This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Shuttle News

Myths About Shuttles and Supporting Space Exploration

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 6, 2012
Filed under ,

NASA space shuttle Enterprise to arrive in New York City on April 23, NY Daily News
“[Sen.] Schumer ruffled feathers from Florida to Texas for using his congressional clout to score a shuttle for New York, which had a limited role in space exploration. … Houston, home to NASA’s mission control, was left out. Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn fumed at the time that “clear political favors trumped common sense and fairness” in handing out shuttles to Los Angeles and New York.”
Keith’s note: According to the Tax Foundation:
– In 1981 Texas citizens paid $40,786,000,000 in federal taxes and got $32,851,000,000 back. In 2005 they paid $146,932,000,000 and got $148,683,000,000 back.
– In 1981 New York citizens paid $48,641,000,000 in federal taxes and got $43,574,000,000 back. In 2005 they paid $168,710,000,000 and got $144,876,000,000 back.
New York taxpayers have paid more in federal taxes than they got back. New York taxpayers paid more in federal taxes than Texas taxpayers did. Texas taxpayers got more from the federal government than they paid in taxes.
NASA is funded by tax dollars. New Yorkers paid more for NASA than Texans did. The argument that New Yorkers had less to do with space exploration is fundamentally flawed. New Yorkers’ money helped pay Texan salaries at NASA. All of America paid for the Space Shuttle program. All of America should get to share in the shuttle’s legacy.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

31 responses to “Myths About Shuttles and Supporting Space Exploration”

  1. Sean says:
    0
    0

    He wasn’t comparing Texas to New York State. He was comparing Houston to New York City.
    Besides,
    If you live in New York you can fairly easily get to DC to see a shuttle.
    If you live in Houston, you’ve got a long way to go to get to a shuttle.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      And if you live in Boise, Des Moines, Detroit ….

      • CraigBeasley says:
        0
        0

        Exactly. I have two preferences over the New York placement:
         
        1. Houston, because there is an entire educational package that can take you cradle-to-grave through the history of the Shuttle program, culminating with a stop to see an actual orbiter.
        2. ANYWHERE in the middle of the country. As much as I am not a fan of Illinois, having visited the Field Museum in Chicago last summer, that would have been an excellent venue, or the Museum of Science and Technology just down the road from that instutution.
         
        The choice of New York, with the National Air and Space Museum very, very close by with an orbiter already, that only makes sense when you use a political calculus. I have no animus towards New York, it’s about sheer politics making dumb decisions about our national heritage.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

       And if waiting to see the shuttle in NYC is like waiting to see the Statue of Liberty, you’ll have a long wait there too.

  2. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    “- In 1981 Texas citizens paid $40,786,000,000 in federal taxes and got $32,851,000,000 back. In 2005 they paid $146,932,000,000 and got $148,683,000,000 back.
    – In 1981 New York citizens paid $48,641,000,000 in federal taxes and got $43,574,000,000 back. In 2005 they paid $168,710,000,000 and got $144,876,000,000 back.”

    Looking at the linked source, this seems to be something of a trend. States which tend to vote Democrat pay more taxes than they receive in spending. States which tend to vote Republican pay less tax, get more spending.

    Similarly social measures like poverty levels, and even moral ones like divorce and teen-pregnancy or abortion rates. The numbers seem to be consistently worse in “Red” states than “Blue” ones.

    It puzzles me why Republicans are seen as superior economic managers, and supporters of family values, when states that they have run unchallenged for decades have the worst records.

    • blamethemall says:
      0
      0

      It is only the past few years that Texans have been able to deduct sales taxes from their federal taxes.  In Federal spending per dollar received, both states get the shaft from uncle sam.  Texas gets $.94 back per dollar spent and New York gets $.79 while Maryland gets $1.30 back and Virginia gets $1.51.  New Mexico is #1and receives $2.03 for every dollar in taxes.  Want to guess which way they voted in the last election (2008)?

      Also, alot of the red states grow food for the rest of the country so are you implying that the feds should stop farm subsidies?

