Should the U.S. continue to fund N.A.S.A.?

[sear]

During the Cold War, the space race made some sense.

Huge rockets were recognized as analogs for ICBMs.

For the U.S. to prove expertise with rockets may have had some constraining affect on the War hawks in the Soviet politburo.

But the Cold War is over.

We won.

Where in the Constitution does it say the U.S. federal government is supposed to be in the space bidness?

[Rosewin]

Of course it should continue to fund NASA. Its applications rise beyond cold war politics.

[Homer]

I agree with the continuation of space exploration, as well as scientific knowledge that's gained from space to use on earth. So unless there is an alternative, than I agree that NASA should continue to be funded.

[Mekorig]

Both Clovis and Homer gave very good reasons.

And i have another very heavy one to add: Expand or die.

We need of NASA, ESA and other Space Agencies to develope our space travel and colonization capacity. Without out of earth expansion, we, as a especia, can die very easily. Its better to have your eggs in a lot of basquets than in only one.

[Aztec Warrior]

Well, it was Stephen Hawking who said humanity must leave Earth in order to survive long term. Beyond that, the moon and mars have many resources we could use.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Aztec Warrior

[Guardsman Bass]

There are a number of reasons why NASA should continue to be funded, and funded to a much larger degree than it currently is (realistically, NASA's funding should be tripled, such is its long-term importance).

1. Long Term Survival- As Mekorig and Aztec Warrior pointed out, it's "expand or die". Eventually, we are going to hit the limits of what we can grow and expand on this planet, at which point we have a choice. We can clamp down, try to set up a "steady state" society, but in that way lies ultimate death, for there are threats out there that are lurking to wipe out a civilization confined to one planet, and probability dictates that one of them, whether it be an asteroid, long term climate change, supervolcano, or something else, is going to eventually hit us. But if we have self-sustaining colonies off planet, then even a disaster along the lines of the KT impact 65 million years ago can't destroy civilization.

2. Science- Space travel and space research have had a number of valuable spin-offs in the area of technology.

3. Competition- Contrary to the OP, competition in space is hardly dead. Space remains the "ultimate high ground", and with the development of ABM and "satellite killer" technologies in an era where rapid communications is key to any type of military victory in the conventional sense, that will only become more important. China has been making major inroads in that area; they already have the base for their own space program, and that will grow, particularly since they have an unaccountable government that can choose to divert resources away to it without being slammed for it.

4. Opportunity- There is a whole universe of opportunity out there for human growth and development. Just think about what we could do - with the technology we are developing, we could probably make Mars a living, earth-like world (or make it live again, if life did exist there at one point). We could set up colonies that travel the stars, or harness the energy of our sun.

[Mekorig]

Well Aztec, some of the resources avaible for us in space:

Helium-3 in the Moon.

A huge cuantities of metals in the near Earth asteroids.

More metals in the Asteroids.

Water and minerals in Mars and Mercury.

Hidrogen in the Gas Giants.

More water in Europa, Enecladus and in comets.

Hidrocarborus in Titan.

And a lot of space to expand. And that is only the solar system where we are...

[twpdyp]

It is in man's very nature to want to know what is around the next corner. To explore the other side of the next mountain. Why not fund such a basic and potentally profitable enterprise? Of course the USA should continue to not only fund the space program but hugely expand it to further explore our surroundings. Who knows perhaps this exploration may even save the planet from the almost inevitable disaster heading our way. Corny, maybe, but it has happened before and it will happen again.

[mrtoke]

Taking NASA funding away is like taking christopher Columbus's sails away.

[sear]

"Well, it was Stephen Hawking who said humanity must leave Earth in order to survive long term." AW

Ironically, he can't even get himself out of his own chair.

I respect his highly prized intellect.

But his opinion on that is probably more personal than scientific.

He's an astrophysicist (or whatever he is); not a terrestrial ecologist.

So I question his expertise on deciding what our best course is.

And frankly, notions of terraforming the moon or Mars are probably sci-fi hokum.

Mars doesn't have the molten iron core Earth does. Thus it doesn't have the electro-magnetic shielding that protects Earth from the solar wind.

And I believe the explanation for Mars' thin atmosphere is that Mars' gravity isn't strong enough to keep it.

Having entirely self-sufficient colonies off Earth is probably centuries beyond our reach.

"expand or die" GB

You may find this an effective political slogan.

You may even think of it as charistmatically persuasive.

But I don't believe it rises to the level of scientific fact.

It's more likely that trimming to a global human population of perhaps 2 billion would move us more productively to sustainable global prosperity.

"Helium-3 in the Moon.

A huge cuantities of metals in the near Earth asteroids.

More metals in the Asteroids.

Water and minerals in Mars and Mercury.

Hidrogen in the Gas Giants.

More water in Europa, Enecladus and in comets.

Hidrocarborus in Titan." Mek

Last time I checked into it, it cost NASA about $10,000.oo per pound to put payload in low earth orbit (LEO).

Considering the ablation of reentry to a mining freighter (the heat shields we use now basically work on nearly empty boxes. But atmospheric braking of 30 yards of high natural purity iron ore; I'm not sure we could afford it).

Some might prefer to just drop the asteroid in, commando.

But we might end up creating a problem similar to the one that seems to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

And in any case, I suspect the cost per pound of such ore would be astronomical.

What's an oz. of gold worth? ~$1k? So a pound of gold is $16k?

It might be cheaper to use pure gold than to mine iron that way.

[AROCES]

You stop funding NASA and where does the money go instead?

Nothing like the gov't will suddenly not collect it anymore.

