NASA and the politics of the space program

[Harrdy]

NASA Budget 2005: 16,2 Billion $

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.06%
GDP (purchasing power parity): 12.31 trillion $
=> Military expenditures: 499,8 Billion $

Which is more than 30 times as much as for NASA...
Come on, whom are you gonna kill with all that weapons? Why not feed some poor sobs, they might not turn into terrorists, y'know?

(Military and GDP data from: https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
(NASA Budget from (german site): http://www.raumfahrer.net/raumfahrt/...dget2005.shtml)

PeAcE

[David Panzer]

I don't see a waste of money at NASA, nor do I see a waste in regard to learning more about outer space.

It's helluva lot more fascinating that the regular tripe of daily U.S. life

[Karachi Vyce]

Why not feed some poor sobs, they might not turn into terrorists, y'know?])

PeAcE

Dear god, you can't be this foolish.

Do people really still think that there are Muslim terrorists in the world because we just haven't given them enough money and hugs?

[Dr Maturin]

Comparative analysis, eh? Well, nobody said that a good portion of military management shouldn't be handed over to the private sector. Aside from that, it is in the Constitution to defend the country. It is NOT in the Constitution to go play in space with taxpayers' dollars.

Axing NASA is only ONE of the many things that needs to be done.

[Lunan]

Comparative analysis, eh? Well, nobody said that a good portion of military management shouldn't be handed over to the private sector. Aside from that, it is in the Constitution to defend the country. It is NOT in the Constitution to go play in space with taxpayers' dollars.

Axing NASA is only ONE of the many things that needs to be done.

only kill nasa if we get a better space agancy, one that actully uses its money wisly to get us 1. to the moon for aq perminate instillation and then to mars, not to mention a legit L5 station for comerece

[Dr Maturin]

But NASA is big government, inc. Look at Spaceship One. We need something like that (backed by some major corporate powers) to handle the business of space travel.

Thing is, is there an advantage to doing so? Contractors have an advantage now simply because the government pays them. Take that away and there really isn't a pressing need to go to space. The market is usually right. As long as we maintain the technological (read: military) superiority, the government has no obligation to waste money on sending men to a barren moon.

[frulad]

Does NASA waste tax payer money? Very probably.

Does the military waste tax payer money? Very probably.

As I think both are important to the future of this country I see no need to elminate one in favor of the other. However, I would welcome more financial oversight and auditing from an independent office, though I don't see it happening.

[Dr Maturin]

Does NASA waste tax payer money? Very probably.

Does the military waste tax payer money? Very probably.

As you can see above, I made the exact same assertions. Difference is, keeping a robust military is the government's duty. Sending spacemen to planets is not.

As I think both are important to the future of this country I see no need to elminate one in favor of the other. However, I would welcome more financial oversight and auditing from an independent office, though I don't see it happening.

We should eliminate all non-military space programs immediately. There is a need -- and not just with the space (between their heads) program -- to eliminate a LOT of programs. It's just that NASA is a glaring one considering that a small group of people created something more advanced than the archaic space shuttle, putting NASA to shame.

[David Panzer]

Even though NASA has never admitted that the Space Shuttle would be a permanment vehicle, nor that it is the "vehicle of the future"?

Where is the waste in learning more about space? Perhaps if NASA's vehicles had some pulse cannons, anti-matter rays, or those heat beams from "Mars Attacks" then the program wouldn't be considered a "waste"

[Andrew_Swallow]

But NASA is big government, inc. Look at Spaceship One. We need something like that (backed by some major corporate powers) to handle the business of space travel.

Try these jokers.

LiftPort http://www.liftport.com

There is a civilian market for communications satellites and Earth observation satellites.

[Dr Maturin]

Even though NASA has never admitted that the Space Shuttle would be a permanment vehicle, nor that it is the "vehicle of the future"?

All the more reason to discontinue its use. Oh, aside from the loss of two within a couple of decades.

Where is the waste in learning more about space?

When taxpayers are paying for it. Again, if there's a market, private interests will cash in on it. Besides, you don't need to go up to space to learn more about space.