      Looking at dollars received per capita, in 2005 Texas was #42, while New York was #26 so from that it looks like Texas comes in way behind NY in taxes received per person.

      • eech1234 says:
        0
        0

        Food – California also grows a huge chunk, but we get screwed over wrt federal taxes.  That’s ok, Google basically covers the state’s bills…

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

         “Also, alot of the red states grow food for the rest of the country so are you implying that the feds should stop farm subsidies?”

        Lord yes. A thousand times yes.

    • Monroe2020 says:
      0
      0

      40 Years of Democrat Leadership = Present Day Deroit Michigan.

      • Nassau Goi says:
        0
        0

         40 yrs of conservative cut throat outsourcing = Present day Detroit.

        Detroit may not be the manufacturing hub it once was, but they sure have many of the skillsets still intact. You want to weld a airplane onto a bus? they can make it work.

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          A case could also be made that 40 years of unions with too much power = Present day Detroit.

          Or 40 years of a cozy relationship between just three companies and the union = Present day Detroit.

          Or 40 years of three companies with an implicit cartel relationship where they didn’t really compete as hard as they could have because they each knew the others wouldn’t either, and the barriers to entry were too high for new entrants = Present day Detroit.

          There are plenty of ways to interpret the recent history of Detroit.

    • anwatkins says:
      0
      0

      You might want to be careful with what you are saying, especially some of your social measures.
       
      First, the study from the Tax Foundation may be a little misleading.  I am not saying it is, but its own caveat about what the study entails could suggest this.  According to their website:
                
      “The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements.”
       
      Therefore, if there are more federal employees and federal facilities, this would skew the results.  Does this also include military facilities and personnel?  Personally, Keith is correct that we all paid for it and I could care less where the shuttle goes.
       
      Granted, the poverty levels are higher in predominantly red states (especially southern states), but your other statements are not necessarily correct.  From infoplease.com (I just googled divorce rates by states), the divorce rates are all over the place.  For example, Texas has a divorce rate of 3.3/1000 while New York is 2.5/1000.  Some disparity, but then Connecticut (blue state) is 3.1/1000 and Delaware (blue state) is 3.8/1000.  Teen pregnancy rates also show some trends, but probably not enough to draw concrete conclusions.  Nevada and Arizona rank 1 and 2, but California is ranked 7. You have it completely backwards on abortion rates (from Kaiser Foundation) with the highest rates being New York, Delaware, Florida, Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut, Kansas, Washington, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Illinois (California did not report its numbers).  That may be why there are more teen mothers in red states, but that is not what you argued.

      As for “economic managers”, looking at state deficit rankings, the lowest debt belongs to Wyoming, DC, Idaho, Iowa, and Georgia.  The highest debt is Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.  Take this for what it is worth, but there are more blue states with higher debt than red states.
       
      It all probably comes down to the fact that with enough statistics, you can probably get them to say just about anything you want.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        “That may be why there are more teen mothers in red states, but that is not what you argued.”

        I’ve heard that argument before. But it doesn’t seem to hold. If you look at teen pregnancy rates, not just teen birthrates, the trend against red states seems to hold.

        http://www.guttmacher.org/p

        However, I was, as you noted, completely wrong about abortion rates, in absolute numbers. But the trend has been downward, which is what I was thinking of. As with divorce rates, crime rates, etc. It’s just that many red states don’t seem to be benefiting as much as their bluer brethren.

        The point is, though, that even if the data isn’t clear-cut… why isn’t it clear cut? Republicans claim to be the better economic managers, they claim to have the high moral ground, etc, why aren’t solid red states the economic powerhouses of the US, and the unequivocal moral beacons?

        “if there are more federal employees and federal facilities, this would skew the results.  Does this also include military facilities and personnel?”

        US dept agriculture figures for food-stamp recipients, 2010. 9/10 have Republican state government. 6 are solid Republican states, only one is a solidly Democrat state.

        R 20.7% Mississippi
        D 20.1% Oregon
        R 19.8% Tennessee
        r 19.8% New Mexico
        r 19.7% Michigan
        R 19.2% Louisiana
        R 18.8% Kentucky
        R 18.7% West Virgina
        r 18.6% Maine
        R 18.2% South carolina

        (r= Swing or left-leaning states with Rep state government.)

