NASA operates three distinct missions: earth studies (oceanography, geoscience, climate science, etc); space studies (telescopes and robotic missions); and human missions. I support the first two and oppose the third.
The earth studies are the easiest to justify. The benefits of weather satellites immensely exceed their costs, and other earth studies have yielded huge returns. The space studies have longer-range benefits; I suppose that a cynic could offer some cogent arguments against the value of learning more about the structure of Jupiter. The Webb telescope continues to provide data that is revolutionizing our understanding of cosmology. While I personally am greatly excited about these advances, I again suppose that an American citizen might reasonably question the merit of spending $30 of "their" money to gain this knowledge.
But the human missions are nothing more than exercises in vanity. Planting an American flag on Mars serves only to satisfy patriotic egotism. Robotic equipment can accomplish far more than humans can for much less money. And the notion that some economic benefit can be obtained from sending humans to the moon or to Mars is preposterous. We have immense supplies of just about everything we need right here on earth, but we don't tap those supplies because they're too expensive to extract. If mining executives tell us that the rare earths in Greenland or Antarctica are too expensive to extract, what do you think will be the cost of digging them up out of the moon or, even worse, Mars?
I am particularly disturbed by Mr. Musk's claim that establishing a colony on Mars is a prudent backup strategy given our abuse of this planet. The money spent on such a colony would be better spent reducing that abuse.
NASA operates three distinct missions: earth studies (oceanography, geoscience, climate science, etc); space studies (telescopes and robotic missions); and human missions. I support the first two and oppose the third.
The earth studies are the easiest to justify. The benefits of weather satellites immensely exceed their costs, and other earth studies have yielded huge returns. The space studies have longer-range benefits; I suppose that a cynic could offer some cogent arguments against the value of learning more about the structure of Jupiter. The Webb telescope continues to provide data that is revolutionizing our understanding of cosmology. While I personally am greatly excited about these advances, I again suppose that an American citizen might reasonably question the merit of spending $30 of "their" money to gain this knowledge.
But the human missions are nothing more than exercises in vanity. Planting an American flag on Mars serves only to satisfy patriotic egotism. Robotic equipment can accomplish far more than humans can for much less money. And the notion that some economic benefit can be obtained from sending humans to the moon or to Mars is preposterous. We have immense supplies of just about everything we need right here on earth, but we don't tap those supplies because they're too expensive to extract. If mining executives tell us that the rare earths in Greenland or Antarctica are too expensive to extract, what do you think will be the cost of digging them up out of the moon or, even worse, Mars?
I am particularly disturbed by Mr. Musk's claim that establishing a colony on Mars is a prudent backup strategy given our abuse of this planet. The money spent on such a colony would be better spent reducing that abuse.