Should NASA be given more operating money?

[Escaep]

I was reading my local paper the other day and there was an article on NASA's dire requests for more budgeting money. Some of you may know that the shuttle program is ending soon and will be replaced by the new Ares rockets. However, the gap between the shuttle program and the new program is several years, time in which thousands of space center employees will be laid off. IIRC, there was talk that the new Constellation program might not have the justified cost and the White House is deliberating whether or not NASA should be given more money. I live on the Space Coast in Florida about 15 miles from the launch pads, and I can tell you, this whole community/county is dependent on the space program being operable. If it were to get shut down, thousands of people will lose their jobs, and subsequently, the economy here will go down the crapper.

Some facts:

• Average KSC employee salary: $77,235, almost double that of an average Space Coast employee.
  
• During the 2008 fiscal year, NASA activities generated about $4.1billion in economic impact across Florida, $2.1billion in household income, and 40,802 jobs.

Yet even with facts like these (which i got out of today's local newspaper,) NASA still has trouble getting the $3billion necessary to sustain the American space program. Here are some facts on other things we spend our money on: http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009909270320

But here in Central Florida, one of America's most accomplished and strategically important programs has been left to beg for an additional $3 billion per year. Without that money, NASA can't keep flying its shuttles, service the International Space Station and fly to the moon, Mars or killer asteroids, a presidential panel found. The Space Coast will soon begin losing more than 1,000 jobs per year from a program that has had a bigger economic impact on Florida than The Walt Disney Co.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Yes because space is cool.

 

[Anthraxxx]

Yes, because the stuff they create eventually filters into the rest of the world as awesome new stuff.

 

[Eejit]

Give them money, we need to keep flights going until we can get a space elevator up.

 

[Escaep]

This was also in today's paper:

When the shuttle program retires, experts warn that up to 7,000 Kennedy Space Center workers could lose their jobs -- scrubbing the Space Coast's hopes for an economic turnaround.

That's why Brevard County Commissioner Robin Fisher is spearheading a new marketing crusade, "Save Space," to try to convince President Obama to extend the shuttle program and boost NASA funding.

How? By mailing half a million letters to the White House by the end of October.

"If this shuttle doesn't get extended, it's going to be very, very devastating to the community. I started thinking to myself, why isn't the community screaming about it?" said Fisher, who represents District 1, including northern Brevard and the Cape.

 

[Dan]

NASA should be charged with running a less conservative program. Do you know why the Russians beat the Americans at every stage of the space race except for the moon? Because they took a few risks. They pushed the schedule and pushed innovative designs. Sure a few dozen cosmonauts died, but they accomplished much more on a much smaller budget. NASA takes 20 years to start work on a new orbital lifter. It is slow and heavy and clogged up with bureaucracy. Either NASA needs to become more flexible and nimble or its assets should be broken down into private companies.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Yes. It's given ridiculously little money as it is. Space is cool, and the exploration of said cool thing furthers human development.

 

[Darkside55]

It's all well and good for people to say, "Give NASA money because space is cool," but NASA does a lot more than just space.

 

[Godron]

This article was posted here a once in some long ago thread. I remember there being some good points made, but don't have time / can't be bothered to read it and point any of them out right now.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

 

[The Monkey]

No, **** that. Wait until the crisis has passed. America's economy is ****ed as it is. Mars can wait another four years, it'll still be there.

 

[Escaep]

No, **** that. Wait until the crisis has passed. America's economy is ****ed as it is. Mars can wait another four years, it'll still be there.

Its true that Mars will be there in 4 years. But the bigger question is whether or not NASA will be here in 4 years.

 

[Yorick]

Give them more money. I want a lunar base in my goddamn lifetime.

 

[Headcrab Pie]

As long as the money goes to worthwhile research and flights. None of the "Can worms mate in space"? stuff.

 

[Remus]

or we should use the Russians

...



Oh wait, you were being serious?

 

[Shakermaker]

I kinda agree with Burt Rutan on this subject. Check his talk on TED.com. Long story short: the private sector has to do it. Governmental organizations like NASA or ESA will be slowly faded out of the process.

 

[Escaep]

...



Oh wait, you were being serious?

Do you not understand the statement?

 

[Ennui]

Give them more money. I want a lunar base in my goddamn lifetime.

Yeah, that'll be useful.... not. We could do all of the experiments we already did over again!

