Why do people complain about NASA's budget?

[Solon]

Usually, almost everytime there's a thread about NASA or something related to space research, people bring up that NASA is a waste of money, or too expensive, etc. Uhm, NASA takes up only 1.6% of the DISCRETIONARY budget, the actual budget, factoring in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with the paying down the debt, etc. is twice that, so NASA's budget is closer to .7 percent or so.

I did the figure myself, looking at the summary on Wikipedia, which is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008

NASA's budget is 17.3 billion dollars, out of a total of 2.9 TRILLION dollars. Taking out the non-discretionary spending, the discretionary budget is 1.114 trillion dollars. Looking at that, look at what the two biggest spenders are in the discretionary budget, the DOD and the Global War on Terror, which, added up, equals 626.6 billion dollars, almost 60 times the size of NASA's budget. I'm not even sure if this counts the Iraq War in the figures, probably not, but think of the difference here, NASA is practically on a shoestring budget, and still they are in the middle of what could be called a second golden age of exploration in the Solar System, doing more with less. What the hell has the DOD accomplished in the same time period?

The fact is that NASA's budget is pretty small, one of the smallest items in the federal budget, its not like children are robbed of school lunches for NASA to build a new space probe. More likely those children are robbed of school lunches to pay for a new submarine, or new jet fighter. Besides that, do we really need a new nuclear submarine, or wizbang under performing fighter? We are the pre-eminent superpower in military might on the planet, out spending damn near EVERYONE else on the planet. Why the hell do we have to overspend everyone else?

We already have enough nuclear weapons in our arsenal to sterilize the planet 3 times over, no one is going to invade us, and all these shiny new toys in our arsenal aren't going to do shit against terrorists, as has been proven already.

To me, it seems like our priorities are fucked up, we should allocate more resources to NASA, and less to war, in addition to funding UHC and stronger social safety nets. We would have the money if we didn't have these fucking idiots in the Pentagon who seem to write blank checks to contractors all the fucking time.

[Red Zelda]

1. Because it is wasted money

It keeps a few geeks employed and generally is money flushed down the commode. Hey - if all was well and we didn't need anything, "space" toys might be fun, but get over it. We're NEVER going "out there" unless some nice Vulcans come and give us a ride.

Yes ... our priorities ARE fucked up, but we need NASA like we need a new missile, tank or army general dressed up like a clownish bellhop.

[TommyO]

2. If it weren't for NASA, we wouldn't know the extent of global climate change

Even though this administration has tried to censor the information, NASA has literally been our outside observer, giving us the proof that we are impacting the environment.

[Red Zelda]

3. We didn't need NASA to tell us that

...hell, burning fossil fuels for 200 years is enough proof for a chimp. Well, OK, not THAT chimp.

[0007]

9. Ya don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

[LanternWaste]

18. I think...

But you do need a weatherman to know if a front is coming in, if the pressure is dropping, where the dry lines are located, what the jet stream is up to, etc...

[Solon]

6. The fact of the matter is that NASA would be considered low priority...

for lowering the national budget, or funding more programs that help people. Cutting its budget won't do much to help the situation here in this nation, in fact, it will make things worse. Research into new material technology, computing technology, not to mention the general pursuit of knowledge would all be curtailed if NASA's budget is cut.

We would accomplish more by keeping NASA, and cutting the so called "defense" *cough*offense*cough* budget. I just don't understand why people seem so intent on focusing on one of the smallest funded programs in the budget rather than the largest. What the hell would cutting NASA's budget accomplish anyways?

[The Traveler]

7. Sure ... we don't need to learn anything new

Such a waste of money. Understanding the atmospheres of other planets does absolutely nothing to help us understand our own, or how we are fucking it up. Developing new technologies is so irrelevant ... so what if Apollo funded the advances in IC R&D that made possible the PC revolution of the eighties? Who ever uses that stuff today? And all that research on fuel cells, MHD and other direct energy conversion systems, solar power systems ... all that crap they did back in the 70s is just so useless now. Who needs that stuff when ya got mountains full of coal to tear down?

