until after the fact, not before
This turns out not to be the case. Does the name "Bell Labs" ring a bell?
-jcr
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 11, 2008 12:41 PM
"""This means Obama's #1, #2, and #3 priorities will have to be to stop the bleeding.
In ths context, a very large govt well structured subsidised program in Science and Technology, both in the public and private sectors, is an absolutely obvious choice. It needs to be started immedately after the new administraton takes office. """
Stop the bleeding?
Dude. The US is BROKE. If we were a business or a family, we'd have filed for bankruptcy already. The only reason we're still functioning is because we have a printing press that makes money. That's fine, and has been fine, as long as th eworld soaks up all of the extra dollars to keep inflation away from home.
But the world just got a taste of how broke the US is, and are actively looking for new and better ways to store wealth than the US dollar and US investment paper.
That means the US can't "spend" its way out of trouble without printing up more money, which is gonna rob the piss out of people like me who were smart enough to stay out of debt and save money, not ot mention all of th eold folks and soon to be retired folks going on fixed incomes.
If you need this made even more simpler, the US is like a large family where all its members were given credit cards, and then more credit cards to pay off their credit card debts... The family is now in trouble so what is the plan? Give more credit cards to the teenaged daughter and send her shopping...
If you want money for science, you really should be advocating for an end to the military empire we have created, bringing our ships and bases home and leaving other countries to live without a US shovel poised over their heads.
If you want money for science, you really should advocate for an enormous reduction in the size of Washington, and an end to all of these nonsensical "bailouts", where we borrow money from other, more productive countries and give it to failing US businesses.
If you want money for science, you should recognize that money comes from producing wealth, not by borrowing the wealth of nations who are wising up to the fact that you are, indeed, broke, and are becoming increasingly reluctant to loan it to you...
Posted by: Thom | November 11, 2008 12:42 PM
@#51
I couldn't agree more, and I would also add that one often overlooked factor in this debate is the long-term survival of the human species. Whether as a result of a toxic/uninhabitable environment, the exhaustion of natural resources, an impending natural disaster such as an asteroid impact, or simple overpopulation, we will need to leave Earth eventually, and the sooner we learn to do this effectively, the better.
In terms of the more general argument about why funding space science is useful:
"Applications on Earth of technology needed for space flight have produced thousands of "spinoffs" that contribute to improving national security, the economy, productivity and lifestyle. It is almost impossible to find an area of everyday life that has not been improved by these spinoffs. Collectively, these secondary applications represent a substantial return on the national investment in aerospace research. We should be spending more." -(http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 12:44 PM
tsg,
Even I don't have sufficient arrogance to think I can decide what the future of humanity should be. However, I've made it clear that as far as I'm concerned, human-designed self-aware machines (or bio/machine hybrids) would be just as much part of humanity as biological humans; and if we survive, it is these I would expect to spread beyond Earth. As for "If not now, when?" - when we've ensured the survival of our civilisation and avoided the various traps it could fall into. I think that's going to be quite enough of a challenge for this century.
Posted by: gerald spezio | November 11, 2008 12:46 PM
Joe Biden is not an Ivy leaguer.
Joe scribbled for a law degree at Syracuse, and has made it close to the top so far.
As a trained lawyerman, Joe is committed to helping his paying clients.
Joe wants to zealously represent Israel's Zionist plan to exterminate the Palestinians and secure all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates for the chosen people.
Yes, murder posta be illegal, but ...
Iraq is destroyed, and the Balkanization of the Muslim world proceeds.
If science came up with the big bucks, Joe would whore for science, too.
Bama, Michelle, & Joe have been sworn to subscribe to the legal monopoly's Code of professional ethics.
The CODE states that when setting THE fee, a lawyerperson must simply consider; "THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED."
Lawyers have their ethics, right?
Posted by: Emaloo | November 11, 2008 12:47 PM
Re: private sector funding science
I just wanted to point out that even if a company thought funding basic research could be profitable, they couldn't afford the manpower. As a grad student researcher(engineering), I was paid $1400/month, for a hypothetical 20 hours/week of work. In reality, I worked about 50 hours/week on average. If all the grad students on my project had insisted upon a typical industry salary for the work we were doing, the grant would have supported 3 of us instead of the 10.5 that were funded through our grant. Which means significantly less work would have been accomplished, and our possibly profitable stuff wouldn't have gotten done at all because it needed the results of earlier tasks. And this doesn't address the cost of the equipment we used, the software licenses, and the database memberships. We had many companies come in over the two years I was there to use our wind tunnel for a couple days, because it wasn't economically feasible for them to build their own. You don't want to have to build a multi-million dollar facility so you can run three tests to demonstrate the safety of your product. And there aren't enough industry products requiring wind tunnel testing to make a business that just does wind tunnel testing viable, unless that business is science oriented and doesn't need to produce profits. Like, say, a publically funded university.