I think we should pump ALL of our money into spaceflight in general, whether it's NASA or the private sector or the Unified World Socialist Government or Obama's Fourth Reich doing it. I see no real reason to revisit the moon though besides as a brief experiment on medium-long term extraterrestrial habitation but the real step should be MARS on that front. There's no doubt we could advance science by going back and performing more extensive research on the moon... but it's a matter of perspective. Our resources in general would be much better spent developing better space-related technology, and if I could choose a mission for NASA in the next few decades it would be to try to send manned missions to asteroids and try to develop mining/habitation/sustainability technology there, and missions to outside the whatchamacallit zone outside of Earth's or other terrestrial bodies' gravity wells, where spaceships and space stations can essentially be "parked" in space since there is no significant gravitational pull. Focusing on the moon will only stall the space program and put it back a few decades (and it's already stagnant enough).

Or land a man on Mars, even if it's a suicide mission (there'd be no remote shortage of volunteers), because that would be ****ing awesome to see in my lifetime.

 

[Krynn72]

Most certainly they should be given more. The exploration and experimentation in space and in other areas provide more than the ability to see a rocket take off and float outside of earth. There are countless technological inventions and scientific discoveries made by Nasa that help progress human kind and also provide more immediate boons to our current society. Nasa is one of the most important pieces of the United States, I think it would be stupid to let such an iconic symbol and productive program fall to financial disaster.

 

[Yorick]

Yeah, that'll be useful.... not. We could do all of the experiments we already did over again!

I don't care how useful it is. I want it anyway!

I think we should pump ALL of our money into spaceflight in general, whether it's NASA or the private sector or the Unified World Socialist Government or Obama's Fourth Reich doing it.

This statement makes you sound like a complete moron.

 

[Ennui]

This statement makes you sound like a complete moron.

That disturbs me terribly.

 

[dfc05]

I say yes because space is cool, although I'm a little torn because there are plenty of other things that could use money as well, like sustainable energy technology and poor grad students.

 

[Escaep]

I say yes because space is cool, although I'm a little torn because there are plenty of other things that could use money as well, like sustainable energy technology and poor grad students.

There are more places money could be cut from than NASA.

Satisfy The Military

Congress is forcing the Pentagon to buy billions of dollars worth of bad ships, surplus planes and weapons it doesn't want.

That includes $524 million in defense earmarks by congressional Democrats -- purchases that the Pentagon did not request. It also includes billions tucked into war-spending bills for more unwanted Boeing C-17 cargo planes, The Washington Post reported.

Worst of all: Senators revolted when the Navy decided to halt production of a new destroyer after 15 classified reports showed it was vulnerable to a host of foreign missiles -- a deathtrap for U.S. sailors. Seven Democratic senators and four Republicans threatened to cut off all funding in 2009 for surface combat ships, The Post reported. The Navy reversed and agreed to buy a third DDG-1000 destroyer for $2.7 billion.

Total spent to undermine our own military, not on NASA: at least $3 billion.

Cut Off Despots

Someone, please explain how the United States will get more "bang" from this foreign spending than it would get from its own achievements in engineering:

$98 million to Kim Jong-il of North Korea to persuade him to give up nuclear weapons.
$400 million to the Palestinian Authority, which no longer governs the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip.
$6 million to promote "civil society" in Venezuela, led by the anti-American Hugo Chavez.
$28 million on peace efforts in Somalia, which has no government and teems with pirates.
$20 million to promote political rights in Fidel Castro's Cuba.
$500,000 for "border security" in Libya, still led by Muammar al-Gaddafi.
Total spent on extremists and dictators, not on NASA: more than $550 million.

Shave Oil Subsidies

Congress this year will subsidize Big Oil to the tune of $30 billion per year, mostly through special tax write-offs. Energy companies can deduct the cost of exploring and drilling for oil, the cost of royalties paid to foreign governments and half the cost of refinery equipment.

Meanwhile, the same industry is beating down the Florida Legislature's doors, offering to drill for free and promising that a big strike in the Gulf of Mexico would make everyone rich.

I say let Big Oil keep 90 percent of its subsidies, or $27 billion, and take back 10 percent to explore space.

Total savings from corporate welfare: $3 billion.

Cut Biofuel Spending

Biofuel producers, meanwhile, get almost as much in subsidies: $28 billion per year.

That's a burgeoning industry in Central Florida, with companies producing fuel from algae farms and switchgrass. But the industry and clean-energy companies also have received stimulus money. And Congress has created grants as incentives for developing high-
efficiency engines.