:sarcasm:

[Solon]

10. Don't forget WD-40, invented to be used as water repellent on NASA rockets...

Just had to mention that. :)

[baldguy]

14. With those "space toys" the modern world would be impossible.

And it's outrageously cheap, too.

[bryant69]

16. That's right. We don't need science at all frankly

What has science ever done for us? We'd be better of going back to a 14th century mindset.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Duppers]

28. groan

Try a little reading...yeah, like you'd do that...and open your mind...

http://www.ip.nasa.gov/

Just scroll down and spend 15 or so mins. reading, please.


Even I disagree with MANNED space flights for NOW, BUT no one with any marbles can say that NASA is useless or has been useless---even despite some military applications, which, btw, are due ONLY to the wingers in Congress controlling funding.


Why don't we just close universities while we're at it, uh? They don't feed the hungry or produce anything!
Must I add :sarcasm: for the intellectually challenged on this thread?


"Toys" my ass!!!!!

[MadHound]

37. Do you realize how many products that have been spun off of NASA programs that make your life better

Gee, you're typing on one right now. You're probably wearing others, have consumed more, and interact with even more on a daily basis.

Everything from computers to clothing to food to shelter and beyond has benefited from materials, technology and know-how that came straight out of NASA programs.

[The2ndWheel]

40. That know-how also contributes to the problems we have

We can't escape.

[MadHound]

41. No, it is how we employ that know how that contributes to the problems we have

Computers aren't inherently evil, even though they use a lot of energy. It is how we supply that energy that is the problem. Sadly, we're continuing to use old school terrestrial methods, like coal, rather than develop that innovation from NASA known as the solar panel:shrug:

[The2ndWheel]

43. Solar energy will just create different environmental problems

We're not escaping physical reality, no matter how much we try. If we get "clean" energy, we will give ourselves the green light(I think...yeah, the pun is intended) to do more things, because we'll tell ourselves that there won't be any consequences. Unfortunately, there are consequences to anything we do, no matter what we do. When we increase the scale of what we do, we increase the scale of the damage we do as a result. NASA can innovate until the cows come home, that agency doesn't exist outside of the physical world.

Computers aren't inherently evil, but if we give ourselves the ability to store large amounts of data and communicate instantly on a global level, then we're also going to get NSA databases and outsourcing. It comes with the innovation.

[MadHound]

45. So let's all go back to the stone age then? Sorry, but I don't buy that philosophy.

Yes, everything has consequences, technological advances etc. But should we stop investing in scientific endeavors out of fear of those possible negative side effects? No, first of all man is a curious animal and will always be exploring things. Second, scientific progress actually has the promise to allieviate those negative effects.

[The2ndWheel]

52. So which is it?

"Yes, everything has consequences, technological advances etc."

"scientific progress actually has the promise to allieviate those negative effects."

Does everything have consequences, or do they not?

Here's how I see it. The human species is the corporation to the planet's government(and the same way our votes count less and less, the rest of life doesn't even get to vote since we eradicate anything that chooses to vote against us). Many different species on the planet, one planet. Many different corporations, one government. We don't like the laws the govern our existence, much like Monsanto or Exxon don't enjoy whatever rules we come up for them. So what do we do? We try and buy our way into writing the rules, the same way Monsanto and Exxon do. What happens when Monsanto and Exxon accomplish their goal? Everything outside of those corporations takes a hit. That's the same thing that happens to the planet each time we advance, as if we have some destination. What is our destination? Complete control? What do Monsanto and Exxon want? Complete control?

"But should we stop investing in scientific endeavors out of fear of those possible negative side effects?"

There isn't much choice. We can't do anything but continue to invest in those endeavors. At the same time, we can't continue investing in those endeavors. We can't stop doing it because to do so kills billions of people by choice(and nobody wants to be worse than all 20th century dictators combined). We can't continue doing it because the more energy we take from the rest of life, the more the rest of the habitat we live in suffers.

So what's the answer? There is no answer. We can't stop, but we can't continue.

[Solon]

56. And people call me a pessimist...

The problem is that we use a closed system for our energy needs right now. Oddly enough, space offers opportunity for what we could call "free energy", the Sun, as a start. Without being slaved to weather patterns or 12 hours of darkness(on average), solar power, in space, allows for free energy for the next 4 billion years or so. We can collect as much of this energy as needed. Even better than this, we can outsource some of our most destructive processes off-planet, preserving the biosphere on Earth itself.

