NASA, do we really need it?

[DDR_Mike]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I skimmed through it. I havn't seen anyone point out that NASA brings satellite's to space which are used for gps, tracking hurricane's, and ton's of other things. NASA can also account for alot of present day technology (tvs, computers, etc.) which was first made for programs. NASA may cost the government $16 billion a year, but it's paid for itself over and over again if you consider the technology that's come out of it.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by DDR_Mike

I didn't read this whole thread, but I skimmed through it.

Then you probably should have skimmed better, as nobody's advocating the elimination of a space research organization, but rather supporting its privatization or deregulation such that private firms can be competitive with it. We'll still have all the research either way.

Originally Posted by Mr.Nothing

You can't even begin to try and say that NASA spreads all the way to China, Russia, and Japan. All of which have major space research companies.

Right, China, Russia, and Japan are very free with sharing all of the knowledge they gain in their space research programs.

Come on, now.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by devonin

Just listing off things you think they should dump money into is not the same thing as actually proposing means to solve the various problems facing America.

When you consider the cost involved in sending a rocket into space when that rocket is already paid for, the crew are already trained and equipped, and really you're mostly paying for fuel and wages for NASA personnel, perhaps you could make a better argument for reducing the ludicrous defense budget in order to generate the money you want going into social programs.

At least we agree on on thing: the defense budget needs trimmed as well.

I'm not saying we should totally kill NASA, but a large majority of their budget could be put to better use elsewhere. Microsoft's corporate revenues in 1998 were roughly the same as NASA's budget that year. NASA's budget is roughly the same size as the budgets of each of the following states: Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee.

[devonin]

National programs often have budgets larger than that of single entities within the nation. Heck, Wal-mart is the 5th largest economy in the world all on its own.

The question should be less "Should NASA get as much money as it does" and more "Are there things NASA could be doing to justify getting this amount of money?"

[Coolgamer]

Here is a set of rational priorities for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in descending order of importance: (1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet. (2) Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Figure out a way to replace today's chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit.

Here are NASA's apparent current priorities: (1) Maintain a pointless space station. (2) Build a pointless Motel 6 on the moon. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Keep money flowing to favored aerospace contractors and congressional districts.

Only one priority of four correct! Worse, NASA's to-do list neglects the two things that are actually of tangible value to the taxpayers who foot its bills — research relevant to environmental policymaking and asteroid-strike protection. NASA has recently been canceling or postponing "Earth observation" missions intended to generate environmental information about our world. For instance, a year and a half ago the agency decided not to fund Hydros, a satellite that would have provided the first global data on soil moisture trends. NASA focuses its planetary research on frigid Mars rather than Venus, which suffers a runaway greenhouse effect. The agency is conducting only a few sun-study missions — even though all life depends on the sun, and knowing more about it might clarify the global-warming debate. But $6 billion a year for astronauts to take each other's blood pressure on the space station? No problem!

Meanwhile, geologic studies increasingly show that catastrophic asteroid and comet hits were not confined to ancient times. In 1908, a small asteroid smacked Siberia with a blast impact equivalent to the strongest nuclear bomb ever detonated by the US; recent evidence suggests an enormous object struck the Indian Ocean a mere 4,800 years ago, causing global tsunamis that may have engendered the Flood referred to in the Bible. Yet NASA has no program to research ways of deflecting space objects, and the agency recently told Congress it could not spare $1 billion to catalog the locations and movements of potentially dangerous asteroids. But hundreds of billions of dollars for a moon base? No problem!

Of course, "Keep money flowing to favored contractors and congressional districts" is not a formal NASA objective, but these words explain the agency's core problem. Since the end of the Apollo glory days, NASA seems to have been driven by the desire to continue lucrative payments to the contractors behind manned spaceflight (mainly Boeing and Lockheed Martin) while maintaining staff levels in the congressional districts (mainly in Alabama, Florida, Ohio, and Texas) that are home to huge centers focused on manned missions. If the contractors and the right congressional committee members are happy, NASA's funding will continue and NASA managers will keep their jobs. The space station project was built to give the shuttle a destination, keeping the manned-space spending hierarchy intact. With the space station now almost universally viewed as worthless, the manned-space funders need a new boondoggle. The moon-base idea, pushed by President Bush, fits the bill.

For a sense of how out of whack NASA priorities have become, briefly ponder that plan. Because the Apollo missions suggested there was little of pressing importance to be learned on the moon, NASA has not landed so much as one automated probe there in three decades. In fact, the rockets used by the Apollo program were retired 30 years ago; even space enthusiasts saw no point in returning to the lunar surface. But now, with the space station a punch line and the shuttles too old to operate much longer, NASA suddenly decides it needs to restore its moon-landing capability in order to build a "permanent" crewed base. The cost is likely to be substantial — $6 billion is the annual budget of the space station, which is closer to Earth and quite spartan compared with what even a stripped-down moon facility would require. But set that aside: What will a moon base crew do? Monitor equipment — a task that could easily be handled from an office building in Houston.

In 2004, former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, now an engineering professor at the University of Wisconsin, calculated that NASA can place objects on the moon for $26,000 a pound. At that price, each bottle of water a crew member uncaps will cost the taxpayer $13,000. Even if the new moon rocket being designed by NASA cuts launch costs in half, as agency insiders hope, that's still $6,500 for one Aquafina (astronauts and moon base are extra). Prices like this quickly push the total construction bill for any serious facility into the hundreds of billions of dollars. A private company facing such numbers would conclude that a moon base is an absurd project — at least until a fundamentally different way of reaching space is found — and would put its capital into the development of new propulsion technologies. But NASA takes a cost-is-no-object approach that appeals only to those who personally benefit from the spending.

