April 16, 2004

<< Tales from Deep Space | 'The Secret Sauce' >>

Standing in the Shadow of Sputnik

So, Matt thinks we ought to hang NASA out to dry and re-allocate all its cash to renewable energy research instead.

Surprisingly, I don’t think this is a terrible idea.

But before we get to that, let’s review some numbers:

The Department of Energy is asking for $1.25 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 2005, and $410 million for nuclear science and technology. (Hey, I know it’s not sexy anymore, but nuclear energy might still be the wave of the future.) Total: $1.7 billion.

The National Science Foundation, which funds almost half of all non-life-science research at American universities, is requesting $5.5 billion in 2005.

So what do you think NASA’s annual budget is? Make your guess, and click for more.

NASA’s request for 2005 is $16 billion. That’s more than double the DOE’s renewable energy budget and the entire NSF budget combined.

Now, to be fair, space science is expensive. The NSF can fund a pretty cool chemistry project for $150,000, but that’d probably buy like one coat of paint for a NASA probe.

But, even so: Might we be coasting on ’60s priorities?

NASA’s budget narrative says the agency will “yield remarkable new scientific insights, stimulate American innovation, and inspire young and old alike.”

Scientific insights, okay. Stimulate American innovation, questionable. Inspire young and old alike? Is this really a reasonable policy goal?

Now, I don’t want to eviscerate NASA like Matt does, because I love looking at pictures from Hubble. I think that kind of work is valuable and, I must admit, inspiring to young and old alike. But hey, it’s cheap! The ego boost (behold, daring astronauts) is what soaks up all the cash; the reality check (the universe is large, you are small) is a bargain.

So how about this: We cut $3 billion, or a little under half, of NASA’s space flight budget, and throw it over to DOE and NSF. NASA focuses on telescopes and rovers, the kinds of projects that have been most productive already. Private companies take over the business of shooting people into space (they’re getting close already). And our new mega-funded renewable energy project rocks out with mass-produced solar fusion combustors! Or whatever.

Why cut NASA, though? Why not shave a bit off the military, or redirect a few billion in agricultural subsidies? Easy answer, I think (and I stole this from Matt): Of all the things on the federal budget, manned space flight is the most discretionary. We don’t need to do it. There’s no political constituency demanding it (is there?).

So, let’s shift some of those billions over to another project that there is no political constituency for — a next-generation energy project that, if successful, would be not only scientifically interesting but also utterly world-changing.

Whoops, a little renewable-energy triumphalism crept in there.