An example of this would be agriculture, we are running out of arable land to support our world population, and we could capture medium sized stony asteroids and, using robotic drillers and maybe some human engineers, build habitats specifically design to maximize output of food crops. The environment could be completely controlled, from the length of the harvest season and day/night cycle to just the right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of the habitats for specific crops. Not to mention you wouldn't have to worry about pests, so no herbicides or pesticides, nor would you have to worry about environmentally destructive fertilizers contaminating our water supplies on Earth. Capture a comet or two, and use the water ice on that to feed the crops, and you could ship the harvested crops back to Earth to feed people. Hell, they'd be organic certified as well.

Experiments in space already have shown that crops can grow there, in lower gravity(centripetal force) than humans can tolerate, higher CO2 levels increase maturity and crop yield, and you wouldn't even need humans to even harvest the crops, and all the machines would be solar powered. And that's just one example.

[The2ndWheel]

66. Really? Because that's about the most optimistic series of events someone can come up with

No worries on where the money will come from to pay for this. Free energy. More outsourcing, this time on a galactic scale. Capturing asteroids. Capturing multiple comets. And you wouldn't even need humans, other than to consume.

"The environment could be completely controlled"

Alright, so we're establishing that this is the endgame. This is the destination. Life does not live other than to serve our narrow needs.

Why do we get upset about corporate control then? They're just the mirror image of us. We're the same side of the same coin.

"And that's just one example"

Just one? I think I need to have a talk with the people that call you a pessimist. They apparently keep using that word, and I don't think it means what they think it means.

[Solon]

71. My pessimism comes in when I realize that we are too short sighted for such things...

to come to pass without some type of major disaster happening first.

I'm just mentioning what's possible, using CURRENT technology, by the way, no futuristic stuff here.

As far as cost, it would be expensive, at first, but would pay for itself with time. The fact is that the economics of such an endeavor would be around the cost of the Apollo program, perhaps a little more, but if we end up with billions of people starving to death on this planet because of topsoil erosion and overuse of chemicals that poison the air and water, wouldn't it be worth the cost?

Think of the choices we have here, we can stay on this planet, and continue to destroy every single life supporting biosphere until we make ourselves extinct, or we can begin to start migrating from it. Hell, the most optimistic I get is humans leaving the planet and leaving it alone, to be a type of planetary park, where, at most, we visit to see some of the wildlife, occasionally.

[The2ndWheel]

76. But without that disaster, who would need to innovate?

If you have everything, why would you waste the energy to get more?

"Think of the choices we have here, we can stay on this planet, and continue to destroy every single life supporting biosphere until we make ourselves extinct, or we can begin to start migrating from it."

To do what? I think imperialism has proven we can't escape from ourselves. Migrate what? Billions of people? Or will we have downloaded ourselves onto iPod's by then?

"Hell, the most optimistic I get is humans leaving the planet and leaving it alone, to be a type of planetary park, where, at most, we visit to see some of the wildlife, occasionally."

So a zoo...

"but if we end up with billions of people starving to death on this planet because of topsoil erosion and overuse of chemicals that poison the air and water, wouldn't it be worth the cost?"

...which apparently won't have much in the way of life, human or otherwise. Basically more depressing than your average zoo today.

I think we can stick around. We're just going to have to play by the rules. Unless we act like all the rapacious corporations that we want to, for some reason, write rules for. Unless we are Monsanto. Unless we are Exxon. Unless we are Wal-Mart.

[KaptBunnyPants]

65. I guess you should just commit suicide then.

Since you seem to have given up completely on the idea of improving our lot in life.

[The2ndWheel]

72. Does the improving ever stop?

Will there be a day when we finally get to the end and say we're done? We've improved all we can? Or if we stop, does that mean entropy starts taking over again? It's always chasing us. That's why we can't stop. Hell, that's why we have to eat to survive.

"I guess you should just commit suicide then"

What if we never get there though? What if we never reach that perfect state to existence? What are you going to do? Keep improving? To what end? Disappointment?