    • fencible says:
      0
      0

      “The numbers seem to be consistently worse in “Red” states than “Blue” ones.”

      Then you should look a little deeper into American history and you’ll be more definite in your assumptions.

      Let me remind you that whether a State is red or blue is not a constant, it can
      change every two, four and six years, however economic and cultural
      changes usually take scores of decades to change.

      States that were firmly attached to one party like the old Southern States (Texas, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, SC., NC., Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas were solidly behind the
      Democratic Party for well over 150 years and what were their conditions by the
      1960s? They had the highest poverty, the highest illiteracy, the lowest
      economies and barely any infrastructure improvements what so ever. By the 1970s
      the old South changed over to the Republican party and year by year they picked
      themselves up to a respectiful level. They have a long way to go but their beating the pants off of many other States.

      Texas, Georgia, and Florida have
      healthier economies compared to  bankrupt California, a firmly democratic State, who, when
      under Republican Party was the leader in aerospace and is now a shell of what it
      used to be.

      Many States that are blue now were red and have seen much better days and vice versa.  The Northern Eastern States when they were the bulwork of the Republican Party prospered from the late 1800s to the mid 1900s producing factories, transportation and trade to limits never to be seen again. 

      Your
      analysis is lacking any historical memory.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        “California, a firmly democratic State, who, when
        under Republican Party”

        So… last year?

        “Let me remind you that whether a State is red or blue is not a constant,”

        I was using the terms as short-hand for liberal/conservative. I am aware that the Democrats used to be the party of religious conservatism in the rural South, while the Republicans were the party of classical liberalism in the urbanised North. But their roles swapped. However, conservative southern states remain as poorly managed as ever, IMO. And I believe that the statistics support that.

  3. Doug Booker says:
    0
    0

    Uh, Keith, isn’t really some Americans paid for other Americans to work for the U.S government?

    Or are we reverting to Taliban tribalism.  Maybe you should refer to them as New York istan and Texasistan.

    Gee, aren’t we all Americans.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Yes we are all Americans and our space program belongs to all of us.

      • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
        0
        0

        and if you are on the East Coast you have your choice of not one but 3 orbiters to see.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          And If I want to see a Saturn V moon rocket how far do I have to travel?

          • Oscar_Femur says:
            0
            0

             gss113 didn’t have a ‘reply’ button so I couldn’t post my snarky comment about JSC being west of the Mississippi last time I looked under his comment.  Oh well.

  4. Honesthoward says:
    0
    0

    With that logic, Keith, why not send an Orbiter to Illinois, Nevada or New Hampshire?  All of those states ranked better than New York in federal $ received vs federal $ paid in.

    Not sending an Orbiter to Houston was a slap in the face to the thousands of hard working men and women at JSC that over the last 30 years sacrificed weekends and holidays with their families and friends (much the same as those at KSC did) to support the Orbiter/Shuttle program.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Yea, why not send an orbiter to Illinois, Nevada, or New Hampshire? They paid for it too.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      How about the people in New York, California and other states where the orbiters were actually built?  Don’t they deserve some special treatment for actually building the shuttle?  What about Huntsville – isn’t this an insult to them too?  The only way to make everyone happy is to have 50 orbiters.  If this is such a big deal then why hasn’t the TX congressional legislation used standard tricks to force NASA to send an orbiter to Texas?  FWIW I sacrificed weekends and holidays when I worked at NASA – and my tasks included shuttle stuff. I never lived in Texas.  I am not alone.

  5. CraigBeasley says:
    0
    0

    I can see that, too. So it isn’t a total loss. It was still a political decision, however, and New York is not an optimal placement for the citizens of this country to see what they and their parents paid for.

  6. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    The more pressing issue in this that Texas residents seem to be very anti-science at times. I often can’t get past a few minutes with any discussion with JSC Houston management or their hardware teams without thinking,” wow this person is an absolute moron, what are they doing at NASA?” The safety people there though are a different story. I think 2 shuttle accidents have primed them really well.