[Korbus]

At the risk of sounding redundant, I am instead just going to second what the other pro-NASA funders have said here already. A lot of the things we use everyday, and many of the technological advances we enjoy are not guaranteed in the Constitution, either...yet I doubt we'd be eager to give them up. Besides, a lot of these advances in technology are a direct result of NASA engineering! So, yeah, long live NASA.

[therion24]

Yes we need to keep funding. NASA still has defense applications. How do you think we launch spy satillites?

[sear]

"You stop funding NASA and where does the money go instead?

Nothing like the gov't will suddenly not collect it anymore." AROCES

If you're asking my opinion:

I'm a ferocious, unrepentant deficit hawk.

I believe we should be exceptionally strict about our U.S. federal government space adventures; at least until we can pay for them ourselves.

"... everyone's for big government. The American People say we hate big government, but we like our social security and medicare. That's 38% of government right there. The biggest components of government are the most popular components of government."

"What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003

Balance the budget first.

Then you can advocate for your drunken sailor routines. Until then, we're spending our grandchildren's money, without the slightest clue as to whether our spending priorities will be their spending priorities.

Why is discovering if life could have existed on Mars more important than marketing an automobile that is safe, reliable, and gets 55 mpg?

Why is sending semi-autonomous robots to Mars to snoop around more important than providing our disabled military War veterans the benefits they're entitled to; but which we deny them, because we'd rather fund NASA?

If you can read and grasp the concepts of this post, thank a teacher.

If you're reading it in English, thank a soldier.

PS

I'm a huge sci-fi fan. I spent decades in the semiconductor bidness. I'm interested in science, and I'm interested is cosmic exploration.

But our spending priorities are not merely screwy. They're outright dishonorable, disgraceful, and inexcusable.

There are a lot of other things I'd be OK about funding, besides veterans benefits.

But if we refuse to even do right by them, then we shame ourselves as a People.

[Homer]

As the Sun expands into a Red Giant, and our atmosphere burns off, we'll wish we relocated to another - younger - solar system. Unless earth gets pummelled by an asteroid or become the victim of some other mass extintion before then.

[sear]

"As the Sun expands into a Red Giant ..." Homer

Agreed.

But I hardly think that cosmic certainty excuses the NASA projects we're diddling with now.

If we postponed for just a single millennium, don't you think the private sector will have done all this stuff for us?

And how much change do you think will have occurred to our sun in that thousand years?

Timing! Timing sir. And budgetary (and humanitarian) priorities.

[Homer]

Timing! Timing sir. And budgetary (and humanitarian) priorities.

Regarding the budget and the 'relocation', isn't it better to look for that real estate now? With demand relatively low...we could probably get a good price

[danielost]

nasa adds 3 dollars to our economy for every 1 dollar that we give them so yes by all means lets cut their funding.

[S2F]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1

this link has some interesting things to say on the matter of the Government budget and Nasa's funding.

"How does NASA’s budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget."(excerpt from article)

Edited June 6, 2008 by Slave2Fate

[ninjadude]

During the Cold War, the space race made some sense.

Huge rockets were recognized as analogs for ICBMs.

For the U.S. to prove expertise with rockets may have had some constraining affect on the War hawks in the Soviet politburo.

But the Cold War is over.

We won.

Where in the Constitution does it say the U.S. federal government is supposed to be in the space bidness?

I find your initial assumptions absurd. Rockets analogs for ICBMS?! The initial space program may have had some competition with the USSR but if you think it had something to do with the cold war (other than launching a few spy sats), then you are delusional. It was a healthy competition. Now it is a partnership with the world. We didn't go to the moon to fight the soviets. We didn't go to mars, jupiter, build a space station for the cold war. In fact, I find your premise down right offensive. The space program has given a great deal back on our investment. It continues to be a milestone of human achievement. How dare you. :angry2:

[ninjadude]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1

this link has some interesting things to say on the matter of the Government budget and Nasa's funding.

Yeah. What he said!!!

[sear]

"I find your initial assumptions absurd. Rockets analogs for ICBMS?! The initial space program may have had some competition with the USSR but if you think it had something to do with the cold war (other than launching a few spy sats), then you are delusional." nin

"Delusional"! That's the word I was groping for, to describe myself. Thanks nin. Your thoughtful contribution to my vocabulary will enable me to go the grave in peace.

Meanwhile, please explain to us why the Pentagon was so alarmed by the Russians launching Sputnik into orbit.

According to the U.S. military analysis and accounts I've read of it; it was because the Pentagon realized:

If the Soviets can put a thing like that all the way up into orbit; then they can easily, ballistically drop a warhead on the continental U.S.!

And the missile race was on.

Do you have any more plausible explanation nin?

And once again nin, thanks for "delusional". It lends an air of maturity and sophistication to what was quickly degrading into substantive exchange.

[ninjadude]

The "Pentagon" is alarmed when a mouse farts in outer mongolia. The PENTAGON is NOT NASA.

[Homer]

In fact, I find your premise down right offensive. The space program has given a great deal back on our investment. It continues to be a milestone of human achievement. How dare you. :angry2:

sear never said the space program didn't give a great deal back on our investment, and he never said it doesn't continue to be a milestone of human achievement.

The point is not whether NASA is good or bad, but whether the government(taxpayers) should pay for it, especially under the current budget limitations.

sear brought up this 'offensive' idea to have a discussion and hear other peoples point of view.

[sear]

"The PENTAGON is NOT NASA." nin

a) Who said it was?

That doesn't mean President Kennedy's Cold War challenge to the U.S. didn't produce both scientific, AND Cold War benefits.

c) The Cold War is over. We won.

d) And because of "c", there will be no Cold War benefit to US putting human boot-prints on Mars.

e) So where's the delusion in that? Delusional because it didn't address the flatulence of Mongolian rodents (a central point to be included in discussions of fiscal responsibility and the U.S. space program?)?