A World Without NASA
Perhaps my favorite myth of NASA is that it is directly responsible for creating and designing a slew of whiz-bang gadgets, including the cell phone.
Wrong, Martin Cooper did, while working for Motorola in 1973. And while this and other myths abound it misses the bigger picture.
What would modern life be without NASA? Is it possible?
It is impossible to predict the opportunity costs that were foregone with the redistribution of billions of dollars confiscated from taxpayers. Not only did individuals have less money to invest in alternative methods of space-based aviation and research, but entrepreneurs had to compete against a well-financed monopoly.
It is this same monopoly that diverted and devoured natural resources. This has the unseen effect of raising the costs of these scarce goods and services, which again, throws yet another artificial kink in the allocation process (it is the same phenomenon that creates agflation due to ethanol subsidies).
With these regulatory and institutional hurdles in place, why is it unfathomable to believe that the private sector could not have produced the same productive services that NASA is credited for spearheading? Does the utility of a good diminish or disappear because the private market crafted it instead?
If anything, the profit incentive would arguably have enticed private firms into this area. It is this reason (and others like "knowledge") that NASA and every government agency will always be inferior entrepreneurs, they have no incentive not to blow up their customers -- their revenue stream is guaranteed without the need to satisfy customer desires.
And this is one of the many points that Declan McCullagh tackles in a controversial piece at CNet -- controversial for two reasons.
First, based on the comments section, it would appear that the fallacious NASA-is-god myth continues to reside in the minds of geeks (see these Digg comments as well). The other are the results from the three-choice poll connected to his piece, one of which advocates axing the "bureaucratic behemoth."
You'll never guess which one is the least popular.
See also: How much should companies spend on research and development?
Comments (5)
jl
Whenever I think of NASA, this image keeps coming to mind: sometime in the future, a NASA spacecraft is lumbering along on its long journey to Mars. It is about halfway there, with a few years to go to reach the planet. And then Burt Rutan goes whizzing by with a load of tourists, in something from the Jetsons...
Published: October 4, 2007 10:22 AM
Matthew Graybosch
Not only does NASA have no incentive to avoid blowing up its customers, but it cannot even be bothered to avoid blowing up its own employees, as evidenced by the Challenger and Columbia explosions. It's tempting to suggest that NASA stands for "Need Another Seven Astronauts".
Published: October 4, 2007 11:10 AM
MadCowDisease
Whenever I think of NASA, this image keeps coming to mind: sometime in the future, a NASA spacecraft is lumbering along on its long journey to Mars...
And it misses its target because bureacrats don't know the difference between the imperial and the metric system of units.
Published: October 4, 2007 12:09 PM
Jay Hanks
Have any of you ever heard neccesity is the mother of invention? To think that the private sector would have come up with anything like, not cell phones, but the technnology in them, is absurd. Do a search for NASA Spinoffs and see just what NASA gets credit for. NASA is a research center for the public. Anything that is developed that is not classified is provided to the public at no charge. For every dollar of the 18.7 billion that goes into NASA 6 dollars worth of technology goes to the public. To call them a monopoly is simply stating opinion. They are, in fact, the best thing that has happened to this country since 1776.
Published: January 26, 2010 12:53 PM
mpolzkill
"absurd"
Very amusing. No need to try any harder then Mr. Hanks here:
What necessity? The necessity to get a bigger budget next year? Hilarious. You have no way of knowing what would be created with the funds not stolen from taxpayers.
Do a Google search: "Jay Hanks" + "NASA". A coincidence? Is this a crazed NASA groupie or the same electrical technician with wild hyperbole in the defense of his rice bowl?
Published: January 26, 2010 1:34 PM