When two MIT students sent a camera into space that took photographs of the curvature of the Earth, NASA bureaucrats were hopefully beginning to worry about their jobs. The most eye-opening fact about this incredible scientific achievement is that Justin Lee and Oliver Yeh spent only $150 on what it takes NASA billions to do.
The two students (from MIT, of course) put together a low-budget rig to fly a camera high enough to photograph the curvature of the Earth. Instead of rockets, boosters and expensive control systems, they filled a weather balloon with helium and hung a styrofoam beer cooler underneath to carry a cheap Canon A470 compact camera. Instant hand warmers kept things from freezing up and made sure the batteries stayed warm enough to work.
Of course, all this would be pointless if the guys couldn’t find the rig when it landed, so they dropped a prepaid GPS-equipped cellphone inside the box for tracking. Total cost, including duct tape? $148.
Just as importantly, these pictures of the Earth didn't require confiscating a part of anyone's income to do so (unlike NASA). These two students paid for this entirely out of their own pockets, which provided the incentive to find a way to cut costs. Their launch also didn't pollute the environment or subsidize pointless studies, as NASA launches tend to do.
Defenders of NASA claim that it the program essential for the development of new technologies. But commercial markets are far better at inventions and breakthroughs because their research is designed to provide a product or a service (and make a profit). Telstar I, the world's first telecommunications satellite, was a product of AT&T's drive to provide a better communication service (only later to be used by the Defense Department). The telephone, personal computers, the Internet, Velcro, Tang, Tempur-Pedic mattresses, hand-calculators, and the hundreds of products created from the advantage of integrated circuits and semiconductors; all of these have advanced our lives not by the coercive taxation of a government program, but through the mutual benefit of buyer and seller.
So what's the point of NASA again? It's just one of the federal government's big, tremendously expensive fireworks shows, like those buzzing Blue Angels. When NASA fires rockets into space or lands a billion-dollar golf carts on Mars, it's a big, public display. It is objective and visible, "there it stands!" Beyond these modern-day pyramids and castles are the subjective costs, spread around the entire population through taxation. How many goods and services weren't provided so that we could watch a bureaucrat walk on the moon?
It's time to get rid of NASA. Immediately we would save at least $17 billion a year, and scientific advancements will begin to finally address our needs and concerns in a competitive market. If NASA were de-funded, the private sector could begin to deliver services that are actually valuable to consumers, things NASA barely emphasizes, like employing robot satellites that gather information about the Earth to supply the high commercial demand for more accurate weather forecasts and geological assessments. Robot satellites can also accomplish most of the things that more expensive manned flights do, but when a government is in charge, costs don't matter.
As two MIT students have proved, NASA is a series of expensive publicity stunts, distractions from the costs of its wastefulness. It's a shame Americans are still forced to pay for this PR.
_
This article originally appeared in the (d)N0t blog.
Comments
NASA is more than a publicity stunt. Have you bothered to research the scientific and technical advances that have occurred because of space exploration? While the story of the MIT students is nice, they are not "doing what NASA does." Earth orbiting satellites do much more than take a few pictures for five minutes. Sorry, but your argument doesn't even get off the ground.
By your logic, we don't need an MIT anymore because students in high school have already flown things into space for cheap. Cool educational projects like this happen all the time. Under the PearlSat program, high school students flew hundreds of experiments in space. The demand for these programs is always way larger than the supply and are typically underrepresented in the media.
While Telstar was the first direct relay communications satellite. the fist communications satellite was the SCORE satellite. funded by US army. the worlds first active repeater satellite Courier 1B was again funded by US army. AT&T was only able to fund such a project because it was a monopoly at the time of Telstar, and they could not have done a satellite launch without NASA or Russia's space research. your logic is far off.
The MIT kids used technology such as GPS enabled phones, digital cameras, and micro-circuitry which were all direct offshoots of the space program. They can do it for $150 because NASA was there way ahead of them. It is poorly educated people like you who are unafraid of public stupidity that we need to get rid of -- not NASA.
