News about Mercury

[Dojhar son of Bob]

So, some spacecraft has done a flyby of Mercury and answered some hotly debated questions like: Does the planet have a stable magnetic field? Are there volcanoes on Mercury? Is there water there? If you're intensely curious about these things, the answers are yes, yes, and yes.

While this is all fascinating, my next immediate thoughts are "So what?" and "How many billions of dollars did that cost us?" When we're all sitting back here on Earth freaking out about the cost of oil and food, is it worthwhile spending this amount of money to learn that Mercury's diameter has shrunk by 2 feet over the millenia and it's volcanoes probably haven't erupted in 3 billion years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/science/space/08merc.html?ref=space

 

[Pavonis]

"So what?" Well, it's interesting if you're in the planetary science field. Not everyone is, so it's not interesting to everyone. It doesn't have to be, though. No doubt whatever you do is not of interest to everyone either. I could ask "So what?" about your work, too.

As for the cost, I don't have the figures available, but I doubt it cost "billions"; maybe a hundred million or more, depending on the cost of the rocket to launch it and the salaries of the mission support teams, etc. Probably comparable to the cost of an F-22 or two. Certainly it's not a waste of money. The cash wasn't simply burnt as rocket fuel. It all circulates in the economy - even scientists have to buy food and fuel, or would you rather we go hungry?

 

[JNG]

When we're all sitting back here on Earth freaking out about the cost of oil and food, is it worthwhile spending this amount of money to learn that Mercury's diameter has shrunk by 2 feet over the millenia and it's volcanoes probably haven't erupted in 3 billion years?

Well, I think increasing our scientific understanding of planets, tectonics, geology and so forth does, in the long view, serve to inform our efforts to address problems like energy and world hunger.

If we waited to increase knowledge until there didn't seem to be any proximate problems at all, we'd never get anywhere. No, I don't believe the amount of oil that money could have bought would have done much at all to affect the price of gas for regular folks or anything like that. Billy Bob may elect to skip a NASCAR event that is three hundred miles away from him, and our knowedge of the universe increases a little bit.

 

[Dojhar son of Bob]

Ugh. NASCAR. A truly tremendous waste of resources. Cancel NASCAR and the like and then you've really got something that might lower the price of gas, Especially considering Billy Bob is probably driving a Ford F250 those 300 miles (or an RV). Not to mention the dozens of cars pointlessly driving in circles at -3 miles per gallon and the tires being replaced every few laps.

 

[anais]

Well, I think increasing our scientific understanding of planets, tectonics, geology and so forth does, in the long view, serve to inform our efforts to address problems like energy and world hunger.

Indeed.

Technology developed for use in space has a nack for finding its way to more earthly applications. For instance, solar cells were first put to use on satellites.

 

[scotthm]

While this is all fascinating, my next immediate thoughts are "So what?" and "How many billions of dollars did that cost us?" ...is it worthwhile spending this amount of money to learn that Mercury's diameter has shrunk by 2 feet over the millenia and it's volcanoes probably haven't erupted in 3 billion years?

It is interesting, though there's absolutely no doubt that the money would have been better spent on my home remodelling projects and retirement fund.

---------------

 

[Ronald Held]

Why must scientific research have a direct payoff? This society wastes a lot of money and resources on things that could be better put to use on other endevours.

 

[Dojhar son of Bob]

Why must scientific research have a direct payoff? This society wastes a lot of money and resources on things that could be better put to use on other endevours.

We absolutely waste a lot of resources on a lot of things, but that's not necessarily an argument for scientific research. What if this research is just another example of wasteful spending.

 

[Pavonis]

What is a good justification for scientific research, then? What might justify the MESSENGER mission in your eyes? Just curious.

 

[Dojhar son of Bob]

What is a good justification for scientific research, then? What might justify the MESSENGER mission in your eyes? Just curious.

Something that goes beyond new questions for Trivial Pursuit. Though I suppose the space photography print trade will do a brisk business in Mercury volcano posters thanks to this. That ought to help the economy.

Really, I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I just can't think how these discoveries are worth $100 million or even $10 million and I was hoping one of you could tell me. I've never liked the "We use space tech in everyday life" argument. I find it difficult to accept that it was necessary to go into space in order to discover velcro or solar panels. All the stuff for space was still figured out on Earth, so we didn't need to go to space to discover them. It's just that, somehow, we feel a duty to spend money on space exploration and develop technology for it more than we do mass transit and food production. For those, we expect economics to prevail. I, for one, am all for economics driving innovation and I don't see how space should get a free pass when other technologies don't.

 

[Pavonis]

The "space exploration is/isn't a waste" argument is pretty old, and I don't really want to get into it again. I'd like to try approaching a response from another angle.