And the idea that you would want to kill yourself because you don't "improve"(a very subjective word, as most are), is exactly the kind of linear thinking that has us in such a mess. Then again, mess is also a subjective word.

I think there might be a reason we're all just a bit insane. Damn, another subjective word. Son of a...

[KaptBunnyPants]

79. Allowing entropy to kick in is the definition of death.

Look, I get what you're saying, and you're right. Most of our problems are a result of solutions to other problems. But all of life is a doomed attempt to stave off the inevitable. Giving into the hopelessness isn't a solution, it will just accelerate the process. We've got 6 billion people here, way too many to survive off of foraging, and we've lost all the tricks that our ancestors used to stay alive with that lifestyle anyway. If we are to avoid a massive holocaust unlike any man has ever endured, we must find a way to live. We're better off using what we know despite the gaps in our knowledge, so the best way to go is forward. And as far as what to do if we never achieve perfection, I think the scarier question is what would we do if we did. At least with death chasing us we know where to go.

[flamin lib]

69. Without NASA you and I wouldn't be typing messages via computer

and the internet, a spin-off of government research, wouldn't exist.

It wasn't the trip to the moon or the rocks brought back that was important to the US, it was all the stuff we had to figure out to get there and back.

Every new item NASA invents is public property. Every patent is free for public use. NASA created the computer age.

The first flights were timed with wrist watches and calculated with slide rules.

No, NASA isn't about space, it's about doing things never done before and learning how to do them.

[TheWraith]

77. You clearly don't understand what you're saying.

I strongly suggest you reexamine the field of space exploration, starting with tossing your preconcieved notions about what is and is not possible.

Some research topics: fusion drives, solar shading, asteroid mining, and the terraforming of Mars into a planet capable of supporting human life. Any of which could be done for less than one year's cost of the DOD.

Were it not for that "wasteful" space program, it's unlikely that we would have advanced materials technology, rocketry, computing, or a dozen other fields as heavily as we did in the 1960s.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I agree with you

Learning about the universe we live in is a wonderful thing. The same people probably think the arts and music education are a waste of time.

[noamnety]

5. I object to it

because NASA is part of the military industrial complex, because it's horrifyingly awful for waste and destruction of the environment, and because I have an objection to my tax dollars being shot out into outer space when the guy in the next town over can't get the prescriptions he needs for an injury caused while on active duty, and I am paying out of pocket to feed about 10 kids a day at a local school.

The fact that we waste OTHER money as well doesn't make this an okay program. Kids ARE going hungry and doing without medicine because we spend money on other things.

Space program = biggest D*** measuring contest in the history of the world.

[Solon]

8. Its a matter of priorities...

I'll agree that the Military has a tendency to fuck up NASA's projects, like the Space Shuttle. However, the fact is that NASA is a civilian agency, and should remain that, and peaceful development of space, with all the industries and technologies that go along with it, that benefit us all and helps us in the long run.

The fact is that NASA could be made more environmentally friendly, and not be a dick measuring contest, as it was in the past, through peaceful means. I just find the development of new spacecraft, recycling methods, etc. as more constructive than building bombs.

Besides, in addition to that, as I said, what would cutting NASA's budget accomplish, not much. We would accomplish more by cutting the budget of the Military than we would cutting NASA's paltry budget.

[noamnety]

13. Nasa is used for military purposes.

it's an offshoot of the airforce. Saying it "could" be used for nonmilitary missions is like saying "the national guard could be used for nonmilitary missions." Yep, it sure could. But that's not what we're funding it for. That's not it's real purpose. Cutting NASA's budget IS cutting the military's budget.

and no, it could not be made "environmentally friendly." Industrial manufactured crud, by its very nature, is not environmentally friendly. NOT building new spacecraft is the environmentally friendly option. On top of that, we're polluting space with thousands of pieces of space junk from space missions.

There are other ways we can (and do) measure global warming.

[Solon]

15. Measuring global warming isn't NASA's only job you know....

Also, you are incorrect, NASA is, legally, a civilian controlled department of the Federal Government. Occasionally they cooperate with the Military, and occasionally the military intervenes, mostly because the military budget is so much bigger, they can fund things such as the Space Shuttle. However, the fact is that NASA's budget is completely separate from the Military's and in fact, if we decreased the military budget, and increased NASA's, we would actually decrease the amount of cooperation between the two agencies.

