The Real Cost of Big Science
I recently posted on a spiffy new super-telescope they just started building in Hawaii.
I was pretty excited because, well, it's only just about the coolest thing EVER.
(Gorgeous, too! You should take a look if you missed it.)
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/16...
But a friend (we're all friends here) soon pointed out the government had no business spending money on telescopes - cool or not.
And that's true enough. No argument here. Couldn't agree more.
If I had to vote for it - I wouldn't.
But in the overall scheme of things, Big Science costs practically nothing.
Let's take a second to quantify.
Google says the Feds spent $808 Billion on Social Security in 2013, and $851 Billion on Medicare/Medicaid.
That's 1.66 TRILLION dollars. T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N -- with a "T".
In one year.
That's 4.55 Billion each day. 189 Million Dollars An Hour.
DAH-um!
The gigantic new telescope is projected to cost 1.4 billion over the 8 years it will take to build.
(Of course, we all know gov't projections are garbage, if not outright lies, but for simplicity let's just use these numbers. It won't change the broad stroke of the issue.)
So $1.4 Billion over 8 years is $175 Million a year.
That's right.
The annual budget to build one of the greatest works of Man, a telescope ten times more powerful than the Hubble -
expected to directly image potentially habitable planets around other stars -
THE ANNUAL BUDGET to build this magnificence is less than the Welfare State spends on "welfare" in ONE HOUR.
The Large Hadron Collider - probing the fingerprints of God (if you believe in such things) - too expensive to be built by the US,
supposedly too expensive to be built by ANY ONE nation - cost $10 Billion over 10 years.
A $Billion a year to build.
About what our "underfunded" social programs cost us from the time I woke up today - to the time I went to lunch!
Seriously. 6 Hours!
And here we go, the grand-daddy of them all, the International Space Station.
One Hundred Billion Dollars. Shared by 23 nations over 13 years.
"Proof-positive" that real, meaningful, space exploration will require broad consortiums of Nations working together because it is Just-Too-Expensive to go it alone.
Cost $7.7 Billion per year of construction.
Or about TWO DAYS - T W O F ' I N G D A Y S - of old age, medical and disability checks.
Two Days.
It's funny what you can afford when you can spend your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids money to get re-elected.
(See my post: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/84... )
Again, I'm not saying the government SHOULD be spending tax dollars on telescopes. And If I had to vote for it - I wouldn't.
But when you quantify the size of the problem, this isn't the worst way our money is misspent.
BTW, I do believe Defense dollars have a place in space stations and research into elemental physics. And to that end such expenditures would be entirely justified and frankly, very affordable.
-----
(PS, all these "facts" come from hasty Google searches. Probably lots of room to quibble, but again, I think the broad strokes hold true.
I was pretty excited because, well, it's only just about the coolest thing EVER.
(Gorgeous, too! You should take a look if you missed it.)
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/16...
But a friend (we're all friends here) soon pointed out the government had no business spending money on telescopes - cool or not.
And that's true enough. No argument here. Couldn't agree more.
If I had to vote for it - I wouldn't.
But in the overall scheme of things, Big Science costs practically nothing.
Let's take a second to quantify.
Google says the Feds spent $808 Billion on Social Security in 2013, and $851 Billion on Medicare/Medicaid.
That's 1.66 TRILLION dollars. T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N -- with a "T".
In one year.
That's 4.55 Billion each day. 189 Million Dollars An Hour.
DAH-um!
The gigantic new telescope is projected to cost 1.4 billion over the 8 years it will take to build.
(Of course, we all know gov't projections are garbage, if not outright lies, but for simplicity let's just use these numbers. It won't change the broad stroke of the issue.)
So $1.4 Billion over 8 years is $175 Million a year.
That's right.
The annual budget to build one of the greatest works of Man, a telescope ten times more powerful than the Hubble -
expected to directly image potentially habitable planets around other stars -
THE ANNUAL BUDGET to build this magnificence is less than the Welfare State spends on "welfare" in ONE HOUR.
The Large Hadron Collider - probing the fingerprints of God (if you believe in such things) - too expensive to be built by the US,
supposedly too expensive to be built by ANY ONE nation - cost $10 Billion over 10 years.
A $Billion a year to build.
About what our "underfunded" social programs cost us from the time I woke up today - to the time I went to lunch!
Seriously. 6 Hours!
And here we go, the grand-daddy of them all, the International Space Station.
One Hundred Billion Dollars. Shared by 23 nations over 13 years.
"Proof-positive" that real, meaningful, space exploration will require broad consortiums of Nations working together because it is Just-Too-Expensive to go it alone.
Cost $7.7 Billion per year of construction.
Or about TWO DAYS - T W O F ' I N G D A Y S - of old age, medical and disability checks.
Two Days.
It's funny what you can afford when you can spend your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids money to get re-elected.
(See my post: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/84... )
Again, I'm not saying the government SHOULD be spending tax dollars on telescopes. And If I had to vote for it - I wouldn't.
But when you quantify the size of the problem, this isn't the worst way our money is misspent.
BTW, I do believe Defense dollars have a place in space stations and research into elemental physics. And to that end such expenditures would be entirely justified and frankly, very affordable.
-----
(PS, all these "facts" come from hasty Google searches. Probably lots of room to quibble, but again, I think the broad strokes hold true.
But is it considered rude to resubmit the same post?
My point was that Big Science is not as expensive as we have been led to believe.
When it IS appropriate to spend the money, we shouldn't be so afraid to do so.
With that said, I am amazed at the lack of response to this post.
I expected challenge or approval, or perhaps some combination thereof.
What I didn't expect was silence. Not really sure what to make of it.