- It is unclear how other space-science collaborations will be affected. Igor Mitrofanov of the Space Research Institute in Moscow, who led work on a neutron-detector device on NASA’s Mars Curiosity rover, says that he will not comment on the issue until NASA has notified him of the situation.
This is a joke as long as the US is dependent on Russia to launch astronauts into LEO. We can't claim to have 'severed' ties with Russian science and still rely on them for one of the most important parts of our space programs. Such are the penalties of not investing in the space program - we could have had manned launches with the SLS early next year if the original budget was kept. Instead, we are looking at continued dependence on the Russians until 2017 at the earliest. NASA's manned space program is rapidly becoming a joke, but with companies like SpaceX working to filling the gap, Washington doesn't see the need to invest in it. A similar pattern can be seen all throughout American science - the government is content letting the private sector fund research, when in reality the private sector is unable or unwilling to fund those endeavors which are most important.
Bingo. Specifically, science for the sake of science. What economic incentive do businesses have to fund something like the LHC? None. There is no payout, no technological application for a product to pitch. The U.S. fucked up big time by defunding the Superconducting Super Collider, and setting the field of particle physics back ~15 years. "Who gives a shit about the knowledge-base of our species? Let's put our money elsewhere."The government is content letting the private sector fund research, when in reality the private sector is unable or unwilling to fund those endeavors which are most important.
I actually got into a relatively extended debate today about this exact subject. It is hard to convince people to invest in something when there is admittedly no guarantee of profit down the line. There is a very very high chance, but no certainty. Their argument was that if basic research was in fact profitable, private companies would have an incentive to invest in it and the fact that they are not indicates there is no profit there. I said that it was certainly a risky investment for a company, and they responded that the American taxpayer should not have to pay for that risk. Obviously I disagree, but it is hard to convince people of the merits of science for science's sake.
Do they think the government is a business? If this person has children, they probably consider their kid(s) "investments". The idea of putting money on such a high pedestal will eventually be mocked, should mankind survive another couple thousand years.I said that it was certainly a risky investment for a company, and they responded that the American taxpayer should not have to pay for that risk.