Perhaps if NASA's vehicles had some pulse cannons, anti-matter rays, or those heat beams from "Mars Attacks" then the program wouldn't be considered a "waste"

It wouldn't.

[David Panzer]

But NASA is big government, inc. Look at Spaceship One. We need something like that (backed by some major corporate powers) to handle the business of space travel.

I know dude. There is such a pressing need to divert that 0.5% of the budget that goes to the space program.

And my taxes going to support NASA is something I've never complained about

[WorkerCaste]

It's just that NASA is a glaring one considering that a small group of people created something more advanced than the archaic space shuttle, putting NASA to shame.

I have always been a fan of the X prize and rooted for Spaceship One right along, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges with this statement. Spaceship One was designed to do a task inherently much less complicated than what the shuttle was expected to do. Right now, the only real application of that technology is space tourism, which benefits a very small number of people. They, and Virgin, have identified a niche in which they can make space technology profitable. That's great, but it's not on the same order of magnitude as the tasks NASA is undertaking. Whether those tasks are appropriate is certainly open for discussion, but nobody in the private sector is in a position to take them on.

For myself, I am a steadfast supporter of manned spaceflight, and I am excited to see discussions about missions beyond earth orbit. I believe that we advance more quickly when we undertake things that are hard and dangerous. Putting man on the moon the first time yielded a number of scientific advances that have benefited people all over the world. Some would have undoubtedly come about in the due course of time, but the space race certainly helped them along. Even more than that, though, I see humans as explorers. We are often at our best when pushing boundaries and exploring beyond the range of what is near or easy. Our explorers from every age have excited imaginations, and I think we need that as a people. Exploration has also proved to be generally profitable, even though the original justification for the undertaking turn out to be a bust. (Northwest passage, anyone.) For me NASA is a small price to pay to open our horizons, both physically and metaphorically.

[Dr Maturin]

I know dude. There is such a pressing need to divert that 0.5% of the budget that goes to the space program.

One hundred pennies make a dollar.

And my taxes going to support NASA is something I've never complained about

My taxes going to support anything that doesn't benefit me will be something I complain about. My taxes going to support anything that could be done better is also something I complain about.

I have always been a fan of the X prize and rooted for Spaceship One right along, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges with this statement. Spaceship One was designed to do a task inherently much less complicated than what the shuttle was expected to do. Right now, the only real application of that technology is space tourism, which benefits a very small number of people. They, and Virgin, have identified a niche in which they can make space technology profitable. That's great, but it's not on the same order of magnitude as the tasks NASA is undertaking. Whether those tasks are appropriate is certainly open for discussion, but nobody in the private sector is in a position to take them on.

And yet Spaceship One didn't have the funding or the manpower that NASA does. Give that orange a shot of steroids. The private sector isn't a position to take them on because there isn't a profit in doing so. But, there is always the chance of profit when you take risks like the ones that drug companies take. I'd rather have those companies taking the risks and losing money (like drug companies do constantly) than have taxpayer dollars wasted.

For myself, I am a steadfast supporter of manned spaceflight, and I am excited to see discussions about missions beyond earth orbit. I believe that we advance more quickly when we undertake things that are hard and dangerous. Putting man on the moon the first time yielded a number of scientific advances that have benefited people all over the world. Some would have undoubtedly come about in the due course of time, but the space race certainly helped them along. Even more than that, though, I see humans as explorers. We are often at our best when pushing boundaries and exploring beyond the range of what is near or easy. Our explorers from every age have excited imaginations, and I think we need that as a people. Exploration has also proved to be generally profitable, even though the original justification for the undertaking turn out to be a bust. (Northwest passage, anyone.) For me NASA is a small price to pay to open our horizons, both physically and metaphorically.

That's all well and good, but I don't want my money going towards that, and I think that if a sizeable portion of the population were educated on the issue they wouldn't either. Very rarely does the media look past the rhetoric and take a hard stance on the space program.

[Lunan]

my only problem with nasa is that it is underfunded, poorly managed, and has far to much beuracracy to get the job done in a timely or effient manner. but the plan to return to Luna and STAY THERE ON A FULLTIME BASIS is exactly what i want us to do, i just wish it would go faster