As far as how environmentally damaging NASA is, they don't manufacture thousands of spacecraft every year, and they don't spew billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Their environmental footprint is tiny compared to, for example, Americans driving cars, the military flying jets, or normal commercial manufacturing. Basically you can't blame them for any of those particular problems, all by themselves, they aren't responsible for even a percentage point in environmental damage, compared to all other activities humans involve themselves in. If that's a reason to get rid of NASA, then we might as well get rid of our entire industrial society as well.

As far as space junk, yes that is a problem, and NASA is working on it, though, to be honest, most of the junk in space is physically inert metals(steel, aluminum), and are in decaying orbits, and will vaporize in the atmosphere on re-entry. Besides that, most space junk is actually caused by two primary sources, commercial satellite launches, which are mostly privately funded, and military launches, again removed from NASA's cooperation.

The fact is that, considering NASA's primary mission, to develop space technology and space sciences, their footprint, both in space and on Earth, is quite limited. Could it be improved? Of course, but you don't abandon programs like NASA without serious thought.

[noamnety]

20. Actually, I am quite correct.

"NASA is, legally, a civilian controlled department" <--- did I say otherwise?

There are critical needs here on this planet, for actual people.

The question is not whether NASA is worse than the army or marines, etc.

The question we should be asking is whether it's a necessary expense or whether that money would be better used to provide clean water, food, medicine, or renewable energy here on earth.

[Solon]

24. You do realize NASA is on the cutting edge for all of those right?

They have been on the forefront of recycling technology, food development, renewable energy, and even medicine. They have departments dedicated to funding and researching these technologies. Do you want those to be demolished?

[Duppers]

30. amen, Solon

the naysayers on this thread have NO idea of all the things NASA does.

http://www.ip.nasa.gov /

Jesus P., I get sick of having to defend NASA with everyone, including some of my peon acquaintances.

Does anyone here know that NASA is at the cutting edge of fatigue research in materials?
Does anyone here ever fly? Aging aircraft programs just may save their lives.
Drive over bridges? The collapse last yr. could have been avoided if they'd used today's budget-saving technology to evaluate that bridge.

Etc., etc.

[Solon]

31. Yep, NASA has to deal with so many problems that relate to the real world...

From recycling waste and scrubbing CO2 to trying to test new materials for tensile strength, endurance in extreme temperature differences, and fatigue. While many technologies may not have been invented by NASA themselves, they've funded plenty of research into many things we take for granted day to day.

[Duppers]

38. true

I do know for a fact that there is no company, no institution, no university, and no other agency that has the expertise in materials fatigue that NASA does. Patents are granted and most of that research is waiting for applications.

[noamnety]

32. You have some very black and white thinking.

Is NASA the only possible way to fund those things?

Or is it possible there's another way?

[Duppers]

34. NASA acts as grant and contract monitor for many universities

they fund university research, in addition to their own.

[Solon]

35. Well, there's the NSF, but usually their budget is at least partially linked with NASA's...

The fact is that you seem to be the one with black and white thinking. You seem to see absolutely no benefit from NASA, not even for the sake of scientific curiosity.

[noamnety]

44. Don't attribute things to me I haven't said.

"You seem to see absolutely no benefit from NASA," <-- you won't find this in my posts.

Try another strawman.

[Solon]

47. I inferred it from your posts...

I don't see where my impression is incorrect when you call the space program the biggest dick measuring contest in the history of the world.

Please tell me where I erred.

[noamnety]

50. You have issues with logic, I guess.

I'll just post this again, see if it clears up my position for you: Is NASA the only possible way to fund those things?

[Solon]

51. For some things yes, for some things no...

A lot of research is related to space technologies, especially materials technology, energy, and propulsion, most of them end up, after application, being used in civilian, non-space related uses after the fact. Would such technologies be developed without NASA? I doubt it, there would be no "immediate" benefit, after all, and people like immediate results.

[noamnety]

61. Therein lies the problem.

1. If I'm going to spend 16 billion dollars on research, it should be 16 billion dollars of research directly related to the needs of real people with real problems, not 16 billion dollars on research that the general population doesn't give a shit about, which may or may not have civilian applications.

It's like throwing darts. Target the research dollars toward real problems that need solutions now, which is not research about space propulsion.

2. We can do research that makes CEOs in the industry super rich where 98% of the cost does not benefit the public good, or we can target real issues directly. I have real people now who have real needs in my community. I also have issues with further medical research which is at best elitest at this point in our history, where so many of our people don't have basic preventative health care. We can have state of the art scientific knowledge and fancy-schmancy newer MRI equipment or ultra sound equipment or whatever, but if my buddy down the street can't get access to even the old machines cause the VA won't pay for it, what the hell do I care if some senator has access to the best research known to man? We have knowledge right now that could save lives, but we aren't willing to cover the cost of allowing people to use it. We have the best healthcare known to man - that we aren't able to use.

Fix that first.

The priorities of this nation are so insanely wrong that it boggles the mind.

[Solon]

67. I would agree, I just don't think we need to sacrifice NASA for it...

Nor does it need to be put on hold, as it were, to make sure we have Universal Health Care, poverty reduction measures, etc. Besides, NASA's budget wouldn't be able to pay for a single-payer system, for example, its not that much money, after all, and we need somewhere around 6 to 10 times its budget to pay for that. I would much prefer we take that money out of the Pentagon rather than NASA, that's all, I find the idea of using NASA money rather counterproductive.

[noamnety]

68. I'd take the money out of both.

Multi-tasking. :D

[bryant69]

17. People opposed to NASA are people who want the human race to just roll over and die. n/t

[MindPilot]

21. I really should put you on ignore...

But you are just too much fun to watch.

[seasat]

11. I complain because it's budget is way too small and focused on a manned mission to Mars.

They gutted the Earth Observatory System to fund the mission to Mars. I have no problem with a mission to mars if paid for by new funds but satellites like MODIS are aging and new and better technology is available. The amount of knowledge generated by the EOS satellites research has been enormous. They're used for everything from understanding climate change to predicting the best locations for commercial fishermen. They using these satellites to understand red tides, hurricanes, and eutrophication. That's only a few uses from my perspective as an oceanographer. A few terrestrial uses are for locating forest fires, estimating coverage of vegetation, and monitoring desertification. Heck, if they just took the waste from the Defense Department, they could use it to fund all science R&D programs (not just NASA) at record levels. IMHO, one of the reason NASA has been gutted is that Shrub Inc does not want the EOS program giving any more evidence of climate change or any other environmental problems.

[Solon]

19. I agree, in addition...

I believe we need to concentrate some resources on space DEVELOPMENT, including capturing some NEOs(Near Earth Objects) and put them in stable orbits, either around Earth or at the L1 or L2 points. We could use such objects as a base for manufacturing products that aren't possible at 1g, but in a microgravity environment. Power generation or capturing is also a possibility, it would be much easier, and cheaper, to manufacture orbital solar panels to power Earth from orbit, rather than launching it into orbit. There are plenty of possibilities. Just acquiring raw materials, such as Iron, Nickle, Carbon, etc. from Asteroids, and smelting them in space will do a lot to reduce our CO2 production on Earth.

[Johonny]

23. there is no reason to put a man on Mars

None. An unmanned space probe can do far more science on the surface of Mars than a man in a space suit can ever hope to accomplish. It's our unmanned machines that are and will explore the solar system for us, not people. It's the total waste of money on manned space flight when unmanned space flight is far cheaper and far more successful at generating scientific data that is the big reason NASA gets a black eye.

[wuushew]

26. I would like to settle the red planet eventually

so learning from the life support or mission planning problems would not be a fruitless endeavor.

Also you can't program a robotic actuated arm to do every experiment you want. A member of the crew versed in geological science would be able to pick and break apart rock samples at a far faster rate in the field.

[Johonny]

55. not if the robot

can stay in the field 24/7 for 2-3 years and the crew member can stay on the surface 0.5-2 hrs tops before the exposure to radiation kills them.