    The shuttles should have gone to places that care about spaceflight more so than a social agenda.

  7. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Geez, now that the Shuttle has stopped flying is when the politicos take interest in this program. Would have been nice if they took interest when it was still flying.

    As far as putting Orbiter in Texas, I say no based on one, JSC does poor job at preserving historical items (Saturn V being weathered, and from what I heard visitor center promoting nascar and lego stuff). Two, what Wayne Hale said TX doesn’t deserve an orbiter as when last time Houston mayor visited JSC (nobody can remember), last governor visiting JSC was Ann Richards in 1990s.

  8. chriswilson68 says:
    0
    0

    “All of America paid for the Space Shuttle program. All of America should get to share in the shuttle’s legacy.”

    I completely agree.  Texas or Florida aren’t owed any special privileges above the rest of us.

  9. Ian Whalley says:
    0
    0

    The Enterprise never flew in space.
     
    Gruman built the orbiter wings in Long Island (as as I recall Fairchild built the vertical stabilizer on Long Island).

  10. Roger562 says:
    0
    0

    Oh, BS.  Texas didn’t get a Shuttle because its a “red” state. New York, which has has exactly zilch to do with space exploration, got a Shuttle because they’re a “blue” state.  Where are the Shuttles going? New York, California, DC, and Florida. Blue, blue, blue, and red (but too directly involved for even this administration to ignore).

    This administration is playing cheap political games. It is painfully obvious, and trying to state otherwise is either self-delusion or a smoke screen.

  11. Jim says:
    0
    0

    come on Keith, by that logic the Shuttles should be in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia.  After all, NASA is funded by tax dollars.  Those states paid more for NASA than New Yorkers did. The argument that those states had less to do with space exploration is fundamentally flawed. Those states money helped pay salaries at NASA. All of America paid for the Space Shuttle program. All of America should get to share in the shuttle’s legacy.

  12. nasanine says:
    0
    0

    As is typically the case, the details can be devilish.  The money that each state “got back” includes
    procurement contracts and salaries & wages, so Texas’ receipt of $30.8
    billion from DoD vs. New York’s $8.6 billion skews the
    calculation.  Similarly, NASA’s Texas expenditures
    exceed New York’s by $3.2 billion.  Ironically, that contributes to Keith’s argument
    that Texas is less deserving of a Shuttle. 
    In other words, Texas would be more deserving if it didn’t host JSC.

    In the table below, I have made some additional calculations
    that I believe add additional perspective to the taxes vs. benefits
    discussion.  I start [Section I]with the
    totals used by the tax foundation but add some per capita figures.  (Note: All of the values are from 2005, and
    may not reflect current conditions or those from 1981).  As indicated, Texans received about $1K less
    per person ($7,501-$6,485)in total federal dollars spent.
     

    The next set of data [Section II] shows the
    Defense/non-Defense breakout, indicating that Texas received about 20% of its
    total from DoD ($30,782/$148,683) and the aforementioned $22B more than New
    York.

    Section III adds per capital details to the original totals
    from the Tax Foundation, and also looks at average tax rates.  New York’s federal taxes paid exceeded those
    of Texas because New York had a higher per capita income and also because New
    York paid a higher average tax rate.  The
    latter is probably due to both the progressive tax code and the Alternative
    Minimum Tax.  The net result is that New
    Yorkers paid $2,300 ($8,735-$6,408) more per person in taxes, greater than the $1300
    ($76-(-$1234)) per capita difference in overall taxes sent vs. outlays received.  (I am pretty sure that Texas would gladly
    take the Shuttle in exchange for lower federal income tax rates that would
    inure more to New York’s favor :>)

    Section IV provides the data used to calculate each state’s
    total NASA expenditures, yielding the aforementioned $3.2 advantage for
    Texas.  Section V posits an alternative definition
    of remitted federal dollars by subtracting out Defense and NASA outlays.  This new calculation shows both states as net losers, with New Yorkers getting the shorter end by about $250
    per person.