This is definitely awesome, but I sometimes worry about these arguments that we should fund NASA because the science they do has other applications. We should fund NASA because science, and the pursuit of knowledge of our universe, are important. Science doesn’t need immediate practical applications to be worthwhile – because a) we don’t know what practical applications will come out of it and that’s why we do the science, and b) even if it has no immediate practical applications, the pursuit of knowledge is a worthwhile and important goal for any society.
I worry that if “but practical applications!” is our argument for science, the people allocating funds will say, quite reasonably, “but aren’t there other, cheaper ways to get there?” To which the answer is yes – we could have developed image sharpening software for other purposes. We probably even would have eventually. But we never would have learned the millions of things Hubble has taught us about the universe. And that’s a sad thing to contemplate.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for finding practical applications for things, but when you wonder if NASA should receive 1% of the federal budget -which, BTW, is actually about twice what NASA is currently funded for – don’t forget the primary purpose.
#frozencapybara is bitter about the devaluation of knowledge for the sake of knowledge