[Solon]

57. Actually, NASA projects that any trip to Mars will require a 2 year stay for humans...

there. The reason is the way the Earth and Mars orbits the Sun, there's only a one major, efficient launch window, about every 2 years, when Astronauts can leave Earth to make it to Mars, and when people can leave Mars and come back to Earth. As far as protection from Radiation, that's what the dirt of Mars would be for, to dig burrows into the surface, or to build thick walls to protect from radiation, tents covered in dirt, as radiation shielding.

[wuushew]

60. Where are you getting your lethal radiation information?

I have my copy of Zubrin's excellent but old "The Case for Mars" right in front of me and his chapter on radiation puts surface exposure for the entire mission at only 15 rem out of a mission total of some 52. That is for a 2 1/2 year mission with 1 1/2 years spent on the Martian surface doing science.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Arthur C. Clarke once said

that complaining about the size of the space budget and not seeing how insignificant it is compared to the war budget is like a policeman arresting a jaywalker and ignoring the bank robbery going on across the street.

[Johonny]

22. man spaced flight IS a waste of science $

Frankly JPL and the unmanned space flight is doing wonderful science work. But NASA spends far to much of it's budget flying 30 year old hardware that is mostly deadlift weight into near Earth orbit were is does virtually nothing of scientific interest (particularly if you weigh the cost of the science being done). The sad truth is a large part of the scientific community is against pointless, wasteful manned space flight, which is the direct opposite of NASA's rosy public imagine.

[Solon]

25. I agree, largely...

Though, in some, limited cases, human space flight could be considered necessary, such as repairing the Hubble Space Telescope. However, largely the manned portion of NASA is, more or less, a PR move. Though, there have been some significant work done on the effects on the human body in microgravity for extended periods of time, though most of that has been done by the Russians.

[Johonny]

27. I agree

I think one of the most frustrating moments in the past years was NASA refusing to repair again the space telescope. Those type of repairs are one of the few things that actually can be used to justify manned space flight continuing. The truth is though the shuttle simply does not fly high enough to reach most satellites and NASA does not allow most satellites into the bay because of the fuel they carry.

[Solon]

29. I agree, I'm actually glad they are retiring the shuttle...

and replacing it with a cheaper, more advanced, space craft. This is long overdue, and I hope they find a way to make manned space flight more economical. We aren't there yet, but perhaps in the decade or two.

[EstimatedProphet]

33. Because NASA doesn't kill enough brown people

Welcome to Bully America, where Might makes Right.

[Solon]

36. This is what I don't get, we have a military budget that's almost 60 times bigger than NASA's...

Yet all these people on this thread that are arguing about NASA seem to think that its part of the problem, when killing brown people, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, isn't worth complaining about. Even removing ourselves from that, even if we weren't in a war, the Military budget is still massively overbloated, but no, people concentrate on NASA's paltry budget.

[noamnety]

46. Which people are you talking about?

"all these people on this thread that are arguing about NASA seem to think that its part of the problem, when killing brown people, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, isn't worth complaining about."

Can you point me to any of those people who think it's not worth complaining about the military?

(Hint: if you are going to debate a topic, debate that topic. Don't make up stuff that nobody's said, pretend it applies to other people, and debate THAT. If you are going to do that, go sit in a quiet corner and have an argument with yourself.)

[Solon]

48. The point of this thread is that there are bigger things to complain about than NASA...

NASA takes up less than 2% of the discretionary budget, and I find it frankly silly that people complain about that when we have the DOD and GWOT take up close to 60% of that same budget.

[noamnety]

49. I can complain about more than one thing.

I suspect others can as well.

Most people complain a whole lot more about the war. Are you hearing an equal amount of complaints or something?

[Solon]

53. Yeah, but why NASA?

There is such a thing as constructive criticism, I've even offered some myself, in this very thread, about NASA, but to be honest, shouldn't the criticism be proportional to the Agency's usefulness and cost?

[noamnety]

59. You started the thread asking about NASA.

Now you are acting like you have a problem with people who took time to respond to it, if they didn't give the answer you like. I don't really understand what you are after. I've never started a thread about NASA since I've been here, I think, so I guess I am being proportional, no?