Can you put a satellite inside of atmosphere? Come on, 15 miles is way inside of atmosphere. My other question would be: Can you fly a Balloon above atmosphere? NASA's lowest altitude flight would be on Balloon, and it is 30km + above surface with heavy payload. Don't write anything about space program, if someone doesn't know what is earth orbit. It is ABOVE atmosphere. WHY? Check textbook, PLEASE.
Guys it would appear that the writer isn't suggesting that two students revolutionized space travel with this experiment. I believe from reading this piece he is suggesting that these procedures could be carried out cheaper and more effectively by the private sector than by NASA or by the military. If any of you took a little more than cursory glance at this article, you would realize that it is not an article about space technologies, but an article about the role of the government against the private sector.
The primary "job" of NASA is to keep peons like us earthbound so we can't escape the grasp of government, or get a drop on the state. NASA makes it look as if advances for all of us are being made without any risk any of us will actually emigrate from earth anytime soon.
The author of this article has no idea what NASA does, nor its history of useful accomplishments. He thinks it's a fireworks show, since that's as far as he feels like taking his research--he watches a few launches on TV, and figures that's all there is to it. NASA gives us a lot of bang for our buck, and buck for our bang. NASA doesn't hold back private companies from attempting to do anything--if private companies were actively doing the same things as well as NASA, then there'd be something to what he says. Let's see private industry put together a Cassini space probe, currently circling Saturn--they wouldn't, because they wouldn't see a "profit" in it. Which is part of the author's problem--he sees everything in terms of dollar profits.
NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits derived, not to mention the human aspect of sending people into space. Bureaucrats didn't walk on the moon--first, the test pilots did, and very soon after that, real scientists did.
I have nothing against NASA or JPL for that matter. I think its great a couple of eggheads from MIT were able to strap a digital camera to a balloon and snap some photos of earth from near space. But lets face it, its really not rocket science. Speaking of space though it is long overdue for mankind to venture out into the cosmos. We can start by learning how to terraform right here on earth. Its not like we don't have any deserts to start with. Then we will be better prepared to travel to other planets. We all seem to get on each others nerves here on earth from all the conflict created out of our petty differences. A wise person once said make love not war. Yet we still engage in these archaic squabbles over resources. Look to the sky and see all the possibilities and limitless resources. The universe is our backyard waiting for us to discover it. I would rather have NASAs help to do this than strapping my butt to a helium balloon bought at the dollar store.
The author of this article has no idea what NASA does, nor its history of useful accomplishments. He thinks it's a fireworks show, since that's as far as he feels like taking his research--he watches a few launches on TV, and figures that's all there is to it. NASA gives us a lot of bang for our buck, and buck for our bang. NASA doesn't hold back private companies from attempting to do anything--if private companies were actively doing the same things as well as NASA, then there'd be something to what he says. Let's see private industry put together a Cassini space probe, currently circling Saturn--they wouldn't, because they wouldn't see a "profit" in it. Which is part of the author's problem--he sees everything in terms of dollar profits.
NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits derived, not to mention the human aspect of sending people into space. Bureaucrats didn't walk on the moon--first, the test pilots did, and very soon after that, real scientists did.
Dr. Chuck, though you write like a fairy, make some fine points about this article.
I know that we have gained alot from the scientific findings of the space program, I know that alot of people have been killed using that technology all over the world, I also know that if our country economically crumbles and falls deeper and deeper into debt our grandchildren will not give a crap whether or not we were the first country to land on the moon.
The correct term is "near space".
Anyone can report news.
What about military spending? Do you have any idea how much money is wasted on the development of weapons? In this world it is entirely acceptable to kill another person as long as you are on the right team.
Idiots having an uneducated opinion and the ability to post it online is most irritating.
The author does not know enough about the industry and technology to make any suggestions.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!