Nasa Study: Exploration or Waste of Money

[RamboIII]

People have claimed that Nasa scientists are wasting far too much money with a lack of scientific feedback from their research.

They say that while research proof is limited, the money used is clearly evident. I personally can't agree with this, due to all of the knowledge that has been passed to me from Nasa- that has always seemed to me as priceless. Nonetheless I know many of you here will support either side.

Improving cost efficiency

[crawler2000]

exploring space is great but wat changes my mind is the expense that nasa might not be doing anything they say there doing.

[RamboIII]

Good answer, but for my sake lets just say that they have.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I think the question is far more complex than Rambo makes it appear. For example many scientists believe that NASAs manned exploration programme is waste of money and a drain on the "real science" carried out by the unmanned exploration programme. Others will argue that NASAs missions to study the Earth, its climate and environment are worthwhile projects whilst the exploration of other planets are a waste of money. Let's not forget that NASA is not just a space exploration agency, it is also very active in aeronautics researching the future of aviation and projects that will make airline travel safer for us.

[RamboIII]

Of course the deep details are needed- my first post was only a brief introduction.

The real question to determine the truth would obviously be, how much has our present technology and/or knowledge depended on NASA's discoveries and is it enough? And this question, too is complex with all the extra side details however I do find it hard to evaluate the value of knowledge in mere currency.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I agree with you Rambo. The value of knowledge is dificult to translate into monetary terms. Often research that seems to have no practicle applications will later prove to be vital.

On the whole I think NASA (and ESA in Europe and JAXA in Japan) do a fantastic job of expanding human knowledge.

[RamboIII]

But just as knowledge can not be translated, nor can human-life- which also is lost at NASA's expense. I think this is a big issue to those who believe NASA is not worth it. An association that consumes billions of dollars- a lot that comes in tax money- and puts many lives at stake carries on the expectations that they better be pretty productive.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

But just as knowledge can not be translated, nor can human-life- which also is lost at NASA's expense.

This is a very valid argument, and one frequently used by the pro-unmanned, anti-manned spaceflight brigade.

Sadly any exploration is going to cost lives and spaceflight is no exception. That having been said when those lives are lost as a result of poor management (as with Challenger and Columbia) that is unacceptable.

Since Gagarin flew in 1961 NASA has lost only 17 astronauts in accidents with spacecraft and Russia only 4 cosmonauts. As we reach out further into space, returning to the moon and then on to Mars, this number will rise. That is something the astronauts will understand. The public must be made aware of this fact, however unpalletable it may seem.

[crawler2000]

wats great about space exploration and expirements in space is that nasa can possibly learn to grow food faster or aquire new resources of fuel or any materials in space.

[RamboIII]

Waspie, have you read any of Stephen Hawking's recent writings proclaiming we need to get off the Earth to increase our chances of survival from man-made destruciton? Once the scientific community hears about them there might be a sudden increase in support for NASA!

Edited August 16, 2006 by RamboIII

[crawler2000]

Waspie, have you read any of Stephen Hawking's recent writings proclaiming we need to get off the Earth to increase our chances of survival from man-made destruciton? Once the scientific community hears about them there might be a sudden increase in support for NASA!

people like stephen hawkings are the ones who are going to make that true i mean man made destruction.it would take 100's or 1000's of years before we get life on lets say mars.

[RamboIII]

Yes, that is true.

[RamboIII]

There is also always the question of the importance of NASA studies relative to other things around the world. For example, is it necessary to add to our debt while in a war just to have man walk on mars?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

There is also always the question of the importance of NASA studies relative to other things around the world. For example, is it necessary to add to our debt while in a war just to have man walk on mars?

The great empires of the past, Greek, Roman, Spanish, Portuguese, British and so on achieved their greatness not just through their military might but also through exploration and scientific advancement. It is esential that mankind continues to explore.

Earlier in this thread rambo asked about Stephen Hawking and the fact that mankind needs to get off the Earth. I think he is right. The time scale is open to question, we may be safe on Earth for thousands or even tens of thousands of years but we need to start somewhere. If we continue to put off the exploration of space because of the expense then we will never leave the planet.

[leadbelly]

Well then Waspie, this should fit the bill. Money is going for getting off the planet. But, how it is done is not making some people happy. As for the cost of helping run, or appropriate the business and energy sources of the planet, through military and industrial investment, that is a price that comes from competition with China.

BTW, if the Chinese had the per capita energy budget of Japan, atmospheric CO2 would be 50% higher. Of course, despite that fact, if the U.S produced those goods it needs, world pollution would even be about 14% higher, just because we drive more gas guzzlers.

The U.S produced $13 trillion in commerce activity the last 12 months. Taxes divert about 30% of that, or $4 trillion. Most of that runs government programs and repays government debt. I think the military got probably $700 billion, for 2006.

In inflation adjusted dollars, Nasa received about $15.5 billion, in their 2003 budget, for instance. The DOD, which used to match NASA on space outlays, has in recent bugets surpassed NASA, spending about $24.5 billion on all projects for space (also in 2003).