Given NASA's politicization, we should hope that the space industry evolves as aviation did — transitioning from ponderous government-run projects to mostly private-sector activities attuned to customer needs. That raises the question: Could entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos eventually put NASA out of business? Perhaps, but not for the next couple of decades — space has colossal economic barriers to entry. Given that NASA is sure to be around for a while, taxpayers should insist the space agency be recon figured to produce tangible benefits for all of us. With any luck, private space enterprise will eventually find success and begin to exert competitive market pressures on the government space program. NASA's success in putting men on the moon in the 1960s is one of history's enduring achievements. But it's the 21st century now — long past time for a new set of space priorities.

Source: Wired Magazine, June 2007.

[devonin]

Well that all feeds back into why there should be private space research companies to create competition with NASA. Having an unrestricted monopoly removes all need to actually produce solid results, because there's no other choice except to scrap the program entirely.

[Sullyman2007]

Ok dude. The NASA is NOT a monopoly. Actually, NASA is probably one of the poorest branches of the government right now. They dont get any money. Space Exploration isnt exactly the number 1 priority right now, even though it should be..

Look at what happend when John Rockefeller took over the Oil industry. (If you dont know who he was, he was the one person responsible for paving the way for what we know today as Capitalism back in the late 1800's). What im saying is, if we let Space research become a competition, they will all end up loosing in the long run.
If you don't understand, Google "John Rockefeller".

[Sullyman2007]

Originally Posted by redskulll

Nasa is one on the biggest space programs out there only because it buys out it enemy’s and the government makes it impossible for privet companies to do any thing. There was one case were a private company was going to launch a satellite for a private company and it was going to cost them 4mil$ but then Nasa says we will do it for 3mil so the company pays the 3mil but Nasa ends up paying a total of 7mil$ just to launch the thing

So is Nasa really needed?


there that shoul be better

Of course there should be a NASA.
Space is the future. For you and me.
Don't believe me? You will in about 30-40 years.


*Edit* Sorry for the double post.

[devonin]

Ok dude. The NASA is NOT a monopoly.

What are some other American companies that conduct independant space exploration?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Sullyman2007

Look at what happend when John Rockefeller took over the Oil industry. (If you dont know who he was, he was the one person responsible for paving the way for what we know today as Capitalism back in the late 1800's). What im saying is, if we let Space research become a competition, they will all end up loosing in the long run.
If you don't understand, Google "John Rockefeller".

Isaac Newton invented gravity you know.

[og4lif]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Isaac Newton invented gravity you know.

Please do us all a favor and edit your sentence. Newton did not invent gravity. Gravity was never invented by anyone.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by og4lif

Please do us all a favor and edit your sentence. Newton did not invent gravity. Gravity was never invented by anyone.

Yeah huh. Ben Franklin invented electricity too. Also the world was in black and white before the invention of color in the 1960's, which happened cause of drugs being taken by hippie communists.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by og4lif

Please do us all a favor and edit your sentence. Newton did not invent gravity. Gravity was never invented by anyone.

Please do us all a favour and see how usage of a comparison to demonstrate the absurdity of a previous statement can be used to great effect around those who can see and understand it.

[Relambrien]

If you still don't understand, Kilroy is saying "Saying John Rockefeller invented capitalism is like saying Isaac Newton invented gravity."

[devonin]

Jokes are totally no fun when you have to explain them.

ITT we point out how the useful discussion died ages ago, and ask for a lock.

[Sullyman2007]

Another example of how a perfectly meaningful topic gets shot down because someone says something stupid... D:
Anyways, John Rockefeller did indeed pave the way for capitalism. He bought out the entire Oil industry in the late 1800's, and even broke his bank.

[devonin]

Another example of how a perfectly meaningful topic gets shot down because someone says something stupid

For certain values of "someone" ...just sayin'

John Rockefeller did indeed pave the way for capitalism

"Capitalism in its early American form, in America, viz the oil industry." That is a very VERY different thing than "Capitalism"

What you basically said was "when the founding fathers invented democracy"

And to address the point it looks as though you were trying to make: Yes, NASA is a monopoly, it is the definition of a monopoly. And in a free market society, monopoly is where everybody loses, because competition demands results, instead of stagnation. If NASA weren't a monopoly and was acting how it has been in the past 20 years, it would no longer be in business.

[devonin]

If you'd actually read the thread you decided to bump for no good reason, you'd see that yes, everyone in the discussion is fully aware that NASA is government funded, and that was one of the central facets of the discussion.

In Critical Thinking, you need to read before you post, to make sure that your post actually contributes something new and useful to the discussion, especially when you're bumping something from 12 days ago

[ljw5021]

Originally Posted by redskulll

Nasa is one on the biggest space programs out there only because it buys out it enemy’s and the government makes it impossible for privet companies to do any thing. There was one case were a private company was going to launch a satellite for a private company and it was going to cost them 4mil$ but then Nasa says we will do it for 3mil so the company pays the 3mil but Nasa ends up paying a total of 7mil$ just to launch the thing

So is Nasa really needed?


there that shoul be better

First, learn to spell and use correct grammar. Secondly, in my opinion we do need NASA. The Earth won't last forever, and without NASA we will be stranded here until the end. And no this is not bias, despite me attending college for Aerospace Engineering.

[devonin]

You're answering the question "Do we need NASA" as though it says "Do we need to conduct research and experiments in space" which is not what the OP was asking.

The question is perhaps better parsed as "Do we need NASA as an organization, with a monopoly control over all aeronautical and space research, or would we be better served allowing private companies to function in tandem" since the OP centered the discussion around the fact of their monopoly, and tendency to buy out or otherwise deal with any potential competitors.