Space telescope probably being cut

[madengr]

Should the federal government be funding scientific research; is it constitutionally authorized (I believe it is)? Opinions?

As for me, I think the country is heading into a dark ages, for example, creationism treated as a science.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Private sector HUBBLE to the universities, they have the money... Billions in grants from taxpayers anyway.

[TheState]

Should the govt fund scientific research?

No, it has nothing to do with protecting life, liberty, or property, which is the only legitimate role of govt.


is it constitutionally authorized

Which part of the constitution do you believe authorizes it?


opinions?

Besides my philosophical opposition to govt funding, as someone who works in the scientific field and has worked with govt grants, pragmatically, they do little to further usable science. Without the market making a determination to where funds should go, the money usually gets squandered going down the wrong path (which provides no useful utility) or simply being handed out to political friends.

[SamuraisWisdom]

When it comes to physics research and exploration in space, absolutely. The government has been funding exploration expeditions since the country was founded, and if we want to explore further into our solar system and beyond, we will need the physics knowledge to get there.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Get them off the government teat. Real work in science is being done sans government paychecks and its time for NASA to be sold off for scrap. It would cause ALOT of the Ivory Tower mentality to disappear.

[sailingaway]

Should the federal government be funding scientific research; is it constitutionally authorized (I believe it is)? Opinions?
.

I'd have to think about that. Is that FBI memo that was circulating about alien contact real? Do we actually have things we can do if an asteroid comes our way? If so you could make a military case for intelligence, and a telescope would seem to fall into that realm. As to priorities, that is different. But I would cut policing the world first, now that it is already in place.

[acptulsa]

Government funding of the sciences makes many things possible. It has made Hubble possible. We have learned a lot from Hubble, and it's pretty doubtful that this would have happened without government support. Scientific research as a charity does have its appeal, but, for example, relieving starvation has more. On the other hand, without skewed science designed to push the global warming theory, cap and trade would no longer be an issue at all. So, there's something else government funding of science has made possible--propaganda for higher taxes.

A very mixed bag, indeed.

When I think of the fact that Monsanto's Tom Vilsack runs the Department of Agriculture, though, it just makes me want to pull this federal government out of science completely.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Lots of people thought the Lewis and Clarke expedition (which was exploring new territory) along with the whole Louisiana Purchase itself were unconstitutional-- done by Jefferson. If it was perhaps a military operation then it might be Constitutional though.

[CaptUSA]

Lots of people thought the Lewis and Clarke expedition (which was exploring new territory) along with the whole Louisiana Purchase itself were unconstitutional-- done by Jefferson. If it was perhaps a military operation then it might be Constitutional though.

The Lewis and Clarke expedition had many goals. First and foremost was exploration and surveying of newly acquired territory. Jefferson wanted to assess the resources purchased and any possible trade routes via waterways. The Louisiana Purchase was highly controversial, but the L&C expedition, less so. In fact, it was of minor importance to the country until years later when viewed throught the eyes of history.

With that in mind, I think there IS a role for governments in exploration. However, this should only be done when the economic conditions allow. And that role should be limited to surveyance of property either acquired or being assessed for acquisition. Therefore, some space exploration is indeed valid and the ancillary benefits are nice - but they should not be used as a justification.

[mczerone]

When it comes to physics research and exploration in space, absolutely. The government has been funding exploration expeditions since the country was founded, and if we want to explore further into our solar system and beyond, we will need the physics knowledge to get there.

Who is this "we"? Have you ever been outside the gravitational well of the Earth? Do you suppose that you will ever explore the solar system if the govt retains its role in space exploration?

The knowledge of physics required to explore the solar system already exists, the problem is deciding what resources must be used to act on that knowledge. Do you trust the state to adequately, fairly, or efficiently acquire and allocate those resources?

[Matthew Zak]

We can't afford that luxury any more than we can afford to have hundreds of military basis around the world.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Who is this "we"? Have you ever been outside the gravitational well of the Earth? Do you suppose that you will ever explore the solar system if the govt retains its role in space exploration?

I would love to explore the solar system, but I doubt I will be able to based on our current level of capability. The "we" is humanity. Humans have always explored new territories and striven toward new technologies.


The knowledge of physics required to explore the solar system already exists, the problem is deciding what resources must be used to act on that knowledge. Do you trust the state to adequately, fairly, or efficiently acquire and allocate those resources?

No it isn't. Scientists are still working on better ways to go to Mars, never mind the rest of the Solar System. And yes, I do "trust the state". We've made all kinds of progress in physics and space exploration through NASA. Is there waste with resources? Yes, but that can be ironed out. In fact there's an attempt to do that right now, which is one of the reasons the Space Shuttle is being retired.

