Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NASA - Screwed over yet again...

  1. #1 NASA - Screwed over yet again... 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    I feel it is time for a rant...
    I have been reading the US presidential candidates space policies and there appears to be one common practice, cut NASA funding and delay the constellation program...
    I cannot see how NASA gets so little god damn money, it's my understanding that it is 0.5% GDP! It's a complete joke considering what NASA has done for the entire planet, they have revolutionised the world by being if not the fundamental but a primary reason for many of our most important technological breakthroughs (computers being the biggest). Look around you and I guarantee you will see something pioneered by NASA, whether it's a piece of velcro or the computer you are typing on.

    I cannot understand why the space program receives so little emphasis and other stupid nonsensical things receive much more funding to appease the in general, stupid masses...

    Call me fascist but I really believe that the space program should be put ahead of nearly everything else in todays society. If not space then technology research but for god sake stop wasting money trying to improve an already decent standard of living...

    Barry


    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Its hard for me to believe McCain, Thompson, Rudy, even Hillary would advocate cutting NASA. Most NASA money come through the Defense Department and I could be wrong on Hillary. If Huckabee, Obama, Edwards it makes sense, but in the same token if all they SAY they will do, they do, it would leave money for nothing else, anyway...

    On the Ayes launch vehicles, James Webb and some ongoing projects, think most research and development has been completed and contracts let for the products. The penalty cost to get out of these contracts, makes the idea impractical if my assumptions are correct.

    I do agree, the seeming attitude of the Country (people) and in turn government attitudes are tending away from space exploration, in favor of liberal social programs. Which is ashame...

    Those who feel as you, including member of government and NASA itself have been encouraging private industry, even advice and helping in many cases, for several years. Maybe that would be the best answer for future and long term projects. The real problem here, is China, Japan and many of the EU Countries are working toward Government Space exploration, possibly even from the military angle...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    I have absolutely no quarrel with the military in space, they are just about the only people who can get something done with their unlimited resources...etc.
    Privatisation of space might be the only future. As soon as corporations get up there and people have the ability to make money from space, it will explode and dwarf everything else.

    I also totally agree with you on how governments are aiming more towards the social aspect of things which I believe is a downright shame also. All it's doing is creating the facility for more and more people to simply live without producing anything useful for society such as a contribution to science. They are merely consumers, using up resources and time.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I try to follow Nanotech advancements, but lately the dreams and speculations for the future must be under some kind of censorship. Last I heard there were about 200 companies knee deep in the research, most very small operations to such notable as IMB, Intel and Motorola.

    Many programs however involve space exploration, even on productions of material (Fuels/Products) from what ever exist on the Moon. Miniaturizing equipment for space probes and so on. This industry is private and investment speculators their primary source...government second. The medical implications are already and of course communication.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The problem mostly is that NASA doesn't promise anything of compelling monetary value as an ROI. People only want to put money into something if they know it's going to do more than just be a big party for a select few physicists and engineers.

    Partly it goes to peoples' ego. They don't want to feel like engineering and science are the only worthy pursuits, because not everyone is a mathematically inclined individual. NASA doesn't offer them the hope of getting a job in the future. (Because unless you're an MIT grad with honors, you're best hope at NASA is to clean the floors and toilets)


    The latest TV special on the moon (Moon for Sale) was good, because it started to lend credibility to the idea of settling the Moon long term, building a colony, and recovering resources that could genuinely increase our quality of life (like Helium 3). If they sell themselves from that angle, instead of just as a "progress of science" kind of institution, they'll draw a lot more interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    That, and other reasons make me feel Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will become the next President of
    the United States of America.

    As for space, I mean it's fantastic. But do not forget space was putting your live in danger the uttermost

    For failures of the equipment and weightlessness self. This might be reasons for a lack of attraction
    of space. Space also was a wide field of single issues and single opportunities that have to be named
    separately, hence they are worth it.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    As obvious as it is, Space is the future to mankind, Unfortunately as screwed up the planet is, with the greenhouse effect and all; we should expand into space as soon as possible.

    I'm quite sure China would be interested in space colonization, considering they have that overpopulation problem of theirs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore GrowlingDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At the gates of Sto-vo-kor
    Posts
    181
    The budget for Nasa in 2007 is about 17 billion US dollars

    http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

    I think the US GDP for 2007 is about 12000 billion dollars, so this represents about .14% of GDP. The budget for US military is about $US 439 billion, about 3.6%.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

    WHAT THE!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    For amusement, global expenditure on cosmetics per annum $18 billion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •