NASA, do we really need it?

[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

[*]

Oh god, grammar/spelling=fail.

I don't even want to bother creating a extensive argument so I'm just going to simply say, "Yes, we need NASA."

PS: You reasoning about Adidas' satellite is totally retarded-for lack of a better adjective.

[Necrophage]

Originally Posted by *

Oh god, grammar/spelling=fail.

I don't even want to bother creating a extensive argument so I'm just going to simply say, "Yes, we need NASA."

PS: You reasoning about Adidas' satellite is totally retarded-for lack of a better adjective.

Oh god, manners=fail. Is it really necessary to be such a prick about simple matters such as grammar and spelling? So maybe he isn't the brighest crayon in the box, at least he's a pleasant one such as magenta, while you, on the other hand...seem to me to be a macaroni and cheese. And oddball looking to pick on the faults of others to make yourself feel better inside? Have a bit of an inferiority complex, do we?

I for one vote that any and all english professor wannabes be rocketed to the moon, on a shuttle mde by NASA, of course.

[Kilroy_x]

NASA is most certainly not necessary.

[*]

Originally Posted by Necrophage

Oh god, manners=fail. Is it really necessary to be such a prick about simple matters such as grammar and spelling? So maybe he isn't the brighest crayon in the box, at least he's a pleasant one such as magenta, while you, on the other hand...seem to me to be a macaroni and cheese. And oddball looking to pick on the faults of others to make yourself feel better inside? Have a bit of an inferiority complex, do we?

I for one vote that any and all english professor wannabes be rocketed to the moon, on a shuttle mde by NASA, of course.

Well, sorry for being a prick Sir. Sorry that you came to a quick assumption that I'm just another "oddball with an inferiority complex" as you blatantly say. I don't want this to escalate into a flame-war nor do I want to be in your bad tastes so I'll stop it here.
If it'll make you feel any better, I'll answer redskull's question more in depth:

While NASA's attempts in buying out private companies in order to eliminate competition sounds like a bad idea, it's not always looked down upon for companies to create a monopoly in a certain field. NASA has been around for a long time and has done amazingly in reaching outer-space, other planets, and whatnot. I, personally, believe that NASA is really needed in order to expand our..."horizons." Their theories on Terra-forming other planets doesn't seem like a bad idea either.
NASA's launch on Adidas' satellite may have cost the company more than it bargained for, but at least NASA could be trusted (by popularity).
Does that answer your question?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

NASA is most certainly not necessary.

I'll notice though, that you didn't express an opinion as to whether you thought it a useful extra expense though.

I mean, no it is not -necessary- by any stretch of the word, but neither are many many things that we would fight at length to keep. Not much is necessary past food, water, shelter and an ability to reproduce, inasmuch as the species in concerned.

I think that NASA, and programs like NASA serve a useful purpose scientifically and philosophically, and that a suitable advanced and well financed space program could develop some startlingly major developments.

[GuidoHunter]

redskull: read the CT rules before creating another thread. We require more in the way of grammar and spelling, here.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by *

While NASA's attempts in buying out private companies in order to eliminate competition sounds like a bad idea, it's not always looked down upon for companies to create a monopoly in a certain field. NASA has been around for a long time and has done amazingly in reaching outer-space, other planets, and whatnot. I, personally, believe that NASA is really needed in order to expand our..."horizons." Their theories on Terra-forming other planets doesn't seem like a bad idea either.
NASA's launch on Adidas' satellite may have cost the company more than it bargained for, but at least NASA could be trusted (by popularity).
Does that answer your question?

One problem with that; NASA is not a private company, it is a government funded monopoly, meaning the "competitive" practices it engages in do not result in optimal outcome.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'll notice though, that you didn't express an opinion as to whether you thought it a useful extra expense though.

I don't think it is the place for me to judge if the value of something justifies forcibly taking money from all citizens of a given region to finance it.

I mean, no it is not -necessary- by any stretch of the word, but neither are many many things that we would fight at length to keep. Not much is necessary past food, water, shelter and an ability to reproduce, inasmuch as the species in concerned.

NASA is not necessary as a government agency. Space flight may be and most certainly is highly valuable to many people, and as such there is a market for the services that can currently be offered on the free market and there would be a market for the services currently restricted or rendered sub-optimally as a result of the existence of NASA and government intervention in the market.

I think that NASA, and programs like NASA serve a useful purpose scientifically and philosophically, and that a suitable advanced and well financed space program could develop some startlingly major developments.

The space program and space exploration in general already have yielded many major developments. I just don't think the government should be the financier of such things, insofar as I don't like the way the government currently operates.

In all fairness though, I think there would be justification in cutting NASA down to a regulatory agency. I don't think anyone wants rockets landing on their houses, and with space flight that is a possibility even when your house is in Tennessee and the rocket took off from California.

For that matter though, a world regulatory agency would be required. Which I would also oppose, but at the moment I can't think of a viable alternative. Odd.

[devonin]

but at the moment I can't think of a viable alternative. Odd.

Well, you can't solve -all- the world's problems just off the top of your head. *grin*

[Kilroy_x]

Well the truth of the matter is, I can think of ideal solutions, I just can't see them working. Like every time I think of the logic behind Praexological economics, I remember that it wouldn't be being advocated if the state of the world didn't have dramatic tendencies to move away from the proposed systems.

So suppose that the logical optimum is momentarily attained? But if it is not considered optimal by someone then that someone might introduce their own transgressions into the system.

To which I think "There is no accounting for irrational behavior, and there is no responsibility for the conscious decisions of others made against reason", but we live in an age where one person could kill one million. Of course, the most optimal system would still conceivably (definitionally?) most mitigate this chance, but then the question is whether a disposition towards suboptimal social behavior is tied to any particular form of irrationality.

I guess the main question in my mind now is, could there possibly be a good reason why the psychopaths are the ones who run the world? I don't know what specifically that has to do with NASA, but I have a tendency to come back to it whenever I am presented with economic problems.

[redskulll]

NASA does get money from the government, which then comes from taxes and what not, and what not like “Kilroy_x” said.

Now then the amount of money NASA spent last year was a total of $11.2 billion which is much more than any other agency spends a year an also that goes over the 5billion they are suppose to spend an most of that money was to fix problems which still haven’t been fixed an are still sucking in more money. Here are some of the failures they have had “ISS and Space Shuttle, Hubble Robot Repair Mission, Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, Mars Sample Return.


sry for the double post

[gnr61]

And as a side note, "and" is spelled a-n-d.

[madmatt621]

Read about NASA first please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA

EDIT: All I see from your replies are run-on sentences.

[Maid]

NASA is essential but it needs competition. Monopolies are always bad in many ways.

[jakspar0w]

This reminds me of the Dan Brown book. Deception Point.
...
Good book!
On the other side...I think NASA is needed. if anything tha would be threatening to Earth (our solar system, etc.) we'd be lucky to have NASA, who would most likely have a heads up on it.
And why else would people want to visit my city? (Huntsville, AL)

[Lucky11]

Humans are a curious race and our curiosity knows no bounds. Some people look towards their neighbors, some to the past, some to the sea and its mysteries, but a few look to the stars and say whats out there. Is NASA necessary? Yes, for various reasons like, national defense, research and development of various things to better our living standards, not to mention communication, but yes it does spend a bit more then some would prefer and less than others would like. But thats always how progress is achieved because eventually space will become necessary for our survival.

[Samineru]

Define necessary.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by Samineru

Define necessary.

adj.

1. not your post

[devonin]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...ecromancer.htm