Or, to summarize;
Science is hella expensive. Companies with shareholders, owners, and employees can't take those sorts of risks.
Posted by: charfles | November 11, 2008 12:48 PM
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/bell-labs-kills.html
Posted by: Saad | November 11, 2008 12:50 PM
Hey! Bush administration was cool! We landed a bunch of stuff on Mars!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 12:52 PM
spezio
You better shut your windows, the black helicopters are flying over.
Posted by: Pete Rooke (click for PWRPOINT) | November 11, 2008 12:52 PM
The problem I have with space travel is that we have pressing concerns on Earth at the moment. We have been entrusted as stewards and yet we seem quite happy to go gallivanting off to find new planets and then salivate when we discover something like ancient ice. This is not productive, we should be cleaning up the oceans for example. I know that NASA has given us some useful stuff, (e.g. teflon, bedding..), but we must steel ourselves against, say, the beauty the Hubble Telescope transmits back and be more pragmatic, although such a project like the Hubble Telescope seems reasonable and may even prove to be profitable when you consider calenders, postcards, mouse pads etc. But absurd adventures to Mars provide no good, indeed the recent Phoenix probe has just gone dead wasting all that money.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 11, 2008 12:56 PM
The Phoenix probe functioned 2 months longer than planned. It didn't waste any money.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 11, 2008 12:59 PM
Yeah, Hubble was all about the calendars, postcards and mouse pads.
Consider this a postcard from outside the airlock, Pete; it says, "Wish you were here!"
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 11, 2008 12:59 PM
Bell Labs is an interesting example for John C. Randolph to choose:
1) It came into existence because AT&T Corporation's monopolistic position allowed it such extravagance.
2) It had major links with the Federal government, which was an important source of funding.
3) Its pure research function has dwindled almost to nothing since telecommunications deregulation.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 1:01 PM
I see Pete Rookey is back spamming as I predicted. And wrong again, as he seems to imply that the Pheonix probe died because of some type of unpredicted failure. Never mind that the mission objectives were accomplished a month ago, and everyone knew the cold and lack of sunlight due to the tilt of Mars would eventually do in the batteries. A dust storm covering the solar panels just terminated the mission a few days earlier than expected.
Posted by: Emaloo | November 11, 2008 1:01 PM
The Phoenix probe also cost less than 1 military stealth fighter.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 11, 2008 1:01 PM
#68, sounds like The Very Big Stupid.
"THE VERY BIG STUPID is a thing which breeds by eating The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D Department."
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 1:07 PM
And now, for all you Spezio fans, I give you his obvious muse - paranoid looney and religious maniac Christopher Smart:
Posted by: gerald spezio | November 11, 2008 1:11 PM
Reverend, Blackwater's black helicopters are so busy putting it to hapless Iraqi women & chillun, that they care not for powerless key puncher bloggers.
No money in it, either.
More Merican copters are zapping hapless Afganis at their weddings.
The Israeli helicopters made in Merica & bought with four billion yearly in U.S. foreign aid are busy controlling the inhuman Gaza Concentration Camp for the starving and dying Palestinians.
As you may recall the Palestinians are the original owners of Palestine, but they have been rounded up into an Israeli Concentration Camp.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 11, 2008 1:12 PM
Yes... we really should dumb all lawyers into the sea. It's not as if a convoluted legal system is an inevitable bi product of any form of government. And it's not as if lawyers use their legal expertise to, i dunno, ensure that non experts aren't butt raped by a legal system they cannot hope to understand in any reasonable amount of time. It's not as if, if we didn't have lawyers the government could claim any random declaration as being law and arbitrarily remove rights and revise statutes to suit any political or personal agenda.
The important thing is, it's totally illegal for me to say that...
WE SHOULD KILL ALL LAWYERS
It's completely illegal to suggest..
THAT WE SHOULD KILL JOE BIDEN BECAUSE HE'S A LAWYER.
yes. that would be totally illegal and I know because I consulted with my lawyer.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | November 11, 2008 1:13 PM
CRM-114 @ #40:
I notice you didn't include Hubble in your list of robotic success stories. Because of course Hubble would never have worked at all without on-orbit repairs and upgrades performed by human astronauts.
Nick Gotts @ #65:
Surely one of those traps is keeping all our eggs in one basket when we could fairly easily spread them around the solar system for greater survivability.