I had those figures on hand.

The Administration has reduced NASA's budget to the point where the "Vision" plan is insupportable. They cut funding from aeronautics and technology last year, and science this year. The White House cut $5 billion off plans to use the Shuttle to complete space station construction, which I accept.

Policy leans heavily to human space flight, which I have mixed feelings about. Next year they will cut another $3 billion, and another $3 billion in 2008 to help pay for human exploration.

Beginning next year, our policy of 2 launches to Mars every 26 months, will be cut in half. After 2009, Mars science research will practically be eliminated. IMO, however, by then we will have a lot of data, but will not achieve sample returns for a long time, thereafter.

Also, Waspie does a nice job.

Edited August 18, 2006 by leadbelly

[Poseidon3012]

Look, we are dropping billions of dollars on NASA while there is a war going on. The war on Iraq needs as much help from the U.S. government as it can get. People say that it is necessary to continue with this research, that we can discover new things. Well, it you study all things long enough you do discover new things, some as huge as discoveries from NASA. But since it's too costly, we're going to have to cut NASA's budget to make room for war. The sooner we can win this war, the sooner we can focus on NASA more.

[leadbelly]

Like I said, the Pentagon is running on probably $500 billion. Other costs are to keep the shipping lanes open, classified programs, veterans, etc. The war has been adding

probably $80-100 billion, annually.

The main problem now is another war- civil war inside Iraq. And, problems in Afghanistan.

But look at the result. We are poised for action, and energy.

In the image below, light and dark blue lines are proposed and existing pipelines. The aircraft represent existing foward bases (and in the Southern Arabia Sea is Diego Garcia). It relates to business for oil companies, and supplies for all potential interests. Russia is cozying up to China, selling them a lot of energy. It's still not enough, though. China is all over southwest Asia, Africa, and Venezuela.

NASA is having its outside peeled, but it does not offset the war, significantly. Plus, the Pentagon is always motivated to consolidate future power for the U.S. Heck, we went to war in Viet Nam, and spent historic amounts at NASA, and LBJ still ran a surplus!

Edited August 18, 2006 by leadbelly

[Pax Unum]

personally I'm disappointed by NASA, I saw the Moon landings as a kid, now people claim it was a hoax. I can't think of anything that NASA has done that really effects my life... and I'll probably be dead before NASA or anyone else go to mars... waste of money

[RamboIII]

Poseidon, why not let NASA workers do their work and millitary officials do theirs? Our budget crisis is not a matter of lack of focus, rather a matter of stupidity. I think the war on Iraq has little to do with preventing NASA do anything. I'm really going to go with Waspie on this one, the exploration of science is the key to power. We may be in a terrible debt, but it will be forgotten if we find life on Mars.

[RamboIII]

However, that is a slight chance of course, but my question is more "what if".

[Startraveler]

It's hard to question NASA's value but I'm not sure I like what they're doing these days.

Three NASA advisers resign

Whether by choice or because they were asked, three science committee members have parted ways with NASA.

NASA's Advisory Council science committee, a body that advises NASA Administrator Michael Griffin on issues facing the space agency, now has three fewer advisers. The space agency announced the resignations of Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., Charles F. Kennel, and Eugene Levy August 16. NASA Advisory Council Chair Harrison H. Schmitt said of their abrupt departure in a status-report memo, "Each of these individuals provided valuable input to the Science Committee and the Council during the time in which they served, and both Mike [Griffin] and I are grateful to them for this service."

While adviser Kennel offered his resignation, Huntress and Levy did not — NASA Administrator Michael Griffin asked them to resign. Levy believes the three advisers' push to keep NASA's science program broad "didn't comport with the kind of advice that the administrator and the chairman of the committee were looking for." Levy also said he was "a little unclear" whether his outspokenness regarding NASA's science budget cuts had anything to do with his forced resignation.

Levy, Huntress, and Kennel have recently been critical of NASA limiting its science budget to a paltry 1.5-percent growth in 2007 and a nearly stagnant 1-percent growth each year through 2010. Although the former advisers were unavailable for comment, Huntress told Space News, "This was not a science-budget protest," adding the "resignations were over principle."

Kennel, who voluntarily resigned, is the author of the article, "Don't abandon science at NASA," published in the July/August 2006 issue of The Planetary Report.

Astronomy

[ROGER]

One of the down falls of the U.S. Government is that with a new president and administration is usually followed by Budget cuts , as each politician pushes for his or her own "Pork Projects". NASA has seen many of these over the years. So it will be interesting to see what changes happen after 2008.

President Bushes dreams of going to the Moon and Mars may come to a grinding halt!

[Flag Bearer]

It's hard to question NASA's value but I'm not sure I like what they're doing these days.

Astronomy

I read the article that Charles F. Kennel wrote and I found it quite interesting.

Have a look.

[RamboIII]

That is a good article, indeed.

Many people support NASA because it supports 1,800 employees. Maybe it's not worth it.