[SamuraisWisdom]

We can't afford that luxury any more than we can afford to have hundreds of military basis around the world.

It's not a luxury, and yes, we can afford it. NASA's budget this year comes out to almost $19billion. For what those guys do (sending rovers to Mars, launching humans into orbit, etc) that's not a lot of money. Compare that to the military budget which is $685billihttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302180-Space-telescope-probably-being-cut&p=3383843&posted=1#post3383843on; Social Security ~$700billion; Medicare $793billion; not to mention all the other discretionary spending. NASA is actually near the bottom of the list.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png)

Lots of those services could be cut to leave more money left for things the government should do, like NASA.

[amy31416]

Our government is too corrupt to be involved in scientific research, and the corruption will spread until science is little more than some statist bullshit.

May as well ask if our government should be funding pro-war religious propaganda.

[angelatc]

It's not a luxury, and yes, we can afford it. ..



It absolutely is a luxury, and we can't absolutely afford it. And even if "we" could, if there was a real value to it, the private sector would pursue it.

Most of the technology that they've developed under the guise of friendly ol' NASA is now being used against us in the form of surveillance .

[angelatc]

Our government is too corrupt to be involved in scientific research, and the corruption will spread until science is little more than some statist bullshit.

May as well ask if our government should be funding pro-war religious propaganda.

I think he adddressed that in his first post. Religion equates to the dark ages, while government science is progress.

[SamuraisWisdom]

It absolutely is a luxury, and we can't absolutely afford it. And even if "we" could, if there was a real value to it, the private sector would pursue it.

Most of the technology that they've developed under the guise of friendly ol' NASA is now being used against us in the form of surveillance .

Exploration and scientific research are staples of human existence. I would hardly call that a "luxury". And there is value to it, though not necessarily in direct monetary terms. As an example, humans didn't learn how to make fire because it produced wealth.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

We can't afford that luxury any more than we can afford to have hundreds of military basis around the world.Actually it is very affordable, compare the NASA budget to perhaps say the Pentagon budget.

But that isn't the question.

The question is whether or not the federal government is authorized in the Constitution to do it, and furthermore, if any government should be engaging in this type of activity, especially if funded through involuntary taxation.


I still maintain that if it is under the necessity of defense I see no problem with it. I think a case could be made that exploring space could indeed be a defense rationale since the Chinese and other nations are doing that and are not always exactly friendly to us. In other words we don't have to occupy space, but the government should at minimum have the technology and capability to defend us in space if necessary.

[devil21]

Is there word of the space telescope program being cut? Call me a kook but we sure are cutting the crap out of anything space related. Could it be Comet Elenin???

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Meh, there is so much waist and b.s. in NASA it's ridiculous. Privatize that shit.

[mczerone]

I would love to explore the solar system, but I doubt I will be able to based on our current level of capability. The "we" is humanity. Humans have always explored new territories and striven toward new technologies.

Well if the ends are for the sake of "humanity", should they be funded by the whole of humanity, and not just a few national govts? And if the model of competition that exists between govt funded programs is defensible as being the model that best serves the interests of humanity, shouldn't that model work even better if it were private firms that were competing?


No it isn't. Scientists are still working on better ways to go to Mars, never mind the rest of the Solar System. And yes, I do "trust the state".

I stand by my statement that the knowledge of physics already exists. Engineering and cost-efficiency problems still exist, but those aren't generally solvable without trial and error and rational accounting of costs (and benefits). Govt CANNOT perform those functions.

I'm sorry you trust the state. I have a hammer I'd like to sell you for $1.4 million, and a work contract for rocket fuel containers that I can't offer you because I have a bigger donor in the same business who charges 10x as much.


We've made all kinds of progress in physics and space exploration through NASA.

Broken window fallacy.


Is there waste with resources? Yes, but that can be ironed out. In fact there's an attempt to do that right now, which is one of the reasons the Space Shuttle is being retired.

Govt waste cannot be "ironed out". It is systemic. It takes a substantial risk of complete failure to change govt policies, because they do not respond to profit/loss signals, rational calculation, or subjective values. NASA is in complete disrepair, and "humanity" is in danger of never reaching the moon or further again because it is just another govt bureaucracy. Private enterprise is fast catching up, and but for the economic downturn would probably already be on the way to the stars.

[madengr]

Here is the relevant section I was thinking about in my initial post. Looks like the only thing it authorizes is the patent office:


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

NIST would be constitutional too, or does weights and measures only apply to coins?


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html