[Solon]

62. The fact is that you haven't really made any reasonable objections...

All I saw were false comparisons and outright falsehoods about NASA itself. To be honest, I'm frankly puzzled, would you object this much about the NEA? They have money that could be better spent on school lunches or health care as well, and it could be argued they produce literally nothing useful, which can't be said of NASA.

[Duppers]

39. you saw this posted in Breaking News, right?

Massive job cuts in space program likely

MIAMI - More than 8,000 NASA contractor jobs in the nation's manned space program could be eliminated after the space shuttle program is shut down in 2010, the agency said Tuesday.

The number of civil servants is expected to remain roughly the same, but dramatic job cuts are possible among private contractors as NASA transitions to the Constellation program, which is developing the next-generation vehicle and rockets to go to the moon and later to Mars.
...
NASA acknowledged job losses could fluctuate depending on who's occupying the White House next year and their support for space exploration.

The bleakest forecast was issued for the flagship Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Fla., where just 1,600 to 2,300 employees were expected to remain in 2011, a cut of up to 80 percent from its current 8,000 workers. The Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans was forecast to lose as many as 1,300 of its 1,900 jobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_sc/shuttle_job_cuts

antifaschits posted to it:

that's cool. because we are building another HUGE TRIDENT submarine, at about a billion per.
Just the thing needed to fight Al Qaida in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Must be one of those special mountain submarines.


Guns beat out knowledge every time. Freeper mentality wins (but not on this thread ;) )!

[Solon]

42. Oh yeah, I commented to some of the detractors in that thread...

agree wtih antifaschits post 100%. Its really stupid to spend all that money on war machines, when we could use our know-how and science to improve the lives of humans as a whole in a peaceful manner.

that's what prompted me to post this thread.

[Swamp Rat]

54. NASA rules!!!

[Araxen]

58. I love NASA

and wish their budget would be bigger. It's a shame we haven't gone beyond the moon yet after all that work to get there and we just stalled. China and other countries are starting to catch up and that's even more of a shame.

I for one think it's pretty impressive on what NASA can do with such a small budget.

[JackRiddler]

63. I only have a problem with the 2/3 of it that is military...

And please don't play naive about that.

If only NASA were a space exploration agency, instead of an arm of the military-industrial complex, I'd support doubling its budget.

[Solon]

73. I think you are overestimating NASA's role in military applications...

In fact, its role in military functions has been shrinking for years. The Space Shuttle is perhaps the most famous example, after being redesigned a dozen times by the Air Force, it became a bloated machine that is much too expensive to maintain, and the Air force's own version of it was abandoned.

Yes, occasionally, the Space Shuttle is sent up to retrieve a spy satellite, but, nowadays, its actually easier to just replace them, and all the major branches of the military, and all the intelligence agencies, have their own rockets to launch satellites into low Earth orbit.

[JackRiddler]

74. And you know this how?

Are you privy to classified budgets?

Hel, I might even be satisfied with a clear statement of mission that NASA is a space exploration agency without military functions.

[New Dawn]

81. Exactly, I agree 100%.

[HuffleClaw]

64. NASA's budget SHOULD be three times what it is

at least.

[KaptBunnyPants]

70. Because people are stupid.

NASA research is money spent into basic and applied scientific research. There are very few better uses for our resources, especially considering how much of our money goes into prisons and missiles. If you care about the environment, you should support NASA, as their research into recycling resources in space is a massive boost to our efforts to recycle here at home. If you care about the survival of the human race, you should support NASA, as one big catastrophe is all it would take to wipe us out. If you enjoy modern technology, you should support NASA, as nearly every new product I can think of has benefited from the research and technologies developed for space exploration.

[Bill McBlueState]

75. see my thread here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3095101&mesg_id=3095101

And contribute, if appropriate.

[kickysnana]

78. Reagun made this civilian scientific agency DOD. nuf said. n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

80. The only waste I see is the War machine budget...

The NASA budget would not matter if they were not pissing cash away on the terrorism campaigns.

[soothsayer]

82. It's a military agency, not a scientific one. Don't kid yourself.

We also use the NASA budget to channel money to black ops. Nothing's what it seems.