So how about this: Cut biofuel subsidies by 3.5 percent from $28 billion to $27 billion a year, and spend $1 billion to burn rocket fuel instead. Total for NASA: $1 billion.

 

[15357]

I want a goddamn lunar base and a deep space comms array + satellites in high orbit with nuclear missiles pointed outwards to annihiliate any alien visitors that might get too curious. That'd be ****ing awesome.

 

[VirusType2]

I want to live on the moon, all by myself, no one else.

Just need an internet connection. Nigga, I'm up here on The Moon, shit. **** you, bitches.

 

[Dan]

I want to live on the moon, all by myself, no one else.

Just need an internet connection. Nigga, I'm up here on The Moon, shit. **** you, bitches.

Enjoy your 2600 ms ping mandated by the speed of light.

 

[Raziaar]

I would upgrade the NASA budget almost threefold, to about 50 billion dollars.

But would require that they be extra focused on scientific research that would be beneficial to man, instead of silly stuff like man on the moon agendas. Zero gravity research has benefited mankind tremendously, and I would like to keep that tradition alive, and accelerate it.

 

[15357]

Lightweight materials that effectively block radiation, wasn't that a part of NASA research? I can see that used for a lot of things, and not just space travel.

 

[Tyguy]

we can have NASA and private companies, space is fun, there's a lot of gas 'n shit

 

[Eejit]

As long as the money goes to worthwhile research and flights. None of the "Can worms mate in space"? stuff.

NASA should probably hire you to evaluate which research is worthwhile or not. You're clearly an expert.

 

[Raziaar]

Speaking of worms mating in space...

Has there been any studies or theories on how effectively a woman might be able to conceive and carry a child to birth in space?

I would imagine the weakening from such a prolonged period would be devastating for fetal development, as well as the radiation exposure of an environment like living in the space station.

 

[MFL]

I'll be on the first god damn colony ships. Want. Off. This. Rock.

 

[The Monkey]

Or land a man on Mars, even if it's a suicide mission (there'd be no remote shortage of volunteers), because that would be ****ing awesome to see in my lifetime.

They will not send it as a suicide mission, even if there are candidates. What do you think the public opinion of a government agency or a private corporation would be if they allowed people to be send to Mars, knowing that they will die there. If we can't send them home, we shouldn't send them there in the first place.

Cut Off Despots

Someone, please explain how the United States will get more "bang" from this foreign spending than it would get from its own achievements in engineering:

$98 million to Kim Jong-il of North Korea to persuade him to give up nuclear weapons.
$400 million to the Palestinian Authority, which no longer governs the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip.
$6 million to promote "civil society" in Venezuela, led by the anti-American Hugo Chavez.
$28 million on peace efforts in Somalia, which has no government and teems with pirates.
$20 million to promote political rights in Fidel Castro's Cuba.
$500,000 for "border security" in Libya, still led by Muammar al-Gaddafi.
Total spent on extremists and dictators, not on NASA: more than $550 million.

Most of those sound entirely justifiable. Are preventing a nuclear holocaust on earth or promoting human right on Cuba not worthy causes?

 

[Higlac]

They will not send it as a suicide mission, even if there are candidates. What do you think the public opinion of a government agency or a private corporation would be if they allowed people to be send to Mars, knowing that they will die there. If we can't send them home, we shouldn't send them there in the first place.

Mars could be the new Australia?

 

[15357]

Speaking of worms mating in space...

Has there been any studies or theories on how effectively a woman might be able to conceive and carry a child to birth in space?

I would imagine the weakening from such a prolonged period would be devastating for fetal development, as well as the radiation exposure of an environment like living in the space station.

Didn't the Russians send one male and one female human just for that?

 

[Raziaar]

I dunno, that's why I'm asking.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I've been looking at your avatar for a while now but I now acknowledge it.

 

[Tyguy]

speaking of mars, i watched total recall yesterday...that movie is amazing in every aspect and detail. we need to throw every cent possible to establish a red light district on mars...pronto

 

[Barnz]

i'm in if there're girls with three boobs

 

[DEATH eVADER]

They should be given an amount that slowly increases to the required budget; just till the economy sorts itself out.

 

[Shadow-warrior]

No, they should be the very last priority...

Space is an expensive luxury and has very little benefit to anyone other than those overpaid scientists...

Sort out the earth first then think about space.