This post was mentioned on Twitter by sarahburris: RT @scholars_rogues NASA launches 1st new rocket in 3 decades.
Even if it had blown up, it would have been a success. http://bit.ly/4d3TVH...

That expertise is literally dying of old age.

So, of course, scientists that are actually interested in spaceflight research are being forced to go to other places for funding. They have no choice.

Thanks, Brian.

In addition, money spent on NASA produces many of the same technological advances that spending on military research does, but without many of the problems that come along with military spending and research.

Finally, I’ve been of the opinion since I was a young man, entranced by stories of humanity spanning the galaxy, that the Earth was too fragile a basket for all our eggs. Expanding to the Moon, or to Mars, and ultimately out into the stars is the only way to ensure that humanity and its descendants survive.

Of course, now I’m working in aerospace I also have a financial interest in space exploration. But most of my fellow engineers started working in aerospace because of the romance and challenge of making space safe for exploration by robots and people both.

Ultimately, I think that private industry will replace a large part of NASA. And that’s a good thing – private companies will be able to get us in and out of space more efficiently and cost-effectively than the current government monopoly will. But that won’t happen until the commercial viability of space becomes real, and that won’t happen for decades yet. And it won’t happen at all without funding NASA.

But I’m not trying to be the dark cloud on everybody’s parade. I do believe, as Sam pointed out, that NASA can provide much needed research and innovations that probably wouldn’t occur otherwise. The private sector doesn’t really have an interest in space (other than in getting satellites up there and, much more recently, tourism for the rich), so I believe the government really can do a lot of good with that.

When the Cold War ended we should have shifted the military budget to space exploration. It would have kept the Keynesian wheels turning and would have brought us much more usable, practical…even marketable…technology. In the hands of the right sort of statesman, it might even have been the opening for serious grand diplomacy.

And it’s not like our military (the procurement and the brass) is particularly competent in preparing for conflicts that the US might realistically be involved in. 13 carrier groups and we’re fighting guys with AK’s and Toyota Hiluxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

“According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this. Compare this to NASA’s allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and President Johnson’s Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget.

How does NASA’s budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget.”

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1

2: Humanity will eventually need to get off this rock. The sooner we begin cultivating that capability the better.