When you ask "What's the point?", you're implicitly asking "What's the point of the work done by all the scientists and engineers associated with this project?". It's asking for a justification of the work done by thousands of people at universities, government agencies, and private companies. And the point is to employ people. Most of the scientists associated with a space exploration program like MESSENGER are working on other projects, too, and those projects might help reach some particular goal that you or others might deem worthwhile. So instead of thinking of the financial cost (which isn't wasted because it pays salaries that are spent on plenty of other things), think of it in terms of education and employment. Perhaps someone working on a space exploration project will end up adapting what they learned or developed to improve conditions in some way here.

Returning to the financial aspect, I don't think there's ever been a case of a space exploration program leading to a lack of funds for a social program. It's just that space exploration is such a high-profile expense with no immediate returns that it's an easy target for cutting funds. It wouldn't be a good candidate for private enterprise to take over for exactly those reasons (no short-term profit to reinvest in the program). It's learning for the sake of learning. Is that a bad thing? Is learning a waste of time, money and energy? Because if it is, then why do we insist that people get college educations? Can't most people function with a mere elementary education? - "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten!"

To turn the tables, what's the point of your occupation? Does society really benefit from whatever it is you do? Just something to ponder.

 

[MarianLH]

Well, I think increasing our scientific understanding of planets, tectonics, geology and so forth does, in the long view, serve to inform our efforts to address problems like energy and world hunger.

Indeed.

Technology developed for use in space has a nack for finding its way to more earthly applications. For instance, solar cells were first put to use on satellites.

Besides, it's not as if the money was poured into the nose cone of a rocket and shot into space. It got spent here on earth, and at least some portion of it ended up in the paychecks of the people who built the thing.


Marian

 

[scotthm]

Besides, it's not as if the money was poured into the nose cone of a rocket and shot into space. It got spent here on earth, and at least some portion of it ended up in the paychecks of the people who built the thing.

But the government could just as easily have put that money back into the pockets of the taxpayers funding these missions, and let them spend the money, so that's no justification.

---------------

 

[Maurice]

Why does everyone pick on the piddling tiny space program budget as something that needs to be justified when billions and billions are wasted on idiotic projects all over the country? And a society that thinks everything has to have practical economic results is a society without a soul.

 

[Timo]

Moreover, most of the problems of our planet are not of the sort that could be solved by adding money.

What good would an extra trillion or three really do (never mind that science never sees sums like that) in terms of, say, fuel prices? If the money was directly put into fuel subsidies, it would merely cause instant inflation: oil isn't getting any more plentiful by the movement of silly dollars. If it was put into finding more oil, it would probably be wasted, as said oil would still be just as expensive to dig up in absolute terms. If it was put into finding alternatives to oil, the researchers would be able to buy bigger TV sets, but there's no reason to think they would come up with a solution faster, or to find a better solution, just because they are better paid.

Money as a factor in poverty is just an abstraction and an artifact. True poverty has little or nothing to do with the amount of money being shuffled around, and funding is largely irrelevant to most efforts, any efforts, in comparison with the importance of pricing policy.

This all apart from the sad fact that a billion or two extracted from the space program would never be put into any better use anyway. Economy isn't a zero-sum game unless one decides it is, and currently a different decision stands - important projects are starved of money because that is how the importance of those projects is viewed, not because there would be a general shortage of money.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

Why is this even in Science and Technology, complaining about the relatively small amount of money space programmes take up in any country's budget.

 

[Pavonis]

But the government could just as easily have put that money back into the pockets of the taxpayers funding these missions, and let them spend the money, so that's no justification.

---------------

I think the point of the post was to highlight the fact that the money spent on space exploration programs isn't wasted, because it all ends up as someone's salary. This particular MESSENGER mission is paying for a lot of grad student and postdoc stipends, for instance, not to mention the salaries (not unreasonably high, I'd say) of the principal investigators. Sure, the money spent could be returned to the taxpayers, including these students and professors, but then they'd have to find another job, too, and probably one in which government funds would also be necessary.

 

[John Picard]

Why must scientific research have a direct payoff? This society wastes a lot of money and resources on things that could be better put to use on other endevours.

We absolutely waste a lot of resources on a lot of things, but that's not necessarily an argument for scientific research. What if this research is just another example of wasteful spending.

One has to spend money to make money. For every dollar invested (SPENT) in the Space Program, I believe the return is ten dollars. Not a bad ROI.

 

[Dojhar son of Bob]

One has to spend money to make money. For every dollar invested (SPENT) in the Space Program, I believe the return is ten dollars. Not a bad ROI.

There you go. That's what I'm looking for. Source?

 

[TerriO]

Why is this even in Science and Technology, complaining about the relatively small amount of money space programmes take up in any country's budget.

I'm choosing to interpret it as the inevitable political corollary that comes with some subjects. As long as we don't get too crazy....